kallend 2,147 #26 November 15, 2011 QuoteI think Newt will have his run next, but won't survive his support of Freddie and Fannie. Leaving Mitt Romney, the candidate conservatives can't decide to hate. And the conservatives get to read Newt's opinions: "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it." -- June 2007 "I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's very, very good. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support." -- February 2, 2007 "I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere." -- April 10, 2007... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #27 November 16, 2011 >And the conservatives get to read Newt's opinions: They'll just flip flop again. It's already happening with RomneyCare. "Well, RomneyCare was just one state. It's not the same. It's not socialized medicine, it's just mandatory government-regulated healthcare coverage with free health care for the poor." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 November 16, 2011 Quote>And the conservatives get to read Newt's opinions: They'll just flip flop again. It's already happening with RomneyCare. "Well, RomneyCare was just one state. It's not the same. It's not socialized medicine, it's just mandatory government-regulated healthcare coverage with free health care for the poor." Is *that* why the Dems were trumpeting it as an example of how O'Care would work?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #29 November 16, 2011 You'll love this, Mike: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57325790-503544/newt-gingrich-took-at-least-$1.6m-from-freddie-mac-report-says/ www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-16/gingrich-said-to-be-paid-at-least-1-6-million-by-freddie-mac.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 November 16, 2011 QuoteYou'll love this, Mike: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57325790-503544/newt-gingrich-took-at-least-$1.6m-from-freddie-mac-report-says/ Lemme know when you start condemning Dodds, Raines, Gorelick, etc for their multimillion dollar deals with Fannie/Freddie.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charlie5 0 #31 November 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe media's purpose is to earn money by selling advertisement space. All else is rubbish. That. there used to be a duty to find and report the truth that the media carried with some integrity attached. Now it's all about the advertising dollars. Well there are plenty of alternatives to FAUX News.... but I know you guys love that whole...."Where never is heard... a discouraging word" Red, if you think fox is the only outfit guilty of whoring themselves out, you're further out of touch than I thought. Have you noticed that when others talk about something general like media or politicians, you can only rail against "rightwing" things. Can you even see that left is as guilty as right? Or is it "left is right and right is always wrong" in your world? Speaking of whoring out, CNN hiring Eliot Spitzer was hilarious. It's okay for a democrat to screw around with prostitutes, hell they rewarded him with a show on CNN, but Newt has been divorced and they consider him the devil incarnate and their next target. Double standards much.The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #32 November 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe media's purpose is to earn money by selling advertisement space. All else is rubbish. That. there used to be a duty to find and report the truth that the media carried with some integrity attached. Now it's all about the advertising dollars. Well there are plenty of alternatives to FAUX News.... but I know you guys love that whole...."Where never is heard... a discouraging word" Red, if you think fox is the only outfit guilty of whoring themselves out, you're further out of touch than I thought. Have you noticed that when others talk about something general like media or politicians, you can only rail against "rightwing" things. Can you even see that left is as guilty as right? Or is it "left is right and right is always wrong" in your world? Speaking of whoring out, CNN hiring Eliot Spitzer was hilarious. It's okay for a democrat to screw around with prostitutes, hell they rewarded him with a show on CNN, but Newt has been divorced and they consider him the devil incarnate and their next target. Double standards much. Who brought us and style themsevls as the Party of Family Values again.. and blither on and on and on about it????? Not that a VERY large percentage of that party... have only paid lip service to those values. HUGE FAIL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #33 November 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou'll love this, Mike: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57325790-503544/newt-gingrich-took-at-least-$1.6m-from-freddie-mac-report-says/ Lemme know when you start condemning Dodds, Raines, Gorelick, etc for their multimillion dollar deals with Fannie/Freddie. Are they running for President too?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 November 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou'll love this, Mike: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57325790-503544/newt-gingrich-took-at-least-$1.6m-from-freddie-mac-report-says/ Lemme know when you start condemning Dodds, Raines, Gorelick, etc for their multimillion dollar deals with Fannie/Freddie. Are they running for President too? Must've missed where they're bankrolling his campaign - got anything on that, or just the consultancy payments from after he left gov't in 99? Edit to add... you made me curious, so I thought I'd do a quick check... Freddie Mac, 2008: Obama, Barack (D-IL) Senate $47,500 (#1/year) Freddie Mac, 1998: Gingrich, Newt (R-GA) House $300 (#26/year) Fannie Mae, 2008: Obama, Barack (D-IL) Senate $117,263 (#1) Fannie Mae, 1998: Gingrich, Newt (R-GA) House $1,500 (#25/year)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #35 November 16, 2011 >Is *that* why the Dems were trumpeting it as an example of how O'Care would work? No, they were using it as an example of a system that was already in place and working. Indeed, Romney's team helped them set up Obamacare. So there's a plus. If he is elected, and does switch to Romneycare, it wouldn't be much different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #36 November 16, 2011 Quote>Is *that* why the Dems were trumpeting it as an example of how O'Care would work? No, they were using it as an example of a system that was already in place and working. Indeed, Romney's team helped them set up Obamacare. So there's a plus. If he is elected, and does switch to Romneycare, it wouldn't be much different. HUGE difference from a state's rights perspective. the fact that a state established some kind of health care initiative really should have nothing to do with taking a position that there shouldn't be a federal program. I never understood why Romney didn't make this point when getting slammed on it. What's right for one state isn't necessarily something that should be forced on everyone. And, if it's a bad idea for everyone, at least that can be demonstrated at the state level and not screw over the entire economy as an experiment. And, if it's a good idea for everyone, then each state can take it on one at a time. it's the whole point of the way the country was structured - this simply shouldn't be a federal responsibility. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 November 16, 2011 Quote>Is *that* why the Dems were trumpeting it as an example of how O'Care would work? No, they were using it as an example of a system that was already in place and working. Indeed, Romney's team helped them set up Obamacare. For certain values of the word "working". "Faced with soaring medical expenses, Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Romney's successor, wants to cap insurance rate increases at 4.8%, not the 8% to 32% increases the companies have requested for April 1. Three of the four major health insurers in Massachusetts showed operating losses for 2009. If their rates are capped, they say they'll be forced to cut payments to health providers, putting further pressure on doctors and fragile hospitals." QuoteSo there's a plus. If he is elected, and does switch to Romneycare, it wouldn't be much different. True, both programs are bloated wastes of money.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #38 November 16, 2011 QuoteHUGE difference from a state's rights perspective. Roger that. if a state wants to force people to participate in commerce then the state has that right. It's why California can require that a person pay car insurance companies to deny future claims while the federal government does not have such a requirements. It's beyond the scope of what the federal government is allowed to do. But if a state wanted to be its own socialist utopia it could do that. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #39 November 16, 2011 >the fact that a state established some kind of health care initiative >really should have nothing to do with taking a position that there shouldn't >be a federal program. Honestly I don't think there's much difference when it comes to discussing what a governor's/presdent's positions are on health care. Romney's position was that the government should require healthcare. At the time he founded Romneycare his influence extended only to one state, so the most influence he could wield was statewide. Yes, at that point it was just one state, so people who didn't like it could always move. But that is true with any federal plan as well - you can leave if you don't like it. >And, if it's a bad idea for everyone, at least that can be demonstrated >at the state level and not screw over the entire economy as an experiment. Valid point, but clearly Romney thinks that his version of mandatory healthcare worked. He did the experiment - and it succeeded. >And, if it's a good idea for everyone, then each state can take it on one at >a time. Also agreed. But Romney seems to have demonstrated through his actions that he DOES think it's a good idea for everyone - and thus people who do not have that care (say, Wyoming) are being done an injustice. He didn't make it an optional program in Massachusetts, one that each town could take as they saw fit. He made it mandatory for everyone within his sphere of influence, presumably because he saw value in mandatory participation. And if past performance is any predictor of future action, he will continue that philosophy. (And while that's not always 100% true, I have found that looking at what someone has done is a much better guide to their future actions than listening to what they promise.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charlie5 0 #40 November 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe media's purpose is to earn money by selling advertisement space. All else is rubbish. That. there used to be a duty to find and report the truth that the media carried with some integrity attached. Now it's all about the advertising dollars. Well there are plenty of alternatives to FAUX News.... but I know you guys love that whole...."Where never is heard... a discouraging word" Red, if you think fox is the only outfit guilty of whoring themselves out, you're further out of touch than I thought. Have you noticed that when others talk about something general like media or politicians, you can only rail against "rightwing" things. Can you even see that left is as guilty as right? Or is it "left is right and right is always wrong" in your world? Speaking of whoring out, CNN hiring Eliot Spitzer was hilarious. It's okay for a democrat to screw around with prostitutes, hell they rewarded him with a show on CNN, but Newt has been divorced and they consider him the devil incarnate and their next target. Double standards much. Who brought us and style themsevls as the Party of Family Values again.. and blither on and on and on about it????? Not that a VERY large percentage of that party... have only paid lip service to those values. HUGE FAIL I don't care about the party, I'm not a republican, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in the media. And the rote statement of "they're the party of values" means what? What is the Democrat party then? The party of condoned prostitution, infidelity, murder and corruption?The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #41 November 16, 2011 Nice of you to point out that there is a difference between supporting a campaign and paying money to the individual for his personal use.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #42 November 16, 2011 Quote>the fact that a state established some kind of health care initiative >really should have nothing to do with taking a position that there shouldn't >be a federal program. Honestly I don't think there's much difference when it comes to discussing what a governor's/presdent's positions are on health care. I actually don't know what Romney's official position on NATIONAL health care is. But I'll check. But I don't see anything wrong if a governor would advocate it for a STATE and yet NOT advocate it for the nation. Frankly, I'd require a presidential candidate to have a clear understanding of the difference between the authority and role of state government vs federal government. Especially if they've served as a governor before. We wouldn't want their state-based viewpoints to be inappropriately expanded to the federal level on issues that don't belong there - would we? your contention (or assumption that the candidates feel this way) that federal government is just like state government except it's bigger (bigger range of influence) is a bit distressing really. They are supposed to be two totally different animals. I won't touch the rest of your post - you understand the idea of the state vs federal, but your post shows you are really ignoring it just for the sake of your argument. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #43 November 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe media's purpose is to earn money by selling advertisement space. All else is rubbish. That. there used to be a duty to find and report the truth that the media carried with some integrity attached. Now it's all about the advertising dollars. Well there are plenty of alternatives to FAUX News.... but I know you guys love that whole...."Where never is heard... a discouraging word" Red, if you think fox is the only outfit guilty of whoring themselves out, you're further out of touch than I thought. Have you noticed that when others talk about something general like media or politicians, you can only rail against "rightwing" things. Can you even see that left is as guilty as right? Or is it "left is right and right is always wrong" in your world? Speaking of whoring out, CNN hiring Eliot Spitzer was hilarious. It's okay for a democrat to screw around with prostitutes, hell they rewarded him with a show on CNN, but Newt has been divorced and they consider him the devil incarnate and their next target. Double standards much. Who brought us and style themsevls as the Party of Family Values again.. and blither on and on and on about it????? Not that a VERY large percentage of that party... have only paid lip service to those values. HUGE FAIL I don't care about the party, I'm not a republican, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in the media. And the rote statement of "they're the party of values" means what? What is the Democrat party then? The party of condoned prostitution, infidelity, murder and corruption? I am sure that is what you BELIEVE Only in the minds of those who can be fooled over and over and over because they want to BELIEVE... by those who tell them one thing about their morality... their values... all the while doing exactly the opposite. King George I tried to tell yall.. if you only listen Personlly I am a firm believer in fool me once.. shame on you.. you do not get a chance to fool me again. Those who get fooled over and over and over.... yup... pretty much are fools. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #44 November 16, 2011 QuoteYou'll love this, Mike: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57325790-503544/newt-gingrich-took-at-least-$1.6m-from-freddie-mac-report-says/ www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-16/gingrich-said-to-be-paid-at-least-1-6-million-by-freddie-mac.html Yep When he was out of office He also did not work as a lobiest Just a consultant So, whats the problem?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 November 16, 2011 Quote Yes, at that point it was just one state, so people who didn't like it could always move. But that is true with any federal plan as well - you can leave if you don't like it. An American can leave one state for any state they choose, without barriers. But that's certainly not true for possible emigration out of the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #46 November 16, 2011 >So, whats the problem? Not much of one, depending on his actions. Newt was paid millions by Freddie Mac to help them convince conservatives that Freddie was a good idea, and that they should back that organization. If he believes that, then great; no problem at all. He stood up for something he believed in and was rewarded for it. Now, if the only reason he believed that is that he was paid millions for his opinion, and he has since flip-flopped because he wants votes, then that's a big problem. Selling your political influence to the highest bidder doesn't play very well in conservative circles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #47 November 16, 2011 Quote>So, whats the problem? Not much of one, depending on his actions. Newt was paid millions by Freddie Mac to help them convince conservatives that Freddie was a good idea, and that they should back that organization. If he believes that, then great; no problem at all. He stood up for something he believed in and was rewarded for it. Now, if the only reason he believed that is that he was paid millions for his opinion, and he has since flip-flopped because he wants votes, then that's a big problem. Selling your political influence to the highest bidder doesn't play very well in conservative circles. Pretty much agree But he made a point once out of office not to lobby It seems he kept that word In doing so he would not have sold political influence Time will tell One thing is for sure He is not as dead politically as you want him to be"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #48 November 16, 2011 >An American can leave one state for any state they choose, without >barriers. Well, aside from some specific cases (child custody, parole) agreed. >But that's certainly not true for possible emigration out of the country. Under what conditions would the US prohibit your emigration out of the country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #49 November 16, 2011 >But he made a point once out of office not to lobby Not sure what that has to do with anything. No one is complaining that he lobbied too much. >He is not as dead politically as you want him to be Oh, I don't think he's dead at all; he's often hitting #3 or #4 in polls. It's going to be fun to watch the ever more convoluted opinions conservatives have on Freddie based on this, though. I'd expect a "well, when Newt was paid by them it was a great idea, but then it turned into an evil monster right afterwards" angle pretty soon, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #50 November 16, 2011 Quote>But he made a point once out of office not to lobby Not sure what that has to do with anything. No one is complaining that he lobbied too much. >He is not as dead politically as you want him to be Oh, I don't think he's dead at all; he's often hitting #3 or #4 in polls. It's going to be fun to watch the ever more convoluted opinions conservatives have on Freddie based on this, though. I'd expect a "well, when Newt was paid by them it was a great idea, but then it turned into an evil monster right afterwards" angle pretty soon, Edited to add reply (hit the post button to soon) Anyway He is #1 in IA and CA today All of this vetting will take away Obama ammo later for whom ever gets the nomination as for the rest of your post you can play your twister game by yourself It is getting very boring"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
