MM.net Banner

Not the MSM you're used to

My Mug
Me

e-mail
matthewsmaynard at gmail dot com
 

February 2005

S M T W Th F St
<< 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 >>

Google

Google MM.net

GreyMatter Archives
Beginning End

Blogroll
Friends & Family
JenBlog - The Wife
Jeremy Gilby
Chris the Bro-in-law

Favorites
James Lileks
Boots & Sabers
VodkaPundit
Commissar
Pejmanesque
Publicola
Cowboy Blob
Anthroblogology

Milbloggers
Lt. Smash
Donovan
Blackfive
American Soldier
Mudville Gazette
Froggy Ruminations

The Replacement Media
PowerLine
Cap'n's Qs
Michelle Malkin
LGF

Editorials
NRO
Weekly Standard
Cox & Forkum

Radio Shows
Ingraham
Hewitt

Newsreels
Fox News
Drudge

Comics
User Friendly
PVP Online
Day by Day

Other
APOD

Tucson Blogring
< # Homepage ? >

February 25th, 2005

Vox Blogoli: McClellan or Grant - The Q: Does the Senate GOP go McClellan or Grant if Harry Reid "Goes Gingrich"?

Grant was once accused of drinking too much. Lincoln commented "you just find out, to oblige me, what brand of whiskey Grant drinks, because I want to send a barrel of it to each one of my generals."

I want to send a 750 of Jack Daniels to Senators McCain & Kyl.

If Harry Reid wants to bring Senate business to a halt then the Senate needs to bring out the big guns and nuke this tyranny.

TYR'ANNY, noun - 1. Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Hence tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression.

Put in practical and modern terms, Tyranny is rule by the minority while Democracy is rule by the majority. It is truly ironic that the Democrat party, bearing the name of majority rule, wants to abide by minority rule when they aren't in power.

Democrats are purely and simply throwing a temper tantrum. They obviously learned nothing from the last election, where senators who obstructed Constitutional rule lost by large margins. If they want to obstruct again, the Republican base will, hopefully, rise up and support changing the rules.

Its not unprecedented. The Democrats, in their majority days, changed rules all the time. Some argue that changing the rules will bite us in the backside if we become the minority again. Irrelevant - if we aren't in the majority we wouldn't have moral standing to use the rules to obstruct a majority from implementing their view. You obstruct by winning votes.

The obstruction of justice is a crime. When senators prevent courts from ruling (by preventing judges from occupying the bench) it is not right. Allowing majorities to end debate, with the purpose of bringing justice to courts that have had it long delayed, is not wrong and should be brought about immediately.

Nuke, if you need to. Perhaps after the judges move out of committee certain senators will come to their senses and change their vote.

Toys
Site Meter


Current Homeland Security Alert Level

Hand over the cash and no bytes get hurt.

CPU Brain Candy


Valid XHTML 1.0

Listed on BlogShares

Technorati Profile

Ads: No endorsement should be presumed

This site is copyright 2001-2005 by Matthew Maynard. All rights reserved. All your trademarks, copyrights, insignia, and other distinguishing characteristics are belong to you. Sharks in suits make for good joke material. Don't leave a mess on your way out.

Links to external websites are valid at the time of article authoring and may decay as time goes by. But we'll always have Paris.

The opinions on this site are those of their author and do not represent anyone else's views. That is, unless and until you agree with them, at which point they become yours as well. Opinions expressed in the comments belong to the comment poster and may be edited for content. Play nice with others, since you want them to play nice with you.