Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Newton Leroy Gingrich, Ph.D. : An Appreciation

Newton Leroy Gingrich, Ph.D. : An Appreciation (Page 7)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2012, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
They both do IMO. Republicans are afraid Newt is one gaffe away from Bozo the Clown and Democrats are afraid Gingrich is one debate away from making Obama look like the hopeless incompetent that he is.
This doesn't make sense. If he is gaffe prone, wouldn't the Democrats want to put him in a position where he'd commit a gaffe?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2012, 08:50 PM
 
A Gingrich GOP nomination would be a godsend for the Obama re-election campaign. While his antics play well to the far-right, conservative base of the GOP .... his negative polling far outweighs his positive polling in the general electorate.

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2012, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
A Gingrich GOP nomination would be a godsend for the Obama re-election campaign. While his antics play well to the far-right, conservative base of the GOP .... his negative polling far outweighs his positive polling in the general electorate.

OAW

Why is it that some extreme conservatives like Ann Coulter don't think he is conservative enough though?

Is he really conservative or not conservative enough? It's so weird how conservatives can't even agree upon what conservative is these days...
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2012, 09:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is it that some extreme conservatives like Ann Coulter don't think he is conservative enough though?

Is he really conservative or not conservative enough? It's so weird how conservatives can't even agree upon what conservative is these days...
If Mitt Romney is a "flip flopper" then Newt Gingrich is "flip flopper lite". Newt knows how to play the game. And he's such a master at throwing red meat to the far right and channeling its "angry white male, blame the minorities and liberal media" mentality that they don't even notice. Or perhaps they do and they just don't care because their hatred towards Obama trumps everything. There are those who actually pay attention and they know that Newt has espoused positions that were mainstream conservative thought 10 or 20 years ago. But the GOP has gone so far off the deep end to the right recently that even positions held by Newt are considered "too moderate". Real talk? Ronald Reagan couldn't win the GOP nomination today ... despite the fact that the party idolizes him. That seems contradictory but it's really not. The modern day GOP is nostalgic for Reagan. He's been put so far up on a pedestal that their impression of him today is a far cry from the actual policies he espoused.

I must say though that I do find it amusing to see the likes of Coulter tussling with Newt. Two bomb-throwers extraordinaire are going at it because Coulter is about the GOP winning .... and Newt is about Newt.

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2012, 10:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
If Mitt Romney is a "flip flopper" then Newt Gingrich is "flip flopper lite". Newt knows how to play the game. And he's such a master at throwing red meat to the far right and channeling its "angry white male, blame the minorities and liberal media" mentality that they don't even notice. Or perhaps they do and they just don't care because their hatred towards Obama trumps everything. There are those who actually pay attention and they know that Newt has espoused positions that were mainstream conservative thought 10 or 20 years ago. But the GOP has gone so far off the deep end to the right recently that even positions held by Newt are considered "too moderate". Real talk? Ronald Reagan couldn't win the GOP nomination today ... despite the fact that the party idolizes him. That seems contradictory but it's really not. The modern day GOP is nostalgic for Reagan. He's been put so far up on a pedestal that their impression of him today is a far cry from the actual policies he espoused.

I must say though that I do find it amusing to see the likes of Coulter tussling with Newt. Two bomb-throwers extraordinaire are going at it because Coulter is about the GOP winning .... and Newt is about Newt.

OAW

I couldn't agree more. The consistency to Republican position and attack tactics used to be both annoying yet simultaneously effective. Now the Republicans are sort of like how the left has always been: all over the place in terms of their ideas.

The only difference to me is that the all-over-the-placeness seems to have a fairly strong element of bat cheat crazy these days.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 07:14 AM
 
Like watching a Saturday Night Live bit.
Funny in a scary way.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This doesn't make sense. If he is gaffe prone, wouldn't the Democrats want to put him in a position where he'd commit a gaffe?
A streaky quarterback can hurt you quick, but also has the potential to throw the pick. Although, let's not put too much stock in what Democrats think is best for them. They have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and no one has been more effective for the Republican party than Barack Obama.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is it that some extreme conservatives like Ann Coulter don't think he is conservative enough though? Is he really conservative or not conservative enough? It's so weird how conservatives can't even agree upon what conservative is these days...
There's an element of the conservative base that are simply using the indictment to turn conservatives off to Gingrich because they don't feel he's electable enough at the national level. He has an American Conservative Union rating of over 90%, but he's also got a lot of baggage that doesn't play well in a general. Romney is a much more predictable, moderate candidate they believe is somber and stable enough to beat Obama in a squeaker.

Coulter's hero is Chris Christie and if the ACU rated governors, she'd be supporting someone with a much lower score. Although it should be noted that Coulter has a good pulse on Republican sentiment and Romney will be the candidate to face Obama. While the ACU doesn't rate governors, they have offered their endorsement of Romney. Now we just have to do something about the stammering, C-3PO thing as Romney should be much more comfortable at this stage of the game.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And he's such a master at throwing red meat to the far right and channeling its "angry white male, blame the minorities and liberal media" mentality that they don't even notice. Or perhaps they do and they just don't care because their hatred towards Obama trumps everything.
Perhaps you've been too focused on your Republican ire that you've missed all the red meat that could as easily be said of Obama; feeding it out to the angry black males over gun-clinging religious hicks and blaming Republican obstructionism for an abject failure in leadership. After all, there's plenty of unproductive blame to go around and Obama's been most effective at turning the Indies that voted for him into Republicans.

There are those who actually pay attention and they know that Newt has espoused positions that were mainstream conservative thought 10 or 20 years ago. But the GOP has gone so far off the deep end to the right recently that even positions held by Newt are considered "too moderate". Real talk? Ronald Reagan couldn't win the GOP nomination today ... despite the fact that the party idolizes him. That seems contradictory but it's really not. The modern day GOP is nostalgic for Reagan. He's been put so far up on a pedestal that their impression of him today is a far cry from the actual policies he espoused.
It has little to nothing to do with conservatism directly as it does slowing down the destructive leftist momentum at the Executive level and denying Obama the opportunity to live out his legacy in ratcheting up the divisiveness another notch with four more years and no fear of losing office. i.e. Hillary Clinton would be better than Obama at this critical point.

They want who they feel is the most electable with champions that are not as conservative as Gingrich. Conservatism hasn't changed in the last 10 to 20 years, it has merely gotten more vocal and fearless much to your shagrin. Where you're missing the boat here, understandably, is a failure to acknowledge ineffective leadership. I like real talk -- What people (Democrats and Republicans alike) idolized of Reagan was the fruits of his policies. It makes sense the only tactics available to the left today are those of personal jabs and analysis of effective Republican figures from 30 years ago. It's not like they can rest on the laurels of their own liberal champions and the fruits of their policies today. It's going to be a long election year.

I must say though that I do find it amusing to see the likes of Coulter tussling with Newt. Two bomb-throwers extraordinaire are going at it because Coulter is about the GOP winning .... and Newt is about Newt.
On this we agree.
ebuddy
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 11:18 AM
 
I hope the NYT doesn't mind me hot-linking to their comic. (Let me know if you can't see it....)

     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 11:27 AM
 
What elite media tactics? I see none.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There's an element of the conservative base that are simply using the indictment to turn conservatives off to Gingrich because they don't feel he's electable enough at the national level. He has an American Conservative Union rating of over 90%, but he's also got a lot of baggage that doesn't play well in a general. Romney is a much more predictable, moderate candidate they believe is somber and stable enough to beat Obama in a squeaker.

Coulter's hero is Chris Christie and if the ACU rated governors, she'd be supporting someone with a much lower score. Although it should be noted that Coulter has a good pulse on Republican sentiment and Romney will be the candidate to face Obama. While the ACU doesn't rate governors, they have offered their endorsement of Romney. Now we just have to do something about the stammering, C-3PO thing as Romney should be much more comfortable at this stage of the game.

Whatever dude, none of this matters anyway. Some day you guys will realize that it doesn't matter who wins this election, then you'll think that I'm smart.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Whatever dude, none of this matters anyway. Some day you guys will realize that it doesn't matter who wins this election, then you'll think that I'm smart.
Whatever dude? That's kind of trollish. I mean, I gave an honest, substantive answer to your question.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Whatever dude? That's kind of trollish. I mean, I gave an honest, substantive answer to your question.
It was yet another C-3PO reference from you, I'm tired of those.

I just think you are over-analyzing this with the ACU ratings and stuff. It's probably much simpler than that, simply the high probability that Conservatives on the whole are lost right now. It's cyclical with both parties, the Democrats have probably been lost much longer in recent years. As has been pointed out, Ronald Reagan wouldn't be appealing to many conservatives these days without knowing he was Ronald Reagan.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 12:04 PM
 
Also, it really doesn't matter, I was being literal. It's the corporations with the power, not the politicians. Politics is a battle of power, only we are all focusing on the pawns on the chess board.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It was yet another C-3PO reference from you, I'm tired of those.
What the...? C-3PO is the humanoid from Star Wars and as far as I know, it's the first time I've referenced him. That's literally what Romney reminds me of when he's uncomfortable in debates with the body/head tilting and stammering.

I just think you are over-analyzing this with the ACU ratings and stuff. It's probably much simpler than that, simply the high probability that Conservatives on the whole are lost right now. It's cyclical with both parties, the Democrats have probably been lost much longer in recent years. As has been pointed out, Ronald Reagan wouldn't be appealing to many conservatives these days without knowing he was Ronald Reagan.
And I'd remind you that you're making judgements with a lot of opinion and zero fact... again. Reagan didn't start off appealing in those days either and having engaged a similar campaign now as he did then, would likely fare exactly the same.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Also, it really doesn't matter, I was being literal. It's the corporations with the power, not the politicians. Politics is a battle of power, only we are all focusing on the pawns on the chess board.
The politicians are the ones giving a few corporations like GE, the power. You remove the more egregious politicians like Obama and you'll have less of them pandering to pharmaceuticals for cheaper drugs, insurance companies for individual mandates, and Big Energy for the green agenda and you'll have less of them hand-picked to legislate outside Congressional oversight as czars. I think I've got the proper focus, it just offends your partisan sensitivities.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What the...? C-3PO is the humanoid from Star Wars and as far as I know, it's the first time I've referenced him. That's literally what Romney reminds me of when he's uncomfortable in debates with the body/head tilting and stammering.
There you go again, you're obsessed with C-3PO!

And I'd remind you that you're making judgements with a lot of opinion and zero fact... again. Reagan didn't start off appealing in those days either and having engaged a similar campaign now as he did then, would likely fare exactly the same.
I'm saying that Reagan re-incarnated, the same Reagan that Republicans supposedly love, would be too liberal for the rabid far right wing base.

What I don't know is how vocal and powerful those sorts of people really are though.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The politicians are the ones giving a few corporations like GE, the power. You remove the more egregious politicians like Obama and you'll have less of them pandering to pharmaceuticals for cheaper drugs, insurance companies for individual mandates, and Big Energy for the green agenda and you'll have less of them hand-picked to legislate outside Congressional oversight as czars. I think I've got the proper focus, it just offends your partisan sensitivities.

They are giving them the power because the corporations gave them the power and allow them to keep the power they have, it's a symbiotic relationship.

I don't know what your focus is exactly, but if you are happy with the way things have been in the last 12 years or more you should feel comforted knowing that come January 2013 everything will be just as it is now regardless of what happens in November and who is sitting in the oval office, because the system is setup to remain the same way.

If this wasn't so, there has been literally no legislation that Obama has passed that the Republicans couldn't have replaced with something better if this was truly a battle of well intentioned ideas designed to serve the majority of the population, it's just a matter of lining up the votes and making it politically disadvantageous for Obama to veto. It's not a battle of well intentioned ideas though, it's a battle of corporate power. That balance of corporate power doesn't change along with our election cycles.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
A streaky quarterback can hurt you quick, but also has the potential to throw the pick. Although, let's not put too much stock in what Democrats think is best for them. They have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and no one has been more effective for the Republican party than Barack Obama.
Obviously, you think the Republican Party consists mostly of loonies on the far right, who have been doing a lot of squealing these days. You couldn't be more wrong. While Americans have indeed been disaffected about the shenanigans going on in Washington, they are starting to wake up to the fact that batshit crazy people like Gingrich, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, Perry, et al., most certainly don't have their interests at heart, and have offered nothing but hot air hyperbole as "solutions" for real problems. It's going to be Romney vs. Obama in the fall, and, while I'm no fan of Obama, he's still miles of ahead of Romney, who America is realizing is nothing but a spoiled rich kid.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 02:33 PM
 
The Republicans in 2012 are walking into the same trap that the Democrats did in 2004: putting the most bland candidate out there in the hopes that saying "I'm not that guy you hate" will get them the election.



That's one thing Newton Leroy has going for him: he's anything but bland.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 03:16 PM
 
Is insisting on including newt's middle name sort of the answer to doing the same with Obama's?

At least Obama's is cool sounding.
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 04:13 PM
 
Are you kidding? Newton Leroy is an awesome name. I'll bet everyone in grade school admired him for it.

You just wish your middle name was Leroy. besson3c Leroy Guttenberg!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 04:52 PM
 
Besson3c Hussein guttenberg
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There you go again, you're obsessed with C-3PO!
Meaning: I'm sorry for the kneejerk ebuddy.

It's okay besson3PO-C, I'd expect nothing less.

I'm saying that Reagan re-incarnated, the same Reagan that Republicans supposedly love, would be too liberal for the rabid far right wing base.
And I'm saying that this is masterful of the obvious as he had the same problems with republicans early on. It was the fruits of his policies that created "Reagan-Democrats" and a bunch of Republicans that would love him so. Otherwise, I'm not too interested in what is considered "rabid right-wing" by rabid left-wingers.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Obviously, you think the Republican Party consists mostly of loonies on the far right, who have been doing a lot of squealing these days.
Don't let me get to you OldMan.

You couldn't be more wrong. While Americans have indeed been disaffected about the shenanigans going on in Washington, they are starting to wake up to the fact that batshit crazy people like Gingrich, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, Perry, et al., most certainly don't have their interests at heart, and have offered nothing but hot air hyperbole as "solutions" for real problems.
Independents; the ones most disaffected today by the shenanigans, elected Obama for change. What they're waking up to is the fact that there has indeed been change, change for the worse. The mere fact that you lump all the above into the "batshit crazy people" category only establishes how far your alternet reality has led you astray.

It's going to be Romney vs. Obama in the fall, and, while I'm no fan of Obama, he's still miles of ahead of Romney, who America is realizing is nothing but a spoiled rich kid.
I agree that it will be Romney v Obama this fall, but I disagree that Obama is miles ahead of Romney. Obama is over a century behind us all.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
They are giving them the power because the corporations gave them the power and allow them to keep the power they have, it's a symbiotic relationship.
The only way it can become a power play is when the government is attempting to assume more of a role in society. This costs money. You have to pander to money when you want to do expensive things at the Federal level. The smaller a role government is expected to play, the less meaningful the money becomes. You can't have it both ways.

I don't know what your focus is exactly, but if you are happy with the way things have been in the last 12 years or more you should feel comforted knowing that come January 2013 everything will be just as it is now regardless of what happens in November and who is sitting in the oval office, because the system is setup to remain the same way.
I'm not happy with how things have been the last 30 years at least and even longer in certain circumstances, but that doesn't mean re-electing the same exact person in office will somehow change the status quo. The Presidency comes with Supreme Court appointments, cabinet appointments, and a different makeup of advisors, and different rhetoric from the bully pulpit. These are all things I'm most disappointed in right now with this Presidency which is why he'll not get my vote this fall regardless of whether or not I think we should return to the gold standard within 8 weeks of the new guy taking office. [/sarcasm]

If this wasn't so, there has been literally no legislation that Obama has passed that the Republicans couldn't have replaced with something better if this was truly a battle of well intentioned ideas designed to serve the majority of the population, it's just a matter of lining up the votes and making it politically disadvantageous for Obama to veto. It's not a battle of well intentioned ideas though, it's a battle of corporate power. That balance of corporate power doesn't change along with our election cycles.
Sure enough and this is why you need a government that assumes a much smaller role in society; to make the money meaningless. Sure, an insurance company may flash billions of dollars for your campaign to support an individual mandate, but if the candidate is committed to a smaller government philosophy, the money is meaningless. I don't expect this to make sense to you, but it makes a lot of sense none the less.

Otherwise, Republicans are not yet in a position where they have enough political capital to do much more than draft ideas and watch the party of No oppose them in the Senate. They're certainly not outfitted to override the Presidential veto. There've been no shortage of ideas coming from Republicans, you just won't hear any of them on the Daily Show.
ebuddy
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2012, 11:21 PM
 
Just when I thought Newt couldn't be even more of a douche....

Newt mooched off his in-laws for school, but lectures kids today to work thru school.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2012, 03:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm not happy with how things have been the last 30 years at least and even longer in certain circumstances, but that doesn't mean re-electing the same exact person in office will somehow change the status quo.
I don't think electing either will change the status quo, but I'd argue that the probability of electing a Republican resulting in the status quo would be much higher.

In addition to the whole obstructionist concept, I'd argue that virtually all legislation in recent memory has been far more Republican influenced and Republican centric than Democrat centric. That is, most legislation has been mostly right wing stuff with traces of left wing stuff. Off the top of my head I can't really think of any legislation where this is not apparent. I know you probably hate Obama speeches and the kind of stuff he talks about, but it is just talk, at the end of the day it comes down to what legislation is passed.

That being said, I'm not suggesting that you vote for Obama or that people should in general, I'm just saying that your reasoning is flawed.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2012, 08:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't think electing either will change the status quo, but I'd argue that the probability of electing a Republican resulting in the status quo would be much higher.
You might argue that, but you wouldn't be able to support the argument with anything meaningful. I think there's more pressure right now and many from the right, ready to trounce mere lip service from their ilk. In this it's simply slowing the status quo which is apparently as good as it's going to get for now.

In addition to the whole obstructionist concept, I'd argue that virtually all legislation in recent memory has been far more Republican influenced and Republican centric than Democrat centric. That is, most legislation has been mostly right wing stuff with traces of left wing stuff. Off the top of my head I can't really think of any legislation where this is not apparent. I know you probably hate Obama speeches and the kind of stuff he talks about, but it is just talk, at the end of the day it comes down to what legislation is passed.
Given your lack of any specific examples it's entirely possible that, off the top of your head, you can't think of any legislation at all. Although again, what is defined as right-wing by the rabid left-wing is not really very meaningful anyway. If a bill originates in the House (which they do), chances are they're going to be more right than left right now, but they'll get denied for not throwing enough red meat to the rabid leftist lobby du jour regardless of whether or not they'd result in a net-gain for all. I'm annoyed by Obama's speeches generally, but I don't hate them. In fact, his SOTUA wasn't too shabby in terms of delivery and feel-goodz (which the country does need btw), but woefully lacking in any specific policy initiative. Except for the proposed doubling of capital gains taxes as so-named after a man whose company (apparently chosen as a "winner") was negotiating $1 billion in back taxes from 2002.

That being said, I'm not suggesting that you vote for Obama or that people should in general, I'm just saying that your reasoning is flawed.
I disagree.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2012, 09:10 AM
 
Examples? How about Obama's health care package? It is essentially private insurance based...
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2012, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Just when I thought Newt couldn't be even more of a douche....

Newt mooched off his in-laws for school, but lectures kids today to work thru school.
He was getting his Ph.D. at the time, I'm sure that makes it different. I'm surprised that Newt is not making a bigger deal about his Ph.D., since the Republican electorate values Higher Education so much....
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2012, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Examples? How about Obama's health care package? It is essentially private insurance based...
So you like Obama's package?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2012, 08:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
So you like Obama's package?
Only post-stimulus...
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2012, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Examples? How about Obama's health care package? It is essentially private insurance based...
How about it? We already know most health care in the US is administered by the Federal government, how much worse could it get? Meddle more in the private industry by offering the "carrot" of the individual mandate guaranteeing by law, more insureds. But wait...
  • Community rating requirements
  • MLR Regulations
  • Additional minimum coverage requirements
  • free preventive care and screening, adult children to 26, pre-existing condition requirements
  • Medicaid expanded to include those at 133% of poverty level and low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies.
  • Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will also pay a shared responsibility requirement if the government has had to subsidize an employee's health care.
  • Very small businesses will be able to get subsidies if they purchase insurance through an exchange. The exchanges, which offer subsidized coverage to lower and middle income individuals, will represent over half of Obamacare's projected expansion of health coverage to 32 million people.

This reminds me of the times folks had complained about others citing "socialism". I maintain that those who don't acknowledge it either don't know what it is or they generally appreciate the ideal. Obama has admitted publicly that you cannot thrust a single-payer system onto the collective over night; that it has to be ushered in through small legislative pieces. Well, that's exactly what we have here.

It will first grow government-sponsored health care. Then it essentially creates large insurer monopolies and ensures new startups who generally seek younger clientele for risk management can no longer do so because they have additional minimum requirements of premium costs for these folks under the Community rating requirements. MLR regulations ensure that more than 85% of premiums collected go into actual medical expenses guaranteeing the only ones that survive will be the larger corporate monoliths. (knowing the avg profit margin of a greedy health insurer is 4%) Apparently folks aren't fed up enough with Blue Cross. Notwithstanding the wealth of additional provisions I could've listed, those above set the industry up for insolvency while creating a few insurers that are too big to fail. For this reason a number of insurers are already leaving the small group and individual insurance markets which leaves more people for the exchange pool in 2014; an exchange by the way that's beholden to Federal mandates. If a State opts not to set up their own exchange (which is preposterous in a system that begs for interstate competition anyway), the Federal government will come into your State and set one up.

How could the layperson know this is terrible legislation? Because granting waivers from it to special interests including unions and others have become more lucrative as give-aways for support than tax incentives.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2012, 08:44 AM
 
WTF ebuddy?

It is becoming clear to me that you like to use your cunning and great debate abilities to basically support your pre-existing beliefs, but I don't understand why you insist on undertaking these great efforts when you must realize that all of this has nothing to do with the point being made?

I'm not defending the strengths and merits of the Obama health care package. There is no need to morph this into another health care thread.

My point was simply that the Obama health care strategy is more right wing wheelhouse than left wing wheelhouse in being built around private insurance. My larger point was that most modern legislation incorporates more right wing wheelhouse stuff than truly left wing wheelhouse stuff. In this case the left wing wheelhouse stuff would involve the abolition of private insurance.
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2012, 09:12 AM
 
Newton Leroy's campaign is glad we passed Universal Health Care, since it's on Life Support right now. But I wouldn't worry -- Newt will be lobbing bombs at Romney all the way up to the election!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2012, 09:19 AM
 
Regardless of whether Romney or Gingrich or Obama wins, it doesn't matter.

I was trying to be comforting to Republicans in saying that no matter what the outcome of this election, they'll still have plenty of power. The Republicans have not lacked power for the last 12 years now, possibly more, the problem is not a political power issue.

The main problems are that this system was never designed for big radical change due to its many checks and balances, and without addressing the stuff I've been harping about (i.e. money in politics being the primary thing) we won't even get started down that long road of change until the real collective powers decide to do so.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2012, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Newton Leroy's campaign is glad we passed Universal Health Care, since it's on Life Support right now.
I see what you did there! I smell another infraction coming your way....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2012, 10:11 AM
 
The Gingrich campaign has been an interesting roller coaster ride.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2012, 08:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
My point was simply that the Obama health care strategy is more right wing wheelhouse than left wing wheelhouse in being built around private insurance. My larger point was that most modern legislation incorporates more right wing wheelhouse stuff than truly left wing wheelhouse stuff. In this case the left wing wheelhouse stuff would involve the abolition of private insurance.
I just gave you a litany of reasons why this is not only a left-wing strategy, it's riddled with left-wing policy and virtually picks apart the private health care industry one piece at a time. i.e. I know exactly why you posted Obamacare as an example and that's precisely why I addressed it with so many counter-points.

I know, I know... you're going to consider it right-wing because the legislation wasn't called "Slowly Destroy Private Health Care and Push Everyone Into a Government-managed Exchange Program" and because you want to in spite of any hard, clear facts to the contrary. Because of course, none of this matters to you.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2012, 08:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The Gingrich campaign has been an interesting roller coaster ride.
And now it is getting more silly and desperate by the day.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2012, 08:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I just gave you a litany of reasons why this is not only a left-wing strategy, it's riddled with left-wing policy and virtually picks apart the private health care industry one piece at a time. i.e. I know exactly why you posted Obamacare as an example and that's precisely why I addressed it with so many counter-points.

I know, I know... you're going to consider it right-wing because the legislation wasn't called "Slowly Destroy Private Health Care and Push Everyone Into a Government-managed Exchange Program" and because you want to in spite of any hard, clear facts to the contrary. Because of course, none of this matters to you.

How is it a left wing strategy?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2012, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How is it a left wing strategy?
See above.
ebuddy
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2012, 11:36 AM
 
Nobody whines like Newton Leroy! (although I think he has a point...)

So ... does the winner really take all in Florida? Not so, says the Gingrich campaign - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News

TL;DR summary: There is a Republican Party rule stating that all primaries before a certain date must award delegates proportionately, and not in a winner-take-all fashion. Florida's primary is before this date (it was moved up!), yet the Florida Republican Party still wants to award all delegates to the winner.
Awarding delegates proportionally would get Romney around 24 delegates and Gingrich about 15, reducing Romney's advantage over Newton Leroy from 50 to 9-ish.

In this quote, Newton Leroy's lawyer makes the whole situation clearer.

So what's going to happen here, Greta, very straightforward, is there is a contest already because only takes one person to make that request. That was done by not our campaign, but we certainly would back it up. It was done by a state committeeman in Florida back sometime ago in November. And he reiterated it recently.
It's my understanding there is a contest committee to which this has been or should be referred. And I have reason to believe that just talking anecdotally to various National Committeemen and Committeewomen, that quite a few of them on that committee and on the rules committee who are very, very unhappy that the chairman is not enforcing or choosing to enforce this rule or saying he's going to, which might, if it's not brought up sooner, which I think it will be, I can't imagine with all the furor that's going to happen over it, won't be, but if it's not brought up and decided by the National Committee sooner, it's going to be a contest at the convention.
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2012, 08:06 AM
 
Keep it up, Newton Leroy! We're all pulling for you (and the gun-racks on your big-ass trucks!

GM to Gingrich: You can put a gun rack in a Volt | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

General Motors Co. chided Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's suggestion that the Volt is an "Obama car."

"You can't put a gun rack in a Volt," Gingrich said in a line that drew cheers at a speech in Georgia this weekend, and is now appearing in his stump speech. "We believe in the right to bear arms and we like to bear the arms in our trucks."

GM spokesman Selim Bingol responded to Gingrich in a new GM blog: "Newt Gingrich has taken up saying that 'You can't put a gun rack on a Volt.' That's like saying 'You can't put training wheels on a Harley.' Actually, you can. But the real question is 'Why would you?'
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2012, 01:50 PM
 
Sounds like Newt is adept with his pandering. Maybe not as much so as Romney, so said recently the number one criteria he will look for in a VP is somebody who is pro life, but...

It will be interesting to see if all of this pandering to the far right amounts to candidates painting themselves into a corner. I'd like to think that there are still far more moderates, independents, and moderate right wing type people than the far right conservative base types being seduced with this sort of pandering. Are they going to overlook this sort of thing?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2012, 07:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Keep it up, Newton Leroy! We're all pulling for you (and the gun-racks on your big-ass trucks!

GM to Gingrich: You can put a gun rack in a Volt | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com
I can see it now.

Dog shoots owner while driving his truck.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...nother-hunter/
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2012, 08:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Sounds like Newt is adept with his pandering.

Certainly not! He is not "adept" with his panda. Everyone knows that pandas are Chinese! And Newt's a red-blooded American! He would not associate with a communist animal!
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2012, 07:25 AM
 
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:15 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,