See what happens when you try to compliment HisRoc by saying that the Republicans might be paying him to troll; even Michael Steele is not dumb enough to pay His Roc the inept teabagger for anything. The truth is that Ben Pays His Roc and change to troll and increase Ben's hits!

The conspiracy theorists are out in force today: these paranoid freaks teabaggers) think that because they constantly engage in petty partisan conspiracies, their opponents do likewise !

Ben is sending a signal: he is beginning a new campaign all about Ben and trashing Democrats to ingratiate himself with the Republican teabaggers that predominate postings on this blog. Ben just can not help being an attention whore!

Did I mention that HisRoc is a paid Republican troll?

"Ben, Why is it that every time there is a rational discussion of political viewpoints on NLS, change and HisRoc have to come in, squat, and take a Republican talking points dump in the middle of it?"

Given that Pat Herrity is such a virtuous budget hawk, one would think that he would be attempting to set an example in keeping down staff wages; but that would require Pat not to engage in partisan hypocrisy.

Never get into a mud-wreslting match with a Republican; you both will get dirty but the Republican will enjoy it!

The teabaggers and wingnut conservatives should stick to their principles and refuse to complete the census! Since they are planning to secede from the U.S., according to Rick Perry, representation in congress is irrelevant.

Either HisRoc and change are back on their halluciogenic pills again or have another Gig for Republican trolling!

"People who have a simple and well founded faith in this country understand this. And they don't run around talking up violent revolution. "Only shameless political opportunists and crazy people and weak sisters who have no faith in America do that." Well said!

It really does'nt matter when anyone signed anything! Cooch is only using this lawsuit to grandstand to the teabaggers; hell, he did'nt even know what was in the bill. The best that Cooch really expects to get out of this is a court hearing. The reality is that Cooch may well lose the suit for lack of merit. This was Cooch's opening bid to get the Republican nomination for governor in 2013.

"Medicare does not require anyone to buy anything! It's a gov't program supported completely by tax dollars." Then why am I and my wife being billed by the Social Security Admninistration for my Medicare coverage each month? Just another Republican KnowNothing spouting off his ignorance and demonstrating his mental illness. Go back to your Teabagging friends who unquestioningly buy your politically-inspired BS!

"This legislation “taxes” a person just for breathing." That just might exempt you as you have been brain dead for sometime.

I knew that Danville was someplace in the south of someplace; Alabama seemed as good a place as any where they might have homophobic bigots and home bombers.

HisRoc: When Connolly appears at the U.S. District Courthouse in Alexandia, there will be at leat a half dozen Republicans before or with him! If he is actually guilty of financial misconduct, he is only following in a path well-paved and often -traveled by his predecessor Tom Davis and his current paramour!

A Teabagger leader from from Alabama who also posted what he thought was Perriello's address has been reported as saying that the act was "just collateral damage." The teabsaggers are not all morons, but a good many of them are outright racists and uneducated goons.

A Teabagger leader from from Alabama who also posted what he thought was Perriello's address has been reported as saying that the act was "just collateral damage." The teabsaggers are not all morons, but a good many of them are outright racists and uneducated goons.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R- State of Hypocrisy) Takes Credit for Provisions in HCR M E M O R A N D U M To: Reporters and Editors Re: tax-exempt hospitals provisions in new health care law Da: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, with jurisdiction over taxes, has worked to hold tax-exempt hospitals accountable for the federal tax benefits they receive. The health care legislation signed into law yesterday includes provisions Grassley co-authored to impose standards for the tax exemption of charitable hospitals for the first time. The bill requires that a hospital complete a community needs assessment once every three years and adopt and publicize a financial assistance policy; prohibits billing those who qualify for financial assistance the top rates; and prohibits a hospital from taking extraordinary collection actions if the hospital has not made reasonable efforts to notify patients of its financial assistance policy. The bill also requires the IRS to review the tax-exempt status of each hospital every three years; requires Treasury and Health and Human Services to submit an annual report to Congress on the level of charity care, bad debt expenses and the unreimbursed costs of means-tested and non-means-tested government programs; and requires Treasury and HHS to provide a report in five years on the trends on the items reported on an annual basis. Grassley made the following comment on the advancement of these provisions. "Tax-exempt hospitals don't have many measures of accountability for their special status. The law hasn't given them much direction, and so they've defined standards for themselves. Sometimes that's resulted in providing very little charitable patient care or other community benefits, failing to publicize charitable care to patients, charging indigent, uninsured patients more than insured patients, and using very aggressive collection practices. The Government Accountability Office and others, including the former IRS commissioner, have said for a long time that there is often no discernible difference between the operations of taxable and tax-exempt hospitals. These new provisions are modeled after principles and polices that the Catholic Health Association has had in place for years. I appreciate the association's willingness to have honest, forthright conversations about charitable hospitals' activities. The provisions take steps to differentiate tax-exempt hospitals from for-profit hospitals and provide further transparency about tax-exempt hospitals' fulfilling their charitable mission. Congress, the IRS, and the public will now have additional tools and information to ensure that charitable hospitals act charitably." The provisions enacted in the new health care law are the result of Grassley's leadership on tax-exempt organizations' accountability and transparency, including hospitals. In 2005, he sent letters of inquiry to some of the nation's largest tax-exempt hospitals. In 2006, he convened a hearing and released a summary of the hospitals' responses. In 2007, he released a staff discussion draft of potential legislative reforms and convened a roundtable of experts to discuss the potential reforms. In 2008, he followed up with letters of inquiry to more hospitals and received a report he'd requested from the Government Accountability Office. In 2009, he drafted legislative reforms and succeeded in persuading the Democratic majority to include several of the reforms in the new health care law.

Republicans and teabaggers rejoice: Your leader has amended one of her pending complaints to have the court find the HCR as unconstitutional for violating her right to operate her dental surgery practice.

Brian: You are right about McCulloch not being about the commerce clause(clearly, I gave away all my reference books too soon),it was about the idea of implied powers that Marshall created out of whole cloth. Nevertheless, Cooch did cherry-pick dicta out of that decision to put into his legal brief on the commerce clause. I know that as an avid admirer of Hamilton, you, as are many of his admirers, generally blinded to his heresies about republican government. Nevertheless, the National Bank was his creation based upon the implied and other powers of congress. We can debate about the difference between a strong central goverment and a powerful government, (which you now redefine as an as all powerful onmipresent government,which is exactly what the anti-federalists thought Hamilton was building); but in the end this is all about counting the number of fairies dancing on the head of a pin.

James: Other than your raging homophobia and yearning for the return of the 17th century, what else do you understand?

Brian: Despite your own over-the-top personal dislike for Jefferson, the fact is that all of your Federalist Society loons worship at the altar of Anti-federalist (particularly states' rights) philosophy. As a matter of fact, a large number of arch-conservative states righters today openly attribute their views to Jefferson.

"McCulloch v. Maryland didn't establish a precedent for a broad reading of the commerce power." Brian: You missed my point! McCullogh was the orginal decision on and (broad for the time)the commerce clause. John Marshall, as a federalist was interested in expanding federal power. Likewise John Marshall authored Marberry v. Madison which established the authority of the judiciary to encompass judicial review, something also not directly authorized by nor even mentioned the constitution. Like you, I also have taken graduate level courses in constitutional law, as well as political history political. But you are right about West Coast Hotel, which a frightened Supreme Court used to overrule Lochner (the "sick Chicken" case). Stop trying to rewrite history to portray Hamilton as being interested in only a "strong central government" and not a "powerful" one. How about the "National Bank" as a starter? Pretty revolutionary for the 1790s!

John Marshall and the original federalists must be spinning in their graves tonight over the thought of Cooch and his boys cherry- picking an obscure dicta out of McCullough v. Maryland, the very case in which Marshall himself established the precedent for a broad reading of the commerce clause of the federal constitution and by doing so denigrated states rights under the 10th amendment. Brian and his fellow Federalist Society members need to be consistent and rename thdeir little club the Antifederalist Society and lobby for the restoration of the Articles of Confederation. The irony of it all is a pleasure to behold!

John Marshall and the original federalists must be spinning in their graves tonight over the thought of Cooch and his boys cherry- picking an obscure dicta out of McCullough v. Maryland, the very case in which Marshall himself established the precedent for a broad reading of the commerce clause of the federal constitution and by doing so denigrated states rights under the 10th amendment. Brian and his fellow Federalist Society members need to be consistent and rename their little club the Antifederalist Society and lobby for the restoration of the Articles of Confederation. The irony of it all is a pleasure to behold!