Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   The 8 longest filibusters, from a time when the filibuster meant something   (politico.com) divider line 62
    More: Interesting, filibusters  
•       •       •

3112 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2012 at 12:33 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-10 12:35:01 PM  
You actually had to be present and continue talking..........
 
2012-12-10 12:36:54 PM  
If Huey Long thought the filibuster is important than let's keep it!
 
2012-12-10 12:39:50 PM  

Citrate1007: You actually had to be present and continue talking..........


This is how it should have remained. At the very least, you should have to be present on the floor for the entire duration. Want to filibuster? Break out the sleeping bags. No, you don't get a bathroom break. Use a mason jar.
 
2012-12-10 12:41:24 PM  

Kuroshin: Citrate1007: You actually had to be present and continue talking..........

This is how it should have remained. At the very least, you should have to be present on the floor for the entire duration. Want to filibuster? Break out the sleeping bags. No, you don't get a bathroom break. Use a mason jar.


Agreed. Farking politicians used to filibuster over important shiat. Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.
 
2012-12-10 12:43:45 PM  

Citrate1007: Agreed. Farking politicians used to filibuster over important shiat. Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.


Oh?

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, held up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 14 hours and 13 minutes in June of that year.

You were saying? Amusing when you consider one of the far left sites had nothing but nice things to say about him in spite of that and being in the KKK.

Jesse Helms on the other hand was sinister FOREVER.
 
2012-12-10 12:47:42 PM  
I opted to filibuster the link before I was able to click on it.
 
2012-12-10 12:50:00 PM  

randomjsa: Citrate1007: Agreed. Farking politicians used to filibuster over important shiat. Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.

Oh?

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, held up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 14 hours and 13 minutes in June of that year.

You were saying? Amusing when you consider one of the far left sites had nothing but nice things to say about him in spite of that and being in the KKK.

Jesse Helms on the other hand was sinister FOREVER.


Apples and potatoes. But it's good to see you continuing to fight the derp fight.
 
2012-12-10 12:52:48 PM  
I especially like the ones holding up Civil Rights bills. Brings a tear to the eyes.
 
2012-12-10 12:54:31 PM  

Kuroshin: Citrate1007: You actually had to be present and continue talking..........
This is how it should have remained. At the very least, you should have to be present on the floor for the entire duration. Want to filibuster? Break out the sleeping bags. No, you don't get a bathroom break. Use a mason jar.


It's not even that. You can filibuster for however long you can, then yield the floor to an ally who can sustain your filibuster while you take a crap, have a beer, whatever, then come back and they can return the floor back to you. But it's Got it include somebody being there. It's how it's supposed to work. Unlimited debating, which is what the Senate is designed to have - debate until the decision is clear to all - has this maneuver inherent. Is there a place where the majority leader can try to use a procedural maneuver to shut down a filibuster if the speaker tries to pass it to someone else? Maybe, but that ought to be used just as frequently (on a percentage basis) as the filibuster itself.

randomjsa: Citrate1007: Agreed. Farking politicians used to filibuster over important shiat. Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.
Oh?
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, held up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 14 hours and 13 minutes in June of that year.
You were saying? Amusing when you consider one of the far left sites had nothing but nice things to say about him in spite of that and being in the KKK.
Jesse Helms on the other hand was sinister FOREVER.


Yes, We're all a bit embarrassed by Byrd. He pretty publicly changed sides and started acting like a human being. Did Jesse Helms ever do that?
 
2012-12-10 12:55:19 PM  

randomjsa: You were saying?


The Civil Rights Act was really important shiat.
 
2012-12-10 12:56:08 PM  

randomjsa: Citrate1007: Agreed. Farking politicians used to filibuster over important shiat. Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.

Oh?

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, held up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 14 hours and 13 minutes in June of that year.


What's your point? The Civil Rights Act was incredibly important. Congressmen should actually have to speak during a filibuster, especially when they're on the wrong side of an incredibly important issue that affects a huge portion of the country.

Also your outrage at what a dead man did well over half a century ago is noted.
 
2012-12-10 12:58:50 PM  

CorporatePerson: Also your outrage at what a dead man did well over half a century ago is noted.


At least he hasn't blamed Byrd for Benghazi...yet.
 
2012-12-10 12:59:50 PM  
Note that most of those filibusters resulted in the buster leaving his political party over the issue. That's how important the issue should be to you in order to do this. Also, most of those people ultimately failed in their goal to stop the bill, which is also important.
 
2012-12-10 12:59:50 PM  
Good that the GOP was able to stop the filibuster, otherwise, we would have the Dems perpetually blocking the Civil Rights bill.
 
2012-12-10 01:00:25 PM  
Pssshhh.

Senator Joseph Robinette Biden Jr once did a keg-stand on the Senate Chamber floor that lasted longer than all those pussies put together.
 
2012-12-10 01:02:45 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Good that the GOP was able to stop the filibuster, otherwise, we would have the Dems perpetually blocking the Civil Rights bill.


Yes. It is good.
 
2012-12-10 01:02:50 PM  
Yes- some of the most prominent times it was employed was when bigots were trying to keep bigotry alive. This is valid. However, it does not follow that therefore the filibuster is a bad idea. I say elections have consequences and we shouldn't expect a 60 vote thresh hold in the senate to get anything done. Individual senators already wield too much power. For example, Wyoming has fewer people living in it than Washington DC, yet they get 2 votes in the senate, That's 10% of the difference between 50 and 60 votes. This is granting way too much power to the states inhabited largely by livestock and devoid of people. I'm not saying that North Dakota shouldn't have a voice, I just think that 50 votes already gives them more say than they deserve and that 60 votes means too great of an influence being granted to those in the minority on any issue as the senate is already poorly weighted, Restore the filibuster to what it was- a chance for a senator on the losing side to plead their case until blue in the face. Yes, the democrats may eat crow for doing this now in the future when the political pendulum swings the other way. That's no reason for them to hold up all progress in the meantime.
 
2012-12-10 01:03:01 PM  
How did we go from this
www.enduringamerica.com 

To farking this??
d1k4es7bw1lvxt.cloudfront.net

www.thesleuthjournal.com
 
2012-12-10 01:07:17 PM  

Paper-Pusher: Yes- some of the most prominent times it was employed was when bigots were trying to keep bigotry alive. This is valid. However, it does not follow that therefore the filibuster is a bad idea.


It means it's a good idea. If all Strom Thurmond had to do is say "I filibuster" and the rest of the Senate just said "OK, never mind, then" it would have taken much longer to pass Civil Rights.

Let's see how committed Senators really are to their "principles"
 
2012-12-10 01:10:37 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Good that the GOP was able to stop the filibuster, otherwise, we would have the Dems perpetually blocking the Civil Rights bill.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-10 01:13:15 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Paper-Pusher: Yes- some of the most prominent times it was employed was when bigots were trying to keep bigotry alive. This is valid. However, it does not follow that therefore the filibuster is a bad idea.

It means it's a good idea. If all Strom Thurmond had to do is say "I filibuster" and the rest of the Senate just said "OK, never mind, then" it would have taken much longer to pass Civil Rights.

Let's see how committed Senators really are to their "principles"


Exactly. Make 'em EARN their obstructionism.
 
2012-12-10 01:20:26 PM  

buck1138: tenpoundsofcheese: Good that the GOP was able to stop the filibuster, otherwise, we would have the Dems perpetually blocking the Civil Rights bill.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 179x281]


*sigh*

I suppose I should post this AGAIN:

i159.photobucket.com

The fight for civil rights was NORTH vs SOUTH, not Dem. vs Rep.

Certain hyper-partisan types are committed to the lie that "Democrats are the real racists!!1!" so they will never accept the truth, but the truth deserves to be represented in contrast to their blind idiocy.
 
2012-12-10 01:25:32 PM  

Paper-Pusher: For example, Wyoming has fewer people living in it than Washington DC, yet they get 2 votes in the senate,


You do realize that's the entire point of the Senate, yes? All the non-expandable states (like Rhode Island) were worried that a few larger states could dominate everything. So they got the Senate where 1 state == 2 votes. It has its downsides, but it means that CA and Texas aren't halfway to a majority just by themselves.

/Esp. when you realize that VA was (acc. to really cool map in my 8th grade US History class) basically asking for everything from Ohio to New Orleans at one point or another, meaning that VA would have been well over half the country at that point.
 
2012-12-10 01:27:13 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Certain hyper-partisan types are committed to the lie that "Democrats are the real racists!!1!" so they will never accept the truth, but the truth deserves to be represented in contrast to their blind idiocy.


Posting facts won't do anything. The "Bu..bu...but...Robert Byrd!" is just a "Look over there" dodge the Republicans can pull whenever they're caught doing something racist. Nobody actually cares what a dead man did decades ago when the parties were switched and most of the people in this thread weren't even born yet.

If a liberal wants to point out blatant racism in the Republican Party, all they have to do is go to Free Republic and pull up a dumb bigoted thing a famous conservative said 2 days ago. If a conservative wants to point out blatant racism in the Republican Party, they have to go into the archives and dig up something from 60+ years ago.

Of course Republicans live in an alternate reality so in their world liberals all play the "But Jesse Helms" card 24/7.
 
2012-12-10 01:29:06 PM  

CorporatePerson: If a conservative wants to point out blatant racism in the Republican Democratic Party, they have to go into the archives and dig up something from 60+ years ago.


FTFM
 
2012-12-10 01:29:08 PM  

meyerkev: Paper-Pusher: For example, Wyoming has fewer people living in it than Washington DC, yet they get 2 votes in the senate,

You do realize that's the entire point of the Senate, yes? All the non-expandable states (like Rhode Island) were worried that a few larger states could dominate everything. So they got the Senate where 1 state == 2 votes. It has its downsides, but it means that CA and Texas aren't halfway to a majority just by themselves.

/Esp. when you realize that VA was (acc. to really cool map in my 8th grade US History class) basically asking for everything from Ohio to New Orleans at one point or another, meaning that VA would have been well over half the country at that point.


Yes I do, but surely that must have its limits. A 60 vote thresh hold is a step too far and it was never intended to be the standard. I agree with the poster earlier who opined that they should earn their obstructionism.
 
2012-12-10 01:30:28 PM  

randomjsa: Citrate1007: Agreed. Farking politicians used to filibuster over important shiat. Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.

Oh?

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, held up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 14 hours and 13 minutes in June of that year.


That was kinda his point. The Civil Rights Act was important. Filibustering a federal judge that months later is appointed, not just by a simple majority, 60 votes or 2/3 but indeed 99-0 is just plain obstructionism.

We're not arguing about the reasons for it but simply asking that they have a reason that goes further than "because we can."
 
2012-12-10 01:42:59 PM  

CorporatePerson: Posting facts won't do anything.


Yeah, I know. Some people will never learn. These are the people who maintain that it was conservatives who freed the slaves. In other words, idiots.

But, every once in a while, someone who isn't hyper-partisan, but has been told that it was the Democrats that held up civil rights will learn something new.
 
2012-12-10 01:49:49 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: CorporatePerson: Posting facts won't do anything.

Yeah, I know. Some people will never learn. These are the people who maintain that it was conservatives who freed the slaves. In other words, idiots.

But, every once in a while, someone who isn't hyper-partisan, but has been told that it was the Democrats that held up civil rights will learn something new.


You stupid lib. Party's never change and Lincoln, A REPUBLICAN, freed the slaves therefore Regan is automatically the best president ever because tax cuts and further more half the founding fathers were Republican. Study it out.
 
2012-12-10 01:54:21 PM  
I can't help but notice that the win-loss record for these eight filibusters is 1-7. (D'Amato won in 1992.)
 
2012-12-10 02:00:54 PM  

Gosling: I can't help but notice that the win-loss record for these eight filibusters is 1-7. (D'Amato won in 1992.)


www.doyoulikemoviesaboutgladiators.com
 
2012-12-10 02:01:01 PM  
No mention of Mike Gravel reading the Pentagon Papers while trying to end the draft?
 
2012-12-10 02:08:42 PM  

TV's Vinnie: How did we go from this
 

To farking this??


We went from fantasy to reality?
 
2012-12-10 02:10:00 PM  

randomjsa: Citrate1007: Agreed. Farking politicians used to filibuster over important shiat. Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.

Oh?

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, held up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 14 hours and 13 minutes in June of that year.

You were saying? Amusing when you consider one of the far left sites had nothing but nice things to say about him in spite of that and being in the KKK.

Jesse Helms on the other hand was sinister FOREVER.


tenpoundsofcheese: Good that the GOP was able to stop the filibuster, otherwise, we would have the Dems perpetually blocking the Civil Rights bill.


Wait a second, are the trolls in this thread actually suggesting that the Senate reform the filibuster rules to require that Senators actually have to be present and speak in order to maintain a filibuster? I mean, otherwise the GOP never would have been able to stop Senator Byrd from continuously opposing cloture. Well, it looks like we got ourselves some good 'ole bipartisan agreement here.
 
2012-12-10 02:14:29 PM  
Oh look it's randomwhargarble and ten pounds of its not cheese, with False equivalency, bsabsvr, and apples vs. oranges..

I wonder if they will stick around to defend their points, just threadshiat and run..


Heehaww says teoundsofitsnocheese.
Heehaww saysbrandomwhargble.
 
2012-12-10 02:27:47 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Good that the GOP was able to stop the filibuster, otherwise, we would have the Dems perpetually blocking the Civil Rights bill.


Do you people ever drop the football team mentality to understand history like ever?
 
2012-12-10 02:30:03 PM  

Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: Good that the GOP was able to stop the filibuster, otherwise, we would have the Dems perpetually blocking the Civil Rights bill.

Do you people ever drop the football team mentality to understand history like ever?


Considering how wonderfully we remember Ronald Reagan these days I think the answer is pretty clear.
 
2012-12-10 02:34:51 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Good that the GOP was northerners were able to stop the filibuster, otherwise, we would have the Dems southerners perpetually blocking the Civil Rights bill.


Fixed
 
2012-12-10 02:46:11 PM  

Counter_Intelligent: The Civil Rights Act was really important shiat.

CorporatePerson: What's your point? The Civil Rights Act was incredibly important.

lennavan: That was kinda his point. The Civil Rights Act was important.


Citrate1007: Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.


Since you missed the point, I'll let you try that again.

Byrd was in the KKK and filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Is this "pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence" or not?
 
2012-12-10 02:54:01 PM  
What's interesting is that Thurmond's filibuster was broken by his own aides. He'd prepped for that for days, apparently, not drinking anything and dehydrating himself so he wouldn't have to go to the toilet. His people were frantic by about hour 20, sure he was going to die in front of them. They were begging him to go out and get some water and take a piss so his kidneys wouldn't shut down--he was literally standing with one foot inside the Senate chamber talking while people pleaded with him to go.

You almost have to admire that kind of resolve. Till you realize it's more like insanity.
 
2012-12-10 02:57:42 PM  

randomjsa: Counter_Intelligent: The Civil Rights Act was really important shiat.
CorporatePerson: What's your point? The Civil Rights Act was incredibly important.
lennavan: That was kinda his point. The Civil Rights Act was important.

Citrate1007: Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.

Since you missed the point, I'll let you try that again.

Byrd was in the KKK and filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Is this "pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence" or not?


Yeah, they missed the point.
 
2012-12-10 03:01:16 PM  

randomjsa: Counter_Intelligent: The Civil Rights Act was really important shiat.
CorporatePerson: What's your point? The Civil Rights Act was incredibly important.
lennavan: That was kinda his point. The Civil Rights Act was important.

Citrate1007: Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.

Since you missed the point, I'll let you try that again.

Byrd was in the KKK and filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Is this "pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence" or not?


It was not obstructionism, he had an honest disagreement with the Civil Rights Act. He also was completely wrong and a douche at the time but he honestly disagreed with it. If you asked him, he could pass a polygraph "I do not want this."

That is not true for much of the GOP obstructionism. They filibuster things they are actually for. GOPers filibustered a nuclear arms treaty until they got tax cuts for the rich. The treaty passed 71 - 26, easily above the 60 votes needed to get rid of a filibuster. So at least 12 Republican Senators were for the START treaty, actually agreed with it but filibustered it anyway. That's obstructionism.

It gets worse for federal judges who later pass 99-0.
 
2012-12-10 03:01:59 PM  

Gosling: I can't help but notice that the win-loss record for these eight filibusters is 1-7. (D'Amato won in 1992.)


Oh yeah... but it must've been fun as hell to watch them squirm, especially when the hallucinations began to kick in. I understand Helms would've gone longer than 24 hours if he didn't suddenly imagine being surrounded by drooling, fanged Mills Brothers.
 
2012-12-10 03:02:01 PM  
You know, people trotting out the "Byrd was in the KKK and opposed the Civil Rights Act" are twice idiots. Byrd wasn't in the Klan anymore when he opposed the Civil Rights Act; and a lot of politicians who opposed the Act had other reasons besides racism for doing so. Sometimes they were ideological, but they were also economic. Byrd represented West Virginia always, and that state had a lot to lose monetarily by allowing blacks to be treated equally to whites. Appalachian white trash already didn't get paid enough, and having to fight for money with underpaid blacks wasn't going to make things easier.

Now that's not a great reason to oppose the Civil Rights Act, but it was another reason beyond "pure ideology". Some Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act were in fact motivated by fears of economic collapse in their regions (which weren't unfounded) or by social problems they could foresee, knowing their areas better than Northern politicians who didn't live there. I know that's way too complex for people who like to pretend that you can divide everything into one thing or the other, but it's true nevertheless.
 
2012-12-10 03:03:59 PM  
Hey, have any of the usual suspects pointed out yet that all Democrats are racists because they founded the KKK and Robert Byrd was a staunch racist until his dying day?
 
2012-12-10 03:39:18 PM  

Gyrfalcon: You know, people trotting out the "Byrd was in the KKK and opposed the Civil Rights Act" are twice idiots. Byrd wasn't in the Klan anymore when he opposed the Civil Rights Act; and a lot of politicians who opposed the Act had other reasons besides racism for doing so. Sometimes they were ideological, but they were also economic. Byrd represented West Virginia always, and that state had a lot to lose monetarily by allowing blacks to be treated equally to whites. Appalachian white trash already didn't get paid enough, and having to fight for money with underpaid blacks wasn't going to make things easier.

Now that's not a great reason to oppose the Civil Rights Act, but it was another reason beyond "pure ideology". Some Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act were in fact motivated by fears of economic collapse in their regions (which weren't unfounded) or by social problems they could foresee, knowing their areas better than Northern politicians who didn't live there. I know that's way too complex for people who like to pretend that you can divide everything into one thing or the other, but it's true nevertheless.


They weren't just racists, they were racists with other bad ideas.
 
2012-12-10 03:44:30 PM  

Gyrfalcon: What's interesting is that Thurmond's filibuster was broken by his own aides. He'd prepped for that for days, apparently, not drinking anything and dehydrating himself so he wouldn't have to go to the toilet. His people were frantic by about hour 20, sure he was going to die in front of them. They were begging him to go out and get some water and take a piss so his kidneys wouldn't shut down--he was literally standing with one foot inside the Senate chamber talking while people pleaded with him to go.

You almost have to admire that kind of resolve. Till you realize it's more like insanity.


Actually, there was one case in Missouri's state legislature, a redistricting fight, in which the bathroom issue was... handled.

With a trashcan, some aides and strategically-placed sheets.

She won.
 
2012-12-10 04:10:03 PM  

randomjsa: Counter_Intelligent: The Civil Rights Act was really important shiat.
CorporatePerson: What's your point? The Civil Rights Act was incredibly important.
lennavan: That was kinda his point. The Civil Rights Act was important.

Citrate1007: Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.

Since you missed the point, I'll let you try that again.

Byrd was in the KKK and filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Is this "pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence" or not?


Hey genius. If Byrd had to abide by the Senate's current filibuster rules, he could've completely blocked the Senate from even DEBATING the Civil Rights Act without exerting any effort beyond saying "I threaten to filibuster."

But you never actually have a point other than "My team good. Other team bad."
 
2012-12-10 04:33:47 PM  

CorporatePerson: randomjsa: Counter_Intelligent: The Civil Rights Act was really important shiat.
CorporatePerson: What's your point? The Civil Rights Act was incredibly important.
lennavan: That was kinda his point. The Civil Rights Act was important.

Citrate1007: Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.

Since you missed the point, I'll let you try that again.

Byrd was in the KKK and filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Is this "pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence" or not?

Hey genius. If Byrd had to abide by the Senate's current filibuster rules, he could've completely blocked the Senate from even DEBATING the Civil Rights Act without exerting any effort beyond saying "I threaten to filibuster."

But you never actually have a point other than "My team good. Other team bad."


I think it's pretty clear that he's advocating that the current Senate revise the filibuster rules to require senators to actually speak to filibuster. Good for him in seeing the ridiculousness of being able to filibuster by just stating an intent to filibuster.
 
2012-12-10 05:16:41 PM  

Gepetto: CorporatePerson: randomjsa: Counter_Intelligent: The Civil Rights Act was really important shiat.
CorporatePerson: What's your point? The Civil Rights Act was incredibly important.
lennavan: That was kinda his point. The Civil Rights Act was important.

Citrate1007: Not for pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence.

Since you missed the point, I'll let you try that again.

Byrd was in the KKK and filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Is this "pure obstructionism due to ideological impotence" or not?

Hey genius. If Byrd had to abide by the Senate's current filibuster rules, he could've completely blocked the Senate from even DEBATING the Civil Rights Act without exerting any effort beyond saying "I threaten to filibuster."

But you never actually have a point other than "My team good. Other team bad."

I think it's pretty clear that he's advocating that the current Senate revise the filibuster rules to require senators to actually speak to filibuster. Good for him in seeing the ridiculousness of being able to filibuster by just stating an intent to filibuster.


That's exactly what everyone before him was saying, They weren't missing any point.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report