I suppose I'll have to make this a regular feature since they show no sign of letting up on their disdain for half of the country.
First up is ultra-moonbat Erik Larsen who writes
1) As if such a sentiment is unique to the GOP. Only total moonbats limit such to one party.
2) I'm sure the Democrats were "fighting hard" to have America succeed during 2001-2008 instead of "fighting hard" to have George W. Bush fail, right?
3) Regarding #2, Larsen probably considers it moot since he believes the previous president "stole" his two elections.
Next there's genius Dan Slott who "shows off" his elementary civics knowledge:
It's a different story if you replace "limits on Obamacare" w/ "limits on a passed law that was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court."— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) October 5, 2013
*Sigh* How many such comparisons should we make that are just like the above ... but which Slott would hate? It's like something I read on Twitter yesterday: "Progressives" and the mainstream media call it "obstruction," "extremism," etc. when a Democrat president doesn't get his way with another branch of gov. dominated by the GOP; however, when there's a Republican president who faces a similar situation, then divided government and checks and balances to "diminish" an "imperial" executive are of paramount importance.
And if Slott is implying that just because the SCOTUS deemed the ACA constitutional that it must be passed, then he's a bigger idiot than he's already proven himself to be many times.
Remember, right-leaning comicbook fans: Contemporary comicbook creators piss on your views routinely.
UPDATE: I found where I had seen what I referenced above. It was from Jonah Goldberg:
When the president is a Democrat he needs to rule unimpaired. When he’s a Republican, his dictatorial tendencies must be held in check. When liberals want to reinterpret the Constitution by judicial whim or fiat, it’s proof that the Constitution is living up to its nature as a “living, breathing, document.” When conservatives actually want to amend the Constitution — the only legitimate and constitutional means to change the meaning of the Constitution, I might add – it is a horrible affront to the vision of the Founders!Posted by Hube at October 5, 2013 10:39 AM | TrackBack