It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fillibuster Time!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Am I the only one out there who thinks that my party will be shooting its self in the foot by getting rid of the fillibuster? From my perception, it looks like the republicans are really short sighted and haven't taken the time to go back 20 years in history. They're in power now, and for some reason expect they will always be in power, so they're trying to take powers away from the minority party.

Granted, it is a joke that Bush can't appoint anyone but a democrat to and judicial seat, but limiting congress's powers is not the way to go. It's really too bad both parties are so vindictive. If they got along, our nation could be 10 times greater -- we'd have an effective legislative branch, instead of a bunch of squabbling babies.

"Fine, if you won't pick my candidate, then I'm not voting and there's nothing you can do about it!"
"It's mine! If you don't vote, I'll change the law to make you vote"
"Mommy, the republican's changing the rules!"

Both parties, in this situation, are a joke. :shk:




posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   


Both parties, in this situation, are a joke.


I agree wholeheartedly. What the US needs is a more represantational form of gov't. Something that doesn't encourage a two party system, which is how it is today. How to get there I have no idea...



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
From what I've read you aren't alone in thinking Frist/DeLay are horribly misguided here. But you may be misguided on the minority objective a bit.

You know out of over 200 Bush nominees the Dems only want to question about 12. 180 some will skate home free into lifetime judical appointments. Nothing wrong with questioning 5%. To do any less would be a "joke" as an opposition party.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Yes, opposing judges who have in one case let 3 KKK terrorists go after burning a house down killing everyone inside. Yes, why would the Dems try to stop him from becoming a judge?

Anyways, the Filibuster record is held by a republican, went for over a day. Sure it was to stop the Civil Rights bill, but oh well.

They probably know they will remain in power as long as people fear gays more then death. Fear the rights of everyone over being completely flat out broke. Fear that jews/women/black/other minority may gain power over the slaughter o our children for oil.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
They probably know they will remain in power as long as people fear gays more then death. Fear the rights of everyone over being completely flat out broke. Fear that jews/women/black/other minority may gain power over the slaughter o our children for oil.


You really are desperatly trying to paint conservatives as bigots despite the evidence, aren't you! I find it funny that every issue comes down to minority groups except for when we're talking about various judge nominees, secretary of state appointees, etc. Then, it's perfectly acceptable to call them Uncle Tom, because you (not you specifically, but the left in general) disagree with their political ideology. You're a racist if you're conservative, whether you are or not, and a progressive if you're a liberal, racist or not (Case in point, Robert Byrd). I just can't believe the republicans sit back and take this (politicians, not Rush or Sean)



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Uh, you know about those Fake Town Hall meetings Bush has been having? He is following orders, he has to have 1-2 asians, one black woman, one black man, same with hispanics, and at least 1 person over the age of 65 sit with him. It's not that he likes these people, it's that the GOP picks them out and places them next to the president so he doesn't look like a republican. And sure republicans aren't racist, just the slave states, the Jim Crow Law States, the blacks are property states, the jews are evil states, and anything else not rich/white/republican/heterosexual/christian/straight/male is evil states just hapopen to vote republican.

Anyways, again, the Fili record is held by a republican who was trying to stop the Civil Rights bill from being passed. Wouldn't want den der negros to be more den monkeys now would we?



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Uh, you know about those Fake Town Hall meetings Bush has been having? He is following orders, he has to have 1-2 asians, one black woman, one black man, same with hispanics, and at least 1 person over the age of 65 sit with him. It's not that he likes these people, it's that the GOP picks them out and places them next to the president so he doesn't look like a republican. And sure republicans aren't racist, just the slave states, the Jim Crow Law States, the blacks are property states, the jews are evil states, and anything else not rich/white/republican/heterosexual/christian/straight/male is evil states just hapopen to vote republican.

Anyways, again, the Fili record is held by a republican who was trying to stop the Civil Rights bill from being passed. Wouldn't want den der negros to be more den monkeys now would we?


History is great, don't distort it. If it where not for Republicans there would be no civil rights act.


www.congresslink.org...


Senator Richard Russell, Democrat from Georgia, led the so-called opposition forces. The group was also known as the "southern bloc." It was composed of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, John Tower of Texas. Although a hopeless minority, the group exerted much influence because Senate rules virtually guaranteed unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture. The "southern bloc" relied on the filibuster to postpone the legislation as long as possible, hoping that support for civil rights legislation throughout the country would falter. The Democratic leadership and Humphrey could not control the southern wing of the party.

The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

The Republican pro-civil rights forces were blessed with gifted leadership.

Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
DIXIECRATS! What? Did you go to a 5th rate texan school or something where they didn't teach about the "wolf in sheep clothing" dixiecrats? They were republicans in dem clothing, IE Dixiecrats. It is really amazing, if I was you I would write to your schools and ask why they skipped over hundreds of years of learning and seemingly went from Washington to Reagan with noting inbetween.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by James the Lesser
 


Check your history, it was Strom Thurmond who was a DEMOCRAT at the time. The previous record was over 22 hours also by a democrat.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join