CosmicBills

Speaking soley for myself: It has nothing to do with people being too stupid to pass health care legislation ... it has everything to do with the people not being able to change health care laws due to incredible power of the insurance lobby. Not to mention big pharma. The Health Insurance industry have been robbing us blind for decades -- and they've rigged the game in their favor now in DC by flooding the swamp with money. ACA should have been single payer, it should have smited Health Insurance as an industry but Obama wussed out. Why? You can't fight the money.

That doesn't explain the smell...

I agree that Republicans aren't evangelicals. I totally disagree if you're trying to say that evangelicals haven't been the driving force influecing the platform of the party. They have been since Bush 1 lost.

Are you guys saying I don't have to pay back my loans? 'Cause that would be sweet.

I legitimately haven't made up my mind yet. And I'm more than willing to admit that my analysis could be wrong -- but from where I sit, it's how I see it. The evangelical hardliners have hijacked the party and moved the base so far to the right that it's done far more harm than good. It makes it very difficult for me to even recognize the platform anymore. I'd happily take another 4 years of treding water if that meant restoring the Republican party to its former ideals. It wouldn't be so bad if there was a resonable response from the left -- but instead that isn't happening. Instead the increasingly backwards thinking evangelical base only forces the crazy no-thinking progressives to the surface, destroying any chance at a resonable political discussion. What you end up with is what we see unfolding every day now: both party's stu-tards yelling at one another about differences rather than actually figuring out ways to move the country forward. It's hard for anyone to lead when both sides are frothing at the mouth over stupid shite and ignoring the stuff that matters.

Absolutely agree that if it's a push, Mitt wins.

That's fantastic!

I hear what you're saying (and Chef and the others above) ... but you have to admit, besting the likes of Newt or Santorum in a debate is like bragging about beating a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Mitt is intelligent and well spoken. I'm in no way trying to say he's not. I just worry he doesn't have the wattage that Obama has when the big lights come on. It might turn out that 4 years in the spotlight took all the gleen off the President and even the field for Mitt -- but working in a business that's all flash over substance I just don't see Mitt overcoming Obama in the flash catagory of the debates ... and that's what the audience is going to remember. Of course, I could be totally wrong. I'm just surprised so many people think the debates will be anything more than an Obama love-fest.

The biggest advantage to Obama winning is it'd cut the final leg out from the evangelical loonies who have hijacked the GOP over the past two decades. Obama entered office in a can't win situation -- the country coming off the most divisive president in my history, an economy heading for the biggest freefall since the 1930s -- and then he proceeded to tred water at best. Obama's handful of victories have been overshadowed by his holier than though handling of fellow legislators and the resulting legislative standstill we're still experiencing today which has slowed the recovery from a crawl to a drip. If Romney wins, it will allow the evangelical sect of the GOP burrow even deeper into the fabric of that once great party. I honestly believe the only way the Republican party can truly accomplish anything is to cut out the cancerous tumor that's been perverting their platform for the past few cycles. That won't happen unless Obama wins re-election. Of course, this is just my opinion. And even then, I'm not sure if the benefits outway the costs of a second Obama term.

I gotta ask, why are you so convinced the debates will be anything but a positive for Obama. I know you don't believe there's substance behind his administration, but his biggest advantage has always been his celebrtiy and orating abilities. He's more dynamic and compelling as a speaker than Mitt, and even if his ideas aren't better he thinks quicker on his feet in front of a camera. I only ask because it's a constant refrain from you that honestly has me curious. To me, the debates make me nervous for Mitt's chances simply from a showmanship angle. They're calling for the spokesperson to be fired for bringing up a piece of legislation that Romney created and supported in Mass. That's the funny part about it. It's not like she attributed something feloneous to the man... it's hilarious.

Good read as always from Lori. One of the best poster the board's ever had. I hope one day she will return here and restore some order to the rollercoaster.

*GHJGH@#^T)* GYOI@#^)*

GJ!#%)(G GH@$T^)*(V

LKJ#@%)*&^@! ^)*@!# glK@%

F)*!%)(!^& Y)(&T))!@$ OU!)*^)(!@$ C)!(@RTH

G*^@HGNHH @ G^*@!S)!($

)0)0HG@!#%* YE!%*!A

TGHK@#%*T^Y& G^)*!% GLKH^?G????

H)(*GB#&@%G B08TH%*^# O*#@T^&!)*T^& R(*#@^)!#@ 0*5KJGH CKS*(^)!

)9T^4wASDLKGJF23T GLKJY %KJGH

TYY&@_)*(KY^( &)*#%

FGTQWTOIHT@# ^)@*#^GSY@

:H@#T%^(G _(^GJ @#T^VkjO15-1tGHJ@#t6-

GABTT^*!@#)%*

1%^&@HBLKJ!@ BTYPIBT!2135-9t6GH HLKJYT^)*21608@Q#^T%^)(#^ GHJTY@#%^)*Q BY)*%^!