What many have called gaffes made by Romney are more appropriately comments from the bubble of entitlement. Romney simply has no sense of common perspective. We notice and identify it as awkward.

It's fascinating that he has accomplish so much unless you look closely and understand that he earned his wealth as a venture capitalist, a corporate raider. This work is not for the weak or kind hearted. There is no little voice that tells Romney, for example, not to tell people that you put your dog in cage strapped to the top of your car for extended travel or the story about his father closing the plant and then troubled because he wanted something from them-a vote.

You can't make this up. People don't introduce themselves to you with stories that raise questions about your comportment. Romney does.

Has anyone ever considered just how weird it is that the GOP is nominating Mitt Romney this election year? Given what this country just went through, isn't it a bit weird that they would want to nominate a really really really rich guy as their nominee for the Presidency?

This really, really rich guy is just looking for a job. He has spent his life being the boss and thinks that this would round out his resume'.

We are right where it is desired we be. The major news outlets are bought. The "I wanna be rich" hype by all upcoming "indiviudal" promising youth is catered to by the huge imprint of finance in the US services economy. The huge gun tote-ing endorsed by laws, let us position our fears first and not our common sense, gains ground. Even among criminals these laws are great excuses not be jailed.

What menial work that can be done thru private prisons guarantees a strong anti-immigrant stance for menial but essential activities. The rest of us are left to fight over highly-profitable but dangerously illagal acts/endeavors.

This time danger is not only to ourselves, our social structures, but also to our competitos. We're trying to head for the showdown "TO DEATH". It's not a misnomer to say that what USA efforts right now, represent is just that.

Maddow talked about opinion polls regarding the healthcare bill, and then pointed to questions regarding specific portions of the bill. Naturally, people agree with much of the healthcare bill. However, it's disingenuous to suggest there is no difference in agreeing or disagreeing with it in its entirety. One important questions she omitted from the surveys she sited was opinions concerning the individual mandate. I can't understand how willing people are to hand such a power over to the federal government to force us to participate and purchase an item or service in the marketplace. This would mean the government could force you to go out into the marketplace and pay a company for a service. It just doesn't make sense. If the government is going to offer healthcare it does have the power to collect a tax, and then pay for that, but the mandate isn't even a requirement to purchase healthcare; it's a requirement to purchase insurance.

It's a good argument to say that we will all ultimately have to use a healthcare service at some point in our life. That does not mean that we will all ultimately have to use or have insurance. We just simply should not be tying the health of Americans, or any people, to insurance corporations.

Here is the conclusion:

If the mandate is upheld and the bill stands as it is, we will perhaps never have a comprehensive single payer system. Making matters worse, if we are to ever evolve to a more comprehensive single payer plan, where our health does not hinge on the fantasy that insurance companies won't exploit every loophole, it will be too late. In the process, we will have granted the federal government the power to force us to purchase any item or service in the market, the prices of which are not "uniform throughout the United States".

I understand that people want a comprehensive healthcare plan, and I think this current plan has some excellent points. That doesn't mean the whole thing is great, and when I'm asked if I like parts of it, I say "yes". Nonetheless, when I weigh the nearly 3,000 pages of something just as confusing as the insurance policies I'm already treading through, I can't muster support for it as a whole.

It's not a bad thing if the mandate is stricken down; it's hope. We really have to stop being so anxious to get something we are not far from, and we shouldn't have to give up our rights as consumers with the power to refuse to buy, or boycott a service. I don't think the whole bill should be deemed unconstitutional, but the mandate certainly is, and certainly should be recognized as such. Look at it this way, if the mandate is not in place another mechanism to fund it will be necessary. This will be an opportunity to address this in a more comprehensive way, and start really looking at a single payer plan.