Major reason why Gingrinch should not be president

krill said:
"“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate,” Gingrich told CBN’s David Brody, in an interview taped at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition…"
Click to expand...
I love this country so much that I was forced to have an affair with a beautiful young congressional staffer.

 
Husker_x said:
4. Hypocrisy and partisanship are synonyms for politics. I have yet to see a politician who doesn't exhibit these characteristics at one point or another. If you want to go down the he-said/she-said road, pick any politician and listen to them talk for a sustained period of time. Frankly I'm more interested in discussions about substantive issues about social policies that will actually affect me. Some other time I can give you a list of things that bother me about Gingrich if you like.
Click to expand...
I think this is a bit of a false equivalency. Some politicians are rather egregious with the hypocrisy, others not so much.

 
I'm really wondering if this is setting up to be Bush vs. Kerry part II? Bush won a second term because Kerry was the best the Democrats had to offer which was really poor. I could see Obama doing the same thing here. After the election the Republicans will be asking themselves "That was the best candidate we could bring? Really?"

 
Husker_x said:
Gingrich has slotted no one for State. He said he would ask John Bolton under certain preconditions.
Click to expand...
John Bolton should not be considered under any circumstance, or precondition.

Husker_x said:
Secondly, Gingrich does not favor war with Iran. He favors a variety of covert means of toppling a regime, focussed primarily on cutting off their gasoline supply and oil refinement capabilities, as well as funding dissident groups in the area. All of this to avoid military action, which would become all but inevitable if Iran were to produce a nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...

Husker_x said:
So Newt doesn't favor overt war, he favors illegal covert operations.

In other words... Newt favors terrorism.
Click to expand...
Husker_x said:
No, but unlike Ron Paul, some candidates on both sides of the aisle live in the real world where real consequences result in the death of real people. Taking, for example, a nuclear Iran. You're free to rail against whoever, but let's get our facts straight.
Click to expand...
This was a difficult post for me to respond to...

I cannot in good conscience, support the invasion/destruction of a nation and the deaths of thousands of human beings because they are a rival to our economic interests.

The facts are that a nuclear Iran is no more of a threat to Israel and the US than a non-nuclear Iran.

George Galloway explains the situation with clarity:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29926.htm

 
HSKR said:
I'm really wondering if this is setting up to be Bush vs. Kerry part II? Bush won a second term because Kerry was the best the Democrats had to offer which was really poor. I could see Obama doing the same thing here. After the election the Republicans will be asking themselves "That was the best candidate we could bring? Really?"
Click to expand...
He was the best that the Democrat donation base had to offer, he sucked as a candidate.

Malth said:
I wanted Howard Dean.
Click to expand...
Me too... go Vermont!

 
Sub-Husker said:
Husker_x said:
Gingrich has slotted no one for State. He said he would ask John Bolton under certain preconditions.
Click to expand...
John Bolton should not be considered under any circumstance, or precondition.

Husker_x said:
Secondly, Gingrich does not favor war with Iran. He favors a variety of covert means of toppling a regime, focussed primarily on cutting off their gasoline supply and oil refinement capabilities, as well as funding dissident groups in the area. All of this to avoid military action, which would become all but inevitable if Iran were to produce a nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...

Husker_x said:
So Newt doesn't favor overt war, he favors illegal covert operations.

In other words... Newt favors terrorism.
Click to expand...
Husker_x said:
No, but unlike Ron Paul, some candidates on both sides of the aisle live in the real world where real consequences result in the death of real people. Taking, for example, a nuclear Iran. You're free to rail against whoever, but let's get our facts straight.
Click to expand...
This was a difficult post for me to respond to...

I cannot in good conscience, support the invasion/destruction of a nation and the deaths of thousands of human beings because they are a rival to our economic interests.

The facts are that a nuclear Iran is no more of a threat to Israel and the US than a non-nuclear Iran.

George Galloway explains the situation with clarity:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29926.htm
Click to expand...
Nor does anyone, including Gingrich. Every reasonable action must be taken to avoid a war.

 
Sub-Husker said:
Husker_x said:
Gingrich has slotted no one for State. He said he would ask John Bolton under certain preconditions.
Click to expand...
John Bolton should not be considered under any circumstance, or precondition.

Husker_x said:
Secondly, Gingrich does not favor war with Iran. He favors a variety of covert means of toppling a regime, focussed primarily on cutting off their gasoline supply and oil refinement capabilities, as well as funding dissident groups in the area. All of this to avoid military action, which would become all but inevitable if Iran were to produce a nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...

Husker_x said:
So Newt doesn't favor overt war, he favors illegal covert operations.

In other words... Newt favors terrorism.
Click to expand...
Husker_x said:
No, but unlike Ron Paul, some candidates on both sides of the aisle live in the real world where real consequences result in the death of real people. Taking, for example, a nuclear Iran. You're free to rail against whoever, but let's get our facts straight.
Click to expand...
This was a difficult post for me to respond to...

I cannot in good conscience, support the invasion/destruction of a nation and the deaths of thousands of human beings because they are a rival to our economic interests.

The facts are that a nuclear Iran is no more of a threat to Israel and the US than a non-nuclear Iran.

George Galloway explains the situation with clarity:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29926.htm
Click to expand...

That is easy for you to say there isn't a nation by us that wants our destruction that has nuclear weapons. If your family was in that kind of danger you might change your mind. :nutz

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sub-Husker said:
johnnyrodgers20 said:
That is easy for you to say there isn't a nation by us that wants our destruction that has nuclear weapons. If your family was in that kind of danger you might change your mind.
Click to expand...
The more nations we invade, the greater the risk to citizens of this nation.
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about? The Israeli situation is so different from ours, they are not invading other countries so why are you even talking about that. I said if you were surrounded by enemies on all sides who want to annihilate you and your family (wipe you off the map) you would change your mind. eyeswear2allthatsholy

 
HSKR said:
I'm really wondering if this is setting up to be Bush vs. Kerry part II? Bush won a second term because Kerry was the best the Democrats had to offer which was really poor. I could see Obama doing the same thing here. After the election the Republicans will be asking themselves "That was the best candidate we could bring? Really?"
Click to expand...
Bingo - that is exactly how I see this election. The Republican candidates are almost caricatures of actual people. It is bizarre that this is the best the Republicans can offer. There is no way any of these people beat Obama.

 
knapplc said:
HSKR said:
I'm really wondering if this is setting up to be Bush vs. Kerry part II? Bush won a second term because Kerry was the best the Democrats had to offer which was really poor. I could see Obama doing the same thing here. After the election the Republicans will be asking themselves "That was the best candidate we could bring? Really?"
Click to expand...
Bingo - that is exactly how I see this election. The Republican candidates are almost caricatures of actual people. It is bizarre that this is the best the Republicans can offer. There is no way any of these people beat Obama.
Click to expand...
It's a loooooooooong way til election day.

Primary seasons cut both ways. Right now all the Republican candidates who are in serious contention are going to go through a normal media vetting process. The one who survives it is going to have a sharp uptick in support once he nabs the nomination. All the conservative bickering will abruptly cease, and then the national campaign gets underway. Anyone who underestimates Gingrich hasn't been paying attention. This guy should already be out of the race based upon his terrible start. Not many guys can have as much baggage as he does, and not only survive his campaign collapsing, but surge to the front of the pack without running a single attack ad on any other candidate. I see Gingrich's campaign working out a little better than some do. Time will tell, I suppose.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
johnnyrodgers20 said:
What are you even talking about? The Israeli situation is so different from ours, they are not invading other countries so why are you even talking about that. I said if you were surrounded by enemies on all sides who want to annihilate you and your family (wipe you off the map) you would change your mind.
Click to expand...
LMAO... Israel is not invading other countries???

Perhaps there is a reason why they are surrounded by enemies.

Regarding "want to annihilate you and your family (wipe you off the map)", where did you get that line from, and who did the translation from Farsi?

 
Back
Top