Comments on: Democrats Against Barbara Mikulski

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:27:47 +0000

geez nice clock you got there!

from Bavaria right?

Coo-Coo! Coo-Coo! Coo-Coo! Coo-Coo!

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:11:11 +0000

Calm down. To combat rapid-fire spammers, a piece of blogging software we use called WordPress doesn’t let you make two comments in some brief period, 15 seconds or so. If you try to post two comments in very quick succession, the WordPress will produce that message you saw. We are not engaged in a nefarious plot to prevent you from saying something about Barbara Mikulski.

By: Fruktata

Fruktata — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:14:03 +0000

She’s for public insurance? Oh my god! You mean, she’s for Medicaid?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:37:30 +0000

why do you say this is a duplicate message when it is not. do i have to have it put in the newspaper or will you please send my former message to ms mikulski and don’t say i have said this before.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:35:21 +0000

i was just told that i had alrady said the previous message and that is not true. this is the first time i have written and would like my message relayed. or don’t you care to have comments.you do not agree with.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:33:20 +0000

i have always been a fan of ms mikulski and i can’t believe she is for public insurance. my answer is let those who have insurance keep it and find new insurance for those who do not. i would hope that there are some democrats that just do not vot because of their party affilication but would be honest enough to vote for what the people who put them in there. it seems that a two party system is not the answer to americ’a problem now. we need to get politicians who wwill remember who put them in there and try to think how they would be voting if they were ib the position of most of their constituents. lets be honest with ourselves and give the people the real truth. there is no reason to vote for something because a democrat brings it to the floor or a republican if you do not agree with it. too much bipartisn voting is wrong and it should not matter whether you are republican or democrat. it should just be what you believe in your heart and there are lots of things to be considered in this heath program. i have a friend who is on medicare she is 88 and pays 300 dollars a month for blue cross co pay,. all social secuity recepients pay 96 dollars a month towards welfare. that comes to approx. eleven hundred dollars a year from each recipent. i think find a insurance plan for those that do not have it should be a priority. leave those that are with insurance alone and find a way to help those thatdo not haveit. it is beginning to feel like we are being dictated to and i do not believe you will go along just because you are a democrat. i want my representatives to have a mind of their own. i feel each person should have insurance and those that do not are the ones you should be worried about. i am a registered demcrat but at times have not voted that way. i wish there had been another choice in november but there wasnt. it should not matter which party has the majority. it should be what is best for the county and public insurance is not the answer .. it is a sad time when a republican sendator turns to the democratic party because he feels he has a better chance of being elected. this shows me that that is all that worries the represenatives we have.. i also want to know whan govenere sandfor is still governor and not becaue of his family problem but because he left the country and left a state with no one in charge. its about time we got rid of these kind of people. if something had happened while he was gone who could have made that decision. if the governor of new york had to resign just for playing around then the govenor of the state that governor sanford representd should certainly be out of there,.

thank you for reading this.\

i am m. vananzo bel air maryland.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:41:08 +0000

Legally, ethically logically and politically this whole retro-active immunity makes no sense.
It’s an admission of guilt, yet Congress will pass it anyway. How does that make the United States any better than Zimbabwe, where Mugabe does whatever he wants with complete immunity? Anyone looking at the long troubled history of our country (from the slaughter of the natives and the confiscation of their land through a “might makes right” policy to slavery of foreigners, to corporate America and unbridled capitalism which now has the U.S. military and the CIA at its disposal to regain foreign resources) cannot help but see what we really are – greedy thugs who manipulate the rules and the social contract to fit our purposes. We lie, cheat, steal, and destroy with impunity to get our way. We’re completely despicable and i can’t imagine anyone wanting to “be like us”.

Just what does the Congress’ ethics committee do? They certainly don’t argue about the FISA Amendment or the Patriot Act or any of the other fascist policies which Congress approved over the past 8 years. Congress is now a sad, cruel joke. The “Justice” department is no longer anything but a rubber stamp for the fascist in chief, who merely makes policy out of corporate desires.

Where are all the Constitutional lawyers? Why is it that no one challenges this stuff? Because at the end of the road the stacked “Supreme Court” will somehow see it the way the new policies dictate.

So much for “change we can believe in.”