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.

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.

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

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 They want it repealed.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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.