Gingrich Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CMatt25 said:
Yes I researched the Supreme Court decision was 2010 not 2008.
Click to expand...
Right. So you understand that Citizens upheld the status quo?

So your candidate raised more money than any other human being in the history of mankind, and you still want to stand by your claim?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
You should note that this data only shows what individuals who work for the corporation donated and is not necessarily representative of which candidate(s) the corporation itself is rooting for. To claim that this proves some sort of corporate bias towards Democrats is misleading at best. What you really should be looking at is what these companies are lobbying for or against in an official capacity and with company dollars; not what the little guy who spends his days in a cubicle, and has no authority to speak for the company or influence company policy, chooses to do with his paycheck.
Click to expand...
These are individual donations to individual campaigns. This includes the “little guy” CEO pooling funds to give to the campaign, PAC, or national party committee.

If you think Goldman Sachs employees gave the Obama campaign $1 million in $2500 increments, I have a bridge to sell you.

If you want to look at individual lobby group, there is a list here:

opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2012

If you’d like to do your own reaserch, opensecrets.org/index.php is a good site.
 
I was shocked and impressed to hear Gingrich commit Republican heresy and denounce the simplistic “deport all the buggers” rhetoric so often heard in republican talk radio circles about solutions to the current numbers of illegal aliens in America.

Maybe his catholic conversion has taken deep root after all. I had a mental image of him pegged as effectively a dittohead. Maybe he’s worth another look.
 
manualman said:
I was shocked and impressed to hear Gingrich commit Republican heresy and denounce the simplistic “deport all the buggers” rhetoric so often heard in republican talk radio circles about solutions to the current numbers of illegal aliens in America.

Maybe his catholic conversion has taken deep root after all. I had a mental image of him pegged as effectively a dittohead. Maybe he’s worth another look.
Click to expand...
The effect on the economy and the Hispanic community would be devastating if we tried to deport 12 million people. I am pleased Gingrich acknowledged this
 
Semper_Zelare said:
In all candor, money isn’t as important as human lives. If given a choice between having 10 million more babies aborted, or having 10 years of a financial depression, I would pick the economic depression every time.

If I’m not mistaken, we have some aging conservative appointees on the Supreme Court. They MUST be replaced by pro-life Justices. Scalia is 75, and apparently Ginsberg (most liberal) is 78. The point is, unless they’re planning on serving until they’re 80 and 83 respectively (5 more years of Obama) they’ll both have to be replaced. We MUST have a conservative President to do this, who is pro-life).

You care about hitting a financial brick wall. But, the lives of millions of Americans is at stake here. Human Lives > Money.
Click to expand...
Well said I totally agree:thumbsup:
 
manualman said:
I was shocked and impressed to hear Gingrich commit Republican heresy and denounce the simplistic “deport all the buggers” rhetoric so often heard in republican talk radio circles about solutions to the current numbers of illegal aliens in America.

Maybe his catholic conversion has taken deep root after all. I had a mental image of him pegged as effectively a dittohead. Maybe he’s worth another look.
Click to expand...
Not sure what a dittohead is, but I admire his approach. HOWEVER, we need to make every effort to secure the border. We cannot keep allowing people to enter illegally and depend on the largesse of the country when we have so many people who are citizens who are in need. And laws are laws, after all.
 
Semper_Zelare said:
In all candor, money isn’t as important as human lives. If given a choice between having 10 million more babies aborted, or having 10 years of a financial depression, I would pick the economic depression every time.

If I’m not mistaken, we have some aging conservative appointees on the Supreme Court. They MUST be replaced by pro-life Justices. Scalia is 75, and apparently Ginsberg (most liberal) is 78. The point is, unless they’re planning on serving until they’re 80 and 83 respectively (5 more years of Obama) they’ll both have to be replaced. We MUST have a conservative President to do this, who is pro-life).

You care about hitting a financial brick wall. But, the lives of millions of Americans is at stake here. Human Lives > Money.
Click to expand...
The above post deserves repeating. It comes down to this: Who do you want picking the next two supreme court justices - Obama, or the GOP nominee? Which would be more likely to pick a worthy successor to Scalia should he retire, or a pick an improvement over Ginsburg should she retire? Roe v Wade could potentially be overturned in the next couple of years if enough Catholics vote with the sanctity of life in mind. If too many catholics stay home or support Obama for his other domestic policies, the slaughter will continue unabated. I have been leaning toward Romney as to who would be the best candidate to challenge Obama. However, I would also enthusiastically support Gingrich if he got the nomination.

Ishii
 
No way I would trust this guy. If man cannot remain faithful to his wife then he certainly cannot be trusted, period. There are other men who have remained faithful to their wife who deserve the job much more than him.

Newt can blabber on about his conversion all he wants, he may get forgiveness, but he isn’t getting my vote. Maybe Newt and Herman could start a talk show about how fox news and the rest of the pro-war crowd likes to promote candidates with infidelity issues?

Hey! I might be on to something here, McCain could also join in with them!

Oh well,
Seems that the pro-war media has promoted yet another “flavor of the week”.
This routine is getting very transparent.
 
mary_bobo said:
Not sure what a dittohead is, but I admire his approach. HOWEVER, we need to make every effort to secure the border. We cannot keep allowing people to enter illegally and depend on the largesse of the country when we have so many people who are citizens who are in need. And laws are laws, after all.
Click to expand...
“Dittohead” is the term used by fans of the Rush Limbaugh show, because he is able to articulate what many of them believe, so when they call his show, they just say “mega dittos Rush…and furthermore…”

Democrats and liberals use it in a derogatory way, much like they use “neocon” as a term of derogation against all Republicans.
 
This morning I was surprised to get a call from Newt. After his taped spiel in which he told us how great he was we were asked to stay on the line. I presume they were raising money.
Code: 
After the 'live woman' began to speak, I was annoyed enough to interrupt her. I told her that if Newt were nominated, I would be tempted to vote for Obama, certainly never for Newt. Three marriages, infidelities, a $300,000 fine when he was House speaker, lobbying for Freddie Mac for which he received $1.8 million,, the $500,000 expense account at Tiffany's, his flip-flopping all over the place, his pseudo-historian posture - etc. But, one must admit, he is an effective talker. a skilled Washington insider who knows how to impress the less informed.

 You get the idea. I can't believe that people with principles would be enticed by his candidacy. Surely America can do better.
 
Roy5 said:
This morning I was surprised to get a call from Newt. After his taped spiel in which he told us how great he was we were asked to stay on the line. I presume they were raising money.

After the ‘live woman’ began to speak, I was annoyed enough to interrupt her.** I told her that if Newt were nominated, I would be tempted to vote for Obama**, certainly never for Newt. Three marriages, infidelities, a $300,000 fine when he was House speaker, lobbying for Freddie Mac for which he received $1.8 million, the $500,000 expense account at Tiffany’s, his flip-flopping all over the place, his pseudo-historian posture - etc. But, one must admit, he is an effective talker. a skilled Washington insider who knows how to impress the less informed.

You get the idea.** I can’t believe that people with principles would be enticed by his candidacy.** Surely America can do better.
Click to expand...
Haha…you are so principle driven, that you would vote for Obama instead.
 
Roy5 said:
This morning I was surprised to get a call from Newt. After his taped spiel in which he told us how great he was we were asked to stay on the line. I presume they were raising money.
Code: 
After the 'live woman' began to speak, I was annoyed enough to interrupt her. I told her that if Newt were nominated, I would be tempted to vote for Obama, certainly never for Newt. Three marriages, infidelities, a $300,000 fine when he was House speaker, lobbying for Freddie Mac for which he received $1.8 million,, the $500,000 expense account at Tiffany's, his flip-flopping all over the place, his pseudo-historian posture - etc. But, one must admit, he is an effective talker. a skilled Washington insider who knows how to impress the less informed.

 You get the idea. I can't believe that people with principles would be enticed by his candidacy. Surely America can do better.
Click to expand...
Was that three marriages or four? Or two? How many infidelities? How much is his expense account at Tiffany’s? Do you have a spreadsheet going? What is a pseudo-historian posture? On what issues has he flip flopped?

Lastly, what has Gingrich done that would have you wanting Obama to pick the next one or two supreme court justices? You might want to include something on the other side of your spreadsheet: Next to the $500,000 Newt Tiffany’s expense account, put tens of thousands (or possibly hundreds of thousands) of abortions done in the past few years in states that would severely restrict or outlaw abortion if Roe V Wade were overturned. Then reflect on which is worse, the expense account or the abortions. And think about that the next time you’re tempted to vote for Obama because of Newt’s infidelities.

Ishii
 
Just to clarify, I grew up in a staunchly GOP family and prefer to vote Republican. However, when you have a candidate like Newt running, the alternatives are so bad that I wonder if I will choose to vote at all. Or, probably third party. I will never vote for a man whose family values have been so notorious. Sorry, I will never vote for him on principle. How far we have gone from the days when even one divorce (e. g., Adlai Stevenson) was viewed as a major obstacle to the presidency. On top of everything else, Newt became a lobbyist for Freddie Mac once he left Congress. Tell me that this was ok with you. The very practice that has undermined our government through bribery and pressuring -buying politicians!. How can one overlook this sort of greed and hypocrisy?
Moreover, I can't believe that the American people, once they have the facts, will vote for Newt. Perry possibly could win. Mitt possibly could win. Certainly candidates like Daniels and Christie who have chosen not to run probably could have won. To nominate Newt would be like a nightmare and will likely mean the reelection of Obama. Mark my word. He will not wear well once he is fully exposed to the American people. He is a clever and smooth talker, but that is not enough. We've had too many such people in high office already.
 
Roy5 said:
Moreover, I can’t believe that the American people, once they have the facts, will vote for Newt. Perry possibly could win.
Click to expand...
Once they have the facts? I believe Newt’s foibles (with the exception of the Fannie mae deal) have been common knowlege for years.
Roy5 said:
Mitt possibly could win.
Click to expand...
Agree.
Roy5 said:
Certainly candidates like Daniels and Christie who have chosen not to run probably could have won.
Click to expand...
Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Let’s deal with reality, shall we?
Roy5 said:
To nominate Newt would be like a nightmare and will likely mean the reelection of Obama.
Click to expand...
But that would be ok with you since you’re tempted to vote for Obama right?
Roy5 said:
Mark my word. He will not wear well once he is fully exposed to the American people. He is a clever and smooth talker, but that is not enough. We’ve had too many such people in high office already.
Click to expand...
How about answering my question:

Next to the $500,000 Newt Tiffany’s expense account, put tens of thousands (or possibly hundreds of thousands) of abortions done in the past few years in states that would severely restrict or outlaw abortion if Roe V Wade were overturned. Then reflect on which is worse, the expense account or the abortions. And think about that the next time you’re tempted to vote for Obama because of Newt’s infidelities.

Which is worse?
 
ishii said:
But that would be ok with you since you’re tempted to vote for Obama right?
Click to expand...
That’s what I don’t understand. If a principled person is opposed to Obama but unwilling to vote for Gingrich (if he’s the nominee), then I would expect them to vote third party or not vote. 🤷

I guess some people will compromise their principles and vote for the party they are opposed to?
 
ishii said:
Once they have the facts? I believe Newt’s foibles (with the exception of the Fannie mae deal) have been common knowlege for years.

Agree.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Let’s deal with reality, shall we?

But that would be ok with you since you’re tempted to vote for Obama right?

How about answering my question:

Next to the $500,000 Newt Tiffany’s expense account, put tens of thousands (or possibly hundreds of thousands) of abortions done in the past few years in states that would severely restrict or outlaw abortion if Roe V Wade were overturned. Then reflect on which is worse, the expense account or the abortions. And think about that the next time you’re tempted to vote for Obama because of Newt’s infidelities.

Which is worse?
Click to expand...
Why aren’t Catholic women following the teaching of the Church on abortion and contraception? The statistics I have seen show that many Catholic women generally take a liberal view on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top