Newt defines the Obama administration

Amerika

Watching the GOP debate last night, Newt Gingrich articulated the essence of the Obama administration in this short segment. Every American should see this clip over and over again leading up to the presidential election. If it doesn’t scare the hell out of you, and cause you to understand how much we need a change from the path taken under the current president's leadership... I don’t know what would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdh97eGR2IE

tricky D

'The Iranians are practicing the closing of the Straits of Hormuz'. No they are not. They are exercising for that should they be pre-emptively attacked. Big difference. So his premise fails to hold up.

Amerika

How is there a "big difference" between "practicing" and "exercising?"

tricky D

He is presenting it as a fait accompli, which it isn't.

Amerika

I admit I had to look that one up. I think you’re splitting hairs there. I highly doubt Iranian’s parliament will wake up one morning and command their fleet to “position themselves today at key spots in the strait and figure out a way to close it down.” If as Parviz Sarvari of Iran’s parliament's National Security Committee stated, "Soon we will hold a military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure," plans and tactics are surely already under way and simulations being refined... which most would consider as part of “practicing” IMO.

tricky D

Amerika wrote: »

I admit I had to look that one up. I think you’re splitting hairs there. I highly doubt Iranian’s parliament will wake up one morning and command their fleet to “position themselves today at key spots in the strait and figure out a way to close it down.” If as Parviz Sarvari of Iran’s parliament's National Security Committee stated, "Soon we will hold a military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure," plans and tactics are surely already under way and simulations being refined... which most would consider as part of “practicing” IMO.

He is making it sound as if Iran are actually doing it, when they are not. He did say practicing not practicing for - one is doing the other isn't. It's a scaremongering exercise over something that isn't happening.

It's probably academic anyway as the window for conventional military types of attacks on their nuclear program pretty much closed over a couple of years ago. Without such an attack any significant interference by Iran in the Straits will have too great a negative political impact. Meanwhile the covert war continues.

Amerika

tricky D wrote: »

It's probably academic anyway as the window for conventional military types of attacks on their nuclear program pretty much closed over a couple of years ago.

It is my understanding that that statement is not entirely true (but I’ve already said too much already :cool:).

Meanwhile the covert war continues.

Of that I agree.

jank

Newt is just a shill for anyone willing to pay him the $$.

RichieC

Its terrifying how extreme these candidates are. Even bush ran a moderate campaign. Hopefully Mr Paul wins

jank

Ron Paul is actually the only one there who is true to conservative beliefs. Newt is a conservative if you pay him enough. Romney just wants to be seen as conservative so get can the nomination. Bachman is an idiot who calls herself a tea party member yet wants to instill her own social conservatism on others. The rest are just fools or nobodies.

I am actually shocked at the low level of candidates on offer from the GOP. Obama was there for the kill. There is no way he should get another term but he will because the GOP are just intellectually retarded. Why is anti-intellectualism such a corner stone of the GOP.

All they want to talk about now is Iran and what they should do to stop them never mind how they are going to pay for it if they go to war again. Why do the GOP like war so much? Did they not learn their lesson in Iraq.

Christ, what the GOP should do is forget war and social conservatism for about 10 years. Fix the ****ing economy and stop the stupid ****ing games. Then they might have some bright young candidates in Washington.

Imagine if Hillary Clinton was a republican. She would be so much of a favorite for the presidency that Obama would probably not seek a 2nd term. Compare her to say Palin. I rest my case.

Mark200

Amerika wrote: »

Watching the GOP debate last night, Newt Gingrich articulated the essence of the Obama administration in this short segment. Every American should see this clip over and over again leading up to the presidential election. If it doesn’t scare the hell out of you, and cause you to understand how much we need a change from the path taken under the current president's leadership... I don’t know what would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdh97eGR2IE

Whatever the merits/necessity of the pipeline, it's outrageous that the Republicans unashamedly play politics with middle class tax cuts. They're all for giving the wealthy tax cuts, but when it comes to giving the middle class tax cuts then it comes with terms and conditions.

Obama will wipe the floor with any of these candidates. The only one who has a chance of putting up a reasonable argument is Jon Huntsman, who is not going to be selected.

What I'd like to see is a strong win for Obama and a Mike Bloomberg run in 2016. I think an independent President is the best solution for the US at the moment. In the mean time, the fewer Republicans in DC the better.

Amerika

Hmmm... Ron Paul... John Huntsman... Mike Bloomberg... Michelle Bachman... Sarah Palin... Hillary Clinton? And of course the biggest lie in politics in that Republicans want to protect the rich when liberals are themselves the best friends of big business.

We see the standard rush to deflect and redirect when you choose to neglect the subject.

RichieC

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... Ron Paul... John Huntsman... Mike Bloomberg... Michelle Bachman... Sarah Palin... Hillary Clinton? And of course the biggest lie in politics in that Republicans want to protect the rich when liberals are themselves the best friends of big business.

We see the standard rush to deflect and redirect when you choose to neglect the subject.

both parties are equally beholden to corporate masters.

Amerika

RichieC wrote: »

both parties are equally beholden to corporate masters.

Not really. Think about it... when government gets bigger (the goal of liberals and democrats)... the red tape it creates on businesses always increases. Then with high compliance costs, it squeezes out small businesses, leaving only big businesses able to survive with heavy handed government regulation.

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

Not really.

Yes really.
This is not something that's up for debate.

RichieC

Amerika wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

both parties are equally beholden to corporate masters.

Not really. Think about it... when government gets bigger (the goal of liberals and democrats)... the red tape it creates on businesses always increases. Then with high compliance costs, it squeezes out small businesses, leaving only big businesses able to survive with heavy handed government regulation.

the last republican admin oversaw the largest federal expansion in a half century.

your using crude steriotypes of each party like they're facts.

20Cent

Newts baggage has baggage.

He wants the government to execute people for smuggling weed can't think of anything that is more "big gov" than that.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Not really. Think about it... when government gets bigger (the goal of liberals and democrats)... the red tape it creates on businesses always increases. Then with high compliance costs, it squeezes out small businesses, leaving only big businesses able to survive with heavy handed government regulation.

Thats sounds great but is crap. Bush started a war to help out his friends. Both parties are beholden to the corporation. I think its hillarious that you say the above in a thread you started singing praise to Newt of all people!! LOL very ironic.

Amerika

jank wrote: »

Thats sounds great but is crap. Bush started a war to help out his friends. Both parties are beholden to the corporation. I think its hillarious that you say the above in a thread you started singing praise to Newt of all people!! LOL very ironic.

The only praises of Newt by me was his uncanny ability to state the obvious about Obama’s leadership... clearly, concisely and assertively.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

The only praises of Newt by me was his uncanny ability to state the obvious about Obama’s leadership... clearly, concisely and assertively.

While then being a stooge to what ever lobby pays him the most. Yeap sounds like Washington alright. The GOP are in charge of the house, whats the approval rating for them at them moment?

PJ, I thought you of all people would be sick of this good versus bad, us and them crap that is always playing out in DC. It gets very tiresome especially for someone (me) who has no vested interest to have a democrat in power so save your community college speeches for the canvasers in the fall OK?Lets say for example Newt gets the white house next year, do you honestly think there would be huge changes in his first term?

Amerika

jank wrote: »

While then being a stooge to what ever lobby pays him the most. Yeap sounds like Washington alright. The GOP are in charge of the house, whats the approval rating for them at them moment?

PJ, I thought you of all people would be sick of this good versus bad, us and them crap that is always playing out in DC. It gets very tiresome especially for someone (me) who has no vested interest to have a democrat in power so save your community college speeches for the canvasers in the fall OK?Lets say for example Newt gets the white house next year, do you honestly think there would be huge changes in his first term?

Hmmm... So what did you think of Gringrich’s synopsis of President Obama's administration? What do you think of the MSM failure to provide decent reporting on Obama’s stance regarding the Keystone pipeline, or what a failure to go ahead with the project will mean to jobs and our need for oil? Don’t you think this video is something every eligible voting American should see ahead of the election?

RichieC

there's some common ground. the news media has failed americans. but it isnt specific to the Obama admin. It has been a mouthpiece for the government years now.

Though I guess thats only an issue when the percieved bias goes against you.

Amerika

RichieC wrote: »

there's some common ground. the news media has failed americans. but it isnt specific to the Obama admin. It has been a mouthpiece for the government years now.

Though I guess thats only an issue when the percieved bias goes against you.

Fair enough, but it is pretty evident which way the MSN bias usually goes. Bill Clinton was pretty honest about it in his recent Bill O'Reilly interview. And his reluctance to comment on some MSM matters was also pretty telling.

RichieC

of course it is obvious which way the bias goes. the media is corporate owned so the bias is towards them.

I personally laugh every time I hear people say liberal media. It's a cannard. it may well appear liberal when compared to the extreme right FNC, granted. espesially when every third sentance on it references the liberal media.

Cardinal Richelieu

Does Newt religious conversion hinder him or is it an advantage?

Silvio.Dante

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Does Newt religious conversion hinder him or is it an advantage?

I'm sure 'Three Wives' Newt will flounder in Evangelical circles. the fact that he converted to Catholicism won't help in the Bible Belt either.

"Them there catholics ain't real Christians, fella..."

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... So what did you think of Gringrich’s synopsis of President Obama's administration? What do you think of the MSM failure to provide decent reporting on Obama’s stance regarding the Keystone pipeline, or what a failure to go ahead with the project will mean to jobs and our need for oil? Don’t you think this video is something every eligible voting American should see ahead of the election?

This is not the issue. Stand back please so we can look at this from afar. Newt is playing politics probably becasue the energy companies have put some $$ into his pocket to attack obama for stopping this pipeline. In the same vien Obama is playing politics.

Amerika

jank wrote: »

This is not the issue.

Yes... this IS the issue! They should provide better roadmaps over there on the darkside.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Yes... this IS the issue! They should provide better roadmaps over there on the darkside.

I have no idea what you are saying.

sarumite

Amerika wrote: »

Watching the GOP debate last night, Newt Gingrich articulated the essence of the Obama administration in this short segment. Every American should see this clip over and over again leading up to the presidential election. If it doesn’t scare the hell out of you, and cause you to understand how much we need a change from the path taken under the current president's leadership... I don’t know what would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdh97eGR2IE

It may certainly add weight to some peoples argument that a change of direction could be helpful. However the question posed to Newt raises questions about the suitability of the GOP to take over. For example, they came into the house on the back of an anti-incumbancy drive. People were sick of Washington insiders and career politicians doing the same 'ol dirty tricks and here we have repubs attaching an unrelated oil pipeline to a two month extension of a tax cut. However, such antics have always existed in DC, so perhaps they just became alcimatised to how DC works. What is disturbing is that the GOP fought long and hard to ensure a tax break for America wealthiest and yet here they are putting up opposition to a tax break for the middle and lower paid workers. This, despite the fact that the Wealthiest Americans have seen a massive increase in their share of the American pie over the last 3 decades whereas middle class income has stagnated in the same period.

Amerika wrote: »

Don’t you think this video is something every eligible voting American should see ahead of the election?

It's available on youtube so I don't see any reason why they can't see the video. Though while they are at it, they should also read a synopsis of the GOP by the economist and unlike Newt; the economist (which has stronger republican sympathies than Democrat) is not a biased source of opinion.

http://www.economist.com/node/21542180/comments?page=11

two selected extracts which were particularly apt

Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.

A Republican could stake out a way to cut the deficit, reform taxes and refashion government. But instead of businesslike pragmatism, there is zealotry. The candidates have made a fetish out of never raising taxes (even when it involves getting rid of loopholes), while mostly ignoring tough decisions about cutting spending on defence or pensions. Such compassionless conservatism (slashing taxes for the rich and expenditure on the poor) comes with little thought as to which bits of government spending are useful. Investing in infrastructure, redesigning public education and maintaining unemployment benefits in the worst downturn since the Depression are hardly acts of communism.

Amerika

sarumite... can you find out who wrote that article in The Economist you linked? I don’t see an author listed, with I consider rather strange. I somehow wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone like Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

sarumite

Amerika wrote: »

sarumite... can you find out who wrote that article in The Economist you linked? I don’t see an author listed, with I consider rather strange. I somehow wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone like Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

I don't know. Though whomever wrote it could hardly be accused of being any more biased and lopsided in their opinion than Newt. The article isn't an op-ed though, so it is highly unlikely that it is Shultz or another democrat politican. On matters of the economy,the economist has a decidedly rapublican slant.

I have looked back at previous articles unrelated to politics, america or the republican party and the author isn't ever named. The caption "from the print edition" seems to be their standard remark and as such it is certainly not specific to this article in question. I get the articles as an iphone app which is labelled "Editors highlights" and I haven't seen an authors name in at least the last 18 editions for any article.

Having just reread it again, it doesn't read like anything written by someone even remotely associated with the Democrat party.

Amerika

Well, I tend not to give any credence to any article appearing anywhere, right or left, without knowing who wrote it.

And if Newt would happen to write an article for The Economist (without attaching his name), would you give it the same credibility – because it came from “The Economist,” if you happend to find out it was penned by Newt?

sarumite

Amerika wrote: »

Well, I tend not to give any credence to any article appearing anywhere, right or left, without knowing who wrote it.

And if Newt would happen to write an article for The Economist (without attaching his name), would you give it the same credibility – because it came from “The Economist,” if you happend to find out it was penned by Newt?

I wouldn't give it credit if a guest writer from a political party wrote an article. However a guest writer clearly did not write this article. From the article it says

"On the economy, where this newspaper has often found the most common ground with the Republicans, the impact has been especially unfortunate."

This is the equivalent of using the first person as far as a publication can go. In effect, whoever wrote it is writing on behalf of the newspaper and expresses the opinion of the newspaper, clearly with the endorsment of the newspapers editor.

Furthermore, you can be assured that no-one even remotely associated with the democratic party would include the following in any article they penned.

"It is a great opportunity for them. Barack Obama is clearly beatable. "

no when talking about Romney say

" In theory, there is enough in his record to suggest that he may yet be the chief executive America needs,"

So what we have is an article written with the tacit aproval and on behalf of a newpaper which tends to lean towards republican principles. I do find it amusing that you post a clip of candidate criticising his rival for the same position as something voter should hear, whereas now you are trying to claim bias with newspaper that says "On the economy, where this newspaper has often found the most common ground with the Republicans". As i said they never mention the authors name, whether they are talking about opening markets up in india, fishing quotas in the EU or the republican primaries. You are a looking for conspiracy on that front that doesn't exist. If omitting the autor the in website was the exception, rather than the rule you may have had a point.

As to the article the expresses the opinion of the economist newspaper, what are your opinions about it?

on edit: according to wikipedia

"The Economist does not print by-lines identifying the authors of articles, other than surveys and special "by invitation" contributions. The editors say this is necessary because "collective voice and personality matter more than the identities of individual journalists"[40] and reflects “a collaborative effort."

nice_guy80

jank wrote: »

This is not the issue. Stand back please so we can look at this from afar. Newt is playing politics probably becasue the energy companies have put some $$ into his pocket to attack obama for stopping this pipeline. In the same vien Obama is playing politics.

and you won't know who is funding his campaign due to the new rules that have been introduced.
who spearheaded the new funding rules???

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Not really. Think about it... when government gets bigger (the goal of liberals and democrats)... the red tape it creates on businesses always increases. Then with high compliance costs, it squeezes out small businesses, leaving only big businesses able to survive with heavy handed government regulation.

Yes because the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and Medicare Plan D reduced red tape and benefitted small businesses, LOL.

RichieC wrote: »

of course it is obvious which way the bias goes. the media is corporate owned so the bias is towards them,

THANK YOU, thank you, thank you! I wish more Fox News-bots would cop onto this!

Amerika wrote: »

Well, I tend not to give any credence to any article appearing anywhere, right or left, without knowing who wrote it.

And if Newt would happen to write an article for The Economist (without attaching his name), would you give it the same credibility – because it came from “The Economist,” if you happend to find out it was penned by Newt?

The Economist has a long-standing tradition of not printing bylines, but their articles, and in particular their regional columnists (Lexington, Charlemagne, etc) have a clear editorial bent and generally write pieces that reflect the ideological position (center-right) of the magazine.

As an aside, I cannot imagine an attention-seeking egomaniac like Newt Gingrich would ever pen something for public release with no byline!

Memnoch

Because the majority of small businesses that have failed have done so because of bureaucracy and red tape not because they have been undercut by larger corporations through the fair and unfair advantages they possess.

Because a small business can't open up a factory in china and employ people in economic slavery so that they can sell things a lot cheaper and compete with Walmart or Tesco.

Because it is government bureaucracy and red tape that causes mega corps to ship jobs overseas where people are paid a pittance and have no rights. But we all know the solution right? Let's eliminate pesky employee protection regulations and make unions illegal (because stopping people from coming together democratically and asking for their rights is not big government at all) like a limit on safe working hours or minimum wage. Then our kids can aspire to labour in sweatshops like all those wonderfully well off poor in China and India.

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes because the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and Medicare Plan D reduced red tape and benefitted small businesses, LOL.

I love this response. Sorry Joe.

jank

So, it appears if Newt is elected to be president he will ignore the supreme court rulings in relation to extending rights to terror suspects and among others

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/newt-gingrich-ignore-supreme-court-president

"If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, the president can in fact ignore it," said Gingrich to cheers.

The Republican contender, who has made no secret of his disdain for the judiciary, said that as president he would expect to have repeated showdowns with the supreme court. He said the court would lose because it is the least powerful and least accountable arm of government.

Why stop there, how about extending torture to daily policing. Shooting people because they don't believe in the "wrong" politics. Jailing people for practicing Islam or [insert random religion], like if you have a "fundamental" belief that you are right and they (supreme court and the Constitution) are wrong then as president you have that power?

What a despicable little man. I think he is mistaking the position of POTUS for a dictator. He is all that is that is wrong with the GOP. A paid pleb, a mouth for whatever whackjob lobby that pays him the most. Hope Romney beats him all around the place in South Carolina and beyond.

Amerika

Hmmm… jank, now who was it complaining about someone else changing topics and doing some derailing in another post? Oh yeah I remember. Looks like we got another classic case of do as I say and not as I do, eh?

dublinman1990

You'd think that Newt Gingrich would be supportive of trying to help out in a financial crisis that is crippling Europe at the moment. But no, he wouldn't a hope in Europe' eyes if he tries to avert it.

Just look at a quote from the guardian on his views on his past Adultery here for example

Here is one quote

At his campaign stop in Beaufort, Gingrich is pressed on the issue of his past adultery.

Here is the response

Newt Gingrich isn't exactly fond of Europeans, but this open marriage business is all very 18th century France, isn't it?

If he makes a point on saying that if he will make a type of adultery on the financial crisis, he would be very ashamed of it I'll bet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/south-carolina-primary-iowa-results-live

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… jank, now who was it complaining about someone else changing topics and doing some derailing in another post? Oh yeah I remember. Looks like we got another classic case of do as I say and not as I do, eh?

Hmmm classic! Attacking the poster while not at all addressing one thing I wrote? Classic PJ! It seems a waste of timing discussing politics with you on this forum as you dont discuss politics. Just cheap shot jokes. It is though very interesting that you are on the sidelines during this GOP primary season. I don't believe I know who you like? Like in highlander, there can be only one!

jackiebaron

Amerika wrote: »

I admit I had to look that one up. I think you’re splitting hairs there. I highly doubt Iranian’s parliament will wake up one morning and command their fleet to “position themselves today at key spots in the strait and figure out a way to close it down.” If as Parviz Sarvari of Iran’s parliament's National Security Committee stated, "Soon we will hold a military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure," plans and tactics are surely already under way and simulations being refined... which most would consider as part of “practicing” IMO.

FFS....next you're going to say that the Iranians want Israel "wiped off the map".

The US has invasion plans for every single country on Earth, including Ireland, and they routinely update them. The Iranians have a plan to counter an aggresive action against their country and all of a sudden they're the bad guys?

Brussels Sprout

That was some classic display of foot stamping by Newt at the beginning of last night's debate. I haven't seen someone jump from the gutter to the high ground like that since Clay Davis's trial in the Wire. It was a gobsmackingly, brazen performance made all the more incredulous by the whooping and hollering of the crowd.
I don't say this lightly but I'd welcome back George W. before letting Newt into the oval office.

Amerika

jank wrote: »

It seems a waste of timing discussing politics with you on this forum as you dont discuss politics. Just cheap shot jokes. It is though very interesting that you are on the sidelines during this GOP primary season. I don't believe I know who you like? Like in highlander, there can be only one!

Sometimes... That is if the proper response dictates the best action be a shot joke.

But I find it ironic that someone would be interested in who I (who “dont discuss politics”) like in the GOP primary season (relax, just having some fun with you ). Well, Mitt Romney has been my pick in the GOP primary. And before you fingers feverishly start typing a response filled with things like “hypocrite” and “traitor,” let me explain. Saving America from the policies of Barack Obama’s administration if job number one. Democrats and Republicans won’t decide this election, it will be the Independents. And I feel Romney is the best GOP candidate to appeal to Independents and to also get support from the more sane Democrats. And I’m hoping he picks a conservative as VP, or someone who appeals more to conservatives, so in 8 years we’ll get a more fiscally oriented president. Those that have already dropped out never had a real chance. Gingrich is more the establishment republican and comes with too much baggage. The character assassinations against him (some rightly deserved) have played out well, and will continue to do so. In the history of US election politics, there’s nothing better than a good old-fashioned character assassination, except of course something like "are you better off than you were four years ago." Santorum’s social politics will never appeal to the majority. And I know Rick... he won’t compromise his principles. And although Ron Paul appeals to the young, impressionable and naive, he’s still Ron Paul. Paul knows he’ll never be POTUS, but he does love getting the spotlight and bully pulpit every four years. There you have it... happy?

jackiebaron wrote: »

FFS....next you're going to say that the Iranians want Israel "wiped off the map".

No. That would have been Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, referring to what he considered a very wise statement by the Imam (the real power in Iran), Ayatollah Khomeini.

(just my opinions)

jank

Amerika wrote: »

But I find it ironic that someone would be interested in who I (who “dont discuss politics”) like in the GOP primary season (relax, just having some fun with you ). Well, Mitt Romney has been my pick in the GOP primary. And before you fingers feverishly start typing a response filled with things like “hypocrite” and “traitor,” let me explain. Saving America from the policies of Barack Obama’s administration if job number one. Democrats and Republicans won’t decide this election, it will be the Independents. And I feel Romney is the best GOP candidate to appeal to Independents and to also get support from the more sane Democrats. And I’m hoping he picks a conservative as VP, or someone who appeals more to conservatives, so in 8 years we’ll get a more fiscally oriented president. Those that have already dropped out never had a real chance. Gingrich is more the establishment republican and comes with too much baggage. The character assassinations against him (some rightly deserved) have played out well, and will continue to do so. In the history of US election politics, there’s nothing better than a good old-fashioned character assassination, except of course something like "are you better off than you were four years ago." Santorum’s social politics will never appeal to the majority. And I know Rick... he won’t compromise his principles. And although Ron Paul appeals to the young, impressionable and naive, he’s still Ron Paul. Paul knows he’ll never be POTUS, but he does love getting the spotlight and bully pulpit every four years. There you have it... happy?



(just my opinions)

yes, very. i don't mind Romney either. Seems to have a good business sense but will the general population like him? Can come across as too slick though, like a snake oiled sales man, If you were more honest in your posts you will find that you have a lot more friends here than you think!

Amerika

After a long and arduous turn from the OP, its time for an update on the original topic. President Obama, a month ahead of the deadline, has rejected the Keystone XL pipeline proposal. Over here, most (from what I've seen) feel he has sacrificed tens of thousands of jobs just so he could appease the extremes of his base. I guess he thinks most Americans are stupid and will forget by the time the election rolls along.

Some men see things as they are and ask why, some see things that may never be and ask why not, and most others see things the POTUS does and ask WTF?

“President Obama’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is a major setback for the American economy, American workers, and America’s energy independence,” Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat-West Virginia.

“The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is a missed opportunity to drastically turn this economy around. This pipeline would have created thousands of new jobs and helped to ensure our energy independence,” Representative Jason Altmire, Democrat-Pennsylvania.

“This delay is just playing politics with American jobs and American energy security,” Representative Jim Matheson, Democrat-Utah.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/20/the-land-of-obama-make-believe/

jank

Michelle ****ing Malken....

Amerika

It's where I found the three democrat quotes jank. And you know republicans have a special requirement to provide sources before being asked. Are you saying the quotes are bogus, or you just being a ...?

Overheal

Jank you know by now if you don't like a source and are ready to resort to Ad Hominem the better solution is to select the quote, right-click it, and hit the Google button. I love firefox.

Here is but one other source got when the first quote in Amerika's post is googled Verbatim:

http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=50419

kraggy

jank wrote: »

Ron Paul is actually the only one there who is true to conservative beliefs. Newt is a conservative if you pay him enough. Romney just wants to be seen as conservative so get can the nomination. Bachman is an idiot who calls herself a tea party member yet wants to instill her own social conservatism on others. The rest are just fools or nobodies.

I am actually shocked at the low level of candidates on offer from the GOP. Obama was there for the kill. There is no way he should get another term but he will because the GOP are just intellectually retarded. Why is anti-intellectualism such a corner stone of the GOP.

All they want to talk about now is Iran and what they should do to stop them never mind how they are going to pay for it if they go to war again. Why do the GOP like war so much? Did they not learn their lesson in Iraq.

Christ, what the GOP should do is forget war and social conservatism for about 10 years. Fix the ****ing economy and stop the stupid ****ing games. Then they might have some bright young candidates in Washington.

Imagine if Hillary Clinton was a republican. She would be so much of a favorite for the presidency that Obama would probably not seek a 2nd term. Compare her to say Palin. I rest my case.

What do you mean by the bit in bold. I thought the Tea Party were socially conservative, no?