I am the only one?

[Chany]

Um, why are we so focused upon the presidents? This applies not only to this election, but to all of them as well. It's just they don't really have a lot of proactive legislative power, if that makes sense. And four years isn't a lot of time to make immediate changes with effects.

I just don't see why we don't focus on the happenings of Congress more because they're probably the most important branch.

 

[Fantine]

As we've seen in the past two years, presidents can't get much done when the opposition party holds power in one house and is bent on their destruction.

But if a president holds the House and Senate, big changes can go through.

Although you'd need a pretty good GPS to track the continuously moving positions of "moderate Mitt," my gut feeling is that he is a lot more moderate than his party.

And his party, alas, has been taken over by extremists and radicals.

We need a gatekeeper to keep these deranged radicals at bay until the public wises up and puts them on unemployment.

And I absolutely believe that, at least the way Mitt's GPS is tracking now, he agrees with me that his party has been hijacked by lunatics.

Nevertheless, he would sign any Republican bill that passed over his desk. Why? Because he's not really a patriot, and 90% of his money is in foreign tax havens.

 

[rainbojo]

What about the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, Fantine. How do you explain that? Funny how other presidents 'have' worked with both parties and exceeded.

 

[rainbojo]

Um, why are we so focused upon the presidents? This applies not only to this election, but to all of them as well. It's just they don't really have a lot of proactive legislative power, if that makes sense. And four years isn't a lot of time to make immediate changes with effects.

I just don't see why we don't focus on the happenings of Congress more because they're probably the most important branch.

Four years is plenty of time, just look at the trillion dollar deficit (more than all presidents put together), staggering unemployment, 1 in 6 people in poverty, Obamacare, and on and on and on.

 

[Fantine]

What about the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, Fantine. How do you explain that? Funny how other presidents 'have' worked with both parties and exceeded.

The President passed health care in the first two years--something that couldn't be done for forty years--since Nixon, a Republican President, said it would be necessary.

The President's mistake was in spending so much time trying to involve Republicans in the process. He wasted many months working on gaining consensus with Republicans who had already decided on Day One that their aim was to keep him from succeeding, period.

Their hatred of him was so vitriolic that I would bet he could have proposed a pro-life bill and they would have voted against it, just to keep him from succeeding.

The Republicans who worked cooperatively with Democrats over the year--Olympia Snowe of Maine, for example, have chosen not to run for reelection because they are disgusted that their party has been hijacked by extremists. Snowe came to Washington to legislate--the Tea Party came to Washington to grandstand.

 

[Kotton]

Um, why are we so focused upon the presidents?

Because they are the ones we see giving statements on the policies for the country, as they believe should be done.

I just don't see why we don't focus on the happenings of Congress more because they're probably the most important branch.

I'll agree with you that congress is the one that sets laws and should be observed more closely. If we want just laws, elect those who share our views and hold them to it.

 

[Kotton]

As we've seen in the past two years, presidents can't get much done when the opposition party holds power in one house and is bent on their destruction.

Looks to me like the destruction is this administration taking us over the cliff as fast as possible. Thanks to those who try to prevent it.

"moderate Mitt," my gut feeling is that he is a lot more moderate than his party.

Most of voters for Mitt recognize this, and see the need to kick him in the pants if he heads the wrong way.

And his party, alas, has been taken over by extremists and radicals.

I see the real radicals in the White House and their followers.

We need a gatekeeper to keep these deranged radicals at bay until the public wises up and puts them on unemployment.

When applied to the present administration and senate majority, that's why we intend to vote them OUT.

The President passed health care in the first two years--something that couldn't be done for forty years--since Nixon, a Republican President, said it would be necessary.

Improving health care, yes, but pushing through a radical change that a majority of people didn't want.

The President's mistake was in spending so much time trying to involve Republicans in the process.

LOL, why would they want to be involved? The whole thing is a disaster.

Their hatred of him was so vitriolic

It is his POLOTICS that are hated items, not the man. But you never believe us.

the Tea Party came to Washington to grandstand.

Same old lies. The Tea Party wants this country to keep the basic principles that we grew up with. They critize anyone who departs from that.

 

[AMDG]

I love that Obama fans keep saying that "he passed health insurance", as if it *was* wanted. News flash, it's terribly unpopular and the only reason it was passed in the first place was bribery, lies, hostage taking, working behind closed doors, and the nuclear option (which also acts to allow for it to be repealed with just 51 votes).

I dare say that the one of the reasons it wasn't passed before is because *it was not the governments business to pass such a law". That is only up to the individual states. The federal government is only allowed eighteen specific duties (all others belong to either the state or the people) and health insurance is not one of the duties.