DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on May 16, 2011, 03:25:56 PM
-
Put him right next to Mitt, now (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576325350084379360.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird).
Of course, if 1 of them wins the primary and is up against Obama in 2012.......... :-\
-
Face it. You righties don't have diddly-squat.
No candidates. No ideas. No nothing.
-
where`s sarah?
isn`t this a easy grab
-
Face it. You righties don't have diddly-squat.
No candidates. No ideas. No nothing.
Face it...we actually have GREAT potential candidates in Ryan, Jindal, Kasich, Christie. All with FABULOUS IDEAS, AND ALL BEING ABLE TO BEAT THE CRUD OUT OF OBAMA IN 2012
-
THey have no ideas, and none of them will win.
Just watch and see.
-
Oh, don't worry, I'm gonna love to watch and see Obama crash & burn
-
he never had my support
that guy has had his day in the sun
he's still right about a lot of things
but lets be real....he couldn't win in 2012
-
I keep hearing how brilliant Newt is.
What did he do that was so brilliant?
-
THey have no ideas, and none of them will win.
Just watch and see.
You very likely said no less for Reagan.
Just because you don't understand the vision doesn't mean there isn't one.
-
I keep hearing how brilliant Newt is.
What did he do that was so brilliant?
Tripped up all opposition.
Contract with America.
-
"Newt's lost my support"
Lost your support huh? Implying he once had it. Apparently you don't know much about Newt. He has always been this way. Originally he ran as a Rockefeller Republican.
I love these johnny come lately Republicans/conservatives. They have zero sense of history.
BSB
-
I keep hearing how brilliant Newt is.
What did he do that was so brilliant?
what does brilliance have to do with running for President?
we have an affirmative action President now that can read a teleprompter well
you think if someone like Albert Einstein ran for President he could win?
Ha!....you're a joke!
-
"Newt's lost my support"
Lost your support huh? Implying he once had it.
Yea, absolutely. Big time in fact
Apparently you don't know much about Newt. He has always been this way.
I realize your affinity for rewriting history, but please, by all means, produce some EVIDENCE of his advocating mandating Universal Health Care, prior to this. Because that's the point in which my personal support changed. So please, back up your claim of history with some proof
-
ya know SIRS....actually i think there is a thread of what Newt said...that I agree with
i think you either pay for healthcare or you dont get it
all this running to the emergency room on you and my credit card with a sore throat is bullshit
i dont want to pay for all the illegal's ninos sniffles at the emergency room
let the rabbits that are having ninos pay for their own dam healthcare or not get any!
Newt is correct....many, many people that can afford healthcare
choose to spend their money elsewhere...on cars, on trips, on clothes, cerveza, smokes...
-
Wake up dipstick. Newt has always talked conservative and voted liberal-Republican. I know you have reading comprehension problems but try and follow along occasionally. If you had known anything about Newt you wouldn't be bailing out now, you would've bailed long ago. So don't give me this health care issue shit. It's just the latest thing. And don't give me this I rewrite history stuff, you rewrite the meaning of every reply ever posted to you.
BSB
-
As SOP, can't defend his position, so shoots from the hips with namecalling. How mature. News Flash, B....NO ONE IS REFERENCING NEWT'S CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS, or even that he may have voted for a Democrat in the past. I'd vote for a Democrat with the right conservative credentials, so that's not the issue at hand, despite any rewriting history tactic you might try
Now, are you going to back up your claim with some facts, or not? Is it just your opinion?? Your choice.....your credibility
Sirs
And for Cu4, as soon as we agree that the Constitution doesn't mean what it means, that we mandate the services of one to another, and mandate that we purchase a product that's "well intentioned", then we're no better than those who advocated slavery, IMHO
-
And don't give me this I rewrite history stuff, you rewrite the meaning of every reply ever posted to you.
=============================================
sirs rewrites everything. I doubt that he even agrees with his image as he sees in in a mirror.
-
What's this? ......More unsubstantiated garbage?? By all means, dump away Xo 8)
-
Now, are you going to back up your claim with some facts, or not? Is it just your opinion?? Your choice.....your credibility
He's making it up. Newt has never been a Rockefeller Republican. I found his American Convertive Rating for 1996, one of his last years in office, and he scored a perfect 100%. BSB is full of crap and will never be able to prove what he said.
I've always liked Newt. He helped balance the budget with Kasich through the 90's, and championed the Contract with America. This was a blunder about the Ryan plan, but let's see where it goes.
-
And for Cu4, as soon as we agree that the Constitution doesn't mean what it means, that we mandate the services of one to another, and mandate that we purchase a product that's "well intentioned", then we're no better than those who advocated slavery, IMHO
SIRS....I don't care how we get there....i just wanna stop the freeloaders
i don't wanna pay for the freeloaders or their ninos with sniffles at the emergency room
so i say...no insurance?....no healthcare!
just curious SIRS...do you oppose mandatory car insurance
i am not sure i do or i don't?....i just oppose freeloaders....
but again...i don't wanna pay higher car insurance rates becuzz of the freeloaders
so either mandate they have car insurance, send them to jail or garnish their wages to pay for their wrecks.
-
You need to start rewriting your work, XO, instead of copy and pasting long passages from Google and passing it off as your own.
-
And for Cu4, as soon as we agree that the Constitution doesn't mean what it means, that we mandate the services of one to another, and mandate that we purchase a product that's "well intentioned", then we're no better than those who advocated slavery, IMHO
SIRS....I dont care how we get there.
With all due respect, C, I do. And ignoring the Constitution when it seems to be "getting in the way" is NOT how one deals with problems
I just wanna stop the freeloaders
I do to, but it takes far more political courage to do it and still abide by the Constitution. Granted it's not politically correct, but I'm not in the mood of supporting a PC conservative. I want to support a Constitutional conservative, and Newt just turned his credentials in, on that.
just curious SIRS...do you oppose manadatory car insurance
Apples and Oranges....we had that debate with Bt a while back. Car insurance is mandated ONLY for liability, meaning the damage you might inflict on another. I still oppose it, but at least its put in place to protect the "rights" of someone else, by your actions in a car. That's not what mandatory health insurance coverage is. It's the Government telling you how you are to live your life. It's dictating to you, what you will do as it relates to health care. Not to mention its mandating the services of another, AT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE
I'm all for dealing with the freeloaders as well, but UHC is probably the worse tactic we could take, in trying to "solve that problem"
-
UHC is probably the worse tactic we could take, in trying to "solve that problem"
It is, however, the tactic used by every other developed country on this planet to keep its people healthy at a lower cost than we do to keep only some of us sort of healthy.
-
Yea, and we see both the abhorrent economic & medical care repercussions of every "other developed country" that has tried. Thanks for helping to make my point, Xo 8)
-
And yet strangely, the Canadians, the Brits, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Taiwanese, the Swiss, the Dutch and the French, all have democracies and not one has voted to repeal UHC.
Not one.
Ever.
-
Apples and Oranges.... Car insurance is mandated ONLY for liability,
meaning the damage you might inflict on another.
i do not support uhc....but i really dont see the difference you are making with
car insurance.....with car insurance....like you say it protects me if some halfwit
without car insurance rams me.......but who protects my pocket book when some
bum without health insurance runs to the emergency room with a sore throat
and expects me to pay and free-loads off the system which is you and me SIRS?
-
And yet strangely, the Canadians, the Brits, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Taiwanese, the Swiss, the Dutch and the French, all have democracies and not one has voted to repeal UHC.
And pretty much all of them with the resulting crap of an economy and health care system. And with their respective Governments having been able to get a majority glued to the Government teet. Not going to happen here, if our constitution has any say in the matter
Apples and Oranges.... Car insurance is mandated ONLY for liability,
meaning the damage you might inflict on another.
i do not support uhc....but i really dont see the difference you are making with
car insurance.....with car insurance
One is merely the protection of someone else's rights, by something you may have done with a car. Accidental or what-not. Not to mention that its merely liability and applies to someone else, not the owner of the car.
The other is a mandate on how YOU will take care of yourself, with the government in charge of that decision making
A MASSIVE difference
-
i see what you are saying SIRS....but
i kind of see BOTH as protecting my pocketbook from halfwits
halfwits that don't carry insurance can raid my pocketbook
same with halfwits that don't carry health insurance
i just do not want freeloaders stealing from me
and by not carrying car and/or health insurance they are
-
Shouldn't come as any surprise to find out that both rr and sirs have been newtered.
and there's plenty more where this came from: http://www.thenation.com/blog/160608/five-reasons-why-republicans-are-never-ever-no-way-not-gonna-nominate-newt-gingrich?comment_sort=ASC (http://www.thenation.com/blog/160608/five-reasons-why-republicans-are-never-ever-no-way-not-gonna-nominate-newt-gingrich?comment_sort=ASC)
BTW, sirs. I never said a thing about Newt's prior take on health care. I said he has been this way all along. He has been a liberal Republican in conservative clothing all his life. See if you can put up 5 posts in a row without misrepresenting what's been posted to you. Bet you can't.
BSB
-
Well, since the issue was specifically about Newt's current and supposedly similar take on healthcare, since nothing else was in question, I'd say your effort to misdirect with the standard use of insults is functioning quite well
And for Cu4, as soon as UHC goes into effect, watch just how much MORE of your pocketbook gets assaulted
-
you're right about that SIRS!
hopefully we can get it over-turned
it may have to be when we retake Senate in 2012
-
Yep......then we can pull the same crud the Dems pulled to get it repealed with a simple majority
-
In 1968 Newt did join the Rockefeller campaign, and he did campaign as a liberal in the early 70's, according to two liberal websites that BSB linked to. I assume that information is correct.
Once elected to congress in the mid 70's, though, Newt did join with conservatives and did have a ACU lifetime rating in the 90's. Not just join but he actually has been a conservative leader over the past 30 years. And I have no doubt he would govern that way if elected president. He does have significant achievements under his belt, like balancing the budget as Speaker of the House and helping to bring unemployment down to under 4%. Those are very much needed now.
-
It's hardly just a couple of liberal sites that know what Gingrich is.
A google search. If you don't like this one do another. Better still ask a conservative Republican that served with him in the 90s and ask him how many times Gingrich went behind their backs, taking the conservative fire out of bills, and making deals with the Democrats.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Newt+Gingrich+liberal+ (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Newt+Gingrich+liberal+)
As for Sirs, you were fooled, nothing new. And, you have HDD, Honesty Deficit Disorder, nothing new.
BSB
-
lol...and as for B....shown to be wrong, yet again...most notably, this time around, in the complete absence of proving your point of some supposed Conservative chameleon, Newt is. Don't fret, there are lots of topics...some you might actually be right on. At some point
Sirs
-
It's hardly just a couple of liberal sites that know what Gingrich is.
Not is, but was.
He apparently was a liberal in his early 20's. I'll give you credit for pointing that out. I did not know that. But I won't hold that against him. Everbody did something stupid when they were young.
The first site you posted was very liberal/Socialist, which was the Nation. And the link within that was TNR, which is another liberal site.
-
as for B....shown to be wrong, yet again...most notably, this time around, in the complete absence of proving your point of some supposed Conservative chameleon, Newt is.
I don't think he has proven it either. I read all of BSB's links, and although they may have pointed out that Gingrich may have been a liberal in his early 20's after college graduation, there is nothing in there that shows he was a hidden liberal through his Congressional career or that he was any conservative chameleon, when he was taking votes. If this were true, he would have ACU ratings in the 50's and 60's, not the 90's, which he did have. Unless BSB has something else, he has not proven his statement. Like you said, maybe next time.
-
Agreed
-
as for B....shown to be wrong, yet again...most notably, this time around, in the complete absence of proving your point of some supposed Conservative chameleon, Newt is.
I don't think he has proven it either. I read all of BSB's links, and although they may have pointed out that Gingrich may have been a liberal in his early 20's after college graduation, there is nothing in there that shows he was a hidden liberal through his Congressional career or that he was any conservative chameleon, when he was taking votes. If this were true, he would have ACU ratings in the 50's and 60's, not the 90's, which he did have. Unless BSB has something else, he has not proven his statement. Like you said, maybe next time.
So where do the candidates thus far sit on the spectrum.
We have either definites or probables or possibles in Cain, Newt, Mitt, Pawlenty, Daniels, Bachmann, Palin, and Paul.
Lets rank them left to right.
-
BT in my opinion....right now..... it's looking like it's gonna be Romney
but it's still early
we could do worse
look at McCain and Dole who we were foolish enough to nominate (shakes head)
there is a part of me that thinks some dont wanna jump in
because they know whats coming & dont wanna be the "Captain of the Titanic" when it sinks.
whoever gets elected next....it aint gonna be pretty!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110518/ap_on_el_ge/us_romney_gop_indifference (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110518/ap_on_el_ge/us_romney_gop_indifference)
-
I'll just keep putting these up to see if dawn ever breaks over Marblehead.
"Gingrich is a liberal" WND
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=299873 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=299873)
BSB
-
Thanks for reinforcing my original point, B. Very appreciative
-
"Gingrich is a liberal" WND
Compared to who?....LOL
-
Tea Party Tribune
"Newt Gingrich the Enviro-Liberal Again"
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/02/01/newt-gingrich-%E2%80%93-the-enviro-liberal-%E2%80%93-again/ (http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/02/01/newt-gingrich-%E2%80%93-the-enviro-liberal-%E2%80%93-again/)
BSB
-
I'm really getting a kick out of B validating my original POV and loss of my support. I wonder if he's spending any time reading any of these posts, that reference his CHANGE NOW, vs his supposd ongoing position of a liberal in conservative clothing, which to date, he has yet to back up with any facts. Quite the contrary in fact with the posts that RR has provided, in which he had been a staunch conservative ever since his 20's days. 8)
-
Newt is simply a blowhard. His main goal is to become president, and he will be too old by 2016, so this will be his swan's song.
The last honk of the hypocrite, as it were.
He will be remembered as the clown who claimed Clinton should be removed as president for getting a BJ from Monica, while he, the Newtster, was porking his secretary and his wife was undergoing cancer treatment. Once porked, he married the secretary, who became wife and ex-wife no. 2, because he got tired of her as well.
I think we can say that Clinton learned his lesson, while the Newtster served as a bad object lesson.
He was removed by his party from the leadership and the House, and now he's baaaaack!
What a hero! A champion of Republican morality!
-
Well, finally, some liberal sanity, decrying that of a conservative, with the supposed morals of a Clinton (though Clinton of course, gets a pass, but that's another issue). If Newt were somehow this cloaked liberal in conservative (c)lothing, not only would he have a low ACU rating, libs would be extolling his virtues of compromise, and "working with the other side". A Maverick, like McCain
-
He will be remembered as the clown who claimed Clinton should
be removed as president for getting a BJ from Monica,
What a bunch of bullshit.
So removed from reality.....nothing but spin.
President Clinton was not impeached because as a married man
he lied and cheated on his own family with a gal at work. Clinton
was impeached because he gave 'false and misleading testimony
under oath" and was held "in contempt of court" by a sitting
Federal Judge. The point being defendents can not be allowed to
pick and choose about telling the truth under oath if they think the
questions being asked in court are personal or unfair. If we allow
defendents to pick and choose when they want to tell the truth
under oath our justice system becomes a joke. It was a national
disgrace for a sitting President of the United States to give
false testimony under oath about anything & give the impression
that its ok to not be truthful while under oath.
-
He will be remembered as the clown who claimed Clinton should
be removed as president for getting a BJ from Monica,
What a bunch of bullshit.
So removed from reality.....nothing but spin.
President Clinton was not impeached because as a married man
he lied and cheated on his own family with a gal at work. Clinton
was impeached because he gave 'false and misleading testimony
under oath" and was held "in contempt of court" by a sitting
Federal Judge.
We have to face facts, C. Hard core libs, like Xo, with their deflection screens placed on max, will be applying that erroneous reason for Clinton's impeachment, from now until the cows come home
And last time I looked, lawyers didn't lose their license to practice law, for getting a BJ
-
He will be remembered as the clown who claimed Clinton should be removed as president for getting a BJ from Monica, ...........................................
Who thinks this it true?
We went through that mess for months , and how on Earth did anyone even form the impression that this was the situation?
I think that the Left circled their wagons and in an amazeingly co-ordinated way answered indignantly the charges that were never made ,so well that the charges which were made got forgotton.
-
Had it not been for Monica being grilled and lied to by Starr's people, there would have been no Monica scandal. Monica did not complain, nor did she want to talk.
And Newt was porking his secretary even as all this was going on.
-
Had it not been for Monica being grilled and lied to by Starr's people, there would have been no Monica scandal. Monica did not complain, nor did she want to talk.
And Newt was porking his secretary even as all this was going on.
Oh my , you don't even know what the charges against the president were in the first place do you?
-
(Y A W N) they tried him for perjury.
Hey, I don't give a sh*t what you think and I have no desire to discuss this anymore. Newt was and is a hypocrite. We all know this.
-
(Y A W N) they tried him for perjury.
Hey, I don't give a sh*t what you think and I have no desire to discuss this anymore. Newt was and is a hypocrite. We all know this.
He was not called into court for the purjury he would commit there , what he was charged with in the first place you have well and truely forgotten , a phenominon I find absolutely amazeing.
-
I don't
-
Sirs, old Newt was a liberal when he was a Rockefeller Republican, he's a liberal with health care now, and he was liberal in between. So jump back jack, unless you want to meet out on the N.J. Turnpike some night around 2 A.M. where I can show you some of that revolutionary spirit.
BSB
-
If Newt were a liberal, there wouldn't have been the outcry when he cut Ryan off at the knees. His comment would have been expected. Newt has apologized to Ryan for his language. He has said he would have voted for Ryan's budget and would cancel ObamaCare.
-
I think we can say that Clinton learned his lesson
Game Change, a new tell-all book on the 2008 presidential race that is published today.
They include suggestions that former President Bill Clinton - whose presidency was tainted by his Oval Office dalliances with intern Monica Lewinsky - was having an affair with another woman while his wife was campaigning for the Democrat nomination.
Game Change doesn?t identify the mystery woman allegedly having a relationship with Bill Clinton.
It alleges that Mrs Clinton set up a ?war room within a war room? to deal with questions about her husband?s ?libido'.
?The stories about one woman were more concrete, and after some discreet fact-finding, the group concluded that they were true: that BIll was indeed having an affair - and not a frivolous one-night stand but a sustained romantic relationship,? says the book.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1242526/Game-Change-Book-detailing-affairs-John-Edwards-Bill-Clinton-sends-shock-waves-Washington.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1242526/Game-Change-Book-detailing-affairs-John-Edwards-Bill-Clinton-sends-shock-waves-Washington.html)
---------------------
Lesson not learned.
-
RR, I can understand why you can't get to the realization that Newt is all show, and no go. You've been had. That's hard to admit to yourself. But, mark my words, some day it'll come to you. I didn't start this portion of the debate just to stir the pot. I said Gingrich is a liberal(liberal Republican), underneath all that bluster, because he is. You're not in here much, but I don't just run my mouth about this sort of thing for the hell of it. Further, I get nothing from what Newt is or isn't. In the grand scheme of things I could care less what he is.
BSB
-
Sirs, old Newt was a liberal when he was a Rockefeller Republican, he's a liberal with health care now, and he was liberal in between.
And yet, you can't seem to provide any factual backup between his early 20's and now, to support that claim. Sorry, but your say so doesn't cut it
So jump back jack, unless you want to meet out on the N.J. Turnpike some night around 2 A.M. where I can show you some of that revolutionary spirit.
BSB
And what the frell is that supposed to mean?? the mighty B not dare to be criticized?...shown to be WRONG?
Sirs
-
Ah, the turnpike reference was meant to be a joke, Mr. Wet Blanket.
BSB
-
Sirs, old Newt was a liberal
If that were true I am sure XO and many on the Left would vote for Newt.
(http://ordinarilyjustme.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/laughing20hysterically.gif)
-
Newt has always claimed to be a conservative, so far as I can remember. But whether he is or is not a "liberal" is far less important than the fact that he is a smartass. I have never thought of him as anything other than a smartass. He pretends to be a keeper of Great Truths, but all of his Great Truths are fictional.
He is not a member of the oligarchy, and he does not automatically suck up to the oligarchy, but when it looks like he needs to do so, he is quick to do so, as recently he decided that he didn't really dislike Ryan's stupid budget, after all.
He was right before he was wrong, but he proved once more that he is for sale.
-
Ah, the turnpike reference was meant to be a joke, Mr. Wet Blanket.
BSB
Ahhh, I see. Jokes are bad, but the name-calling and inability to back up your claims, are right as rain. I guess its nice to be good at something, I suppose
Sirs
-
He is not a member of the oligarchy, and he does not automatically suck up to the oligarchy,
So XO in your fantasy land of "oligarchy" to connect the dots so you
can demonize those you disagree with...is Obama a member or servant
of the "oligarchy"?
Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council and Obama's top economic adviser, pocketed $5 million as a managing director of D.E. Shaw, one of the biggest hedge funds in the world, and another $2.7 million for speeches delivered to Wall Street firms that have received government bailout money. This includes $45,000 from Citigroup and $67,500 each from JPMorgan Chase and the now-liquidated Lehman Brothers. For a speech to Goldman Sachs executives, Summers walked away with $135,000.
Michael Froman, Obama's deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, worked for Citigroup and received more than $7.4 million from the bank from January of 2008 until he entered the Obama administration this year. This included a $2.25 million year-end
bonus handed him this past January, within weeks of his joining the Obama administration.
Neal Wolin, Obama's selection for deputy counsel to the president for economic policy,
is a top executive at the insurance giant Hartford Financial Services, where his salary was
$4.5 million.
Obama's National Economic Council Chair Gene Sperling earned nearly $1 million from Goldman Sachs in 2008.
Obama's White House Chief of Staff William Daley was an executive at JPMorgan Chase,
the investment bank that received a $12 billion bailout during the financial crisis.
Obama former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in a short stint out of politics, earned a reported $16.2 million working in investment banking for Wasserstein Perella, now part of Dresdner Kleinwort. (Remarkably, he earned that $16.2 million in just two-and-a-half years at the firm.) He also sat on Freddie Mac's board, making a total of $320,000 from the mortgage finance company.
Jacob Lew, the head of the Obama Office of Management and Budget worked at Citigroup.
As chief operating officer of the unit, which benefited handsomely from betting correctly on the collapse of the housing bubble, Lew reportedly made $1.1 million, possibly not including bonus income.
The chairman of Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness -- also the CEO billion-dollar General Electric -- paid no corporate taxes in 2010. (but we all know big oil are the bad guys)
General Electric, led by Obama appointee Jeffrey R. Immelt, reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion last year -- with $5.1 billion coming from U.S. operations -- but had no American tax bill, and claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
the list goes on and on....
-
ouch
-
Saying that the Democrats sometimes grant favors to the oligarchy in no way negates the fact that the Republicans do this ALL THE TIME.
There is no ouch.
Given a choice between partial and total sucking up, I will choose partial every time.
You do not know the difference.
-
LOL....speaking of "total sucking up". Ouch
-
Saying that the Democrats sometimes grant favors to the oligarchy
i guess 2008 was a "sometimes".....money, money, money, money......lol
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/f1d0fe17.jpg)
(OpenSecrets)
-
ouch
-
SIRS....notice how XO failed to answer my direct question
"is Obama a member or servant of the "oligarchy"?
But I guess Cornel West, a Princeton University professor and
leading black intellectual, is harshly criticizing President Obama,
a candidate he once supported but now calls "a black mascot
of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/05/west_obama_a_bl.html (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/05/west_obama_a_bl.html)
ps: ya think Dr. Cornel West is a racist to attack Obama?
(http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obama-and-cornel-west1.jpg)
-
Pretty much everything Obama touches is rationalized in a good way, with folks like Xo. If its something bad, its Bush's fault, and/or the Oligarchy, and/or Republicans, "the Rich", and/or Jews/Israel, etc.
If its something good, its 100% Obama. Though not much good out there for him to grab onto, which is why you had this insidious effort to make the killing of bin Laden all Obama's say so and "go". Ignore all the facts and reality that led to his killing, like the waterboarding, the intel we gathered from Iraq & Gitmo, etc. It was a "plethora of intel" and Obama got him, Bush didn't, end of story. As I said, quite the example of "total sukcing up"
Comical, if it wasn't so transparent
-
(http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/gallery/llgdct-b78797987z.120110519101140000gj3verij.1.jpg)
-
Claiming that shutting down Planned Parenthood in order to decrease the budget or to take away union collective bargaining rights for the same reason is clearly "rightwing social engineering",and it has ticked a lot of people off. Gingrich was right to attack Ryan's proposals as being worthless, because they will never be passed, and are both worthless and hateful as well as "rightwing social engineering".
But the GOP is ruled by assholes, and Gingrich is an asshole who always must say everything in the most inflammatory way possible,and the result is what we see now.
The GOP and Newt deserve each other.
-
Claiming that shutting down Planned Parenthood in order to decrease the budget or to take away union collective bargaining rights for the same reason is clearly "rightwing social engineering",and it has ticked a lot of people off. Gingrich was right to attack Ryan's proposals as being worthless, because they will never be passed, and are both worthless and hateful as well as "rightwing social engineering".
I'm not so sure Ryan led the charge on the Planned Parenthood issue. I think he focused more on the big picture.
-
The war on Planned parenthood and defunding NPR were clearly right wing social engineering. Ryan is not the biggest practitioner of this, but Newt is correct when he says that it is counterproductive and wrong to engage in such partisan folly.
It is hard to be a Republican, as you have to be a right wing loon in the primaries, and then transform yourself into a moderate for the general election. I do not feel sorry for them, just as I rarely feel compassion for cockroaches, vultures and those teensy little ants that get into the sugar bowl.
-
The war on Planned parenthood and defunding NPR were clearly right wing social engineering.
Actually it would be better stated to say that it was a counter insurgency to left wing social engineering.
Newt's mistake was he gave the dems a sound bite that deflects attention from their own social engineering, which seems to me wasn't a bad thing to the left (that is the argument for progressive taxation, after all) , until Newt put the conservative attribute on it.
It is important that Ryan not be conflated with the so-cons who went after NPR and Planned Parenthood. Because that really isn't the truth, and in some circles the truth still matters.
-
Claiming that shutting down Planned Parenthood in order to decrease the budget or to take away union collective bargaining rights for the same reason is clearly "rightwing social engineering",and it has ticked a lot of people off. Gingrich was right to attack Ryan's proposals as being worthless, because they will never be passed, and are both worthless and hateful as well as "rightwing social engineering".
But the GOP is ruled by assholes, and Gingrich is an asshole who always must say everything in the most inflammatory way possible,and the result is what we see now.
The GOP and Newt deserve each other.
I am not clear on what you mean here.
Are you agreeing with Newt?
-
I agree that Newt was correct in labeling "right wing social engineering" for what it is, and also his opinion that it is a poor way to get anything constructive done.
Newt is a screamer, however: he always manages to say everything in such a way as to annoy the maximum number of people, so I do not support Newt for president. Not that it matters, because he has no chance of being elected.
-
I agree that Newt was correct in labeling "right wing social engineering" for what it is, and also his opinion that it is a poor way to get anything constructive done.
Newt is a screamer, however: he always manages to say everything in such a way as to annoy the maximum number of people, so I do not support Newt for president. Not that it matters, because he has no chance of being elected.
You don't like social engineering?
can't fight you there.
-
Newt vs. Mitt ? will the Republican please stand up?
Posted: May 26, 2011
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney make me think of Dorothy Jones.
"Aunt" Dorothy, my mom's closest friend, was a warm, smart, comedienne-quick funny woman from a large family. Unlike my mom's other friends, Dorothy was single and remained so until she died. I once asked her, in the rude way only children can, why she never married.
"You know," she said while pointing, one by one, at four imaginary men lined up in front her, "if you took the best qualities from all my sisters' husbands and rolled them up into one man ? you'd still come up short."
This describes how it feels when trying to find a GOP presidential candidate. What are we small "L" libertarian, tea-party-type, low-tax, low-regulation, serious-about-entitlement-reform, non-"climate-change"-hysterical voters looking for?
For starters, how about someone who believes that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means, and won't abide the "principled" Republican politician who wanders off the page in search of "compromise" to "get things done" to "do the people's business"? Not too much to ask.
This brings us to the declared and confused GOP presidential candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the soon-to-be declared, and confused, GOP candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Gingrich masterfully engineered the 1994 GOP takeover of the House. He came up with the Contract With America and once called Sen. Bob Dole, the party's 1996 presidential candidate, "the tax collector for the welfare state." He is bright and knowledgeable, which makes some of his positions all the more indefensible.
Did Gingrich really write off Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's gutsy Medicare reform idea as "right-wing social engineering," after having praised Ryan's debt and deficit reduction ideas just two months earlier? Yes, he did.
Did Gingrich really cut a video with global-warming fanatic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in which they pledged to work together to fight "climate change"? Yes, he did.
Did Gingrich come out in favor of ethanol and the federal boondoggle that pays farmers to convert farmland producing edible corn into land devoted to corn for ethanol ? a product that, but for mandates and subsidies, would have no market? Did Gingrich support ethanol even after Al "Mr. Environment" Gore renounced his previous support and admitted that he only supported ethanol to secure the 2000 farm vote? Yes and yes.
Did Gingrich team up with race hustler extraordinaire, the Rev. Al Sharpton, to tour the country to raise awareness of the education "race gap"? Did Gingrich team with the man who not only opposes vouchers ? a serious attempt to provide alternatives to and competition against government schools ? but who calls vouchers "racist"? Yes, he did.
Romney, for his part, ran in 2008 as a fiscal conservative elected in a liberal state and who, therefore, represents someone who "can reach across the aisle" and appeal to independents and "conservative Democrats" ? whatever that means. Unfortunately, his signature achievement is the statist Romneycare, a Bay State "universal health-care program" that includes a mandate. It served as a model for Obamacare.
Believers in limited government, to put it mildly, intensely dislike Obamacare and reserve a special place in hell for the mandate that forces every man, woman and child to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily point out that Romneycare fails to control premium costs, exceeded budget projections and "works" only because of money from the federal government.
Many Republicans encouraged Romney to call Romneycare a blunder and use it as an object lesson of yet another well-intended but wrongheaded government intrusion that produced unintended and hurtful consequences.
Did Romney not only refuse to apologize for Romneycare, but praise it as a "state solution"?
Did Romney defend the Massachusetts mandate while criticizing Obama's federal one?
Did Romney thus support the concept of allowing government to force people to purchase health insurance or face a fine, so long as it does so at the state level?
Does Romney therefore disagree with conservatives who call Romneycare a disaster that other states emulate at their own peril?
Yes, yes, yes and yes, he does.
So much for Gingrich and Romney. Now what?
What about Thomas Sowell? The economist / writer / philosopher / limited-government / free-market advocate, the most clear-headed opinionator in America, is 80. The 80 is not the problem. It is the clear-headed part that made Sowell double over in laughter when he was asked about running for office. Former left-wing David Mamet partially credits Sowell with turning him from being "a brain-dead liberal." Yes, Sowell is that good.
Who else?
What about Margaret Thatcher, the 85-year-old fiscal conservative British ex-prime minister? Could we persuade her into renouncing her citizenship and running for president here in the States? Alas, that requires an amendment to the Constitution, which currently allows only a "natural born citizen" to become president.
What would Aunt Dorothy do? (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=303201)
-
What about Thomas Sowell? The economist / writer / philosopher / limited-government / free-market advocate, the most clear-headed opinionator in America, is 80. The 80 is not the problem. It is the clear-headed part that made Sowell double over in laughter when he was asked about running for office. Former left-wing David Mamet partially credits Sowell with turning him from being "a brain-dead liberal." Yes, Sowell is that good.
Who else?
What about Margaret Thatcher, the 85-year-old fiscal conservative British ex-prime minister? Could we persuade her into renouncing her citizenship and running for president here in the States? Alas, that requires an amendment to the Constitution, which currently allows only a "natural born citizen" to become president.
===============================
I heard that Thatcher has Altzheimers. She was a terrible PM, anyway.Sowell is an asshole, and no one over 80 is going to get any nominations.
Face it, the reactionary cause has no leaders anyone wants to follow.
-
No one over 80 deserves consideration?
What if the most virtuous person on the planet is that old?
Are we approching a declaration that the aged need not apply?
-
Sirs rewrites everything, then when you point this out, he cries DEFLECTION! DEFLECTION!
Keebler has 37 elves with better debating skills.
-
What the frell?? Perhaps you need your morning coffee, Xo. That made not a shred of sense, outside of your standard effort of not debating and merely throw slurs against the wall, to see if anything sticks