• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

Wendy Davis (D-Ft. Worth) is awesome.

tonberry said:
This is the same procedure that stop a gun control bill supported by more than 80% of the american people and 54 senators. It mean that a corporation or a lobby have only 41 senators to buy in order to block any legislation. I don’t see how it can be see as a good thing in the long run.
Click to expand...

This just reinforces my support for this.

You don't have a right to control what or how many guns I have, whether you call yourself "government" or not.
 
It's not a matter of calling themselves the government, THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
 
GhostWriter16 said:
Why couldn't they just rotate speakers?
Click to expand...

The next speaker must be recognized by the presiding officer before the clock starts, so to speak. The presiding officer in the national Senate is either the Vice President or the majority leader/president pro tempore (i.e. Sen. Harry Reid or Sen. Patrick Leahy), rarely other Senators may be temporarily given the position or the Chief Justice if there is an impeachment hearing. The presiding officer can choose to call the cloture vote after the first filibustering senator finishes before he gives anyone else the right to speak.

Given that the presiding officer is usually the member of the majority party, it's rare that he would be in on the filibuster. I'd suppose it is possible with a vice president of the minority party, but VPs rarely oversee the Senate nowadays unless they are doing something ceremonial or in the rare case where a 50/50 vote might require the VP to break the tie.

(Disclaimer: I don't know if the Texan rules here are different, but it's generally the same nationwide.)
 
GhostWriter16 said:
I don't really see the fallacy.

If you're going to go forward with the argument that if you don't want the Feds to stop the states from doing x than you obviously support x, why doesn't it apply across national lines as well?
Click to expand...
No. Sure, that's a fallacy, too. I'm not sure, that's what TF said though.
 
Random fact of the day, the meaning of the word filibuster comes from old English pirating and privateering. It used to mean to raid and the French and English devolved its origins into what we know as a filibuster today.

Certainly Wendy isn't a pirate - But the bravado pirates once used to scare off their enemies certainly hasn't changed that much :p
 
metatron said:
No. Sure, that's a fallacy, too. I'm not sure, that's what TF said though.
Click to expand...

I'm honestly not sure what fallacy you're talking about.

TF said that if I'm not supportive of the Federal Government preventing a state from doing something, that I automatically therefore support what that state does.

Which is ridiculous.
 
GhostWriter16 said:
Wouldn't the cloture vote still FAIL, though?
Click to expand...

If only one person is actively filibustering, then maybe not. Depends on the level of support behind the scenes.

Gucumatz said:
Random fact of the day, the meaning of the word filibuster comes from old English pirating and privateering. It used to mean to raid and the French and English devolved its origins into what we know as a filibuster today.

Certainly Wendy isn't a pirate - But the bravado pirates once used to scare off their enemies certainly hasn't changed that much :p
Click to expand...

I like the mid-19th century use of invading a foreign country (usually in Latin America) with a private army and establishing your own little dictatorship.
 
Well perhaps we should try the 19th century method of ending filibusters, send'em to Honduras
 
GhostWriter16 said:
I'm honestly not sure what fallacy you're talking about.

TF said that if I'm not supportive of the Federal Government preventing a state from doing something, that I automatically therefore support what that state does.

Which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You could be in favor of the state being prevented from doing that but feel it should be prevented in some other way.

In practical terms these third alternative are somewhat hard to come by in your case, simply as a result of the specific context (how the US are set up, geopolitical circumstances).

The alternatives are easier to see in your Iraq example. There are countless alternatives to the dichotomy you tried to contruct. For example someone else could have pressured, forced or bribed Saddam Hussein into whatever you want him to do exactly.

It's hard to see how, say China could have such an effect on say Alabama. Even though it's not inconcievable, after all they allegedly had this business with a foreign car manufacturer about the rebel flag on their capitol. So it's not entirely for them to be bullied or bribed by say China into not disenfrenchising African Americans.

I am still not sure ithis is applicable to what TF wrote.
 
Listen you can rationalize it all you want, if you support not stopping something going on within your own country, you are, to a degree, supporting the action.
 
kramerfan86 said:
Listen you can rationalize it all you want, if you support not stopping something going on within your own countryworld, you are, to a degree, supporting the action.
Click to expand...

I admire Metatron's efforts, but I still don't really understand the difference.

I value state sovereignty and thing getting the Feds involved makes things worse, much like I think getting involved at the International level makes things worse.

I don't condone something just because I don't want exterior force to be used to stop it.

If its outside my state, it is not my concern, unless I decide personally that it is. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction except in those few areas the constitution allows.
 
Well fortunately the supreme court regularly disagrees with your mindset because your dream nation would be a horrorshow and rather weak strength wise. What rubbish supporting/condoning the idea of states bullying minority groups.
 
kramerfan86 said:
Well fortunately the supreme court regularly disagrees with your mindset because your dream nation would be a horrorshow and rather weak strength wise. What rubbish supporting/condoning the idea of states bullying minority groups.
Click to expand...

No in Dommy's mind minority groups will have both guns and the right to legal secession.

Muslims want there own independent state ? DONE
Mormons want there own independent state ? DONE
African Americans want there own independent state ? DONE
Native Americans want there own independent state ? DONE
Alaska wants to secede from the Union ? DONE
Texas wants to control the USA government by creating 5000 independent Texas states ? DONE
 
I just watched the final 20 minutes of the parliamentary questions and then the vote.

Only one question: did Texas Republicans just have their California moment?
 
Well :
At least two fire bombs were thrown at the Fort Worth office of state Sen. Wendy Davis (D) on Tuesday night, according to the Star Telegram.

Davis was not in her office at the time, but some staff members were present. They used a fire extinguisher to put out the small blaze.

No one was injured in the attack, but the lawmaker’s office was damaged by the fire.

“It’s unfortunate when things like this happen in the public arena,” she said. “It reminds us of how important it is for us to remain very civil in our discourse and to work not to foment this kind of anger in our community as we discuss things that are challenges that we all face and care about.”

Anthony Spangler, Davis’ communications director, said he had no idea what motivated the attack.

“We have an office that’s open to the public all the time, and so we’re always potentially vulnerable to things like this. We’re thankful that no one was injured. We hope that the investigation is concluded quickly and that they identify the suspect.”

A maintenance worker pursued the suspect out of the building, but was unable to catch him.

Davis is a first-term senator who beat a Republican incumbent in 2008. She had been locked in a court battle over redistricting.

“Thank you all for your expressions of support and concern,” she said on Twitter after the attack. “My team and I are concentrating on moving forward and staying focused.”
Click to expand...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/...ic-state-senator-wendy-davis-office-in-texas/
 
If the anarchist and civil rights movements have taught us anything, the people throwing the bombs usually lose the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom