[Zell]

Yep, this is apparently what our government has turned into. Imagine if our founding fathers were this childish during the Declaration of Independence or the writing of the Constitution.

[EDK99]

The last few seconds sums it up.

"Lets let the discussion go forward. It is not hurting anything and there is no advantage being achieved by making all this fuss."

Basically if you oppose government run health care shut the hell up so we can pass this crap.

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by EK_335i

Basically if you oppose government run health care shut the hell up so we can pass this crap.

Bingo! Thats exactly what I see happening there.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by EK_335i

The last few seconds sums it up.

"Lets let the discussion go forward. It is not hurting anything and there is no advantage being achieved by making all this fuss."

Basically if you oppose government run health care shut the hell up so we can pass this crap.

So you approve of not letting the side that supports it get a word in edge wise? They can oppose it all they want. But, they did not have the floor. Let the supporters speak and then object to what they said. Not what they can't say. All the supporters could say was, " The" before the opposition started going, " I object!"

It's not an issue of shutting up the opposition's opinion. It is an issue of them being completely immature about it. It sounded like 5 year olds going, " lalalalalala I can't hear you!" when you're trying to talk to them, but they don't want to hear it. These are grown men and women. Try to be civil. Let the other side finish and then voice your opinion.

[lib]

It's not just us... Legislative bodies around the world are all insane.




I still swear the British House of Commons has a 2 drink minimum:

[Zell]

Originally Posted by EK_335i

"Lets let the discussion go forward. It is not hurting anything and there is no advantage being achieved by making all this fuss."

Basically if you oppose government run health care shut the hell up so we can pass this crap.

How are you getting that interpretation out of this? That's not what they're saying. They're saying let both parties speak. One side is being childish and sounds like a stubborn mule during the time that the other side is trying to speak their views. If they have a legitimate objection, then they should state it. But it's obvious in this clip that they are just simply trying to drown out the other party entirely.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by Zell

How are you getting that interpretation out of this? That's not what they're saying. They're saying let both parties speak. One side is being childish and sounds like a stubborn mule during the time that the other side is trying to speak their views. If they have a legitimate objection, then they should state it. But it's obvious in this clip that they are just simply trying to drown out the other party entirely.

I am afraid that you do not understand the rules of the House. Each of the Democrats in the video is asking for unanimous consent, every time such a request is made, the Republican objects. Under the rules there is no requirement to state the objection but simply to object. If the Democrat did not ask for such unanimous consent, the Republicans could not object. The Democrats were capable of making their statements without interruption if they were willing to do so without being able to go back and edit what they said on the floor in the Congressional Record.

[Zell]

Originally Posted by Bryan0102

filibusters have been going on for how long now?

Dummy, they pretty much ended in 1917. Great little thing called cloture.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by Zell

Dummy, they pretty much ended in 1917. Great little thing called cloture.

Senate filibusters still exist, and they happen ALL THE TIME! Where have you been? Senate rules were adopted in 1917 that added the Cloture option at 2/3rds majority, which was later revised to 3/5ths. Filibusters haven't existed in the House since 1846 (I believe...)

Between 1999 and 2007, the number of Senate filibusters varied between 20 and 37 per session, a bipartisan effort.

Source: http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/200...flicted-wound/

Cloture requires 60 votes in the Senate, so if you only get 59 to end debate (cloture), then the filibuster continues. That is why the Democrats were so happy to theoretically get their 60 votes in the Senate (assuming no dissenters and that the two Indy's would caucus with the Dems.)


Oh, and here is the procedure for the House's Unanimous Consent:

Unanimous Consent
For some noncontroversial matters, the Speaker will recognize a Member to ask for
unanimous consent that a measure be passed. If any Member objects to the request, the measure will fail to pass. In this circumstance, no formal debate can take place, but Members may sometimes reserve the right to object in order to clarify the content or purposes of a measure. Unanimous consent requests can also be made to provide for consideration of a measure, although this is rare. The request may designate a procedure under which debate may take place and amendments may be offered. Typically, the Speaker will not recognize a Member to make a unanimous consent request unless it has been cleared by both the majority and minority.

I noted a particular sentence of interest. So by invoking the rules, he is somehow being childish? It clearly states that any member objecting means it fails. Once it fails, there is absolutely no reason to keep reading, or to continue asking for the Unanimous Consent for that particular item.

Source: http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/RS20067.pdf

[InsaneSkippy]

Once again the crazy right is acting like a bunch of kids who got bullied in school.

They've shown that they deserve no respect and are not willing to have a logical debate. They're acting like 12 year olds.