Gingrich wins S.C.!

PostmodernProphet said:
it must matter to those making an issue of it....
Click to expand...

To be fair, Gingrich asked for the heat when he joined in with those who called for Clinton's head. Newt, may have changed his ways . He may truly regret his choices. But he should be ready to take the heat- no, that does not mean he had no right to call out King during the debate- just that he and those that support his run, need to face up to political realities.

The bottom line is that Obama is such a failure, our economy in such disarray, that conservative voters don't care about Newt's seeming hypocrisy- or their own. Newt is an idea man. He understands the process necessary to turn things around- so does Romney. The majority of American's are tired of Obama's rhetoric and divisive class warfare. He had two years with super majority's in both houses- He could have passed whatever the fuck he wanted to-gee, why didn't he? (rhetorical question)
 
I'll be honest....I think a powerful slate would be Romney as President and Gingrich as VP, taking an active role in shaping action in the Senate......
 
icedancer2theend said:
To be fair, Gingrich asked for the heat when he joined in with those who called for Clinton's head. Newt, may have changed his ways . He may truly regret his choices. But he should be ready to take the heat- no, that does not mean he had no right to call out King during the debate- just that he and those that support his run, need to face up to political realities.

The bottom line is that Obama is such a failure, our economy in such disarray, that conservative voters don't care about Newt's seeming hypocrisy- or their own. Newt is an idea man. He understands the process necessary to turn things around- so does Romney. The majority of American's are tired of Obama's rhetoric and divisive class warfare. He had two years with super majority's in both houses- He could have passed whatever the fuck he wanted to-gee, why didn't he? (rhetorical question)
Click to expand...

He didn't rush in like a bull in a china shop. He tried to work with the Repubs but all they did was disrupt and block every suggestion and like unruly children they were dismissed from the discussion. Similar to a teacher telling a student to leave the class and stand in the hall.

As to "conservative voters don't care about Newt's seeming hypocrisy- or their own" that is the stake they drove in their party as far as many "undecided" are concerned. In other words the "proper, decent, religious, family values" rhetoric is just that; rhetoric. Their values and principals are for sale. But we saw that with McCain in '08. Decades of building a reputation was on the auction block for a shot at the White House. Palin as VP? It made a mockery of the Repub party.

Whether the Dems' behavior (Clinton) was in the same vein the Dems don't make "virtue" a platform. That's the difference.

As far as Obama's performance goes he has concentrated on other things like ObamaCare and protecting unionized jobs and financial aid for education. For those unaware here's a list. http://obamaachievements.org/list. If he had spent his entire time correcting the Repub's mistakes no social progress would have been made.

Years from now the advantages of ObamaCare will still be enjoyed by the citizens. Other social programs will become part of a better life. As he said during the '08 election it's time for a change. While dealing with the Repub's blunders over 8 years, from cutting taxes for the wealthy to unnecessary wars, he also had to implement social programs the benefits of which will be enjoyed far into the future. During Obama's next four years the citizens will start to see the fruits of his labor as well as more social contracts being implemented. His is a long term goal of improving society for everyone.
 
If you were the unfortunate child whose parents named him William Mitt Romney what name would you prefer to be known by?
If you choose Mitt and not William, Will, Bill, Billy then you really need to see someone. That sort of choice bodes ill for someone seeking high office.
Imagine visiting Germany as President and saying 'Hi. I'm Mitt Romney.' Your host is bound to answer, 'Oh. I don't see him, zis Romney you are mit.'
 
Lowaicue said:
If you were the unfortunate child whose parents named him William Mitt Romney what name would you prefer to be known by?
If you choose Mitt and not William, Will, Bill, Billy then you really need to see someone. That sort of choice bodes ill for someone seeking high office.
Imagine visiting Germany as President and saying 'Hi. I'm Mitt Romney.' Your host is bound to answer, 'Oh. I don't see him, zis Romney you are mit.'
Click to expand...

lol, this from the guy who chose to be known among us as Low IQ.....
 
apple0154 said:
He didn't rush in like a bull in a china shop. He tried to work with the Repubs but all they did was disrupt and block every suggestion and like unruly children they were dismissed from the discussion. Similar to a teacher telling a student to leave the class and stand in the hall.

As to "conservative voters don't care about Newt's seeming hypocrisy- or their own" that is the stake they drove in their party as far as many "undecided" are concerned. In other words the "proper, decent, religious, family values" rhetoric is just that; rhetoric. Their values and principals are for sale. But we saw that with McCain in '08. Decades of building a reputation was on the auction block for a shot at the White House. Palin as VP? It made a mockery of the Repub party.

Whether the Dems' behavior (Clinton) was in the same vein the Dems don't make "virtue" a platform. That's the difference.

As far as Obama's performance goes he has concentrated on other things like ObamaCare and protecting unionized jobs and financial aid for education. For those unaware here's a list. http://obamaachievements.org/list. If he had spent his entire time correcting the Repub's mistakes no social progress would have been made.

Years from now the advantages of ObamaCare will still be enjoyed by the citizens. Other social programs will become part of a better life. As he said during the '08 election it's time for a change. While dealing with the Repub's blunders over 8 years, from cutting taxes for the wealthy to unnecessary wars, he also had to implement social programs the benefits of which will be enjoyed far into the future. During Obama's next four years the citizens will start to see the fruits of his labor as well as more social contracts being implemented. His is a long term goal of improving society for everyone.
Click to expand...

He nor the democratic congress ever tried to work with republicans on health care--- EVER.
 
icedancer2theend said:
He nor the democratic congress ever tried to work with republicans on health care--- EVER.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. Don't you recall Obama asking the Repubs not to come to the table with the same old, tired, worn out ideas? Here's an excerpt from a recent speech (2011).

(Excerpt) I've come here today because I need your help," he said, speaking for a half-hour, framing the case for his reelection. "We can either go back to the same tired worn out ideas that held sway over the last decade - - ideas that got us in this mess in the first place... or we can decide to build the America we talked about in 2008. ...An America where we're thinking how we can get ahead."

The contest of ideas, he said, has been stymied because "the other side, even in the midst of this crisis, their primary answer has been No."

He noted that Republicans rail against his health care overhaul, deriding it as "Obamacare."

"Obamacare - that's right. I care. I don't know about you, but I care," Obama said. "It's the right thing to do.... I don't know how the other side goes around running against helping 30m people have health insurance. That's your main agenda? That's your plank, is making sure 30 million people don't have health insurance?" (End)
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/10/obama-in-north-texas-from-his.html

The idea behind basic health care is that it can not be a capitalistic style program. The idea of "for profit" and pricing services according to "what the market can bear" have no place in providing basic health care. Receiving basic health care is not a competition among people. It is not a service that goes to the highest bidder and the capitalistic approach was the old, tired, worn out idea the Repubs refused to deal with. That was the fundamental problem and there can be no compromise or middle ground. The idea that everyone has to be able to receive medical care, regardless of their financial situation, negates any possibility it can be a capitalistic program. Once the necessity of having money to obtain something is removed it's no longer a capitalistic program/service, in the traditional sense. A capitalistic program/service will ultimately result in some people not being able to afford/receive the service no matter how much tinkering is done. It just puts off the problem for another day.

Capitalism, based on competition, inevitably results in winners and losers and when it comes to medical care no one deserves to be a loser.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
can you document some evidence of this "working with" , because I think everyone else in the country isn't aware of it.....
Click to expand...

It was obvious.

At least a half a dozen times President Obama reached across the aisle and asked Republicans to join him, and every single time he was rebuffed.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
It was obvious.

At least a half a dozen times President Obama reached across the aisle and asked Republicans to join him, and every single time he was rebuffed.
Click to expand...

That's on planet earth Zappa.

See there's your problem. You are forming opinions and impressions based on what happens on this planet. That right there is going to make communicating with a hard core con nearly impossible.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
That's right...just ignore the fact that Obama HALTED the rise of unemployment and is now bringing the number back down.

Nice to see you showing everyone what "integrity" looks like!
Click to expand...

I don't know if you remember from AOL how the righties were always saying that the prez had little or no effect on the economy. Different story now that boosh is gone, huh!
 
christiefan915 said:
I don't know if you remember from AOL how the righties were always saying that the prez had little or no effect on the economy. Different story now that boosh is gone, huh!
Click to expand...


you know what else is funny? i remember when dems blamed everything on bush as president and now that obama is president....it is still bush's fault....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top