Skip to comments.
Newt hits Romney: ‘Could we drop a little bit of the pious baloney?’
The Daily Caller ^
| January 8, 2012
| Jeff Poor
Posted on 01/08/2012 10:14:44 AM PST by Kaslin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
To: wagglebee
It’s not like I keep it a secret. I support the guy people from all camps know is a consistent fighter (Newt), and isnt afraid to take on everyone from the establishment, Romney, Obama, and the press.
Goodness knows why this decision about the “not Romney” has become so hard. Either we go with the guy that will go to war, or we go with the guys that maybe might, but we aren’t 100% sure.
I sick of leaps of faith for presidential candidates.
41
posted on
01/08/2012 1:26:31 PM PST
by
VanDeKoik
(1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
To: VanDeKoik
That's fine, I don't have a problem with Newt.
All I gave earlier was my prediction based on how the momentum seemed to be going right now. However, this election cycle is the craziest I've ever seen and I'll be the first to acknowledge that things could shift overnight.
42
posted on
01/08/2012 1:31:23 PM PST
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: Lauren BaRecall
Well one thing I realize is that God isn’t a Democrat, because he doesn’t vote multiple times. So that will only get you so far on Earth.
43
posted on
01/08/2012 1:36:05 PM PST
by
VanDeKoik
(1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
To: Kaslin
Depending on where you lived, you might have gotten Dancing with the stars, like I did.
44
posted on
01/08/2012 1:58:19 PM PST
by
itsahoot
(Throw them all out! Especially the Frugal Socialists who call themselves Republicans.)
To: VanDeKoik
Either we go with the guy that will go to war, or we go with the guys that maybe might, but we arent 100% sure.So who is the one you support? Or are you fearful of the Zot?
45
posted on
01/08/2012 2:00:20 PM PST
by
itsahoot
(Throw them all out! Especially the Frugal Socialists who call themselves Republicans.)
To: itsahoot
Uh, that would be Newt.
LOL, I hope I dint give you the impression I was for Romney or something.
46
posted on
01/08/2012 2:11:45 PM PST
by
VanDeKoik
(1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
To: HIDEK6
Newt’s right on this one. That Romney is a lifetime businessman suddenly smitten with the call to public office is simply not true.
Another exaggerated myth that needs to be revisited is Ron Paul’s military service, which he loves to trumpet while disparaging others.
Ron Paul took a student deferment from the draft for his undergraduate studies and then a further deferment to continue in his studies. He was not drafted in wartime, he was drafted in peacetime in 1963 and served 2 years, leaving active duty service in 1965, just as the US began sending the first combat troops to Vietnam (Marines, August of 1965). Contrary to popular belief, he did not serve in Vietnam. Paul entered the National Guard in 1965
It should be noted that Paul took a student deferment, and later was drafted in 1963, two years before the US began a combat role in Vietnam. Paul then went into the National Guard, which, at the time, was widely regarded as a way to avoid deployment to Vietnam.*
Gingrich, 8 years Paul’s junior, took a student deferment in 1963. Upon graduation in 1968, he would have become eligible for the draft, except that the Selective Service had changed its policy in regard to married men with children, and he thus would not have received a draft notice.
Yes, Gingrich could have volunteered for active service in Vietnam, just as Ron Paul could have. Neither did.
*During Vietnam there were virtually no National Guard units that took part in combat in Vietnam. One exception was the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group of the Texas Air National Guard which had F-102 combat aircraft deployed to Vietnam in May of 1968. That was the month that George W Bush enlisted in the 147th to be trained as an F-102 pilot.
47
posted on
01/08/2012 2:14:19 PM PST
by
cookcounty
(Newt 2012: ---> Because he got it DONE.)
To: cookcounty
That’s why there needs to be a Ron Paul Truth File here on FreeRepublic.
48
posted on
01/08/2012 2:24:23 PM PST
by
Sister_T
(Why should anyone have to repent for an offense they never committed?)
To: classified
But will it change votes>> ??? That is what is needed; another Newt revival in not only NH but SC and Fla.
To: CainConservative
Perry is a five percenter but that might be all Willard needs him to be in SC. What a shame.
Given Perry's consistent poll numbers in SC and fairly consistent poll numbers leading up to Iowa, I think he'll do a little better in SC, but still less than 10%, but let's be honest about something:
Willard and Paul will probably get 50% of the votes in SC because SC is an open primary in a year when the Democrats have an incumbent. Liberals and Libertarians will be crossing over to vote for Willard and RuPaul.
Nobody but the liberals are helping Willard, and they will help him win.
To: Kaslin
pious baloney. now available where Kosher products are sold.
To: Kaslin
"Romney explained to the New Hampshire audience why he was running for president and how he is business experience made him different from his fellow competitors."
He and his fellow, bipartisan not-really-competitors have probably done as most established businesses have done for a long time: regulated against any new, small business starts.
No-vote. Starve the B.
52
posted on
01/08/2012 5:28:59 PM PST
by
familyop
(We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
To: Kaslin
"You were running for president while you were governor. You were going all over the country, and you were out of state consistently. You then promptly re-entered politics ..." Pot calling the kettle black...
53
posted on
01/08/2012 6:23:52 PM PST
by
Baynative
(The penalty for not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.)
To: SumProVita
Mitt didn’t hang around to the end last time. I doubt that he will now, too.
54
posted on
01/08/2012 7:38:11 PM PST
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
To: Kaslin
** but could we drop a little bit of the pious baloney? Gingrich said.**
Way to go, Newt!
55
posted on
01/08/2012 7:56:51 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: vette6387
It was like a Rick/Newt tag team wasn’t it.
56
posted on
01/08/2012 7:58:20 PM PST
by
Sea Parrot
(Utopia Is The Opiate of Liberals)
To: All
57
posted on
01/08/2012 8:00:06 PM PST
by
musicman
(Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
To: sheikdetailfeather
Gingrich-Santorum
or
Santorum-Gingrich
58
posted on
01/08/2012 8:00:06 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: VanDeKoik
**And then Santorum will crumble like a cheap cookie and will lose handily.**
I don’t think so.
59
posted on
01/08/2012 8:02:49 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: Kaslin
Newt—still the only adult in the room.
I can’t believe that in one weekend, the GOP allowed TWO debates wth loons like Sawyers, Steffie and David Gregory asking gotcha questions.
The GOP is either going to undergo radical surgery after Nov. 6th or go extinct. Changes are long overdue.
60
posted on
01/08/2012 8:21:03 PM PST
by
exit82
(Democrats are the enemies of freedom. We have ideas-the Dems only have ideology.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson