Sometimes I wonder if conservative are just setting themselves up for disappointment by seeking the “perfect” candidate… which usually means that they choose one candidate early on, ignore that’s candidates flaws, and call every other candidate a RINO who “can’t win.” Even Newt Gingrich has been called “not conservative enough” and it doesn’t get more ridiculous than that. Conservative author and pundit Richard A. Viguerie, explains Newt’s rise in the polls and links that to Newt’s conservative record of accomplishment.
Gingrich, on the other hand, is well known to many conservative leaders who recognize that, despite his self-acknowledged errors and flaws, he is the one candidate who has a real record of implementing conservative government.
Balancing the budget, welfare reform and a host of other conservative initiatives that Gingrich championed as Speaker are not mere campaign rhetoric — they actually happened.
What’s more, Gingrich looks to the conservative movement for advice, and does not avoid answering the hard questions (or put his finger to the wind looking for guidance from a focus group). He starts from the premise that a government acting from conservative principles would do, or not do, certain things and make certain value judgments about how to solve problems.
Don’t forget that a recent poll shows Newt beating Obama.
Blogs For Victory 
Sadly
At this point we have to face reality, sucks but true. We will have mittens or newt to run against Obummer or Hitlery.
I have to vote AGAINST marxist socialism, traitors, and tyranny.
Yuuuuuuup
OBAMA: ‘I’m going to need another term to finish the job’…
Oh YEAH!!! OPM
Homeless Woman with 15 Kids: ‘Somebody Needs to Pay for All My Children’…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
How do you say Hypocrisy ???????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvXE55nMas
The GRIFTERS and OPM….
The chart above is from the Joint Economic Committe (based on 2006 IRS data), showing the percentages of federal personal income tax paid by different groups of taxpayers:
The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of all income taxes,
the top 10% pay 71%,
and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.
The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all income taxes paid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnWvTPchugM&feature=related
I think its clear at this point, It’s Gingrich’s nomination to lose. Romney can’t get the support of the base, or some of the establishment at this point.
But in the general election, like David Frum writes…it will be a blowout. Gingrich has no chance whatsoever. He has much less money, much less organization, and literally NO support from any demographic other than white men.
Newt even has less likeability among women than anyone else.
After the GOP loses this election, its time to purge the conservative tea party wing which has led the party to a narrower and narrower tent in recent years.
thomas
NO support from any demographic other than white men.
Typical racism tommy boy.
how is that racism? stating the facts is racism?
how much of the Hispanic and African American vote does the GOP get on average ?
jamse/tommy
ask Cain
james/tommy
how much of the Hispanic and African American vote does the GOP get on average ?
which group do these demographics belong to?
and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.
The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all income taxes paid.
NEXT?
Again, nice dodge idiot. do you now want to answer the question because you’ve been called out as being stupid?
I will pose it in simpler terms, so maybe you can understand and respond.
HOW MUCH OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTE DO YOU BELIEVE THE GOP WILL GET?
james tommy
do the math Moron
and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.
The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all income taxes paid.
after you do the math and use your gigantic brain to figure it out, then watch the above videos…….
Moron 101
James,
Do you understand what racism is? When African Americans vote over 90% for a black candidate over a white candidate, that speaks more to racism than if white people vote 57% for a white candidate over a black candidate.
Which race is voting the color of their skin?
It seems to me that the white male category of voters has come a lot further than the African American population when it comes to racism.
Wallace, please.
1980 black vote went 82% for Dem, white vote went 55% for Rep.
in 2008 95% of black vote went for Dem, 55% of white vote went Rep.
In 2000 90% of black vote went for Dem, 55% of white vote went Rep.
I would think if Whites were racist, then when a black man and white man were competing for the highest elected office in the land, then the usual 55% vote for Republicans would have had a significant uptick., like it did with the African American vote.
I am still leaning towards Newt, but would also support Mitt if he gets the nod. One thing I do want to hear from Newt is that he will repeal Obamacare, I can’t remember if he has stated that or not, either way, Newt of Mitt will be infinitely better than Obama.
Cluster,
Is “Newt of Mitt” anything like “eye of Newt”? LOL!
Gingrich has no chance whatsoever. He has much less money, much less organization, and literally NO support from any demographic other than white men. – James
Aside from the never-ending racism, and cult of personality that you seem to be obsessed with, I am curious James, are you at all capable of discussing actual policies? What is it about Obama’s second term agenda that would drive voters to the polls to vote for him? What is his immigration plan, and what is his economic agenda for next four years?
Cluster, this one time I will engage you in an attempt at debate. you’re famously obtuse, but here goes.
Aside from the never-ending racism, and cult of personality that you seem to be obsessed with
How is stating a factual thing being a racist? You think Gingrich will have more money than Obama? will have more support among single women, the gay community, african americans, and Hispanics than Obama? Gingrich will have trouble carrying any state that’s not in the South.
I am curious James, are you at all capable of discussing actual policies?
What policies do you want to discuss? you’ve shown yourself to be incredibly dodgy on many issues. You’re a typical conservative blowhard…talking points galore.
What is it about Obama’s second term agenda that would drive voters to the polls to vote for him?
Second term agenda? did you know Bush’s second term agenda before he was elected? how about Clinton’s?
Obama hasn’t really divulged his second term agenda yet because he isn’t running against anyone YET. Once a nominee is presented by the GOP, he, like any other president before him will engage the challenger and present his second term policies.
What is his immigration plan, and what is his economic agenda for next four years?
Wait and see, my guess is sometime during the summer you’d learn a lot more with regards to his second term agenda.
james/tommy
MORE marxism, islam, communism
NEXT?
In other words, James is convinced that Newt’s success, like Barry’s, is based on identity politics and on appealing to disparate and separate identity groups, not on appealing to Americans.
In other words, he not only has no clue as to Barry’s policies, he also doesn’t care. The lemmings like James don’t bother with actual POLITICS—that is, the blueprint for best governing the nation—preferring to stay on the surface of their feverswamp dedication to personality, scandal and racial identity.
Ditto for his tap dancing on the agendas.
No, James is not here to discuss politics, to debate the best policies for the country. He is just here to snarl and spit at his bizarre concept of conservatism.
how much of the Hispanic and African American vote does the GOP get on average ? – James
Just curious James as to what role skin color plays in politics, in your opinion. And should a politician cater to people different skin color? As Obama did when he told an Hispanic caucus to “punish their enemies”. Do you think that is responsible political rhetoric?
Once again you dodge the question, and ask another question as i f to imply that the GOP is not racist, and doesn’t pander to anyone!
Nope, the GOP is a party of light….while the evil democrats are the party of panderers and evil darkness!!! oooooh……
Seriously, grow up. The FACT is that democrats are more amenable to the plight of the poor than the GOP.
democrats are more amenable to have policies that help the poor than the gop. you can cry foul, and deny it all you want, the truth doesn’t change because you want it to.
This is exactly why debating with you if pointless, you take ONE point out of many made in my previous post, and go off on a tangent.
Let’s stick to reality here, Gingrich, if he gets the nominee has NO chance at winning. None. Zero. Zilch.
Seriously, grow up. The FACT is that democrats are more amenable to the plight of the poor than the GOP.
That’s a lie. The democrats simply promise more of the treasury to those groups. What liberal policy has strengthened minority families? Keep in mind, black children being raised in single parent households is at an all time high.
Nope, the GOP is a party of light….while the evil democrats are the party of panderers and evil darkness!!! oooooh……
And this is what passes for intellectual political discourse on the far Left. When they can’t respond with intelligence or facts (which is always) they have to resort to such silliness and hyperbole.
….democrats are more amenable to have policies that help the poor..
Such as ???????????
Oh, do you mean such as the infamous War On Poverty, which destroyed the black American family, trapped generations in subsistence-level dependence on the government, went trillions over its projected budget and left us with an even greater, and now institutionalized, poverty class?
THAT kind of “help” ??????
He sure speaks for ME on this issue. I’ve seen statistics on how many generations have been on welfare with no adult in the family working. I’ve seen interviews with people who grew up in fourth and fifth generation households where no one ever had a job.
The work ethic is learned, seldom simply present at birth. When children do not see their parents, aunts, uncles, siblings, go out to work every day and use their earnings to pay for family needs, they do not learn to work.
There is a process of understanding the relationship between work and money, and it begins at an early age. First comes the relationship between work and money, and then the relationship between better work and more money. But it all starts with that first paycheck, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with having that begin at the age of 10 or 12, as it did with those of us here who have gone on to successful employment and relative prosperity.
And let’s face it, a kid who has to clean up after others is going to have a different perspective on leaving behind a filthy mess for others to clean up than a spoiled entitled OWS brat.
What I am hearing from you Lefties is disdain for work and a belief that no one should have to work. If Newt’s comments have done nothing else, they have brought these beliefs out into the light of day.
Newt never said poor people are lazy, but he did point out the very real fact that the welfare system in this nation has created an entire culture which has never worked. It is the wild-eyed drooling LEFT which tries to claim that this is laziness, and not the result of social engineering designed to keep people on the plantation on subsistence level incomes so they will continue to vote for Democrats.
did you know Bush’s second term agenda before he was elected? – Bush
Yes we did – keeping the tax rate cuts permanent, and begging congress to deal with the GSE’s were among two big policy items.
I guess we will have to wait until summer to hear from Obama. It’s that leading from behind thing he is so good at.
talking point. nice try though.
liberal troll lunacy
nice try though
Here is a partial list:
To fundamentally transform the United States of America.
you’re damn right. turn it from a nation of 1% making 97% of the wealth to a more equally divided nation.
4 more years! this is almost to easy.
list here
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/nov/30/what-hell-are-we-paying-you/
james tommy
communism and OPM 101
damn right.
“Talking point”?????
So now you prove that you don’t even know the definition of “talking point”. Thanks for the constant update on the state of your ignorance.
No, Jimmy, it was facts.
No wonder you didn’t recognize them.
“James”….any ideas on how this 97% is going to EARN this new share of the wealth? What are they going to bring to the table to justify their share? What skills are they going to contribute to make their share ‘fair’?
Is merely being born justification enough to share in what others earn?
Cluster,
Why do you bother with “james”? This dolt has offered no debate, no logic and has never admitted when demonstrably wrong; http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Vote2004/story?id=224512&page=1
Calling him a vile racist is useless: that’s his best quality, it’s all downhill from there.
Are you an idiot on purpose or by accident count of can’t?
The article is dated Nov 4, 2004….The man had won the election.
Cluster was wondering what Obama’s second term will look like, and I said most likely we will know by summer, after the convention….
So tell me, where was I wrong in that statement? and when did bush reveal his second term agenda….well according to YOUR article…..Nov 4, 2004.
Idiot.
Cluster,
See what I mean? Never admits when demonstrably wrong.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2003/07/the_agenda_of_george_w_bush.html
Do you suppose this horse’s ass will ever offer a debate or just void his bile untill he’s banned again?
you realize that’s not from the President’s own mouth, that’s what Slate THINKS he would do.
seriously, give up. You’re hopelessly tied to lying and spewing your falsehoods.
Banned? why would I get banned? keep up the lies Count of Coconut.
Breaking news. 120k jobs created, October revised UP, unemployment down to 8.6%!
Reelection here we come! 8% by election may be to high….me thinks it may be 7.7%
The unemployment rate, derived from a separate survey of households, was forecast to hold at 9 percent, according to the survey median. The decrease in the jobless rate reflected a 278,000 gain in employment at the same time 315,000 Americans left the labor force.
The labor participation rate declined to 64 percent from 64.2 percent.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/u-s-jobless-rate-unexpectedly-declines-to-8-6-payrolls-rise-by-120-000.html
Ask I asked on another thread, what the heck are the Republicans doing?! Their self-professed single goal is to make President Obama a one-term president. This isn’t helping! How dare they allow jobs to be added to the private sector! I think they could have done more to prevent this.
What are republicans doing? I don’t fault you for not knowing because Harry Reid has effectively killed any bill that the GOP house has sent, without any debate, including cut, cap and balance and the mack/penny plan – both of these are great bills that would bring certainty to the private markets and reign in spending. Secondly, republicans want to reform the tax code, which will make our companies more competitive with the world, and actually increase revenue to the federal government.
There are actually quite a number of things the GOP is doing, the democrats just don’t want you to know about it.
Ah, okay, glad we cleared that up. So the Republicans are failing in their single mission–as put forth by Mitch McMconnell–to wreak havoc on the economy so Obama isn’t re-elected. Is that your position, cluster?
The single mission of the GOP is to defeat Obama and his policies that are killing this economy and everyones opportunities. Yes, that is the mission. GOP is for growth for everyone – not just who Obama thinks are worthy
Um, no. According to Mitch McConnell, the mission of our elected Republican representatives is to ensure that President Obama is a one-term president. It has nothing to do with doing what’s right for the country. I think he made that very clear, don’t you?
If a man has an infection which is killing him, the doctors will, and should, have a single self-professed goal of getting rid of the underlying infection. Then and only then can they address the effects of the infection.
The Left, and its clueless ideologically illiterate lemmings, seem to be whining that we should be addressing the symptoms of Obamafection, and not the underlying cause, which is having a radical Leftist in the White House with enough power to “fundamentally transform” this nation into a Leftist state.
They, wattle being a prime example, are so abysmally ignorant of how real jobs are created that they simply do not grasp the fact that the job crisis cannot be “fixed” when the root cause of the problem is still in power.
Making Obama a one term president IS doing what’s best for the country. This is what you guys simply do not understand.
I think you illustrate the fact that you don’t understand when you post a lie— So the Republicans are failing in their single mission–as put forth by Mitch McMconnell–to wreak havoc on the economy so Obama isn’t re-elected.
You know perfectly well that McConnell never said any such thing. You may believe this is what he intends, but then again you may know it isn’t—-the fact is, truth is not going to play much of a role in anything you post.
Obama is wreaking havoc upon the economy and McConnell understands that going along with any element to any degree of Obama economic policies is just going to make Republicans complicit in the destruction of the economy and eventually the country.
“How dare they allow jobs to be added to the private sector!”
Already explained away as temporary seasonal employment and a decrease in Americans looking for work. They have stopped looking because they feel there are no jobs in their area. In short, these Americans are removed from the unemployment calculation (no longer considered unemployed by the liberals) to make their numbers look better.
An article has been cited several times (once by me) that several economists are dubious about the numbers and the ability to sustain them. They are looking for jobs created and Americans who are unemployed are removed from the list because they have jobs and not because they have stopped looking.
Why are you drones so easily swayed by any sort of news spun as good? Are you that desperate to latch onto anything since obAMATEUR can’t run on “four more years”? Of course, now its “I need to be reelected so I can finish what I started?” This man had 2 years with sufficient majorities to push through everything he wanted – no filibusters and no obstruction. He still could not “finish what he started” in some cases.
James,
Is everything that you can’t rebut, a talking point? Is that your escape hatch?
you’re damn right. turn it from a nation of 1% making 97% of the wealth to a more equally divided nation. – James
How is that achieved James? What needs to take place for this goal to come about. Please expand.
There are a couple of ways.
First is to increase opportunity for the lower income brackets to move up to the top. You do that by offering low interest government loans for education, improving labor laws so that workers are better protected.
you can also increase wealth by imposing harsh laws on governments hiring illegal aliens. tax the top 0.15% of income filers…the ones who make over I believe its 1 million dollars per year and then turn around and invest that money into programs for the majority of people. Programs such as education assistance, child care so that single mothers can work, etc.
First is to increase opportunity for the lower income brackets to move up to the top. You do that by offering low interest government loans for education, improving labor laws so that workers are better protected.
These are already being done. Upward mobility in America is already greater than any other country.
you can also increase wealth by imposing harsh laws on governments hiring illegal aliens. tax the top 0.15% of income filers…the ones who make over I believe its 1 million dollars per year and then turn around and invest that money into programs for the majority of people. Programs such as education assistance, child care so that single mothers can work, etc.
This is also already done. Welfare, ie: housing assistance, daycare assistance, WIC, food stamps, unemployment, etc. are all at all time highs. What makes you think an additional hand out of .15% will change the dynamic?
Actually, many of the low income earners took the opportunity to move up to the top. Now the OWS are going after them.
Wacka mole.
“There is no comprehensive measure of economic inequality and mobility, but several metrics, used together, can give a more complete picture. Looking exclusively at income inequality or mobility is not enough. Income, earnings, and wealth all contribute to an accurate assessment of inequality and mobility in America..” Paul Winfree- Heritage Foundation
Most recently, the lack of data resulting from an ever increasing number of wage-earners who do not file Federal Income Tax records, from which Income Mobility record have been derived have distorted the picture; further comparing income mobility from other economic models is problematic in that a large increase in mobility form a formally stratified system is indicative of modest gains overall where a modest increase in a system like the US or Taiwan is significant in its continuation of the mobile trajectory.
An Opinion piece in the Washington Post by a dimocrat commentator working in the Obama Administration often cited in the HuffPost is hardly definitive, nor is partial information drawing apples-to-oranges conclusions from liberal (leftist) think tanks reliable.
I never expect wally to understand or apply any critical thinking.
Demonstrated wrong yet again, and change the subject rely on someone else’s wrong opinions (Andrew Sullivan’s failure to understand simple economics).
Can’t keep up little man, take notes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY
Newt is conservative when it benefits Newt. Newt is liberal when it benefits Newt. Newt is libertarian when it benefits Newt.
I feel like a conspiracy theorist nowadays. As I predicted, wait until right before Christmas, the market will be up, unemployment the lowest in 2 years, consumer confidence up, draw downs of the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Wall Street crowd running the country have put Obama in his place (did anyone else notice the OWS crowd calling Obama a puppet when he flew in to NYC for a night of dining with the elite?) and now they can let him win another term.
“how much of the Hispanic and African American vote does the GOP get on average ? – James —Just curious James as to what role skin color plays in politics, in your opinion. ” – Clueless
On a political blog, recognizing the reality of political polling as seen every 2 years on TV might be reasonable. If Obama focuses on the female demographic in this race he will destroy Newt. Believe it or not, women care more about whether a politician cheated on his wife than some wonkish foreign policy theory.
An assessment of which states that Obama won last time that Newt would take away would be grounds for discussion.
I do want to hear from Newt what he will do with Obamacare. One thing is certain, adding another layer of bureaucracy to health care will only increase prices, and reduce access. If we open health care up to competition, prices almost always come down and service improves. Competition improves everything – people, product and service, and that is a FACT!
Believe it or not, women care more about whether a politician cheated on his wife than some wonkish foreign policy theory.
Women must have forgotten about that when they voted for Clinton in ’92 and ’96
Cluster,
A valid point about the cheating, but the Press was instrumental in 1992 & 1996; playing Clinton as a lovable rogue pilloried by unrequited lovers and understandable infatuations from Clinton’s adoring female contacts while they’ll portray Gingrich as a fat lothario who abandoned his older wives in succession for newer younger models.
Clinton stayed with the Hilda-beast; that becomes the willing accomplices in the media’s focus on re-electing the Amateur-in-Chief.
Thanks Count
It’s also a very valid point that Newt’s personal issues with his wives and or girlfriends are no criteria for selecting a president. Woman aren’t stupid and don’t vote based on infidelity any more than men vote on a stud-factor. The majority of women, like the majority of men don’t pay close attention to the candidates until it’s time to vote, then make decisions based on a modified mob mentality. A sympathetic press contributes greatly to this. The public are generally well informed voters with best intentions. They can be deceived and that’s what the Press has been doing for years now.
Like Sunny’s apparent attempt at sarcasm, most people agree that teens/high schoolers should be allowed and encouraged to have a job; it builds work ethics, responsibility and encourages teamwork and creates a habit of success. Most also believe that child-labor laws are stupid; written badly and standing as an obstacle instead of the protection it was intended to be.
Most of us here had jobs as kids ~ paper routes, janitorial duties, retail, health care facilities, even the school “student store”. I cleaned horse corrals and goat pens, and mowed lawns until I got a job at a fast food restaurant near home and all before I turned 16.
But, with the Press reporting that Gingrich wants 9-year-olds working in coal mines and sewing garments for 18 hours a day, his idea won’t get fair debate; only sneers from the chattering class and accusations of Neanderthal behavior. The simple-minded among us, like Sunny, immediately buy into the reductio ad absurdum because it plays directly into their prejudices.
Let’s face it; it’s far easier to jump on the bandwagon then apply any critical thinking; the Sunny’s of the world live in a Madison Avenue generated world of bumper-sticker reasoning. How else do you explain voting for a self-professed Marxist empty suit, with no accomplishments, reading soaring rhetoric from Teleprompters standing in front of Styrofoam columns?
I will listen to Newt’s platform and decide for myself; I’m still skeptical and doubt I’ll ever fully support his bid. But, I’ve seen the damage Obama and the dimocrats have inflicted so that is not now, nor ever to be an option.
“It’s also a very valid point that Newt’s personal issues with his wives and or girlfriends are no criteria for selecting a president.” – Count
HOW on earth can you say things like this? Every serious system of Western ethics moves from temperance to courage to wisdom to justice as the pinnacle.
Newt cheating on his wife tells us that he will do what is convenient for Newt and then post-hoc justify why this is okay in general.
The only plausible reason to believe personal issues are independent of being president is if you believe that the president is not a leader. That he need not use moral persuasion. That he is like a chess master, plotting strategy according to an algorithm which is uninfluenced by public opinion.
Obama using cocaine or being in Wright’s church or whatever foretold how he will govern. He is governing for Obama, he is campaigning for Obama. He is all about Obama. Just like Clinton. Like Obama and Clinton, Newt has no problem giving taxpayer money away for too big to fail enterprises.
As I’ve said repeatedly. All a GOP candidate needs to insure my vote is to say he/she will repeal NCLB, get rid of the Dept. of Ed. and get rid of agriculture subsidies. That should be easy for a conservative to promise.
“Newt cheating on his wife tells us that he will do what is convenient for Newt and then post-hoc justify why this is okay in general.”
I don’t believe you’ve actually looked into this; Gingrich hasn’t “justified” his actions, but embraced his faults, asked forgiveness of those he hurt and attempted to better himself. Romney’s change on abortion indicates to me that people can change and Newt’s third wife indicates that people will disappoint.
If maritial fidelity is our standard for deciding we’ve set a pretty low set of expectations for a world leader.
I’m looking to elect a leader of a government; not a shaman.
Newt isn’t my choice but not because he dumped a wife or two … that’s completely irrelevant.
Carter never cheated on his wife, neither did Nixon or Hoover.
Ike did, FDR did.
JFK and LBJ cheated on their wives. Good indicators.
Not being a cheater doesn’t guarantee a good presidency. Being a cheater is a selfish sign.
(Ike’s indiscretion was during a World War. If someone can point to General Gingrich in combat, I’ll give him some a break.)
Again if marital fidelity was the only standard the bar would be low. Not being able even meet that level says something about a candidate.
“ Ike’s indiscretion was during a World War..
“ [Ike] cheating on his wife tells us that he will do what is convenient for [Ike] and then post-hoc justify why this is okay for the General.
So … who’s making ad hoc justifications????
Marital Indiscretions = Mostly Irrelevant!
Count
You caught me. I like Ike for winning the war. I like Ike for saying
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
I also think on the virtue ladder that Ike’s true physical courage weighs in favor of his character while Newt simply weighs in.
Ok, ike gets a pass because you like what he stood for, fair enough. Please allow that some would give a similar pass for Newt based on their belief that he (Newt) stands for something they believe in.
If you get a chance, find some of those old Press Conferences Ike held; you’ll see a striking resemblance to the way Newt handles the press. Point of fact I always admired Ike’s straight talk and unabashed pro-American stature; Newt speaks the same way.
Again, I’m not a Newt fan.
His new policy he has been promoting should garner a lot of votes. Do away with Child Labor Laws and put the kids from poor families to work. They (the poor kids) are lazy and don’t know how to work.
Newt’s plan for poor children is exactly what needs to take place, and is far more compassionate than anything a liberal has ever offered. We need to teach these kids the value of a dollar, and a work ethic, which will serve them well as they progress through life. Work builds character and self esteem, and these kids are not getting that from their parents, nor from their schools and certainly not from Democrats.
Go Newt!
scummy
YOU LIE, that is NOT what he proposed.
watsondude
Gotta pander to the base, you know.
Like Ochimpy and the OWS dirtbags?
cluster said, “I am still leaning towards Newt, but would also support Mitt if he gets the nod. One thing I do want to hear from Newt is that he will repeal Obamacare.”
Yes, that will be interesting, considering that in May of this year he said, “I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”
Socialist. I suspect he’ll pull a Romney. Gotta pander to the base, you know.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/15/id/396426
Study: Religious People Trust Atheists About As Much As They Do Rapists………..
WOW
at least not all is lost….I agree with them!!
‘Pakistan Sunni Tehreek’ Activists Set Fire to Images of Obama, Clinton
They also hung shoes around their photos.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
GQ‘s ’25 Least Influential People Alive’ List: Obama and…Hank Jr?
Typical NeoClown responses. You’re obviously unable to respond to the issues, so just throw up whatever else you can find.
waspsting
dittO
rule #4 never argue with idiots.
from “Arguing with idiots”, by Glen Beck.
PS wasp
truth hurts EH?
The truth hurts? You didn’t respond with anything of any consequence. This is why we refer to you as a clown.
Is that the Royal “We” ?
I’ve had my disagreements with neo, but what puts him head and shoulders above you and your ilk is his understanding of his core beliefs.
While you and your kind mumble, squeal, bleat and shriek about your overheated responses to personality, identity, scandal and events, about your distorted imaginings of a nonexistent Conservativism, neo has a coherent political philosophy, which he does not hesitate to announce and defend, based on a belief that the Constitution of the United States is not only the law of the land but the best form of governance for this nation.
When you, or any of you, can and will state YOUR political philosophy, and defend it using its historical success when applied, you might be in a position to attack someone who posts on the Right on this blog.
Till then you are just noise, just blog vandals, just nuts trying to validate your pathologies by pretending that your identities of hate, spite and malice are justified if you dress them up in political costumes.
Till then you are just noise, just blog vandals, just nuts trying to validate your pathologies by pretending that your identities of hate, spite and malice are justified if you dress them up in political costumes.
I love the way you turn a phrase Amazona. This one, is one of your best.
Amy said, “I’ve had my disagreements with neo, but what puts him head and shoulders above you and your ilk is his understanding of his core beliefs.” His core beliefs? Yes, they are on display here each and everyday in abundance. They speak for themselves.
As for you, Amy, I responded to a comment by cluster, in which he wondered whether Newt would repeal ObamaCare. I pointed out that Newt has, as of this year, proclaimed the necessity and desirability of an individual mandate, and that yes, it would be interesting to see how Newt squirms out of that one. I didn’t mumble, squeal, bleat or shriek. Evidently you simply can’t read.
Now, if you’d like to respond to the content of my previous comment, feel free.
And still no response from cluster. Just a bunch of childish taunts and insults from Clown and his ilk.
Well Watson,
While I disagree with Newt’s position on mandates, I still support his candidacy. Much like your support of Obama, when he campaigned on closing gitmo due to civil right abuses & civilian trials for terrorists, only to do a 180 on those positions after he was elected. I am surprised you can support Obama, considering his blatant hypocrisy.
It was interesting watching Obama pander to his base during the campaign of 2008 on the horrors of Bush’s foreign policy, only to wathc him “squirm” out of those positions later. It’s also amusing to watch Egypt burn Obama in effigy, considering that everyone thought his Cairo speech was so “enlightening”.
Do you want me to go on?
Thank you, cluster. See? It wasn’t that hard to respond in a civil manner.
If it entertains you, cluster, then by all means go on!
And while you’re at it, maybe you can expound on your core beliefs for the benefit of Amasnooza. She doesn’t like it when you talk about personalities.
Oh Amazona and I share most of the same core beliefs, so I know she is very aware of where I stand. I hardly ever respond in an uncivil manner, unless someone is being especially obtuse, and where did I mention personalities? I think you’re reaching for something here, knowing that you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Here’s another one – don’t you think it’s a little hypocritical of Obama to ask the rich to pay their fair share, when most of his cabinet members are tax dodgers, and he continues to champion people that pay nothing in federal income tax?
I don’t have a leg to stand on? Quick, get me a chair. You know, saying that most of Obama’s cabinet members are tax dodgers is a little like saying most members of GWB’s administration were convicted of crimes. Your hyperbole undercuts whatever message you are trying to convey.
In any event, I’m going out for the day. But I encourage to continue for the benefit of the 10 or 15 readers of blogsfornewt, er, I mean blogsforvictory. You’re providing a valuable service here, cluster.
waspdummy
why are you here?
to stink the place up?
you doo a stellar job of it fool.
waspson
projection fool?
wattles dodges the key part of my post, so let’s go over it again and see if he can respond, OK?
While you and your kind mumble, squeal, bleat and shriek about your overheated responses to personality, identity, scandal and events, about your distorted imaginings of a nonexistent Conservativism, neo has a coherent political philosophy, which he does not hesitate to announce and defend, based on a belief that the Constitution of the United States is not only the law of the land but the best form of governance for this nation.
wattle and his fellow travelers have never done so, and no doubt never will, clinging instead to the level of “political” awareness which matches their intellect and pathologies—that of personality, scandal, race, identity, and other superficialities.
1000% ON the MONEY
“While you and your kind mumble, squeal, bleat and shriek about your overheated responses to personality, identity, scandal and events, about your distorted imaginings of a nonexistent Conservativism, neo has a coherent political philosophy, which he does not hesitate to announce and defend, based on a belief that the Constitution of the United States is not only the law of the land but the best form of governance for this nation.”
🙂 🙂