Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I
> > provided one. Feel free to only include the part after "it is resolved
> > that."
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think you are permitting yourself to be distracted by people who
> appear to be opposed to the very idea of voting on this.
That's bogus -- I'm not at all opposed to the idea of voting on this.
I'm opposed to doing something which doesn't make sense, but I don't
think that's equivalent. [Do you?]
> The filibuster is not a parliamentary technique countenanced by our
> Constitution, and I confess I am not sure why advocates of the GR, and
> people who simply want to see the issue voted on are tolerating it.
Hogwash.
The discussion period hasn't even started.
There is no filibuster, except in your imagination.
--
Raul
Reply to: