I'm thinking that the Congress-critters should not be the ones in charge of the rules.
A "check and balance" that our Founding Fathers didn't think about.
IB Joe wrote to Dr. What <=-
They have made changes to this over time.
In 1975 they went with a "Silent Filibuster" ... this made it so you didn't have to speak to debate the bill. If you didn't have 60 votes
you didn't take the bill for debate to the floor.
What they want to do now is to go back to the old way of a Talking Filibuster like we use to.
We'll get to hear the Democrats go on about Jim Crow 2.0 and all that stuff.
That's been their MO for a long time now: Make small changes that, over time, allow them to take control.
When someone points out what those small changes can become, they call
him a "conspiracy theorist" or a "kook".
Oh, ya, they stream like flaming cats when their changes start getting rolled back. Especially now.
IB Joe wrote to Dr. What <=-
We don't have the votes if we don't go back to what they intended with
the Filibuster and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
Make it what it was, a speaking Filibuster, and forced the Democrats to speak on this 90/10 issue.
Or... Lets just have illegals voting and ballots mailed out randomly... even better lets have dead people vote as well... We even had more
people voting than actually live in the county.
I some times wished the republicans were more like the democrats
because at least the democrats fight for what they want... republicans keep showing up to a gun fight with principles and goodwill.
| Sysop: | hdt |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, Vic. |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 18:22:11 |
| Calls: | 1 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 22 |
| D/L today: |
1 files (38K bytes) |
| Messages: | 20,263 |