See the difference is money. Unfettered, unchecked executive power to restrict personal freedoms - fine... it's what conservatives do. Security and religious morality will always trump personal freedom in their minds... but money? Money is a different thing all together. Money, usually in the guise of "free market capitalism", is their sacred cow. The idea that someone might be making off with their money - whether through the horror of taxes to support legitimate governance or through an actual theft by Wall Street - it does not matter... Want to stoke the outrage of a conservative - tell them that their money is being threatened. Most non-conservatives understand that money is simply another kind of personal freedom... it is labor, and thus time, distilled. Perhaps it is the capitalist view itself... if money comes from something other than labor - if it comes from capital rather than labor - then it is divorced from time... and thus is also divorced from the idea of personal freedom. Money in a capitalist system is more about power than it is about freedom.

I've conjectured for years now that perhaps the reason the congressional liberals were so damnably compliant for the last eight years is that, knowing the huge financial forces aligned against them, they knew (or believed) that they couldn't possibly resist effectively and so they instead waitied for the Republican house of cards to fall of its own weight.

Whether or not my conjecture was correct, it now appears that the cardhouse has indeed fallen in a manner that's so obvious to everyone that even the greed-blinded Repubicans now have to admit it.

Yes, Glenn, it would indeed be hilarious, if not for all the suffering they've caused.

Correction: I meant to write, "Republicans," not "Repubicans."

Bring on the "freudian slip" accusations. lol

King George III of England??

Sorry, I thought you were referring to another King George..

But hey, it still makes sense!