R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Exactly.
- Status
S
Stjudeprayforus
Guest
He is pro life. Go to his website.
In 2011, Congressman Gingrich supported an Ohio law that made abortions illegal after a detectable heart beat is present. His campaign literature for the 2012 Presidential election states that he supports reinstatement of the Mexico City policy, supports cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, and opposes federal funding for abortion.
While in office, Congressman Gingrich twice voted in favor of the partial birth abortion ban.
J
jasonjessica09
Guest
Have you changed since 1995? Yeah i’m sure you have. Besides since then what has happpned to Newt? Oh some small little thing called Converting to Catholism. That can change your outlook on things pretty fast I think!
I would love to meet Newt one day. I would ask him if he is has traditionalist thoughts and if he goes to the Latin Mass.
I would love to meet Newt one day. I would ask him if he is has traditionalist thoughts and if he goes to the Latin Mass.
B
BVM_1221
Guest
Go ahead…make my day.:yawn::yawn::yawn:
I’ll probably wind up voting Libertarian, as usual:shrug:
C
Caldera
Guest
Gingrich Offering ‘Positive, Solution-Oriented Campaign’
video.foxnews.com/v/1277039223001/gingrich-offering-positive-solution-oriented-campaign/?playlist_id=87485
video.foxnews.com/v/1277039223001/gingrich-offering-positive-solution-oriented-campaign/?playlist_id=87485
- On ‘Fox and Friends’ this morning.
F
fkjuliano
Guest
I don’t see why Newt’s position on Global Warming is that big of a deal. Even if Global Warming is total b.s. (and I would say it’s 80% b.s.), there is no reason not to have an open mind about the subject. Some things should be treated as dogma, namely dogma, but others should not. Besides, there are two intrinsic goods directly tied to burning less fossil fuels: clean air and not giving Muslims at least $100 a barrel for oil.
On that second point, Muslim countries have oil reserves of at least 500 billion barrels. With oil at $100, that would mean a transfer of 50 trillion from the Western world to the likes of the Saudi royal family. That is simply not something we can afford, in financial terms or in terms of that money going to support terrorism. Of course, if oil climbs to $1,000 a barrel, which is entirely possible given the dearth of recent discoveries, then you do the math.
The point is that we need alternative forms of energy, and Newt is interested and knowledgeable about the issue. Research this for yourself and you will see.
And of course, unlike Obama, he doesn’t think that killing babies is a fine thing.
On that second point, Muslim countries have oil reserves of at least 500 billion barrels. With oil at $100, that would mean a transfer of 50 trillion from the Western world to the likes of the Saudi royal family. That is simply not something we can afford, in financial terms or in terms of that money going to support terrorism. Of course, if oil climbs to $1,000 a barrel, which is entirely possible given the dearth of recent discoveries, then you do the math.
The point is that we need alternative forms of energy, and Newt is interested and knowledgeable about the issue. Research this for yourself and you will see.
And of course, unlike Obama, he doesn’t think that killing babies is a fine thing.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Well said.
The more pertinent question is whether Newt would be dragging his feet on nuclear andon a domestic oil industry like an Obama administration would no doubt continue to do.
Alternative energy is a good thing, whether or not manmade global warming is a pressing reality or not. What is not a good thing is a central government massively controlling the economy to reach that kind of goal.
The Pelosis and Obamas would disagree and think just the opposite because a centrally controlled economy is what they aim for regardless.
Newt does not give the impression that that is what is motivating him.
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
Please give some serious consideration to Gingrich. Unlike the rise and fall of other candidates, he actually has some serious substance to his campaign, and has been giving strong debate performances in pretty much every debate.
He is the last chance for conservatives to unite against Romney, but he’s also the best. He can win independents in the general election, from his focusing on the issues, to beating Obama handily in the debates.
That’s the spirit!
P.S. to BVM, if you normally vote Libertarian I guess there’s no way we can get you to actually participate in the 2 party system. [mind you I wish we didn’t have a 2 party system]. -]Can I ask you just one question, in which state do you live? If it’s a state with an early Republican caucus/ primary, I’m gonna try to convince you to vote for Newt./-]
Well, since you live in California, perhaps you have not seen this poll?
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ca/california_republican_presidential_primary-1567.html
The most recent GOP California poll shows Gingrich 33, Romney 23, Cain 22, Perry 6, Paul 5. GO NEWT!!!
S
SamH
Guest
Obama has taken steps to limit our own country’s ability to supply its own energy. He’s flat out stated it’s his goal with coal. The US has massive reserves in the oil shale - but the government limits developement there too. That plays into hands of the transfering trillions of dollars in Western wealth to the likes of the Saudi royal family.
L
louis91766
Guest
I disagree. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul and no one else.
A
AlwaysCurious
Guest
S
scipio337
Guest
People said the same thing about a vote for Ross Perot.
Or Paul in 1988 (as a Libertarian), or Paul in 2008.
C
CMatt25
Guest
1992, 2000… As I also am old enough to remember when just enough voters in Florida voted for a 3rd party candidate by the name of Nader whose votes more likely took votes away from then Vice President AL Gore between the two majors who had a chance to win. And though VP Gore won the nationwide popular vote, by losing FL after the case went to the SCOTUS, it cost him the Electoral College. I actually didn’t decide to vote for Gore myself over Bush until I was driving to my polling precinct. So while I understand the other POV, I fully understand your point as well. You make a good one.
C
CMatt25
Guest
OrdinaryMelkite, while I’m not convinced Newt would have as good a chance of beating Obama in a general election as Romney’s chances would be, that must be it. Because they supposedly were on the Cain wagon partly because he was not a politician. And now Newt, definitely a politician as a former Speaker of the House, is supposedly surging.They just want ANYBODY who is NOT Romney and can BEAT Obama.
L
louis91766
Guest
I don;t think that Newt is the guy because it is reported that he has received over 1 million dollars from Freddie Mac. Isn’t this a federally subsidized agency? On the one hand, some Republicans say that they want to cut back on federal subsidies, but on the other hand, it is reported that they have received very generous compensations from government sponsored enterprises?
news.yahoo.com/gingrich-says-received-freddie-mac-compensation-155709459.html
T
TexCatholic4JMJ
Guest
Louis, Newt has responded to this on Freddy and Fannie. He was a consultant on a
particular topic that they paid him to research. He was not with the govt at the time,
but did have expertise on the subject. They did not follow his advice even though he
pointed out the problems.
Wish they had followed his advice.
particular topic that they paid him to research. He was not with the govt at the time,
but did have expertise on the subject. They did not follow his advice even though he
pointed out the problems.
Wish they had followed his advice.
E
estesbob
Guest
It’s a non-story that shows how terrified the Left is of Newt getting the nomination
L
louis91766
Guest
According to the article Gingrich “said that in a debate with Obama, GOP presidential nominee John McCain “should have turned and said, ‘Senator Obama, are you prepared to give back all the money that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae gave you?’””
However, the report is that Gingrich received 1.5 million dollars from Freddie Mac. I don;t see where the Republican Gingrich has returned any of that money, even though the report is that he said that the Democrat Obama should return the money he got from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
Isn’t Freddie Mac one of those government sponsored enterprises that Republicans are demanding be shut down? Assuming that the report is correct, one and a half million dollars seems like a lot of money for a Republican to accept from an agency if the Republicans are criticising its existence?
news.yahoo.com/gingrich-says-received-freddie-mac-compensation-155709459.html
L
louis91766
Guest
But is it true that Gingrich did accept a total compensation of one and one half million dollars from this agency which Republicans say that they want to shut down?
L
louis91766
Guest
But Michelle Bachmann is not on the “Left” is she? And she has said: “Whether former Speaker Gingrich made $300,000 or whether he made $2 million, the point is that he took money to also influence senior Republicans to be favorable toward Fannie and Freddie,”
and “While he was taking that money, I was fighting against Fannie and Freddie,”…
I don’t see why you would criticise the left, when Michelle Bachmann is criticising Gingrich on this point?
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/16/bachmann-gingrich-was-paid-to-influence-republicans-for-freddie-mac/
- Status