NEWT GINGRICH BEATS ROMNEY!!!

[pocketfullofshells]

yup. and its important to note that BO has flatly stated AND acted to bypass the Constitution to carry out his destructive agenda. cant count on a republican congress to deal with this.

as with every election there is good reason to wish for better but thats apparently never going to happen. considering the process its easy to see why better people wont subject themselves to it.

all I can say is think long and hard if you're willing to empower more of this hopeless change.

yea he like signed laws and it was horrible...what a trampling of the constituion the way he signed laws that republicans don't like...realy thats what you guys think the constitution is...what ever you like...anything you don't is against it. Like Gipper with liberals are anyone he does not agree with,

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I thought the same way if Romney won, but I have had a change of heart and you should too. We both know four more years of the Skinny Socialist just might destroy this nation. Four more years of communists in the Wh, preventing energy independence, commies on the federal bench, czars run amok, destruction of our military, more deficit spending, expansion of the welfare state, appeasement of our enemies, etc.......

We must vote for whoever the Rs nominate or face a darkness none of us can anticipate.

Imagine BO winning re-election...a man with an ego greater in size than the universe (and people condemn Newt for his ego...UGH) and we both know many Rs in Congress will bind over to BO should the American people re-elect him.

And really, is there much difference between Newt and Mitt? Both have said and done terribly stupid progressive things. I don't see much difference between them.

Voting third party will assure the Skinny Socialist another four years and the destruction of America.

appeasement of enemies....aka killing terrorist?

And destruction of the military? yea cuz its so weak now? do you even have a clue what your talking about ...I am very sorry he has not invaded a nation to your liking to make you feel like more of a man , while others are killed to make you happy.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Considering that Newt looks like a large Tic, I would submit that he has had astonishingly better luck with the ladies than your boy sambo who is endowed with so many charismatic gifts. It wasn't long ago that liberal women were throwing their underwear up on the stage with Sambo along with motel 6 keys. And Barbara Walters, was certainly throwing herself at Sambo like an old dish rag. But Newt, so obviously repulsive, is actually scoring better than sammy. How do you account for this? Perhaps you could ask Ron Paul... I am sure he could go tangential and blame it on a lack of the gold standard.

Therefore I conclude that Newt's DNA is simply tougher than sambo's Duh Dah DNA. I see sammy's boy buffett was out bashing rino romney over romney's 15% tax rate. So you see , we have finally arrived at a time when Newt's capacity to survive the slings and arrows of his critics is simply better than romney's capacity to survive and ron paul's capacity to survive. Newt is simply a tough tic. Romney is just rolling over and playing dead while Ron Paul squawks like a choking chicken and sambo blames everyone else for his incompetence.

As an undesirable Tic, Newt is about the only candidate capable of giving liberals a dose and a half of their own medicine. He's simply not intimidated by obama. A tic does what a tic does; it sucks the blood out of its blood meal. Agree with Newt or not; he may be an azzhole but he is still the toughest tic in the bunch and a lot of republicans are just sick of obama and want somebody to take out the brass knuckles rather than the usual media styled kid gloves, and bash obama senseless in a debate. Win or not, Newt can deflect any attack on him while romney falls to pieces and can't figure out how to answer his critics. Ron Paul just starts into his high pitched squawking when attacked. Like him or hate him, Newt is simply tougher than all of them combined.

yay just what we needed , one more right winger who in one post I can tell is not worth even trying to debate.

 

[dogtowner]

yea he like signed laws and it was horrible...what a trampling of the constituion the way he signed laws that republicans don't like...realy thats what you guys think the constitution is...what ever you like...anything you don't is against it. Like Gipper with liberals are anyone he does not agree with,

He's signed a few laws but has done far more that defies law. does not surprisae me that you are pleased with this behavior.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

He's signed a few laws but has done far more that defies law. does not surprisae me that you are pleased with this behavior.

still crying because he filled a job you guys blocked for years, on a during a Recess..as has been done for years ....then idiot republicans claim they will go after him for it saying they where not in recess...and will do so as soon as they are not at recess....

He is doing his job, your party just sits there like dead weight doing nothing positive and bitching about him not doing enough while you block it. pathetic.

 

[dogtowner]

still crying because he filled a job you guys blocked for years, on a during a Recess..as has been done for years ....then idiot republicans claim they will go after him for it saying they where not in recess...and will do so as soon as they are not at recess....

He is doing his job, your party just sits there like dead weight doing nothing positive and bitching about him not doing enough while you block it. pathetic.

your party which controls the Senate has failed to pass a budget, thats pathetic.

 

[Gipper]

appeasement of enemies....aka killing terrorist?

And destruction of the military? yea cuz its so weak now? do you even have a clue what your talking about ...I am very sorry he has not invaded a nation to your liking to make you feel like more of a man , while others are killed to make you happy.

Apparently out of my list of things BO is destroying, you can only contend with two of them....appeasement and the military.

First, there is no question that BO is an appeaser. I am not the only one to claim he is. Many experts have do so, but I would guess your media has not informed you...again.

Second, did you fail to read what BO intends to do to the military budget? If you think radical leftists can downsize the American military PROPERLY, you are badly mistaken.

 

[Gipper]

your party which controls the Senate has failed to pass a budget, thats pathetic.

For 1,000 days now the Dem controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget. One would think in a sane nation, this would be nation news reported daily. But in a nation where most of the media is controlled by insane people (liberals), it is not.

Happy Anniversary! 1,000 Days Since the U.S. Senate Passed a Budget

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

​

​

Celebrate responsibly...

How very fitting that this is the day Obama has chosen to present his State of the Union address. An anniversary symbolizing the incompetence of government.

The Heritage Foundation has provided some fantastic information regarding the happenings during the 1,000 days in which the Senate has failed to pass a budget:

As the 1,000th day nears, here are some facts about America’s budget and why the Senate must take action to be stewards of the people’s money as the Constitution requires:​

• The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.
• Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt.
• As of January 20, the outstanding public debt stands at $15,240,174,635,409.
• Interest payments on the debt are now more than $200 billion per year.
• President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0. (And that budget was no prize—according to the Congressional Budget Office, that proposal never had an annual deficit of less than $748 billion, would double the national debt in 10 years and would see annual interest payments approach $1 trillion per year.)
• The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.
• In FY2011, Washington spent $3.6 trillion. Compare that to the last time the budget was balanced in 2001, when Washington spent $1.8 trillion ($2.1 trillion when you adjust for inflation).
• Entitlement spending will more than double by 2050. That includes spending on Medicare, Medicaid and the Obamacare subsidy program, and Social Security. Total spending on federal health care programs will triple.
• By 2050, the national debt is set to hit 344 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
• Taxes paid per household have risen dramatically, hitting $18,400 in 2010 (compared with $11,295 in 1965). If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and more middle-class Americans are required to pay the alternative minimum tax (AMT), taxes will reach unprecedented levels.
• Federal spending per household is skyrocketing. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by nearly 162 percent, from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. From 2010 to 2021, it is projected to rise to $35,773, a 22 percent increase.

In an op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel, U.S. Rep. Sandy Adams explains that the lack of a budget was inexcusable during the Democrats control of both houses. He writes:

Could you imagine not doing a family budget for 1,000 days, or businesses going that long without one?​

​

The previous Democrat-led Congress had ample time to do so. With ​

President Obama​

in the ​

White House​

, Senate Majority Leader ​

Harry Reid​

and former Speaker ​

Nancy Pelosi​

had the power to implement any budget they chose. Unfortunately, they punted on their responsibilities, choosing to pass legislation creating a national energy tax and an unpopular health-care law instead.​

​

http://mentalrecession.blogspot.com/​

 

[steveox]

I dont like Romney cause hes gonna bring religion in the white house.

 

[dogtowner]

I dont like Romney cause hes gonna bring religion in the white house.

he didn't turn MASS into a LDS state did he ? I'd not worry much over that. what he would bring to the White House is skill, know-how and a record of getting things done.

 

[BigRob]

I thought the same way if Romney won, but I have had a change of heart and you should too. We both know four more years of the Skinny Socialist just might destroy this nation. Four more years of communists in the Wh, preventing energy independence, commies on the federal bench, czars run amok, destruction of our military, more deficit spending, expansion of the welfare state, appeasement of our enemies, etc.......

Don't get me wrong - I am not Obama fan -- but I cannot stand Gingrich -- and I think if he gets the nomination, the Republicans will lose in a landslide.

We must vote for whoever the Rs nominate or face a darkness none of us can anticipate.

Imagine BO winning re-election...a man with an ego greater in size than the universe (and people condemn Newt for his ego...UGH) and we both know many Rs in Congress will bind over to BO should the American people re-elect him.

I condemn Newt more for his actions -- I would imagine anyone running for President has quite the ego.

And really, is there much difference between Newt and Mitt? Both have said and done terribly stupid progressive things. I don't see much difference between them.

Newt is a career politician who is running a campaign tearing down a successful businessman in the private sector.

Voting third party will assure the Skinny Socialist another four years and the destruction of America.

.

So will nominating Newt.

 

[Gipper]

Don't get me wrong - I am not Obama fan -- but I cannot stand Gingrich -- and I think if he gets the nomination, the Republicans will lose in a landslide.



I condemn Newt more for his actions -- I would imagine anyone running for President has quite the ego.



Newt is a career politician who is running a campaign tearing down a successful businessman in the private sector.

.

So will nominating Newt.

My view is Romney and Newt are moderate progressives. BO is a socialist. So, if the choice is between a socialist and a progressive, I will vote for the progressive...sadly. Voting third party means BO wins.

At any rate, Newt is not going to win the nomination Romney likely does and he should beat BO easily. But, this will mean we will get more progressive sh*t just as we did under Bush. If anyone thinks Romney will work hard to overturn Obummercare, they are sadly mistaken. He will not, even though he claims over and over that he will. He has many good traits, but many bad ones too. BO is ALL bad.

 

[BigRob]

My view is Romney and Newt are moderate progressives. BO is a socialist. So, if the choice is between a socialist and a progressive, I will vote for the progressive...sadly. Voting third party means BO wins.

At any rate, Newt is not going to win the nomination Romney likely does and he should beat BO easily. But, this will mean we will get more progressive sh*t just as we did under Bush. If anyone thinks Romney will work hard to overturn Obummercare, they are sadly mistaken. He will not, even though he claims over and over that he will. He has many good traits, but many bad ones too. BO is ALL bad.

I don't think anyone will really be able to overturn Obamacare at this point. I doubt the Courts really strike it down, and I don't see it going through Congress.

At most I think you can issue an EO allowing states to maybe opt out -- the implementation of such a thing would be tricky -- but Romney has stated he will issue such an order.

 

[dogtowner]

I don't think anyone will really be able to overturn Obamacare at this point. I doubt the Courts really strike it down, and I don't see it going through Congress.

At most I think you can issue an EO allowing states to maybe opt out -- the implementation of such a thing would be tricky -- but Romney has stated he will issue such an order.

this is a perfect job for the TeaParty to keep his and Congress' collective feet to the fire on.

 

[Gipper]

this is a perfect job for the TeaParty to keep his and Congress' collective feet to the fire on.

I have no expectations that Romney will listen to the TP. His campaign has failed to listen to them to date. He thinks he can win without seeking their support, which I suspect further indicates his progressive nature. He dislikes conservatives and libertartians just as the progressive Bush I and II did.

Romney will be a third term of GWB. That sucks in my book, but a second term of BO will be much worse. It is choosing the lesser of two evils...sad...very sad.