Yeah, Obama and Gingrich have completely different views on health care. Obama thinks Gingrich’s healthcare plan didn’t go far enough, while Gingrich thinks Gingrich’s plan went way too far and is socialist and unconstitutional.
And the whole teleprompter thing is pathetic, considering that every politician who’s criticized Obama for it has been reading that criticism off of a teleprompter. And Obama goes without a 'prompter often, anyway, and is still an excellent speaker when he does.
BrainGlutton got this right but since you asked me.
Newt is a lying, craven, crook. An utter piece of shit, opportunist who lives every heart-beat to either pull money from others or pump up his image.
Ron Paul is a fucking loon who, if we enacted his policies, would destroy the world economy and literally cause hundreds of thousands, if not millions of additional people to die. Paul isn’t evil, he’s a fucking child who lives in a fantasy land where the gentle and strong hand of the market is the one true God.
Newt would be a disaster for America. Paul would be a disaster for humanity.
So? Virtually the entire Republican party establishment supported the individual mandate at some point or another. Does that mean that we should say there’s no difference between the Republican party’s current position on healthcare and Obama’s? That’s non-sensical. Gingrich doesn’t support the individual mandate now, and he damn sure doesn’t support the ACA, in concept or execution.
This is such a broad definition of agreement that it’s completely meaningless. Only someone who is a complete non-interventionist counts as having distinguishably different foreign policy positions than Newt Gingrich? Really?
Looking at the previous debates Gingrich has done so far this election, Obama would win on the topics and Gingrich would whip out his penis and try to beat the moderator and Media with it.
You honestly believe a Paul presidency would cause millions of people to die? What are you basing this on, because I have no idea how you could come to this conclusion.
I’m not sure Republicans have a clear position on health care other than REPEAL OBAMACARE. If you want to buy into the hype and think Gingrich changed his mind go ahead.
Well specifically Gingrich supported intervention in Libya. Whether or not he does now I don’t care because when the decision was made he was for it. Could you name a situation you think would be handled differently by Gingrich and Obama because that would be helpful. I can’t think of any. Obama has great rhetoric that appeals to his base just like Gingrich. In practice he’s been quite the neo-con.
I got a good laugh about this premise.
Don’t forget, Obama is the guy who thinks that:
-the USA has 57 states
-“corps” is prononced “corpse”
-there is an “english” embassy in Iran
-Hawaii is in Asia
He’s also the guy who railed about conressmen not reading what is in budget bills-the forgetting what was in his own healthcare bill.
He’s so smart he want release his student records…I wonder why.
Oh, yes, and the Cambridge (MA) police behaved “stupidly”.
Yup, Obama is bright!:smack:
Yeah but if you can establish that they all supported it once and no longer support it without any change in the facts then you might say that they criticism levelled against Romney about changing positions out of political calculus and expedience might apply to every last one of them.
So? I don’t think anyone was calling him stupid, ignorant or uneducated. Just not smarter than obama.
As several posters have said, it will all hinge on who you like and who you are already going to vote for. Most 'dopers, I dare say, will think Newt will be creamed in every debate, just like most thought Kerry won every debate with Bush and was going to win in a landslide. Those who think Newt is an idiot or is stupid are deluding themselves…he’s a pretty smart cookie, IMHO, especially politically. That said, I wouldn’t give two coppers for Newts chances to win a national election against Obama, so it’s kind of a moot point. If the Republicans put Newt up against Obama (something I’m still highly skeptical will happen) they will lose, and probably by similar margins to the contest between Obama and McCain.
And who ‘wins’ any debate between him and Obama will mean pretty much nothing, unless Obama makes a huge gaffe or humiliates himself in some spectacular way…something I wouldn’t be holding my breath for.
-XT
No, if he became president he’d get nothing done, because he’d be too ideological to do anything that would pass. I said people would die if we enacted his policies. Which are driven by his childish Libertarian fantasies.
Yeah! What kind of an idiot misspeaks 4 times in 5 years?
It’s like he … oh, I don’t know … made at least 8 grammatical errors writing out less than 100 words or something like that.
I’m not sure if you realize it but people are dying as a result of Obama’s policies. For example he had a 16 year old American citizen assassinated.
If Bush had done that, he’d already have a teardrop tattoo on his cheek.
Yes, I stole that from Bill Maher’s show.
Ron Paul claims it was an assassination. All the evidence points to it being an unintended death. At no point was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki targeted for assassination.
He certainly died as a result of Obama’s policies but claiming he was assassinated is making stuff up.
Ok murdered. Is that better?
Try slaughtered. That has a nice ring to it.
Sure it’s honest. Much unlike Ron Paul on the subject.
Actually it’s in modern European history, titled Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960.
Okay… I had to laugh really hard.
1st - " if he became president he’d get nothing done" Name one thing that Obama got done. Just one but it has to be relevant - like health care, closing Guantanamo, stop breaking law, take care of deficit, create jobs. Did you mean Ron Paul would get nothing done in a similar fashion as Obama?
2nd - “I said people would die if we enacted his policies” Ron Paul is anti-war. Right there, if he was President in 2003 there would not be war in Iraq. 150 to 200K Iraqis and some 4K US soldiers. Not to mention torture, Abu Ghraib and all the lovely things brought to you by Presidents whose policies DO KILL people.
You response is a typical American media wash-up of misinformation and misdirection. But I guess this is about Newt who as a self-professed war monger has a higher degree of respect than Ron. It’s amazing actually.