'The Democratic Party and Blanche Lincoln'

[NickCole]

Cloture is not used to end every debate.

Of course not. Never said otherwise.

There were 30 cloture votes from 1949 to 1970. Are we to believe that there were only 30 debates in the Senate during that time?

It's funny watching you argue while Googling what you pretend to already know.

It's revealing that your desperate out of personal hatred for Obama.

Ha! There's nothing desperate about knowing the truth and defending it, being right and arguing it effectively.

 

[palemale]

You've made excuses and danced several different ways but you still have failed to answer the question.

It's a simple one.

How many filibusters have there been since Obama became President?

FYI: cloture and filibuster are not the same thing.

FYI:

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

Therefore, there cannot be a cloture vote without there being a filibuster. Agreed? Therefore, there have been at least as many filibusters as cloture votes. Agreed.

Since it is likely that not every filibuster results in a cloture vote, it is likely (even certain) that there have been more filibusters than cloture votes.

Disagree with any of the above?

 

[NickCole]

FYI:


http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

Therefore, there cannot be a cloture vote without there being a filibuster. Agreed?

Wrong.

There CAN be a cloture vote without there being a filibuster.

Cloture ends debate. Lots of Senate debate is not filibuster, and filibuster is not the only reason to set a time limit to end debate.

 

[Kulindahr]

FYI:


http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

Therefore, there cannot be a cloture vote without there being a filibuster. Agreed? Therefore, there have been at least as many filibusters as cloture votes. Agreed.

Since it is likely that not every filibuster results in a cloture vote, it is likely (even certain) that there have been more filibusters than cloture votes.

Disagree with any of the above?

Yes -- almost all of it.

The definition shows that the only way to end a filibuster is with cloture; iot does not say that the only thing cloture does is end a filibuster.

So your first conclusion is false, and the secondary one after it.

Thus the number of cloture votes tells us nothing about how many filibusters there have been.

 

[Kulindahr]

A petition for cloture does not require a filibuster to be happening, though the only way to end a filibuster is by cloture.

Think of a roof: the only way to keep rain out of your house may be a roof, but the presence of a roof does not mean there's a house underneath; it can mean a garage, a store, even a gazebo.

The only way to end a filibuster, from an opposing side, is by cloture, but cloture is not the only way a filibuster can end: everyone else may give up, the session may run out, the filibustering senators may decide they've made a point and quit, a compromise may be reached behind the scenes.

So, since cloture can occur without filibusters, and filibusters can end without cloture, the number of cloture petitions or votes tells us nothing at all about the number of filibusters.

The only thing that can tell us about the number of filibusters is the actions of senators: Did anyone actually engage in a filibuster? Did anyone threaten a filibuster? Did anyone suggest, without using the words, that a filibuster was intended?

 

[palemale]

Wrong.

There CAN be a cloture vote without there being a filibuster.

Cloture ends debate. Lots of Senate debate is not filibuster, and filibuster is not the only reason to set a time limit to end debate.

Hey mister "knowing the truth and defending it," do you have a single cite to show how many cloture votes were cast where there was no filibuster?

 

[Kulindahr]

Can but they don't.

There would be no reason to unless faced with a filibuster.

By the way, the total number of filibuster threats always exceeds cloture motions in all the statistics I've seen, not the other way around. Therefore, it seems your assertion is the unlikely scenario.

"Seems unlikely"?

How about ponying up with actual figures, as I've asked you and Nick?

In the meantime, here's a tidbit to chew on:

There has not been a true filibuster in the United States Senate since the early 1970’s. What we have had since then are cloture votes, not filibusters. The political parties strive for “cloture-proof majorities”, not “filibuster-proof majorities”. In 1975, the Senate changed the rules so that the simple threat of a filibuster was all that was needed to stop debate on an issue. If 40% of the senators oppose a bill, they can prevent it from coming up for a vote. If a bill’s opponents do not have the support of 40% of the Senate, the majority can vote for “cloture”, which halts debate and forces a vote. If more than 40% oppose the bill, the opponents can prevent cloture. That is a far cry from a real filibuster.

source: http://open.salon.com/blog/procopius/2010/02/05/filibusters_cloture_and_lazy_senators

 

[NickCole]

Hey mister "knowing the truth and defending it," do you have a single cite to show how many cloture votes were cast where there was no filibuster?

Don't need it.

A filibuster is something that happens, can be seen and heard, so if it happens or doesn't happen we know it. Cite the fillibusters that have happened since Obama was elected, the dates they began and ended sir. Since ObamaNation claims there have been "unprecedented" filibusters, in this day of YouTube it should be easy to not only cite them but show them. Let's see these unprecedented filibusters.

There have been none. Zero. Zip.

Obama and his followers make up all kinds of lies and the sad part is you actually believe them, sad because living in lies deforms everything in one's life. You don't even know it's happening but the spectacular experience of living an authentic life is ruined in the process of manufacturing the millions of little lies that's required in defending and protecting the big ones.

 

[NickCole]

Originally Posted by palemale
Therefore, there cannot be a cloture vote without there being a filibuster. Agreed? Therefore, there have been at least as many filibusters as cloture votes. Agreed.

Since it is likely that not every filibuster results in a cloture vote, it is likely (even certain) that there have been more filibusters than cloture votes.

Disagree with any of the above?

Agreed

Both of you do not understand Senate rules.

And agreeing with a smiley thumbs up does not make the rules what you want them to be to conform with ObamaNation lies. ObamaNation thinks pretending will make something true. And it does not. We, as a nation, are and will continue to suffer the consequences of this smiley likey deceitful behavior. What a tragedy that foolish Americans voted us from the Bush frying pan into the Obama fire.

 

[palemale]

Both of you do not understand Senate rules.

And agreeing with a smiley thumbs up does not make the rules what you want them to be to conform with ObamaNation lies. ObamaNation thinks pretending will make something true. And it does not. We, as a nation, are and will continue to suffer the consequences of this smiley likey deceitful behavior. What a tragedy that foolish Americans voted us from the Bush frying pan into the Obama fire.

filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions

.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm

Nick, you may want to read the bold-faced portion more than once. You see, the funny thing about language is that, over time, the meanings sometimes evolve. When the term "filibuster" is used in the US Senate, it includes "any other delaying or obstructive actions." Therefore, the Senate holds a cloture vote to shut down debate when there are "delaying or obstructive actions." Thus, when 40% or more of the Senate, but less than 50%, announce that they are opposed to bringing a piece of legislation up for a vote, they are engaging in delaying or obstructive actions, i.e. engaging in a filibuster. Filibuster does not refer only to multiple hour talk-a-thons.

Therefore, your assertion that there have been "zero, zip" filibusters is incorrect. Unlike you, I will not say you are making up lies. You would only be lying if you made assertions that you knew were factually incorrect. In this case, you are simply ill-informed, not lying.

 

[NickCole]

.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm

Nick, you may want to read the bold-faced portion more than once. You see, the funny thing about language is that, over time, the meanings sometimes evolve. When the term "filibuster" is used in the US Senate, it includes "any other delaying or obstructive actions." Therefore, the Senate holds a cloture vote to shut down debate when there are "delaying or obstructive actions." Thus, when 40% or more of the Senate, but less than 50%, announce that they are opposed to bringing a piece of legislation up for a vote, they are engaging in delaying or obstructive actions, i.e. engaging in a filibuster. Filibuster does not refer only to multiple hour talk-a-thons.

Therefore, your assertion that there have been "zero, zip" filibusters is incorrect. Unlike you, I will not say you are making up lies. You would only be lying if you made assertions that you knew were factually incorrect. In this case, you are simply ill-informed, not lying.

Disingenuous.

You and JockBoy conflated filibuster with cloture throughout this discussion, so using the context you introduced and by which you've been defining filibuster, here's a Senate.gov definition of Filibuster and Cloture.

Filibuster and Cloture

Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.
Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.

Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for 15 hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

It's clear in that description of filibuster and cloture, filibuster refers to a specific event, a floor debate that prevents a vote from taking place.

With ObamaNation claims, a lie is presented and expected to be taken as truth then when called on it there's wiggle and wag, dances and contortions, goalposts get changed, it's make it up as you go along, whatever's necessary to protect the lie rather than admit the truth.

 

[palemale]

Disingenuous.

You and JockBoy conflated filibuster with cloture throughout this discussion, so using the context you introduced and by which you've been defining filibuster, here's a Senate.gov definition of Filibuster and Cloture.




It's clear in that description of filibuster and cloture, filibuster refers to a specific event, a floor debate that prevents a vote from taking place.

With ObamaNation claims, a lie is presented and expected to be taken as truth then when called on it there's wiggle and wag, dances and contortions, goalposts get changed, it's make it up as you go along, whatever's necessary to protect the lie rather than admit the truth.

So sorry, Nick. I didn't realize you thought Jockboy and I were using the understanding of filibuster from the 1957 Jimmy Stewart movie instead of the widely understood usage of the word in 2010 (as it is defined in the Senate glossary). How could I have made such a silly mistake.

 

[NickCole]

So sorry, Nick. I didn't realize you thought Jockboy and I were using the understanding of filibuster from the 1957 Jimmy Stewart movie instead of the widely understood usage of the word in 2010 (as it is defined in the Senate glossary). How could I have made such a silly mistake.

As I said, it wasn't me who defined filibuster through cloture. You and JockBoy conflated filibuster with cloture, all but arguing they are one and the same, defining the term in that context all throughout this thread. And it was appropriate because that's the context ObamaDems have implied in their propaganda. The context in which one chooses to use a word indicates the definition one is using.

Your disingenuousness is showing again. But that's ObamaNation for you.

 

[BostonPirate]

the use of cloture, a parliamentary process, divert democracy from happening. it is a technical way to stop something that you have realistically lost the support for from the majority, filibuster is out of control. so are the private holds that are being placed everywhere.

we are in a national state of emergency. that means we need to act.

if we personalize this, lets say that because the minority party didn't like an election result, they coulld just demand, through procedural process, that Sixty percent of americans must agree before a president is elected....

we would be permanently leaderless and the democratic process would die.

The senate has been hijacked by the minority and they are using procedural processes to forego the will of the people.

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't need it.

A filibuster is something that happens, can be seen and heard, so if it happens or doesn't happen we know it. Cite the fillibusters that have happened since Obama was elected, the dates they began and ended sir. Since ObamaNation claims there have been "unprecedented" filibusters, in this day of YouTube it should be easy to not only cite them but show them. Let's see these unprecedented filibusters.

The problem with this statement is that according to studies by the Senate itself (yes, I've been reading gobs, to catch up with you seeming experts who can't seem to answer basic questions), a filibuster doesn't have to be announced! All that senators have to do is to start dragging things out, using their unlimited time for speaking, introducing more amendments to get more time for speaking, introducing amendments and having someone else propose tabling them because that takes up time, yielding for questions (which lets them keep the floor), etc. etc. etc.

Since no one has to announce a filibuster, the only way you can assert there haven't been any is if the Senate record is totally free of anything that could count as an action for delaying or obstructing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Disingenuous.

You and JockBoy conflated filibuster with cloture throughout this discussion, so using the context you introduced and by which you've been defining filibuster, here's a Senate.gov definition of Filibuster and Cloture.

Flat out LIE.

That's from history and art information on the Senate site. It doesn't claim to be a definition, it claims to be a historical description -- and its last reference is to an example from before the parents of the great majority on JUB were even together.

You accuse Obama & Co. of lies, then do it blatantly!

It's clear in that historical description of filibuster and cloture, filibuster refer[STRIKE]s[/STRIKE]ed to a specific event, a floor debate that prevents a vote from taking place.

With [STRIKE]ObamaNation[/STRIKE]NickCole claims, a lie is presented and expected to be taken as truth then when called on it there's wiggle and wag, dances and contortions, goalposts get changed, it's make it up as you go along, whatever's necessary to protect the lie rather than admit the truth.

With reference to this particular post -- and the documentation is in your own cite! -- I fixed that for you.


BTW, there's a place to look up definitions of things. It isn't in historical material, it's in a dictionary or glossary. I think the Senate has their own, too.

 

[BostonPirate]

what I dont like is that you dont actually have to do it.

the rules were changed so that a "pretend" filibuster or speech could be assumed.

it turns out that when you take the senate floor and talk, it tends to shut down all business not just the one for the bill in question.

so in an effort to save time and in the name of expediency, they made it posible to just call a vote... similar to a cloture vote, hence the confusion here...

long story short....

you don't have to stand there and actually do anything. it takes the pain out of the process for the minority and it allows the majority to continue with other business.

it makes sense but it assumes that the minority wont do it to every single piece of legislation that passes them by.

anyone who folllows politics knows what is happening.... Obama is activist and polular enough to make MANY changes. Also, there are certain radical elements of the republican party that simply don't want a black president to suceed, even at the expense of the nation, which is in great disarray.

the easiest thing is to say no first, filibuster next, and then when forced to spend the night, cave and give the dems what they want.

you guys are aware that this is how the dems have beaten the repub filibusters, right?

when reid states that noone is going home until the filibuster ends and a vote is cast, even putting cotts in the offices to prove his point, they have emediately caved.

check it out.....


Overnight Senate session averted on jobs legislation
By J. Taylor Rushing - 03/15/10 08:08 PM ET


Senate Dems plan all-nighter to push GOP on Wall Street reform
By Alexander Bolton - 04/28/10

sooo... if theres real skin in the game and the repubs have to work late, they cave and give up the filibuster or cloture.

And that means the rules need to change so that if you are going to filibuster you have to stand up there in front of the cameras and read the telephone book.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, indeed, the Senate has its own glossary.

Just so we're on the same page, so to speak, here's what Wiki has to say about "glossary":

A glossary, also known as an idioticon, vocabulary, or clavis, is an alphabetical list of terms in a particular domain of knowledge with the definitions for those terms

So when a body puts a term in a glossary, the meaning they state there is the meaning which, for that body, the term has.


Here's the entry for "filibuster" from the official U.S. Senate glossary:

filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.

Now, since the Senate is empowered by the Constitution to make the rules for its own functioning, and since accuracy of terms is essential to the making of such rules, it is fair to say that this is the legal definition of filibuster.


So, Nick: abandoning your lie from above, and proceeding with the legal definition of the term, would you please list every cloture call and show in each instance how there was no "attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions"?

Then we can actually assess the merits of your claim.

 

[Kulindahr]

what I dont like is that you dont actually have to do it.

the rules were changed so that a "pretend" filibuster or speech could be assumed.

it turns out that when you take the senate floor and talk, it tends to shut down all business not just the one for the bill in question.

so in an effort to save time and in the name of expediency, they made it posible to just call a vote... similar to a cloture vote, hence the confusion here...

long story short....

you don't have to stand there and actually do anything. it takes the pain out of the process for the minority and it allows the majority to continue with other business.

it makes sense but it assumes that the minority wont do it to every single piece of legislation that passes them by.

anyone who folllows politics knows what is happening.... Obama is activist and polular enough to make MANY changes. Also, there are certain radical elements of the republican party that simply don't want a black president to suceed, even at the expense of the nation, which is in great disarray.

the easiest thing is to say no first, filibuster next, and then when forced to spend the night, cave and give the dems what they want.

you guys are aware that this is how the dems have beaten the repub filibusters, right?

when reid states that noone is going home until the filibuster ends and a vote is cast, even putting cotts in the offices to prove his point, they have emediately caved.

check it out.....


Overnight Senate session averted on jobs legislation
By J. Taylor Rushing - 03/15/10 08:08 PM ET


Senate Dems plan all-nighter to push GOP on Wall Street reform
By Alexander Bolton - 04/28/10

sooo... if theres real skin in the game and the repubs have to work late, they cave and give up the filibuster or cloture.

And that means the rules need to change so that if you are going to filibuster you have to stand up there in front of the cameras and read the telephone book.

Right in the tempo of the discussion, there!

That ease of filibuster is exactly what the article I quoted was referring to -- an ease that just makes the process practically beg to be used. I t also makes it easy to hide, so it isn't necessarily apparent that there's anything unusual happening.

Now just after I ask Nick for some substance to his claim, here comes BostonPirate with an instance that sinks Nick's case. I'll address it this way: Nick, care to explain why Reid would invoke overnight sessions when there weren't any delaying or obstructing tactics?

 

[palemale]

Kuli, I posted that definition and link to the Senate glossary, highlighting the last clause. That's what prompted Nick to come up with his cite to the historical filibuster. BostonPirate, you are 100% right. When the rules of the filibuster changed, the definition of filibuster came to encompass all of the delaying tactics available to stop legislation and for which cloture would need to be invoked.