PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul will not seek re-election


Saul Good
07-12-2011, 01:14 PM
I hate to be the Paul-bearer of bad news for some of you, but
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58792.html

FD
07-12-2011, 01:22 PM
That's too bad. He's a pretty good guy to have in the House, if not the Presidency.

go bowe
07-12-2011, 01:24 PM
if he's retiring from the house, how does he expect to get elected president?

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 01:27 PM
I know he says here he wants to focus on one election. ( I don't see how he could run for both. I'd rather keep in the House during this crisis.) But I have to still wonder if the Texas GOP restricting, of just his district, has played some part in his decision? I read months ago they were redistricting to fill his constituents up with unions folks and minorities to try to unseat him. I suspect the general GOP wanted it too. They have tried in the past to unseat him with big money and candidates. Plus Perry is an insider so I suspect he helped. Then again, I read this months ago and I don't know what happened to it.

VAChief
07-12-2011, 01:48 PM
I know he says here he wants to focus on one election. ( I don't see how he could run for both. I'd rather keep in the House during this crisis.) But I have to still wonder if the Texas GOP restricting, of just his district, has played some part in his decision? I read months ago they were redistricting to fill his constituents up with unions folks and minorities to try to unseat him. I suspect the general GOP wanted it too. They have tried in the past to unseat him with big money and candidates. Plus Perry is an insider so I suspect he helped. Then again, I read this months ago and I don't know what happened to it.

I have often thought a better track for him to gain traction nationally would have been as a governor. If he ran a state and could put some of his ideas in place (and they worked), he would be a lot harder to be ignored. Especially in a huge state like Texas.

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 01:54 PM
I know he says here he wants to focus on one election. ( I don't see how he could run for both. I'd rather keep in the House during this crisis.) But I have to still wonder if the Texas GOP restricting, of just his district, has played some part in his decision? I read months ago they were redistricting to fill his constituents up with unions folks and minorities to try to unseat him. I suspect the general GOP wanted it too. They have tried in the past to unseat him with big money and candidates. Plus Perry is an insider so I suspect he helped. Then again, I read this months ago and I don't know what happened to it.

The Texas GOP is going to redistrict a reliable GOP seat so they can elect a Dem? I admit I am assuming that is what you meant by adding union members and minorities to his district.

If I am wrong I apologize.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 01:59 PM
:*(

durtyrute
07-12-2011, 02:08 PM
I've asked this a million times and still haven't recieved an answer. What makes this guy different than any other politician that promises alot and does deliver when push comes to shove. You guys do remember Obama's campaign right? I mean it won a marketing award, you have to remember it and look at us now.

Bewbies
07-12-2011, 02:17 PM
I'll be honest, I like the guy, but anyone who has been in Congress for 24 years has got to go. I don't care what they stand for, that's way too long.

Cave Johnson
07-12-2011, 02:18 PM
In other news, blimp stocks are in freefall.

OH THE HUMANITY!

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 02:19 PM
In other news, blimp stocks are in freefall.

OH THE HUMANITY!

THE TEA PARTY HAS RUINED THE ECONOMY!1!

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 02:53 PM
I'll be honest, I like the guy, but anyone who has been in Congress for 24 years has got to go. I don't care what they stand for, that's way too long.

Term limits are not a solution. Especially, when you have a guy who consistently votes as she says he will and supports the Constititution—these qualities are much better than how long someone has been in. I would take full House like this than one that continually re-supplies with more ignoramuses and anti-Constitutionalists. But that's me.

Don't forget there was a long interruption in his service at one time too. It's not like it was continuous for that whole period.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 02:56 PM
The Texas GOP is going to redistrict a reliable GOP seat so they can elect a Dem? I admit I am assuming that is what you meant by adding union members and minorities to his district.

If I am wrong I apologize.

Well, they were last I read which was a few months ago. I don't know if they actually followed through on it. But yeah, that's what I read. Don't forget GOP leadership isn't conservative, libertarian nor are they really for small govt. Look at both Bushes and Bob Dole who actually was advising members of congress to vote for Obamacare or govt in more healthcare.

As a matter of fact, I found out yesterday that Bachmann campaigned for Jimmy Carter and not Ronald Reagan. Not to mention how she prosecuted citizens for the IRS.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 03:03 PM
I have often thought a better track for him to gain traction nationally would have been as a governor. If he ran a state and could put some of his ideas in place (and they worked), he would be a lot harder to be ignored. Especially in a huge state like Texas.

Well, when you think about what his passion is, Congress is right for him. President to him is supposed to be a weaker branch under the Constitution and it's the Federal govt that is the bigger problem to a Constitutionalist. In Congress, he at least gets to be on the Financial Services Committee, Joint Economic Committee, and now he is Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. I believe he was denied chairmanships before because of his stands.

Bewbies
07-12-2011, 03:08 PM
Term limits are not a solution. Especially, when you have a guy who consistently votes as she says he will and supports the Constititution—these qualities are much better than how long someone has been in. I would take full House like this than one that continually re-supplies with more ignoramuses and anti-Constitutionalists. But that's me.

Don't forget there was a long interruption in his service at one time too. It's not like it was continuous for that whole period.

I never said anything about term limits. I just said 24 years is too long.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 03:13 PM
Okay well, I just googled and apparently the Texas GOP attempting it to the whole state to get more Rs in congress but it does destroy Paul's district with more union members and minorities at the same time. I think that looks like a way to get rid of him. BTW this was not the original news report that I read. This one has more info in it and it says it would take several months to determine final results. The date is June 3.





Paul, a 2008 and 2012 Republican presidential hopeful, would pick up about 300,000 new voters in the map that the Texas Senate Redistricting Committee is going to consider. It could expose Paul to a spirited primary challenge while placing him in a district with more ethnic minorities and union members.

Democratic operative Jeff Crosby, who has tried unsuccessfully to help candidates beat the longtime incumbent, believes the change is intended to target Paul.

"This is clearly a shot taken by the Republican establishment against the hero of the Tea Party," Crosby said. "By giving him more than 300,000 new voters, it's clear the Republican establishment doesn't want Ron Paul to come back after he finishes his race for president." Under a law originally designed to help Lyndon Johnson, Paul can run for Congress and president at the same time — as he did in 2008.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-redistricting/redistricting/updated-senate-panel-approves-map/

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 03:16 PM
I never said anything about term limits. I just said 24 years is too long.

Yeah, true....but that usually is the reason term limits get pushed. The professional politician so to speak. ( although Paul has practiced medicine while being in office too.) So that's why I thought that. I seemed implied. My point still stands, though, as to my preference.

Saul Good
07-12-2011, 03:21 PM
This is a good move since he's going to get elected POTUS. According to the latest polls, he only trails Romney 33%-7%.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 03:45 PM
Ron Paul, the amazing and principled politician, is not running for Congress again. It's the end of an era, but the beginning of a new one.

But why is Ron not running, after finally getting a little of what he is due with his monetary committee? He has been thinking about this for some time, and wants to concentrate on the presidential campaign and future and enhanced educational efforts that will blow your socks off.

Also, he has had it--to name just a few items--with: twice weekly groping by the TSA (since he has metal knees and is selected for the full feel-up every time); dealing with the crooks and creeps in Congress, especially in the rotten Texas delegation; and the deadly new district the Republicans have placed him in.

There are sad aspects to this, of course. He has been the greatest congressman in American history, by many leagues. But I predict that he will have even-more and even-more-lasting influence as he uses his moral authority for teaching freedom, peace, and Austrian economics outside of politics. More later.

UPDATE According to Politico, under a deliberately ugly photo of Ron, it is "All or Nothing" now for Ron. Of course, that implies that the state is all, and private life nothing. [<--Saul would agree with the last 8 words]


http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/07/ron-paul-will-not-run-for-congress-again/

LOCOChief
07-12-2011, 03:46 PM
I hate to be the Paul-bearer of bad news for some of you, but
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58792.html

this SUCKS.

Things will soon be bad enough that he would have stood a reasonable chance IMO

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 03:48 PM
Okay well, I just googled and apparently the Texas GOP attempting it to the whole state to get more Rs in congress but it does destroy Paul's district with more union members and minorities at the same time. I think that looks like a way to get rid of him. BTW this was not the original news report that I read. This one has more info in it and it says it would take several months to determine final results. The date is June 3.





http://www.texastribune.org/texas-redistricting/redistricting/updated-senate-panel-approves-map/

It doesn't make a lot of sense but that is the norm for the GOP. :)

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 03:52 PM
It doesn't make a lot of sense but that is the norm for the GOP. :)

Yeah, they're dirty. 97% of them talk the talk only.

Donger
07-12-2011, 03:54 PM
Meh. One less nut.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 03:55 PM
this SUCKS.

Things will soon be bad enough that he would have stood a reasonable chance IMO

Yeah, I feel the same way. At least when he makes a presidential run more of his ideas at least get discussed. Look at how many Rs have used some of his rhetoric. Of course, they don't mean it. At least it gives a chance for certain ideas to air nationally.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 03:56 PM
Meh. One less nut.

Mishuginas are good at spotting such.



True Brits need to take their British Mercantilism/Imperialism back home!

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 04:03 PM
2016 will be about Rand Paul anyway.

Saul Good
07-12-2011, 04:20 PM
Ron Paul, the amazing and principled politician, is not running for Congress again. It's the end of an era, but the beginning of a new one.

But why is Ron not running, after finally getting a little of what he is due with his monetary committee? He has been thinking about this for some time, and wants to concentrate on the presidential campaign and future and enhanced educational efforts that will blow your socks off.

Also, he has had it--to name just a few items--with: twice weekly groping by the TSA (since he has metal knees and is selected for the full feel-up every time); dealing with the crooks and creeps in Congress, especially in the rotten Texas delegation; and the deadly new district the Republicans have placed him in.

There are sad aspects to this, of course. He has been the greatest congressman in American history, by many leagues. But I predict that he will have even-more and even-more-lasting influence as he uses his moral authority for teaching freedom, peace, and Austrian economics outside of politics. More later.

UPDATE According to Politico, under a deliberately ugly photo of Ron, it is "All or Nothing" now for Ron. Of course, that implies that the state is all, and private life nothing. [<--Saul would agree with the last 8 words]


http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/07/ron-paul-will-not-run-for-congress-again/

What's the jab at me all about? I like RP just fine and think he'd be a good POTUS. That doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that he stands no chance of winning.

SNR
07-12-2011, 04:26 PM
What's the jab at me all about? I like RP just fine and think he'd be a good POTUS. That doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that he stands no chance of winning.Eh, your pun in the OP was pretty terrible

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 04:45 PM
What's the jab at me all about? I like RP just fine and think he'd be a good POTUS. That doesn't mean that I'm blind to the fact that he stands no chance of winning.

Yeah, as if that's what this thread is about—not his congressional election but the presidential, now.
You're just using this to get another one of your jabs in. That's what I call being a tard.

Saul Good
07-12-2011, 04:55 PM
Yeah, as if that's what this thread is about—not his congressional election but the presidential, now.
You're just using this to get another one of your jabs in. That's what I call being a tard.

How silly of me to think that this article had anything to do with the presidential election when the article starts out with:


"After serving almost 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul told The Facts this morning he will not be seeking another term for the District 14 seat.

Paul, 75, will instead focus on his quest for the presidency in 2012.

“I felt it was better that I concentrate on one election,” Paul said.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 04:57 PM
How silly to use the thread title you used too. Not everyone reads the link ya' know.

At least you're admitting that you want to devote a whole thread to this idea of Paul can't win—instead of a bunch of random posts about it for the upteempth time.
Beat a dead horse much? Republicans like you make me want to vote for Obama.

Saul Good
07-12-2011, 05:00 PM
How silly to use the thread title you used too. Not everyone reads the link ya' know.

Forgive me if I'm not concerned about what people who don't read the article think about the thread.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 05:02 PM
Forgive me if I'm not concerned about what people who don't read the article think about the thread.

Usually the title is enough for some things. Unfortunately, it didn't go the way you wanted either. :D I think you just missed me.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 05:26 PM
He really is focusing on winning the primaries but I agree he certainly is a long shot. The campaign is putting all of its eggs in Iowa too.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 06:14 PM
He really is focusing on winning the primaries but I agree he certainly is a long shot. The campaign is putting all of its eggs in Iowa too.
I remember there were complaints that he didn't try that hard last time and his campaign wasn't that strong. Of course he had to be persuaded to run.
Remember those awful ads? The stuff done by people outside his agency by the grassroots was awesome though but not many saw it except die hards. So he was made to promise he would campaign to try to win.

While I was making supper I was thinking maybe, since he's not going to run for congress, then perhaps he may run Third Party if he doesn't get the primary. He'd have nothing to lose. I can hear the hand wringing and wailing by the statist Republicans though whining about losing votes. Schadenfreude.

Dave Lane
07-12-2011, 06:18 PM
2016 will be about Rand Paul anyway.

The nut doesn't fall from the tree. He should be next.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 07:02 PM
The nut doesn't fall from the tree. He should be next.

Turn your TV off and figure things out for yourself for once.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 07:04 PM
I remember there were complaints that he didn't try that hard last time and his campaign wasn't that strong. Of course he had to be persuaded to run.
Remember those awful ads? The stuff done by people outside his agency by the grassroots was awesome though but not many saw it except die hards. So he was made to promise he would campaign to try to win.

While I was making supper I was thinking maybe, since he's not going to run for congress, then perhaps he may run Third Party if he doesn't get the primary. He'd have nothing to lose. I can hear the hand wringing and wailing by the statist Republicans though whining about losing votes. Schadenfreude.

The campaign didn't try that hard last time it's pretty factual. They told some people I know if they would place ad's out in the Western part of the state they would be re-payed by the campaign and it never happend. I'm glad they got some new people on board like Doug Wead who actually have a clue on how to run things.

go bowe
07-12-2011, 09:02 PM
How silly to use the thread title you used too. Not everyone reads the link ya' know.

At least you're admitting that you want to devote a whole thread to this idea of Paul can't win—instead of a bunch of random posts about it for the upteempth time.
Beat a dead horse much? Republicans like you make me want to vote for Obama.

vote for obama?

hell, woman, we don't want you on our side!!!

healthpellets
07-12-2011, 09:42 PM
This is a good move since he's going to get elected POTUS. According to the latest polls, he only trails Romney 33%-7%.

can someone please explain to me the appeal of the Republican who implemented the healthcare system on which ObamaCare is based?

Brainiac
07-12-2011, 10:00 PM
can someone please explain to me the appeal of the Republican who implemented the healthcare system on which ObamaCare is based?
Well, it could be because Obamacare is nothing like Romneycare, so this isn't really an issue to the voters who actually pay attention to things like that. Romney opposes Obamacare and has pledged to repeal it if he gets elected.

National Review article (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/196373/obamacare-isnt-romneycare/cesar-conda)


The difference is that Romney’s plan did not raise taxes on individuals or businesses, didn’t cut Medicare, didn’t include “public options” or raise spending by a trillion dollars, and it didn’t impose insurance price controls. Romney’s plan made no attempt to take over health care. The Massachusetts legislation was a scant 70 pages long, compared to Obamacare’s gargantuan 2,000-page maze of regulation.

Perhaps most importantly, Romney’s plan is a state plan, not a one-size-fits-all federal usurpation of a power constitutionally reserved to the states. States should be free to adopt reforms that work for them. They can borrow the best ideas from one another. The federal government’s role is to be flexible about how their share of health-care dollars may be spent.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 10:06 PM
Well, it could be because Obamacare is nothing like Romneycare, so this isn't really an issue to the voters who actually pay attention to things like that. Romney opposes Obamacare and has pledged to repeal it if he gets elected.

National Review article (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/196373/obamacare-isnt-romneycare/cesar-conda)

ROFL

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 10:08 PM
can someone please explain to me the appeal of the Republican who implemented the healthcare system on which ObamaCare is based?

Because Republicans don't really stand for small government. Before Obama Republicans created the largest growth of government ever seen before. The Tea Party is just the Reagan Coalition tired of apologizing for Bush.

healthpellets
07-12-2011, 10:15 PM
Well, it could be because Obamacare is nothing like Romneycare, so this isn't really an issue to the voters who actually pay attention to things like that. Romney opposes Obamacare and has pledged to repeal it if he gets elected.

National Review article (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/196373/obamacare-isnt-romneycare/cesar-conda)

oh i see. i must have confused him with another "Republican" governor that implemented a state-wide healthcare scheme thus growing the size of government and erecting additional barriers between citizens and truly free markets.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 10:19 PM
oh i see. i must have confused him with another "Republican" governor that implemented a state-wide healthcare scheme thus growing the size of government and erecting additional barriers between citizens and truly free markets.

:clap:

Brainiac
07-12-2011, 10:28 PM
oh i see. i must have confused him with another "Republican" governor that implemented a state-wide healthcare scheme thus growing the size of government and erecting additional barriers between citizens and truly free markets.
Try reading the article. Oh wait, you don't even have to do that, because I spoon fed it to you in the original post.

Allow me to spoon feed it to you again. This time I won't put it in a "quote" box, since that apparently confused you the first time.

The difference is that Romney’s plan did not raise taxes on individuals or businesses, didn’t cut Medicare, didn’t include “public options” or raise spending by a trillion dollars, and it didn’t impose insurance price controls. Romney’s plan made no attempt to take over health care. The Massachusetts legislation was a scant 70 pages long, compared to Obamacare’s gargantuan 2,000-page maze of regulation.

Perhaps most importantly, Romney’s plan is a state plan, not a one-size-fits-all federal usurpation of a power constitutionally reserved to the states. States should be free to adopt reforms that work for them. They can borrow the best ideas from one another. The federal government’s role is to be flexible about how their share of health-care dollars may be spent.
There is a difference between a 70-page plan that doesn't raise taxes, doesn't cut Medicare, and doesn't raise spending by a trillion dollars versus a 2,000 page plan that does.

The plans are not the same. You could actually read Romney's plan if you chose to. Nobody has ever read the entire 2,000 page Obamacare plan.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 10:31 PM
Mitt Romney raised taxes as Gov. by half a billion dollars. Brainiac doesn't know what he's talking about nor do most who support Romney. Buyers remorse later down the road for sure.

Ace Gunner
07-12-2011, 10:35 PM
I think he's making the right call here. can't stay upright forever, it's now or never. He has more momentum than ever, whatever that's worth, I don't know. Likely nothing since america seems enamored with "the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan" look. If he made it as the republican nominee, I'd vote for him.

Brainiac
07-12-2011, 10:45 PM
Mitt Romney raised taxes as Gov. by half a billion dollars. Brainiac doesn't know what he's talking about nor do most who support Romney. Buyers remorse later down the road for sure.
Actually, you are wrong. He didn't raise taxes. He raised $400 million by increasing various user fees, and he raised another $150 million by closing corporate tax loopholes.

He never raised tax rates. He closed loopholes. That's what a lot of people recommend on a national scale.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Tax_Reform.htm

healthpellets
07-12-2011, 10:47 PM
i guess your state doesn't have to raise taxes when they're only footing 18% of the $2.12B bill...

it comes back to Romney claiming the mantle of "conservatism", yet acting like dealer pushing government dependence by mandating coverage. you can't mandate that your citizens purchase a product and then turn around and claim to be for life, liberty, and apple pie.

either he's a fan of bigger government or he's not. but you don't get to run around saying you want the government out of people's lives, except when it comes to healthcare. or except when it comes to marriage. or except when it comes to recreational drug use. or except when it comes to...

so anyway...i've still not heard what's so great about this guy other than his fantastic hair.

healthpellets
07-12-2011, 10:51 PM
gawddamn. i'm scared shitless that this guy is gonna win the republican nomination. i might be more scared that he could beat obama...

then again, there might not be a dime's worth of difference anyway.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 10:53 PM
Actually, you are wrong. He didn't raise taxes. He raised $400 million by increasing various user fees, and he raised another $150 million by closing corporate tax loopholes.

He never raised tax rates. He closed loopholes. That's what a lot of people recommend on a national scale.

Wrong.

"In 2006, Romney enacted a health-reform package strikingly similar to what Democrats are pushing through Congress, including individual and employer mandates, private health-insurance subsidies, broader Medicaid eligibility and a new health-insurance “exchange.” Lately, Massachusetts officials have been forced to raise taxes and cancel some residents’ coverage to pay for it all. Local headlines are decrying “the forbidding arithmetic of health-care reform.”

"Mitt Romney effectively raised gas taxes on every single motorist in Massachusetts, and in 2003 said he was open to an increase in the federal gas tax."

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 10:56 PM
If anyone needed proof that this group is nothing more than mental masterbation the so called "conservatives" who attack Obama now defending Romney are proof.

Brainiac
07-12-2011, 10:56 PM
i guess your state doesn't have to raise taxes when they're only footing 18% of the $2.12B bill...

it comes back to Romney claiming the mantle of "conservatism", yet acting like dealer pushing government dependence by mandating coverage. you can't mandate that your citizens purchase a product and then turn around and claim to be for life, liberty, and apple pie.

either he's a fan of bigger government or he's not. but you don't get to run around saying you want the government out of people's lives, except when it comes to healthcare. or except when it comes to marriage. or except when it comes to recreational drug use. or except when it comes to...

so anyway...i've still not heard what's so great about this guy other than his fantastic hair.
If you're a Tea Party member and a social conservative, then Romney is definitely not the the candidate for you.

If you're a bleeding heart liberal Democrat, then Romney isn't your candidate either.

But if you're fiscally conservative and you abhor the idea of right-wing zealots imposing their religious beliefs on you, then Romney just might be the candidate for you. Tea Partiers call him a RINO, Democrats call him a typical Republican.

He has extensive executive experience both in business and in government. He's not the most dynamic speaker around, and Romneycare will indeed hurt him. But he implemented Romneycare at the state level, which is far different from implementing Obamacare on a national level.

Brainiac
07-12-2011, 10:58 PM
Wrong.

"In 2006, Romney enacted a health-reform package strikingly similar to what Democrats are pushing through Congress, including individual and employer mandates, private health-insurance subsidies, broader Medicaid eligibility and a new health-insurance “exchange.” Lately, Massachusetts officials have been forced to raise taxes and cancel some residents’ coverage to pay for it all. Local headlines are decrying “the forbidding arithmetic of health-care reform.”

"Mitt Romney effectively raised gas taxes on every single motorist in Massachusetts, and in 2003 said he was open to an increase in the federal gas tax."
I included a link to the articles I quoted so that you can read them yourself and decide for yourself whether or not they are accurate or credible.

It would be nice if you had done the same.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 11:03 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/y6DrH6P9OC0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 11:05 PM
I included a link to the articles I quoted so that you can read them yourself and decide for yourself whether or not they are accurate or credible.

It would be nice if you had done the same.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10437

Brainiac
07-12-2011, 11:13 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/y6DrH6P9OC0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Did you actually watch the video? He said if you can afford to buy health insurance but you choose not to, then you should have to pay your own way when you need health care.

I'm trying to understand what is wrong with that position.

Brainiac
07-12-2011, 11:18 PM
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10437
Your article states that Romneycare was pretty much a failure. Few people will argue that. The difference is that Romneycare was an experiment that was done at the state level, where it's appropriate to do things like that. There's a helluva difference between that and having the federal government take over health care for all 50 states.

I've already listed some of the major differences between Romneycare and Obamacare twice in this thread, but I'll say one thing one more time: There is no way that you can say that a 70 page plan and a 2,000 page plan are essentially the same thing. They're not.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 11:23 PM
Did you actually watch the video? He said if you can afford to buy health insurance but you choose not to, then you should have to pay your own way when you need health care.

I'm trying to understand what is wrong with that position.

How is it small government or conservative to have the government punish you for not buying health insurance?

KILLER_CLOWN
07-13-2011, 12:39 AM
July 12, 2011
Paul tops Romney in New Hamshire

Anonymous CNHI News Service The Effingham Daily News Tue Jul 12, 2011, 07:42 PM CDT

DERRY, N.H. — Texas Congressman Ron Paul topped a straw poll of declared Republican candidates in this first-in-the-nation presidential primary state.

Conducted last weekend by the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, the poll included Mitt Romney, the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts and the winner of the 2008 GOP primary here.

Paul garnered 39 percent of the straw poll vote, followed by Rick Santorum with 12 per cent and Michele Bachman and Herman Cain with 11 percent.

Romney got 9 percent of the vote, Tim Pawlenty, 8 percent, and Gary Johnson, 7 percent.

---

Details for this story were provided by The Eagle-Tribune, North Andover, Mass.

http://effinghamdailynews.com/cnhins/x2099951462/Paul-tops-Romney-in-New-Hamshire

Hydrae
07-13-2011, 09:03 AM
Your article states that Romneycare was pretty much a failure. Few people will argue that. The difference is that Romneycare was an experiment that was done at the state level, where it's appropriate to do things like that. There's a helluva difference between that and having the federal government take over health care for all 50 states.

I've already listed some of the major differences between Romneycare and Obamacare twice in this thread, but I'll say one thing one more time: There is no way that you can say that a 70 page plan and a 2,000 page plan are essentially the same thing. They're not.

Not that I care much but you keep talking about how Romney did this on a state level and not a national level. Could that be because that is all the power he had at that point? I am not sure that makes me at all comfortable that he would not have done it on a national level if he had the ability.

For the same reasons, of course it doesn't cost as much, it only covers 1 state, not 50. Same for the number of pages for that matter. 70 pages for one state could (note, could, not would) mean 3500 pages at a national level.

Brainiac
07-13-2011, 11:01 AM
How is it small government or conservative to have the government punish you for not buying health insurance?
Romney has already said that he opposes Obamacare. Some decisions that are appropriate at the state level are inappropriate at the national level.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2011, 11:40 AM
Romney has already said that he opposes Obamacare. Some decisions that are appropriate at the state level are inappropriate at the national level.

You actually believe him? This is the problem we have today, when folks give Romney their trust. I saw him on tv already say he though Obamacare was the right thing but just needs tweaking. Heaven help us.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2011, 11:43 AM
Well, well, it's not surprising that this announcement brought a smile to bankster Ben Bernanke and his staff. Rand will have to step on this issue. Or someone in the right district needs to fill Paul's shoes to keep the heat on the banksters.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-14-2011, 12:40 PM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UUNIeOB0whI?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UUNIeOB0whI?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

BucEyedPea
07-14-2011, 12:49 PM
That is a MUCH BETTER commercial than the ones in the last election. Very emotional!

Saul Good
07-14-2011, 01:27 PM
July 12, 2011
Paul tops Romney in New Hamshire

Anonymous CNHI News Service The Effingham Daily News Tue Jul 12, 2011, 07:42 PM CDT

DERRY, N.H. — Texas Congressman Ron Paul topped a straw poll of declared Republican candidates in this first-in-the-nation presidential primary state.

Conducted last weekend by the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, the poll included Mitt Romney, the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts and the winner of the 2008 GOP primary here.

Paul garnered 39 percent of the straw poll vote, followed by Rick Santorum with 12 per cent and Michele Bachman and Herman Cain with 11 percent.

Romney got 9 percent of the vote, Tim Pawlenty, 8 percent, and Gary Johnson, 7 percent.

---

Details for this story were provided by The Eagle-Tribune, North Andover, Mass.

http://effinghamdailynews.com/cnhins/x2099951462/Paul-tops-Romney-in-New-Hamshire

Ron Paul dominates another straw poll. In actual, scientific polls, Romney garners 25%, Bachman 18%, Palin 11%, and 5 candidates (including RP) draw from 6-9%. (PPP poll taken July 7th)

Saul Good
07-14-2011, 01:33 PM
RCP shows that Romney leads all candidates with 34.5% in NH. Bachmann is second with 12.8%. (The more recent the poll, the better Bachmann fares.)

BucEyedPea
07-14-2011, 05:45 PM
Ron Paul gaining momentum in Iowa says new poll:

Others gaining momemtum on liberal Democrat-in-Republican-Clothing—Mitt Romney (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/sarah-palin-ron-paul-and-michele-bachmann-gaining-momentum-in-iowa-says-poll.html)

Unfortunately so are Bachmann and Pro Big-Bank-Bailout Palin. Still, bad news for staunchly defended liberal by Saul Good Mitt Romney.


Alas! Ex-War Monger Evangelicals start to endorse Ron Paul.

Ex Pro-War Evangelicals endorse Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/07/ex-warmongers-endorse-ron-paul/)

Meanwhile, some Progressives change party to register as Republicans for one year to nominate Ron Paul.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2011, 05:47 PM
RCP shows that Romney leads all candidates with 34.5% in NH. Bachmann is second with 12.8%. (The more recent the poll, the better Bachmann fares.)

Nah Hah! Too early!

Saul Good = Staunch Defender of Left-Liberals

Chocolate Hog
07-14-2011, 06:11 PM
RCP also showed Guilani and Thompson leading the polls this time 4 years ago.

healthpellets
07-14-2011, 07:40 PM
RCP shows that Romney leads all candidates with 34.5% in NH. Bachmann is second with 12.8%. (The more recent the poll, the better Bachmann fares.)

That makes me want to dig out my eyeballs with spoons and feed them to myself.

Jaric
07-14-2011, 07:44 PM
Romney/Bachman '12

:hmmm:

go bowe
07-14-2011, 09:11 PM
How silly of me to think that this article had anything to do with the presidential election when the article starts out with:

you thilly gooth...