All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Do Brussels sprouts taste good?
3/7/2013 7:08 PM
The fillibuster rule has a long history and serves a specific purpose.

If you are a slimmer majority, under 60, you need to make a deal to get the vote.

If you dont have one with only 100 guys you can get 51 guys doing whatever they want.
3/7/2013 7:16 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 3/7/2013 7:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/7/2013 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/7/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 3/7/2013 2:32:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure it was Rand trying to up his profile.  That said, it should be hard for anyone not to be concerned that the U.S. government has said that they can kill American citizens on American soil without due process, and has given almost no guidelines under which that power may or may not be executed.  Whatever his reasons for doing it may be, and as ridiculous as the idea of fillibuster may be, there are more people demanding answers about those drone strikes today than there were two days ago.  I'm not sure how else that level of national awareness could have been acheived.
That's fair, actually.  You believe in a particular issue so much, and this is a way to gain attention for it.  

The issue on what he was talking about isn't my point, though.  The filibuster itself is a waste of time.  If the filibuster was illegal, I'm confident Rand would have found another way to draw attention to the issue.
Fair, maybe.

But, in today's media-driven world, getting attention to a cause isn't difficult.    I'm sure there was another way.   But it was effective.
I hear what you're saying, but I think today's media-driven world makes us numb to a lot of what we hear/read/see.  We're getting different information on different topics via a crapload of different television stations, radio stations, news websites, Twitter, Facebook, etc.  And just about none of it is without an agenda.  A couple of times I've dismissed a story initially, then later pulled an "Oh, **** - that was true."  He ground government to a halt (symbolically), and that made a ton of different people with different agendas want to know why.  He could have held a press conference, but that's not making the top half of any non-Libertarian news website.  I doubt it would have appeared anywhere on my local 6:00 television news.  Short of standing at the gates of the white house naked with an RPG, it would have been difficult to get the spotlight where he got it by way of the fillibuster.

That said, I think the fillibuster rule itself is ridiculous.
Howard Dean is a nobody on my radar.  I remember this(and Howard Dean because of it).   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS4FGStiMB0

I'm not sure Paul would want to be remembered like that but, to be honest, he very well may be.    If so, may as well do it in 30 seconds as opposed to 13 hours.
3/7/2013 7:29 PM
I say that because I'm sure everyone has seen Paul trying to catch the creamy caramel dripping from his mouth while trying to eat and talk at the same time.

He looked a bit foolish ala Howard Dean.
3/7/2013 7:34 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 3/7/2013 7:08:00 PM (view original):
The fillibuster rule has a long history and serves a specific purpose.

If you are a slimmer majority, under 60, you need to make a deal to get the vote.

If you dont have one with only 100 guys you can get 51 guys doing whatever they want.
51 elected representatives doing whatever they want, provided it passes the House and presidential veto powers.  And then they answer for it come election time.  The checks and balances are already there.
3/7/2013 7:46 PM
You have 100 Senators. Majority passes the vote, period. No need for stalling. It's a waste of time. Im not voting for my congressmen and women so that they can yammer for 13 hours and waste time.
3/7/2013 8:42 PM
I think the President should of closed down all bathrooms within 5 miles of the place where the filibuster was taking place. I don't think they would be trying that crap again.
3/7/2013 9:15 PM
3/7/2013 9:38 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 3/7/2013 7:08:00 PM (view original):
The fillibuster rule has a long history and serves a specific purpose.

If you are a slimmer majority, under 60, you need to make a deal to get the vote.

If you dont have one with only 100 guys you can get 51 guys doing whatever they want.
I can guaranfuckingtee that swamp would be doing a 180, preaching the evils of the filibuster, if it were the Democrats doing it. 
3/8/2013 12:12 AM

The Dems have used it.

I want it to be hard for the Government to expand their power.

The fillibuster makes it harder for the government to impose its power on the people.

No matter who is in power.

3/8/2013 2:36 PM
Posted by moosep on 3/7/2013 8:42:00 PM (view original):
I think the President should of closed down all bathrooms within 5 miles of the place where the filibuster was taking place. I don't think they would be trying that crap again.
He could have and blamed it on the mean Republicans who forced the sequester cuts.
3/11/2013 8:45 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 3/8/2013 12:12:00 AM (view original):

The Dems have used it.

I want it to be hard for the Government to expand their power.

The fillibuster makes it harder for the government to impose its power on the people.

No matter who is in power.

So elected official = government imposing its power on the people? Who do elected officials represent? (OK, who are they supposed to represent). So you are saying that you want a Legislative and Executive Branch, elected by the people, to do as little as possible? Is that why people vote for someone...so they won't do anything?

Are you afraid of the concept of majority rule? Or just when it disagrees with your point of view?

3/11/2013 10:23 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 3/8/2013 12:12:00 AM (view original):

The Dems have used it.

I want it to be hard for the Government to expand their power.

The fillibuster makes it harder for the government to impose its power on the people.

No matter who is in power.

So you'd rather have 41 senators imposing their will? How does that make sense?
3/12/2013 11:17 AM
Posted by seamar_116 on 3/11/2013 8:45:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 3/8/2013 12:12:00 AM (view original):

The Dems have used it.

I want it to be hard for the Government to expand their power.

The fillibuster makes it harder for the government to impose its power on the people.

No matter who is in power.

So elected official = government imposing its power on the people? Who do elected officials represent? (OK, who are they supposed to represent). So you are saying that you want a Legislative and Executive Branch, elected by the people, to do as little as possible? Is that why people vote for someone...so they won't do anything?

Are you afraid of the concept of majority rule? Or just when it disagrees with your point of view?

The system is a Constitutional Republic.

The Federal Government is supposed to be controlled.

The left has fought for more and more power for the Central Government so they can promote their agenda without having to get the majority of America behind them.
3/12/2013 11:25 AM
Looking at the election results, the majority of voters are behind the left.
3/12/2013 11:25 AM
Democrats have the majority of America with them on the majority of the issues.
of 17
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Do Brussels sprouts taste good?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.