Posted on 01/16/2012 11:27:01 AM PST by VinL
Oh, you’re for Rick. Cool. He’s a good guy. Wish him luck.
I’m for Newt- but if Rick wins, I can easily support him.
LOL. Maybe you better put it in bold and underline it too.
This isn't that hard. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. It is not fact no matter how obstinate you are.
Rush Limbaugh is dead to me. Rush died last week.
I had been with Rush from day one. I held Rush in very high regard.
That two faced shill no longer has my respect and he can stuff his tea where the sun doesn’t shine.
Rush will soon start working on damage control, and from listening to him for about 30 minutes of his bs today, he has already started.
It really bothers me to say goodbye to Rush, but I just can’t stand him, not now, not ever again.
That’s socialism. But he wasn’t talking about that. He was talking about buying failing businesses and splitting them up. There is nothing unethical about that.
You’re still dodging the issue. You cannot come up with any scenario where Newt can win a general election. Why are you guys so hell bent for leather to nominate a toxic candidate and ignore political realities ?
Your excellent point was made by Santorum. I saw him make the point on CSPAN, at a SC forum. I don’t think he appears as a courageou fighter for the point, but he recognizes it, and finds it useful for his campaign rhetoric. I am convinced they ALL know it.
There you go again. Stating stuff that has no basis in fact as fact.
Here's a fact: 59.7% of your fellow FReepers think Newt Gingrich can win the general election against 0bama.
Everyone knows what it means, my friend. here’s the problem. Newt’s a Republican- so the media is not going to press Romney on Newt’s behalf.
When Mr. Obama raises the same issue, every media outlet will have every person ever hurt by Bain on the nightly news... Billionaire Romney will be seen as greed and fraud incarnate, so much so that Milken and Maldorf will seem like Mother Theresa by comparison.
Red herring arguments. It doesn’t matter if 99% of FReepers think he can win. He cannot. I’ll put it to you again, if candidate A has 55% unpopularity and candidate B has 60% unpopularity, which candidate wins a general election ? (I’ll give you a hint, it’s candidate A... and candidate A ain’t Newt). Where’s your scenario where Newt wins the general, Hoss ?
It is too bad that campaigns use word definitions to redefine reality. The phrase “ethical capitalism” does not even begin to describe what happened when Bain Capitol began flipping companies, taking their assets and spitting out the employees on the street. If you want a definition of it, Governor Rick Perry comes close: “vulture capitalism.” I call it capitalism gone mutant and turned cancerous. However, this indictment of the business practices of Bain Capitol, are no more an indictment of capitalism than charging that used car dealers are all bad because one turns back the speedometers of all the cars its sells.
If you were more knowledgeable of the world of high finances, you would see the activities of Bain Capitol in a different way. The only thing we should question is when was Romney working with Bain and was he involved in its shady business practices.
Zero has a 55% disapproval rating. Newt has a 60% disapproval rating. Take a wild guess who wins ?
*******************
The one who has presided over the worst economy. If it’s on the upswing in November, Obama wins. If it’s still tanking, Atilla the Hun wins.
The surprising thing is that Rush was very impressed with the Codevilla article, devoting the bulk of an entire show to it, and writing the introduction when it was brought out in book form. Doesn't seem to have absorbed it, though . . .
That’s socialism
***************
Precisely. And what do you belief the Establishment GOP represents- capitallism? The GOP elite has lived the American Dream, they have power and wealth— and they are pulling up the draw bridge behind them. E.G.- Republican Colin Powell- “Americans want more government.”
Senators Katherine Harris & Sharron Angle agree. Oh, wait...
.... “ The system is truly being exposed as rigged if the nominee is decided after only 3 or 4 of 50 states have participated. We are being told it is ok if it’s over before the party of every state gets to vote, but it is not.” <<<
You are correct, but the presumption is that MONEY provides the voice for these candidates to be able to carry on. The MONEY determines to what extent that can happen and state by state.
It seems this leaves the outcome to the millionaires and billionaires to fight it out between themselves. If not for Newt’s financier out of Las Vegas, he would still be in the same state he was after leaving Iowa, which is toast. He has been revived to fight on by one injection.
While I understand that money is speech, it is true that some individuals have *more* speech than the rest of us. It’s very hard to say that we are not at the mercy of the wealthy in these primaries.
Mary, I don’t think we disagree. My point was that everyone knows what “unethical capitalism” means- and so some are now engaging in semantical arguments. Unethical capitalism means, but is not limited to, fraudulence, malfeasance, buying off politicians, subsidies, corporate welfare, and bailing out the connected at the expense of the unconnected.
Rush deifies anyone who has attained riches as having lived the American Dream- (he has— he’s done it the honest way) but others have “gamed” capitalism. Rush can’t bring himself to make the distinction.
Don’t try to divert attention from what Gingrich said. He said that buying businesses for the purpose of shutting them down is not ethical. That’s what the issue is.
There is nothing unethical about that. I don’t want government telling capitalists that they can’t buy businesses to shut them down. That’s just as much socialism as what you’re describing.
Senators Katherine Harris & Sharron Angle agree. Oh, wait...
**************
About what? Respectfully, I don’t understand your reference. If you are looking for a reply, pls develop your position. Thanks.
>>> “ I call it capitalism gone mutant and turned cancerous. “ <<<
Capitalism turned cancerous not by itself, or on its own, but by those in power who did the mutating.
Virtuous capitalism is determined more by the rule makers, and the king makers, and the policy shapers, who all together place these regulators in power, to then shape not only the regulations, but also the width of the loop holes for avoiding the regulations, and who shall, or shall not qualify to use those loop holes. This is what gives capitalism its black eye.
So says the FReeper who thinks only his 2 cent opinion matters.
Where’s your scenario where Newt wins the general, Hoss ?
I'll tell you my scenario when you explain to me how Rick Santorum makes it to the general at all, Hoss. 7% in SC. 9% in FL. He's only helping Willard at this point.
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.