What do you make of this article on Gingrich?

Gingrich discusses how Romney's positions on social issues has changed since 1994 and implies that is a bad thing.

I know my position on several social issues has changed since 1994. I would imagine most rational Americans' positions on social issues have changed through the decades as well.

Personally, I am a fan of those with open minds.

My own opinion on abortion has changed in the last decade from being very pro-Life to a realization that any ban on abortion would be unenforcable and create more problems that it solves. Not "pro-Choice", per se, but pragmatic.

My problem with Romney on these issues is that his changes in opinion are not based on having an open mind or a change in heart, but on cold calculation.

When running in just Mass., being pro-abortion, pro-gay and pro-gun control suited him politically. The only Republicans they like there are RINO's.

When running nationally, he's suddenly becomes pro-life, pro-family and pro-second amendment rights because a pollster told him that was how to get votes in Iowa, and his whole plan was to win the early states and build up momentum.

That's just cynical and phony.
 
Gingrich discusses how Romney's positions on social issues has changed since 1994 and implies that is a bad thing.

I know my position on several social issues has changed since 1994. I would imagine most rational Americans' positions on social issues have changed through the decades as well.

Personally, I am a fan of those with open minds.

My own opinion on abortion has changed in the last decade from being very pro-Life to a realization that any ban on abortion would be unenforcable and create more problems that it solves. Not "pro-Choice", per se, but pragmatic.

My problem with Romney on these issues is that his changes in opinion are not based on having an open mind or a change in heart, but on cold calculation.

When running in just Mass., being pro-abortion, pro-gay and pro-gun control suited him politically. The only Republicans they like there are RINO's.

When running nationally, he's suddenly becomes pro-life, pro-family and pro-second amendment rights because a pollster told him that was how to get votes in Iowa, and his whole plan was to win the early states and build up momentum.

That's just cynical and phony.
I can understand your view that his change is for political gain to get elected.

However, if the change was just to seal the election, then his change back during his terms would be evident. He didn't flip back too much while serving.

Irrespective of that, social issues don't concern me too much except that I don't want ever to see morality legislated.
 
]I can understand your view that his change is for political gain to get elected.

However, if the change was just to seal the election, then his change back during his terms would be evident. He didn't flip back too much while serving.

Irrespective of that, social issues don't concern me too much except that I don't want ever to see morality legislated.

NOr do I, and I don't see that as a major concern.

His flip flops are not limited to social issues.

Take the Auto Bailout. IN 2008, he was pretty desperate. He lost Iowa to Huckabee and NH to McCain and if he didn't win MI after his dad had been governor there, he was pretty much finished and everyone knew it.

So he went about the state saying that he would bail out the auto industry if elected president. Keep in mind, this was before the recession hit and things weren't that bad yet.

He won Michigan, stayed alive until Super Tuesday (where he only won two primaries in Utah and Massachusetts) and was done.

Then the recession hit, and Obama actually had to bail out Chrysler and GM.

And Mitt Romney denounced it.

Because by that point, bailouts had become very unpopular in GOP land.

Or his health care plan- "I promise to overturn ObamaCare even though it is exactly like RomneyCare, except it's federal."

Everyone in the media expects him to "pivot" after winning the nomination. Which means stop saying all these right wing things and 'move to the center".

Sorry, that's not leadership.

Oh, yeah, and he's an effin' Mormon.
 
Gingrich discusses how Romney's positions on social issues has changed since 1994 and implies that is a bad thing.

I know my position on several social issues has changed since 1994. I would imagine most rational Americans' positions on social issues have changed through the decades as well.

Personally, I am a fan of those with open minds.

I"m sorry but it doesn't sound like a person with a lot of conviction when they change on every single issue, immigration, pro-choice, gun control, govt. run healthcare not to mention the five different positions he's held on Libya.
 
Newt would still be a joke candidate to most people if the Right didn't hate Romney so much.

And to some of us, he's still a joke candidate.
 
That was a GOP led shutdown. They were braying on and on about how nobody needs the government and it should be smaller. And yeah..they wanted to cut Medicaid..and villified Hillary Clinton for "daring" to come up with a real live workable plan to reform healthcare. They shut 'er down..and people missed the government services. The GOP lost big..really big. And Gingrich's "ethics violation" was exempting his wages earned from a class he taught from taxes. And he was using that class for political purposes. He then LIED about it to congress. That was a real live lie.


How much do you think this guy was making teaching a class?

Oh my god, a college instructor with politicial opinions? Really? I mean that's totally fucking unprecedented.

And Clinton didn't "lie" in court. He gave them the answers as he understood them to be. Had it been a court case..it would have been laughed right out. He really should have told them to go fuck themselves. It would have saved his law license and a good deal of embarrassment in the long run. And it probably would have been backed by America in general.

It was a court case. A court case he eventually settled despite a judge bending over backwards to accommedate him. He lied because he knew the truth would hurt him not only in the case, but politically.

Frankly, I can't feel that bad for him, I've seen guys fired for a LOT less than what he did under the guise of sexual harrassment. You guys started this mess by dragging out crazy Anita Dunghill and treating her like she wasn't crazy. You slop around shit, you get some splashing back on you.

I don't what industry you worked in..but when I worked in the financial industry..NO ONE WAS FIRED FOR SEXUAL HARRASSMENT. Heck..Christmas parties were famous for people sneaking off and having sex.

In any case..the college thing was one example of Newt's baggage. He was banging secretaries on his desk while pushing for the Clinton impeachment.

Add in he's a real live bonafide racist and bigot. That's a fine GOP choice for President you got there. Go for it.
 
The media, especially cable news and the other outlets who spend alot of time talking politics are going to prop up any GOP candidate that can represent a feasible competitor to Mitt Romney

because they are deathly afraid that Romney might wrap this thing up by about February and they won't have anything to talk about for 6 months.
 
And?

So what..not one of you guys want real campaign funding reform. Every single time it's tried..lobbyist work overtime to squash it.

In any case..what's the alternative? Obama turns down the moula? :lol:

Maybe he should have. You can't whine that you are shocked that there is gambling going on at Ricks when you are collecting your winnings.

Casablanca36.jpeg

"What we need are better gambling laws to make me behave."

And you can't whine about greed on Wall Street while taking gobs of their money.

Conservatives oppose campaign finance reform because 1) it usually produces worse results and 2) It's a suppression of the first amendment.

Sure you can. I'm not voting for wall street. I don't give a damn if they hedge their bets either..because at this point the system allows for that. The alternative is not to vote.

It looks as we are going to need another amendment or two to the constitution defining human beings as people..and the sounds that humans utter and understand..as speech. Because corporations aren't people and money is not speech.
 
Newt would still be a joke candidate to most people if the Right didn't hate Romney so much.

And to some of us, he's still a joke candidate.

The only people I see screaming about Newt are the ones who would never vote GOP, even if the Republicans nominated John Huntsman, who is effectively a liberal.

So I'm not sure why we should be concerned about what you think. You'll vote for the Community Organizer again no matter how badly he screws up, how high unemployment is, or how many of his major promises he went back on.

I, on the other hand, am open to possibilities. There are certain options where I might consider giving Obama as econd term, if the economy improved.

I won't vote for Romney or Huntsman because they're liberal Mormons.

I won't vote for Cain because I think he's unsuited to the job.

I won't vote for Ron Paul or Bachmann because I think they are nuts.

I guess I could vote for Santorum. He doesn't seem like a bad guy and he has three times as much experience in the Senate as Obama has.

I could vote for Perry, who has been a solid governor for 12 years.

I could vote for Gingrich, because he had two decades in Congress and has been an advocate for innovation and change.
 
And?

So what..not one of you guys want real campaign funding reform. Every single time it's tried..lobbyist work overtime to squash it.

In any case..what's the alternative? Obama turns down the moula? :lol:

Maybe he should have. You can't whine that you are shocked that there is gambling going on at Ricks when you are collecting your winnings.

Casablanca36.jpeg

"What we need are better gambling laws to make me behave."

And you can't whine about greed on Wall Street while taking gobs of their money.

Conservatives oppose campaign finance reform because 1) it usually produces worse results and 2) It's a suppression of the first amendment.

Sure you can. I'm not voting for wall street. I don't give a damn if they hedge their bets either..because at this point the system allows for that. The alternative is not to vote.

It looks as we are going to need another amendment or two to the constitution defining human beings as people..and the sounds that humans utter and understand..as speech. Because corporations aren't people and money is not speech.

They are extensions of people.

I dont give up my rights because I assembled.
 
And?

So what..not one of you guys want real campaign funding reform. Every single time it's tried..lobbyist work overtime to squash it.

In any case..what's the alternative? Obama turns down the moula? :lol:

Maybe he should have. You can't whine that you are shocked that there is gambling going on at Ricks when you are collecting your winnings.

Casablanca36.jpeg

"What we need are better gambling laws to make me behave."

And you can't whine about greed on Wall Street while taking gobs of their money.

Conservatives oppose campaign finance reform because 1) it usually produces worse results and 2) It's a suppression of the first amendment.

Sure you can. I'm not voting for wall street. I don't give a damn if they hedge their bets either..because at this point the system allows for that. The alternative is not to vote.

It looks as we are going to need another amendment or two to the constitution defining human beings as people..and the sounds that humans utter and understand..as speech. Because corporations aren't people and money is not speech.

The courts have ruled they are... so you are just going to have to deal with it.

WHile it is true Wall Street is hedging their bets by contributing to Obama, the fact he takes their money means he's been bought. Oh, he'll do a wink and a nod to the OWS shitters while his Justice Department co-ordinates with the FBI to drive them out of their squatter camps.....
 
Maybe he should have. You can't whine that you are shocked that there is gambling going on at Ricks when you are collecting your winnings.

Casablanca36.jpeg

"What we need are better gambling laws to make me behave."

And you can't whine about greed on Wall Street while taking gobs of their money.

Conservatives oppose campaign finance reform because 1) it usually produces worse results and 2) It's a suppression of the first amendment.

Sure you can. I'm not voting for wall street. I don't give a damn if they hedge their bets either..because at this point the system allows for that. The alternative is not to vote.

It looks as we are going to need another amendment or two to the constitution defining human beings as people..and the sounds that humans utter and understand..as speech. Because corporations aren't people and money is not speech.

They are extensions of people.

I dont give up my rights because I assembled.

Cars are "extensions" of people. We going to grant them rights too?

:lol:
 
Maybe he should have. You can't whine that you are shocked that there is gambling going on at Ricks when you are collecting your winnings.

Casablanca36.jpeg

"What we need are better gambling laws to make me behave."

And you can't whine about greed on Wall Street while taking gobs of their money.

Conservatives oppose campaign finance reform because 1) it usually produces worse results and 2) It's a suppression of the first amendment.

Sure you can. I'm not voting for wall street. I don't give a damn if they hedge their bets either..because at this point the system allows for that. The alternative is not to vote.

It looks as we are going to need another amendment or two to the constitution defining human beings as people..and the sounds that humans utter and understand..as speech. Because corporations aren't people and money is not speech.

The courts have ruled they are... so you are just going to have to deal with it.

WHile it is true Wall Street is hedging their bets by contributing to Obama, the fact he takes their money means he's been bought. Oh, he'll do a wink and a nod to the OWS shitters while his Justice Department co-ordinates with the FBI to drive them out of their squatter camps.....

Which is why the Constitution will probably have to be amended. And there is a huge popular movement to do so..a ground up one. Not some astroturf bullshit about "limiting" government spending.

Every politician is "bought"..and that's the way you guys like it.
 
Sure you can. I'm not voting for wall street. I don't give a damn if they hedge their bets either..because at this point the system allows for that. The alternative is not to vote.

It looks as we are going to need another amendment or two to the constitution defining human beings as people..and the sounds that humans utter and understand..as speech. Because corporations aren't people and money is not speech.

They are extensions of people.

I dont give up my rights because I assembled.

Cars are "extensions" of people. We going to grant them rights too?

:lol:

Cute fail. But I suspected this was above your pay grade.
 
If Bill Clinton could run again for president, would the right bring up his personal baggage?

Why would anyone do that when they have eight years of performance to review.

Like him or not, he was there for eight years.

Why did I answer this stupid question anyway....it's to early in the morning ?
 
If Bill Clinton could run again for president, would the right bring up his personal baggage?

Why would anyone do that when they have eight years of performance to review.

Like him or not, he was there for eight years.

Why did I answer this stupid question anyway....it's to early in the morning ?

"Baggage" will always be brought up by the opposing camps. Just as the Clinton escapades are being brought up now even though he was a successful president. There's an entire package brought up when it comes to any candidate. It's up to the voters to scrutinize what they bring to the table as a leader and having a grasp of the problems we have to conquer them in the most sensible way.

I think I will dwell on the morals when selecting my next pastor, but not with the president with whom I am asking to solve the incredible problems we have in this day.
 
And?

So what..not one of you guys want real campaign funding reform. Every single time it's tried..lobbyist work overtime to squash it.

In any case..what's the alternative? Obama turns down the moula? :lol:

Maybe he should have. You can't whine that you are shocked that there is gambling going on at Ricks when you are collecting your winnings.

Casablanca36.jpeg

"What we need are better gambling laws to make me behave."

And you can't whine about greed on Wall Street while taking gobs of their money.

Conservatives oppose campaign finance reform because 1) it usually produces worse results and 2) It's a suppression of the first amendment.

Sure you can. I'm not voting for wall street. I don't give a damn if they hedge their bets either..because at this point the system allows for that. The alternative is not to vote.

It looks as we are going to need another amendment or two to the constitution defining human beings as people..and the sounds that humans utter and understand..as speech. Because corporations aren't people and money is not speech.
So, let's reverse the law and make corporations not be persons.

Then, no one can sue them if their product or service injures them. :thup:
 
Damnit, Lakhota.................we need to set a better example if we ever want these idiots to stop using deflection as their primary debate tactic.

To the OP.........................Newt is either the "adult in the room" as nutters like to say, or he is pretending to be. Those of us who support President Obama's re-election eagerly await your dream debate.

Newt Gingrich is the petulant asshole who forced a government shutdown and impeachment of a president because of a "snub" he got from Clinton during a flight.

Normally a character like Gingrich would have been out of the political game for the rest of his life. He's been disciplined by congress for financial shennigans and he was eventually booted. But in the GOP, everything old is new again. Romney is populating his "cabinent" with former Bushie PNAC wackos while talking about invading Iran. Even Ralph Reed is making a comeback. What's next? David Duke?

tom delay for president!
 
Gingrich is just more of the same. That he has risen again is simply telling of the republican party today and its lack of genuine candidates. Listening to them - every republican - is like watching a puppet show in which the rich pull their strings.

"Newt, on the other hand, is always good in debates if you like extremely pompous people who appear to be practically levitating with their own sense of personal wonderfulness. During the last outing, Gingrich’s most fascinating moment came when he explained why the mortgage lender Freddie Mac paid him $300,000 in 2006. First of all, it had nothing whatsoever to do with lobbying, or attempting to influence the Republicans who happened to control Congress at a time when there was talk of clamping down on the way Freddie operated. Just put that out of your mind."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/o...time-for-a-gop-debate.html?src=me&ref=general

are you really trying to claim that rich people aren't pulling the Community Organizer's Strings?

I hate to keep doing this, but let's look at Obama's top donors.

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298

Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668

Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855

US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers
 

Forum List

Back
Top