PrintPopular
March 21, 2010 | 10:47 pm -
March 21, 2010 | 9:13 pm -
March 21, 2010 | 3:59 pm -
March 21, 2010 | 11:21 pm -
March 21, 2010 | 5:42 pm -
March 21, 2010 | 5:08 pm -
March 22, 2010 | 1:17 am -
March 21, 2010 | 7:18 pm -
March 21, 2010 | 5:04 am -
March 18, 2010 | 6:19 pm -
March 18, 2010 | 5:22 pm -
March 18, 2010 | 4:27 pm -
March 19, 2010 | 10:19 am -
Meet Glenn Beck's Shrink
COMMENTS (2)
When the Wall Street Journal "sneers" it's not enough to just sneer back. The Wall Street Journal simply buys bigger and bigger and bigger sneers.
Then you are left with sneers funded mostly by moral outrage and righteous indignation.
I'm sure Rupert Murdoch and the folks on Wall Street lose a lot of sleep worrying about that.
Instead, their sneers have to be fought with the sneers of thousands and thousands of additional folks out marching in the streets. Sneers with legs and clenched fists as it were.
For some reason the outraged liberals these days either haven't thought that up yet or they have and have managed only a handful of sneerers at a time.
Think of it like this:
When you dutifully ... view full comment
When the Wall Street Journal "sneers" it's not enough to just sneer back. The Wall Street Journal simply buys bigger and bigger and bigger sneers.
Then you are left with sneers funded mostly by moral outrage and righteous indignation.
I'm sure Rupert Murdoch and the folks on Wall Street lose a lot of sleep worrying about that.
Instead, their sneers have to be fought with the sneers of thousands and thousands of additional folks out marching in the streets. Sneers with legs and clenched fists as it were.
For some reason the outraged liberals these days either haven't thought that up yet or they have and have managed only a handful of sneerers at a time.
Think of it like this:
When you dutifully watch Keith and Rachel sneer back on MSNBC each night....each in their own way...you should use their own moral outrage as the starting point for your's, not the finish line.
george
Perhaps it's time to propose a new constitutional amendment:
Given that the filibuster has been used consistently for evil ends, and rarely for the good of the republic, it's high time to outlaw it. The delicious thing about proposing this as a constitutional amendment is that amendments are traditionally not subject to filibuster -- so in order to prevent a vote on this amendment, opponents would have to demonstrate the need for it. Simply having the debate, and using a "nuclear option" procedural ruling to break the inev ... view full comment
Perhaps it's time to propose a new constitutional amendment:
Given that the filibuster has been used consistently for evil ends, and rarely for the good of the republic, it's high time to outlaw it. The delicious thing about proposing this as a constitutional amendment is that amendments are traditionally not subject to filibuster -- so in order to prevent a vote on this amendment, opponents would have to demonstrate the need for it. Simply having the debate, and using a "nuclear option" procedural ruling to break the inevitable filibuster, would go a long way toward ending the effective supermajority requirement for all legislation in the Senate.