Newt's lost my support

[sirs]

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

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

What's this? ......More unsubstantiated garbage??  By all means, dump away Xo       

[R.R.]

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.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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.

[R.R.]

You need to start rewriting your work, XO, instead of copy and pasting long passages from Google and passing it off as your own.

[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

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"

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

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       

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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?

[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

[Christians4LessGvt]

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

[BSB]

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


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

[sirs]

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