Author Topic: Newt Gingrich for President? Hmmmmmm. (Read 3259 times)

gypsyman · « **Reply #60 on:** November 21, 2011, 07:47:13 PM »

After watching a couple of debate's, Gingrich has come up on my ladder. Not much, but some. I'ld put him ahead of Perry and Romney. RP would still be my choice, hope he comes up in the polls. Rio, while it's a nice idea to think that we wouldn't want to kill innocent people, that's the way war is won. We won WWII because of colateral damage. It wasn't the tens of thousands of soldiers that died, it was the atomic bombs that leveled 2 cities that ended that part of the war. It was the bombing of factories in Europe, and lost civilian lives, that ended European conflict. When you convince our enemy's not to kill our civilians,(lets say 9-11-01), we won't kill theirs. gypsyman

blind ear · « **Reply #61 on:** November 21, 2011, 08:35:25 PM »

Kenneth,

I know I don’t have to tell you, but politicians often say one thing but do the complete opposite -- especially if they think no one is looking.

Newt Gingrich is the poster child for these sort of “flexible” principles.

I’ve been around the block a few times (I’m about to start my 20th year as a gun rights lobbyist) and dealt with literally thousands of candidates and politicians, but no Republican politician has managed to support and vote for anti-gun legislation and still proclaim that he is “pro-gun” more effectively than Newt Gingrich.

Don’t be fooled by his rise in the polls; Newt Gingrich has a long history of supporting gun control ...

... and he has blatantly refused to return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey.

With more than three decades as a public figure, Newt is the quintessential political chameleon, shifting his views to reflect whatever is popular with the Washington, D.C. chattering class.

Make no mistake, while Newt may talk a solid conservative game, his record is that of a typical Inside-the-Beltway politician who will cut ANY compromise or make ANY deal with anyone for his own political or personal gain.

While Newt used the institutional gun lobby as a mouthpiece to convince millions of gun owners nationwide that “as long as he is Speaker, no gun-control legislation is going to move in committee or on the House floor,” he was working behind the scenes to pass gun control.

In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders –- in some cases for actions as minor as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse’s wrist.(1)

Gingrich even called the anti-gun measure “reasonable,” and predicted that it would sail through his Republican-controlled House of Representatives with little trouble.(2)

The Lautenberg Gun Ban is one of the Congressional Republicans' worst betrayals of gun owners, and those complicit in its passage deserve nothing but contempt from gun owners.

This gun control measure ranks right up there with the Brady Registration Act as the most aggressive gun control in America, denying hundreds of thousands of would-be gun owners the right to self defense.

Gingrich also stood shoulder to shoulder with Nancy Pelosi to pass the “Criminal Safezones Act” which prevents armed citizens from defending themselves in certain arbitrary locations. You and I both know that Criminal Safezones don’t protect law-abiding citizens, but actually protect the criminals who ignore them.(3)

As you can see, Newt Gingrich is no friend of gun owners, or small government conservatives. He simply can’t be trusted, and his record reflects his contempt not only for the truth, but his own integrity and the integrity of the very people he’s asking to vote for him to be the most powerful man in the modern world.

This is the same man who railed against the Obama bailouts of Fannie and Freddie Mac while receiving more than $1.5 million from Fannie Mae as a “consultant”(4) while his firm also raised $37 million to pass healthcare insurance mandates.(5)

He’s also the same man who sat next to Nancy Pelosi and insisted global warming was a man-made problem in need of a government-mandated solution. Now that he’s running for the Republican nomination, he doesn’t believe in global warming and calls the TV ad he did with Pelosi “inexplicable.” Please click here to watch the video.(6)

I’m concerned, though, that Newt’s snake-oil act is catching on.

It’s time for gun owners and liberty-minded, small government activists to hold Newt’s feet to the fire.

That’s why I need you to call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control, and make a dramatic turnaround statement of support to repeal the gun controls he’s supported.

Tell his campaign that you expect Newt to not only apologize for his past support of anti-gun measures but also to reveal where he stands on international gun grabs like the UN “Small Arms Treaty” and domestic anti-gun schemes like the banning of .50 caliber rifles.

Demand he quit stonewalling gun owners and return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey -- at once. You and I both know that election season, when they’re begging for the votes of gun owners, is one of the best times to lobby candidates and politicians.

With Republican presidential primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina mere weeks away, it’s vital that gun owners know where the Republican candidates for President stand on important Second Amendment issues.

Newt’s record is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. With a horrible voting record on Second Amendment issues, gun owners just don’t know which side Newt’s on.

Please call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director

P.S. Newt Gingrich's anti-gun record is too important -- and dangerous -- to ignore. That's why I felt compelled to inform you.

His support for numerous gun controls is in direct contradiction to his current campaign statements.

Call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control.

The National Association for Gun Rights is working day and night to keep gun owners like you up-to-date on the presidential candidates' records -- please consider contributing to the effort by chipping in $15 or $20.

Dee · « **Reply #62 on:** November 22, 2011, 01:42:53 AM »

Good information blind ear. Although I was misinformed when I started this thread, it has indeed been an eye opener.

Swampman · « **Reply #63 on:** November 22, 2011, 01:54:55 AM »

A cast of clowns one and all. Gun control is the only deal breaker for me. Newt is the only one that could do a good job but his past stance on gun control is troubling.

blind ear · « **Reply #64 on:** November 22, 2011, 02:32:33 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on November 22, 2011, 01:54:55 AM

A cast of clowns one and all. Gun control is the only deal breaker for me. Newt is the only one that could do a good job but his past stance on gun control is troubling.

Yep, like digging through a manure pile looking for a pony. ear

guzzijohn · « **Reply #65 on:** November 22, 2011, 02:43:23 AM »

"Yep, like digging through a manure pile looking for a pony. ear"

As of yet they can't find the elephant either.

GuzziJohn

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #66 on:** November 22, 2011, 03:03:38 AM »

Donald Trump said he was available if the Republicans can't get a clear cut winner. I think he would be better than all of them.

gypsyman · « **Reply #67 on:** November 22, 2011, 03:40:23 AM »

Just saw part of a video from the John Birch Society, expounding on Newt. A real eye opener. Not much of a conservative at all, when you see what he's done and promoted. Just lost a bunch of brownie points with me. Back to square one. RP still looks like the best choice. Time will tell. gypsyman

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #68 on:** November 22, 2011, 08:12:42 AM »

Shame really that there is no stand out canidate on either side. We say the better of two bad choices when it gets down to the wire. That is pitiful if you think about it.

blind ear · « **Reply #69 on:** November 22, 2011, 08:39:13 AM »

Quote from: guzzijohn on November 22, 2011, 02:43:23 AM

"Yep, like digging through a manure pile looking for a pony. ear"

As of yet they can't find the elephant either.
GuzziJohn

Yep, that's what I said. ear

nw_hunter · « **Reply #70 on:** November 22, 2011, 09:57:21 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on November 22, 2011, 08:12:42 AM

Shame really that there is no stand out canidate on either side. We say the better of two bad choices when it gets down to the wire. That is pitiful if you think about it.

Not trying to be smart here, but curious!What would you consider a stand out candidate?
IMO we have one, but we all see things differently. To me a stand out would be one who believes in the Constitution, swears by it, and follows it!
If we are looking for someone who looks like Hollywoods version of Presidential material, then we have one in Mitt or Newt.
I believe any one of them could beat the sad version we have today, but only one, would be good for the country.

powderman · « **Reply #71 on:** November 22, 2011, 11:23:32 AM »

Hunter. I will vote for RP in the primary but I definitely do not like his foreign policy and feel that he would be very weak at defending our nation.
I got in on the tail end of a straw poll yesterday which said he was tied for first in one state, can't remember which one. Another thing about these straw polls, I saw one the other day but the choices did NOT include RP. He may be running better than we think, I certainly hope so because other than Bachman I don't see any of the rest of them deserving my vote. POWDERMAN.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #72 on:** November 22, 2011, 12:25:44 PM »

Quote from: nw_hunter on November 22, 2011, 09:57:21 AM

Quote from: SHOOTALL on November 22, 2011, 08:12:42 AM
Shame really that there is no stand out canidate on either side. We say the better of two bad choices when it gets down to the wire. That is pitiful if you think about it.

Not trying to be smart here, but curious!What would you consider a stand out candidate?
IMO we have one, but we all see things differently. To me a stand out would be one who believes in the Constitution, swears by it, and follows it!
If we are looking for someone who looks like Hollywoods version of Presidential material, then we have one in Mitt or Newt.
I believe any one of them could beat the sad version we have today, but only one, would be good for the country.

Ron Paul has some weaknesses like the rest of the candidates. however, his supporters would do more harm to the country than RP by refusing to vote for another nominee. that would gaurantee that obama would win another term. as a lame duck, he would finish off the constitution, so a "no" vote means you care nothing about this country or freedom.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #73 on:** November 22, 2011, 01:17:18 PM »

Quote from: powderman on November 22, 2011, 11:23:32 AM

Hunter. I will vote for RP in the primary but I definitely do not like his foreign policy and feel that he would be very weak at defending our nation.
I got in on the tail end of a straw poll yesterday which said he was tied for first in one state, can't remember which one. Another thing about these straw polls, I saw one the other day but the choices did NOT include RP. He may be running better than we think, I certainly hope so because other than Bachman I don't see any of the rest of them deserving my vote. POWDERMAN.

I see National defense as one of his strong points!

Paul's views are generally attributed to those of non-interventionism, He believes that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.while advocating "open trade,& travel

Ronald Reagan spoke in support of Paul's foreign policy views, stating "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." Daniel Ellsberg, famous for releasing the Pentagon Papers, said of Paul: "On foreign policy, on the Constitution, on Homeland Security, on intervention, he speaks very well." Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has said that he and Paul "agree tremendously on international policy". Paul has always stood for a strong national defense. He is against the U.S. meddling with other countries and their internal problems.

"I agree" I think Bachman is better than the rest of the pack.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #74 on:** November 22, 2011, 01:19:18 PM »

Any Republican running would be better than Obama. Hillary Clinton was better than Obama. Not saying much, but we do need another Ronald Reagan, or Eisenhower, or George Washington. I am against tax increases, but I would be willing to add a little, if the Dems would at least CUT the same amount. We have got to balance the budget or we will have hyperinflation when the debt gets to $20 trillion, an it is already at $15 trillion. At $20T the interest on the debt is greater than what the government will take in with taxes.

We do not need the energy department, it hasn't solved the energy problem in 35 years.

We do not need the education department, real education has decreased since the Fed's got involved.

We do not need the commerce department. Isn't helping get new business and industry and real economic growth.

Anyone receiving welfare benefits should take a drug test, and if able bodied, and with an IQ above 80-85, can't be on welfare no more than 2 years.

Close the military bases in Europe and bring home the 70,000 troops and put them on the Mexican border.

Renegotiate free trade with China, and anyone else we owe more than they are buying from us. Should be balanced trade.

Add a 1% sales tax on all imports except Canada.

Sell Fannie and Freedie, GM and Chrysler, don't own any business or compete directly with private companies.

Go back to pre '98 rules for banking.

Drill for oil in America, in Alaska, and offshore, build the pipelines. Stop importing oil. Use Natural Gas for fleet vehicles (cuts out 40% of imported oil).

Put Thorium nuclear reactors on the fast track for electric production. Radiation is very low, and they can burn up spent nuclear fuel rods.

Stop using ethynol, use the corn to feed the animals so our food prices go down. Stop importing as much food as possible, produce it here.

Help develop synthetic oil made from our 800 year supply of coal.
Hybrid cars are not a good solution because lithium is a rare earth for use in batteries, instead work to increase mileage by flywheel additions, using braking for recharging flywheels. Flywheels can be made from cheap steel, not lithium. Jaguar is working on flywheel assisted vehicle that would increase mileage by 20%. Sure it isn't hybrid, but would cost a lot less. Going to diesel would increase mileage another 20% over gasoline. Both are cheaper than hybrids and can be implemented in assembly faster.

Oh well, I'm not the President.

nomosendero · « **Reply #75 on:** November 22, 2011, 02:32:39 PM »

Quote from: Swampman on November 22, 2011, 01:54:55 AM

A cast of clowns one and all. Gun control is the only deal breaker for me. Newt is the only one that could do a good job but his past stance on gun control is troubling.

I agree that he could do a good job, but as others have shown his past, he would likely let us down.

I am sad to say that NONE of them please me at this point.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #76 on:** November 22, 2011, 02:35:15 PM »

Dixie Dude, your right. John Deere proved a long time ago the efficiency of heavy flywheels.

Dee · « **Reply #77 on:** November 22, 2011, 03:54:20 PM »

Ron Paul is a much misunderstood man, and his policy ideology is mostly misconstrued. Although brilliant in the thought of MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS, and governing within our means, on stage he appears disheveled, and quirky, and is, as dynamic, and has the commanding presence of a poptart.
While I would vote for him in a heart beat, and last presidential election was chastised, and criticized on these very forums, by many now singing his praises, I will say that America wants a "showboat", not a "row boat". We will most likely get Mitt Romney instead. Why? Because he's purty, and slick, and we've never had a Mormon for president before. He will be the "novelty act" chosen to run against the present "novelty act". Either way? We loose again.

nomosendero · « **Reply #78 on:** November 22, 2011, 05:04:29 PM »

Dee, I hope that is not the case. Romney is one of the few that I have decided I will not vote for . The New Mexico gentleman is another & I may add to that list & likely will. I just can't get pumped about any of these people, but may have to hold my nose & vote for one, I doubt we will have that option with Paul anyway. I won't start saying the less of 2 evil phrase yet because the other Independent choices may be just as bad, then it would be the worst of all evils.

We will see.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #79 on:** November 23, 2011, 03:04:18 AM »

blind ear posted a phone number to call newts headquarters and voice your opinion about gun control. has anyone actually called? I used e-mail.

Dee · « **Reply #80 on:** November 23, 2011, 03:09:23 AM »

I don't intend to. After researching his voting record, given info from I believe "blind ear", I have no need to call him. His voting record speaks for itself, and I have no idea why I would call to ask something I already know by his past actions.
To me it would be like putting a proven and convicted pedophile in charge of a day care.

Dee · « **Reply #81 on:** November 23, 2011, 03:11:41 AM »

Correction, that was Doublebass7. I have long cursed the Lautenberg Act, and did not realize that Newt aided and abetted it's success.

magooch · « **Reply #82 on:** November 23, 2011, 03:37:59 AM »

Dixie Dude, what's the matter with you? Do you want a booming economy and cheaper energy? By the way, are you interested in running for President?

powderman · « **Reply #83 on:** November 23, 2011, 04:08:09 AM »

I read on yahoo news this morning that newt is backing the illegal criminals over Americans. It was running so slow I couldn't copy it. POWDERMAN.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #84 on:** November 23, 2011, 04:14:47 AM »

Not to take up for him but the illegal immigrant problem is now an expence problem. Close the borders is the thing to do . But those here would cost billions to send home , it would break up familiea (as he stated) . He was for looking for a fix that would be humane and cost effective.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #85 on:** November 23, 2011, 04:28:18 AM »

Half our trade deficit is imported oil. We have 100 million cars and trucks running gasoline and diesel. They aren't going away any time soon. So, by switching fleets to natural gas cuts 40% of imported oil. Drilling in America and offshore cuts another 40% of imports. Going to more diesels and flywheel assisted acceleration would cut the other 20%. There, half the trade deficit gone within 5-10 years which translates to about 2-3 million new jobs which will lower unemployment by at least 2%.

Now closing the border by using troops from Europe cuts the cost to upkeep illegals. To come to America by legal means, I think requires testing for disease, drugs, and if they are criminals. Somehow this process needs to be improved. Most who come illegally just want to work, but it takes the Feds 6-9 months to process the applications. This is time consuming. Drugs and disease can be checked quickly, however some countries have a problem giving us information as to whether they are criminals or not. Some illegals hold good jobs in America, not just manual labor, so curbing the illegals would help our unemployment some, don't know how much. Cutting welfare benefits to able bodied, would force them to take some of these manual labor jobs like they used to do.

Here is some information on diesel cars. Chevy volt costs $40,000, as most compariable hybrids cost more than diesels. I read the Ford Fiesta diesel made in Germany and sold there gets 63mpg which is higher than most hybrids. Plans are to bring this car to America soon. Germany cut their imported oil by going diesel on 85% of their vehicles.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-small-diesel-cars-save-080101672.html

BBF · « **Reply #86 on:** November 23, 2011, 05:12:12 AM »

Gingrich is for some sort of Amnesty for illegal aliens that have been in the country of a long time. I guess the status of Illegal has an expiry sticker attached to them.

I still like Bachmann sadly her campain ship is leaking badly.

blind ear · « **Reply #87 on:** November 23, 2011, 05:41:56 AM »

Ron Paul having an isolationist attitude leans more toward the heavy flywheel menality. Protect our country, create jobs here, take a practical productive approach useing whom and what we have to solve problems . He is far from perfect but at least thinking in terms that I agree with. ear

powderman · « **Reply #88 on:** November 23, 2011, 07:12:40 AM »

Newt said on the news that the criminals should be made citizens, give them amnesty because they broke our laws all these years and didn't get caught. I reckon rape, robbery, and murder are ok too as long as ya don't get caught. All mentioned are criminals and should be treated as such. NO TO NEWT. POWDERMAN.