View Poll Results: Should The Filibuster Be Removed

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2 4.76%
  • No

    34 80.95%
  • No, but it should be reformed

    6 14.29%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 68 of 68

Thread: Removing the Filibuster

  1. #61
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    If the majority party decides to exclude the minority from open debates and inclusion in the legislative process as has been recently happening, then the filibuster serves a useful purpose.

    The biggest concern for all of us as citizens is the tyranny of the majority is it not?
    I'd say the tyranny of the minority is a bigger concern.

    I am sure when the shoe is on the other foot with Republican majorities and control of both houses of Congress and the White House; you thought filibustering was a good idea.
    This was addressed earlier in the thread.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  2. #62
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    [quote=LaMidRighter;1057986300]
    True, although I think that the party control was tightened up a few decades later.


    I fully realize it's an obstruction tactic, never claimed otherwise. To obstruct debate is to argue, which is what the founders did alot, much more so than we do even today, which is my point, when debate leads to something of consequence the fillibuster is there to stop it, whether that consequence is getting a majority upon minority beatdown, an expansion of the government that the majority party wants, more tax powers, etc.
    Wait, the filibuster is there to stop something from happening, and this is good for debate? I didn't understand your paragraph very well.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  3. #63
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    13,790

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    To force bills to pass on a 60 vote line is just contrary to what the founding fathers wanted, and to the concept of democracy. But that's just my thoughts. What do you all think?
    I really laughed hard at this particular line of thought. Out of all the injustices performed daily by our government, the notion that the use of the filibuster would even be in the top 100 of what the founders would be mad about is absolute hilarity.

    I'm not saying the filibuster goes against the rules of the constitution. But it does go against the spirit of the constitution, and the wishes of the founding fathers. If they had wanted a 3/5 majority on every bill, they would have written the constitution that way.
    This is just too rich for words. If they wanted to commerce clause to be as powerful as it has become, they would of written it that way. If they wanted the bill of rights to be incorporated, they would of written it that way. The entire progressive movement is a contradiction of what the founders and more importantly, the ratifiers of this legal document wanted.

  4. #64
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    [quote=the makeout hobo;1057987356]
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post

    Wait, the filibuster is there to stop something from happening, and this is good for debate? I didn't understand your paragraph very well.
    I'll expand, when the debate is one sided and the result is undesireable, then yes, that is what the fillibuster is intended to derail, think of it as a check to groupthink.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #65
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    I really laughed hard at this particular line of thought. Out of all the injustices performed daily by our government, the notion that the use of the filibuster would even be in the top 100 of what the founders would be mad about is absolute hilarity.



    This is just too rich for words. If they wanted to commerce clause to be as powerful as it has become, they would of written it that way. If they wanted the bill of rights to be incorporated, they would of written it that way. The entire progressive movement is a contradiction of what the founders and more importantly, the ratifiers of this legal document wanted.
    And this is directly relevent, how?

    I'll expand, when the debate is one sided and the result is undesireable, then yes, that is what the fillibuster is intended to derail, think of it as a check to groupthink.
    The result is always undesirable to someone. It's the consequence of representative democracy. You can't please all the people. And can you give me an example when the debate was one-sided? And what about all the times when there was a vigorous debate and a party filibustered anyways? Or what about when a party didn't debate, they just filibustered? I'd say those happen much more often than the filibuster being used to further actual debate.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  6. #66
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    13,790

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    And this is directly relevent, how?
    Pointing out your hypocrisy seems relevant enough.

    When did you start caring about what the founders wanted?

  7. #67
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    The result is always undesirable to someone. It's the consequence of representative democracy. You can't please all the people.
    This is true, however the consequences extend past hurt feelings, whenever the government does something "for someone" it must do something to someone else, thus expanding itself past what it was ever meant to be, stopping that is a just case for a fillibuster when a majority takes the populist approach in a democratic republic. Many of the "changes" we have suffered in the past century or so have created an ignorance of the constitution and it's founding principles, many times this was done by hiding behind majority opinion or "political capitol" stopping that becomes necessary at times.
    And can you give me an example when the debate was one-sided?
    The second stimulus comes to mind, federal gun control regulation at times in our history, AMA rules changes at the beginning of the twentieth century, the creation of Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac, upon others.
    And what about all the times when there was a vigorous debate and a party filibustered anyways? Or what about when a party didn't debate, they just filibustered? I'd say those happen much more often than the filibuster being used to further actual debate.
    And they are all legitimate reasons for fillibustering, as I've stated before, sometimes they are used to do good and sometimes they are used for the wrong reasons, this doesn't change the fact that the fillibuster exists and is right in line with the idea of slowing or stopping an out of control legislative or government expansion.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #68
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    America (A.K.A., a red state)
    Last Seen
    09-24-13 @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Recently, the Senate Republicans have been filibustering almost every single bill coming through the Senate.
    Virtually everything Obama is and has been doing since he took office does nothing but destroy the economy for Democrat power, whether it be imposing the biggest tax hike in American history on those who create all the jobs and already pay most of the taxes, trippling the national debt for crippling socialist pork scams, or violently shoving involuntary union membership down our throats.

    Every last iota of this corrupt partisan extremist's insanely destructive agenda that Republicans can stop is a service to America.

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    I don't care which side is doing it, if it's being abused to this point, it needs to be cut. Now I know that as a Democrat, I'd be removing an important tool from our arsenal when we're in the minority, but something needs to be done, as I see it. The constitution only requires a super-majority on a few items, such as impeachments.
    This reminds me of the New York Times.

    When Republicans merely threatened to use the filibuster against Clinton, it was the "tool of the sore loser." Then, when Democrats took it to unprecedented levels under Bush, it became "an important tool for democracy."

    And now that Republicans are trying to stop the racist lunatic ACORN activist who got into White House by erroneously blaming Bush for the economy Democrats destroyed, it's once again an abuse of power.



    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    To force bills to pass on a 60 vote line is just contrary to what the founding fathers wanted, and to the concept of democracy. But that's just my thoughts. What do you all think?
    Psst...Your ignorance is showing.

    The Founding Fathers equated democracy to mob rule. They detested it and designed the system specifically to avoid it as much as possible. Please stop misstating the facts.
    Last edited by aquapub; 04-10-09 at 11:07 PM.
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner (paraphrasing James Bovard).

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •