PDA

View Full Version : Newt Gingrich



gman0046
11-19-2011, 07:37 AM
Say what you want about Newt but he's got more on the ball then any other perspective candidate. I've heard it said if he every debated Obama he'd wish he never left Chicago. This a must watch video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qtjfMjjce2Y

Cowtown
11-19-2011, 09:13 AM
Say what you want about Newt but he's got more on the ball then any other perspective candidate. I've heard it said if he every debated Obama he'd wish he never left Chicago. This a must watch video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qtjfMjjce2Y

I like a lot about Newt but his jumping on board with global warming really turned me off and reeks of big government globalism & control.

HPL
11-20-2011, 02:10 PM
I like a lot about Newt but his jumping on board with global warming really turned me off and reeks of big government globalism & control.
When it comes to global warming, you might say that I am an agnostic; that is to say just as an agnostic holds that you can never prove nor disprove the existence of a supreme being, I believe that at this time it is not proved whether man is responsible for the apparent rise in global temperatures. Like the prudent agnostic who behaves as though there IS a supreme being, it seems to me that the wise course at this point is to behave as though we ARE at least somewhat responsible for said perceived warming and try to do what we can to minimize it. Thus I can't fault Newt for his position there.

sandyg
11-20-2011, 08:25 PM
When it comes to global warming, you might say that I am an agnostic; that is to say just as an agnostic holds that you can never prove nor disprove the existence of a supreme being, I believe that at this time it is not proved whether man is responsible for the apparent rise in global temperatures. Like the prudent agnostic who behaves as though there IS a supreme being, it seems to me that the wise course at this point is to behave as though we ARE at least somewhat responsible for said perceived warming and try to do what we can to minimize it. Thus I can't fault Newt for his position there.

The difference is believing or not believing in God isn't going to cost me anything except possibly eternal life.

Believing in global warming without sufficient proof that it is man-made to a certain extent and that "doing something" can be proven to reduce it will result in my pocket being picked clean by the government and charlatans like Al Gore.

HPL
11-20-2011, 11:00 PM
The difference is believing or not believing in God isn't going to cost me anything except possibly eternal life.

Believing in global warming without sufficient proof that it is man-made to a certain extent and that "doing something" can be proven to reduce it will result in my pocket being picked clean by the government and charlatans like Al Gore.
That doesn't necessarily have to be true. One can live in a way that decreases carbon emissions voluntarily and might actually save money. You can find ways to cut down on your energy usage, probably without too much pain. One real problem with our society is that too many people are too short sighted and only interested in what they perceive as their own short term best interest.

Gerry Clinchy
11-21-2011, 03:58 AM
I like a lot about Newt but his jumping on board with global warming really turned me off and reeks of big government globalism & control.

He did change his position on global warming. One of the videos in the same group as the one cited originally, was Newt in front of a Congressional Committee with facts that would counter those of Gore.

Sometimes a flip-flop in position is valid. It would be foolish not to change one's opinion if new facts are brought to light. Doing otherwise is called "rationalization" ... refusing to acknowledge new facts that don't fit a preconception.

HPL
11-22-2011, 12:08 AM
More Newt. Pretty Serious fellow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiw3qVdFzw&feature=related

Gerry Clinchy
11-22-2011, 07:21 AM
He did change his position on global warming. One of the videos in the same group as the one cited originally, was Newt in front of a Congressional Committee with facts that would counter those of Gore.

Sometimes a flip-flop in position is valid. It would be foolish not to change one's opinion if new facts are brought to light. Doing otherwise is called "rationalization" ... refusing to acknowledge new facts that don't fit a preconception.

OMG! I'm starting to think like Newt!

I just watched one of those Newt videos on that site, and there was one where Newt basically said the same thing, back in maybe 2008. It was about asking a later Pres candidate in 2007 what they would do in 2009, and he said that if new information became available in 2009, he SHOULD change the opinion he might have had in 2007. To limit a candidate to "rigidity" may please the "consultants", but it may be the wrong thing to do.

The pith would be, of course, as to whether there is new valid information to change an opinion.

gmhr1
11-27-2011, 11:03 AM
For me Newt is the Best one

Ken Bora
11-28-2011, 08:37 AM
you all see this mornings news?
Bill Clinton likes Newt??
wonder what Mr. Obama will think when he reads that???



.

HPL
11-28-2011, 09:06 AM
you all see this mornings news?
Bill Clinton likes Newt??
wonder what Mr. Obama will think when he reads that???



.
I heard that too. All I can say is if he has Clinton's approval, there goes the Republican base. They'll not vote for anyone that could garner the approval of any high level Dem.

Ken Bora
11-28-2011, 09:49 AM
on the other hand......
to win a person needs the republican base AND
independent and democratic cross over votes.
Seeing as the consistent republican call to arms is anybody but "B"
Well, a republican that is at least a little bit liked by a Democrat??
Could bring us back to Ronald's "Center" of politics.
 
.

Blackstone
11-28-2011, 08:29 PM
I'm not a Newt fan, but I have to admit he strikes me as the best qualified of the bunch.

Gerry Clinchy
11-29-2011, 07:00 AM
I'm not a Newt fan, but I have to admit he strikes me as the best qualified of the bunch.

That seems to be the sentiment that keeps coming around ... "I'm not a Newt fan, but ..." It's hard to watch those debates and not acknowledge his intelligence, command of facts, and knowing how Congress works.

He's got "baggage" for sure ... but so did Clinton, so did Kennedy, etc.

When we think of who is "electable" ... do most people really relate to someone untouched by the hard knocks of life? Obama was such a candidate, but I think that showed up the day he said, "We won. Get over it." That remark said a lot to me about his attitude toward bi-partisanship.

road kill
11-29-2011, 07:28 AM
That seems to be the sentiment that keeps coming around ... "I'm not a Newt fan, but ..." It's hard to watch those debates and not acknowledge his intelligence, command of facts, and knowing how Congress works.

He's got "baggage" for sure ... but so did Clinton, so did Kennedy, etc.

When we think of who is "electable" ... do most people really relate to someone untouched by the hard knocks of life? Obama was such a candidate, but I think that showed up the day he said, "We won. Get over it." That remark said a lot to me about his attitude toward bi-partisanship.

As far as "baggage" goes, two things;

#1--Back in the old days "baggage" was called experience.
#2--Obama had no "baggage," how's that workin' out?

RK

Gerry Clinchy
11-29-2011, 07:44 AM
As far as "baggage" goes, two things;

#1--Back in the old days "baggage" was called experience.
#2--Obama had no "baggage," how's that workin' out?

RK

1) With Newt his baggage was his ethics reprimands while in Congress, and his marriages. It may be possible for people to learn from their mistakes.

Of course, the advantage for Newt is that there probably isn't anything that we don't already know about since he's been in the public eye for so long.

2) Obama had some baggage, but basically got a "pass" on it in the media.