Major reason why Gingrinch should not be president

[Sub-Husker]

Bipartisanism only works when everyone wants to be bipartisan. You could have Mahatma Gandhi as the POTUS...and we would still have sh#t.

 

Bipartisanism works best when both parties have similar interest... like the same campaign donor pool.

[Malth]

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.

 

 

I think this is a bit of a false equivalency. Some politicians are rather egregious with the hypocrisy, others not so much.

[HSKR]

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?"

[Malth]

I wanted Howard Dean.

[Sub-Husker]

Gingrich has slotted no one for State. He said he would ask John Bolton under certain preconditions.

 

John Bolton should not be considered under any circumstance, or precondition.

 

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.

 

 

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

 

In other words... Newt favors terrorism.

 

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.

 

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

[Sub-Husker]

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?"

 

He was the best that the Democrat donation base had to offer, he sucked as a candidate.

 

I wanted Howard Dean.

 

Me too... go Vermont!

[Husker_x]

Gingrich has slotted no one for State. He said he would ask John Bolton under certain preconditions.

 

John Bolton should not be considered under any circumstance, or precondition.

 

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.

 

 

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

 

In other words... Newt favors terrorism.

 

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.

 

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

 

Nor does anyone, including Gingrich. Every reasonable action must be taken to avoid a war.

[Comish]

I wanted Howard Dean.

 

Best screamer since Harry met Sally.......................

[johnnyrodgers20]

Gingrich has slotted no one for State. He said he would ask John Bolton under certain preconditions.

 

John Bolton should not be considered under any circumstance, or precondition.

 

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.

 

 

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

 

In other words... Newt favors terrorism.

 

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.

 

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

 

 

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.

[Sub-Husker]

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.

 

The more nations we invade, the greater the risk to citizens of this nation.

[johnnyrodgers20]

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.

 

The more nations we invade, the greater the risk to citizens of this nation.

 

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.

[knapplc]

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?"

 

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.

[Husker_x]

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?"

 

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.

 

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.

[Sub-Husker]

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.

 

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?

[Sub-Husker]

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.

 

If Ron Paul wins the Republican primary process, I wonder who his VP choice would be.