Filibuster: continued talk or go to lunch/home?

[Edward]

It is what you're seeing. You're the one with fun house glasses. America has rejected the leftis agenda. That's why the left is fighting so hard to keep their lefty ninnys in control of the judiciary. This is their last rampart. Their only hope to accomplish their agenda is to ram it down our throats through judicial fiat. Filibustering judicial nominees is a new pathetic low. Surely you can see that.

The same could be said of the Republicans who now control the Senate, if they can't convince even five Democrats to give their "advice and consent" to judicial nominees they change the rules in mid-stream so that they can force their agenda down our throats through democratic and legislative fiat. Let me say this simply, "I did not vote for your Senator," instead "I voted for mine," and "you and your Senator can go to hell." What Republicans are basically doing is arguing that "advice and consent" means simple majority vote, and that reading and interpretation of the Constitution is clearly full of errors.

First, the definition of consent is, "to give assent or approval." If 46 individuals do not give their consent to such appointments, instead they dissent, or in other words, "do not agree to the appointment" than the Senate did not consent to the nomination. Republicans may believe in simple majority appointment because it favors their position but it surely isn't what our Founding Fathers intended when they thought of the appointment process. They did not even consider the political party system that is currently in use, they assumed that there wouldn't be such factions and that no one faction would control the Senate, and therefore they in choosing to word the appointment clause as "advice and consent," thought it would would mean just that. The Senate would advise the President, and consent to his nominee and therefore the Senate would appoint Judges, not the President or the President's faction.

What we have here is a clear dividing line where the Democrats in the Senate do NOT consent, but proactively dissent on certain judicial nominees. On most nominees these Democrats consent even though they don't vote in favor of the appointment. Thus, the President has their consent, not their dissent. Thus, the President has their consent, while not having their vote. Of course Republicans can by mere numerical power shove the Democrats aside, and the Democrats could do very little to stop their tyrannical rule. When the majority resorts to tyranny, minorities never suceed at stopping them but through violent means. Democrats tend to be more civilized than Republicans and therefore they choose not to use such violent methods. One example of the violence that the Republicans now favor is the nuclear option also known as the "do as we say because we say" option. This is the most violent method because the true threat behind it is, "the only way you can stop us from doing what we want is to use force, and we know that you won't use force because you know we will kill you if you do."

The filibuster was used and failed during the events that led up to the civil war, and finally the only way the minority could stop the unfair taxation of the south by the northern states was to rebel, and the civil war proved beyond any doubt the true nature of democratic governments. Force. Time and again, people will not accept the reality that because your Senator thinks someone should be appointed that they should in fact be appointed even if there is such a strong dissenting voice. That is tyranny.

 

[Edward]

You're seeing a party willing to take on the lefties and their insane attitudes towards economics and world affairs.

This is the insane attitude that rtwngAvngr is talking about: "The United States must be prepared to use military force decisively when necessary to defend our vital interests. The burdens of collective security in a new era must be shared fairly, and we should encourage multilateral peacekeeping through the United Nations and other international efforts."

It seems that Democrats are insane for believing 1) that the United States must be prepared to use military force, and 2) that the burdens of collective security must be shared. Time and again Democrats must point out that it is we who value our national security, that it was Clinton who actually attacked Iraq first, long before President Bush came on the scene. Democrats consistently believe that force must be used only when it is necessary to do so, and that whenever possible we should convince our allies, and the world of the correctness of our action, that failure to do so creates hard feelings and disgust at us as a nation, thus creating for us more overt enemies as well as enemies who disguise themselves as our allies. So it is time that Democrats take on the Republicans, who are anti-defense (this is why they opposed the Department of Homeland Security), and pro-offense (this is why they didn't want to wait a few days to see what the opinion of the world was on an invasion of Iraq. Democrats would have went to war anyways, the difference between the Republicans and Democrats isn't that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. It is how we would have invaded Iraq.

 

[dilloduck]

This is the insane attitude that rtwngAvngr is talking about: "The United States must be prepared to use military force decisively when necessary to defend our vital interests. The burdens of collective security in a new era must be shared fairly, and we should encourage multilateral peacekeeping through the United Nations and other international efforts."

It seems that Democrats are insane for believing 1) that the United States must be prepared to use military force, and 2) that the burdens of collective security must be shared. Time and again Democrats must point out that it is we who value our national security, that it was Clinton who actually attacked Iraq first, long before President Bush came on the scene. Democrats consistently believe that force must be used only when it is necessary to do so, and that whenever possible we should convince our allies, and the world of the correctness of our action, that failure to do so creates hard feelings and disgust at us as a nation, thus creating for us more overt enemies as well as enemies who disguise themselves as our allies. So it is time that Democrats take on the Republicans, who are anti-defense (this is why they opposed the Department of Homeland Security), and pro-offense (this is why they didn't want to wait a few days to see what the opinion of the world was on an invasion of Iraq. Democrats would have went to war anyways, the difference between the Republicans and Democrats isn't that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. It is how we would have invaded Iraq.

Where else do the Dems wanna attack?--please tell us so we can tell if it's happening or not.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This is the insane attitude that rtwngAvngr is talking about: "The United States must be prepared to use military force decisively when necessary to defend our vital interests. The burdens of collective security in a new era must be shared fairly, and we should encourage multilateral peacekeeping through the United Nations and other international efforts."

It seems that Democrats are insane for believing 1) that the United States must be prepared to use military force, and 2) that the burdens of collective security must be shared. Time and again Democrats must point out that it is we who value our national security, that it was Clinton who actually attacked Iraq first, long before President Bush came on the scene. Democrats consistently believe that force must be used only when it is necessary to do so, and that whenever possible we should convince our allies, and the world of the correctness of our action, that failure to do so creates hard feelings and disgust at us as a nation, thus creating for us more overt enemies as well as enemies who disguise themselves as our allies. So it is time that Democrats take on the Republicans, who are anti-defense (this is why they opposed the Department of Homeland Security), and pro-offense (this is why they didn't want to wait a few days to see what the opinion of the world was on an invasion of Iraq. Democrats would have went to war anyways, the difference between the Republicans and Democrats isn't that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. It is how we would have invaded Iraq.

You're tripping. Half your party believe war is never justifiable for any reason. Take your revisionist crap, elsewhere, ninny.

 

[archangel]

By its very definition, filibuster requires someone to stand on the floor and talk, without cessation. This is exemplified in the movie, "Mr Smith goes to Washington." In modern times congress will simply ajourn with a filibuster by simply saying: "we are not going to talk about the filibustered issue," and then go home or to lunch.

Some famous filibusters were eventually broken becuase of, for example: potty breaks (forget the year). This is the whole point of a filibuster, to make someone stay talking, be it about their mother's recipes, but to stand or on a cot in that one famous filibuster, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, until either the majority side gives up or the minority filibuster gives in.

I think this should still be the standard. To simply say, "I will filibuster," and then go home goes directly against the spirit of "filibustering." Now I know the congress can make their own rules/traditions, however, IMHO, a filibuster should be a filibuster, else call it a different name, like "obstruction."

What do you think?

Filibusters are like computer entries...garbage in garbage out...whats the point...doh! :huh: