King was a Republican.

You accepted that Obama lost the first debate? No, the left had no choice but to bemoan the obvious and there was weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, and that was just Chris Matthews. There was no dignified acknowledgment of a great showing by Romney. Just indignant accusations that he only won because he lied. Your use of vulgar epithets demonstrates just how much sanity and dignity you possess, sir.

For the record, it is congressional Democrats who have not proposed or passed a budget in more than three years, although they are required by the Constitution to do so every year. President Obama, in keeping with tradition as a means of spelling out for Congress what his agenda is, has submitted a budget proposal every year, although he is not legally required to do so. Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending President Obama. His budget proposals have all been so ridiculous that not even one member of his own party has voted for them. I just think that if you want to criticize someone you ought not to do so with incorrect information.

Wait, tax deductibility makes something less charitable? I don't follow that logic.

Romney is at least as accomplished as Obama in the mom-jeans-wearing department. I'm just sayin'.

Can you name one Republican presidential candidate in the last 50 years who was not an incumbent at the time who WAS way out ahead in polling at this point in the election? I'll give you a hint. There isn't one. In 1980, Carter was ahead until just before voting day. Reagan won in a landslide victory. Only in Reagan's bid for reelection has a Republican led in the lying polls at this point.

"The guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama" Hahahahahahaha! Do you even listen to yourself or are you just retarded. In 1980, Reagan was a former democrat, a former supporter of the New Deal. As Governor of California, he signed into law one of the first bills legalizing abortion. Obviously a RINO through and through, right? Worse yet, He was the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Carter! Tell me again how that turned out?

Further, you cannot claim that a bill THAT HAS NOT BEEN PASSED BY EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS represents the will of Congress. That's perhaps the thinnest argument I've ever seen in a Townhall article ever.

Whether you think the actual policy is the right one or not, to do it by executive fiat is flatly unconstitutional. It circumvents the clear intention of the Constitution on how laws are enacted and negates the very idea of checks and balances. Like much of what our President does (from unilaterally deciding not to uphold DOMA to interfering with a business's right to expand into another state), it smacks of an imperialist bent.

Senators cannot be prosecuted for anything they say in the Senate, no matter how criminal it would otherwise be. The worst that can happen to him is a censure by the Senate...which he leads, so fat chance of that.