Those damn oiligarchs strike again.

This absolutely sickens me, the lack of respect that certain members of the Senate and the House of Reps have for decency and justice, not to mention the environment. Senator Stevens (R-AK) :chainsaw: ought to be imprisoned for racketeering! :angryrazz :flipthebi

"US Democrats Fight Alaska Drilling in Defense Bill":

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats on Monday threatened a filibuster to stop Republicans from adding a measure allowing oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to a wartime defense spending bill.

Click to expand...

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34118/story.htm

Ice,

I don't know if you've seen it, but John Stewert did a bit on Stevens recently that was really interesting. He's the one that initially got the funding for that $250 million bridge to nowhere (which was to be named after him) and then blew his top when people tried to cut the funding (they "supposedly" finally got the bridge cut but Alaska still kept the money). He also wouldn't allow oil company executives to be sworn in at a recent hearing on price gouging. All the environmental advocates were sworn in, but not the oil execs. Gee, wonder who's pocket Stevens is in?

WTF is with fillibusters anyway. Its pretty gay. Are they really in Grade 3 or what? How is that even legal and/or tolerated?

That Daily Show bit was funny as hell, but then, most of their stuff is.

CMan,

I'm no expert at this but I think I understand the basic concept. When a party (such as the current Dem's) are at a significant disadvantage in voting numbers, just about their only method of defeating a piece of legislation is to try and ensure that it doesn't come up for a vote (where they will be defeated). As an example, in the US Senate there are 100 total members (2 Senators per state). In order to pass a law all that is required is a simple majority (51 votes). The Republicans currently hold around 54 to 56 seats so virtually any law that they want should be passed (as long as there are no, or few, defections). So the only way for the minority party to try and make sure a particular law (that they really dislike) is defeated, is to try and ensure that the law never comes up for a vote. In order for a filibuster to be stopped, the majority party must come up with 60 votes which, given the situation in our house and senate, is almost impossible.

I think that should explain it a bit.

Mindido,
Pretty much same thing here...if the ruling party has a majority, they can do what they like (sometimes good, more often than not, bad)...opposing parties can start a debate on the subject, and try to keep it going for as long as possible, but the main difference (I believe) between your filibuster and ours, is that the ruling party can ask (read: tell) the Speaker of the House to shut off debate...no vote is needed.

Red Horse,

Jeez, if thats correct, then the minority party really has no weapons. I guess there are some things about US law that are a bit better than Canadian law. Although the Republicans here are talking about a new tactic, the "nuclear" option (what exactly that means I'm not sure) that would enable them to get around a filibuster.

Come to think about it, I think the "nuclear" option has something to do with outlawing filibusters totally. I think they came very close to doing that recently (I believe it was over the nomination of some judge) but cooler heads apparently prevailed and it wasn't done. But they're still talking about using it just in case.

I was talking about the times when someone will keep talking for like 20 hours straight or whatever, to prevent anything productive from happening. Isn't that a fillibuster or am I thinking of something else?

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.

Cman's right. Sometimes guys stand up there and read recipes into the Congressional record. Does seem pretty weird, but then so do British judges wearing powdered wigs too.

Min, the nuclear option was that the Reps were going to use their majority rule to change the senate rules regarding breaking a filibuster. Don't remember the exact change, but they're rules that have been in place since the beginning.

Preferred,

"Don't remember the exact change, but they're rules that have been in place since the beginning."

I'm not so sure about that. I think that the "nuclear option" was something new. I know that minority parties have been using the filibuster for a long time (probably since the beginning; may have even been used in ancient Greece and Rome) but I think what Congress was considering was somehow different. But I could be wrong.

Oh, and this all came about because of the nomination of John Bolton for ambassador to the UN, not a judge.

tex, thats what a filibuster USED to be, and should be again... now, it consists of someone saying "i want to filibuster that!" and the measure needs a cloture vote to move on... there is no requirement to actually talk at length any more...

min, senator mccain did the EXACT SAME THING with his "al quaeda bill of rights" bill... most senators do this, have done this, and will continue to do this...

the so called "nuclear option" which is more accurately called the "constitutional option" would simply put into writing what has been policy up until this administration... never before has "advise and consent" included a filibuster.. the option would be to change the senate rules to forbid the use of a filibuster on confirmation hearings--simply putting to paper an unwritten rule.. a simple majority is used to change the rules of the senate... the next time you call republicans unreasonable, ask yourself why filibusters are allowed at all...

drilling in anwr is safe, sane, and largely unobtrusive... it is also sensible... it takes care of part of the problem of imported oil... we also need a new batch of refineries...

cableguy said:

drilling in anwr is safe, sane, and largely unobtrusive... it is also sensible... it takes care of part of the problem of imported oil... we also need a new batch of refineries...

Click to expand...

I tend to agree. I have a hard time getting upset over an area 99% of us will never see. But the only imported oil it eases is China's. That where ANWR oil goes.

But your conclusion about needing more refineries is the real problem with ANWR drilling. ANWR drilling relinforces the notion that we have a supply problem, not a demand problem. The US is the second largest producer of oil in the world. We need to start focusing on living within our means instead of thinking we are going to find and/or control more oil.

cableguy said:

drilling in anwr is safe, sane, and largely unobtrusive... it is also sensible... it takes care of part of the problem of imported oil... we also need a new batch of refineries...

Click to expand...

Wrong. What any human interference will do is disrupt the natural migration routes of the caribou in the region, so it is not "unobtrusive".

Also, it would only supply about a half-year of America's oil demand. To solve the foreign (i.e. overseas) oil problem, it would be far better simply to get your oil from Alberta, where it is expected to become the next Saudi Arabia (with close to the same amount of supply). And heck, the Albertans sell the oil to you for the same amount as (and maybe a slight bit less than) they sell it to the rest of Canada. Exploiting the tar sands wouldn't do quite the same amount of damage to wildlife patterns as drilling in ANWR.

And why on Earth would you need more refineries when the supply of oil is not growing? Each refinery would handle a decreasing per-refinery amount of oil and would be a cash hog.

What on Earth got this into your head, cable?

i am all for living within my means... i am completely and utterly against someone else telling me what my means are allowed to be... we DO have a rather severe supply problem... production is artificially limited by opec, and prices are artificially high, again, because opec says so... without alternative suppliers, such as anwr or other domestic sources, we are stuck paying what someone wants us to, rather than what oil is worth...

berg, the tap helped the caribou out, despite folks saying the same things you are saying... also, if a caribou cant move its migration route a half mile, perhaps it is too dumb to remain alive...

methinks your estimates are a bit off... decades, to be exact, and no one is sugesting it be the sole source of oil, either.... it simply has the headlines now... if it was only a half years supply, extracting it wouldnt be worth it... domestically, the US could outproduce the entire middle east--IF regulations allowed for it.. i also wouldnt have much of a problem getting oil from you guys... at least there might be a chance at a reasonable price...

why do we need more refineries?? simple... too many regulations... gas produced at one refinery usually, due to local regs, cannot be shipped to another state, sometimes, not even to elsewhere within a state... most refineries are running at capacity, so even a small hiccup creates shortages, which hike prices... its called redundancy, or, if you prefer, "wiggle room." if something breaks, another refinery could pick up the slack... creating uniform formulation regs would also go a long way toward solving this problem, but demand has outgrown production capacity, largely due to prosperity and population growth...

Look at this, cable:



Now how on Earth do we humans have the right to disturb and disrupt the activities of other species? We are supposed to be harmonised with nature, not attempting to dominate her.

Why do we think that we can kill bears and cougars which "invade" our living areas, when in fact, we have invaded their traditional habitats? Is it a surprise that these animals attack us humans after we take over their territory? It shouldn't be.

We humans have been destroying far too much of what was supposed to be wilderness. We have been burning far too much fossil fuels, screwing up the atmosphere for centuries to come. Is it really a surprise that Mother Nature should "fight back"?

Remember Newton's second law: "For each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." We are seeing this reaction with increased destruction of our homes (such as Katrina, "intrusion" of polar bears into human inhabitations along Hudson Bay, and other extreme events), which is to continue and gain momentum as long as we continue to tamper with nature.

The more harmonised we are with nature, the less she will bite. The more harmonised we are with nature, the kinder she will be to us.

nature is a great source of food... bears qualify, and i would think a cougar could also be eaten, though i have never had the opportunity to try any... we have the same right to disrupt other species that a polar bear has to disrupt sea lions, that a bear has to disrupt salmon... we are creatures, and we happen to be the best suited for survival and expansion... this happens in nature all the time... we are simply an additional part of nature...

on your precious pollution point, there was a study done last week, i believe bey some of your countrymen, that attempted to model what would happen if a massive forestatino project were undertaken in canada, to soak up co2, and offset "global warming..." the results were rather fun... it seems that such an alteration would actually cause global temps to rise, and according to global warming champions, to rise rather dramatically... 6-7 degrees celsius, actually...

fortunately, i dont buy into global warming or the notion that mankind might be causing it... if its there, its natural, and apparently, according to at least one model, co2 is DEFINITELY not the problem...

Nature IS a great source of food, and I say if you can take down a cougar with just your own hands, you have every right to eat it. Like a bear takes down a salmon, or polar bear takes a sea lion. No weapons, just what nature built you with. That's FAIR disruption of nature, not drilling massive holes in the ground and ripping the land open so that people can continue to drive their SUV's through the suburbs. That's cheating.

cableguy said:

fortunately, i dont buy into global warming or the notion that mankind might be causing it... if its there, its natural, and apparently, according to at least one model, co2 is DEFINITELY not the problem...

Click to expand...

God, you must be on something. Do you believe the planet is flat, too? Do you believe Elvis is still alive? Do you believe aliens shot JFK?

Once again any person who claims that man and man alone is responsible for global warming must be on something.

Texan said:

Once again any person who claims that man and man alone is responsible for global warming must be on something.

Click to expand...

Tex,

No one that I know of is saying that man "alone" is responsible for global warming. That statement would be absurd.