> > 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 playbook. 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 at all. 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. -- Raul There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you. -- Will Rogers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
