The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 04:47 am
For the very latest Buster news, hit the link.
- How in God’s name has a decent nation reached a point where a manslaughtering drunk and a duplicitous giggilo can stand judgement over a decent man with a brilliant career?Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 01 27 at 10:02 AM • permalink
- Maybe if the Democrats pushed mandatory gun-locks more, they’d stop shooting themselves in the feet? But it’s good news for November. (Do they give out Purple Hearts for shooting oneself in the foot?)Posted by andycanuck on 2006 01 27 at 10:26 AM • permalink
- I think that the People’s Republic of Massachusetts needs to get their act together and depose those two worthless morons.Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 27 at 10:28 AM • permalink
- After thirty years of hearing the term, finally I have to ask: What the hell is a filibuster?
I know it’s got something to do with talking continuously.
Incidentally a tactic I think would have little or no effect in our Parliament where you would eventually collapse under the weight of the other side howling Shut the f* up! And the speaker yelling order, order! Until someone decks you and gets sin binned for a day.
Posted by Dean McAskil on 2006 01 27 at 10:29 AM • permalink
After thirty years of hearing the term, finally I have to ask: What the hell is a filibuster?
I know it’s got something to do with talking continuously.
That’s pretty much it. The idea is that a Senator refuses to let the entire Senate vote on a matter by refusing to stop talking, or handing permission to speak off to others taking part in the filibuster.
The practice got a little ridiculous in recent years, since the Senate started to treat the threat of a filibuster to be the same as a filibuster itself. That means decrepit hulks like Kennedy don’t need to worry about bathroom breaks, staying awake for long periods, etc. Heck, they don’t even need to interrupt their drinking schedule!
It takes 60 votes to end debate, and so end a filibuster. So you have to have 40 people willing to put off the vote. From what I’ve read, it’s unlikely Massachusetts has enough votes to filibuster.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 01 27 at 10:40 AM • permalink
- Following a link that brings me back to here, I find
And check out the humorous comments Ted Blair readers are leaving on the matter…
Accurate as ever, are they not?
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 27 at 12:15 PM • permalink
- So these two have unilaterally decided that this is the Democratic position? Screw what the American people want, just oppose everything the administration does, no matter what it is. I await the reaction of other Democratic pols, if they have the nerve to stand down Senator Lurch and Senator Pig-Bladder.
- I’m at work, and victimized by our content control process . . . I followed the link and got an inadvertently appropriate page:
The category “Traditional Religions” is filtered by your company’s policy
The Senate is indeed like a cult, as the rituals, practices, and protocols have accreted over the years.
- Well the funny part of this is that in all likelihood if they do filibuster, the Repubs will invoke the ‘nuclear option’ invented by Sen. Robert C. (Sheets) Byrd (Bigot, WV) when he was Majority leader.
Under this option, when a ‘cloture’ attempt fails (that is, an attempt to end debate by agreement of 60 Senators doesn’t get the required 60 votes), the Majority Leader asks for a parliamentary advisement from the President of the Senate (look for Cheney in the seat if this happens on Monday) that the filibuster is out of order in this circumstance (i.e. that the Senate rule on fiibusters doesn’t apply). Sheets used that FOUR times on the Repubs back in the 80s, I think.
Anyway, the President of the Senate would indeed rule that the filibuster didn’t apply, upon which the Dems would object and a vote would be taken on whether or not to accept the President’s ruling. This takes only a bare majority, with the President of the Senate exercising his Constitutional tie-breaking vote if necessary, so only 50 Senators have to vote to accept the ruling. That means the filibuster is not only defeated, but would in all probability prevent Dems from continuing to filibuster federal appellate judges as they have been doing.
It’s lose-lose for the Dems and Harry Reid knows it. Kerry is playing to the waaaaaaaay Lefty fringe (kos, moveon.org, et al), and as usual he’s being a selfish bastard and the other Dems know it. Kennedy is just a fat, stupid, incompentent who knows he’ll be re-elected as long as his body temp is above room temp.
The rest of the Senate Dems must be seething, because this is very dangerous for them, but they can’t be seen fighting Kerry too hard for fear of hacking off the money that comes from the far left like Soros, et al. Caught on a cleft stick of their own making. I’m laughing my ass off.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 01 27 at 02:35 PM • permalink
Do they give out Purple Hearts for shooting oneself in the foot?
You are entitled to a Purple Heart
when injured by your own […] weapon […] while engaging, responding to or attacking an enemy.
So by that criteria, a lot of Democrats are eligable.
- The MoveOnBots at the march tonite were positive there will be a filibuster… brightened up my whole evening…Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 28 at 12:23 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
