Newt GINGRICH

[LaUser]

Newt, along with Karl Rove, has brought negative/dirty politics to a new outlandish level. I don't vote for the negative. I vote for ideas that make sense to me and so far I have not heard any.

[sjfcontrol]

I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils. I did that last time with John McCain despite my severe reservations about him.

Of course you realize: "Those that don't vote for the lesser of two evils, vote for the greater"

[Snap E Tom]

I'd have no problem voting for Donald Trump. There is no way I would EVER vote for Obama becasue he hates Texas. Plain and simple as that.

Donald Trump is no friend of ours. Both of these are from The America We Deserve:

"...The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions."

"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

And back on topic, no, I would not support Gingrich. He's too much of a hypocrite going through what we went through with Clinton in the 90's. He's also way too much of a neocon.

[texanron]

I'd have no problem voting for Donald Trump. There is no way I would EVER vote for Obama becasue he hates Texas. Plain and simple as that.

Donald Trump is no friend of ours. Both of these are from The America We Deserve:

"...The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions."

"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

And back on topic, no, I would not support Gingrich. He's too much of a hypocrite going through what we went through with Clinton in the 90's. He's also way too much of a neocon.

C'mon Tom....I know you can't believe Obama would be better for gun owners than Trump! In order for me to vote for Trump he would have to win the Republican nomination or run as an Independent. I'm not saying he is my guy from the word go just that I would vote for him over Obama.

[canvasbck]

I'd have no problem voting for Donald Trump. There is no way I would EVER vote for Obama becasue he hates Texas. Plain and simple as that.

And back on topic, no, I would not support Gingrich. He's too much of a hypocrite going through what we went through with Clinton in the 90's. He's also way too much of a neocon.

This has been my greatest fear of the Republican return to power. Last time the repubs were in control, neocons ruled the day.

I want us to run quickly away from this "progressive" government that looks for a government take over of any aspect of private industry that presents itself as a target. But, I don't want us to run into the nannystatism that neocons usher in. Do we really want politicians legislating morality and setting the country's moral compass? Those of you who were not poker players would not remember the UIGEA that was snuck in at literally 11:00 pm as an amendment to a port security bill, the UIGEA was never brought up on the floor and attached to "must pass" legislation.

I am SOOOO hungry for a candidate with libertarian views without the insane foriegn policy ideas of Ron Paul. This absense of a palatable candidate is making me take a serious look at Herman Cain..........man, I want a VIABLE candidate that sounds more like him.

[74novaman]

I am SOOOO hungry for a candidate with libertarian views without the insane foriegn policy ideas of Ron Paul. This absense of a palatable candidate is making me take a serious look at Herman Cain..........man, I want a VIABLE candidate that sounds more like him.

This times about a billion. Ensure the national defense, maintain the roads, keep the mail running. Beyond that, LEAVE ME ALONE!

[sjfcontrol]

I am SOOOO hungry for a candidate with libertarian views without the insane foriegn policy ideas of Ron Paul. This absense of a palatable candidate is making me take a serious look at Herman Cain..........man, I want a VIABLE candidate that sounds more like him.

This times about a billion. Ensure the national defense, maintain the roads, keep the mail running. Beyond that, LEAVE ME ALONE!

Assuming you mean the outdated, bloated, semi-government agency that delivers nothing but paper-based junk -- who needs it? Might as well have the government keep buggy-whips in style.
They want to eliminate deliveries on Saturday. They should also eliminate deliveries on Monday thru Friday!
Let everything be done by email, and that that MUST be paper, ship via UPS or Fedex.

[sugar land dave]

...I do not believe in politicizing personal preferences and imposing my mores on another.

I have to give you bonus points for the use of the word "mores." Excellent!

[mgood]

...I do not believe in politicizing personal preferences and imposing my mores on another.

I have to give you bonus points for the use of the word "mores." Excellent!

I don't think I said that. But I do agree with it. So, carry on.


EDIT: Should look like this:

I do not believe in politicizing personal preferences and imposing my mores on another.

Purplehood said it.

[sjfcontrol]

...I do not believe in politicizing personal preferences and imposing my mores on another.

I have to give you bonus points for the use of the word "mores." Excellent!

I don't think I said that. But I do agree with it. So, carry on.


EDIT: Should look like this:

I do not believe in politicizing personal preferences and imposing my mores on another.

Purplehood said it.

I think Purplehood actually meant "smores" not "mores". He didn't want to impose his SMORES on somebody else!

[Ameer]

I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils. I did that last time with John McCain despite my severe reservations about him.

Of course you realize: "Those that don't vote for the lesser of two evils, vote for the greater"

That's provably wrong and it's the type of thinking that got us in this mess. If a mugger gives you the choice of "your money or your life" and you choose the lesser evil, the mugger wins because you let him limit your choices. A smarter choice might be "none of the above" in the form of fighting back, escaping, or something else that doesn't benefit evil.

[sjfcontrol]

I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils. I did that last time with John McCain despite my severe reservations about him.

Of course you realize: "Those that don't vote for the lesser of two evils, vote for the greater"

That's provably wrong and it's the type of thinking that got us in this mess. If a mugger gives you the choice of "your money or your life" and you choose the lesser evil, the mugger wins because you let him limit your choices. A smarter choice might be "none of the above" in the form of fighting back, escaping, or something else that doesn't benefit evil.

So, a (presumed) republican voting in the 2008 election for "none of the above", would have elected, who exactly? (We were talking elections, not armed robberies.)

[Ameer]

I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils. I did that last time with John McCain despite my severe reservations about him.

Of course you realize: "Those that don't vote for the lesser of two evils, vote for the greater"

That's provably wrong and it's the type of thinking that got us in this mess. If a mugger gives you the choice of "your money or your life" and you choose the lesser evil, the mugger wins because you let him limit your choices. A smarter choice might be "none of the above" in the form of fighting back, escaping, or something else that doesn't benefit evil.

So, a (presumed) republican voting in the 2008 election for "none of the above", would have elected, who exactly? (We were talking elections, not armed robberies.)

There's only one POTUS at a time. No matter who you individually voted for, "we" all elected Obama.

Fighting the mugger doesn't work all the time, but it's a better choice in the long run.

[WildBill]

Newt Gingrich has been out of it for too long. He is a political "has-been." Even if he really wanted to get nominated or elected, he doesn't have any more chance than Donald Trump.

[sjfcontrol]

I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils. I did that last time with John McCain despite my severe reservations about him.

Of course you realize: "Those that don't vote for the lesser of two evils, vote for the greater"

That's provably wrong and it's the type of thinking that got us in this mess. If a mugger gives you the choice of "your money or your life" and you choose the lesser evil, the mugger wins because you let him limit your choices. A smarter choice might be "none of the above" in the form of fighting back, escaping, or something else that doesn't benefit evil.

So, a (presumed) republican voting in the 2008 election for "none of the above", would have elected, who exactly? (We were talking elections, not armed robberies.)

There's only one POTUS at a time. No matter who you individually voted for, "we" all elected Obama.

Fighting the mugger doesn't work all the time, but it's a better choice in the long run.

OK -- I'll try one more time, then I'll give up.

1) We are not talking about muggers -- or at least I wasn't. I/We are talking about elections.

2) Once you get to the full election, you typically have a choice between a Republican and a Democrat. Looking at the 2008 election from the perspective of someone who wanted to promote the conservative agenda, we had a choice between a weak conservative republican -- McCain, and a Socialist Democrat, Obama.

Now anybody who took the attitude "I will not vote for the lesser of two evils" (i.e., McCain), is left with a choice between voting for Obama, voting for a third-party or write-in candidate who simply cannot win, or not voting at all. I state that ANY of those choices simply accrue to the advantage of Obama, the "greater" evil.

If you'd like to argue that we need stronger republican candidates -- I whole heartedly AGREE! But once you get to the day of the election, you're stuck with the candidates you have.

3) Although "WE" may have all elected Obama, I'd like to think I did my part to see that he didn't win.