| Main > Everything Else |
| Filibuster - 51% vs. 60% |
| << < (4/5) > >> |
| fredster:
Does any other country have this rule / procedure? |
| Crazy Cooter:
--- Quote from: rohan on May 19, 2005, 08:57:08 pm ---DrewKaree's right; this would be the first time that this type of appointee would be filibustered. --- End quote --- Then the appointee must be especially bad. Worst in history perhaps? |
| fredster:
--- Quote ---Then the appointee must be especially bad. Worst in history perhaps? --- End quote --- Cooter, what's so bad about this "appointee" in your opinion? |
| Crazy Cooter:
I'm just saying that in response to them being the first... :angel: |
| DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: Crazy Cooter on May 23, 2005, 08:46:24 am --- --- Quote from: rohan on May 19, 2005, 08:57:08 pm ---DrewKaree's right; this would be the first time that this type of appointee would be filibustered. --- End quote --- Then the appointee must be especially bad. Worst in history perhaps? --- End quote --- You're right. The black lady they want to keep down....check this out. This is the assessment of what she did that makes her one of the worst in history. SHE UPHELD THE LAW CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS! Now that I look back upon it, I can clearly see she's unqualified to even have EFFIN' DISCUSSION ABOUT HER NOMINATION be brought to the Senate floor. CLEARLY the reason she isn't to be voted upon (nor any of the other nominees with enough votes in committee) is to avoid even having to bring up sordid details like her pubic har on a soda can ::) How can not even allowing discussion and a vote on the person's qualifications be rationalized as anything other than sheer partisan divisive political maneuverings? SOMEONE explain this crock of shite to us, since clearly MANY have no clue about why this is both important and necessary. I simply REFUSE to believe I've stumped MrC ::) |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |