[Renegade]

Why can't democrats argue this correctly? ITS SO EASY

1) Judicial filibuster had been done before, in 1968 (give or take a year i cant remember) on Abe Fortas by Republicans (and some Democrats, it was bipartisan). Republicans now try to say that wasn't a true filibuster because he had lost "majority support" but that makes no sense since 1) why would you need a filibuster if it didnt have majority support and 2) it doesn't matter if it had majority support, it still confirms that filibusters are a legitimate use of power against judicial nominees

2) Why should only Judicial nominees be guarenteed a up or down vote without any real debate when limited term positions like members of cabinet don't get an auto yes or no vote? That makes no sense, if your gonna remove the filibuster, remove it for all appointees by the president.

3) Judicial obstructionism has always existed and up or down votes have NEVER been guarenteed. During Clinton's administration, 60+ judicial nominees were held up in commitee or not even given a hearing. Even assuming they didn't have majority support, if every judge is guarenteed an up or down vote, then why werent they allowed to the floor for a vote? Even more so, if commitee's are allowed to examine the nominee, then that assumes that congress does play a role in determining if the nominee is worthy of being affirmed, so filibusters should be allowed here as well just like any other Senate decision

4) Some people go as far to say that filibusters are just wrong because they put too much power in the minority or one person.. this is inherintly wrong because filibusters are used on ALL other things so even insinuating that argument means you don't agree with the filibuster in general. If so, then you should be advocating the complete removal of filibusters and thus complete majority rule, rather than nitpicking at what type of filibuster you don't want.

It's really not that hard to examine the hypocracy and flaws in the Republican argument for filibusters, yet Democrats are seemingly so useless they can't even do it correctly and strongly.

This post has been edited by Renegade: 21 May 2005 - 05:15 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Democrats are an apostate party. They act as though they should further the goals of the workers but they are too weak and corrupt to truly do anything. Their toothless attacks against the Bush administration and political bandying serve no purpose but to give the illusion of a two party system.

[Slade]

What's a Democrat? Are they the guys that pretend to run against the Republicans so the masses think they have a choice in who to vote for?

What got this issue started, anyhow? I haven't been keeping a close eye on the world since I have to look through the mass media fisheye and everything I see disgusts me, so I don't rightly know what's going on all the time.

[Rory]

I'm confused. What is filibusting exactly? And is it good or bad? And why?

[rock_dash]

As I understand it, a fillibuster when when some old white guy gets up and starts talking, just to waste everyone's time. Usually used in politics, but you could also call it a fillibuster when your friend is arguing a point and he just won't shut up about it until you say, "ALL RIGHT ALREADY! WHATEVER YOU SAY!"

[Renegade]

I'm confused. What is filibusting exactly? And is it good or bad? And why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A filibuster is the right for any senator to have the floor in the senate for as long as he wants. So, if he does not like a law, he can keep arguing its flaws until he either 1) can't stand nemore or 2) passes it on to another person who continues debate. Filibusters generally are used now to stop things from passing; so for example if you don't like a judicial appointmnet you filibuster so that they remove the nominee. However, you can't do it all the time cause obviously you'll be regarded as 1) an ass hat 2) not allowing things to get done. It is good in a sense that it protects the minority opinion and bad at times when it prevents the majority from doing things that are necessary.

Also the only way to stop a filibuster, is for 60 out of the 100 senators voting "cloture" (end of debate).

This post has been edited by Renegade: 01 June 2005 - 12:38 AM

[Renegade]

Democrats are an apostate party. They act as though they should further the goals of the workers but they are too weak and corrupt to truly do anything. Their toothless attacks against the Bush administration and political bandying serve no purpose but to give the illusion of a two party system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You sound like those ppl who whine that there is no political diffrence between parties so they use that as an excuse to not vote or participate in politics. Newsflash, the reason the parties appear to be the same is because people are too apathetic (ie. you) to force parties to do things. Although your argument is mute anyway cause they actually do differentiate, your just too lazy to see the difference.

[Slade]

No, they'd be just as weak and corrupt if everybody voted. I vote, I just know it doesn't do a damned thing. People become apathetic because of their lack of voice, not the other way around.

And you sound like one of tose bright wide-eyed idealists who thinks he can change the world. I'll say good luck and all of the power to you, I might even try my hand at it some day. Just don't be too surprised when the whole thing falls apart.

Rory is alive! Everybody's favorite ragdoll has graced our little forum/pirate cove. Filibusting is just what he said it was. Some old senator dislikes something, so he bitches about it until everyone gives up listening to him. It made a good King of the Hill episode. And it's good when someone is filibusting for a cause you support, and bad when they aren't. Strom Thurmond read an entire phone book to stall the Civil Rights Bill in the 60s.

[Renegade]

No, they'd be just as weak and corrupt if everybody voted. I vote, I just know it doesn't do a damned thing. People become apathetic because of their lack of voice, not the other way around.

And you sound like one of tose bright wide-eyed idealists who thinks he can change the world. I'll say good luck and all of the power to you, I might even try my hand at it some day. Just don't be too surprised when the whole thing falls apart.

Rory is alive! Everybody's favorite ragdoll has graced our little forum/pirate cove. Filibusting is just what he said it was. Some old senator dislikes something, so he bitches about it until everyone gives up listening to him. It made a good King of the Hill episode. And it's good when someone is filibusting for a cause you support, and bad when they aren't. Strom Thurmond read an entire phone book to stall the Civil Rights Bill in the 60s.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's "idealistic" to say that voting changes politics? Not really.. if you look at the facts, its right there for you. People who vote get what they want because political parties are forced to listen to them or lose elections. It's not idealism, its just common sense.

What people fail to realize, is that the two parties aren't similar, but really the only thing preventing big change is the forced compromise between the two parties. If each had there way, there would be radical changes, however those aren't possible because of the power of both parties balancing each other out. On almost EVERY issue they are polar opposites, its not hard to judge that. Not my fault you dumbasses can just keep whining "OMGOGGM MY VOTE DOESNT COUNT, WAWAWAWAWAWAWA THE PARTIES ARE THE SAME WAWAWAWAWAWA".

[barend]

I thought a filibuster was a really big hamburger you could inly get in philidelphia...