<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with nuclearoption</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/nuclearoption</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'nuclearoption' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:43:45 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:43:45 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Obstructacular.</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/63112/Obstructacular</link>
		<description> &quot;If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18218.html&quot;&gt;triple the previous record&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  Ah, for the halcyon days of &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005&quot;&gt;yore&lt;/a&gt;, when obstuctionism was so obviously unconstitutional that it &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/nuclear_option.htm&quot;&gt;required a nuclear response&lt;/a&gt;.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2007:site.63112</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:43:45 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>filibuster</category>
		<category>hypocrisy</category>
		<category>nuclearoption</category>
		<category>obstruction</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>republican</category>
		<category>senate</category>
		<dc:creator>Flunkie</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


