Filibuster: Remove or be Corrected!

[Oblivia]

If anyone knows what a filibuster is, it's a legislative tactic in which the oppenents of a bill speak at length in order to prevent or delay its passage. Filibusters nowadays are turning into arguments that's totally unrelated to the bill to the point where politician read things out of a phone book, literally. I believe we should ban filibusters or allow filibusters as long that it relates to the bill, that way if the argument is kept being talked about the bill, the people outside of Congress would then know about the bill and have their say on it.

Those who for this idea, say you agree.

Those who are against the idea, please explain why.

[Tancrisism]

There are measures to be taken against the fillibusters though. I was thinking the same thing a month or two ago, and I looked into it. It's an odd loophole, and I agree it should be corrected, but it wouldn't be easy to remove, as that could harm other freedom of speech-esque things.

[Oblivia]

At 12/21/06 11:22 PM, Tancrisism wrote: There are measures to be taken against the fillibusters though. I was thinking the same thing a month or two ago, and I looked into it. It's an odd loophole, and I agree it should be corrected, but it wouldn't be easy to remove, as that could harm other freedom of speech-esque things.

True, in order to fix the filibuster problem without attacking the First Amendment, the filibusters must stay on topic of the bill.

[Jose]

Filibusters are another check in the system.

I see no good reason to remove that check.

[Oblivia]

At 12/21/06 11:33 PM, Jose wrote: Filibusters are another check in the system.

I see no good reason to remove that check.

Shut it, you're just one of those lobbyist who made the filibuster bad in the first place.

[Karzand]

At 12/21/06 11:54 PM, Oblivia wrote:

At 12/21/06 11:33 PM, Jose wrote: Filibusters are another check in the system.

I see no good reason to remove that check.

Shut it, you're just one of those lobbyist who made the filibuster bad in the first place

I agree with Jose I personally like this nation's system of checks and balances. Oh and before you attack me i'm not a Lobbyist.

[Empanado]

JOSE IS CLEARLY A LOBBYIST I'M NOT JOKING

[Jose]

At 12/22/06 01:11 AM, Empanado wrote: JOSE IS CLEARLY A LOBBYIST I'M NOT JOKING

HE IS SERIOUSLY TRUTHING. I'M OBVIOUSLY A LOBBYIST.

[Oblivia]

At 12/22/06 01:13 AM, Jose wrote:

At 12/22/06 01:11 AM, Empanado wrote: JOSE IS CLEARLY A LOBBYIST I'M NOT JOKING

HE IS SERIOUSLY TRUTHING. I'M OBVIOUSLY A LOBBYIST.

Grammer correction: replace "truthing" by saying "he/she is telling the truth."

[Togukawa]

At 12/22/06 01:30 AM, Oblivia wrote:

At 12/22/06 01:13 AM, Jose wrote:

At 12/22/06 01:11 AM, Empanado wrote: JOSE IS CLEARLY A LOBBYIST I'M NOT JOKING

HE IS SERIOUSLY TRUTHING. I'M OBVIOUSLY A LOBBYIST.

Grammer correction: replace "truthing" by saying "he/she is telling the truth."

Spelling correction: replace "grammer" by "grammar".

And yes, Jose being a lobbyist is the truthiest thing I heard all day, it's the only possible way of explaining someone not being opposed to filibustering.

[fli]

At 12/22/06 05:07 AM, Togukawa wrote: Spelling correction: replace "grammer" by "grammar".

check and mate...

[Slizor]

At 12/22/06 05:38 AM, fli wrote:

At 12/22/06 05:07 AM, Togukawa wrote: Spelling correction: replace "grammer" by "grammar".

check and mate...

Grammar correction: "Check and mate..."

Content correction on this post: " "

[Gunter45]

At 12/22/06 01:13 AM, Jose wrote:

At 12/22/06 01:11 AM, Empanado wrote: JOSE IS CLEARLY A LOBBYIST I'M NOT JOKING

HE IS SERIOUSLY TRUTHING. I'M OBVIOUSLY A LOBBYIST.

You can verify the truthiness of that statement with your gut. More nerve endings than your brain people.

[Togukawa]

At 12/22/06 08:50 AM, Gunter45 wrote: You can verify the truthiness of that statement with your gut. More nerve endings than your brain people.

I know, I looked it up.

[qygibo]

At 12/21/06 11:54 PM, Oblivia wrote:

At 12/21/06 11:33 PM, Jose wrote: Filibusters are another check in the system.

I see no good reason to remove that check.

Shut it, you're just one of those lobbyist who made the filibuster bad in the first place.

So if someone disagrees with you then, they're an evil, corrupt person who doesn't deserve to have an opinion then?

[JakeHero]

Lolol, democrats want to get rid of the filibuster now they have the majority in Congress.

[qygibo]

At 12/22/06 01:52 PM, BanditByte wrote: Lolol, democrats want to get rid of the filibuster now they have the majority in Congress.

Funny, I thought Oblivia was more of a libertarian myself.

[YHWH]

This thread delivers.

[TheMason]

At 12/21/06 11:54 PM, Oblivia wrote:

At 12/21/06 11:33 PM, Jose wrote: Filibusters are another check in the system.

I see no good reason to remove that check.

Shut it, you're just one of those lobbyist who made the filibuster bad in the first place.

Actually, the way you describe a filibuster is how it has been since the beginning. The rule was a Senator could talk about anything he wanted to. It is a way of protecting minority rights; if a Senator can stand up and speak and have the physical endurance and stamina to pontificate on subjects as diverse as the issue at hand, names starting with K-S in the phone book or how a Senator's wife bakes her chicken. The base cause for your rant is, well, wrong!

Furthermore, you did invite ppl who disagree with you to speak. Then you tell them to shut-up? Damn you're a hypocrite!

[TheMason]

At 12/21/06 11:14 PM, Oblivia wrote: I believe we should ban filibusters or allow filibusters as long that it relates to the bill, that way if the argument is kept being talked about the bill, the people outside of Congress would then know about the bill and have their say on it.

Also you show how little you understand our system. People outside of Congress do not have a say on whether or not a bill is passed. What they can do is contact their (in this case Senator) representative and let them know how they feel, that is if they can get themselves out of their political coma long enough to pay attention to the issues rather than the political soap opera!

[Memorize]

At 12/21/06 11:33 PM, Jose wrote: Filibusters are another check in the system.

I see no good reason to remove that check.

Sounds like a delayment of progress (oh right, that's the true liberal ideology).

[Humbucker740]

At 12/21/06 11:33 PM, Jose wrote: Filibusters are another check in the system.

I see no good reason to remove that check.

Thank you. The filibuster is the minority's ONLY power against the majority.

What the hell would you do if you were outnumbered?

[Jose]

At 12/22/06 04:44 PM, Techware wrote:

At 12/21/06 11:33 PM, Jose wrote: Filibusters are another check in the system.

I see no good reason to remove that check.

Sounds like a delayment of progress (oh right, that's the true liberal ideology).

You spelled neo-con wrong.

[Oblivia]

At 12/22/06 01:53 PM, qygibo wrote:

At 12/22/06 01:52 PM, BanditByte wrote: Lolol, democrats want to get rid of the filibuster now they have the majority in Congress.

Funny, I thought Oblivia was more of a libertarian myself.

I am a Libertarion, the reason why I'm against the screwed up idea of filibuster is because it gives any bill, conservative and liberal, a unfair chance of being passed out unless if the filibuster stayed on topic of the bill.

[Oblivia]

At 12/22/06 03:18 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/21/06 11:14 PM, Oblivia wrote: I believe we should ban filibusters or allow filibusters as long that it relates to the bill, that way if the argument is kept being talked about the bill, the people outside of Congress would then know about the bill and have their say on it.

Also you show how little you understand our system. People outside of Congress do not have a say on whether or not a bill is passed. What they can do is contact their (in this case Senator) representative and let them know how they feel, that is if they can get themselves out of their political coma long enough to pay attention to the issues rather than the political soap opera!

That's is what I meant to say, I just forgot to put down in the matter that the people can with majority power via representative to the congress during of whether of having the passing of a bill.

And to the part of telling Jose to be quite of this subject, I'm sorry. The reason why I did this was because I'd made a topic going against lobbyist backed by big businesses.

[Memorize]

At 12/22/06 07:05 PM, Jose wrote:

You spelled neo-con wrong.

Heh, whatever you say. =)

[Oblivia]

At 12/22/06 07:16 PM, Techware wrote:

At 12/22/06 07:05 PM, Jose wrote:

You spelled neo-con wrong.

Heh, whatever you say. =)

Ha ha, like he even said neo-con. Jose must be a little illiterate for a lobbyist hired by money pigs.

[chainchomp12]

I totaly agree with you

[Cole]

I remember in seventh grade we had a debate and I filibustered someone... Sure, it's funny as hell, but completely useless and degrading.

[YHWH]

Filibustering is the only thing keeping legislatures a tyranny by the majority.