The Trouble with Filibusters

Posted Saturday, November 21, 2009, at 1:26 PM
View 12 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • The reason for the filibuster is to stop new laws. Remember, when this country was founded, the people wanted little to no government in their lives. We live in a different world where people want the governement to control most of their lives.

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, at 2:43 PM
  • *

    That is also what debate is for wallis. I've always seen the filibuster as the cowards way out of debate (Republican or Democratic).

    fredd, they don't admit those kinds of things. The last eight years were just a dream that started on 9/11/01 and ended on 1/20/09. Anything that happened during that time doesn't really count and they won't admit to it anyways.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, at 6:03 PM
  • *

    A sort of blog filibuster is Herndon Hanks posts, I'm sure he has some good points, but I don't have the time to read them. His responses to commenters often seem longer than the original blog.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, at 4:35 PM
  • This country has debated universal health care for years--remember it was a "hot topic" when I was in high school in the late 60's.

    Bill and Hillary's attempt to update our system gave the insurance industry and the Right notice to come up with something more effective.

    The only result of which I am aware is double digit annual increases in health insurance premiums most years since then.

    For all the fear mongering coming from the right, why haven't they come up with any substantial alternatives?

    Though a while back Dick Trail proclaimed how wonderful and affordable his health care is, he is the only person I have heard espouse that philosophy.

    The status quo is not working for a significant portion of the American population. And if fear of socialized medicine conerns one, wake up, please. Hospitals are required to treat the ill and injured already with reimbursement from the state.

    The United States grows when honest, constructive debate occurs. On the other hand, fear mongering erodes our freedoms; fear mongering was a chief tool Hitler used in gaining power.

    -- Posted by ontheleftcoast on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, at 6:02 PM
  • *

    For all the fear mongering that has been pushed about the Canadian Health System I actually know someone that lived in Canada for ten years in their health care system. She is nurse here now. But she said that system was the best she has ever been in. You got to choose your doctor and hospital. You paid no medical bills if you ended up in the hospital and you paid no prescription bills.

    Sounds really far from the one-sided lies and distortions that were presented as fact from one side of the political spectrum at the very beginning of this debate.

    Just as usual someone can't debate a supporter of the health care reform truthfully so they just change to subject to the stimulus package which has worked in the way that it was signed. It didn't create jobs because it wasn't designed to, pretty much the same way that the trickle downs of Bush and Reagan the provided nothing but tax cuts and incentives for the rich but nothing for the rest of us. But of course that time doesn't count on this website. Anything wrong done over the last eight years is never explained, the only thing that happens is someone calling out the mistakes and then instead of being corrected with facts the posters descend on that person for being a Bush hater and blaming everything on Bush. All I have to say is that the shoe fits.

    I guess it doesn't matter that the current bill being debated along with the one passed by the House would actually cut the deficit. Of course it doesn't, even though it's true.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, at 8:33 PM
  • *

    I'll be happy to debate you duffer but unless you can do it in a civil way don't expect much out of me.

    First of all can you provide me a link to where you got this information? Because I would like to research it.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 10:30 AM
  • Mike,

    You are incorrect. A major goal of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was to create and protect jobs.

    As far as creating/preserving jobs, currently the tracker indicates that over 640,000 jobs have been created/saved.

    (Caveat: these numbers are reported by the recipients of "stimulus" money, and may not be entirely accurate. Nor were they designed to be. Recipients of funds report on jobs created/saved, and the information becomes immediately available to the public. It is later verified by the government, but that takes time.)

    As of now, a bit over half of the "stimulus" money has been awarded, and less than 15% has actually been received.

    And I'd recommend that you not engage in any sort of debate with Dufferxyz until he raises his level of discourse a bit. (using only one punctuation mark at the end of sentences would be a good start. It's all right for emphasis, but it gets a bit dramatic when he uses it so often.)

    And Dufferxyz,

    And yes, the current health bills on the table will reduce the deficit. Please don't act so shocked. The numbers come from the Congressional Budget Office.

    And as far as fear-mongering goes, you are correct, both the dems and reps do it. But drawing a false equivalency between them is just fallacious. (IMO) The republicans have clearly been more engaged in fear mongering than the dems.


    If I'm fighting someone, and I kick them in the groin, but they stab me with a shiv, we're both fighting dirty, but nobody would claim that those are equivalent actions. And nobody would claim he's justified in stabbing me because I kicked him where the sun don't shine.

    -- Posted by jhat on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 4:31 PM
  • *

    jhat I do apologize I was wrong.

    I would also like to say that you have made every point clear and precise. Good job.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 6:49 PM
  • Mike,

    No need to apologize.

    There is no shame in being wrong. Being wrong is simply a step on the path to being correct. There is only shame in refusing to acknowledge your error, in refusing to take that step.

    -- Posted by jhat on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 7:06 PM
  • Sorry if that last post sounded condescending. A few glasses of scotch makes me sound like a bad philosopher ;)

    -- Posted by jhat on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, at 12:05 PM
  • *

    No actually it made a lot of sense

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, at 12:20 PM
  • Hey Transplant,

    You will note, I attempt to provide detailed information, rather than engage in endless slurs and personal attacks in the manner of several Neo-Con posters here.

    You will note this past week, when a certain Cretin tried labeling me a "Freeloader" I was somewhat terse, brief and direct.

    This is the key problem with the Duffus, Ol' Septic and some others here -- They can't retain a thread of debate more than a few seconds, so launch into unfounded attacks and slurs.

    As to filibusters, having sat in the Senate gallery listening to DixiCrats reading page after page from the Atlanta or Birmingham telephone books -- the meaning of filibusters is clear.

    A lot of civil rights legislation was delayed and sidetracked for decades, because DixiCrats filibustered for weeks at a time -- reading Grimms Fairy Tales, telephone books, the entire Old and New Testaments and entire newspapers into the record.

    Now their fellow believers in legislative obstructionism object because the other side came up with the required "Super Majority" to shut off the filibustering.

    Somehow, constitutional use of Roberts Rules of Order by Democrats is suddenly Unamerican.

    You might notice, during the 2008 elections, there were no reports of "no working voting machines" in Republican precincts, or other irregularities required to allow DubYah to claim victory.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, at 9:19 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: