• Old Gold: Ted Cruz reads Green Eggs and Ham
    29 replies, posted
[video=youtube;0-4FQAov2xI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-4FQAov2xI[/video] This was during a filibuster speech.
He's lost it
:snip:
what a fucking slimeball
[QUOTE=J!NX;50031062]He's lost it[/QUOTE] can't lose what you never had
[QUOTE=NixNax123;50031182]can't lose what you never had[/QUOTE] you got me
A reminder that Bernie did an 8.5hr fillibuster where he stayed on topic the entire time and provided charts and graphs relevant to the actual point.
If I was in congress, I can doodle during filibusters?
[QUOTE=Ithon;50031594]If I was in congress, I can doodle during filibusters?[/QUOTE] The key is that you must be generating some sort of content that is vocal and continuous to delay the action you are trying to prevent unless you are overridden by a 2/3rds vote.
[QUOTE=Aztec;50031589]A reminder that Bernie did an 8.5hr fillibuster where he stayed on topic the entire time and provided charts and graphs relevant to the actual point.[/QUOTE] Socialist spends nearly 9 hours wasting taxpayer money to rant about the benefits of Marxism. presumably being the Fox News headline.
[QUOTE=Aztec;50031589]A reminder that Bernie did an 8.5hr fillibuster where he stayed on topic the entire time and provided charts and graphs relevant to the actual point.[/QUOTE] As if it matters at all. A filibuster is a filibuster and it's purpose is not to educated anyone.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50031740]As if it matters at all. A filibuster is a filibuster and it's purpose is not to educated anyone.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry you feel that way about filibusters.
[QUOTE=Aztec;50031757]I'm sorry you feel that way about filibusters.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry that you fell for Sander's rhetoric of pretending to make more out of filibuster than it really is.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50031850]I'm sorry that you fell for Sander's rhetoric of pretending to make more out of filibuster than it really is.[/QUOTE] That's okay, I don't mind you having a different opinion than me.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50031740]As if it matters at all. A filibuster is a filibuster and it's purpose is not to educated anyone.[/QUOTE] Indeed, and even though he knew this, he still remained on topic for almost 9 hours. The fact that it doesn't really matter is what makes it all the more genuine on his part.
I just want someone to filibuster by reading erotica. Can you imagine someone having the balls to read something like 50 shades of grey on the floor?
What the fuck is a fillibuster :v:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/mGlncDi.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=sgman91;50031740]As if it matters at all. A filibuster is a filibuster and it's purpose is not to educated anyone.[/QUOTE] And he still volunteered to stay on topic for 9 hours? Woah.
I always imagined if I was a Senator doing a filibuster I would read Halo: The Fall of Reach Then the audience would at least be entertained.
[QUOTE=BananaMed;50032163]What the fuck is a fillibuster :v:[/QUOTE] In the US Senate, you can literally talk a bill to death. You are allotted a certain amount of time to process the bill, and without a 60% majority vote, a speaker cannot be stopped from babbling, incoherently or otherwise. The idea is that it gives underrepresented groups the power to say "No, fuck you, this isn't acceptable." Remember, the senate is 2 senators per state. The house has representatives based on the population of a state. This gives considerably more power to small states than they otherwise would have. If it's actually good legislation, one or two people opposing it cannot stopped a bill from being shoved through, but if more than a handful is apathetic, or has even minor problems with a bill, it has the potential to die on the spot. The drawback is that when there's splits of power, any piece of remotely controversial legislation goes positively nowhere.
To put it into perspective though, the idea of a filibuster has its place in the Roman Republic Senate and is very much an extension of Roman Republic ideals. It's not just a quirky American thing.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50032282]And he still volunteered to stay on topic for 9 hours? Woah.[/QUOTE] You say as if him wasting his own time for zero reason is laudable.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50035942]You say as if him wasting his own time for zero reason is laughable.[/QUOTE] When you say wasting his own time and zero reason that is obviously a pretty heavily subjective point of view that won't really get you anywhere considering the majority of people who were against the bush tax cuts extensions would say that he both didn't waste his own time and also did have a reason. Again though, whether you think that is true or not is your own belief but you aren't going to get very far pressing the rest of us to think you are right on that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50035942]You say as if him wasting his own time for zero reason is laughable.[/QUOTE] Filibusters exist so you can try and convince people your view on the matter. He wasn't really wasting his time.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;50036222]Filibusters exist so you can try and convince people your view on the matter. He wasn't really wasting his time.[/QUOTE] This is important when you consider that because he stayed on topic for the entirety of his filibuster, there is a record on video of 8.5 hours of arguments against the bush era tax cuts that at the time stirred up the conversation quite a bit. That is why it was very respectable for him to stay on topic and why it's a great example of the filibuster being used effectively versus Ted Cruz wasting everyone's time by reading green eggs and ham. To be fair if I recall correctly Ted did stay on topic for a lot of his filibuster but clearly he ran out of content and began spouting gibberish like this, which doesn't help propel the conversation any further, and just makes you look like a dork.
[QUOTE=Aztec;50036214]When you say wasting his own time and zero reason that is obviously a pretty heavily subjective point of view that won't really get you anywhere considering the majority of people who were against the bush tax cuts extensions would say that he both didn't waste his own time and also did have a reason. Again though, whether you think that is true or not is your own belief but you aren't going to get very far pressing the rest of us to think you are right on that.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying the filibuster was a waste. I'm saying his putting effort into the filibuster was a waste. If someone wants to filibuster, then go ahead. It's their right as a senator, but let's not try and pretend that it's more than an attempt to unilaterally defeat a bill.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50036552]I'm not saying the filibuster was a waste. I'm saying his putting effort into the filibuster was a waste. If someone wants to filibuster, then go ahead. It's their right as a senator, but let's not try and pretend that it's more than an attempt to unilaterally defeat a bill.[/QUOTE] That is the issue though, this is your point of view. I think it's completely wrong. The point of the filibuster is to stall time for discussion. I view using this time to discuss (keep in mind that during a filibuster other members of the senate can talk as well) the issue makes a lot of sense.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50036552]I'm not saying the filibuster was a waste. I'm saying his putting effort into the filibuster was a waste. If someone wants to filibuster, then go ahead. It's their right as a senator, but let's not try and pretend that it's more than an attempt to unilaterally defeat a bill.[/QUOTE] Yeah putting his heart and soul into opposing something that he thinks is wrong, what a waste!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.