sorry I mean Bailey ....

is that a Freudian slip, Gretchen?

One person's twitter comments do not speak for anyone other than the owner. Quit trying to make one fool into a representative of the whole left. You demean yourself by stooping to such petty comments.

The reason it's INTOLERANT is because the LEFT is always preaching INCLUSION -- however, when they are talking about GOP they simply forget that. Did you listen to BIDEN hollering yesterday .... talking about the RICH ! ! ! Good grief, there are tons of RICH Democrats. Why didn't he complain when the RICH MAN, John Kerry, ran for President. Why doesn't he complain when the RICH PEOPLE in HOLLYWOOD hold fund raiser for Obama ???The class warfare is simply a way to get some votes.

Calling Haley "Sikh Jesus" isn't class warfare or exclusion. I guess I shouldn't have expected to get an answer... hey, did you know that only 53% of Americans pay taxes. Yeah, class warfare isn't a T/Republican tactic.

What was Biden saying about the rich? Was it any different that what Gingrich said?

JoSCh, I appreciate your intelligent and thoughtful comments. It makes me curious about who you are. Personally I wish that everyone commenting here had to give their names. Nevertheless, I hope you will continue your commentary.

according to the Book of John in the New Testament Jesus did actually resurrect one other person before he did the trick on himself. He had a friend by the name of Lazarus who was and sick and died while Jesus was on his way to visit him. Once he arrived Jesus told Lazarus to get up and he did, according to John at least. Each of the other three Gospels recount another story of Jesus raising someone from the dead (the daughter of Jairus), and Luke recounts a second story of Jesus raising a widow's son from the dead as well. The story of Lazarus is by far the most well known and has served as an inspiration for various works of fiction. Additionally two other resurrection incidents are chronicled in The Acts of the Apostles including Peter raising a woman from the dead and Paul raising a man from the dead. In the Old Testament there are at least three other stories of people being resurrected from the dead, the Prophet Elijah raised a boy from the dead in 1 Kings and the Prophet Elisha raised another boy from the dead in 2 Kings, then Elisha's bones were used to raise another man from the dead later in 2 Kings. However all of the scriptures are mute on whether any of these resurrected folks had an unhealthy - at least for everyone else around them - craving for brains.

@Jonathan Allen: "...the other three Gospels recount another story of Jesus raising someone from the dead... etcetc"

thanks for the education...if i had heard of these resurrections...it was forgotten by one craving for a brain...impressed with your knowledge of the scriptures...but assume you doubt the resurrections...

@stanley - I recalled the Lazarus incident myself, though not the specific book, and a quick Google search turned up the rest. I grew up Catholic and attended Catholic schools, and the resurrection of Lazarus was covered in many of my religion classes over the years. I'm not sure how big of a deal other Christian denominations make of it though. The other scriptural examples of people being raised from the dead I did not remember, and that may have something to do with the fact that the story of Lazarus has, as I mentioned, has served as inspiration for many works of fiction, especially in the comic book medium. One of Batman's villains, Ra's al Gul (played by Liam Neeson in Christopher Nolan's film) stays alive and young by immersing himself in pools of chemicals he calls Lazarus Pits. I've read or seen (in the case of movies and TV shows) many other references to the story as well.

As far as whether I believe in the stories in the scriptures, I've got something in common with the Apostle Thomas on that score I guess.

The sad part is, they can't even get together to make a BUDGET ! ! Good grief. Obama had control of the HOUSE and SENATE for TWO WHOLE YEARS..... and he couldn't even get a budget approved. I think all of the elected officials in Washington need to GO ... and we need to START OVER ! ! ! !

The president doesn't get a budget approved, both parties have submitted budgets and neither has been viable nor would either pass because the filibuster is broken.

The House and Senate have failed to pass a joint budget bill on four earlier occasions since 1983. For fiscal year 2003, the Senate, under Democratic control in 2002, failed to pass a budget resolution of any kind. For fiscal 1999, 2005 and 2007, the House and Senate failed to reconcile their different bills and pass a compromise measure. In these latter three cases, the Republicans were in the majority in both chambers of Congress.

But don't let perspective and facts get in the way of your unreasonable rants.

Money in politics needs to go. The people in office aren't (necessarily) the problem.

@Gretchen: "...Good grief...etcetc"

apologies for the ad neaseaum repeat of facts...but to have control of the US senate one has to have 60 votes...and when the T-GOPs JOB#1 is to block any BO proposasl...ie, make him a term president...then it's a mircle BO got anything done...

even if there had been bipartisianship it would have been impossible to turn the economy around after 8 years of W-GOP policies favoring/enriching the 1%...eg, FDR's policies did not take effect in his 1st term...

PS
re: Haley is a practicing Methodist whose parents were born in India. Sikh is one of the dominant religions in India.

she should have stayed with the sikh religion. they are more christian in pratice, than the hypocrits profressing to pratice the teachings of Jesus...eg;

Sikh Philosophy and Beliefs (just a few)

There is only One God.

Sikhs should remember God at all times and practice living a virtuous and truthful life while maintaining a balance between their spiritual obligations and temporal obligations.

The true path to achieving salvation and merging with God does not require renunciation of the world or celibacy, but living the life of a householder, earning a honest living and avoiding worldly temptations and sins.

Sikhism condemns blind rituals such as fasting, visiting places of pilgrimage, superstitions, worship of the dead, idol worship etc.

Sikhism preaches that people of different races, religions, or sex are all equal in the eyes of God.

Well then John Schafer, why were you attempting to connect liberalism and the Democrats as though it was a negative thing? Today's liberal ideas are tomorrow's conserative ones. That comment by one Democrat on his personal Twitter does not reflect on the whole party membership.
I am with you 100 % on opposition to all attempts to pervert the ideals and principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I ask you though, which party is it that keeps trying to intermingle religious morals and beliefs with federal law? Which party seems to no longer agree with majority rules? You can't pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to go along with for now. It's an all or nothing proposition and every single federal office holder has sworn to uphold and defend all of those principles.

Bravo Mr Simons. It will be nice when reason rules the day and not rhetoric.

A tip of the hat from an admitted liberal (and proud to be one), to you Billy Simons. I can appreciate common sense when I see and hear it. Thank you for your calm and thoughtful comments.

You say: "the "right" has a small government, individual responsibility, and state's rights philosophy."

Why, then, does the Republican "right" keep operating in a fascist format? Take their vote on the communications bill that actually allows employers to demand employees to give up their passwords to facebook and other social media.

Seems like the GOP is only small govt when it comes to business - they don't want laws that protect the country from illegal antics too many businesses play. When it comes to personal freedom and individual rights, though - look out! The GOTea is trying to create another East Germany.

@reg: "the "right" has a small government, individual responsibility, and state's rights philosophy. Why, then, does the Republican "right" keep operating in a fascist format?"

doubt there will be a specific answer/counter points...

but a more general observation: 'The past quarter century of Republican economics has proven that the trickle down theory is just a convenient excuse to justify an economic policy favoring the rich, with the benefits trickling up to make the very wealthy even wealthier.'

proof: see 1929, 2008 and CA 2011...and the 1% v 99% wealth distribution.

Conservative, liberal, progressive and authoritarian aren't labels, they're words that have meanings that don't, or at least shouldn't, change with changing ideals. Republican and Democrat are labels. Currently both have elements of "left" and "right" ideologies. I disagree that big government defines "left" thinking or that individual responsibility defines "right".

These definitions of philosophy are too narrow and not specifically correct either. The majority of the left do not want big government, especially when we cannot pay for it. The left isn't comprised of stupid people, although I admit there are plenty of them. The left only wants a big government so that it is large enough to defend the citizens against the endless activities by huge corporations that abuse the rights of the people and destroy the environment while extracting every sellable resource. In general the left is also in favor of states rights but still wants the federal government to be big enough to control the states when they act foolishly, e.g. the civil war.

While conservatives or the right claim to favor small government they seem to feel the military complex does not count when determining the size of government. Additionally, as others have pointed out, the right appears to want small government so that big business can have a free reign to do whatever they please in search of profits. I agree that in general the right favors state rights. However, it again seems to be in favor only as a means to bypass the will of the country overall. As for individual responsibility, to say that it is the philosophy of the right implies that the left does not believe the individual must be responsible for his or her own actions. That is obviously incorrect as it usually the left that campaigns for greater personal responsibility in all areas of society.

TOM HANTON .... AMEN ..... best comment on here :)

What's this about govt increasing in size? The fed gov has actually retired over 100,000 employees in the last three years, and not replaced their positions. Funding for many branches (in particular Dept. of Commerce) got seriously slashed, too. So where does this "big gov" talk come from? (and let's forget the facts that your examples of Microsoft and Apple both got started under government contracts, both direct and indirect, which they still maintain - even $11mil govt loan MS got in 2008...). And by the way, where does one-quarter of our country get electricity? From the power authority that the govt tried to give to four companies - none of which did anything, and which the govt itself had to reclaim. Water for 15% of the country? From the dam that three companies bailed out on. Every problem affecting our economy is from tactics that companies used, and then stood there with their hands held out for help after the tactics flunked. Your cite of Greece only defeats your own argument - it was overly reliant on shipping and tourism, and when those markets soured, the govt did NOTHING in the format of financial reform of other industries it had ignored for so long.

One of the greatest Republican presidents, Teddy Roosevelt ,felt it was a major responsibility of government to control business. He fought to break up the monopolies screwing people in his time. You say you trust big business over big government. I wish we had neither but without government, we would still have children working in sweat shops, the coal mines would be killing people in cave-ins and there wouldn't be any giant sequoia trees. If the existing laws and regulations controlling monopolies, price fixing and other things weren't necessary then neither would government agencies be needed to control them.

Without government support of scientific research and efforts like the space program there wouldn't be enough private investments to produce all the new industries that have been created as a result. The government doesn't create new businesses it creates the atmosphere that makes new technologies necessary and possible.

America is owned by all of her citizens not just the top 1%. Everyone is entitled to share in the wealth of the country. You seem to believe that the few social programs we do have are the cause of all that's wrong. Social programs allow the common citizen to use more of his own money to acquire the things that he wants instead of paying ever higher prices for things like health care. It's the middle class driving the economy. They are the consumers that buy things. That makes stores succesful which means more factories which means more jobs.

@Gretchen: "... best comment on here"

on what do you base yo "best comment" comment...hansons comments are T-GOP talking points...very few if any sustained opines...greece's failure proves zip...as many (more) successes (germany and the Scandinavian countries) as failures can be quoted...besides tom hanton begs the question...does not address the issues.

it's not a contest between big business and big government...it's about which ideology is best for our country and all people...it about the success or failure of voodoo, trickle down, GOP policies...

its about austerity or investments...it's about do you/we want policies that led to 1929 depression, 2008 recession, and CA 2011 recession...or

do we want policies that provided social security, medicare, BO-care (health care for 30-40 million uninsured po and middle class folks)...

do you/we want policies that led to the 1% v 99% wealth division or those that led to a strong middle class...

look forward to yo answers...a yes to "do you want policies that led to 1929, 2008, 2011 and 1% v 99%"...would provide some understanding of the T-GOPs.

If business doesn't produce, it takes every last measure to stifle all competition and give us no choice (which, btw, is the exact opposite of capitalism, in which is the consumer supposed to be the one in charge). And you're ignoring my other comments here, Tom. Where did we get the TVA? The Hoover Dam? From companies? NO! multiple companies bailed out on them (and other needed utility improvements we now take for granted). If there'd been no government influence, shoot ... we'd all still be boiling water from a creek, sitting by candlelight and riding around on bicycles and horses instead of cars. The GOTea has been aiding oil companies in their fight to restrict other energy sources - even though we know crude is a limited resource. The GOTea aided oil companies restrain development of automobiles using other power sources for quite a long time, too. How are we finally getting other power developed, and other car power sources explored? By the government allowing consumer incentives - restoring it to the hands of citizens in their true Capitalist power as consumers. The GOTea is only using Marxist Economics in a plutocratic format that resembles serfdom.

@Tom Hanton: "...I repeat - etcetc..."

seems you repeat unsubstantiated opine...and too cute by 1/2 remarks which contribute lil if anything to understanding/appreciating the difference in DEM/GOP policies...

re: 'government has NO incentive to stay in existence'

sorry i dont understand...just what do you suggest in lieu of government...anarchy...privatize: infrastructure, education, health care, the military, social security, etcetc...return to those thrilling days of yesteryear that brought us 1929 and 2008

your party line hyperbole makes lil sense to this bleeding heart red neck...what am i missing...

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-spacex-rocket-elon-musk-20120521,0,5183184.story