The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

/obvious
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4189		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Aizle [ Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  /obvious
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/0 ... l?hpt=Sbin

Quote:
Lady Gaga to lead rally against military's 'don't ask, don't tell'

Washington (CNN) -- Pop star Lady Gaga will headline a rally in Portland, Maine, on Monday calling on the state's two Republican senators to vote yes on taking up a defense bill that includes authorization to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gay and lesbian servicemembers.

A crucial Senate vote is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, and supporters of the repeal say that as of now, they do not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster blocking the bill.

Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are publicly undecided, and could each potentially provide Democrats the votes they need to bring the issue before the Senate.

Lady Gaga's rally is being organized by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a gay rights group mobilizing grassroots support to repeal the controversial policy. The organization also helped the singer set up a lengthy YouTube video posted Friday urging her fans to call their senators and ask them to support Tuesday's procedural vote.

The singer sent word of the planned rally via twitter Sunday night.

A spokesman for SLDN says Gaga will be accompanied at Monday's rally by both gay and straight military veterans. Both of Maine's GOP senators have been generally supportive of the gay rights community, and this issue in particular.


So many stereotypes, so little time.
Author:  Ladas [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:15 am ]
Post subject: 
Too bad the support they seek also includes voting a bill that has been packed with other controversial proposals.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:55 am ]
Post subject: 
why is it being filibustered? what's the issue there? is it that it's full of other crap? I hate that ****.
Author:  Khross [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: /obvious
Because the filibuster is a procedural requirement, and a passed cloture motion is needed for any bill or legislation brought before general floor debate?
Author:  RangerDave [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Ladas wrote:
Too bad the support they seek also includes voting a bill that has been packed with other controversial proposals.

It'd take a lot to convince me that the threatened filibuster is honestly about anything besides DADT. We're heading into a mid-term election, and this is a do-or-die wedge issue for many conservative activists. I'm sure the Republicans figure that if they let it go through without maximum opposition, the base will make them pay for it. Any other rationales are just to provide plausible deniability for moderate/independent voters.
Author:  Khross [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: /obvious
Wow, so apparently I need to post Senate Rule #22 ... again ... and explain it, because people are still operating under the delusion that a filibuster is voluntarily invoked. This baffles me, since the Democrats were the party that changed the rule in the Fifties ...

You guys do understand that if a piece of legislation is opened to floor debate it is BY DEFAULT already in filibuster right? That a cloture motion MUST (as in mandatory, obligatory, required) pass before it can be put to a passage vote? That all this hemming and hawing about the filibuster for the last 4 years is bloody nonsense?
Author:  Hopwin [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
I thought the reason for the filibuster was because they were not provided the opportunity to attach their own amendments (pork).
Author:  Vindicarre [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
RangerDave wrote:
Ladas wrote:
Too bad the support they seek also includes voting a bill that has been packed with other controversial proposals.

It'd take a lot to convince me that the threatened filibuster is honestly about anything besides DADT.


Really? It couldn't be about the backdoor amnesty bill, AKA the DREAM Act?
Or, the simple fact that there are extraneous bills are attached to a Defense Appropriations Bill?
Author:  Ladas [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
RangerDave wrote:
Ladas wrote:
Too bad the support they seek also includes voting a bill that has been packed with other controversial proposals.

It'd take a lot to convince me that the threatened filibuster is honestly about anything besides DADT. We're heading into a mid-term election, and this is a do-or-die wedge issue for many conservative activists. I'm sure the Republicans figure that if they let it go through without maximum opposition, the base will make them pay for it. Any other rationales are just to provide plausible deniability for moderate/independent voters.

As Vindicarre pointed out, there is also the DREAM Act that Reid attached in an attempt to garner votes in his tight race, and there is also an attachment that would make it legal for federal hospitals to offer abortions, primarily at defense bases.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: /obvious
Khross wrote:
Wow, so apparently I need to post Senate Rule #22 ... again ... and explain it, because people are still operating under the delusion that a filibuster is voluntarily invoked. This baffles me, since the Democrats were the party that changed the rule in the Fifties ...

You guys do understand that if a piece of legislation is opened to floor debate it is BY DEFAULT already in filibuster right? That a cloture motion MUST (as in mandatory, obligatory, required) pass before it can be put to a passage vote? That all this hemming and hawing about the filibuster for the last 4 years is bloody nonsense?


You do know that a filibuster is intentionally keeping that vote for cloture from going through, right? The prevention of the standard cloture procedure is therefore a voluntary act? That, in General, everyone understands the Senate rules but understands what everyone really means when they discuss "filibuster"?
Author:  Khross [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: /obvious
Arathain:

Except they don't, because an actual filibuster, in the sense you are using it, requires an endless debate on the subject: hence all the "legends" of Strom Thurmond reading the NY City metro white pages on the Senate floor for days on end. After all, if the contents of the bill are still under argument, then debate isn't actually over and a cloture motion fails its primary test for occurrence.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: /obvious
Khross wrote:
Arathain:

Except they don't, because an actual filibuster, in the sense you are using it, requires an endless debate on the subject: hence all the "legends" of Strom Thurmond reading the NY City metro white pages on the Senate floor for days on end.


No, it doesn't anymore. The rules have changed. Everyone knows what is meant by "filibuster", under current rules.
Author:  Khross [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: /obvious
Arathain:

Except, you continue to demonstrate you don't understand the filibuster at all. At what point is continuing debate on legislation inundated with controversial and objectionable provisions a filibuster? At what point is voting "no" on a cloture motion when the legislation at hand has not been resolved or finalized a "filibuster", because that's exactly what you're arguing.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: /obvious
Khross wrote:
Arathain:

Except, you continue to demonstrate you don't understand the filibuster at all. At what point is continuing debate on legislation inundated with controversial and objectionable provisions a filibuster? At what point is voting "no" on a cloture motion when the legislation at hand has not been resolved or finalized a "filibuster", because that's exactly what you're arguing.


A filibuster is widely understood to be the intentional obstruction of legislation by organizing to prevent the passage of cloture. It is an intentional act. This is why you no longer hear "so and so filibustered", and instead you hear "GOP filibuster". Because it requires them to organize to keep 60 people from voting for cloture.

Your usage of "filibuster" is outdated man. Keep up with the times.
Author:  RangerDave [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Khross, when a bill has majority support, Senators who oppose it can and do use procedural mechanisms (e.g. cloture votes) requiring super-majority support to prevent that bill from proceeding to a final up-or-down vote. Whether or not that's technically a "filibuster" seems kind of beside the point to me.
Author:  Khross [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: /obvious
RangerDave:

Except, denying a cloture motion is not a filibuster; using the terms interchangeably is both dishonest and politically motivated.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: /obvious
Khross wrote:
RangerDave:

Except, denying a cloture motion is not a filibuster; using the terms interchangeably is both dishonest and politically motivated.


Except, it's not. One guy still wanting to debate the subject and voting against cloture is not a filibuster, nor does anyone call it that. People use it to refer to the organized decision to try to obstruct the legislation by collecting 41 senators to vote against cloture.

It's not dishonest, it's not politically motivated. When used in that sense, it's the updated functional use of the term. You're using the old meaning.

You're a dinosaur living in a mammal's world. ;)
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/