Shady Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 He started out badly, but has recovered pretty well. He's a smart guy, and a policy wonk. But he's done and said some dumb things in the past. But the more I see from him, the more I like him. Go Newt!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMhBd7r1PYU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ-YLEZVEDI And he's rising in the polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 He started out badly, but has recovered pretty well. He's a smart guy, and a policy wonk. But he's done and said some dumb things in the past. But the more I see from him, the more I like him. Go Newt!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMhBd7r1PYU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ-YLEZVEDI And he's rising in the polls. As I’ve been saying in both Perry/Cain threads, I like Newt, he’s defiantly nobodies fool, but I still feel he’ll end up as second place on the (Romney?) ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 Somebody has to get the anybody-but-Romney vote, and they keep changing their minds. But either way, the unmistakable fact is none of the GOP contenders has a hope of beating Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted November 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 But either way, the unmistakable fact is none of the GOP contenders has a hope of beating Obama. Complete nonsense. A president presiding over an economy with an unemployment rate of 9% is thoroughly beatable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 Somebody has to get the anybody-but-Romney vote, and they keep changing their minds. But either way, the unmistakable fact is none of the GOP contenders has a hope of beating Obama. The anybody-but-Obama vote might yet prove you wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 2nd vid last statement. 'Who's gonna pay for the park you are occupying if there were no businesses making a profit.' Umm the park is already payed for by the taxpayers. Maintenance is paid for by taxes as well. Sure the corps gives us jobs so we can pay taxes to pay for the park they are occupying. IN the end, the taxpayer still pays for the park, no matter if a corporation existed or not, or even if they were making a profit. The profits don't go to the people, they go to the shareholders. I think Newt had not though that one all the way through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 2nd vid last statement. 'Who's gonna pay for the park you are occupying if there were no businesses making a profit.' Umm the park is already payed for by the taxpayers. Maintenance is paid for by taxes as well. Sure the corps gives us jobs so we can pay taxes to pay for the park they are occupying. IN the end, the taxpayer still pays for the park, no matter if a corporation existed or not, or even if they were making a profit. The profits don't go to the people, they go to the shareholders. I think Newt had not though that one all the way through. My, my this thread has gotten ridiculous. Oh, wait. I don't get to decide that, do I? That's your domain. Sorry. Carry on ........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 My, my this thread has gotten ridiculous. This thread could have been insteresting. Thanks for ruining it. Oh, wait. I don't get to decide that, do I? That's your domain. Sorry. Carry on ........... What the hell is it with you as of late? Go make Baby Jesus cry in another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 This thread could have been insteresting. Thanks for ruining it. Just returning the favor for all the times you've done the same thing in threads I found interesting. Not so great when you're at the other end of it, is it? What the hell is it with you as of late? Go make Baby Jesus cry in another thread. Yeah, how dare I act like you, eh? Only you should be allowed that privilege. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Somebody has to get the anybody-but-Romney vote, and they keep changing their minds. But either way, the unmistakable fact is none of the GOP contenders has a hope of beating Obama.Bubbler, you make two good points.Romney is a Century Casting presidential candidate. If I were making a Hollywood movie and needed some actor to play a presidential candidate, I'd hire Romney. The Tea Party types say that he is too RINO. In fact, he is wooden. He's Marlon Brando pretending to be something. So, if not Romney, who? Gingrich is the guy this week. I admit that he's good, and he has just the right non-political correctness to make people take notice. But ultimately (your second point), none of this crew can beat Obama in November. The profits don't go to the people, they go to the shareholders.And shareholders are not people. Shareholders are terrible, rapacious capitalists. Edited November 14, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Somebody has to get the anybody-but-Romney vote, and they keep changing their minds. But either way, the unmistakable fact is none of the GOP contenders has a hope of beating Obama. I don't agree with that at all. Mitt Romney very well could beat Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 I don't agree with that at all. Mitt Romney very well could beat Obama. He'll never win as a Republican with just the heathen vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 He'll never win as a Republican with just the heathen vote. If it comes down to Romney and Obama, I doubt Republicans will be voting for Obama, and they won't be staying home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) If it comes down to Romney and Obama, I doubt Republicans will be voting for Obama, and they won't be staying home.True. But to win, a candidate needs more than the base. Romney can't go beyond the non-Democrat base. Independents will give Obama a hail-Mary pass. After all, he got bin Laden and the black guy deserves a second chance. More important, Obama has a solid 30% on his side whatever he does.The Republicans are facing a mini-Trudeau. Out of the gate, they are 10-20% down on Obama. They might squeak through as Clark did in 1979. Edited November 14, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 True. But to win, a candidate needs more than the base. Romney can't go beyond the non-Democrat base. What exactly do you base that on? With the economy the way it is, Romney could pick up a high enough number of independents to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 "How can I trust you if you don't pray?" -Newt Gingrich. "How can I trust you if you profess belief in an absolute morality given by a divine creator then break your divine creator's laws repeatedly?" -kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted November 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 "Hey kimmy, give it a rest already. Or at least stick to poisoning your own threads." - Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Devoiced his dying wife with Cancer I don't see how he shakes that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Devoiced his dying wife with Cancer I don't see how he shakes that. Yeah, you'd need a considerable ego to even bother trying to run for president after pulling a stunt like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) Devoiced his dying wife with Cancer I don't see how he shakes that. True. Newt is soft on crime too! Woo hoo....he must have mis-read the handbook. Maybe he could bend Harpers ear and let him know...."your crime bill Stev? Not a good idea, we are doing the opposite down my way" But I doubt it. Edited November 16, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 If the divorces and affairs didn't kill Newt's credentials as a "family values" candidate, this week's open marriage bombshell ought to do the trick. He's had more wives than both Mormon candidates combined... now we get word that he wanted to have two at once. Next time Newt tells people that he stands for the sanctity of marriage, people will have to keep in mind that it's coming from a guy who defines marriage as "a husband, a wife, and a mistress." What a sack of garbage. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Who's the other Mormon candidate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 If the divorces and affairs didn't kill Newt's credentials as a "family values" candidate, this week's open marriage bombshell ought to do the trick. He's had more wives than both Mormon candidates combined... now we get word that he wanted to have two at once. Next time Newt tells people that he stands for the sanctity of marriage, people will have to keep in mind that it's coming from a guy who defines marriage as "a husband, a wife, and a mistress." What a sack of garbage. And yet the crowd, made up of good Christian Republicans, applauded wildly when he expressed his outrage and indignation that anyone would bring family values into the debate. I mean, it's not like a candidate's personal moral standards have anything to do with people's decisions, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 I wasn't aware that Newt Gingrich was the "family values candidate" in the race. I'm pretty sure that's Santorum if anyone. But it seems people are looking for solutions to economic problems. Social issues take a back seat. Shouldn't some of you be applauding that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Just returning the favor for all the times you've done the same thing in threads I found interesting. Not so great when you're at the other end of it, is it? Yeah, how dare I act like you, eh? Only you should be allowed that privilege. :angry: Wow. Do I sense... bitterness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.