Most parliaments sensibly has rules to prevent that, but some variations of similar tactics exists. Calling hearings prior to a vote, demanding votes on an excessive list of amendments and utilizing that most parliaments has to respect certain time schedules to speak at maximum lengths at preceding bills can all be used.
I do think that the US senate is an exception insofar that it is not considered very bad form to utilize the rules in this way. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
The rules of procedure of every parliament are different... En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
But The Wikipedia notes that the tactic, known as "talking out", while rare in European parliaments, is not unknown. They tend to be shorter term political stunts in the Westminster system - for one thing, Westminster rules require that debate be germane, while there is no such rule in the US Senate, and for another, in the US Senate, a Senate holding the floor may yield the floor to another specific Senator rather than yielding back to the Speaker to recognize the next parliamentarian with the floor. So a small minority can hold the floor of the US Senate for an extended period, "yielding the floor" floor back and forth. In most Westminster systems where it is at all possible, a filibuster is an act of both vocal endurance and imagination - to avoid a successful appeal that the debate is not germane - by an individual parliamentarian.
The key to whether or not a filibuster is in fact possible is whether there is a motion to bring a matter to a vote, which is in order during debate and may be passed by a simple majority. The US Senate originally had such a rule, but it was taken out by Aaron Burr in the early 1800's as being an unnecessary technicality.
There is no filibuster in the House of Representatives because House Rules dictate time limits for any matter brought to the floor for debate, while the Senate does not.
Given the individual Senator's incentives to retain the filibuster - and any specific issue on which enough Senators feel strongly enough to change the rules is one in which they can "invoke cloture", the special rules for bringing debate to a close if a super-majority of 60% of elected Senators agree - the House is one avenue for reigning it back, with some proposing (and I think its worth a shot) that the House pass a revenue bill likely to face a filibuster with a title included that limits debate.
Now, the Senate cannot originate revenue bills, and may only affirm or dissent by amendment. And that is what the Senate always does: they write their own revenue bill and then pass it as an amendment to the entirety of the House bill. But the parliamentary argument goes, to take out the time limitation would require an amendment and until successfully amended, the time limit may apply.
This would require a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian, and if it went against the House, possibly a case with the Supreme Court. But the Republicans successfully used the threat of challenging the Constitutionality of the filibuster on Court appointments to bluff the Democrats into not filibustering some particularly odious Bush appointments, so this is a tactic that could be used as a threat as well as trying to push it all the way through. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
