we know you godless, amoral leftists have no values so I guess you can just do "what feels good" and take no responsibility. Everyone, including you self righteous hypocrites, make mistakes. I would rather have Newt and his past mistakes than an anti-American marxist dictator wannabe running, errrr, ruining this country.

The moral compass of the Republican Party is so far off. It points straight to Hell. I was driving down the street today thinking about an incident that happened in an affluent community in Kansas about 10 or 15 years ago. A teacher with integrity caught about 50 seniors cheating on a very important exam. Now this exam was very important to there GPA and future college placement. She of course did the right thing and flunked the entire group. The parents of these affluent little cheaters stormed the school demanded that their children be given passing grades on the test and the teacher terminated. And If my memory serves me right that is exactly what happened.

Is it no wonder that children from affluent families feel that the weight for this country should be carried on the backs of the middle class. They demand that we hoist their thrones upon our backs and smile when they bless us with their flatulence. And a lot of you idiots are more than happy to do it.

Cracks me the heck up!

JimmydougyMorrie's son,

Once again you demonstrate that the paranoid narcissism of the right wing knows no bounds! Fear mongering propaganda has fully succeeded with the right wing. Denial, after denial, and none will ever lead them to the truth. "Anti- american Marxist Dictator" ???? That's laughable! "Godless amoral leftist" coming from you, that's a complement!

we know you godless, amoral leftists have no values so I guess you can just do "what feels good" and take no responsibility.

Were that even remotelyi factual we would have thrown our support to Gingrich months ago. He is the poster boy gor godless, amoral, AND hypocrisy. You might want to check your own strandards, JDM. It is the Republican Party that will back any candidate so long as s/he proclaims the conservative doctrine. Recent exmples are Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich. Just for the record, where is the limit that disqualifies a GOPer? Or is there one?

Rickey

1. the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were included in the annual budget reports by both the CBO and OMB. ALL Supplemental spending bills are included in the annual budget report, which is different from Budget PROPOSALS.

2. the Medicare prescription drug plan (which conservatives like myself opposed) likewise is included in the annual budget report and the annual SS/Medicare report

3. Obama's budget deficit is higher because of 1) the 787 Billion "stimulus" plan, 2) the cost of borrowing against that higher deficit, and 3) the continued insistence by the leftist Dems to spend more.

4. Most Conservatives voted against the TARP and I voted against BOTH McCain and Obama because they both voted for it.

5. There is NO Constitutional authority for the Dept of Education or Federal Student loans.

6. Stalinist totalitarianism is EXACTLY what Obama and the Democrats seek

Thanks for the intellegent post. Took a lot of BS reading before I got to this.

Most is indeed first graders in the name calling. Facts are facts, and you don't hear them on Fox, Rush, or any of the other BS GOP channels. Facts are that Fox either lies or twists facts.

I did vote as an Independent years ago. I hate to admit it, but I actually voted for GW the first time because of the abortion issue and my church pressing on it all the time. Complete control and no anti-abortion legislation even put forward.

Then there was the State of the Union where dubya actually said that if you are against the war in Iraq you are not a patriot. The right gave him a standing O. He said of the patriot act, you are either with us or against us so I made a choice. I served in the Army during peacetime and was deeply offended.

They still talk of the high moral ground. There is NOTHING Christian about any of these losers. Hypocracy is all I see.

They still have the blind followers that spew the talking points for the GOP and vote against their own interests. Brainwashed I assume.

I liked Obama because he sincerely seemed to want to get both sides working together. I give him credit, as he has tried over and over to do so. The middle class gets kicked in the teeth by these obstructionists as does our President.

Both parties make me angry. In civics class I was under the impression that we elected our senators and congressmen to represent us. One can not tell me that a dem or repub from Seattle has excactly the same interests as one from Florida on every issue. The Repubs almost always vote the same. I hate blue dogs but if your constituents lean to the right, then that is how you should vote.

Reading these comments on msnbc or mslsd or even on a right wing blog just makes me more determined to work next year for the Dems.

When Reagan closed treatment centers and released mental patients to be homeless, I thought they were homeless. Guess they found a home with a computer and the chosen few are now part of the repub field.

Here is to a fillibuster proof majority of all parts of our government

Obama 2012

Larry, Larry, still on that Stalinist jag? Don't you know how silly that makes you look? Or maybe your mind is so bent you just don't care. And, Larry, what makes you the constitutional authority? The courts have consistently disagreed with your assessments of what is constitutional. In case you have forgotten, Marbury v. Madison made the courts, not some dude named Larry, the arbiter of what is constitutional.

How are you helping ANYONE hummjob?.......The douchenozzle you elected is destroying this country....some help you are.

larry- you have wasted fifty years of study and that is a shame.If limited government is mandated by the constitution then why did George Washington approve the first National bank in 1789. I mean Larry- why have a NATIONAL bank instead of all those private banks. And George Washibgton a founding father no less

I need a paxil

The limited govt mandate has been noted repeatedly and Washington was clearly opposed on the idea of a National Bank

"I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson, "Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank" [February 15, 1791]

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." James Madison, "Letter to Edmund Pendleton,"
-- James Madison, January 21, 1792,

Presidents Andrew Jackson, Tyler, and Lincoln all opposed a National Bank as unconstitutional

Finally, this from Supreme Court Justice Black on our Constitutionally Limited Govt

Hugo LaFayette Black, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1937-1971:

"The form of government which was ordained and established in 1789 contains certain unique features which reflected the Framers' fear of arbitrary government and which clearly indicate an intention absolutely to limit what Congress could do.

"The first of these features is that our Constitution is written in a single document. Such constitutions are familiar today and it is not always remembered that our country was the first to have one. Certainly one purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. An all-powerful government that can act as it pleases wants no such constitution - unless to fool the people. England had no written constitution and this once proved a source of tyranny, as our ancestors well knew. Jefferson said about this departure from the English type of Government: Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

"A second unique feature of our Government is a Constitution supreme over the Legislature. In England, statutes, Magna Carta, and later declarations of rights had for centuries limited the power of the King, but they did not limit the power of Parliament. Although commonly referred to as a Constitution, they were never the supreme law of the land in the way in which our Constitution is, much to the regret of statesmen like Pitt the elder. Parliament could change this English constitution; Congress cannot change ours. Ours can only be changed by amendments ratified by threefourths of the States.

"A third feature of our Government, expressly designed to limit its powers, was the division of authority into three co-ordinate branches, none of which was to have supremacy over the others. This separation of powers with the checks and balances which each branch was given over the others was designed to prevent any branch, including the Legislative, from infringing individual liberties safeguarded by the Constitution.

"All of the unique features of our Constitution show an underlying purpose to create a new kind of limited government."

"Central to all of the Framers of the Bill of Rights was the idea that since government, particularly the National Government newly created, is a powerful institution, its officials - all of them - must be compelled to exercise their powers within strictly defined boundaries. As Madison told Congress, the Bill of Rights' limitations point sometimes against the abuse of the Executive power, sometimes against the Legislative, and in some cases against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.

"Madison also explained that his proposed amendments were intended to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode.

"Mr. Madison made a clear explanation to Congress that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to grant greater protection than England afforded its citizens. He said: In the Declaration of Rights which [England] has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther than to raise a barrier against the power of the Crown; the power of the Legislature is left altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, came in question in that body, invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Carta does not contain any one provision for the security of those Rights, respecting which the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British Constitution.

"It was the desire to give the people of America greater protection against the powerful Federal Government than the English had had against their Government that caused the Framers to put these freedoms of expression, again in the words of Madison, beyond the reach of this Government."

["One Man's Stand For Freedom" - Mr. Justice Black and the Bill of Rights - Hugo LaFayette Black: A collection of his Supreme Court opinions - Published 1963 by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.]

Larry-

Hamilton was G Washington's secretary of the Treasury and he wanted the National Bank to help direct investment in the country and to make sure funds were available for large projects like infrastucture to spur the development of the country. George Washington asked for the opinion of his cabinet and the quote from Jefferson is correct but Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the bank into existance. So I have No idea where your statement G Washington was opposed to the bank comes from.

You and I have chatted about different historical items in the past and I am mystified where some of your assumptions come from.

I need a paxil- the statement re Washington was an editing error. I meant to say many founders were opposed.

Larry- but obviously not all and if not all the founding fathers then there is room for discussion of the role of government in the direction the country grows. It aint all laissez faire and none other then the 1st President agreed with government INVOLVEMENT, I mean the father of the country, the man without whom there would be no U S of A.

Should we count him as a democrat? just kidding as he felt all parties are to be avoided and often resulted in party before country- kind of like what McConnell believes in.

Larry--Some of the founders didn't want a national bank. A majority did, which is why it passed Congress and was signed by the president. In McCulloch v. Maryland (c. 1816) the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Marshall (another founder) sided with Hamilton's view and determined that the BUS was constitutional. Since the Supreme Court has the authority to determine what is and what is not constitutional and presidents do not have that authority, what Jackson said about it is irrelevant. INasmuch as the Second Bank of the US had disappeared by the time Tyler and Lincoln were presidents, I fail to see the relevance of their opinions (if, in fact, they ever held the one you espouse).

You are pathetic.......libtard

Larry,

The reason men enter into society is for the preservation of mankind itself, "property" is a secondary concern, and there are many perfectly workable and acceptable ways to define what is and is not "property" and how it should be owned, distributed, regulated, etc. Those definitions change with mankind's and societies' needs. Those definitions and needs have been evolving since 1760, as they should.

Note that Madison mentions Monopolies. He wasn't referring to a Hasbro board game. Today the power and influence of monopolies is for more dangerous and insidious than government. The power they have begins when you tell me that they don't exist, that merely reflects their success at masking their insidious power. You probably think there are many airlines, many oil companies, many farming empires, many drug manufacturers, many insurance providers, all competing for your business, but you are wrong. All of these companies today can easily collude on pricing, product availablility, distribution, marketing policies, etc, etc,. Without ever meeting in a back room or placing a single phone call they can agree on all significant aspects of their business activities by simple watching each other (at lightening speed) as each of them acts or reacts to changing advantages or disadvantages confronting their industry. And their reach is global, it is worldwide, it effects everyone. They control you and nearly everything around you whether you are conscious of it or not.

James--You're trying to argue sensibly with Larry. That's a fun exercise, but somewhat futile. His thought processes are not the same as those of most people.

Really??? Are you serious? Lest you forget dear demented one, Newtie was doing the same thing President Clinton was, all the while impeaching Clinton. Only difference, Newt married the tramp and "retired" in disgrace...before he was thrown out of office. Apparently you've been sniffing too much gun cleaning fluid.

Eric,

Its the pretense to "family values" and the holier than thou arrogance while boinking anything with a pulse that us Libbies object to. I don't care what consenting adults do in private. But I don't like being lied to by an arrogant little hypocrite who is pretending to set a moral example, who is pretending to be a man of religious conviction, while he is doing just the opposite.

The same "libby" attitude applies to those who preach the value of individual liberty and that government should stay out of our private lives, while they promote anti abortion laws, and laws against gay marriage and legal equality. Its hypocritical, its against liberty and equality, and it MAKES CONSERVATIVES LOOK BOTH STUPID and PETTY.