Gingrich CAN'T beat Obama!

Gingrich CAN'T beat Obama!

Newt is going to beat Obama.......

...........just like he beat the hell out of Juan Williams (D)

.........just like he completely destroyed John King (D)

.....with extreme prejudice. Newt is going to take Obama out to his woodshed and smack that ass......
.
.
.
.

 

Gingrich has my vote. I want a leader up there, not some wishy-washy CANDIDATE.

 

That means that if you claim to support the family values, sanctity of marriage party and your candidate of choice does not, then you are disingenuous at best, and a lying hypocrite at worst. For example, if I am an NF supporter. If my candidate of choice was an IRA supporter that would make me a hypocrite...full stop. And if David Duke sought nomination of the Henry Wenkelstien, Jewish congress of world Jewry for the advancement of Jewish issues, then he, and his supporters would be hypocrites. Doing something, or voting in a direction that is counter to the beliefs and values that you or your party "claim" to hold is hypocrisy. In fact that is the definition of Hypocrisy. Don't want to be a hypocrite? Then don't do hypocritical things. It's that simple.

I'm not claiming that you care about family values, or the sanctity of marriage or any of the other moral high ground puke that the party spews. So if you don't then you are not a hypocrite. But the candidate is. And his bending to the pressure of Iowa trying to get all the loonies on board with the marriage vow crap proved it.

No it doesn't. I am right. You either support the party and its beliefs or you do not. At the very least one distances one self from the bits that they don't believe in. So far no one has claimed that all the family values, sanctity of marriage rhetoric is not what they really believe in. No perspective is at play here. No alternate view point is being presented. The GOP has vociferously claimed themselves as the family values, sanctity of marriage party. That is either true, or it is not. There is no perspective to pontificate upon.

And yes, I do have a superior position...in my own mind. I do not have to if, and, or but about my position. I do not have to excuse or compromise my position. If a candidate does not represent me, or my values I do not have to excuse or compromise for their actions. I drop them. Or I claim they are scum, but less scum than the opposition. I do not give them standing ovations nor do I clamor into line to suck at their teat.

Yes it does...in politics that is exactly what constitutes an enemy.

The establishment anything is just like the establishment anything else. It needs to be burned to the ground and started over. Every 50-75 years, rinse and repeat, because any longer than that and corruption will become entrenched.

 

Unrealistic dreamer because *gasp* he actually thinks we should follow the Law (our Constitution) and not go to war unless Congress declares war? Or do by in to the media's lies when they call him an isolationist?

 

He is an isolationist. If it were up to him Iran would be free to get the nuclear bomb with nobody to stop them and then obliterate Israel while we just sat back and watched because "it's none of our business."

If it were up to him we wouldn't of attacked Germany and concentrated our forces on Japan only. And today there wouldn't be a Jew left alive, all gassed to death. And the French language would be Deutsch.

 

Who should be free to get the bomb? Who gets to decide who should be free to get the bomb? You? Me? The Russians? The Chinese? Why do you choose the party that you feel has the right to decide who should get the bomb and who shouldn't? Does any sovereign nation "really" have the right to say what another sovereign nation does or does not do based upon what or how they may or may not use what they've made?

And what's wrong with Israel using their own nukes to defend themselves? They've proved very capable of taking care of business in the past. Why does it always have to be you?

Well, you're just wrong here. Firstly there were plenty of Jews in the U.S., U.K. and other places around the world, though I know what you were trying to say. Secondly, the French language would likely be Russian.

 

Iran has threatened to shove Israel into the sea.
Iran finances terrorist activities.
Achmed believes in the 12th imam who won't return unless there is massive bloodshed.

If anyone shouldn't have a nuke it's Iran.

Anyone with common sense can see that.

Israel is tiny one suitcase bomb would end her.
It isn't just about protecting Israel from Iran. It's about preventing Iran from giving terrorist suitcase bombs to use wherever they feel like it. Its about preventing Iran from pointing their bomb at Israel or someone else and telling us do what we want you to do or else.

 

I would LOVE to be wrong about it.

I just remember 2008 and they certainly didn't put him in office for his experience or intelligence.

 

As long as you don't in the general.

If you do you might as well write in Obama.

 

Well I thought we had already determined anecdotally who shouldn't have the bomb. In this case Iran. But that wasn't my primary question. So I'll ask it again, this time very slowly, just for you.

Internationally...Who...gets...to...decide...who...can...have...the...bomb...and...who...can't?

Do you get to decide? Is it the Russians? The Chinese? The British? The Americans? Who? One more time..."WHO" gets to decide what another nation can or can not do?

And as an added bonus question, once that party makes the decision as to who can and can not do something; who enforces that decision?

Hopefully I've put my questions in very simple, small worded phrases that you can understand this time?

One last addendum to this: Since the U.S. financed Osama Bin Laden's war against the Russians, as well as financing other militant Mujaheddin, does that mean the U.S. can't have nukes either? You know, since they financed terrorist, and terrorist activities as well? Or are they just freedom fighters when they kill people and blow stuff up on your behalf? Also, the U.S. is the only nation to actually use atomic weapons against another nation or people during conflict. Add to this the fact that many Americans, including the previous President, believe that a terrible war must come to the Middle East for Christ to come back. That the dead will be so numerous that bodies will be stacked as high as walls and that rivers will run with blood. Does common sense then also dictate that the U.S. is a very dangerous nation to have the bomb?

Look at that, I turned an addendum into an addenda...

They don't need a giant nuclear operation to make suitcase bombs. In fact they could, and may be, making suitcase bombs as we speak. Building this giant infrastructure out in the open for all to see may be their plan. They may be pulling the old "look here, where I want your attention, that way you miss what I'm really doing over there" ploy. The only real sure way to avoid that is to invade and kill every man, woman, and child in Iran. Then rinse and repeat for every other nation that you don't like or that you fear.

How do we prevent this? Do we point our bomb at them first and say do what we want you to do or else?

 

Let me ask you a very simple question.

Are you ok with Iran having a nuclear weapon? If not how would you prevent it?

 

Let me give you a very simple answer then; I am not for Iran having nuclear weapons.

I clearly stated how to prevent this. You invade, and you kill every man, woman, and child. That is the only way to be certain that you've prevented it.

Now, for the 10th time, will one of you answer my simple question?

Who mother clucking gets to decide what one nation can or can not do? Is it me? Is it you? Who?

 

Newt's baggage is old news. The ABC interview was supposed to sink his campaign. Didn't quite work out that way did it. What else could the Dem attack machine dig up that Newt hasn't already responded to? Newt would have PLENTY to fire back with given Obama's performance.

Newt would DESTROY Obama in a debate. He can articulate his positions and ideas MUCH better than Mr. Teleprompter.

And in the absence of a bunch of crybaby write in votes, he would destroy Obama in the general election as well.

 

I think the media is going to examine Gingrich's belief in serial philandering and his ethics deficit disorder. I'm surprised the good Christian evangelical citizens of South Carolina missed it entirely.

 

Those who already has it and has the force to enforce their will.
Better us than them.

 

Do we really think a guy that can't even properly do a presidential address without making it obvious that he's using a teleprompter will beat someone with the debating skills of Newt Gingrich?

 

Is all you Gingrich supporters care about allegedly good debating skills? Why not just nominate Bill Clinton? He's a pretty good speaker too

 

While we just sat back and watched Israel nuke Iran off the face of the Earth, because that's what would happen under your scenario. But by all means, stay plugged into the propaganda machine.

 

If Israel would do that they would've done it already. They aren't suicidal like them Muslims.

 

They would do it if they were nuked by Iran, as according to the perfervid vision painted by the new war propaganda. And it is propaganda. None of this has anything to do with "national security" or anything else; it's just that the American state adores making war. They're probably hoping Iran is seeking a nuke, just so they have an excuse to do so. If it wasn't Iran, it would be somebody else: North Korea, Burma, Venezuala, Sudan, Canada. It doesn't matter at all; the important thing is that they continue to bomb and butcher somebody somewhere, all while holding themselves up as the great defenders of liberty.

 

The President of the United States....Barack Obama.....chose someone who sticks his foot in his mouth for his VP; Joe Biden. I don't see Dems claiming that was a terrible choice. Whether Gingrich can go all the way or not remains to be seen. But people are liking how he stands up to the liberal press and says out loud and very firmly what a lot of people are thinking.

 

Wait, are you talking about the same Israel that says Iran is not building a bomb? Or are you talking about the Israel that states if Iran did have a bomb it wouldn't be a major threat? We need to get out of Israel's way and let them take care of themselves. Their military is more than capable.

Clearly you don't have a clue what RP's foreign policy is. Listen to him in the debates. He rails against UNDECLARED wars. According to Article 1, Section 8, only CONGRESS has the power to declare war. Paul believes that if we are to go to war, congress must declare it and then go in, complete our objectives, and GET OUT. We can't afford these 10+ year wars. We really are broke!

 

Newt can beat Obama.

 

hahahahahaha, let the train of delusion roll. Gingrich 2012!

 

Sorry Charlie { Starkist Tuna } But Obama's been found out.
He has no powder left.
The Lamestream has been severly scolded and are suffering a form
of shell shock.
At this Rate Obama will be lucky to effectively run for dog catcher.