That was what Rush really meant, sure. Too bad his idiot followers are too dense to get it.

Once again this incendiary language directed to Obama has nothing to do with policy, a segment of the population simply hates the man himself. Rush speaks to that portion of the population.

What does that say when a major conservative "News" network pushes the notion that President "WANTS" to hurt the country. How is that different for the those who believe Bush allowed 9'11 to happen? except that notion never made it off the internet, this absurdity in on television. What is that telling the more unstable among us.

I actually prefer "Prom Queen".

oh gawd. We are doomed to think that Obama will be able to carry out his idiotic plans for 7 more years.
I think the American people are finally waking up to this "man child"!!!

To trueconserv

I will bet you 500$ that Obama wins in 2012. One thing I have learned is that "true" conservatives will say anything for free but when you ask them to put their money where their mouth is they shut up quick. I have never had one "conservative" take me up on a bet. You guys must know that you are full of B.S. and knowingly talk out of your asses.

Yes, the American people continue to give the President a 56 percent approval rating. They sure agree with you wingnuts!

Careful. You're starting to sound like George W's "with us or against us" policy in the Middle East.

The reason the GOP is losing members is because they can't seem to figure out that being the party of me too to the Democrats isn't going to win them anything.

Let's see what happens in New York 23! If Democrats can't win up there, they are in for big trouble against a growing Conservative movement!

speakingout101: My point was and is There is a lot of foolishness being discussed. When are we going to talk about the serious problems. Climate Change is accelerating faster then scentists anticipated. But Republicans and blue dogs are responsible for making health care reform take months. Wall Street was bailed out in days. Then they had a nice weekend at an exclusive spa and continued to pass out mutli-million bonuses. These posters who make comments gloating about that lastest thing they heard beck or rush say unless they belong to the top 10 % are campaigning against their own best interests. As for the top 10%, you ever wonder if they have another planet they aren't telling the rest of us about. So, when it comes to the well being of our planet, why is it that other countries that are starting to lead. Even China is doing more. In this country, The GOP are more interested in getting back in power, even at the cost of finding solutions to our many problems . So it is not a case of "with us or against us" It would be really great if the debate was brought up to an adult Level. Silly name calling and the usual hyperbole and demagoguery are not adding to the conversation. We heard it all before .It time they found something worth while to do with their time. Let the adults discuss the things that matters .

Your point is that the crazy left and their scientists believe the end of the world is near.

Stop complaining and trying to kill everyone's day!!

Bitch Bitch Bitch

You know what? if global warming means the end of the world and you and your crazy ilk think that we are responsible for it, and can actually do anything about it, then you all are batshit crazy!!

We need to get people in charge again who will stop this liberal madness.

If the world is going to end due to global warming, then bring it on!! Otherwise, STFU.

escomments: Every time you reply, you make my point.

YOu should have thought about that for the last 8 years when your side called Bush all sorts of names and you didn't care about the problems that we had.

And FYI - 20 % of people who considered themselves liberal has falled 20 points since last year. And it's not 20%, but actually 40% that consider themselves conservative.
Name calling? how about the WH calling the tea parties all sorts of names!
Please, stop the hypocrisy.
Talk about pot calling the kettle black.

The Repubicans are COMING!!!! You're underestimating half the country, then again, you're a democrat, logic is not part of your package!!!

USA 40% conservative - 20% liberal , the rest wish/wash Gallop two weeks ago.

true conserv: Problems in the last 8 years? With all the time Bush spent on his ranch clearing bush, I wasn't aware that conservatives knew that there was problems. Bush's staff had to sit the President down and show him a video of what was going on in New Orleans, after katrina. Before that bush and McCain were on his ranch having a party.

SDjam8, Your kidding right ? Bush was told by everything democratic in New Orleans don't bother. In fact the democratic governor said "no thanks" a week before. It wasn't his fault your bastion of liberal paradise stole billions of dollars aimed at fixing the levies. Maybe Mayor Bus should have spent a little on swimming lessons for Parish 9
You need to stop reading comic books, there not news.

The only problem with pigeon holing George Bush as a representative of Conservatism is that he wasn't!

Bush was no Conservative. He was bought off by Big Business and identity politics. Just like the Liberals

It was like they had two schools of thought in the Bush administration. Extreme NeoConservatism (which is not conservatism) and Liberalism.

I wonder who the rocket scientist was in the administration that suggested Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants and open boarders would be a good idea?

Add to that signing the McCain Fiengold bill, Medicare part D, No child left behind, and you have a Democrat administration.

And they wonder why the Republicans can't get any support.
It's because they have turned into a bunch of whiny Liberals.
Bush marched them right off a cliff and now there is a backlash by Conservatives against the Republican Machine and Republican incumbents.

If it weren't so dangerous for the country to have a divided Republican party, It would be laughable.

Hey Mauiboy..... In this instance Darwin's theories can't shed the truest light on what happened. If you research a little more you will discover where a NYT journalist back in 1896 writes, "A man far more suited to the challenge, William Cody, offers a better explanation than Darwin" ... The reporter then goes on to quote Wild Bill, saying, "I have found living proof the Indians did F*** buffalo".....

Pity that it is only the Democrats who think in those terms and then project it on to who ever they want.

Conservatives don't see color, only Liberals do!

They certainly do every thing they can to insure the "In your face with Race" mantra.

And then they use it as a wedge whenever they have no arguments!

Preying on that White Guilt.

So tired and old.

Unfortunately so many are still prone to falling for it.

Carville lies....he's in the political game, he so full of shit that he leaves a trail of it behind him when he walks. Same for Rove...but he is entertaining whereas Rove needs work.

Let me explain what is a racist or bigoted remark. You have to be a member of the minority or a class of people who have had their rights denied. When anyone makes a comment about some one who is white, it cannot be a racist remark. White people have not been denied access to bathrooms, restaurants,hotels, drinking fountains, pools, made to sit in the back of the bus etc., etc. So, the idea that some body who is from a class of people that never suffered these indignities, can now claim to be a victim of racism is a hoot.

The easiness to which "racist" gets tossed around nowadays is stunning. The mere mention of "white ruling class" could be racist, but more likely it's just ignorant, or inarticulate, or prejudiced, or just wrong for the argument. And to that point, stjam8's reply below of "When anyone makes a comment about some one who is white, it cannot be a racist remark." I looked up the word racist, and failed to find this exclusion, the one that apparently gives carte blanch to slur one race due to the color of their skin.

Escomments. Since you are not liberal and probably do not associate with many of them, let me let you in on their little secret about racism and charges thereof.. 1) Most of the libs that accuse conservatives of being racists are the biggest oppressors of minorities- they like them poor and on the plantation.2) They invented the definition so they feel free to continue to redefine it when they seem fit so as to keep the high ground when they rewalize the old definition is no longer applying, ex: structural racism.3) Most of the people on this blog that would accuse you of racism are white folks and they use the term racism as some sort of gauge of social standing- they feel better about themselves and feel so superior morally when they can call out someone as a racist. I always found it funny that most of the white libs that cry about racism and make charges of it wouldn't know what to do if they were in an urban setting in an overwhelmingly black area that was poor and working class- normally they would be out of there by 4 pm during the Fall. They tend to live in all white enclaves as well- check out the hollywood stars.

Esco when they calll you a racist or say racist things, just smile. it's a device to shutb up conservatives because afterall being accused of being a racist is worse than being a racist -like most of them are.

Stjam....so I'm taking it from your comment that you are a member of an aggreived minority group? Have you been denied access to a bathroom, restaurant or hotel? Have you been forced to sit in the back of the bus? If you are or have and you are approaching retirement age then I'll give you the juice of your comments if not then chances are you are another white guy trying to project what you think it is that minorities want and how they think! or qworse you are a thirty something African American who has spent too much time listening to the race pimps like Jackson and Julian Bond. By the way I always thought racism was all about hating someone based on their race or ethnic heritage, I never knew that certain groups of people had a auto de fe that allowed them to be automatically exempt from being a racist and therefore have carte blanche to go around being almost as hateful as the folks that subjugated them to begin with.

Ahhhhhhhhh you're probably a white guy posin' and frontin' anyway!!!!

bealdwell: Liberals want to keep minorites on the plantation?? And the Republican party has Jackie Robinson on their site as a great republican. He was not a republican,did not think much of any black man that was. You and the Gop can write and say what ever you want as often as you want , it doesn't change the truth. I was responding to a whine about how liberals supposedly make rascist remarks, I was not aware that any had. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure you will enlighten me. I did not call any one a racist. And I wasn't aware it was possible to shut up a conservative.

esco - the sad part is that the democratic party stands for 3 things.

1st - they are racists
2nd - they believe in classism
3rd - they believe in sexism.
They make those comments all the time and NO ONE in the press calls them out on it!

Martin L King was a republican, Was he a racist stjam8 ? According to you he was.

The only difference between a white liberal and a white conservative is that when a liberal says some god awful racist comment the liberal realizes their stupidity and tries to make amends. While the conservative stands by their statement and blames everyone else for too sensitive. Alla Rush's "he didn't write it but we know he thinks it so we stand by the fabricated story." LOL.

The rule is simple. Respect all humans. If you can't do that then shut up. If you can't do that then you are a republican.

Malicious Disorder: I or Jackie Robinson did not call Martin Luther King a racist .Many Blacks at one time were republicans, since it was the party of Lincoln. Let me quote Robinson in full; "Every chance I got, while I was campaigning, I said plainly what I thought of the right-wing republicans and the harm they were doing. I felt the GOp was a minority party in terms of number of registered voters and could not win unless they up dated their social philosophy and sponsored candidates and principals to attract the young, the Black, and the indepent voter, I said this often from public, and frequently republican platforms. By and large republican had ignored Blacks and sometimes hand picked a few servile leaders in the Black community to be their token " ------". How would I sound trying to go all out to sell republicans to Black people? They're not buying it. They know better".

Geez. Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King have nothing to do with the Republican Party of today anymore than George Wallace has anything to do with the Democratic Party of today. Parties evolve over time and trying to make your point using a completely different time period with completely different situations is just dumb. Let's just stick to today and the last 20-30 years and quit trying to make dead people agree with us, okay?

Also, I find it really entertaining (in a gallows humor kind of way) that Republicans are trying to turn being racist into the new not being racist. Up is down! Black is white! If I can't say something racist in public it's because you're the one who's racist, buddy!

stjam8 -I know what a Racist or Bigoted remark is. I don't really care about your definition because it is nonsense!

I had nothing to do with any of it. I was born in 1961, in NJ, the liberal capital of the world!

That relic, Rush Limbaugh had nothing to do with it either. I think he was born around 1950. Or...

Wait, I think Rush had a meeting with the other "White Ruling class conspirators" and they are working on a new plan of attack to keep the Black People down.

OK for those of you like stjam8, I'm being sarcastic and there really wasn't a meeting and there is no plan. Don't get your panties in a wad.

Your problem is you, and your way of thinking. You can live in the past, or you can live in the present. It's up to you. I'll tell you one thing, if you continue to live in the past then racism is always going to be a problem because you are going to insure it!

escomments born in 1961, when apparently history begins. That rest is DON'T KNOW!, DON'T CARE!, DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO DO WITH MY TIME.

Apparently you have made the decision to live in the past.

You don't care about race relations do you?

You just want to fulfill the stereotype and keep it alive as long as possible to what end?

Your way or the highway!

I'm about all racismed out.

Why don't you tell me why It is important that I should care about something that happened before I was born and I was not responsible for or a party too?

Escomments: Bless your heart once again,. You are the one to bring up this subject of racism. You claimed that liberals keep getting away with racists remarks. I am still waiting for examples.

You made a lot of charges, racists, classism, sexism. You don't have one example to back up any of your claims. I have one for you, Nancy Pelosi was recently told by The Republican National Party " That she needs to be put in her place". Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency.

Because abstinence only education doesn't work.

I don't know if you noticed but it's the Liberal Socialists who are the Fascists!

You know what Scozzafava was not a Republican!!!! Yeah that is her party affiliation, but her views run totally counter to what most Republicans believe.She supports card check and is very big for the unions, she is pro choice and ambivalent on taxes. There is a place for people who support that stuff and that is in the Democrat party. Republicans tend to win when they live up more or less to their conservative underpinnings, they lose when they try to be more like the Democrats. there is a reason for the Republican and Democrat parties just like there is a reason there are different types of ice cream

Dragon - All I can say is to take a civics and U.S. history course and hopefully your mind will be enlightened.
Here's a clue: shhhhhh! (we are a right-wing country!)shhhhh! ooops on you! Please read the writings of our founding fathers!
You get a big duh for voting democratic because many like you think that way and are ruining this country.

escomments - please do a bit of reading. It's an embarrassment on a political forum to have so many comments by someone who doesn't understand the difference between Socialists and Fascists. This is politics 101 - and don't pull out the fact that Hitler used the name 'Socialist' - show us the similarity between actual Socialist countries like Sweden and Fascism.

Holy cow!!! Just get out of that closet will you DragonScorpion? You're a bleeding liberal socialist democrat, there I said it for ya!!!! Now go stand in line for your Kool-Aid while you all sing cumbaya!!!!

ESCOMMENTS.

LOL. Holland is about as liberal a nation as there is. Now what exactly is fascist about Holland? LOL.

You know how Hitler used socialism? It is just like Republicans saying they are fiscally responsible. LOL

Cymatic-

Hey, I'm just watching this administration. They are Socialists because of their redistribution of wealth policy initiatives. They have many advisers in the administration with socialist and communist views. Obviously if those are the types of advisers you want in your administration then you must not be to far off the mark yourself.

They are Fascists because:

They are trying to shut out all opposing views and refuse to answer any charges being made by the opposition.

They will not admit that what they are trying to do is in fact Socialism and the folks who are accusing them of that are just Nutso right wingnuts. Comparisons through out history can be made of this administrations goals and methods for anyone who wants to bother and look.

Case in point, the Tea Party movement.

They seem to think the better road is to ridicule them and try to marginalize them. This is over 40% of the population.

They have already taken over GM, a privately owned Corporation. They got them to take bailout money knowing that they were doomed to chapter 11 anyway. They are making decisions to fire and hire executives. Making pay decisions.

They are doing the same with the Banking industry. At this point it is just the ones that took tarp money but their plans to regulate private compensation are well known.

They want to take over 1/6 of the US economy by controlling the delivery of Health Care.

They will not allow opposition to their plans such as from Humana being ordered to cease and desist mailings warning their senior clients that their Medicare funding is about to be cut.

These are all techniques from Saul Alinsky's Rules for radicals and we do have a radical administration clearly displaying a pension for Fascism and Socialism.

Escomments: Bless your heart! It is obvious that you get all your talking points from fox network, and hasn't done any research of your own. Fox the 24/7 proganda arm of the GOP that like to call itself news. Half truths and misinformation and lies about conspiries and socialism. Real problems don't get discussed while once again, we have to stop to refute ad-nauseam, something someone heard on fox. Racism, what rascism? Climate change ,what climate change?

stjam8
Bless your heart, you still think it's 1865

POEPOE-

No one said that Holland is Fascist.

What Holland is is their business.

The United States is not a Socialist country. The Constitution does not allow it. Just because you can find a federal court to declare a hidden meaning in a clause or phrase doesn't make it so. The intent of the framers was for Freedom, Liberty, and the right to own property with out the interference of the Federal Government. The Constitution was specifically written as a limit on the power of the Federal Government and left all other laws and enforcement to the States.

This isn't even arguable yet we continuously have politicians the latest being this president who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all invaders foreign and domestic. It is well known that he thinks the Framers had it all wrong and there needs to be a mechanism for ReDistributive Change. I think he found it just as FDR did before him. Lie cheat and steal to get it done.

No arguing. No opposition allowed. As if second nature.

You might want to stop being useful idiots. LOL.. LOL.. LOL.. LOL.. LOL.. LMFAO......

Escomments,

So it's cool to call out stjam for living in 1865 in attempt to prove your point, but then you point to the constitution as your defense of Obama as socialist? Just as things have changed since 1865, things have changed since the constitution was framed and so you need to stop living in the past and pretending that you know exactly what our founding fathers would think of the country as it stands today.

bgeasyas123

Okay fine if we have to start drawing pictures.

Clearly the days of slavery are over. So are the days of Bull Conner. stjam8 doesn't want to move on from those places in history:

"Let me explain what is a racist or bigoted remark. You have to be a member of the minority or a class of people who have had their rights denied. When anyone makes a comment about some one who is white, it cannot be a racist remark. White people have not been denied access to bathrooms, restaurants,hotels, drinking fountains, pools, made to sit in the back of the bus etc., etc. So, the idea that some body who is from a class of people that never suffered these indignities, can now claim to be a victim of racism is a hoot."

The victim thing is really old. I think the best thing to do for racial harmony is resign one's self to the fact that at some point we are going to have to get over this.

I don't have to be a special class of people to know when racial hatred is being spewed from anywhere. The only condition is that it is hate, or some other host of emotions based on a person's race. That is the test for racism. And it goes both ways.

Living on the memory of past transgressions weighs heavily on any kind of racial harmony and isn't conducive to putting an end to racial hatred. So I suspect we are just going to continue throwing charges of racism back in forth until eventually, it won't mean anything anymore. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf. I guess that is when it will be over.

On the Constitution, I do know what the Framers intended because it is well documented in contemporaneous writings such as "The Federalist" and other works such as Miracle at Philadelphia.

Then of course if there is any doubt, just read the Constitution. It was written in simple language that any one can understand and doesn't require a law firm to translate as most bills that come out of congress do.

The intent of the Constitution means the same thing today as it did in 1789. Freedom, Liberty, The protection of the rights of the individual handed down by the Creator.

Madison and Jefferson warned about redistribution of wealth which require usurping the freedom to own property. The freedom to keep what one earns. The Freedom to do what one wants with their lives. These are Freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution as a protection from Government involvement in their lives.

The issues really haven't changed since 1789.

It says that you don't have a right to my stuff and I don't have a right to your stuff.

Now with the Progressives, it's we all have a right to each other's stuff as long as it is for the greater good, and the poor, and the environment, and animal rights, and, etc...

Then we leave it to politicians to decide what the greater good is thereby dividing up all the stuff how ever they decide. Don't forget how the Special Interests play in this game. Big Corporations always have a seat at these politician's tables and believe it or not, they do not have your best interest in mind. They have the next election and campaign funding to worry about as well as their power.

These are all issues the framers warned us about. Even the Special Interests.

If that is the way you want to live, go move to Europe or I hear that South America is becoming prime real estate for Socialism.

I don't expect that you will read all of this or respond to any of it.

Sorry to dissappoint you comments, but I did read your response

Didn't mean to make you think I was calling you out on the racist comments portion, that was not the point as I disagree with stjan's comment. The point I was getting at is you refute people on the basis that they live in the past on a topic, but then revert to the same tactic to make your claim.

The issues may be the same, but the playing field is not. Bailouts, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc... Those violate the beliefs of the founding fathers, but I don't hear much screaming about those programs. The fact is simple, when the constitution was framed, there was undiscovered land, a much smaller population, shorter life span, etc.......not so much anymore.

escomments: Bless your heart, what an Interesting way to debate , throw out an accusation that liberals keep making racist remarks and then excuse me of keeping racism alive when I challenged you to give any examples. When I gave a definition of racism that is not the same, as you claim,as keeping racism alive. If you think discussing this subject is ths same as keeping racism alive , why did you bring it up in the first place.

bgeasyas123

The point is, the principals haven't changed. There are always going to be forces of Socialism against Forces of Free Market Capitalism. That hasn't changed since the founding.

The framers warned of those forces and many more such as the partisanship and destructiveness of political parties and how men would loose their commitment to the Constitution and sacrifice it in exchange for loyalty to one's political party. Political parties are for one thing at the end of the day. Acquiring political power for their members.

You speak of Social Security and Medicare. Social Security came out of the FDR administration. "The New Deal." The New Deal was a series of bills passed by a Democrat controlled congress including protecting the development of labor unions, Creating the Ponzi Scheme none as Social Security, The WPA, among others.

You can argue weather these laws were needed or not and we argue that to this day although Social Security has become so interwoven into our society, There isn't anything politically that can be done with it but keep it going robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The point is, The New Deal Legislation was passed and found to be un constitutional. Several attempts were made by FDR and the congress but to no avail. It wouldn't pass muster at the SCOTUS.

FDR finally submitted to congress a bill that would add six justices to the SCOTUS bringing the total number to fifteen. He then would have enough votes to sway the court. And then of course he would appoint those justices and the Democrat Senate would go along and confirm them.

The SCOTUS saw that there power to apply Judicial Review was under attack so they eventually relented before the law adding the justices was signed. They then discovered that the Congress had all of this power all along in the "Interstate Commerce Clause" Imagine that?

So what we had in FDR, was an administration willing to cause a Constitutional Crises for it's own purposes and that of his party.

That purpose would be millions of people depending on the Government for their SS checks. And misguidedly thanking the Democratic Party for that little pittance of an existence. They will always be looking to the Democrats as the Party that gave us other people's stuff.

We all know the Constitution was designed to be changed with amendment but they didn't want to go that route. They said that the country was in so much trouble due to the Great Depression that we need this now and it can't wait for an amendment. People are starving in the streets and losing their homes. We can't wait for both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify this.

I think in reality, he knew they would never go for it and it would never have been ratified.

There again you take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, the law of the land, and then you maliciously break the oath and the public trust.

He is remembered as one of the greatest presidents. Especially with the Liberals. He left a gaping loophole for politicians to attempt to pass more and more programs. "The Great Society, War on Poverty" These programs have done nothing but add to the destruction of poor families in rural areas and the inner cities. In a sense, subsidizing their poverty.

Now we have the Obama administration hoping to use the same loopholes. I don't think they give a rats ass if anything they have done so far or plan to do in the future is Constitutional. Maybe some day the SCOTUS will re visit the Interstate Commerce Clause. I don't think a President today could get away with packing the court.

Who knows what would have happened had he had not passed Social Security? I guess we will never know but we know one thing, it was Un Constitutional.

I didn't mean to drone on and on. I guess the main point is that, it is up to the officials that we elect to government to preserve the Constitution. If they don't take it seriously or in some cases, don't agree with it, then the entire Country suffers and pretty soon we will have no rule of law. Just the mob rules.

BBC America?

Yes, your'e right but what is scary is that Obama IS in charge of that nuclear arsenal and that is what keeps us Americans up all night.

I concur with that. Winski is a typical progressive statist who typifies hate, hate, hate.

Just like Rush..."I want the president to fail"/"Obama is a racist" Limbaugh

"Rush for president by the way, if you want to actually do something for your country!!!! At least with Rush you know he won't turn the country into one big recycled Cuban tragedy. "

Plus, when Rush gets the 3 AM call, we know he will already be awake, trippin' on his Oxy.

George Bush refused interviews to MSNBC in the last year. The same network that daddy Bush resorted to calling the commenters there " abunch of sick puppies".There also a video of Bush jr, calling a reporter names and Cheny agreeing with him. And there are also the times were the reporters were fake with supplied questions.

Obama has more brains and class than all the Fox "News" jokers put together. He has been on Fox before and done just fine. He is not intimidated. He is just pointing out what should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. Fox isn't news. It is right wing propaganda.

Bush ran the least open white house in history and avoided the press at all costs, but assuming he did actually give interviews, nobody would be clamoring for him to grant an interview to Moveon.org or Air America. That's just silly and no politician on either side of the aisle should be forced to submit themselves to a hostile interview orchestrated by their political opponents. That's the difference between professional sports and professional wrestling. So a bazillionaire started a heavily slanted right wing television network that pretends to be legitimate. Big deal. FOX News did for professionalism in journalism what the Bush White House did for America's international reputation. We're still dealing with the fallout from both.

Was the political climate different when Obama promised bipartisanship? No.

Had the Republicans promised Obama to "dance" with him when he promised bipartisanship? No.

Was he just naive and arrogant? Hmmmm.

No one forced Obama to make grand promises about bipartisanship. He made them knowing exactly what the climate was.

Maybe he shouldn't have promised something on which he couldn't deliver. But, then, his speeches wouldn't have been so compelling, would they have?

Really Andreain? It is Obama's fault for being willing to work with Republicans even though, as you state, they never recipricated that they would work with dems.

Business as usual I guess, huh?

Democrats have never had any clue how to run anything but huge, costly, bureaucratic government projects that never worked. You keep trying to make the point that democrats get things done, but they are bureaucrats, they are incapable of getting anything done, simply because they are not practical people. They are masters at creating inefficiency, they are big government, they are the Post Office, while Republicans are Fedex and UPS. Which one would you trust your package to?

Since 1970 The United States Postal Service Reorganization Act, The U.S.P.S.began operating both on a "break even" basis and as a semi-independent business-like organization. Congress retains oversight authority and has taken profits made by the U.S.P.S. to cover deficits. Fed Ex and UPS are allowed to compete against the Post office with parcels. Since the Post Office is the only one allowed to deliver First Class mail and required by law to make sure everyone receives their mail. So. their competitors get to chose the lucrative package business, while leaving the old technology of delivering mail to the Post Office. People are now mostly using emails instead of the U.S.P.S. From what I hear most people are happy with their Medicare, a government run program. As usual a lot of rectoric with no facts to support your argument. Your comparison of the republicans to Fed Ex and UPS, does not hold when all the facts are know. But you are mistaken about the point I was trying to make. My point was the republians are doing every thing in their power to make sure nothing is accomplished. They have made no secret of this, Calling to make Health care reform this President's "Waterloo", And they are being well paid to do so. The Center of Responsive Polictics has a list of republicans and bluedogs who have received money from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Joe Lieberman in 2006 was for the Public Option, since then he has received over a million dollars from the insurance industry. A good reason to call your legistators and insist they support and vote on the public funding of election. The other point I was making, and has been proven repeatly in this site, the failure to discuss the important issues facing all Americans and people on this planet.