Can win Obama win a debate Against Newt ??

[rightwinger]

Newt will never get the opportunity to debate Obama

We agree! His advisors will not allow it!

There will be a debate, but if Newt wants to be there, he better buy a ticket

 

[rightwinger]

By the time the Presidential Debates come, Newt will be a distant memory. Newt is enjoying his temporary run at the top just like Bachmann, Trump, Perry and Cain did. He is a fleeting curiosity for Republicans.

In the end, Republicans will vote for whoever FoxNews tells them to. Fox has already turned on Newt and he will be receiving the Fox treatment.

Fox has already determined that Romney is the only candidate that has a chance of beating Obama........That is who Republicans will vote for

 

[cbirch2]

Have you been asleep?
Their debt is an obligation of our government.

Because the united states decided to nationalize them, but there was never a guarantee saying that the the government had to do that.

Are you braindead?

An implicit guarantee may have been assumed, people might have thought the government would choose to nationalize if they had to, but there was never an explicit guarantee. Understand? Anyone making a decision on an implicit guarantee is making a bet on the future decisions of the government, thats their own fault.

Because the united states decided to nationalize them

Yes, but don't worry, Barney Frank said they're in fine shape.
Just how many mortgages did they buy from Countrywide?
You know, Countrywide, right?

Did Democrat Franklin Raines ever do any jail time for falsifying earnings?

K so since you just changed to subject i assume you realize your wrong huh?

 

[Maple]

HELL NO !!!the idiot that libtards voted into office will get trounced !!

Obama would lose the debate but he would win the election. It's more important to win the election in my view.

 

[Maple]

Newt will never get the opportunity to debate Obama

We agree! His advisors will not allow it!

Obama would be stupid to debate Newt, he knows it, won't do it, so all Republicans you need to realize that too.

Newt will not win the nomination, because we all know that he can't and won't win the general election.

 

[JoeB131]

Newt will never get the opportunity to debate Obama

We agree! His advisors will not allow it!

Obama would be stupid to debate Newt, he knows it, won't do it, so all Republicans you need to realize that too.

Newt will not win the nomination, because we all know that he can't and won't win the general election.

again, isn't that said, that so-called conservatives think the only way Republicans can win is if we get a Weird Mormon Robot to try to trick voters into thinking he's moderate?

Maybe it's time to pack up the movement and become European socialists, then?

I mean, if a conservative- ANY conservative- can't beat THIS guy, then conservatism is bankrupt as a movement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because the united states decided to nationalize them, but there was never a guarantee saying that the the government had to do that.

Are you braindead?

An implicit guarantee may have been assumed, people might have thought the government would choose to nationalize if they had to, but there was never an explicit guarantee. Understand? Anyone making a decision on an implicit guarantee is making a bet on the future decisions of the government, thats their own fault.

Because the united states decided to nationalize them

Yes, but don't worry, Barney Frank said they're in fine shape.
Just how many mortgages did they buy from Countrywide?
You know, Countrywide, right?

Did Democrat Franklin Raines ever do any jail time for falsifying earnings?

K so since you just changed to subject i assume you realize your wrong huh?

You said...."It is explicitly stated in their charter that securities held by both fannie and freddie are not obligations of the us government"

I said...."Their debt is an obligation of our government"

Where was I wrong?

 

[cbirch2]

Because the united states decided to nationalize them

Yes, but don't worry, Barney Frank said they're in fine shape.
Just how many mortgages did they buy from Countrywide?
You know, Countrywide, right?

Did Democrat Franklin Raines ever do any jail time for falsifying earnings?

K so since you just changed to subject i assume you realize your wrong huh?

You said...."It is explicitly stated in their charter that securities held by both fannie and freddie are not obligations of the us government"

I said...."Their debt is an obligation of our government"

Where was I wrong?

Your not wrong that it is currently an obligation of the US government, because the government decided to nationalize.

But, neither am i wrong that the charters state that there is no guarantee. The government could very well have let them fail, and anyone that thought otherwise was just hoping the government would nationalize. Its no different than thinking Goldman Sachs is insured by the government because its too big to fail and will be nationalized. They were private companies.

But, you were wrong a few posts back. You've said that throughout the bubble mortgages held by fannie mae and freddie were insured by the government. Your wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

Newts poll numbers are dropping....looks like he will be on the sidelines debating Herman Cain

 

[jgarden]

HELL NO !!!the idiot that libtards voted into office will get trounced !!

The Republican "establishment" won't allow it to come to that - look at the sudden flurry of Romney endorsements.

The polls indicate that Gingrich can't win the 2012 General Election and the Karl Rove "types" in the Party will do whatever it takes to eliminate him, or any other major candidate, who challenges Romney in the "leadership" race.

Look what happened to Cain - Gingrich is next on their "hit" list!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

K so since you just changed to subject i assume you realize your wrong huh?

You said...."It is explicitly stated in their charter that securities held by both fannie and freddie are not obligations of the us government"

I said...."Their debt is an obligation of our government"

Where was I wrong?

Your not wrong that it is currently an obligation of the US government, because the government decided to nationalize.

But, neither am i wrong that the charters state that there is no guarantee. The government could very well have let them fail, and anyone that thought otherwise was just hoping the government would nationalize. Its no different than thinking Goldman Sachs is insured by the government because its too big to fail and will be nationalized. They were private companies.

But, you were wrong a few posts back. You've said that throughout the bubble mortgages held by fannie mae and freddie were insured by the government. Your wrong.

Excellent. They are currently obligations of the US government.

But, you were wrong a few posts back.

You'll have to show where you think I'm wrong.
Your track record with that claim isn't very good.

 

[Clementine]

HELL NO !!!the idiot that libtards voted into office will get trounced !!

I agree with you. Newt speaks from the heart, Obama speaks from a teleprompter. I think Obama would wind up on the floor in a fetal position if he went up against Newt in a debate.

 

[cbirch2]

You said...."It is explicitly stated in their charter that securities held by both fannie and freddie are not obligations of the us government"

I said...."Their debt is an obligation of our government"

Where was I wrong?

Your not wrong that it is currently an obligation of the US government, because the government decided to nationalize.

But, neither am i wrong that the charters state that there is no guarantee. The government could very well have let them fail, and anyone that thought otherwise was just hoping the government would nationalize. Its no different than thinking Goldman Sachs is insured by the government because its too big to fail and will be nationalized. They were private companies.

But, you were wrong a few posts back. You've said that throughout the bubble mortgages held by fannie mae and freddie were insured by the government. Your wrong.

Excellent. They are currently obligations of the US government.

And i never claimed otherwise. Maybe you should understand the debate before you inject yourself into it. "Intense" said that mortgages held by fannie and freddie were insured by the government, i said they were not, and you somehow turned that into me saying that the government never decided to nationalize.

But, you were wrong a few posts back.

You'll have to show where you think I'm wrong.
Your track record with that claim isn't very good.

Sorry, i didnt realize you had rudely injected yourself into an argument you were never a part of. Intense made the claim about government insurance, i said he was wrong, and then you injected yourself into an argument you were never a part of by totally changing the topic of the debate.

Intense: "Their debt was insured by the government"
Me: "No it wasnt, the government just decided to nationalize, there was never any insurance policy or explicit guarantee.
You: "Their debt is an obligation on the US government"

See where the problem comes in? It happens when you start claiming ive said shit that i havent, or when you dont understand the difference between "insured by the government from the start" and "a decision to nationalize"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your not wrong that it is currently an obligation of the US government, because the government decided to nationalize.

But, neither am i wrong that the charters state that there is no guarantee. The government could very well have let them fail, and anyone that thought otherwise was just hoping the government would nationalize. Its no different than thinking Goldman Sachs is insured by the government because its too big to fail and will be nationalized. They were private companies.

But, you were wrong a few posts back. You've said that throughout the bubble mortgages held by fannie mae and freddie were insured by the government. Your wrong.

Excellent. They are currently obligations of the US government.

And i never claimed otherwise. Maybe you should understand the debate before you inject yourself into it. "Intense" said that mortgages held by fannie and freddie were insured by the government, i said they were not, and you somehow turned that into me saying that the government never decided to nationalize.

But, you were wrong a few posts back.

You'll have to show where you think I'm wrong.
Your track record with that claim isn't very good.

Sorry, i didnt realize you had rudely injected yourself into an argument you were never a part of. Intense made the claim about government insurance, i said he was wrong, and then you injected yourself into an argument you were never a part of by totally changing the topic of the debate.

Intense: "Their debt was insured by the government"
Me: "No it wasnt, the government just decided to nationalize, there was never any insurance policy or explicit guarantee.
You: "Their debt is an obligation on the US government"

See where the problem comes in? It happens when you start claiming ive said shit that i havent, or when you dont understand the difference between "insured by the government from the start" and "a decision to nationalize"

Fannie and Freddie MBS are guaranteed by the government. Their debt is an obligation of the government.
Taxpayers are on the hook. Get it?

 

[rightwinger]

Newt can't help but being Newt

Threatening to dissolve the courts and arrest judges that he does not agree with

Go Newt!

 

[Clementine]

Excellent. They are currently obligations of the US government.

And i never claimed otherwise. Maybe you should understand the debate before you inject yourself into it. "Intense" said that mortgages held by fannie and freddie were insured by the government, i said they were not, and you somehow turned that into me saying that the government never decided to nationalize.

But, you were wrong a few posts back.

You'll have to show where you think I'm wrong.
Your track record with that claim isn't very good.

Sorry, i didnt realize you had rudely injected yourself into an argument you were never a part of. Intense made the claim about government insurance, i said he was wrong, and then you injected yourself into an argument you were never a part of by totally changing the topic of the debate.

Intense: "Their debt was insured by the government"
Me: "No it wasnt, the government just decided to nationalize, there was never any insurance policy or explicit guarantee.
You: "Their debt is an obligation on the US government"

See where the problem comes in? It happens when you start claiming ive said shit that i havent, or when you dont understand the difference between "insured by the government from the start" and "a decision to nationalize"

Fannie and Freddie MBS are guaranteed by the government. Their debt is an obligation of the government.
Taxpayers are on the hook. Get it?

Fannie and Freddie were used as a slush fund for ages. And we paid. I've lost count of the billions they've received in bail out money since the meltdown and keep asking for more. And they went back to business, as usual.

I remember back in 2004, I think it was, when Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Dodd and a bunch of other Dems stood there defending the lending practices of Fannie and Freddie when the Republicans were insisting that the two needed more regulations and oversight. Some were predicting the bubble burst and F and F were the tip of the iceberg. Nice work, Dems, on keeping focus off the pair while things got worse.

 

[francoHFW]

Except for the 25-30% brainwashed dittoheads, Obama would wipe up the floor with Newt. And discussion of Newt's lies and nuttery would make it even more one sided afterwards...

 

[francoHFW]

80% of toxic loans had nothing to do with F+F, and they got in late... Another Pub myth for the dupes...

 

[candycorn]

HELL NO !!!the idiot that libtards voted into office will get trounced !!

Obama will win if he makes it to the stage. All he has to do is let Newt be Newt. Newt will consolidate the right wing with no problem. These are the same voters who believe Mr. Obama is a Kenyan so they're "ungettable" for Mr. Obama anyway.

Anyone who doesn't already agree with Newt will not be convinced by any argument he makes since most are child-like parodies of serious thinkers of which Mr. Gingrich is not included.

It will be one of those moments in Politics where you think you've won right up until you really think about what you called winning.

 

[candycorn]

Newt can't help but being Newt

Threatening to dissolve the courts and arrest judges that he does not agree with

Go Newt!

You sort of get the feeling that Newt in 2012 is what the Delay candidacy of 2008 would have looked like.