Re: Gingrich More Electable Than Any Other Candidate

Maybe a small wager is in order? A dollar and a beer says you willl
be
saying, "President Gingrich" this time next year.
----
you're on!

On Nov 21, 12:46 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey PlainOl!
>
> Maybe a small wager is in order?   A dollar and a beer says you willl be
> saying, "President Gingrich"  this time next year.
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Gingrich More Electable Than Any Other Candidate
> > ---
> > hogwash ... history will prove you wrong
>
> > Newt is an unelectable asshole with poor judgement
>
> > On Nov 20, 9:34 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > November 15, 2011
> >http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/11/15/new_poll_shows_gingrich_...
> > > Poll Shows Gingrich More
> > > Electable<
> >http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/11/15/new_poll_shows_gingrich_...>A
> > > new McClatchy-Marist
> > > poll<
> >http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/15/130402/poll-gingrich-scores-bes..
> > .>finds
> > > Newt Gingrich is the strongest Republican presidential candidate when
> > > matched head to head against President Obama.
>
> > > Obama leads Gingrich by just two points, 47% to 45%. Mitt Romney is next
> > > closest, trailing Obama by 4 points, 49% to 44%. Ron Paul is the third
> > best
> > > bet for the Republicans right now, 8 points back from Obama, 49% to 41%.
>
> > > No other Republican is within single digits of the president.
>
> > >  Newt.2012.gif
> > > 16KViewDownload
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Ron Paul: Flawed policies helped lead to 9/11

Ron Paul said Sunday he thinks flawed U.S. foreign policy "contributed
to" the causes that led to the September 11 terrorist attacks
---
I agree. Interventionism is nothing short of a pre-emptive attack
based on fear.

On Nov 21, 2:09 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Ron Paul: Flawed policies helped lead to 9/11By Lucy Madisonhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57328328/ron-paul-flawed-policies-helped-lead-to-9-11/?tag=contentBody%3BcbsCarousel(CBS News)
> Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Sunday he thinks flawed U.S. foreign policy "contributed to" the causes that led to the September 11 terrorist attacks, though he stopped short of saying the attacks were America's "fault."
> Paul, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," said there was a "connection" between U.S. policies and the 9/11 attacks, and that "policies have an effect."
> But, he emphasized, "that's a far cry from blaming America."
> "I think there's an influence," Paul, a staunch Libertarian, told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "That's exactly what, you know, the 9/11 Commission said. That's what the DOD has said... That's what a lot of researchers have said. Just remember, immediately after 9/11, we removed the base from Saudi Arabia. So there is a connection."
> The longtime Texas congressman, whose popularity has recently seen an uptick in the GOP presidential polls, suggested that American military presence abroad fostered anti-American sentiment - which in turn led to actions against the American people.
> "You talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, 'Yes, we don't like American bombs to be falling on our country. We don't like the intervention that we do in their nations.' So to deny this, I think, is very dangerous - but to argue the case that they want to do us harm because we're free and prosperous, I think, is a very, very dangerous notion because it's not true."
> When asked if he was saying "it was our fault" that 9/11 happened, Paul said, no. "That's a misconstruing of what I'm saying," he replied.
> "America is you and I," Paul told Schieffer. "Wedidn't cause it. The average American didn't cause it. [But] if you have a flawed policy, it may influence it.
> "I'm saying the policy-makers' fault contributed to it," he added.
> Paul, who has long been vocal in his opposition to sending American troops abroad, argued that America should use diplomacy - not the military - to deal with countries like Iran.
> He also decried sanctions as "the initial step to war."
> "We have 12,000 diplomats. I'm suggesting that maybe we ought to use some of them," Paul said. "I think the greatest danger now is for us to overreact. This is what I'm fearful of. Iran doesn't have a bomb. There's no proof. There's no new information, regardless of this recent report. For us to overreact and talk about bombing Iran, that's much more dangerous."
> The candidate said he doesn't think there is any place in the world where it "helps" the United States to have forces stationed - not only because "we can't afford it," but also because, he said, "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home.
> "I think a submarine is a very worthwhile weapon," Paul said. "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and [station] all our troops back at home. This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases - now they've just invented a weapon that can hit any spot in the world in one hour. I mean, what's this idea? This is old-fashioned idea that you have to keep troops on 900 bases around the world. Makes no sense at all. Besides, we're bankrupt. We can't afford it any longer."
> The famously outspoken congressman added that he'd bring home troops even from Japan and South Korea. "Absolutely. And the people are with me on that. Because we can't afford it. It would save us a lot of money. All those troops would spend their money here at home," he said.
> Besides, he added, "Those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it's a danger to our national defense. We can save a lot of money cutting out the military expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense."http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57328328/ron-paul-flawed-policies-helped-lead-to-9-11/?tag=contentBody%3BcbsCarousel

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Gingrich: The “smartest, most electable conservative in the race”

then you applaud Newt's declaration of war on Iran?

then we need to replace the word interventionist with warmonger and
imperialist.

thinking that America has the right to invade and occupy another
country as a pre-emptive measure is insanity.

one day the US will pay for it's obstruction with way more than 3k
American lives ... that day just might be sooner than you think

On Nov 21, 12:42 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Gingrich's message should be taken seriously by those
> anti-American, anti-Western civilization Grand Muftis and the theological
> ruling elite in Iran.
>
> Again,  Good on Newt!
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:07 PM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > An offhand statement made five and a half years ago.
> > ---
> > November 19, 2011 forum in Des Moines, Iowa:
> >  "I agree entirely with Senator Santorum. I would say to the
> > government of Iran today, you have a very short time to solve this on
> > your own, and if you don't we will solve it for you. And we frankly
> > couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks. We're going to
> > get it done." - NG
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:59 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So let me make sure I understand.   You have gone back to a statement
> > that
> > > Senator John McCain and Former House Speaker Gingrich made on July 17,
> > > 2006, dealing with the Syrian and Iranian internal interference of
> > > Lebanon,  and an off hand remark by McCain and Gingrich, that this could
> > be
> > > the beginning of World War III,  as somehow suppporting Gingrich as
> > pushing
> > > for war with Iran?
>
> > > An offhand statement made five and a half years ago.
>
> > > Come on PlainOl,  please tell me that this is not the basis of your
> > logic!
>
> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:51 AM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Tell me what it is that you disagree with, that
> > > > Gingrich purports or stands for.
> > > > ----
> > > > I disagree with almost everything he says and supports.
>
> > > > example:
> > > > Looking to their American counterparts on Monday, Knesset members were
> > > > surprised at the solidarity and support being shown among key US
> > > > politicians.
> > > > Several top US political figures, including former House Speaker Newt
> > > > Gingrich (Rep.) called the current Middle East crisis the beginning of
> > > > "World War III" and said they were "gravely concerned" in an interview
> > > > on CNN's Larry King Live.
>
> > > > Gingrich, who called the crisis World War III in several interviews
> > > > over the weekend, said that the US and Israel were acting with much
> > > > restraint and that the US should shoot down Iranian planes sending
> > > > supplies to Lebanon.
> > > > "I have to say that I'm a bit nervous about what they mean," said MK
> > > > Danny Yatom (Labor). "To be honest, I'm a bit nervous about the US
> > > > intervening. Let them send us money, supplies... we can do the rest
> > > > ourselves."
> > > > Many MKs said that while they were happy to hear US politicians taking
> > > > a strong line in support of Israel, they were concerned about how US
> > > > intervention would play itself out.
> > > > "It is not World War III because there are no armies involved," said
> > > > Vice Premier Shimon Peres (Kadima). "They must remember that this is
> > > > an entirely different type of conflict."
> > > > "In many ways they are completely disconnected from what is going on
> > > > here," said MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz). "They might make calls for
> > > > something that is completely unnecessary."
> > > > "They haven't learned anything and they don't understand anything. I
> > > > hope that they understand more about America than they understand
> > > > about the Middle East," said MK Colette Avital (Labor).
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 9:37 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > PlainOl';
>
> > > > > I have now watched the first video you sent,  (and I will get around
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > second video later today).
>
> > > > > Again,  I ask you,  what can you point to,  anything, that supports
> > your
> > > > > statement that Gingrich is pushing for war in Iran?  It is clearly
> > not in
> > > > > this video,  and EVERYTHING that Gingrich says in this video,  I
> > agree
> > > > with.
>
> > > > > What in the video,  other than he is appearing on Shalom TV,  do you
> > > > > disagree with?
>
> > > > > Specifics please.   Tell me what it is that you disagree with, that
> > > > > Gingrich purports or stands for.
>
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:31 AM, plainolamerican <
> > > > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Newt Gingrich is a warmonger and a propagandist for zionist fascism
> > > > > > that supports military intervention in the middle east.
> > > > > > He should already be political history.
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RtJYib1O4g
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtqrpAkmP6Y
>
> > > > > > On Nov 21, 9:05 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > How sad for you PlainOl'.
>
> > > > > > > I suggest you take another look at Gingrich.
>
> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:12 AM, plainolamerican
> > > > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Newt's decision making making abilities are impaired and bound
> > to
> > > > > > > > fail.
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 20, 9:40 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Gingrich: The "smartest, most electable conservative in the
> > race"
>
> > > > > > > > > Posted by NN&V Staff
> > > > > > > > > <http://nevadanewsandviews.com/archives/author/admin>on Nov
> > > > 10th,
> > > > > > 2011
>
> > > > > > > > > *(Charlie Smith/Time for Newt)* – "Smartest guy in the
> > room." "A
> > > > > > genius."
> > > > > > > > > "Brilliant." "Fantastic to listen to." "I would love to see
> > him
> > > > > > debate
> > > > > > > > > Obama."
>
> > > > > > > > > "But he can't win."
>
> > > > > > > > > If you're like me, every time Newt Gingrich's name comes up,
> > > > this is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > kind of thing you hear. Conservatives love him. He's clearly
> > the
> > > > > > smartest
> > > > > > > > > guy on the stage and the candidate best suited to take the
> > fight
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > Obama.
> > > > > > > > > So why does he always get ignored?
>
> > > > > > > > > Because the liberal media and the establishment have been
> > > > telling us
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > for a year that Newt Gingrich can't possibly win. Well, I'm
> > here
> > > > to
> > > > > > tell
> > > > > > > > > you that all that's changed. Newt Gingrich is now leading
> > Mitt
> > > > > > Romney in
> > > > > > > > > Iowa.
>
> > > > > > > > > *Consider this email your permission slip to do what you've
> > > > wanted
> > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > > all along: get behind Newt Gingrich and fight for the
> > smartest,
> > > > most
> > > > > > > > > electable conservative in the race.*
>
> > > > > > > > > Mitt Romney came up with the idea that became the template
> > for
> > > > > > Obamacare.
> > > > > > > > > Without Mitt Romney, there IS no Obamacare. Rick Perry thinks
> > > > you're
> > > > > > > > > heartless if you don't want to give free college tuition to
> > > > illegal
> > > > > > > > aliens.
> > > > > > > > > (He actually SAID that!) And Herman Cain is a nice man, but
> > he
> > > > can't
> > > > > > win
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > this point.
>
> > > > > > > > > That leaves Newt, right where he's been all along,
> > articulating
> > > > real
> > > > > > > > > solutions that will allow us to take our country back, turn
> > this
> > > > > > economy
> > > > > > > > > around and make us freer, stronger, and safer as a country.
>
> > > > > > > > > Just stop with me a second and think about something: Next
> > Fall,
> > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > going to be a Presidential debate between Obama and the GOP
> > > > nominee.
> > > > > > Who
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > you want to be in it?
>
> > > > > > > > > Mitt Romney? The guy who has taken different positions on
> > every
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > major issue?
>
> > > > > > > > > Rick Perry, the guy who can't articulate his positions, and
> > when
> > > > he
> > > > > > does,
> > > > > > > > > seems to offend conservatives every time he talks?
>
> > > > > > > > > Herman Cain?
>
> > > > > > > > > The answer is clear: Newt Gingrich. He will absolutely wipe
> > the
> > > > floor
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > Obama. He won't be cowed, he knows policy better, and he has
> > the
> > > > > > backbone
> > > > > > > > > to tell it like it is. He has the guts to say to the American
> > > > people,
> > > > > > > > > "President Obama has failed."
>
> > > > > > > > > As the leading pro-Newt SuperPAC, we're going to go into the
> > > > states
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > rally the activists, and build the organization Newt needs
> > to win
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > nomination and beat Obama in the Fall.
>
> > > > > > > > > The media and the establishment don't get to pick our
> > nominee.
> > > > We do.
>
> > > > > > > > > Will you join us?
>
> > > > > > > > > It's time.
>
> > > > > > > > >  Newt.2012.gif
> > > > > > > > > 16KViewDownload
>
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > > > > For options & help seehttp://
> > > > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > > For options & help seehttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > *
>
> ...
>
> read more »
>
>  Newt.2012.gif
> 16KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Ron Paul: Flawed policies helped lead to 9/11

Ron Paul: Flawed policies helped lead to 9/11
By Lucy Madison

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57328328/ron-paul-flawed-policies-helped-lead-to-9-11/?tag=contentBody%3BcbsCarousel
(CBS News) 

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Sunday he thinks flawed U.S. foreign policy "contributed to" the causes that led to the September 11 terrorist attacks, though he stopped short of saying the attacks were America's "fault."

Paul, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," said there was a "connection" between U.S. policies and the 9/11 attacks, and that "policies have an effect."

But, he emphasized, "that's a far cry from blaming America."

"I think there's an influence," Paul, a staunch Libertarian, told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "That's exactly what, you know, the 9/11 Commission said. That's what the DOD has said... That's what a lot of researchers have said. Just remember, immediately after 9/11, we removed the base from Saudi Arabia. So there is a connection."

The longtime Texas congressman, whose popularity has recently seen an uptick in the GOP presidential polls, suggested that American military presence abroad fostered anti-American sentiment - which in turn led to actions against the American people.

"You talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, 'Yes, we don't like American bombs to be falling on our country. We don't like the intervention that we do in their nations.' So to deny this, I think, is very dangerous - but to argue the case that they want to do us harm because we're free and prosperous, I think, is a very, very dangerous notion because it's not true."

When asked if he was saying "it was our fault" that 9/11 happened, Paul said, no. "That's a misconstruing of what I'm saying," he replied.

"America is you and I," Paul told Schieffer. "We didn't cause it. The average American didn't cause it. [But] if you have a flawed policy, it may influence it.

"I'm saying the policy-makers' fault contributed to it," he added.

Paul, who has long been vocal in his opposition to sending American troops abroad, argued that America should use diplomacy - not the military - to deal with countries like Iran.

He also decried sanctions as "the initial step to war."

"We have 12,000 diplomats. I'm suggesting that maybe we ought to use some of them," Paul said. "I think the greatest danger now is for us to overreact. This is what I'm fearful of. Iran doesn't have a bomb. There's no proof. There's no new information, regardless of this recent report. For us to overreact and talk about bombing Iran, that's much more dangerous."

The candidate said he doesn't think there is any place in the world where it "helps" the United States to have forces stationed - not only because "we can't afford it," but also because, he said, "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home.

"I think a submarine is a very worthwhile weapon," Paul said. "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and [station] all our troops back at home. This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases - now they've just invented a weapon that can hit any spot in the world in one hour. I mean, what's this idea? This is old-fashioned idea that you have to keep troops on 900 bases around the world. Makes no sense at all. Besides, we're bankrupt. We can't afford it any longer."

The famously outspoken congressman added that he'd bring home troops even from Japan and South Korea. "Absolutely. And the people are with me on that. Because we can't afford it. It would save us a lot of money. All those troops would spend their money here at home," he said.

Besides, he added, "Those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it's a danger to our national defense. We can save a lot of money cutting out the military expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57328328/ron-paul-flawed-policies-helped-lead-to-9-11/?tag=contentBody%3BcbsCarousel

Re: Obama Regime Will Force US Taxpayers To Pay the Salaries of Terrorists

fundamentalist Christians would have people stoned to death
---
that would be the muzzies and jews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuCETPrGtY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrCLeN03tuI

On Nov 21, 1:08 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 10:56 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Fundamental Islam threatens our very way of life.
> > They want us dead.
>
> And yet fundamentalist Christians would have people stoned to death
> the same exact way for the same exact crimes.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.