Fiscally Conservative, Socially tolerant, Anti-War
Gingrich is certainly a piece of work. Hopefully they have destroyed the mold.
I literally laughed out loud at that one, Les. And I'm still trying to figure it out, do we love to hate him or do we hate to love him? At the very least the fellow makes for excellent copy.
For christ sake....the old cowboy must be doing 360's in his grave. This is becoming quite the show...I wish they would all just go away. They keep this shit up I may very well.....gulp,vote for Obama.
Did I just say that????
There's always Gary Johnson, Russ. At the very least, he'll legalize pot.
Will: There's always Gary Johnson, Russ. At the very least, he'll legalize pot.He won't. Because he isn't going to be president. Also, the president doesn't make law, Congress does.I'm rooting for Newt. I don't know why Rusty and "Rational" Nation aren't also backing Newt. From what I've heard, he and Reagan were like two peas in a pod. Also, he's anti-establishment.
Point taken, wd. But maybe he could get a coalition of east and west coats liberals and libertarian Republicans and make a decent sized dent in it.
Also, Gingrich (Mr. 1.6 million from Freddie Mac) saying that he's anti-establishment is kind of like Joan Rivers saying that she's never had cosmetic surgery. LOL ridiculous, in other words.
w-d - Gingrich is not anti-establishment. He is a pro statist, big government guy as you'll find. Different than the big "D" statists like Obama granted. But big government statist nonetheless. The devil is in the detail.Reagan and Gingrich are opposites. Reagan had class and was respectable. Gingrich is a slithering slimy snake.I have principles, I wouldn't vote for Newtie the Poopie for dog catcher.Paul will get my vote in the primary. Gary Johnson will get my vote in the general.
"Rational" Nation: w-d - Gingrich is not anti-establishment.I said I "heard" he was anti-establishment. I didn't say I agreed with it.I was repeating what Gingrich says about himself. Obviously some Republicans are buying his BS... because he won one of the primaries. Republicans ARE voting for him.Anyway, I'm rooting for Newt. Because he will be easier for Obama to beat. They were talking about this on MSNBC last night, and the theory is that Newt as the nominee means Obama wins handily, and causes Republicans to lose Congressional seats they might have been able to hold on to otherwise.Unfortunately I'm pretty certain Romney will prevail. Hopefully Newt hangs on (and his PAC gets more cash from Newt's sugar daddy) and can inflict some serious wounds on Romney.Paul too. I'm eager to see what damage he inflicts. Glad to see RN is voting for Paul in the primary but then throwing his vote away in the general (by voting for Gary Johnson). Way to go RN!
Principles, wd, principles. Something far to many partisan democrats and many republicans are sorely lacking in.Onward and upwards against tyranny on the name of liberty.
"Rational" Nation: Principles, wd, principles. Something far to many partisan democrats and many republicans are sorely lacking in.Whatever the reason, I (on behalf of Democrats everywhere) thank you for doing your part to re-elect Barack Obama. He isn't my ideal candidate, but he's a HELL of a lot better then the alternative.
Here's the difference between you and me, wd. I don't want a lowlife like Mr. Gingrich anywhere near the Presidency. And having him in the general election gives the lunatic a puncher's chance. Mr. Romney, even with his multiplicity of flaws, I doubt seriously would have the on-the-job brain-farts that a Gingrich would more than likely exhibit.............As for my vote in the general election, I suppose that I'll hold my nose and vote for the war-criminal (it's a joke), though voting for Johnson isn't without its quaintness, damn it.
As bad as Obama is sure as hell can live with him over Newt the lizard. Romney is just a Obama in red. The stupid thing is republicans, libertarians, and conservative democrats who love liberty should be supporting Ron Paul.So, as frigging quaint as it may be Johnson is looking better by the day.
Newt is the Conservative LEADER (I just heard him say this while watching Olbermann). Ron Paul will be retiring after this election. Good riddance. But now we've got to deal with his son! I hope Randall isn't in the Senate as long as his father was in the House (I'm hoping for one term).I don't know WHY a Democrat (even a Conservative one) would support Ron Paul. I like his position on the wars (including the war on drugs), but that's about it. His "liberty" is the liberty of the wealthy class to take advantage of everyone else. I reject this "liberty".The main difference is that Ron Paul says the government should get out of the way and let the corporations rule, while the Republicans say the government should HELP the corporations rule.
I'm not a Paul supporter, wd, but your assessment of his views is borderline ludicrous. Mr. Paul was against the bailouts and is opposed to corporate welfare in basically every manner. And he's also against the idiotic actions of the FED which have routinely propped up the interests of those on Wall Street. You could certainly do a lot worse that Congressman Paul in many regards.......I also maintain that it's good to have people from a variety of perspectives serving in Congress. The Ron Pauls and Dennis Kuciniches of the world add a lot, I think.
Will said: "Mr. Paul was against the bailouts and is opposed to corporate welfare in basically every manner. "This is actually true of the Tea Party as well. Paul's son Rand comes off as a real boob in interviews. How can anyone in government realize that there is no program called "So Security" ?He needs to do his homework.
WD said: "...while the Republicans say the government should HELP the corporations rule."The facts tend to differ. Look at the bailouts in late 2008.... the biggest example of corporate welfare in history. The Dems supported it. So did Bush and Palin and McCain...But most Republicans opposed it. Along with the Tea Party, and most Republican candidates thought these handouts and bailouts, which helped corporations, were a bad idea.The difference is stark between Barack Obama (D) and Mitt Romney (R) even. Obama gave massive handouts to the auto industry corporations. Romney said it was a bad idea to do so.
dmarks: ...most Republican candidates thought these handouts and bailouts, which helped corporations, were a bad idea.dmarks, I do not for one second believe that. What really needed to be done was for the banks to be nationalized. The homeowners should have been bailed out. But everyone in Congress knew that wasn't going to happen (because the Republican Party is bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporations).So the Democrats did the responsible thing (held their noses) and voted for the only legislation that could pass... while the Republicans pretended to oppose it.Republicans voted for it and bush signed it. Also, when it came time to pass legislation that would prevent this from happening again, the Republicans opposed it, and forced the legislation that did pass to be greatly watered down. And they're STILL opposing what protections did pass. The Republicans want to repeal Dodd-Frank, and they tried to prevent Obama from appointing someone to head the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. These are both examples of Republicans helping the corporations rape us. Your assertions to the contrary are quite wrong.Also, Obama gave no handouts to the auto industry. He provided them with government loans. They have since paid back the loans. Mitt Romney was in favor of letting the auto industry go under because he wanted to break the unions and because he knew the investor class would swoop in and make a killing paying pennies on the dollar for the auto industry's assets.Mitt Romney's desire to destroy America's auto industry is going to hurt him in the election.Will: ...but your assessment of his views is borderline ludicrous.I'm aware of every position of Ron Paul's that you list. I stand by my original comment.
WD said: "dmarks, I do not for one second believe that."Facts are facts, whether or not you believe. You really need to do more research. Let's look at the House vote on the TARP bailout:H.R. 1424 passed with the following breakdown of votes:Democratic 172 Yea; 63 NayRepublican 91 Yea; 108 Nay"What really needed to be done was for the banks to be nationalized."That would have been the worst mistake ever. But it would have given a big hard on to those who think the rulers should control everything and the people control nothing (i.e., the fascists)"...because the Republican Party is bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporations..."A silly accusation that has nothing to do with the facts. Facts such as the voting record I pointed out. And the fact that half of Americans vote Republican because it is in their interest. And precious few of these voters are "banksters" or big corporate cheiftans."So the Democrats did the responsible thing (held their noses) and voted for the only legislation that could pass... while the Republicans pretended to oppose it."That's actually a flat out lie. Check the actual voting records. The Republicans did not "pretend" to oppose it. They opposed it in fact, in the most direct way possible: actual votes in the House.Sorry, the Congressional record does not record pretend votes. In fact, this concept exists only in your mind."Republicans voted for it and bush signed it"Most Republicans voted against it. You are lying. "And they're STILL opposing what protections did pass. The Republicans want to repeal Dodd-Frank,"Of course. It is a very bad bill that requires more BAILOUTS. More handouts to corporations. "Also, Obama gave no handouts to the auto industry"Again, you are making stuff up in a reactionary fashion, and not bothering to do the most basic research.The handout was actually $80 billion. Where I come from, $80 is real money." Mitt Romney was in favor of letting the auto industry go under because he wanted to break the unions and because he knew the investor class would swoop in and make a killing paying pennies on the dollar for the auto industry's assets."Actually, if Mitt had his way, the auto industry would have gone into traditional bankruptcy and survived... all with no handouts.Glad you mention the unions. They were the ones who brought the auto industry down. Something had to give. Yet the unions demanded that workers be paid $70 or so an hour to do a shoddy job of making the worst cars sold in America. "Mitt Romney's desire to destroy America's auto industry is going to hurt him in the election."No such desire has been in evidence.
By the way, here are some facts about Obama's gift to big business:click here.Intersting paragraph:"“They didn’t bail out the auto industry, they bailed out two companies,” Ikenson (representing a public-interest think-tank) said. “They denied Ford the spoils of competition, and I think they injected a sense of entitlement: If things go bad at Ford, they sort of ‘banked’ their bailout. They didn’t get a bailout this time, but they’ve got a pretty strong argument if they run into financial trouble in the future. So there could be lingering costs out there.” Ford was solvent. They did not demand a bailout. Why? They were a lot better at building cars than GM and Chrysler.What a bass-ackwards world, where companies that run their business into the ground get shockingly high handouts from the Feds as a reward, and those that behave responsible (Ford) get bypassed.I wonder if the leaders of Ford will learn this lesson and make bad decisions and ruin their company too. They could get a $40 billion reward from Uncle Sam for it.
You said, "most Republican candidates THOUGHT these handouts and bailouts, which helped corporations, were a bad idea".I was responding to that comment. I didn't dispute the vote, so I don't know why you bring that up to prove me wrong. I dispute that most Republicans thought that. IMO they voted against it because they knew it would look bad to their constituents if they voted for it. But they KNEW it was going to pass. If there hadn't been enough votes in favor more Republicans would have changed their vote so that it did pass.What this is an example of is Democrats acting responsibly and Republicans playing everything for political advantage (they don't care about what is in the best interest of the country).dmarks: That would have been the worst mistake ever.One or the other had to be done. Bail them out, or nationalize them. Allowing them to go under would have been the worst mistake ever.dmarks: And the fact that half of Americans vote Republican because it is in their interest.That's a "fact" you just made up. Half of America doesn't even vote. So it's actually only one quarter (at most) that votes Republican. And a lot of those do so, not because it is in their best interest, but because they have been fooled into thinking it's in their best interest.dmarks: Most Republicans voted against it. You are lying.You're lying. By your own admission 91 voted for it. I said Republicans voted for it. I said nothing regarding how many.dmarks: Glad you mention the unions. They were the ones who brought the auto industry down. ...the unions demanded that workers be paid $70 or so an hour.You are lying, or displaying your gullibility by buying into this nonsense about workers being paid $70 an hour. CBS News says, "According to... the Center for Automotive Research... average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, & GM were just $28/hour as of 2007".[continued] "...what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits... health insurance & pensions... & then dividing by the number of workers. The result... was that benefits for Big 3 cost about $42/hour, per employee".[continued] "Except ... each active worker [isn't] getting health benefits & pensions worth $42 per hour. ...each active worker is getting benefits equal only to... around $10/hour... The number only gets to $70/hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees... the cost of benefits for other people".dmarks: I wonder if the leaders of Ford will learn this lesson and make bad decisions and ruin their company too.On purpose? I don't wonder that at all. Why ruin your company on purpose when you could easily make more being successful? What an incredibly dumb thing to wonder.The banks might do that, since they were bailed out (so moral hazard comes into play). The auto industry only got a loan. Obama didn't make a "gift" to big business; he saved American jobs... something I'm sure he'll be touting in the election. Also something I'd bet a LOT of voters will agree with.
Post a Comment