Gingrich’s Conservative Credentials Questioned During GOP Debate
- Posted on December 15, 2011 at 9:09pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
SIOUX CITY, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich clashed sharply with one rival, took pains to compliment another and said it was laughable for any of them to challenge his conservative credentials Thursday night in the last campaign debate before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses kick off the 2012 primary season.
In a forceful attack, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said Gingrich “had his hand out and received $1.6 million to influence senior Republicans and keep the scam going in Washington, D.C.,” for Freddie Mac, a government-backed housing entity.
“Just not true,” Gingrich shot back. “I never lobbied under any circumstances,” he added, denying an allegation she had not made.
The clash underscored the state of race, with Gingrich, the former House speaker, atop the polls in Iowa and nationally, while Bachmann, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his other pursuers work in television ads and elsewhere to overtake him in the final days before the caucuses.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who has staked his campaign on Iowa, was quick to challenge Gingrich as a conservative leader. He recalled that Gingrich had to contend with a “conservative revolution’ from the ranks of Republican lawmakers when he was House speaker in the 1990s.
Rather than going after Gingrich, Romney, who runs second in the polls in Iowa, said his experience in private business made him the man to confront President Barack Obama in debates in the fall of 2012. “And I‘ll have credibility on the economy when he doesn’t,” he said.
Given the stakes, Gingrich, Bachmann and Santorum weren’t the only contenders eager to impress Iowa voters and a nationwide television audience with their conservative grit.
“I hope I am the Tim Tebow of the Iowa caucuses,” said Texas Gov. Rick Perry, referring to the Denver Broncos quarterback whose passing ability draws ridicule but who has led his team to a remarkable seven wins in eight weeks.
“We’re getting screwed as Americans,” said former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, insisting that he, in fact, was a steadier conservative than any of the others on stage.
“Anybody up here could beat Obama,” said Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, whose views verge on libertarianism and who has struggled to expand his appeal.
Indeed, the big question in the opening moments of a fast-paced two-hour debate went to the heart of a dilemma that could eventually settle the race – do conservative Republican caucus and primary voters pick a candidate with their hearts, or do they look elsewhere if they judge their favored candidate might not be able to defeat the president.
Those voters begin making that choice on Jan. 3, and if experience is any guide, one or more of the presidential hopefuls on the debate stage will not make it out of the state to compete in the New Hampshire primary a week later.
Gingrich, who seemed an also-ran in the earliest stages of the race, has emerged as a leader heading into the final stretch of the pre-primary campaign. His decades in Washington and his post-congressional career as a consultant have been the subjects of tough critiques from Romney’s campaign in the past week.
But the former speaker passed up an offer to criticize his rival on the issue of Medicare, saying, “I’m not in the business of blaming Gov. Romney.” In fact, he said, Romney has made constructive suggestions for preserving the program that tens of millions of Americans rely on for health care yet faces deep financial woes.
Gingrich drew criticism earlier in the year for calling a GOP Medicare proposal “right-wing engineering.” Romney refrained from criticizing that plan but did not embrace it in full.
Bachmann, who has long-since faded to the back of the pack in the polls, seemed most eager to confront Gingrich.
And when he labeled her charges inaccurate, she shot back that when she made similar contentions in the previous debate, she was judged factually accurate by an independent arbiter. She said Gingrich’s work for Freddie Mac was in furtherance of a “grandiose scam” to keep alive an entity at the heart of the housing crisis.
“I will state unequivocally for every person watching tonight: I have never once changed my positions because of any payment,” Gingrich said, adding that in fact, he favored breaking up both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, his benefactor.
Moments later, Bachmann challenged Paul even more aggressively, saying his views on Iran were a danger given the country’s work on acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican who has said he probably will not endorse a candidate before the caucuses, said earlier Thursday that Gingrich needs to show he has discipline in the next few weeks to convince GOP voters he has what it takes to be president.
“I don’t know. I don’t know,” Branstad said in an Associated Press interview when asked specifically if he thought Gingrich had the discipline to be president. “I think he’s a great idea person; I have a lot of respect for him. But whether he has the discipline and the focus, I don’t know.”
Romney has not begun running ads assailing Gingrich. But he has characterized the former speaker as “zany” for having endorsed mining the moon and lighting highways with mirrors in space.
Romney has increasingly looked to slow Gingrich in Iowa. Romney has campaigned lightly in the state, and some influential social conservatives there have doubts about his Mormon faith and changed positions on social issues.
In a new ad in Iowa, Romney is describing the need to reduce the federal deficit as a “moral responsibility.”
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 677 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 631 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 522 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 360 Comments
Have You Seen the Giant ‘Sand Obama’ Sculpture in Charlotte? 311 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 124 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 175 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 124 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (436)
dcart888
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:40pmIntrade Romney 59% Chance of winning Today’s Change: +$0.40(+7.3%)
Report Post »http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=652757
Intrade Newt 18.9% Chance of winning
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=654836
Miami
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:46pmThat’s about the size of it Paul has no clue with Foreign Policy !
Report Post »CatB
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:55pmPaul wants to believe and follow the U.N. now that is scary!
Report Post »Spyder
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:57pmRon Paul’s view on Foreign Policy is spot on. He says that we cannot be the world police, therefore, there only need to be very limited foreign policy.
Report Post »Occupying countries because they might attack us is the same as telling the American people what to eat because they might get fat. Same scenario; different issue. If another country invaded and occupied us, don‘t you think you’d fight back. Now relate that to the countries we currently occupy and ask yourself, “Why are we policing these countries?” It’s a total logic fail. Ron Paul has the right idea. We need to clean up our own house and get out of everyone else’s if we ever want to get back to original principles.
CatB
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:00amPaul supporters hear nothing else .. but the legalization of drugs … and they will excuse all the rest.
Report Post »jmiller_42
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:00amRon Paul DOES NOT want to follow the U.N. he wants us out of the U.N.
Watch this to find out the truth
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4a__tcfFug&feature=youtu.be
jmiller_42
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:02amGreat post Spyder, but too much common sense. People don’t want our government to tell us how to live, they just want the government to tell others how to live.
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:08amThe UN is pro Iran and Pro Islamist just look at their actions
Paul refuses to believe Akme nut job wants to kill us even though he says it daily it is even written it to their charter. What don’t you understand…?
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:11amHey Miami.. If you want war so much than go do it yourself. Stop ranting like some old waste ful maggot when you can useful to the military. Army open 24-7!
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:15amToo much commonsense?
Yes because your Libertarian shield can stop a nuclear blast. I’m all for the Constitution as I have sworn to protect it from all enemies foreign and domestic, The Constitution cannot stop a terrorist attack and defending our selves does not infringe on anyone’s liberty other than those who would do us harm…
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:17amMiami
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:46pm
That’s about the size of it Paul has no clue with Foreign Policy !
=======================================
Neither does Newt!:
“When Gingrich met Yasser Arafat
Wed, Dec 14, 2011
GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich stirred up plenty of controversy last week when he called Palestinians an “invented people” in an interview from the campaign trail.
“I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places,’ Gingrich told the Jewish Channel last week.
All of which makes the above 1993 photo of Gingrich, then House Minority Whip, embracing the late Palestinian Liberation Organization chief Yasser Arafat, published by the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, perhaps noteworthy.”
Report Post »http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/gingrich-met-yasser-arafat-150943604.html
Miami
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:18amPoliticiansRCrooks
I proudly have and if the need arises again I will proudly do so.
Freedom & Liberty are not FREE!!!
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:20amHey Spyder,
Report Post »Your memory’s short and warped. Everywhere we’ve “occupied” the people, who had been oppressed by evil tyrants, have welcomed us with open arms. You’ve conflated the people with the state–the same mistake Ron Paul makes all the time when he insists we should take Al-Qaeda at their word about why they hate us, but then forget that Al-Qaeda speaks for only a tiny dangerous minority.
The foreign policy reality is that we DO leave most states well enough alone, and only intervene minimally with the approval of Congress (yes we DID approve hostilities in Iraq!) as per the Constitution, and that preemptive intervention into states that support terrorism is necessary for American interests in the immediate, and progress toward minimizing tyranny elsewhere.
Ask Germany. Ask France. Ask Japan. Ask South Korea. Ask Iraq. etc. etc. etc.
Plan B
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:25amPaul has a much clearer policy for our military then any of the other candidates:
A PRO-AMERICA FOREIGN POLICY
As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.
In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.
Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.
Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.
Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.
Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.
Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.
That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:
*
bolsen00
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:25amSo sick of the last two lousy debates! The moderators insist on giving Gingrich and Paul, the two biggest nut jobs on the stage, most of the time! Newt spews memorized facts, obsessed with gov’t facts. Gingricg goes on tangents, tries to baffle the voters with lots of fst talking and b.s.! All night they catered to them. Romney was hardly given any time to talk and all Chris Wallace asked him were gotcha questions about 14 years ago! We’ve heard the answers a hundred times! Get on with it! They need tyo stop inviting those who don’t have 15% or higher in the polls! Stop waiting our precious time!
Miami
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:25amKidCharlemagne
Have you not read my post…?
“Newt is done”
RepubliCorp
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:28amSPYDER
Report Post »(Ron Paul’s view on Foreign Policy is spot on. He says that we cannot be the world police, therefore, there only need to be very limited foreign policy.
We need to clean up our own house and get out of everyone else’s if we ever want to get back to original principles.)
Spot on? BS, Get a history book! Look up “The Colonial War against Islam”:
“In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
“‘…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.’” Paul and his supporters are clueless
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=758
PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:34amI think your a little bunch of pansys. Face it, the media has filled this war propaganda in your heads & now your all a bunch of scaredy cats. And I get where your coming from Miami, but we do not have money right now to be policing everything. Reality check!
Report Post »Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:43am@RepubliCorp
Report Post »So you’re saying instead that we need to go there and do it to them first? Great logic. We have no business there until war is declared, and yet no one in congress or the White House will use those words and declare actual war. So if we are not at war, then what are we doing? Media coined the Phrase, “War on Terror,” without there ever being a formal declaration of war. We are playing destabilization police in other countries and then wondering why they hate us. Why aren’t we invading Russia or China? They hate us too and have made it obvious that they would like to end us as well. Only difference I see is that they have the force to keep us out and these middle eastern countries do not. Think about it.
jmiller_42
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:44amI disagree with Paul on one thing.
They hate us because we are not a muslim nation, most conservatives agree with that.
BUT…
I TOTALLY AGREE with the fact that, almost exclusively, they want to attack us because WE HAVE BEEN OCCUPYING THEIR LANDS!!! I bet they hate the Swiss too, but when was the last time you heard of suicide bombers attacking that much closer and weaker country? It is because the Swiss mind their own business, just like we need to. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! We are killing REAL PEOPLE. You will not change their hearts by taking over their lands. It is only by the fruit of the Spirit that we have any hope. The fruits I’m talking about are love joy peace patience gentleness kindness self control and the like. The use of violence will just perpetuate the problem
Remember when we were invading Iraq and all these warmongers were telling us, “oh, but we are going to set them free and then they can become christian like us and we can send missionaries over there” What say you now that the Christian population is largely run out of Iraq and those their now live in fear due to the hate towards Christians due to them being linked to the killing of their people? How sad it is.
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:53amPoliticiansRCrooks
What media wants war?
The MSM commonly bashes the military and projection of force.
The problem with Iran are the facts and their intent to use terror as a method to promote chaos & destruction. It’s in their charter to destroy the little and big “Satan” (Israel & the US)
Hamas and Hezbollah are both arms’ of Iran
Report Post »Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:58am@Miami
And where do you get those facts? From the media? So the media bashes the military while also supplying the means, like the info on Iran that you mentioned, for them to go in and do more damage. Looks like a double-edged sword to me. I can certainly see how there would be money to be made by playing both sides of he aisle. Just ask Newt, Romney or even Obummer.
“If you are not part of the Solution, then there’s money to be made in prolonging the problem”
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:09amjmiller_42
This is not the chicken or the egg.
They’ve attacked on 9/!! right? where were we occupying? You really need a history lesson. Islamist mission is to expand, CONVERT OR DIE.
Please do some research as to the history of the middle east Jerusalem was founded 3000 years ago, Judea was founded 3000 years ago Islam was founded 1600 years ago. Christ was Jewish born in Bethlehem 2011 + years ago yet now they claim all that land to the sea is their’s. It’s kind of like that Obama history, you know the rewriting of it. Like the Taliban destroying the carved statues in Af rock and sand…
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:10amSPYDER No.I am saying your spew isn’t rooted in history….. And it shows either ignorance or lies
Report Post »Perhaps Paul forgets America’s 1801-05 war with the Islamic terrorists known as the Barbary Pirates?Apparently Paul chooses to remember only the parts of American history which benefit his arguments.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=758
Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:25amHistory is written by the victor. I am talking about the now. Times do change over a few centuries, so you can go back as far as you want, but that has no real bearing on the reality of today. And the reality is that we keep going to war without declaring war and we keep invading countries under the guise of terrorism. Terrorism can exists anywhere and based on that assessment, we all need to go to prison because that means we are all a danger to each other and ourselves because anyone has the potential to do bad things; even good people.
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:31amSpyder
So you believe the media feeds the military?!?
The same media that has that does not cover the war other than what is convenient to their agenda. The fact that Iran has been building the IEDs for both the Iraqi theater and the Afghan theater. Supporting the insurgents, terrorist gropes Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons and war supplies. They’ve helped back Muslim Brotherhood, fortified ties with Turkey after Gaza flotilla that clashed with Israel while trying to run the blockade.
Facts you want facts, how much time do you have…?
Report Post »Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:35am@ Miami
Report Post »Throw down… You have proof that you have actually seen and experienced with your own eyes? You can site sources other than anything the Media has told you? I would welcome any of that with open arms and would listen intently. Got any of that?
marion
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:36amDCART888, I wouldn’t trust this any farther than I can throw it from where I sit right now. This is part of that left wing media game to get us to think he has a better chance.
Ron Paul doesn’t understand the mentality of the Muslims, he is trying to look and treat it the same way as the cold war. We started the Gulf War in Iraq and Afghanistan the same way and it was a failure, they have a different mentality and everyone knows what the first four years was like in those wars, different values system, different tactics, different motivators. What worked during the cold war does not work with the Muslims, General Petraeus taught us that. Romney is a good guy but I just don’t care for him for some reason. Gingrich may have a colorful past but he has the big and necessary ideas to actually fix things, and the fact that he has actually done it in the past, the fact he speaks from the heart, and the fact he gets the best applause in each and every debate done, I kind of take that to mean there are more than just me that agrees with what he is saying.
All in all, they are all better than what we have now, but don’t go taking any internet betting garbage to make your decision, it is rigged tighter than a three card monte table.
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:41amHappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:20am
Everywhere we’ve “occupied” the people, who had been oppressed by evil tyrants, have welcomed us with open arms.
=====================================================
False:
“The battle was the most famous action of the Great Sioux War of 1876 (also known as the Black Hills War). It was an overwhelming victory for the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho, led by several major war leaders, including Crazy Horse and Gall, inspired by the visions of Sitting Bull (Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake). The U.S. Seventh Cavalry, including the Custer Battalion, a force of 700 men led by George Armstrong Custer, suffered a severe defeat. Five of the Seventh’s companies were annihilated; Custer was killed, as were two of his brothers, a nephew, and a brother-in-law. Total U.S. deaths were 268, including scouts, and 55 were wounded.”
Report Post »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn
TXPilot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:58amGingrich is a Pro-servative…..that a Progressive who talks like a Conservative. He will still lead you to tyranny,take away your rights and tax you to ruin…..he just makes you think it was your idea to go there. In fact, he is such a smooth talker, I kinda expect Barry White to be playing in the background, every time he speaks.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:06am@KidCharlemagne,
Report Post »As your name suggests, you have a little growing up to do before you play with the big boys, but I’ll humor you this once.
You just cited a battle on US soil as an example of foreign occupation.
Please demonstrate understanding of the claim before you attempt to refute it.
And for the record: Native Americans have varied opinions on the US as a nation, but those who leave the reservation integrate quite well into American culture and society. Voting with their feet, they generally applaud the benefits of freedom and a representative republic over the tyrannical chiefs that organized them for rare wins (as with Little Bighorn), but mostly defeats and mostly needless and self-serving sacrifice of lives.
Double loss for you, on this argument I’m afraid.
Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:07am@TXPilot
Report Post »You go that right. A vote for Newt is another vote for the special interests behind the scenes who also control Obummer.
Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:12am@HappyStretchedThin
Report Post »In other words, the English Settlers, who fought a revolution against the British and eventually became the Americans we are today, were the foreign occupiers at the time of the land originally occupied by the Indians. It was a turn of events and another form of revisionist history, because it shows that we are against it, unless it is we who are doing it to others.
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:20amWhen a terrorist says what he’s intends to do, only a fool wouldn’t take that seriously until proven otherwise, right?
Report Post »Now how about trusting on its face what a terrorist says the motivations behind his intentions are?
If you trust that, you’re a rube.
That’s Ron Paul in a nutshell. Won’t believe Ahmedinijad wants to build a nuke and attack Israel, will believe bin Laden when he says he’s only attacking cuz we were in Saudi Arabia first (oh yeah, and we’re imperialist oppressors, yada yada).
I say Newt for Press Secretary, Bolton for State and Paul for Treasury–but don’t let that last guy anywhere NEAR the DoD.
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:34am@ Spyder,
Report Post »Thank you for proving my point that you Paulistinians should be nowhere near foreign policy.
By your logic (which is muddled to say the least–don’t want to engage history of the Barbary Wars, DO want to engage history about Little Bighorn–and even then you get your own story wrong–but I’ll play for now), we’d still be 13 united colonies.
The picture of what Amerindians owned before the expansion west is more complicated than your explanation of “revisionist” history (mostly gleaned from spaghetti westerns, I’d wager) allows for. There was no “occupation” in any sense of the word. Where peaceful coexistence was possible, American settlers sought it first. When the fight was brought, they ended it through superior technology, forced peace, and then lived peacefully. There was no desire to enslave, control, dictate mode of living, form of government. In other words, no occupation, just settlement, which is different entirely.
Funny how most people who cry “revisionism!” are actually just projecting…
Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:35am@HappyStretchedThin
Report Post »And Israel is a sovereign nation with the arsenal and capability to take care of itself. So explain why we even need to be involved. If Israel feels threatened, they will attack, whether we want them to or not. They don’t answer to us and have proven that time and time again. So to use Israel as an example hold no water. We need to pull back our troops, regroup and secure our borders with our military; just as all other countries do for themselves.
TXPilot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:35amWhen they got onto the subject of abortion during the debate, I was sooooo hoping they would ask Newt when he thought conception occurs……Based on his personal history, I was betting he would say as soon as you get a bottle of wine in her and Journey starts playing on the stereo….
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:43amPAUL doesn’t live in the real world…just one he prefers…tough. WE need real world people. He had some good points, but nothing out of the ordinary about spending etc. but his refusal to believe that Iran wants to rid the world of ISRAEL and then US is just childish.
NEWT had a great debate. He is the ADULT in the room. I think it will come down to NEWT/ROMNEY and the others might as well save their campaign funds for another time. Bachmann was just catty and narrow.
Report Post »Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:44am@HappyStretchedThin
Report Post »I made no further detail than clearly stating that we took the lands that were originally occupied by the Indians. I have not revised anything, because it happened. Stop projecting your own inequities on me. The fact that you have to immediately resort to insults, like the spaghetti western crap, shows you haven’t a strong leg to stand on. You’re the one that keeps trying to point out all these details and I am merely stating a known fact. They were here, we took the land after countless wars and we gave them small plots of land in exchange for obedience. Pretty simple. Or at least for most people.
Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:50am@TXPilot
Report Post »ROFL!! That was a good one. What‘s even funnier is that I wouldn’t be surprised.
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:56amAll other countries in your wonderfully theoretical Libertarian fantasy world do that.
Report Post »For the rest of us who understand that the world’s military powers get USED, OUTSIDE of their borders, Paul makes no sense, and neither do you.
If the world’s states (most of which are NOT responsible to their people, keep in mind) didn’t have disputes which endangered American interests, we could take steps like you suggest. And I’ll grant you Libya was a huge mistake.
You know, the more I think about it, the less the idea that the US is somehow the “world’s police force” makes no sense. We don’t attempt to hold other countries to our standard at all. We’re more like our own security escort. We make common cause where there’s mutual profit (financially, diplomatically, etc.), but we only REALLY try to protect our own, and leave the protection of other citizens to their own states.
It’s sad, though, when Libertarians mistake their trite shortcuts for actual rigorous argument, because the root concept of non-intervention IS a good conservative principle, until trumped by national security needs in modernity, under globalism, and in general reality.
TXPilot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:57am@SPYDER…..thanks for the compliment!….you are a true connoisseur of mediocre, late-night humor.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:01amIntrade percentages are a fools argument.
I wonder how many “not Romney” supporters are going to vote for Romney because some irrelevant wager’s scheme generates numbers out of thin air
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:05amNone of Ron Paul’s supporters CARE what you warmongering neocons think of his foreign policy. We’ve been at the mercy of Liberal and Neocon foreign policy for decades and look where it has gotten us…broke and everyone hates us.
We’re going to vote our conscience. And you can take that to the Federal Reserve Bank.
RON PAUL 2012 JUST TO ANGER NEOCONS/LIBERALS!!!!!
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:07am@Spyder,
Report Post »I correctly described the oversimplified misunderstanding of Amerindian “occupation” as a cliched idea of the kind you would find in a spaghetti western. If you want to feel personally offended, I can’t stop you, but it’s still accurate.
But you want me to play nicer, ok.
Let’s ask seriously then: Can you show understanding of how the concept of occupying a foreign land like imperialist militaries do is fundamentally DIFFERENT from the kind of settlement the Americans of the 1800s were attempting? Can you show understanding of how the Amerindian concept of “occupying” land was fundamentally DIFFERENT from the concept of owning property like Americans of the day understood it?
If you seriously can’t distinguish between these very different concepts, then we don’t have enough common ground to continue talking about the lunacy of Paulian foreign policy. If you CAN see the differences, then you will have to reconsider some of your own opinions. For my part, I honestly can’t UNSEE those differences, so I’m stuck with only one logical conclusion: Paul makes very little foreign policy sense.
Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:07am@HappyStretchedThin
“It’s sad, though, when Libertarians mistake their trite shortcuts for actual rigorous argument, because the root concept of non-intervention IS a good conservative principle, until trumped by national security needs in modernity, under GLOBALISM, and in general reality.”
————————————–
So then you are saying you’re a globalist? What are you doing on Glenn Beck’s website? Globalists are traitors to the sovereignty of the US. We protect our borders for a reason. Our interests, if they are in another sovereign nation, are the responsibility of that nation; not us. We can trade for it, but we should not fight wars so we can take it or get a better price for those goods on the world market.
Thanks for that tid-bit. No further discussion required.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:17am@ Spyder,
Report Post »p.s. I also shouldn’t let go what you said about Israel.
They have an arsenal, and can defend themselves, yes.
But if you think fear of Israel is what’s preventing ALL of its neighbors (NONE of which has a government responsible to its people, keep in mind) from dogpiling on Israel and reducing Israel to a shadow of itself if it even does survive, you misunderstand what’s at play in that entire Middle East region.
In some cases, we need to take fear where love isn’t forthcoming. Fear of the US is what’s keeping them in line. You’d say that has no bearing on the US, and in a theoretical world where countries DO respect their borders, you’d be right. But the value of Israel as an keystone ally keeping the world’s energy supplies if not polite at least honest is hard to underestimate. Our national security DOES depend on Israel staying democratic, independent and allied with us.
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:26am@ Spyder,
Report Post »Please read carefully. Globalism is a concept referring to the ease of transportation and communication in our modern world. Because of globalism national interests of every nation have become intermingled and inextricably entangled. We get bauxite from Ghana, ship it to Jamaica for processing, then to Malaysia for assembly, then back to the US for sale as a Macbook. All because it’s cheaper to do so than to make the Macbook in the US OR Ghana. That’s globalism. But the fact that I think globalism exists does not make me a globalIST. A globalIST is someone who promote the dissolution of national borders under the mistaken idea that a global govt could possibly guarantee individual rights.
I’m a conservative. I believe sovereign nations are the largest governmental unit competent to guarantee those rights, and borders should be protected and enforced to strengthen that sovereignty no matter how complicated the globalized world gets.
Thanks for the chance to clarify.
Oh, and by the way. You should definitely stop listening to Alex Jones. He’s obviously sapping your thinking and reading skills away.
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:32am@ Spyder,
Report Post »p.s. More to the heart of your last post: we actually DON‘T fight wars to take another sovereign nation’s stuff away from them. We didn’t in Iraq, or in Afghanistan. We DO trade for their stuff, and very fairly too (in fact actual monetary advantage goes to them most often). We DO claim the right to preemptively strike state sponsors of terror, though (which both states were). But even then, we leave them and their purple fingers alone as soon as the people have self-determined their own form of government, and their government asks us to leave.
Get some perspective before you swallow the liberal propaganda on the reason for America’s military interventions whole, there, bro. Otherwise we might suspect you were a troll on a Glenn Beck site, no?
Churchill
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 4:24amCATB what are you talking about. Ron Paul wants to get out of the UN. He’s the only one with a sensible foreign policy. The rest are all progressives that believe in spreading democracy, nation building, foreign aid etc. That’s NOT Conservatism!!!
Report Post »louise
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:18amCatb you said,
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:55pm
Paul wants to believe and follow the U.N. now that is scary!
______________________________________________________
Here is the truth about Ron Paul stand on the United Nations.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html
Report Post »heath974
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:47amThose that claim Ron Paul has no clue on foreign policy are doing nothing more than saying the founders had it wrong. If you actually knew what the founders said, Paul is following their suggestions and warning. Just go read George Washingtons farewell address. When it comes to foreign policy Ron Paul is the only keeping it within the limits of Constitution and the direction of the founders. I would love to debate some of you NEO-CONS on what the founders said. Like it or not, Paul is the only one representing that position.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:23amGingrich is a joke. He rails about bringing the Judicial back under some semblance of constitutional control, and that is needly badly, but he is a NUTCASE who would drastically expand the powers of the Executive Branch, which has become blatantly out of control asserting that it can assassinate American Citizens.
Newt Gingrich is the man who wants to execute me for smoking marijuana! I don’t want him in control of Hunter-Killer drones and treaded autonomous mechs from Terminator!
I’ll NEVER vote for that demon.
Ron Paul 2012.
I know the Republic is falling, but don’t make me actually go John Connor on these vermin.
Report Post »AhLeahIris
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:26amRon Paul? Do you really think he’s a “conservative?” He’s not: http://wp.me/p1HGwx-1IT
Report Post »dcart888
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:28amRomney at 62% on InTrade this A.M. Sweet
Report Post »http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=652757
lukerw
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:44amNewt (Mr Global Warming), Romney (Mr ObamaCare), Perry (Mr Illegal Alien), Huntsman (Mr China)… are All PROGRESSIVES; Choose your POISON!
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:02am@ Heath
Report Post »No sir. The founders had the Constitution right, and left foreign policy to the federal government to decide. That’s what we conservatives want (call me a neo-con if you want–sticks and stones). But what YOU want is to apply their 1780-90 era advice on foreign policy AS IF IT WERE a constitutional principle. That’s stupid. We’re no longer a fledgling country outweighed by the military might of European powers with non-elected govts. Washington‘s farewell and Jefferson’s inaugural DO talk about the general principle of non-intervention, but ALSO carefully mention there are limitations on the general principles (Jefferson’s famous “entangling alliances with none” comment is specifically introduced with that caveat, and Washington’s farewell praises treaties with Britain and Spain). In fact, we ARE a non-interventionist nation, and our treaties and alliances ARE almost 100% of a temporary nature. We DO seek commerce with all, and we DO seek to influence the internal politics of others VERY little, except where it would be a threat to our national interests not to do so (as in the case of a state sponsor of terror). Washington’s address is fascinating. He‘s not worried we’ll intervene too much, he‘s worried we won’t remain independent if we allow OTHERS to intervene too much. Read it close. I‘ll debate you any time as long as you don’t mind me calling you a Paulistinian when you call me a neo-con.
V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:29amGingrich is a liar. If you pay attention to his words, he basically tells you that he will campaign on one platform, and then change his position once “conditions change”.
That’s progressive doublespeak for “I’m going to tell you what I need to get elected, then I’m going to do what I want to do.”
Just like Barack Obama, he used the EXACT same words…“when conditions change”.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:33amNeocons are warmongers, period.
They support social programs of their own just like the Liberals (neocons ARE liberals), and they support war at any cost.
They’re Sociopathic Manifest Destiny Zombies who will destroy our entire country by playing Risk with our military.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:51amLMAO!
The Real Politik Wilsonian is a *fantastic* Conservative!
I mean, *all* Conservatives should tout how much they love the first big Progressive Democrat in history. It gives them such great cred!
I think I’m gonna vomit.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:56amHappyStretchedThin
You’re a globalist who attacks Alex Jones but cannot dispute or debunk ANYTHING Alex Jones asserts, because he is backed by credible sources, and all of his reports are researchable and able to be corroborated.
His credibility makes you look like an idiot trashing him on THE BLAZE…seriously, get over yourself.
Your opinionated drivel about Dr. Paul isn’t convincing at all. No matter what the corporate-owned media portrays to us, it belies the truth, the truth is that most of those people HATE US for occupying and blowing their countries to smithereens, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Doing more of the same isn’t going to win us any favor. You’re insane. You’ve conflated what the media presents as what those people really think about us, and it isn’t at all true. There was no roses in the streets meeting our troops like Rumsfeld (that war criminal) said there would be. Nobody is stupid enough to buy that propaganda.
We’re engaged in no less than 7 different wars worldwide… the countries not under attack by us are so small no one knows they exist. We don’t leave anyone alone, we try to police the entire world, and now we’re even trying to foment dissent inside of Russia! John Hunstman already got caught red handed trying to foment dissent in a Jasmine Revolution in China, and he mentioned China like 100x during the debate, PUTEY POOT ISN’T PLAYING AROUND!! Putin is 1000x the man Obama is!
Report Post »jmiller_42
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:00amMiami,
So you recognize Christ was a Jew.
What was Christs foreign policy. Attack before they can attack you???
Report Post »WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:40pmnewt is the ultimate insider. he is a globalist.
Report Post »T ParT
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:44pmYou think he could be part of the trilateral commission? I’m with Newt, the rest are stupid acting kinda like.
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:48pmYou’r right I have lost any belief Newt could lead Romnie has had a strong showing
Report Post »cgnick
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:12amNewt is a name dropper that throws everything against the wall looking to see what sticks.
Report Post »Plan B
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:33amNewt is just another progressive. When Obama told us he wanted to fundamentally change America no one heard him. Newt stood there tonight saying he believes in big government and you simply do not hear him. He thinks we should help as many americans as possible buy homes. GSE are the programs that are killing us and caused the housing bubble yet Newt just got done saying how important he feels they are. I can not believe Blaze Readers are just not paying attention to what he is saying.
Report Post »NancyBee
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:48amI was for Newt…. til I did some research…………..You are right…..he is a globalist and big government….plus look at the way he responds when he is being debated ….he knows how to twist things around to make hisself look so good………He’s back and forth and back and forth…..I can’t believe anything he says………….We need someone we can trust………..that doesn’t lie……..that really does love America………that’s not in it for their own selfish greed………….I’m looking closer at R.Perry….R. Santorium, M. Bachman……I can‘t live with Paul’s foriegn policies…….Help!
Report Post »FEISTY
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:08amYes, out of control spending and the radicalization of our courts, the dismissing of our core values and the corruption of power have nothing to do with the problems we’re facing. If you want to make changes you have better be able to bring people together. I just read a lot of hardline windbags on here. If we elected the most conservative of the conservatives and everything else stayed the same, not much would change.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:38pmROMNEY2012
MAD_HATTER_
READRIGHTHERE
TOP_DOWN
These posters appear to be Romney staffers playing politics.
Don’t bother with what they post; its just political sophistry.
These may even be the same person trying to appear to be a consensus.
Would you vote for a candidate who uses these tactics?
Report Post »ROMNEY2012
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:54pmI am a private citizen who has done quite a bit of research about each of these candidates.
I like Bachman and Santorum but neither can win.
Gingrich is a babbling fool who has been on both sides of 100 issues. Not to mention he is a 2X adulterer. I cannot in good conscious elect an admitted adulterer to the Presidency.
I choose to support Romney because I want a better future for my children and I want a President with Integrity, Character, and PROVEN LEADERSHIP.
Report Post »JBT48
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:37pmThere is not ONE PERSON on that stage that I think “This is the one we absolutely need.”
One would have thought that the Republicans would have cultivated that perfect candidate by now after 2008.
With that said, Gingrich & Romney are the only two that have a viable chance if nominated. While Gingrich has some issues, if Romney goes head to head with Obama, we all lose.
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:48pmAgreed. Now it’s about picking who can beat Obama. I’ve already narrowed it to 1, Newt.
Report Post »etoddt
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:51pmI don’t follow how everyone loses if Romney is the nominee… Care to elaborate?
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:05am@EDOTT Romney Inevitably has no chance of beating Obama. So If he Wins the Primary, Obama wins the Presidency; Simple as that.
P.S. Since Romney has no chance of winning this automatically disqualifies those below him also: bachman, Perry, Huntsman, Santorum, Paul.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:10amYea I’ll elaborate, Romney could not beat McCain or Huckabee just 3 years ago in the 08 debate. He says he ideas and policies have not changed in much longer that. Now with that in mind and seeing how McCain got clobbered by Obama, what else so you need to know. If you go the horse races to you ever check out all the horses that are in the race and see who has beat who and when? Dog gone you people are letting the media lead you into 4 more years of Obama going with Romney!
Report Post »etoddt
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:12amExcept, the latest polls show Gingrich polling lower than Romney against Obama… so include him in there as well. Gingrich will bubble and pop – he’s not going to get the conservative nomination.
Report Post »dcart888
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:45amWrong Rasmussen the best pollster as he doesn’t over sample liberals sates exact opposite Newt loses to Obama Romney beats Obama
Report Post »Churchill
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 4:36amI just don’t get people like you. What makes you think Gingrich has a better chance of beating Obama than Paul or Romney? Gingrich has got more skeletons hidden away than your average graveyard. The dems will destroy him with ease!!! Paul is the most popular amongst independents and will get votes from anti-war dems. Romney will also do better amongst independents than gingrich. Gingrich is a big government progressive, he’s the least conservative and also has the most baggage. There’s no way in a million years he could beat Obama.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 6:22amPaul is as corrupt as the come and if he even comes close to winning this is what will come out
Report Post »http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
RepubliCorp
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 6:25amoops: they come
Report Post »FEISTY
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:04amGood observation, JBT. The paranoid Beck conspiracy theorists are hanging every tag they can on Newt, from a progressive to a globalist, to a socialist. None of it is true, and if any of them heard him speak last night he did defend his record and lay out some big plans to straighten out the values of this country — starting with the courts. Subpoenaing radical left judges is not a progressive idea. He’s taking all of the hits and not going on the attack, just like, um, REAGAN, another progressive icon that Newt emulates. Romney would not go on the offense if debating Obama, Newt stood on the stage last night and said when he was through debating Obama he “wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.” I like his fire and boldness. Not a smooth-talking former CEO or that wild libertarian Paul, who is yet to be vetted by his party. He’s gotten a free ride while everyone piles on Newt.
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:33pmIn 2008 Obama sounded good to people and people listened to what he said instead of looking at what he had done, dont make the same mistake with Newt.
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:39pmNewt has a record, Obama Didn’t. Newt Balanced the Budget. Newt fought Hilary care.
Your lies are unfounded, just like Bachmans tonight.
Bachman’s candidacy is officially over!! GOOD BYE!!!
Report Post »futureatstake
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:18amNewt fought Hillary Care at the same time he touted the individual mandate. After nearly 30 years he suddenly changed his mind when he decided to seek the Republican nomination.
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:34pmWhat Obama has done:
- Saved us our economy ffrom totally going off the cliff.
- Affordable Care Act, which has given health insurance to millions who could not get it before, reduced the cost of drugs for seniors, and will lower premium costs for all when the mandate kicks in in 2014.
- renegotiated START treaty neglected by Bush for 8 years.
- Financial reform to help prevent another 2008 economic debacle.
- Troops our of Iraq with honor, and on the promised schedule.
- Got Osama Bin Laden
- Stimulus before 2010 which saved our economy.
-Saved the auto industry.
- Prmoted Green energy.
- Reforming No Child Left Behind.
_ JOBs bill for returning veterans.
– OH and the unemployment numbers are the lowest since 2008!
Report Post »(Lower than when Regan ran for his second term, Bush Sr. ran , and and when Newt was in congress.)
Scrubmaster
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:31pmGo Newt. He will win no matter what the GOP tells Glenn Beck whom to support. Guess what Beckites Glenn is not savior you think he is.
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:49pmElpzee is Newts 4th mistress.. lol!
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:55pmYour Intellect is just OVERWHELMING! What a Clown.
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:57pmLol
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:12amlol riiight…Newt is our GREAT LEADER! lol what clown you are.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:13amI hope that Newt falls down a flight of stairs. It would be better that that happen than for him to become the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. The ONLY person that I would trust to this position is Ron Paul. You can either walk the path of Liberty or throw your vote away. And think about this, if all you are doing is voting for the Republican that you think stands the best chance of winning and not the one who you think would do the best to preserve and protect this nation, your Liberty, and your childrens’ future; then you are voting in a popularity contest and lowering this most paramount election to the same level as a high school class president election.
If you think you can count on a vote for the republican on the ticket from me and every other Ron Paul supporter just because he made the ticket, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I’d rather swallow my own tongue than vote for someone who will continue to spend us into slavery and continue fruitless foreign wars.
Report Post »Churchill
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 6:02amGo Newt? May as well just keep Obama, there’ll be no difference!
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:40pmYes I’m pushing for Newt, and he will lose BIG to Obama.
Report Post »Repuilicans are for a very bumpy ride.
Spyder
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:30pmI have voted conservative all of my life, but if Newt gets the GOP nod, Obama gets my vote. Better to keep the devil you know than give the reigns to the devil you don’t.
Unless, of course, Ron Paul runs as an independent. Then that’s a whole new ball game.
It just saddens me that I served honorably in the US Military only to find out that I served a corrupt system and helped further this corrupt government’s totalitarian agenda along. Never again…
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:34pmIf you ACTUALLY PLEDGED AN OATH TO YOUR CONSTITUTION you wouldn’t vote for Obama. What are you thinking?
Report Post »TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:37pmyour a lib. seriously. you have the occupy mask on in your pic. u think were stupid ur sumthin?
Report Post »T ParT
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:42pmStop that!
Report Post »Spyder
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:43pm@Elpzee
What constitution? Ever hear of NDAA 2012? I have no oath to honor anymore. The Constitution died 220 years to the day that the bill of rights was originally ratified. You really should read more.
@Teapartyanimal
Report Post »Because of a picture? Are you that dense? Voted Reagan, Voted Bush Sr., Voted Bob Dole, Voted George Bush Jr., Did not even vote in the last election because McCain was not a choice. Yeah, I’m a lib alright. And you sir, are an idiot.
stage9
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:46pmThen you’re not a Conservative. If you could HONESTLY vote for Obama then you were never conservative to begin with.
ANYONE BUT OBAMA!
Newt….and those ethics violations
Newt Issues:
Ethics
1) claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes:
While it is true that Newt was sanctioned by the House and fined $300,000 supposedly for lying to the House Panel, the Panel never agreed on whether or not tax law had been violated and left it up to the IRS to determine this. What did they determine? That NO TAX LAWS had been violated.
2) The other ethics violations:
All of them were dropped. David Bonior brought 75 of those ethics charges against Newt. U.S. District Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer in 1996 threw out a Federal Elections Commission lawsuit contending that GOPAC broke election laws by assisting federal candidates and not making its donor lists and spending reports public.
3) Newt Gingrich’s Daughter Debunkts Myth of Ex-Wife Being Serviced With Divorce Papers on Her Deathbed
http://www.jimhuntshow.com/newt-gingrichs-daughter-debunkts-myth-of-ex-wife-being-serviced-with-divorce-papers-on-her-deathbed/
4) Newt Gingrich’s role in Freddie and Fannie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ11NCWX2MY
Newt Answers In-depth Questions Concerning Freddie Mac
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZEeB4T_RWs
drhunt
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:50pmYou took an oath. Honor it…even if the idiots in Washington don’t. It’s your sworn duty.
Report Post »TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:51pmspyder, no because you actually would vote for obama. the mask is icing on the cake. duh. seriously, u think we stupid?
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:55pmLying poser
Report Post »Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:09am@TeapartyAnimal
The mask is a representation of someone who went against the grain and dies in a cause that he believed in. It was not the act that he and his cohorts tried to accomplish and of course failed to do, but the fact that he stopped being a sheep and took action.
I also noticed you said WE instead of I. Do you speak for all or can you not speak for yourself? But in answer to your question reagarding you… YES.
My credentials topple your venom. You say I’m a Lib when all evidence points to the contrary. I served in the 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment out of Fort Bragg. Did you ever serve? If so, Whooah! And if not, you have no place to criticize. I at least had the will to put my life on the line for this country at one point. Paid all my taxes throughout my life and did my part. Now you are going to just turn on a dime against that because of a picture and a clear thinking mind who understands that there are certain people who will be the same as Obummer in the White House. You disgust me. It’s unthinking sheep like you who have really destroyed the fabric of this country.
If I have my choice, as I stated clearly in my original post, it would be Ron Paul if he goes 3rd Party. Yeah, that really sounds like a Lib. Moron.
Report Post »TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:14amspyder, US Army Panama. but no biggie, just cus you served doesnt mean you cannot be a diehard lib. if you vote obama, then you vote for marxism. many vote marxism not knowing or ignoring that fact, others vote completely aware.
and just because one says who they are online does not the truth make.
Report Post »Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:24am@Teapartyanimal
Report Post »<> I am a RON PAUL supporter!!! Are you a complete idiot? I stated it several times. I am a Libertarian. I want Ron Paul, but if he does not go 3rd party and Newt gets the nod, Obummer gets my vote because it won’t matter anyway. Get it. Probably not, but whatever. You are obviously only out to sling insults and call people Libs because that‘s all you’ve been programmed to do. What a waste of a mind. I seriously weep for our future.
futureatstake
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:25amI will be equally disappointed, even depressed, if Newt is nominated. But, I could NEVER cast my vote for Obama. I will vote 3rd party whether it be Dr. Paul or another. If Obama ends up winning by one vote then that will be the slap in the face that this country needs to WAKE UP!
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:38amI just find it funny how the moderators ask such dumb questions. It’s called a debate, let them debate one another on issues they differ from. Like, federal reserve, the rule of law, drone killing, TSA, EPA. I can go on for hours. Its a manipulated system, trying to play the stupid people that watch TV.
Report Post »Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:50am@PoliticiansRCrooks
Report Post »Agreed. The debates are for the sheep. The free thinkers actually go to numerous places to read up on their politicians, the positions they hold and take into account their actual voting records rather than their empty promises on stage.
rotcarpenter
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:05amYou do understand that Guy Fawkes, the man the mask from V for Vendetta was based upon, was a terrorist? A failed terrorist. Not some man that “went against the grain.”
You might as well have a Osama bin Laden as your avater if you’re so proud. People see a movie 6 years ago and they think they are a freedom fighter or some nonsense.
Report Post »Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:11amSo if I changed my photo, it would make my opinion more credible? The media has once again brainwashed the sheep to respond negatively to a visual image, like this mask or anything else that goes against the establishment. Get over it. You are being used as a tool and you don’t even know it. How sad that people can’t get past the visual image and actually see the reality around them. “They Live”
Report Post »JediPatriot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:53am@ Spyder – You’d be amazed at how silly people get with visuals. They believe that I am unpatriotic because I have the United States flag upside down. What they fail to understand is what the meaning behind it is.
Report Post »This site has “progressively” become worse. Since before I created an account here, I watched the people turn away from looking into things on their own, to believing what the writers of the articles are saying without proof. It’s getting really bad here. Really.
1/5 inf (now 4th brigade), Ft Lewis, WA. Disabled vet.
Peace, brother.
Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:24am@JediPatriot
Report Post »Thank you, Brother. Whooah! I know exactly what you mean and I have noticed it too. Keep spreading the word and stirring the pot. The message is resonating that we are indeed in trouble. I only pray we have enough steam to carry us through the storm.
NancyBee
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:58amSpyder…..what’s wrong with you!!! Another 4 years of obama….we will be done!!! Get it?
Report Post »Spyder
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:30am@NancyBee
Report Post »I know that, but if you read all my posts in this thread, you’ll understand, as I stated, that if certain people get the nod, all is still lost because they are the same breed of politician. The only difference is the R and D in front of the name. My original comment was trying to make that point and all I have been getting is a bunch of my so-called brethren beating me up, calling me a liberal and basically showing that they are all zombies listening to what these fool politicians are saying rather than actually holding them accountable to their voting records and crooked dealings.
Miami
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:26pmNewt is done
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:27pmI second that.
Report Post »TURTLELIPS
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:30pmI third that….
Report Post »T ParT
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:32pmBachmann done
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:35pmBachman Done. Newt= Our Only chance
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:50pm@ Miami
Newt is done
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not by a long shot. Now, Ron Paul on the other hand……lost his cool big-time. Santorum nailed him on it exactly.
Ron Paul keeps impaling himself with his policy on Islamic intent.
Report Post »TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:53pmnewt is done….with these debates….onto winning the nomination.
this whole establishment is about splitting vote for romney. not goin there.
Report Post »etoddt
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:56pmI’m sorry, Newt is not going to be more viable against Obama than Romney or Paul… so you’ve got about 3 chances to beat Obama.
Unless, but “only chance” you’re talking about getting a conservative elected to office? In which case, picking Gingrich would be a loss since he’s not a conservative.
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:59pmTSUNAMI-22
Paul did not lose his cool, he lost his mind to equate the Russians to Islamist Iran goes beyond insane
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:04amElPzee / TSUNAMI-22
Don’t get me wrong, if Newt were to win the nomination he’s got my vote but right now Romny has the pole like never before
Report Post »TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:06amand romney and paul are….yeah, right! the only real pure conservative on that floor to me is santorum. santorum cannot win the general. So it always comes down to the guy or gal who can be the most reaganesk and win. well, newt is open to ideas. sometimes he strays off to progressive land based on good parts of ideas, but seriously, any president has to deal with congress. well, I want to win the senate and any of these people will do fine if that happens, but I just do not want paul cus of foreign policy and his personality and romney is the establishment choice.
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:21amMiami
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:59pm
TSUNAMI-22
Paul did not lose his cool, he lost his mind to equate the Russians to Islamist Iran goes beyond insane
======================================================
Then how come they never attack Switzerland…..Japan……Sweden…..etc., etc.??
Report Post »etoddt
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:22amActually, I wasn’t saying anything about Romney and Paul being conservative. I just said they also match up as well or better against Obama. So his comment that only Gingrich could beat Obama was false.
That said, Paul gets crazy, and we aren’t ready for that. But Romney is actually much more conservative than people give him credit for. Pundits like to mash 20 years of leadership into two paragraphs of text, which makes anyone’s record look like garbage. Romney has said lots of not so conservative things, but when it came down to policy, Romney sided with conservatives on gun rights, gay marriage, taxation, and state’s rights. If anything Romney has been a closet conservative trying to appear to be moderate.
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:24amTeaPartyanimal
I agree with that and Bachmann is a great leader but she cannot win niether can Santorum. Lack of cash and backing.
Report Post »Shasta
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:27am@Miami, I totally agree. Moreover, Dr. Paul’s statement “I put the ear marks in the bills, but I always voted against them”, just shows how convoluted his mind is. I like Santorum, but like Dr. Paul, he has no chance of winning. And unlike Dr. Paul, Santorum will not run as a third party and give the election to Obummer.
Report Post »Churchill
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 5:27amNewt has been done ever since he entered the race. Anyone who even contemplated voting for that progressive needs their head examined.
Report Post »nanzofsc
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 6:47amNewt is far from done! The elite media (inc. FOX here) and pundits like Rove will not have their way this time! They forced McCain on us – this time we vote the candidate we want – just like in 11/10! NEWT/WEST 2012
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:21am@ KidCharlemagne
You mis-quoted me.
Report Post »2theADDLED
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:19pmChoosing a present or past Senator or Housemember is not a good idea.
Report Post »The truth is it does not matter who is elected
if the reform of Congress does not take place
we will still be in trouble.
Rick Perry I think hit it on the head. Make
Congress a part time Congress. This will alleviate
some of the corruption and cut down on the dreaming
of new laws and regulation to drum up and end career
politicions.
I do not care for Perry but I hear no other candidates
addressing this problem which is a root cause of the
corruption in Washington.
We must cut not only the snakes head off but also the body and bury it.
TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:23pmunfortunately, a pres cannot just write into law that lawmakers should now be part time. It has to pass congress. that is why term limits do not exist.
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:27pmHate to keep having to remind people who dont pay much attention, Perry is using talking points hes gotten from focus groups., the first few debates is where you found out who Perry really was. He was also hand picked by bilderburg to run for president, and boy did they pick wrong.
Report Post »Miami
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:28pmTeaPartyanimal
Thank God, that would make a dictator
Report Post »Shuffler
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:15pmGingrich supporters make me feel all dirty, almost as dirty as Ron Paul supporters!
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:18pmI am a conservative, and I do not see how anyone could support Newt at this point. But Paul at least you know where he stands, and that is by the constitution.
Report Post »Shuffler
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:19pmI need a bath…lol
Report Post »T ParT
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:20pmWhat are you wearing? Can I borrow a couple a bucks?
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:14pmLook I love Paul, and I thought Bachmann did great. I wish she hadnt went after Paul on his stance on Iran, but as a conservative it is the one area, which I and alot of Conservatives disagree with Paul. Still think Paul would be a great President, but just disagree with him on Iran.
That said, Bachmann and Paul are closer aligned then any other two on that stage., No need to attack either of em, they just disagree on foriegn policy.
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:20pmWe have to be honest with ourselfs. GINGRICH IS OUR ONLY CHANCE TO DETHRONE OBAMA.
IF YOU SUPPORT ANY OTHER CANDIDATE YOU ACTUALLY SUPPORT OBAMA THROUGH IGNORANCE!!!
Bachman and Paul, that’s hilarious.
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:29pmLOL, GINGRICH IS OUR ONLY CHANCE? AT WHAT SOCIALISM. You sound like you just started watching politics tonight.
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:42pm@CCHARLIE. If you think Bachman or paul can actually beat Obama your lying to yourself and you know it.
Therefore you actively support Obama By supporting someone who would inevitably loose to Obama!!!
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:50pmAnyone of those people will beat Obama.
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:59pm“Anyone of those people will beat Obama”. YOUR LYING TO YOURSELF AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!
Report Post »Thats what Ron Paul said tonight. And If he said it WE KNOW IT’S WRONG
PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:47amObama is a joke man. He said some of the things Paul is saying now & got the vote because of that. & being black too, but Obama lied and didn’t say anything he promised. That would be the same feeling to Paul supporters if Paul won & didn’t do anything he said he was going to do. Face it, the media treats this like its a game show/entertainment. They played us by putting in a black man in front of our eyes. Ron Paul would literally destroy Obama and the ones that don’t think that, are in denial.
Report Post »Tankertony
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:14pmGingrich was once again solid and articulate. There is no doubt he would make the little marxist man-child shrivel into a little ball in a debate.
Report Post »Mr. Paul is, as usual, a jekyll and hyde. He’s sound on domestic issues, but sounds like the worst sort of lib when it comes to foriegn issues. Slandering our country, our allies, and our intentions overseas. (I do agree we’re broke, and need to scale back in a major way. But the bs about ‘bombing all these countries, and declaring war on all muslims? what a nut)
As much as I admire Bachmann, she’s no Sarah Palin.
All the rest did fairly well, it was a good debate.
ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:20pmThats why people voted for Obama they liked how he sounded instead of looking at his past.
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:22pmAmericans Don’t like Weakness or Pushovers. That‘s Paul’s Big problem, Besides being a nut!
Report Post »TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:30pmim taking gingrish’s past way over obama. obama hung with domestic terrorists and chicago thug evil politicians who love lucifer. gingrich has a new relationship with christ or has reconciliated as he has stated. I dont see a lie there. I believe he is being sincere. call me naive. dont see obama = gingrich.
why do people try so hard to sound so damn simpleton?
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:47pmI agree if Newt the serial cheater, that confrotned his second wife in the hospitol when she had cancer to let her know he was cheating and filing for divorce…. If newt is the nominee, I agree I will vote for him over Obama, but until he is the nominee, I think every one of the people on that stage would be better then him.
Report Post »TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:57pmand charlie was there…in the hospital room…with the media….who is so trustworthy with their stories…like women who got sexaully harrassed 12 years ago.
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:05amThat account of came from his wife that wrote a book. I was not there, but she was.
Report Post »Tankertony
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:11amC’mon charlie, that whole Newt thing in the hospital with his cancer-striken wife is bogus. His own daughter wrote a piece explaining what happened. Don’t buy the establishment bs, do a little research.
Report Post »And animal is right, the vapid platitudes obummer spoke are miles apart from the articulations of the newt. Primarily because they’re grounded in common-sense conservatism, not progressive-marxism.
AxelPhantom
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:35amCharlie,
In the intrest of truth, it didn’t happen the way you have been led to believe. Here is Gingrich‘s daughter’s recounting of what happened. (the mother never had cancer, the tumor was benign, and since his x is still alive she was not on her death bed) He has not been the most moral of people and there are plenty of other things that can be said, but the whole “served his wife divorce papers on her death bed” is a made up lie.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:41amEveryone who puts Newt down on the divorce/cheating issue, over half of marriages end in divorce. So we have eliminated 50% of the population from ever running for public office? Ronald Reagan was divorced, I guess he should have been disqualified. Obama has never been divorced and as far as we know, is a very devoted husband. He should get a second term, Newt should be flogged. That is how I will pick my candidate, based on his marital status and how well he has stayed married. Good litmus test.
Report Post »Totally Domestic
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:11pmRon Paul did not disappoint, his TIN FOIL HAT WAS FIRMLY IN PLACE tonight.
Report Post »He really did outdo himself on Iran.
T ParT
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:18pmSilly Silly Silly Mr. Paul
Report Post »T ParT
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:11pmNewt is the most qualified. Ask yourself “ Who would Nancy Pelosi hate the most if they won the Presidency”? Your right, NEWT.
Report Post »I’m in for Newt.
singleparent
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:11pmron paul won the debate and is right on foreign policy. mind your own business. does anyone really remember america? we should pick a president based on what he’s going to do for america not what other country we should defend. if ireal ask’ed for are help he would say yes. vote for the constitution.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:13pmSpot on.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:58pmOh yes .. .let’s trust the U.N. with looking out for the best interest of the United States .. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING !!!
Crazy talk.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:58amRon Paul is the “See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil” poster child on foreign policy.
He’s about 30 years too late for the presidency.
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:05pmBachman’s the Big loser tonight. She went after Newt. Maybee she should have picked an easier target Like Perry.
Report Post »Shuffler
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:14pmPerry’s not winning!
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:14pmShe did good with Gingrich. She messed up going after Paul.
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:15pmI like Paul, but Bachmann was in no way a loser tonight. Next to Paul she is the next best thing. So dont be too hard on her.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:19pmGingrich is a Globalist, he is not a conservative. Newt is a big government progressive professional politician. If he is the Republican candidate, I must not be a Republican. I will not vote for him.
Report Post »Do not tell me that withholding my vote is a vote for Obama. Then, don’t make a Progressive the Republican Candidate.
T ParT
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:04pmI would vote for third party before Bachmann.
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:12pmYou can Add Romney, Paul, Huntsman, and Perry to that list for me. But I wouldn‘t vote 3rd party that’s pointless; I’m Not going to cast my sacred vote for a joke, If those candidates win the primary they don’t have a chance anyway.
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:16pmIf you watched the same debate as me and that is what you took away, I have to questioned wether you are a conservative.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:17pmI would vote for the retarded girls Perry caused by his vacinations, before I would vote for Bachman.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:35pm@ ElPzee
Report Post »Your point seems to be: vote for someone you don’t trust because a third party candidate is not Newt.
ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:45pm@Buck. I DO trust Newt. And I realize he is the ONLY candidate that can beat Obama. If any another candidate wins the primary I’m not voting, as they would be doomed to an inevitable defeat.
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:07amElPzee..
I DO trust Newt. And I realize he is the ONLY candidate that can beat Obama. If any another candidate wins the primary I’m not voting, as they would be doomed to an inevitable defeat.
Now I know. LOL. You really are being payed by Newt.
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:03pmGINGRICH DESTROYED ALL COMERS!!! I don’t really see Why the “True Conservative” question is always asked of Gingrich. Romney is FAR MORE PROGRESSIVE-LIGHT and Left wing than Gingrich. Huntsman and Santorum are both more liberal than Newt from what I’ve heard.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:08pmRomney is a French style Socialist. Gingrich is a pure Communist.
Report Post »dealer@678
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:18pmI dont trust Newt. Just because hes smart DOESNT mean he has any common sense. Just look at his wife
Report Post »Rightallalong
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:36pm10th – you are exactly correct!! Well said!
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:59pmNewt is not trying to represent us – he’s trying to outsmart us.
Report Post »TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:01amdealer, if u cant see common sense in newts answer’s i just have to wonder. if you dont trust him thats fine, but what is it that one commoner cannot understand?
Report Post »ROMNEY2012
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:40amWAKE UP!
Where are the lines of people offering Mitt Romney $1Million to drop out? THERE ARENT ANY!
There are only crybaby, righteous, conservatives trying to destroy Romney because he is not conservative? THIS IS SUCH A GOD FORSAKEN LIE! If you think Romney is a leftist then you really have a screw loose.
I have an idea!. Lets do a small chart of each candidates NEGATIVES to see which one is more “electable” or “conservative”?
Romney:
Crafted healthcare bill that had a mandate (supported at one point by Newt Gingrich & Heritage Foundation) so everyone thinks he is a socialist?
Flipped to a “PRO LIFE” stance from a “LIBERTARIAN” stance on Abortion.
Gingrich:
Lied about making only $300K as a historian when he really made $1.6 Million as a “consultant”
Supports Alvin Tofflers “Third Wave” (google it!)
He cosponsored the 1987 “Fairness Doctrine” vetoed by Reagan (google it!)
He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.
He’s a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.
He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)
He supported the GATT Treaty subjecting US Sovereignty to the WTO
His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”
And the best one for last:
HE BLAMES HIS INFIDELITY TO MULTIPLE WIVES ON HIS PASSION FOR THE COUNTRY!
Or are you simply a bigot who
Report Post »sambachico
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:46amIf we want our constitution left – even if it’s already in shreds, Newt cannot be elected. He will continue the destruction of our liberties and constitution just as Obama has. Newt is Obama 2.0
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:54amROMNEY2012
MAD_HATTER_
READRIGHTHERE
TOP_DOWN
ETODDT
These posters appear to be Romney staffers playing politics.
Don’t bother with what they post; its just political sophistry.
These may even be the same person trying to appear to be a consensus.
Watch out for these posters – do your own research.
Report Post »These guy are politics not facts.
The10thAmendment
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:03pmBecause Gingrich isn’t a conservative. He’s a communist.
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:13pmRon paul is a joke!!!!
Report Post »TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:27pmi just hope you understand that when people call gingrich a communist that you are not very persuasive.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:43pmSaying Ron Paul is a joke is saying the U.S. Constitution is a joke.
Report Post »xstubarx
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:51pmHow exactly is Ron Paul, a “joke”?
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:51pm@justangry. Using the constitution in the same sentence as Ron paul is blasphemous.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:06am@ ElPzee
Report Post »This poster appears to be a Newt operative. His posts appear to be political not factual. Be very careful of his posts. Do your own research.
ROMNEY2012
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:51amGingrich Wrote the foreword to Alvin Toffler’s book, “The Politics of the Third Wave, Creating a New Civilization” and advocated all members of Congress should read the book. The book calls for a “New Democracy” for the 21st century which is essentially based on following Plato’s Third Wave virtues:
1. Private property must be abolished, the wealthy hated and their wealth redistributed by state mandate.
Report Post »2. Children belong to, and are born to serve the state. The influence of parents is noxious and disruptive to the interest of the state, thus every child should be raised in government nurseries, without knowledge of who his or her parents are and without the parents having knowledge of who their offspring are. Every child becomes the common property of every parent in the city. Every parent has the collective duty to watch over them.
3. Private education, like traditional parenting, is at the very headwaters of falsehood and social strife. It must be eliminated and replaced with a closely monitored state school system.
4. Old values passed down in history, song, children’s books, all need to be rewritten to discredit and erase the old virtues and to exalt and enthrone the new.
5. Frivolous children’s games eliminated, new games developed that emphasize law and order.
6. Private industry is self serving. State should have absolute control of all industry for benefit of the whole.
ROMNEY2012
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:53amGingrich / Alvin Toffler’s book, “The Politics of the Third Wave, Creating a New Civilization
7. Class mobility is a revolutionary idea that threatens the stability of the state and the pre-eminence of true philosophy. A strict caste system and the elimination of career choice is the answer.
Report Post »8. Talent must never be allowed to wander or be wasted. Early on, children must be identified and channeled by the state for the benefit of the state into careers selected by the state.
9. Under the guise of equality, women ought to be exploited: first to foment ‘class war’ during the Third Wave (women’s roles are reversed to men’s); next, to be promptly put into their place as part of a ‘community of women’ to be shared collectively by male guardians.
10. Selective breeding is beneficial to the state.
11. Unwanted babies, inferior babies, deformed babies, and the adult handicapped are an unnecessary drag on the prosperity and well-being of society. They should be left to die. Unproductive adults, likewise, should be terminated.
12. Homosexuality is morally acceptable and homosexual rape of lower-class males and boys is a right of rulers, guardians and war heroes.
13. Only a few men are foreordained to understand life and higher good… the rest are equivalent of dumb sheep.
14. Absolute loyalty to the government is vital for the success and safety of society. A state sanctioned National Police network is an essential good.
15. Wealth is not essential to the saf
Buck Shane
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:58amROMNEY2012
MAD_HATTER_
READRIGHTHERE
TOP_DOWN
ETODDT
These posters appear to be Romney staffers playing politics.
Don’t bother with what they post; its just political sophistry.
These may even be the same person trying to appear to be a consensus.
Watch out for these posters – do your own research.
Report Post »These guy are politics not facts; not that I disagree with his list of Newt’s flaws.
slr4528
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:02amRomney 2012
I hope people take the time to research Toffler and Gingrich’s close relationship with Toffler. If people call themselves a conservative and still support Newt after researching the two pinheads then they must equate Marxism to Conservatism.
I am a conservative and I have a great deal of respect for Senator Tom Coburn and Rep Peter King and when they came out and ripped on Newt…that spoke volumes. In all seriousness why would these two congressman take the political risk of going against the former speaker of the House…..they weren’t selling any books so what would be their motivation?
For Newt Gingrich to rip on Paul Ryan earlier this year on “Meet The Press”, when Ryan released his budget in the spring was also very telling.
Gingrich is no conservative….the conservatives in Congress when Gingrich was speaker had to force his hand to take conservative positions.
Report Post »ROMNEY2012
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:34pmSLR4528
What is so incredibly mind-boggling to me is this.
In November of 2007, stupid people elected a Socialist because they were too busy watching American Idol to actually RESEARCH the background and facts about Obama.
In December of 2011, stupid people are supporting a “CONSERVATIVE FUTURIST” because they are too busy watching X Factor to actually RESEARCH the background and facts about Gingrich.
The list of BIG GOVERNMENT & PROGRESSIVE ideas that Gingrich has supported are a mile long but people are too busy hating Romney because that is what they are being ‘told’ to do.
This is a truly sad reality in America.
Don’t be a LEMMING!
This is the future of our country we are talking about.
Please do some ACTUAL RESEARCH:
http://whyromney.com/
Report Post »dealer@678
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:03pmNewts wife gives me the creeps and Ron Paul reminds me of Boris Karloff. Rick and Michelle won tonight hands down
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:07pmI think Michelle and Paul won. Rick is just to warmongering.
Report Post »dealer@678
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:20pm10th, I was speaking of Rick Santorum
Report Post »Tankertony
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:21pmBoris Karloff..lolololololololololololololololololololololololol…..I can’t stop laughing. Thanks.
Report Post »T ParT
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 10:55pmSantorum did great and so did Newt.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 10:57pmCon men always appear good.
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:16pmNewt is a super progressive.
Report Post »T ParT
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 10:53pmBachmann is Psycho. Holy Moly what a decietful exagerator. Glenn your head is up your arse.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 10:55pmBut he mad little girls retarded with vaccinations. Little girls, retarded with vaccinations.
That was when she lost me.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 10:59pmShe didn’t vote FOR the Dept. of Education. Gingrich did.
Report Post »ElPzee
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:07pmI agree with you 100%. Bachman Has no chance, She isn’t smart enough. Bachman IS THE OBAMA of the republican party; She always avoids specifics and speaks in broad generalities that sound ok, but have no substance, just like Obama’s “hope” and “change”
Report Post »ConservativeCharlie
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:19pmTell me why is Bachmann a pyscho, that is the same line the liberals use… with nothing to back it up. Are you a liberal? Bachmann, Paul, and Santorum are the only conservatives on that stage.
Report Post »TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:35pmbachman touted hermain cain’s 999 after saying first when he was in race that devil is in the details. well, 999 was pretty simple. the current tax code is the definition of devilish details.
I just cant get it on with michele anymore. when you are a herman cain supporter and see what the establishment did to your guy who had an absolute great idea and saw it get sawed off by the establishment, i find it hard to support people who watched and let it happen and then turn around and kiss his ars.
Report Post »Sniper342
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 10:45pmI too am questioning whether Gingrich is a true conservative. I’m going to need to do a bit more homework before I place my faith in him. I think anyone in the field is better than obummer but I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:01pmI’m as confused as FOX at this point. This website hates Gingrich that is for sure. And you’ll see nothing but negative views of Gingrich from the power players in the Republican party – not only because he’s unelectable, but because he made so many enemies among his own party. FOX seems undecided given that he was a paid contributer for so long. None of the biased mainstream media have come out favor on Romney. Face it, none of the other candidates have a chance. Just stop, get over it, they don’t.
As I see it the Republicans have two unelectable candidates, two candidates that most people can’t stand. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.
Report Post »ROMNEY2012
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:42pmHow about this for a little research:
Newt CO-SPONSORED ORIGINAL “FAIRNESS DOCTRINE” BILL IN 1987. Now he claims to oppose it.
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was one of the sponsors of the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, which would have turned the controversial so-called Fairness Doctrine into law.
Gingrich’s official campaign website, however, states the politician opposes the doctrine.
A section of Newt.org entitled “Answering the attacks,” states: “Newt does not support the Fairness Doctrine and he has been vocally critical of the left’s efforts to reinstate the doctrine over the past decade, including supporting Mike Pence’s bill that prohibited government censorship in radio in 2007.”
In 1987, Gingrich was singing a different tune.
At the time a national debate was raging about whether to abolish the Doctrine.
In June 1987, Gingrich was one of 71 co-sponsors of the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, which would have codified the Fairness Doctrine in federal law, as Pajamas Media noted last April, before Gingrich joined the 2012 presidential race.
PRESIDENT REAGAN VETOED the congressional bill.
http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2011/12/03/newt-misleading-voters-on-fairness-doctrine-claims-to-vocally-oppose-but-sponsored-original-bill/
And still not a peep from Rush or Hannity about this?
Obviously a couple of complete frauds.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 10:42pmYes, he is such a progressive, balancing the budget and reforming welfare. I would much rather have someone who passed the model of Obamacare, that is a conservative. Or someone who will legalize all drugs, withdraw all our troops and take us out of the world intrest, and of course, get to the bottom of who really was behind the Cola wars. Or we could go with the guy who makes Bush sound like a thesbian. I think we should just get it over with quickly, lets just elect Pelosi, give her the keys, and then mix a great big batch of Kool Aide, let the kids drink first.
Come on, Newt at least can bring a logical debate to Oblago. I would vote for Romney, but I won’t like it, I just can’t vote for Paul, he is like the crazy uncle that always wants to talk about how great Nute Rockney was, and the virtue of limberger cheese.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 10:56pmYou’re right, Gingrich is a good debater. And, we’ve had our share of good debaters. Time to shut up and put up, and that’s where Gingrich is newt-ered. He is a proven progressive. He has admitted to his progressiveness. If I told you that Karl Marx is my favorite historical figure, you would have no problem with deduction. Gingrich told us his favorite president was FDR. Why do you now have a problem with deduction?
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:05pmI like Beck, I have listened to him for years, I just disagree with his assessment of Newt. I think he picked his partners with Romney and Bachmann, and that’s who he is going with. I can respect that, but I disagree that Romney is the best candidate. I liked him and voted for him (Romney) in 2008, but the more I hear from him about Romney care and his take on global warming, I think he is as much of a salesman as Obama. I don’t agree with everything Newt says, and I really supported Cain, but I think he could effectively take Obama apart. I am really just trying to pick someone who has expericence, and someone I liked back in the 90′s. So, that is just my two cents, for what its worth.
Report Post »dcart888
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:43pmWhat’s your concerns over Romney? Do you live in MA? I’m so glad Romney responded that 6-7 democrats to every (R) in state house and senate when he was Gov it’s amazing he got anything done. I lived in Lenox MA 2000-2003. Are you just repeating what other conservatives have said or have you done your homework? Ann Coulter is correct Romney is the best conservative who can beat Obama
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:58pmI just have gone lukewarm on Romney, in the debates he has come across flat, I don’t like the way he has gone on the attack with the others, the $10k bet turned me off, I don’t think he needs to go after Perry, Perry is done. He seems more concerned with trying to say what he thinks people want to hear, and I just think he comes across disengenous. That is my feeling from watching the debates. As I said, I liked him back in 2008 and voted for him in the Primaries, I just don’t like the way he has handled himself.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 10:37pmGingrich is no conservative. How could his credentials be questioned?
Report Post »TeaPartyanimal
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:22pmim thinking smackdown is no conservative.
Report Post »sambachico
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:51amGingrich isn’t a conservative, he’s a Progressive. The video that destroys Newt Gingrich.
http://www.jbs.org/commentary/the-real-newt-gingrich
Report Post »Cherynn
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 5:06amNewt is nothing more than NWO puppet trying to wrap himself in the flag. He is little more than a different flavor of obummer. Flip flopper will tell you anything he thinks you want to hear. He is a two faced dangerous liar that does not have AMERICAs best interest at heart. Career politicians are the problem, I hope he doesnt get the nomination or were all screwed2.0 People, wake up, the media is pushing this clown on us. Like Nobamma 2012,,,,,no Newt 2012 either.
Report Post »coach1228
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:53pmHmm…maybe you should watch the princess herself describe Newt….
your gonna love this…..2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8zz5myJ_hs&feature=player_embedded
Report Post »