So what do ya think about the concept, modern usage in the Senate, etc.

I give this two pages before it deteriorates into Rs are douchbags, so are Ds, your mother is a whore, fawk of and die. But it may be fun.

Gosh I hope 2many doesn't ruin this thread with pictures of half nekkid wimmins.

the filibuster should be allowed but like the women in Texas had to do it not just say I am filibustering and go home like they do it now.

You and me both Dave. Ya just get tired of pics depicting hot nekkid wemmins at our age...eh ?

I think dissenting opinions are a very big part of governing so I like the idea of filibusters.

When both parties start playing well together in the sand box, ie wars, corporate bailouts, spying on citizens etc.. that's when I get worried!

Haven't thought about it that much, but I think I'm agin' 'em. Can't think of any examples where the filibuster has been used to the good of the nation.

That's hypothetical, so it's in the realm of unknowable that filibusters weren't used due to inclusion of minority opinions. Methinks you're over-thinking. Something you probably don't get accused of a lot.

I support them if they involve the person actually speaking. I don't like the current Senate version where you don't have to say anything, just invoke it.

Y'er making a good case FP.

FP has some good things to say, but the truth is the composition of the senate already/intrinsically tilts towards the farmers in a substantial way -- because each state has equal representation regardless of population. This ensures that the less-populated states are hugely over-represented in that body, which balances out the tyranny of the high-population centers.

The challenge is when you couple that with needing only 40 votes, you now have a case where senators representing ~12 percent of the population (obviously cherry picking states) can block legislation for the nation. That doesn't seem right to me.

Clearly BOTH parties have abused the filibuster, which to me kind of indicates this change is reasonable.