Home› A Moving Train

NUKE THE FILIBUSTER

Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 39,035
edited March 2021 in A Moving Train
Nuke the fillibuster. Fuck Moscow Mitchy. He’s done having been re-elected and serving his final Putin term, granted, six years is a long time.

And, and, and remember that the record holder for filibustering was the father of a daughter he never publicly acknowledged during his life. Yea, good enough to fuck but not good enough to exist. Or vote.

Nuke the filibuster and ram shit through. And WV and Joey? Fuck him too (but shhh, not yet, he’s going repub soon enough)
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

Brilliantati©
Post edited by Kat on
«1

Comments

  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,042
    Fuke the Nillabuster! Right on, bro!
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • dankinddankind Posts: 20,839
    No Nukes!



    By the way, who gave this poster the greenlight? Fuck actual the what!?!
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 39,035
    dankind said:
    No Nukes!



    By the way, who gave this poster the greenlight? Fuck actual the what!?!
    Have a concern about great music? Or was it the poster art? Swampscunt got you down?

    By the way, “Ronny and Bonzo say nuke them till they glow.”
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • ymalkielymalkiel Posts: 129
    The evidence that the filibuster must go is that the constitution provides for the Vice President to be the tie breaker in the Senate. As in breaking a tied vote. As in a 50-50 vote. If bills had to pass by a vote of 60-40, there would be no need for a tie breaker.
    ✌🏼❤️
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 39,035
    “Evidence?”
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • ymalkielymalkiel Posts: 129
    edited March 2021
    ev·i·dence
    /ˈevədəns/
    noun

    the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
    ✌🏼❤️
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain Posts: 31,271
    Your point is not evidential.
    I'm sure he knows what the word evidence means.

    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • ymalkielymalkiel Posts: 129
    Then I’m confused. Why is presenting a fact to support the proposition of ending the filibuster not evidence?
    ✌🏼❤️
  • dankinddankind Posts: 20,839
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    dankind said:
    No Nukes!



    By the way, who gave this poster the greenlight? Fuck actual the what!?!
    Have a concern about great music? Or was it the poster art? Swampscunt got you down?

    By the way, “Ronny and Bonzo say nuke them till they glow.”
    From my interpretation, the art is antithetical to the concert’s purpose. 
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 11,451
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    dankind said:
    No Nukes!



    By the way, who gave this poster the greenlight? Fuck actual the what!?!
    Have a concern about great music? Or was it the poster art? Swampscunt got you down?

    By the way, “Ronny and Bonzo say nuke them till they glow.”
    lol
  • static111static111 Posts: 4,889
    But but but we have a system of coequal branches of government that works just as intended by the constitution and the really great amazing founding fathers who all had no flaws.
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain Posts: 31,271
    ymalkiel said:
    Then I’m confused. Why is presenting a fact to support the proposition of ending the filibuster not evidence?
    Here is what you shared:
    The evidence that the filibuster must go is that the constitution provides for the Vice President to be the tie breaker in the Senate. As in breaking a tied vote. As in a 50-50 vote. If bills had to pass by a vote of 60-40, there would be no need for a tie breaker.

    How is that evidentiary?
    That there is the "nuclear option" which would allow the Senate to bypass the standing rules (60-40) and that the VP could break a 50-50 tie does not seem to be evidence of anything, other than the fact that the "nuclear option" would be able to provide a definitive result on a vote.

    How does that provide evidence that it must go?
    If there is a workable option for anything, in the governmental process, is that then evidence that the existing process must cede to the workable option?

    This does not make sense to me.
    Perhaps you meant something else -- I was only reading what you wrote and the understanding provided by the words used.


    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • dankinddankind Posts: 20,839
    F Me In The Brain said:
    ymalkiel said:
    Then I’m confused. Why is presenting a fact to support the proposition of ending the filibuster not evidence?
    Here is what you shared:
    The evidence that the filibuster must go is that the constitution provides for the Vice President to be the tie breaker in the Senate. As in breaking a tied vote. As in a 50-50 vote. If bills had to pass by a vote of 60-40, there would be no need for a tie breaker.

    How is that evidentiary?
    That there is the "nuclear option" which would allow the Senate to bypass the standing rules (60-40) and that the VP could break a 50-50 tie does not seem to be evidence of anything, other than the fact that the "nuclear option" would be able to provide a definitive result on a vote.

    How does that provide evidence that it must go?
    If there is a workable option for anything, in the governmental process, is that then evidence that the existing process must cede to the workable option?

    This does not make sense to me.
    Perhaps you meant something else -- I was only reading what you wrote and the understanding provided by the words used.


    Perhaps precedent would've been a better word, from a legislative standpoint, though still not quite correct.

    Anyway, I get what ymalkiel is trying to say. Basically, the constitution stipulates 51-50, which later legislative bodies then revised to 60-40.

    This is just one of those cases in which folks will find themselves on the the side of the framers when it serves their interests. When the constitution does not serve their interest, of course, then it is an ancient document written by white supremacist goons. 

    I tend to always agree with the latter and think the whole fucking thing should be revised every 10 years or so with the census.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • static111static111 Posts: 4,889
    dankind said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    ymalkiel said:
    Then I’m confused. Why is presenting a fact to support the proposition of ending the filibuster not evidence?
    Here is what you shared:
    The evidence that the filibuster must go is that the constitution provides for the Vice President to be the tie breaker in the Senate. As in breaking a tied vote. As in a 50-50 vote. If bills had to pass by a vote of 60-40, there would be no need for a tie breaker.

    How is that evidentiary?
    That there is the "nuclear option" which would allow the Senate to bypass the standing rules (60-40) and that the VP could break a 50-50 tie does not seem to be evidence of anything, other than the fact that the "nuclear option" would be able to provide a definitive result on a vote.

    How does that provide evidence that it must go?
    If there is a workable option for anything, in the governmental process, is that then evidence that the existing process must cede to the workable option?

    This does not make sense to me.
    Perhaps you meant something else -- I was only reading what you wrote and the understanding provided by the words used.


    Perhaps precedent would've been a better word, from a legislative standpoint, though still not quite correct.

    Anyway, I get what ymalkiel is trying to say. Basically, the constitution stipulates 51-50, which later legislative bodies then revised to 60-40.

    This is just one of those cases in which folks will find themselves on the the side of the framers when it serves their interests. When the constitution does not serve their interest, of course, then it is an ancient document written by white supremacist goons. 

    I tend to always agree with the latter and think the whole fucking thing should be revised every 10 years or so with the census.
    It’s always an ancient document written by white supremacist goons.
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    filibuster has to go, but the dems lack the spine to go through with getting rid of it.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain Posts: 31,271
    dankind said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    ymalkiel said:
    Then I’m confused. Why is presenting a fact to support the proposition of ending the filibuster not evidence?
    Here is what you shared:
    The evidence that the filibuster must go is that the constitution provides for the Vice President to be the tie breaker in the Senate. As in breaking a tied vote. As in a 50-50 vote. If bills had to pass by a vote of 60-40, there would be no need for a tie breaker.

    How is that evidentiary?
    That there is the "nuclear option" which would allow the Senate to bypass the standing rules (60-40) and that the VP could break a 50-50 tie does not seem to be evidence of anything, other than the fact that the "nuclear option" would be able to provide a definitive result on a vote.

    How does that provide evidence that it must go?
    If there is a workable option for anything, in the governmental process, is that then evidence that the existing process must cede to the workable option?

    This does not make sense to me.
    Perhaps you meant something else -- I was only reading what you wrote and the understanding provided by the words used.


    Perhaps precedent would've been a better word, from a legislative standpoint, though still not quite correct.

    Anyway, I get what ymalkiel is trying to say. Basically, the constitution stipulates 51-50, which later legislative bodies then revised to 60-40.

    This is just one of those cases in which folks will find themselves on the the side of the framers when it serves their interests. When the constitution does not serve their interest, of course, then it is an ancient document written by white supremacist goons. 

    I tend to always agree with the latter and think the whole fucking thing should be revised every 10 years or so with the census.
    Fair enough. 
    Was more just responding to the wise ass listing of a definition to a word that everybody should know the definition to VS explaining what was meant by the post.


    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,042
    I agree, like daylight savings, alarm clocks, and annoying music in the grocery store, the filibuster has to go.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 29,567
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    filibuster has to go, but the dems lack the spine to go through with getting rid of it.
    Totally true after all the bullshit Moscow Mitch has rammed through with no regards to any opposition it’s unreal that the Democrats are showing up to a gun fight with a knife..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • static111static111 Posts: 4,889
    Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    static111 said:
    Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system
    the filibuster is not in the constitution...

    the way our government functions now with minority in the senate controlling everything is not the way the government was designed.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • static111static111 Posts: 4,889
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    static111 said:
    Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system
    the filibuster is not in the constitution...

    the way our government functions now with minority in the senate controlling everything is not the way the government was designed.
    🛫🤷‍♂️🛬
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • static111static111 Posts: 4,889
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    static111 said:
    Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system
    the filibuster is not in the constitution...

    the way our government functions now with minority in the senate controlling everything is not the way the government was designed.
    I know.  That was the argument that was given to me on this board many times when I was crying about electoral politics during the presidential election.  And I used the same argument about how nowhere in the constitution is there mention of democrats or republicans or a two party system.  Yes the filibuster is a racist tool of white supremacy.  And needs to go.  Please excuse my earlier sarcasm
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 40,355
    static111 said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    static111 said:
    Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system
    the filibuster is not in the constitution...

    the way our government functions now with minority in the senate controlling everything is not the way the government was designed.
    I know.  That was the argument that was given to me on this board many times when I was crying about electoral politics during the presidential election.  And I used the same argument about how nowhere in the constitution is there mention of democrats or republicans or a two party system.  Yes the filibuster is a racist tool of white supremacy.  And needs to go.  Please excuse my earlier sarcasm
    Fillibuster racist?  It's a means of blocking a bill from being passed or counted, not sure how it's racist?  Or is it because of everything else mentioned in the proposed bill?

    Asking a question.

    Also if the fillibuster goes you'll have Mitch on record stating that he would make things very difficult for anything to go through by the opposition.  He means what he says.  He'd screw up something that he wrote even if the dems supported it, he is that vengeful. I'm shocked he said that out in public and people will still vote for him?  It really is party first and country second.

  • dankinddankind Posts: 20,839
    tempo_n_groove said:
    static111 said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    static111 said:
    Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system
    the filibuster is not in the constitution...

    the way our government functions now with minority in the senate controlling everything is not the way the government was designed.
    I know.  That was the argument that was given to me on this board many times when I was crying about electoral politics during the presidential election.  And I used the same argument about how nowhere in the constitution is there mention of democrats or republicans or a two party system.  Yes the filibuster is a racist tool of white supremacy.  And needs to go.  Please excuse my earlier sarcasm
    Fillibuster racist?  It's a means of blocking a bill from being passed or counted, not sure how it's racist?  Or is it because of everything else mentioned in the proposed bill?

    Asking a question.

    Also if the fillibuster goes you'll have Mitch on record stating that he would make things very difficult for anything to go through by the opposition.  He means what he says.  He'd screw up something that he wrote even if the dems supported it, he is that vengeful. I'm shocked he said that out in public and people will still vote for him?  It really is party first and country second.

    "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
    --Mitch McConnell

    A leopard can't change its spots.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 40,355
    dankind said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    static111 said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    static111 said:
    Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system
    the filibuster is not in the constitution...

    the way our government functions now with minority in the senate controlling everything is not the way the government was designed.
    I know.  That was the argument that was given to me on this board many times when I was crying about electoral politics during the presidential election.  And I used the same argument about how nowhere in the constitution is there mention of democrats or republicans or a two party system.  Yes the filibuster is a racist tool of white supremacy.  And needs to go.  Please excuse my earlier sarcasm
    Fillibuster racist?  It's a means of blocking a bill from being passed or counted, not sure how it's racist?  Or is it because of everything else mentioned in the proposed bill?

    Asking a question.

    Also if the fillibuster goes you'll have Mitch on record stating that he would make things very difficult for anything to go through by the opposition.  He means what he says.  He'd screw up something that he wrote even if the dems supported it, he is that vengeful. I'm shocked he said that out in public and people will still vote for him?  It really is party first and country second.

    "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
    --Mitch McConnell

    A leopard can't change its spots.
    Filibuster has been around wayyyyy longer than Mitch or Obama.  James Stewart was talking about this in a damn movie in 1939 and it was around before then.

    I would say that the comment was meant to eliminate a dem from office rather than because he was black but eh, I don't think everyone is a racist.
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 11,451
    tempo_n_groove said:
    dankind said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    static111 said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    static111 said:
    Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system
    the filibuster is not in the constitution...

    the way our government functions now with minority in the senate controlling everything is not the way the government was designed.
    I know.  That was the argument that was given to me on this board many times when I was crying about electoral politics during the presidential election.  And I used the same argument about how nowhere in the constitution is there mention of democrats or republicans or a two party system.  Yes the filibuster is a racist tool of white supremacy.  And needs to go.  Please excuse my earlier sarcasm
    Fillibuster racist?  It's a means of blocking a bill from being passed or counted, not sure how it's racist?  Or is it because of everything else mentioned in the proposed bill?

    Asking a question.

    Also if the fillibuster goes you'll have Mitch on record stating that he would make things very difficult for anything to go through by the opposition.  He means what he says.  He'd screw up something that he wrote even if the dems supported it, he is that vengeful. I'm shocked he said that out in public and people will still vote for him?  It really is party first and country second.

    "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
    --Mitch McConnell

    A leopard can't change its spots.
    Filibuster has been around wayyyyy longer than Mitch or Obama.  James Stewart was talking about this in a damn movie in 1939 and it was around before then.

    I would say that the comment was meant to eliminate a dem from office rather than because he was black but eh, I don't think everyone is a racist.
    The filibuster wasn’t always racist. But it has been used over the years to suppress civil rights. 

  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 40,355
    Merkin Baller said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    dankind said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    static111 said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    static111 said:
    Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system
    the filibuster is not in the constitution...

    the way our government functions now with minority in the senate controlling everything is not the way the government was designed.
    I know.  That was the argument that was given to me on this board many times when I was crying about electoral politics during the presidential election.  And I used the same argument about how nowhere in the constitution is there mention of democrats or republicans or a two party system.  Yes the filibuster is a racist tool of white supremacy.  And needs to go.  Please excuse my earlier sarcasm
    Fillibuster racist?  It's a means of blocking a bill from being passed or counted, not sure how it's racist?  Or is it because of everything else mentioned in the proposed bill?

    Asking a question.

    Also if the fillibuster goes you'll have Mitch on record stating that he would make things very difficult for anything to go through by the opposition.  He means what he says.  He'd screw up something that he wrote even if the dems supported it, he is that vengeful. I'm shocked he said that out in public and people will still vote for him?  It really is party first and country second.

    "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
    --Mitch McConnell

    A leopard can't change its spots.
    Filibuster has been around wayyyyy longer than Mitch or Obama.  James Stewart was talking about this in a damn movie in 1939 and it was around before then.

    I would say that the comment was meant to eliminate a dem from office rather than because he was black but eh, I don't think everyone is a racist.
    The filibuster wasn’t always racist. But it has been used over the years to suppress civil rights. 

    Strom Thurmond did a doozy with a filibuster at one time too.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 39,035
    Strom Thurmond also did a doozy with his black house keeper, having a child that he never publicly acknowledge while alive. Nice family values kind of guy, that Strom.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 11,451
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Strom Thurmond also did a doozy with his black house keeper, having a child that he never publicly acknowledge while alive. Nice family values kind of guy, that Strom.
    That’s the GOP for ya. 
  • static111static111 Posts: 4,889
    edited March 2021
    tempo_n_groove said:
    static111 said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    static111 said:
    Come on guys what about the coequal branches and the separation of powers and the government working exactly as designed within our two party system
    the filibuster is not in the constitution...

    the way our government functions now with minority in the senate controlling everything is not the way the government was designed.
    I know.  That was the argument that was given to me on this board many times when I was crying about electoral politics during the presidential election.  And I used the same argument about how nowhere in the constitution is there mention of democrats or republicans or a two party system.  Yes the filibuster is a racist tool of white supremacy.  And needs to go.  Please excuse my earlier sarcasm
    Fillibuster racist?  It's a means of blocking a bill from being passed or counted, not sure how it's racist?  Or is it because of everything else mentioned in the proposed bill?

    Asking a question.

    Also if the fillibuster goes you'll have Mitch on record stating that he would make things very difficult for anything to go through by the opposition.  He means what he says.  He'd screw up something that he wrote even if the dems supported it, he is that vengeful. I'm shocked he said that out in public and people will still vote for him?  It really is party first and country second.

    Being a product of American democracy designed by wealthy white men trying to evade taxes and make their livings off the backs of people with different colored skin makes it as inherently racist as any part of our government I guess.   While it may not be an exclusively racist tactic it has certainly been used a majority of the time to block progress and civil rights legislation.
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Sign In or Register to comment.