TexasCHLforum.com

stroguy wrote:That basically makes Paulie an agent of Obama if he doesn't throw his support for the Republican.

The problem is that Ron Paul won't do that. He never has in the past, and if he's true to form, he won't this time either. He's not a party stalwart. He uses the party to leverage his campaign resources, but he doesn't give a cup of warm spit about it. Therefore, his disciples will do what they always do, and if Ron Paul does't endorse the nominee they will help Obama to a win. If I were the party chair, I would be sitting down with Ron Paul come late October and let him know in no uncertain terms that if he does not endorse the Republican candidate (if it isn't him), he will no longer have access to party resources going forward and his party membership will be terminated.

Kythas wrote:Three days ago I would have said Gingrich was done, but he came out swinging in the debate and said what we all wanted to say to the press and it helped him big.

I think Newt is probably the most intelligent person in the running but he's being stupid in attacking Romney's financial success. After all, isn't the ability to freely earn as much as you legally can a core tenet of not only the GOP, but our entire country and capitalist system? I don't understand why anyone would think attacking that success would work with Republicans. Democrats will bang that drum in the interest of class warfare, though.

It looks like it's anyone's race at this point. With Florida next, it'll be really interesting to see what happens there.

Not at the expense of thousands of american jobs, no. Flyover country doesn't take kindly to that kind of 'capitalism'.

Agree 100%, but Ronnie is ready to retire and that won't hurt his feelings. But it is sad that Ronnie gets to go to the casino with friends, gamble with their money and then not offer to buy a cup of coffee. I don't see Ronnie going third party this go around because he is not dumb and knows the Perot plan does not work. He is just going to ride to the end and then take his leftover chips home.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

stroguy wrote:That basically makes Paulie an agent of Obama if he doesn't throw his support for the Republican.

The problem is that Ron Paul won't do that. He never has in the past, and if he's true to form, he won't this time either. He's not a party stalwart. He uses the party to leverage his campaign resources, but he doesn't give a cup of warm spit about it. Therefore, his disciples will do what they always do, and if Ron Paul does't endorse the nominee they will help Obama to a win. If I were the party chair, I would be sitting down with Ron Paul come late October and let him know in no uncertain terms that if he does not endorse the Republican candidate (if it isn't him), he will no longer have access to party resources going forward and his party membership will be terminated.

Do you really think Ron Paul will care about Republican support after this campaign season? He is retiring from Congress next year. I think his real goal is to gather delegates and have some influence at the convention We are voting for more than a presidential nominee when we vote in the primarys.. in fact technically we aren't really voting for a nominee, but for a slate of delegates. I think Ron Paul hopes to shift the Republican platform more libertarian .. and this will be his last stand, and will pass his libertarian scepter to his his son. I think that he might find that either Mittens or the Grinch might be open to some of his influences, such as laying off a social agenda, shrinking government, and even getting out of Afghanistan.
While I don't like Ron Paul as a candidate, and believe he is embarassing to the libertarian cause. I want mittens and the grinch to duke it out. It helps hilite the differences so that we can decide who is best, Its better reality tv than Snooky, and there is plenty of time for them to kiss and make up before the general election.

There's another debate tonight at 8pm NBC.

Ron might care because word is the GOP is playing the mafia card and threating his family for what he does.

Even if they keep Ron Paul in line, the GOP still has the problem of coming up with someone worth votng FOR. If the do that, they will have no problem beatng Obama if they don't then they're going to have a hard time.

They need a candidate who shows they think Obama is taking America inthe wrong direction. With Romney they're saying they like Obama's direction, but want to go down that road at 55 mph instead of 75 mph.

bayouhazard wrote:Ron might care because word is the GOP is playing the mafia card and threating his family for what he does.

If you can find a source for that other than world net daily, I'd be interested.

Because it frankly sounds like a total fabrication.

bayouhazard wrote:Ron might care because word is the GOP is playing the mafia card and threating his family for what he does.

Even if they keep Ron Paul in line, the GOP still has the problem of coming up with someone worth votng FOR. If the do that, they will have no problem beatng Obama if they don't then they're going to have a hard time.

They need a candidate who shows they think Obama is taking America inthe wrong direction. With Romney they're saying they like Obama's direction, but want to go down that road at 55 mph instead of 75 mph.

My point is that Ron Paul is as much of a RINO as Mitt Romney. He is a Libertarian at heart, using Republican party resources to further his agenda. He doesn't really belong in the Republican party. He has no personal philosophical attachment to the party. He is an agent provocateur. That's all he is.

Now, if he wants to take off the sheep's clothing and run as a Libertarian, I will then have no beef with him because that will be an honest representation of who he is. I may not agree with him then, but I can at least respect him. But until he does that, he is simply trying to bring the Republican party down from the inside, and I despise him for that. Further, it is a complete mystery to me why the party leadership even continues to condone his membership in the party. His continued membership is destructive. If he's going to contribute to Obama's election, let him at least do it out in the open, as an honest Libertarian. Until then, I see him as a profoundly dishonest man.

We and the GOP, absolutely must stop the infighting and other {stuff} and stop it soon. Otherwise, it will be another four years of Big Mammou and the current POTUS and his lackeys.

If this means Ron Paul must man up and step aside, so be it. We'll see Ron Paul's true colors as well as those of the other contenders after the Florida CJ. Enough is enough!

Oldgringo wrote:We and the GOP, absolutely must stop the infighting and other {stuff} and stop it soon. Otherwise, it will be another four years of Big Mammou and the current POTUS and his lackeys.

If this means Ron Paul must man up and step aside, so be it. We'll see Ron Paul's true colors as well as those of the other contenders after the Florida CJ. Enough is enough!

That is exactly what I have been thinking. The worst thing that can happen is Ron Paul running as an independent, libertarian or whatever.
With all this infighting we are giving Obama ammunition for next Oct. right before the election.

I expect Gingrich to win the debate tonight but I am uneasy with him getting the nomination. Like it or not the best out of the 4 remaining to beat Obama is Romney.
That is my opinion!! I saw on the news today that Mitch Daniels is thinking about jumping in the race. That is what we need another unknown.

Like I said earlier Obama will win a second term, I hate to think it but we will see. Hope I am wrong!!

It took hundreds of years for the Roman Empire to fall after it rotted from within. I can smell it now!!

Chuck

I hope Gingrich wins Forida decisively.

Gingrich means four more years of Obama.

Ashlar wrote:

Kythas wrote:Three days ago I would have said Gingrich was done, but he came out swinging in the debate and said what we all wanted to say to the press and it helped him big.

I think Newt is probably the most intelligent person in the running but he's being stupid in attacking Romney's financial success. After all, isn't the ability to freely earn as much as you legally can a core tenet of not only the GOP, but our entire country and capitalist system? I don't understand why anyone would think attacking that success would work with Republicans. Democrats will bang that drum in the interest of class warfare, though.

It looks like it's anyone's race at this point. With Florida next, it'll be really interesting to see what happens there.

Not at the expense of thousands of american jobs, no. Flyover country doesn't take kindly to that kind of 'capitalism'.

I'm sorry but the notion that it's ok to leave lackluster companies alone to founder is a recipe for failure on a much bigger scale. Capitalism is harsh sometimes, but, even "vultures" do us all a service by cleaning out the carrion. This applies equally to both road kill and to companies that are not performing.

The problem with the economy today is that we're not creating jobs to replace those that have been removed from the US economy. When I worked at HP, we worried when our sales revenue was not at least 50% derived from businesses and products created within the last 5 years. Out with the old, in with the new. It takes hutzpa to create new products that compete with your own products, but it's necessary to remaining successful. Energy is a HUGE opportunity for well-paying job creation, so is healthcare. Government intervention/regulation is the problem. Want to build a pipeline (with not a dime of government money) that will employ ten thousand plus direct workers and support tens of thousands more in supporting roles? Sorry, you might disturb a few acres of Nebraska wetlands (or whatever). Want to build a solar plant? Sorry, your choice of locations affects a previously-unknown turtle habitat...... Want to sell your low-cost healthcare solution across state lines and grow your company while taking waste out of the industry? Sorry, you're not allowed.

You want to know why jobs are not growing? This is why.

RoyGBiv wrote: I'm sorry but the notion that it's ok to leave lackluster companies alone to founder is a recipe for failure on a much bigger scale. Capitalism is harsh sometimes, but, even "vultures" do us all a service by cleaning out the carrion. This applies equally to both road kill and to companies that are not performing.

The problem with the economy today is that we're not creating jobs to replace those that have been removed from the US economy. When I worked at HP, we worried when our sales revenue was not at least 50% derived from businesses and products created within the last 5 years. Out with the old, in with the new. It takes hutzpa to create new products that compete with your own products, but it's necessary to remaining successful. Energy is a HUGE opportunity for well-paying job creation, so is healthcare. Government intervention/regulation is the problem. Want to build a pipeline (with not a dime of government money) that will employ ten thousand plus direct workers and support tens of thousands more in supporting roles? Sorry, you might disturb a few acres of Nebraska wetlands (or whatever). Want to build a solar plant? Sorry, your choice of locations affects a previously-unknown turtle habitat...... Want to sell your low-cost healthcare solution across state lines and grow your company while taking waste out of the industry? Sorry, you're not allowed.

You want to know why jobs are not growing? This is why.

Bain wasn't a vulture picking on a corpse, they were a vulture taking down an ocelot because they couldn't catch the cheetah.

But hey, I remember Houston in the 80's. I couldn't breathe there. To heck with those gub'mint meddlers gettin betwitxt a man and a dollar. Those people who can't breathe should just move, eh?

And to heck with those mamby-pamby building codes. If the building falls down killing everyone, the business will fail, right? That's the market correcting itself, surely. Darn meddlers.

FDA? Bah, who cares about some pig blood in the river. Plenty of fish elsewhere. If a drug kills someone, that person won't be able to buy more- market self-correction!

I love it when people say "limit government" and others hear "no government". It makes for fun arguments.