Filibuster - 51% vs. 60%

Main > Everything Else

<< < (3/5) > >>

Crazy Cooter:
Too much to read on lunch break. ;)

I see no reason not to choose a "middler". Are these appointees supposed to control the direction of the Country (extreme right/left) or follow the publics direction (middler)?

Aren't these people being "resubmitted"? I thought they were already turned down. I thought one of the people went through the process FOUR times. That's a monumental waste of time.

I say just submit middlers and be done with it. They would get appointed tomorrow and reflect the "morality" of a broader base of the population. What's wrong with this? No facts, no figures, no controversy. It's just common sense. Right now it seems as though we're trying to push a fat lady through a dog door rather than walking her through the garage door.

DrewKaree:

--- Quote from: Crazy Cooter on May 19, 2005, 01:30:20 pm ---Too much to read on lunch break. ;)
--- End quote ---

I understand :D

--- Quote ---Aren't these people being "resubmitted"? I thought they were already turned down. I thought one of the people went through the process FOUR times. That's a monumental waste of time.
--- End quote ---

They have been resubmitted because they have thus far not been put up for a vote, and a new set of folks have come in. They have been resubmitted so a vote on them can be done, since they haven't been allowed out of committee yet. You ARE correct, it IS a monumental waste of time to not have them put to a vote for so long that they REQUIRE being resubmitted, and you should congratulate Bush for doing the gentlemanly thing and resubmitting nominees that weren't able to be put to a vote from Clinton's term.

--- Quote ---I say just submit middlers and be done with it. They would get appointed tomorrow and reflect the "morality" of a broader base of the population. What's wrong with this? No facts, no figures, no controversy. It's just common sense. Right now it seems as though we're trying to push a fat lady through a dog door rather than walking her through the garage door.

--- End quote ---

Nice concept, but your idea of a "middler" may be too soft for MrC's tastes, or not soft enough for another's tastes. Middlers are relative to who's deciding, which brings us back to where we're at.

Try and find out what the reasons are for these "radicals" not being voted on.

DrewKaree:
;D ;D

May 18, 2005
KERRY THREATENS TO TALK FOR ONE HOUR

Could be Violation of Geneva Conventions, Legal Scholars Say

Adding fuel to the current controversy over Senate filibusters, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) today threatened to speak for a solid hour on the Senate floor, an act which several prominent legal scholars said could be in violation of the Geneva Conventions against torture.

Sen. Kerry issued his threat today in the trademark monotone that became familiar to millions during his ill-fated run for the presidency in 2004.

"I'm going to speak for a solid hour and there's nothing any of you can do to stop me!" bellowed the Massachusetts senator, causing Democrats and Republicans alike to rush for the exits of the Senate chamber.

While some political insiders called Sen. Kerry's threat to speak for an hour little more than a scare tactic, legal scholars believe that should the Massachusetts senator make good on his threat he could draw the ire of Amnesty International and other human rights watchdog groups.

"Senator Kerry threatens to talk for an hour at his own peril," said Dr. Ivan Connaught, who has spent the last thirty years studying the Geneva Conventions at the University of Minnesota. "According to my reading of the Conventions, listening to John Kerry speak for anything over ten minutes would have to be considered cruel and unusual punishment."

The senator's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, said today that even she had never been forced to listen to her husband speak for an entire hour.

"When he opens his piehole, that's when I whip out my iPod," she said.

Elsewhere, a terrorist seeking 72 virgins was found waiting on line for the new "Star Wars" film.

www.borowitzreport.com

rohan:
I'd love for the Republicans to call the Democrats' bluff and let them filibuster. This would show the American people what Democrats are simply obstructionists that don't have anything good to offer the country. DrewKaree's right; this would be the first time that this type of appointee would be filibustered. Personally, I don't think the Democrats are ballsy enough to actually do it. If the Reps. decided for a rule change to 51%, I'd be happy, too. Way to go Dems., you've shown that you're the party that keeps things from getting done in the U.S. gov!

jbox:
Wait, I'm confused. I thought I was watching the one with the giant rabbit in it, or is the one where the bells keep ringing? :)

You should come to SA, where our state parliment was so bollocks'd the Government ended up having to "buy" an opposition member (by creating a new cabinet position) just so they could get the numbers to remove the numb-nuts they made speaker in the first place.

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version