DescentBB

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 ... 09210.html

Just like a politician to try and worm their way into the office

Mitt has already labeled Newt on pro amnesty.

I don't see "amnesty" being a universally bad thing, per se, but I am rather amazed at Gingrich's surge in the polls. Like...seriously? Newt Gingrich?

I don't disagree with you.(I must have a fever). It's just another ploy by a politician to try an get their votes. I just hope the Hispanics realize this.

Heretic wrote:I don't disagree with you.(I must have a fever). It's just another ploy by a politician to try an get their votes. I just hope the Hispanics realize this.

why would they??? people that vote Democrat haven't caught onto the fact the the DNC has been using their own money to buy their votes for decades. so why should the Hispanics be any different

One thing I have to givd newt credit for is that he is smart. He knows the numbers, hhe knows republicans have no choice,

[ Post made via Android ]

I see a small conundrum for voters taking a new look at Ol' Newt. He's trying to sway the Catholic Latino vote his way by sounding like a concerned family man, but he still has that little dirty stain of adultery written all over him. How will they choose and what particular moral will they sacrifice? Maybe he's really trying to shill to them a bunch of his books and DVD's?

tunnelcat wrote:I see a small conundrum for voters taking a new look at Ol' Newt. He's trying to sway the Catholic Latino vote his way by sounding like a concerned family man, but he still has that little dirty stain of adultery written all over him. How will they choose and what particular moral will they sacrifice? Maybe he's really trying to shill to them a bunch of his books and DVD's?

you think?

Hell, that's been Newt's game from the get-go. And, Cain's and Bachmann's as well. Palin pulled it off the best, she raised cash and didn't even formally declare as a candidate. There's big money to be made, and the rubes just line up.

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I see a small conundrum for voters taking a new look at Ol' Newt. He's trying to sway the Catholic Latino vote his way by sounding like a concerned family man, but he still has that little dirty stain of adultery written all over him. How will they choose and what particular moral will they sacrifice? Maybe he's really trying to shill to them a bunch of his books and DVD's?

you think?

Hell, that's been Newt's game from the get-go. And, Cain's and Bachmann's as well. Palin pulled it off the best, she raised cash and didn't even formally declare as a candidate. There's big money to be made, and the rubes just line up.

And all of them combined wont equal anywhere near the almost 1 billion Obama has raise while supposedly running this country. can you say top .000000000001 percent

I think amnesty is the only choice to be made at this point. They just sound funny, beyond that there is no difference
I would also immediately close the southern border with a huge wall, but I would have to get NAFTA repealed first. lol

tunnelcat wrote:I see a small conundrum for voters taking a new look at Ol' Newt. He's trying to sway the Catholic Latino vote his way by sounding like a concerned family man, but he still has that little dirty stain of adultery written all over him. How will they choose and what particular moral will they sacrifice? Maybe he's really trying to shill to them a bunch of his books and DVD's?

Kinda like Obama not allowing the pipe line to appease his environmental base until after the election...delaying a estimated 20,000 jobs. Yup ole Obama has his laser like attention to creating more jobs. What? You say they are not govt. jobs so they are not important? Oh, I guess that makes it ok.

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I see a small conundrum for voters taking a new look at Ol' Newt. He's trying to sway the Catholic Latino vote his way by sounding like a concerned family man, but he still has that little dirty stain of adultery written all over him. How will they choose and what particular moral will they sacrifice? Maybe he's really trying to shill to them a bunch of his books and DVD's?

you think?

Hell, that's been Newt's game from the get-go. And, Cain's and Bachmann's as well. Palin pulled it off the best, she raised cash and didn't even formally declare as a candidate. There's big money to be made, and the rubes just line up.

And how many rubes bought "Dreams From My Father" or the new abridged version?

CUDA wrote:all of them combined wont equal anywhere near the almost 1 billion Obama has raise while supposedly running this country. can you say top .000000000001 percent

once again, missing a perfectly clear point completely, CUDA....you're slipping. Obama is actually running for re-election. Gingrich, Cain and Bachmann are running for self-enrichment, flagrantly so.

woodchip wrote:And how many rubes bought "Dreams From My Father" or the new abridged version?

see my point to CUDA. The man ran and won, that was his goal. I doubt Herman Cain even conceives of being President, but is happy as hell to sell his books to his own campaign and jack up his speaking fee.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:And how many rubes bought "Dreams From My Father" or the new abridged version?

see my point to CUDA. The man ran and won, that was his goal. I doubt Herman Cain even conceives of being President, but is happy as hell to sell his books to his own campaign and jack up his speaking fee.

I've seen some pretty ignorant replies Slick but your's takes the cake. What you are saying is if any of the candidates you mentioned win the GOP nomination, they are going to say, "No thanks, I'm making too much money selling books".
Please take your juvy replies to another forum where the poor schleps actually think you have a point.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:all of them combined wont equal anywhere near the almost 1 billion Obama has raise while supposedly running this country. can you say top .000000000001 percent

once again, missing a perfectly clear point completely, CUDA....you're slipping. Obama is actually running for re-election. Gingrich, Cain and Bachmann are running for self-enrichment, flagrantly so.

you CANNOT be that ignorant. do you really believe for 1 second that Obama isn't running for self-enrichment. tell me you actually believe that so I can laugh at you.

woodchip wrote:Kinda like Obama not allowing the pipe line to appease his environmental base until after the election...delaying a estimated 20,000 jobs. Yup ole Obama has his laser like attention to creating more jobs. What? You say they are not govt. jobs so they are not important? Oh, I guess that makes it ok.

Would YOU want that thing running through YOUR back yard with the not-so-spotless record of most oil company pipelines? Even some Republicans don't want it running near the Ogallala Aquifer in their states. Of course, if it was rerouted through someone else's state, they'd be all for it. And you're discounting the thousands of protesters that kept up the vigil at the White House to get Obama to even stop it from going through.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... 51097354/1

woodchip wrote:And how many rubes bought "Dreams From My Father" or the new abridged version?

Not I. Besides, Obama hasn't made a career of selling books and movies like Newt has. He even lost his whole campaign staff at once over the practice.

http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich ... -hucksters

Even if one overlooks that bit of tacky hucksterism, one still can't overlook Newt's serial philandering, even while his second wife lay sick from cancer in the hospital. "Hi honey, hope you're feeling better. And now I want a divorce." If Newt wants to prowl around like a horny dog, that's his right, but he can't get up on a pedestal and preach "family values" to the rest of us while he's doing it. Slimeball.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011 ... apolis.php

Gotta love Newt:

"Newt To Obama: Let's Debate, You Can Use A Teleprompter..."

Did TC just link to Fox news. OMG

Heretic wrote:Did TC just link to Fox news. OMG

ya but I guarantee she didnt read it
it probably just shows up on google and she linked it.

[ Post made via BlackBerry ]

Watching the GOP field self-destruct is as good as comedy can get.

CUDA wrote:

Heretic wrote:Did TC just link to Fox news. OMG

ya but I guarantee she didnt read it
it probably just shows up on google and she linked it.

[ Post made via BlackBerry ]

Sure I read it. I even occasionally watch FOX News. One has to keep tabs on the opposition to be well informed, or should I say misinformed.

woodchip wrote:Gotta love Newt:

"Newt To Obama: Let's Debate, You Can Use A Teleprompter..."

Actually, I'd like to see that debate.

Heretic wrote:Mitt has already labeled Newt on pro amnesty.

I believe illegal immigrants cross the line.

Zuruck wrote:Watching the GOP field self-destruct is as good as comedy can get.

no matter how bad the GOP gets, it cant measure up to the total implosion of ineptitude that the man at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave has had since he took office.

CUDA wrote:

Zuruck wrote:Watching the GOP field self-destruct is as good as comedy can get.

no matter how bad the GOP gets, it cant measure up to the total implosion of ineptitude that the man at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave has had since he took office.

Any of the present lineup of idiots, tools and insiders running for the Republican ticket would be far worse than what we've got now, although not by much.

woodchip wrote:[I've seen some pretty ignorant replies Slick but your's takes the cake. What you are saying is if any of the candidates you mentioned win the GOP nomination, they are going to say, "No thanks, I'm making too much money selling books".
Please take your juvy replies to another forum where the poor schleps actually think you have a point.

no, oh reading-comprehension wizard. I am saying none of the three cited had the slightest inkling of winning the nomination. They were, in my opinion(not unique, either) all in it for self-enrichment only. Note, I say nothing of the sort about Paul, Romney or even Santorum. All three of them clearly are on a higher mission. Personally, I suspect Santorum is gunning for a Veep nod from someone to his left a bit, but we'll see......

CUDA wrote:[you CANNOT be that ignorant. do you really believe for 1 second that Obama isn't running for self-enrichment. tell me you actually believe that so I can laugh at you.

he's the freaking INCUMBANT, CUDA. I'd have thought you had gotten at least somewhat used to that concept by now. So, he is running for re-election. Sure, most ex-presidents can make money with public speaking, but certainly Obama has a skillset that would have made him a lot more money than the path he chose. If you can't buy into that, you don't know about the kind of money a top-end attorney can make, and toss in academic income into the mix and he a Michelle could have made real coin with a WHOLE lot less hassle and grey hair. Laugh all you want, it merely reveals a small, somewhat puzzlingly hateful side of you that isn't your best side........

callmeslick wrote:So, he is running for re-election

since January of 2009??????

callmeslick wrote: Laugh all you want, it merely reveals a small, somewhat puzzlingly hateful side of you that isn't your best side........

YES YES it's all about me. yep it's just full of hate me. your response is so typically liberal. if someone disagrees with you or has anything critical to say about someone that the left supports. your instantly branded a hateful individual. lets not allows the evidence to speak for it self. NOOO I disagree with what your saying so you must be hateful.

again your slipping back into your old habits. please debate the facts and the issues and stay away from the personal attacks

callmeslick wrote:

Sure, most ex-presidents can make money with public speaking, but certainly Obama has a skillset that would have made him a lot more money than the path he chose. If you can't buy into that, you don't know about the kind of money a top-end attorney can make, and toss in academic income into the mix and he a Michelle could have made real coin with a WHOLE lot less hassle and grey hair.

And what skill set is that Slick? What atty work did he do prior to being President? Last I heard he was a senator with the skill set to only vote present 147 times. Getting to be POTUS was a a dream come true. Not because he was any good at it but all the lucrative deals he will make when he is out of office. Obama is so bad at being President members of his own party are asking him to step aside so someone else could make a honest run for the office.

I don't know woodchip, the guy was dealt a pretty ★■◆● hand on the first day of the job. For whatever reason, you guys think he's just as bad as it gets but whoever the GOP nominee is going to be won't be much better, if at all. Literally from the day the man was elected, every single thing he has done has been an issue for your side. This country is no different than when he took office. We can still eat at McDs and enjoy 8 dollar coffees from Starbucks. Is it really so bad??

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... d-together

note, CUDA and others, the differences cited in the financial disclosure and overall conduct of the Obama campaigns and Gingrich, in this example. Cain is worse, Bachmann about the same as Gingrich, in terms of transparency. And, CUDA, what the heck are you saying, that the President has been focused on personal enrichment the past 2 or 3 years? Get real. As stated more than once by others, he inherited a near-disaster, with few if any precedents to follow in search of recovery. Thanks to 3 years of backbiting and an opposition party incapable of doing anything, even confirming administrative appointments, he's had it even harder than it should have been. All in all, one starts to realize the man hasn't done half bad, and certainly FAR, FAR better than any potential person suggested in his stead.

This country has an identity crisis. That's Obama's fault or intention whatever, but that's the truth. He is the spokesman and sets the tone. He has failed to do anything but bow lower than anyone else.

Kind of hard to do when a large portion went on and on for three years about how he wasn't even a citizen....and some still don't think so.

I’ve got a name for this show…it’s called “let's make excuses”.

reality is not an excuse. there was nothing obama could ever do to please some people...hell if he brought woodchip a million free dollars, woody would get mad that he walked on his grass.

Zuruck wrote:reality is not an excuse. there was nothing obama could ever do to please some people...hell if he brought woodchip a million free dollars, woody would get mad that he walked on his grass.

So true. You might want to add CUDA to the list too.

You may not agree with everything Bush Sr or Bush Jr. did, but they damn sure got it done. With the way he is treated at home and abroad, I don't think anyone really wants to deal with him.

the question remains.

Are we better off then we were 3 years ago.

that answer is a resounding NO. did the President inherit a ★■◆● sandwich? YES
can you blame the GOP as obstructionists. Possibly in the last 2 years, but not in his first year of office when he had complete and total filibuster proof control of the government. and he and the Democrats could not be stopped in their want to pass legislation.
AND ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING.
so don't lie to yourself and to the rest of us on this board and blame the GOP for his failures to get things done. because he is a failure. he was elected to change this nation and failed. Miserably.
Why is Gitmo not closed. did he not promise it?
Why did unemployment go over 8% did he not promise it wouldn't ?
he promised to put all legislation on the Internet for five days before it comes to a vote. and didn't why?
Why don't we have a budget? this President had NEVER. NOT ONCE signed a Budget since he has been in office . WHY?? the Republican controlled Congress has offered several budgets and even offered compromises to budgets. but the Democratic controlled Senate has squashed everyone of them. WHY?? who are the real obstructionists? the GOP offered Compromise in the asinine super committee. and which side was unwilling to compromise on their ideals??? the President KNEW that committee was a political tool for his re-election. because if it wasn't then he would have set all the cuts to happen immediately. NOT after the next election cycle, when a potential new president would have to deal with them. WHY???
do I blame Obama for the way things are yes and rightfully and justifiably so..HE IS IN CHARGE.
but those of you that excuse him for where this nation is now, are either Ignorant, Stupid, or Both. the man is in charge, what happens in this Nation is his responsibility. he IS a failure as President and History will reflect that.

I would like to hasten his removal if not for the very reason that something needs to happen. If this guy is re-elected, are we in for another 4 years of bickering?

flip wrote:I would like to hasten his removal if not for the very reason that something needs to happen. If this guy is re-elected, are we in for another 4 years of bickering?

What, put in a hypocritical Republican President along whole new tribe of hypocritical Republicans or tea partiers just so they'll all make NICE? That'll cement in place the already burgeoning Plutocracy in this country. Might as well throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm not particularly for Obama getting relected, and I'll probably vote third party in 2012 because Obama has reneged on too many of his promises to fix Bush's mess and generally shown himself to be a spineless lackey not worth my vote. But I sure as hell don't want a wholesale switch BACK to the damned Republicans either. And definitely not the tea party or libertarians. I want to fix the country, not trash it or give it to Wall Street.

Bush may have gotten things done, but the damage to our country is irreparable. We got his and the Republicans "tax and spend" craziness, which gave us 2 huge, very expensive wars, a burgeoning military industrial complex that demands constant feeding, massive tax cuts on the upper class that helped exacerbate government debt, and a recession that might as well have been called a depression. Nice legacy. And yes, the Dems were part of the problem. They never questioned Bush's fiefdom (until it was too late) like the Republicans are doing to Obama NOW.

But wait, I'm forgetting the biggest Bush screwjob to the American people, TARP and Bush's hand-picked architect of the mess, Henry Paulson, who as it turns out, gave insider information on the whole deal to Wall Street Hedge Funds.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-2 ... escue.html

If anyone here, especially flip and CUDA, keep looking at the Bush Presidency with rose-colored glasses and don't think that Bush and his Republican buddies didn't further the corporate embedding of power in Washington and that voting his party back in will suddenly solve things, I've got a bridge to sell you........... because only the 2 main parties are on the American people's radar, and a true independent that is not bought by corporate America will never get elected

Lol, no I don't have any faith in any of them, but I do wish we would start moving in a particular direction. My point was that we have been in a stalemate for almost 4 years now. Both Bush's had help across the aisle. Obama?