Filibustering, Majority rule=democracy |
Debate Rules
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
- Topics are not to bash others.
- Immature behaviors/comments will not be tolerated.
- Please remember, not everyone thinks like you. People have different ways of thinking and different perspectives. Let's respect each other's thoughts and responses.
- PLEASE, search before making new topics--especially popular topics like "God" and "Abortion" etc.
- PLEASE, read through the thread or at least a couple pages before posting. We have to maintain a certain level of maturity in here.
 May 25 2005, 02:35 AM
Post
#1
|
|
 Senior Member  Group: Member Posts: 58 Joined: May 2005 Member No: 139,806  |
The Democrats in the Senate were prepared to filibuster in order to prevent a decision on several of Bush's judicial nominees. However, seven Dems and seven Reps got together and hatched this deal, leading both sides, but particularly conservatives, and the CONSTITUTION, to a major loss.
Here's the question: Filibustering has no constitutional support, do you think the fourteen representatives who made the deal made a mistake or accomplished a more important goal? A few facts and opinions: Especially for you liberals out there-the filibuster prevented civil rights legislation from being adopted for nearly a century; according to http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-16-03.html Both parties in the Senate had good opportunities to accomplish their own goals with regard to Bush's nominations, according to: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html, and they both ceded the field; pansies. So, for those of you of legal voting age as well as those of you who will be ponying up to your patriotic privilege/duty when you reach voting age, what's the verdict people? 
|
|
|
|
 |
Replies
(1 - 4)
|
May 25 2005, 04:09 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 dripping destruction Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 |
this is a bit similar to this topic
|
|
|
|
|
May 26 2005, 02:02 AM
Post
#3
|
|
 Assistant Manager of Personal Group: Member Posts: 1,101 Joined: Jul 2004 Member No: 26,922 |
I learned about the fillibuster when i visited D.C. a month ago. I thought it was the most childish thing i had ever heard of. Deliberately delaying the opening of a topic by making your speech extremely long just seems so underhanded. I recall that a senator made a fillibuster of over 5 hours or 24horus, i forget- it was just long.
I think we should just get rid of them; underhanded tactics shouldnt be used in our government. |
|
|
|
|
May 26 2005, 07:13 PM
Post
#4
|
|
 The Return of Sathington Willoughby. Group: Member Posts: 313 Joined: Apr 2004 Member No: 14,724 |
haha, there wouldn't be much happening in our government if we did that.
|
|
|
|
|
May 26 2005, 11:00 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
dripping destruction Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 |
dont' kill the filibuster!
my goal in life is to become a senator and have a nonstop 48 hour filibuster, reading the complete works of tolkien and rowling aloud. the filibuster is quite a good thing. if democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, then the filibuster is what lets the sheep live. |
|
|
|
 |
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: