Republican candidates for 2012

• O-Trap

  

  Footwedge;873739 wrote:I think that this debate would be great theatre and a debate I would not want to miss. Unfortunately for Ron, he is not nearly as articulate as he once was...i.e. in his delivery. I have youtubed some of his orations of the 1980's...what a well spoken guy....at that time.
  
  I would like to see a younger version of Ron...with the same ideals come to the forefront.

  I think this really has more to do with the entertainment value of a president though. Oration is fine, but it technically does nothing to make a president's policies or positions any better or worse.
  
  Having stated that, a younger Paul would certainly be more easily elected.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Bigdogg;873747 wrote:Yep the same one. The difference between you and I is that I am smart enough to know Bush and Obama are one in the same. I voted for Obama because he was the lesser of two evils. He has not accomplished the things he should have, like withdrawing out of Iraq and closing Guantanamo Bay prison.
  
  You are just a partisan hack unable to think for yourself. Vacations really? Is that all you got? Do you even do a little research on other Presidents before you open your mouth? As far as the economy being worse off, where you getting your that from? The indicators I see say we are out of a recession. You could use unemployment I guess, but that would have been no better under anyone you voted for last election.
  
  People like you like to use the word "Liberal" like it is an insult. Such a tiny mind. In truth there is not one issue you could name that my political views would not be within same as the majority of people in the United States. I am sure you could not claim the same. I am about the most middle of the road person you would ever meet. Keep on posting your BS on here. I enjoy cut and pasting and sending your stuff to my friends It breaks up their day and laughing is good for you.

  
  If I'm a hack, you're a liar.
  
  We're supposed to ignore Obama's ridiculous spending in just three years and say he's some middle of the road politician? We're supposed to ignore all the stuff that he espouses and believes in, and believe he isn't the most liberal president this country has elected probably since FDR? Most Americans (not just me) believe he's more liberal than they are (Rasmussen poll).
  
  As for you...again, such a liar.
  
  I'm sure you believe the health care reform bill should be kept. Well, most Americans do not. They want it repealed.
  
  I know you believe in more government spending as a way to boost the economy -- and most Americans disagree.
  
  That's just two off the top of my head. There are probably more.
• jmog

  Cleveland Buck;873685 wrote:Save your Constitution nonsense, kook. No one even knows we have a Constitution anymore.

  And that is actually the problem, we need to elect officials who will actually FOLLOW the Constitution, not ignore it.
• Bigdogg

  Writerbuckeye;873786 wrote:If I'm a hack, you're a liar.
  
  We're supposed to ignore Obama's ridiculous spending in just three years and say he's some middle of the road politician? We're supposed to ignore all the stuff that he espouses and believes in, and believe he isn't the most liberal president this country has elected probably since FDR? Most Americans (not just me) believe he's more liberal than they are (Rasmussen poll).
  
  As for you...again, such a liar.
  
  I'm sure you believe the health care reform bill should be kept. Well, most Americans do not. They want it repealed.
  
  I know you believe in more government spending as a way to boost the economy -- and most Americans disagree.
  
  That's just two off the top of my head. There are probably more.

  The Healthcare act will not get repealed without a suitable replacement. The polls I have found are all over, depending on how the question is asked. As for more direct stimulus, who passed TARP again? Where have I ever said I was in favor of more stimulus? Keep making your ASSumptions writerboy.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Bigdogg;874189 wrote:The Healthcare act will not get repealed without a suitable replacement. The polls I have found are all over, depending on how the question is asked. As for more direct stimulus, who passed TARP again? Where have I ever said I was in favor of more stimulus? Keep making your ASSumptions writerboy.

  Please. Weasel words all around. Most polls have clearly shown the public wants the bill repealed. The latest poll shows 55 percent want it repealed. So you lied.
  
  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
• BoatShoes

  Writerbuckeye;874358 wrote:Please. Weasel words all around. Most polls have clearly shown the public wants the bill repealed. The latest poll shows 55 percent want it repealed. So you lied.
  
  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

  That's because 32% of Americans want Single-Payer while 32% of people also believe government should largely be left to private enterprise according to Rasmussen. The Affordable Care Act is a moderate approach between the far right who wants to get rid of employee provided insurance and have individuals buy it on their own and the left who wants medicare for all. The administration did a horrible job of selling their republican 90's healthcare bill and as a result you have both sides of the political spectrum unhappy with it and a bunch of independents who don't know anything about it. As high as 77% of people have said they want a "choice" of a public option and not medicare for all and this bill did not provide it. It's just funny because this bill is lambasted despite being a moderate approach between the competing philosophies.
• QuakerOats

  You might think it is "moderate" because it may appear to fall between two different plans/approaches, however there is NOTHING "moderate" about any government involvement and interference in the health care delivery system and the massive distortions it causes along with the incredibly expensive incremental costs.
  
  Government needs to GTFOTW before the system implodes, the country implodes and everyone loses everything.
• fish82

  

  Writerbuckeye;874358 wrote:Please. Weasel words all around. Most polls have clearly shown the public wants the bill repealed. The latest poll shows 55 percent want it repealed. So you lied.
  
  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

  Once the SCOTUS rules on the Individual Mandate, Bam will have no choice but to pull the plug on the whole law.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  If it's so "moderate" how come businesses are falling all over themselves trying to get waivers? And how come a significant number of others now say they're likely to pay the fines and dump their insurance plans when the health care bill takes full effect?
  
  It's not moderate, that's why.
  
  It is, however, a total cluster that clearly opens the door for more intervention into a system that is already pretty fucked due to government mandates and regulations.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;874398 wrote:You might think it is "moderate" because it may appear to fall between two different plans/approaches, however there is NOTHING "moderate" about any government involvement and interference in the health care delivery system and the massive distortions it causes along with the incredibly expensive incremental costs.
  
  Government needs to GTFOTW before the sytsem implodes, the country implodes and everyone loses everything.

  Well it was good enough for your boy Newt to endorse it in the nineties whom you wanted to win the nomination a few months back if I remember correctly. It was good enough to be the Heritage Foundation's plan in the 90's. It was moderate enough to be George H.W. Bush's alternative to HillaryCare. Etc. Etc.
  
  But, I mean lets look at your sentence. You suggest that any government involvement in healthcare delivery systems whatsoever is not "moderate." When you take into account the wide range of the political spectrum in our pluralistic nation...you suggest that a completely private market is moderate. That is the exact opposite of moderate. You cannot get further to the right than no government regulatory involvement in healthcare delivery. By definition that cannot be moderate.
• BoatShoes

  fish82;874405 wrote:Once the SCOTUS rules on the Individual Mandate, Bam will have no choice but to pull the plug on the whole law.

  Doubtful. Could easily replace a mandate with a tax credit for the cost of health insurance obtainable in the exchange. Which of course, Republicans should like because they like tax cuts.
• BoatShoes

  Writerbuckeye;874439 wrote:If it's so "moderate" how come businesses are falling all over themselves trying to get waivers? And how come a significant number of others now say they're likely to pay the fines and dump their insurance plans when the health care bill takes full effect?
  
  It's not moderate, that's why.
  
  It is, however, a total cluster that clearly opens the door for more intervention into a system that is already pretty fucked due to government mandates and regulations.

  Ha, you do realize that Businesses getting waivers and people paying fines that would allow for the insurance prices in the state exchanges to go down would create a market wherein it is likely that more people would be privately insuring themselves rather than having employer provided coverage....which is exactly what you've suggested would be your preferable healthcare delivery system. If McDonald's is granted a waiver and doesn't have to cap health insurance costs, the McDonald's employee has access to the State Exchange wherein they can purchase private health insurance from a multitude of more choices and not the state protected private insurance monopolies now protected by State's asserting their sole right to regulate health insurance. In supporting PPAC you would support more competitive markets whereas the status quo is uncompetitive monopolies.
  
  So, the President's promise that "people won't lose the employer provided coverage they got" will be broken and they'll have to turn to the exchanges....but that is exactly...EXACTLY what you say would be preferable....private individuals providing their own health insurance through more competitive markets. But lemme guess, because the exchanges have some regulation and prevent insurers from only insuring healthy people it's the spawn of leon trotsky :rolleyes:
• Bigdogg

  Like I said, it's all over the spectrum.
  
  http://www.gallup.com/poll/145496/favor-oppose-repealing-healthcare-law.aspx
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;874462 wrote:Doubtful. Could easily replace a mandate with a tax credit for the cost of health insurance obtainable in the exchange. Which of course, Republicans should like because they like tax cuts.

  In this current fiscal climate? Good luck with that. The law is toast without the mandate...mark it down.
• Bigdogg

  Writerbuckeye;874358 wrote:Please. Weasel words all around. Most polls have clearly shown the public wants the bill repealed. The latest poll shows 55 percent want it repealed. So you lied.
  
  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

  Like I said it is all over depending on how you ask the question.
  
  http://www.gallup.com/poll/146729/one-year-later-americans-split-healthcare-law.aspx
• Bigdogg

  This thread shows just how little Writer and Fishie know about health care problems. Their true partisan hack colors shine through. This is exactly why people are fed up up with all of Washington.
• fish82

  

  Bigdogg;874519 wrote:This thread shows just how little Writer and Fishie know about health care problems. Their true partisan hack colors shine through. This is exactly why people are fed up up with all of Washington.

  
  WTF are you talking about? All I did was comment on the constitutionality of the law as written. I'm not even discussing "healthcare problems." Focus, broseph.
• jhay78

  

  Writerbuckeye;874439 wrote:If it's so "moderate" how come businesses are falling all over themselves trying to get waivers? And how come a significant number of others now say they're likely to pay the fines and dump their insurance plans when the health care bill takes full effect?
  
  It's not moderate, that's why.
  
  It is, however, a total cluster that clearly opens the door for more intervention into a system that is already pretty ****ed due to government mandates and regulations.

  That last part nailed it. People ignore how the market became so distorted in the first place thanks to government intervention.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;874460 wrote:But, I mean lets look at your sentence. You suggest that any government involvement in healthcare delivery systems whatsoever is not "moderate." When you take into account the wide range of the political spectrum in our pluralistic nation...you suggest that a completely private market is moderate. That is the exact opposite of moderate. You cannot get further to the right than no government regulatory involvement in healthcare delivery. By definition that cannot be moderate.

  False premise ....... we are suppsed to be in a free, market driven society, as such my view would be moderate. The convoluted, but perhaps freely accepted notion that there has to be government involvement and hence the plan thereby appears rightist
  is bunk.
  
  It is free markets and liberty that have elevated the human condition heretofore in this country, not government. And there is nothing about government involvement in health care that will enhance care or lower cost - nothing / zero / nada.
• QuakerOats

  Boatshoes -- please see today's piece by Alan Reynolds in the Wall St - page A13.
  
  Have a good weekend.
  
  'Oats
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;874460 wrote:Well it was good enough for your boy Newt to endorse it in the nineties whom you wanted to win the nomination a few months back if I remember correctly. It was good enough to be the Heritage Foundation's plan in the 90's. It was moderate enough to be George H.W. Bush's alternative to HillaryCare. Etc. Etc.

  All of the above have been just as wrong on the topic (and this is from someone whose company was going to be backing Newt earlier this year).
  
  However, they (along with Romney and his recent proposal on this topic) are the reason why, between the two main parties today, nothing really changes that much. They'll both tax unnecessarily -- what they spend it on will just be different. They'll both restrict civil liberties -- they just differ on which ones and what the motivation is for it.
  
  The more I live, the more I hate both of these parties, and the asshats that make up most of both of them (there are maybe a few good ones left, but that's it).
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Bigdogg;874519 wrote:This thread shows just how little Writer and Fishie know about health care problems. Their true partisan hack colors shine through. This is exactly why people are fed up up with all of Washington.

  I know enough about health care to know that the more mandates you impose on insurers and the more regulations you create, the higher costs will go.
  
  It's not a mystery that costs have escalated as they have, since the government keeps adding requirements for insurers while restricting how much they can charge for services, and what services they can charge for.
  
  Obama's legislation is only going to magnify this problem because it adds a lot more unfunded mandates to companies. Even if a pool is created, the costs charged to consumers will be far greater than they would have been if government had stayed out of it.
  
  I also know that if you throw a bunch of new "insured" folks into a system that isn't prepared to handle them, shortages will occur. We already don't have enough primary care physicians out there, but if the new legislation goes into effect as it is, the system will be overloaded even further, ER's will be overrun even more, and costs will skyrocket.
• Footwedge

  O-Trap;873750 wrote:I think this really has more to do with the entertainment value of a president though. Oration is fine, but it technically does nothing to make a president's policies or positions any better or worse.
  
  Having stated that, a younger Paul would certainly be more easily elected.

  At times, Ron jumps to his next thought before finishing his words on the point at hand. It hurts his perception from the public, big time. Back in the 80's, he was as well spoken as either Clinton or Reagan. Age will do that to a person. Trust me....I know
• O-Trap

  

  Footwedge;875180 wrote:At times, Ron jumps to his next thought before finishing his words on the point at hand. It hurts his perception from the public, big time. Back in the 80's, he was as well spoken as either Clinton or Reagan. Age will do that to a person. Trust me....I know

  I would think so, but I would say that has more do with whether or not he's a sexy choice and less to do with whether or not he's the best choice.
  
  And in truth, it doesn't seem to make his message more difficult to understand. He's just not the speaker he once was.
• Bigdogg

  fish82;874538 wrote:WTF are you talking about? All I did was comment on the constitutionality of the law as written. I'm not even discussing "healthcare problems." Focus, broseph.

  WTF! besides being a dancing queen you are also an expert in Constitutional law? Who would have thought!!!