What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Go Wendy Davis Go! (1 Viewer)

The weirdest part of all of this is that the people in the room are just stalling and buying time while a bunch of 23 year old Abes in the back room pore over all the documentation to find obscure rules that with either prolong or end the debate. That's where the real battle is going on.

 
Firthermore, the power brokers in waiting are some of the biggest idiots you've ever met. There was a rep named Diane delisi that was important. Her son Ted is an idiot but was granted partnership at a lobbying firm with Theodore Olsen because of his mother. Olsen went to dc with bush. Ted took over the practice at about age 30 and now appears on news channels, etc as a man of influence. And he is a moron.

 
Watson has to be right here or they wouldn't be wasting so much time trying to find a way around his point of order.

 
Just saw this tweet - anyone know enough to have thoughts on this:

Bill Prady @billprady
1. Rule requires 3 warnings on germaneness. 2. 2nd warning was on assistance. 3.Rule not met.

Here's the rule:

http://ow.ly/i/2s66A
I didn’t hear the first warning on germaness. The third warning Davis was talking about Sonogram requirements which they ruled as not germane.



The second warning is because of this: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/files/2013/06/NM_25FILIBUSTERZN_31837574-1024x808.jpg

 
Just saw this tweet - anyone know enough to have thoughts on this:

Bill Prady @billprady

1. Rule requires 3 warnings on germaneness. 2. 2nd warning was on assistance. 3.Rule not met.

Here's the rule:

http://ow.ly/i/2s66A
Not much context here. What is this an excerpt from ?
Twitter. Sorry I can't be more help - other than apparently someone on twitter thinks the second warning was insufficient.
I think this is the point currently being asked?

 
Just saw this tweet - anyone know enough to have thoughts on this:

Bill Prady @billprady

1. Rule requires 3 warnings on germaneness. 2. 2nd warning was on assistance. 3.Rule not met.

Here's the rule:

http://ow.ly/i/2s66A
Not much context here. What is this an excerpt from ?
Twitter. Sorry I can't be more help - other than apparently someone on twitter thinks the second warning was insufficient.
I think this is the point currently being asked?
Yup.

 
Every time I hear "germane", I can't help think of

Buford T Justice: "the ### #### Germans got nothin to do with this!!"

 
Just saw this tweet - anyone know enough to have thoughts on this:

Bill Prady @billprady

1. Rule requires 3 warnings on germaneness. 2. 2nd warning was on assistance. 3.Rule not met.

Here's the rule:

http://ow.ly/i/2s66A
Not much context here. What is this an excerpt from ?
Twitter. Sorry I can't be more help - other than apparently someone on twitter thinks the second warning was insufficient.
I think this is the point currently being asked?
Yup.
He dismissed the Senator on this issue - but (based on my very limited reading of the law), he has no basis for that.

 
Even if the Dems can't keep it going for another 43 minutes, aren't they at some friendly judge at 9:00am tomorrow to have the law stayed?

Is there an appeal from a ruling by the President of the Senate that isn't then decided by the Senate at large?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, I'm pretty sure that "men shouldn't be able to tell women what to do with their body" is about the stupidest argument for a law ever. Men and women make laws about what men and women can't do with their body all the time.

 
I put it to you, Greg: isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

 
Mr. President, at what point should a female senator raise her hand or speak to be recognized over her male peers?

* Wild sustained cheering and applause *

 
BTW, I'm pretty sure that "men shouldn't be able to tell women what to do with their body" is about the stupidest argument for a law ever. Men and women make laws about what men and women can't do with their body all the time.
It takes two to tango. A man should have say about an abortion.

 
Not sure if this is a mockery or the beautiful democratic process at work.
I believe this is the beautiful republican process at work. The democratic process would demand that once 16 of the 31 Senators were in favor of a vote, it would happen. Kinda interesting noting which sides of the debate each party is on.

 
Mr. President, at what point should a female senator raise her hand or speak to be recognized over her male peers?

* Wild sustained cheering and applause *
That was a great line. And will be the defining moment of this day if there is no vote.

 
This noise from the gallery is unprecedented. I was around for this.

The Killer Ds are a group of Texas House Democrats who left Texas for Ardmore, Oklahoma during the week of May 12, 2003. The Killer Ds left to prevent House consideration of the redistricting legislation that would have benefited Texas Republicans. The Texas Constitution requires 100 representatives, or two-thirds of the 150-member House, to conduct business in the lower chamber. The absence of 52 House Democrats prevented Republican passage of the redistricting plan during the 2003 regular session.
 
Craziness in Texas and none of the national news stations even have a blurb.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top