Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
> > I did not say *able*. I said *want*. If you are going to argue with
> > me, please at least argue with what I actually stated.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:22:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> John, John. That's against the filibustering playbook.
Actually talking about the topic at hand is against the filibustering
Indicating that <<people trying to hold a relevant discussion>> are
filibustering is just dishonest.
This is doubly underlined by the fact that, currently, nothing
procedurally would be different if nobody was carrying on any discussion
For people who aren't familiar with USA politics: the US Senate has
established a requirement of requiring unanimous consent on a variety of
procedural issues. Sometimes people abuse this when a vote is called
for by talking for hours -- even days -- about whatever comes into
their head. http://www.netlobby.com/hcwz4.htm for a larger description
of the surrounding process.
There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government
working for you.
-- Will Rogers