I'm to a point where I think one must actually understand our governmental system in order to be a part of it. After the election each winning candidate will be given a test. If they fail the test, they're ruled ineligible and the office will go to the next-highest vote getter.

There's simply no excuse for someone in the government to be this clueless.

Whether it's an anti-choice person bombing an abortion clinic, Tim McVeigh and his militia buddies blowing up a federal building, or this mess, you've got to put it in the proper context. To brush it off by saying he was severely mentally disturbed is to miss the point. Obviously he was disturbed - everyone who gets to this point is disturbed. That's necessary, but not sufficient.

The hate speech on the right is loud and ubiquitous, and getting even more so. There are people, people with much influence and wide audiences, spurring others to do things like this. Not everyone is going to, but all it takes is one individual disturbed enough to take "justice" into his own hands.

This may be the first major act of violence precipitated by this toxic ideology during the Obama administration, but it won't be the last. We're less than a hundred days into a near-1500 day term. It's only beginning.

You'd never hear someone on the left bitching about some other "personality" ripping off their shtick.

Mostly because only the people on the right have a shtick. That says about all you need to know about their "ideas."

I don't know in which universe Don Imus could be considered a liberal, but it's not this one.

And Stern isn't a political commentator, so I don't see how he's relevant to this discussion. If he were, however, his political party could best be called Sternocratic. He'll argue for what benefits him, and if this temporarily aligns him with one or the other political party so be it.

I'm pretty sure in the United States we do our best to limit one's "freedom" to harm others.

"Ideological purity"? How about "standing up for what you believe in"? Would you do that? Or are you too caught up in the who's winning/who's losing horse race to concern yourself with such things?

Because a woman who is sexually available without a few margaritas in her would have to be a big slut.

A woman who is sexually available WITH a few margaritas in her would also be a big slut.

I mean, since we're using that kind of terminology, let's use it correctly. Drunk or not, if you're willing to fuck some random guy at the bar, you're a slut. But whatever makes you feel better about yourself in the morning...

It was just something to keep Beck in the news.

Well, the next governor or legislature might NOT be liberal...they might be Right Wing Conservatives. Do you want THEM to have the power to impose THEIR views on you, without a vote?

If you had read the post, you'd know that Paterson isn't declaring anything by fiat - he's calling for it to go through the legislative process.

Although frankly, I wish a gay couple would just try to get married and then challenge the appropriate statute in court. Discrimination is unconstitutional, and has been declared so everywhere it's been ruled upon. New York is no exception.

Don't leave discrimination up to the "majority" (voters or legislators). It's unconstitutional, period.

Cornyn also said that the panel's ruling "disenfranchises over 4,000 Minnesota voters."

..the majority of whom probably voted for Franken anyway.

Regardless, does Cornyn profess to know more about this case than all of the judges who've presided over it? Based on what evidence? What is it with Republicans in Congress pretending to be long-distance experts?

Actually, the tea parties are catching on in more and more communities across the country, as Americans realize they are not comfortable with bigger government and irresponsible spending.

Funny that they didn't realize this during the Reagan, Bush or Bush debt explosions. Only when there are deficits during a Democratic administration do people rise up and protest!

I call bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, a thousand times bullshit. This is based on party alone, not on ideological consistency.

These people are so painfully stupid I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it. I am completely in awe.

Flabbergasting.

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department."

--Eric Holder

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect The Fatherland for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Nazi Party."

--made-up quote, attributed to Eric Holder's philosophical twin 60 years ago

Obama and Holder might need to go to The Hague, too.

The agents were acting in "good faith" when they FUCKING TORTURED PEOPLE.

Go to hell, you cowardly piece of shit.

Yup, unless you're in favor of torturing people, you're an extremist.

Have you ever considered that you're a vile, terrible piece of human scum? Probably not. The scum usually aren't self-aware.

Oh well, E-man. The louder you advocate your views, the faster we'll progress. It was a lot more effective when it was secret. Light is a great disinfectant - unless you're the germs.

By his logic, the Revolutionaries were good, patriotic Brits.

What he's talking about is being a patriotic citizen of some future unnamed country. He'd like to destroy America (as we know it). I'd call that many things, but not patriotic.

These are crimes that were committed before Obama took office, and Obama knew about them when he did take office.

And so, it should've come to him to ask any potential AG whether they were willing to investigate these crimes. They're of such seriousness that any worthwhile human being would not have even chanced no investigations by not asking about it.

It should've been the first question, and it should've been a necessary one.