I do. It is sometimes painful, but he does put people on with a perspective you don't get on Fox. Of course, the same can be said about Al Jazeera.

More moral equivilency. When does Hannity spew the hate that Schultz does nearly every day. Try listening to both of them and talking some notes. Schultz's (and MSNBC's) idea of balance is to have a radical leftist balanced by an avowed communist.

Your moral equivilency is absurd. While it is true it CAN be said, the truth is that Fox is center right, and MSNBC is waaaaaaayy left. And Mr. Schultz more so than most. Brent very accurately explained this when he reported on the leaning of the guests Schultz and O'Reilly had on..

True this is. A government with the authority to declare gay marriage a right, will also have the power to declare gay marriage a crime. This should have been left to the states, but liberals are too stupid and lazy to try to convince people. Easier to get their whipping boys at the fed to impose their values.

Marc, it isn't so much that the liberal catholics won't still vote for him, but many more of the more conservative catholics will work to defeat him.

This is why Republicans should take one vote, let it fail, and bash the dems over the head with it for the next 6 months. I think I smell 60 senate seats.

Stanchaz, I agree that Obama appears to be a basically decent human being, but you lost your credibility when you started complaining about the congress. Obama was elected with a huge majority in the house, and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. The reason that he could get nothing done is that he did not try to pass a budget or a jobs bill, instead focusing on healthcare. That is OK as far as it goes, but the policies he advocated were too liberal for DEMOCRATS. The cornhusker kickback and the bayou bailout weren't to buy the votes of Republicans. The fact is that Obama, Pelosi and Reid had an ultra liberal agenda that could not get the votes of the less liberal members of their own party.

Nice straw man, but conservatives are not for destroying the safety net, just restructuring where it is anchored. Charity begins at home, and local charity is far more efficient than federal charity. This means better services for the poor, and allows local governments more control to help people out, rather than enabling the very behavior which increases poverty in the first place. The problem with the left in America is that they think that allowing 20% of the people on welfare to continue to do drugs, have more kids, drink, and be a general nuisance is going to bring "freedom and prosperity" to America. We have 4 decades of evidence to the contrary. The only time conservative reforms were enacted, poverty declined.

Bad news for you. They disparity in income and wealth will ALWAYS grow, and that is a good thing.. There will always be new graduates and immigrants who are poor. Meanwhile, hopefully more and more people are getting wealthy. People who get wealthy usually get wealthy by enriching the lives of the poor and middle class. See, computers, cell phones, etc. You also reveal your blind partisanship when you only include republicans, as BOTH parties have been feathering the nests of big contributors for decades. The solution is to adopt conservative principles and remove the ability of the federal government to steal from the middle class and give these perks out.

Actually, there is no issue with publicly provided education, just FEDERALLY FUNDED public education. Going back to the early 1800's, town would hire a teacher to teach the children, and they townspeople paid for it and determined what would be taught. No problem until the federal government starts mandating education requirements. Same with healthcare. If a state wants to tax it's citizens to death and provide universal coverage, they are free to do so and people can move out. Where do we move to when the federal government starts doing it?