Another reason to support Newt~ Balance the budget in 5 yrs

[RadiomanATL]

We're not talking about random, everyday working stiffs changing their opinions; we're talking about people who are vying for the office of the POTUS - possibly the most powerful position on the face of the earth - flip-flopping on immensely important issues. If you can't wrap your little head around that, then you are beyond my help.

But for some reason I get the feeling you supported Kerry.

Who was stupid enough to vote for Bush in 2004?

Irrelevant.

You don't get to trot around saying flip flopping is bad thing and that it deserves your derision and only people who stand firm and don't change their position deserve your support while at the same time having voting for Kerry.

Cause Bush was the one who stood firm (even though he was an idiot) and Kerry was the flip-flopper.

Thats whats known as hypocrisy, just in case you didn't know.

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly. And the fact that you still support them just proves what a partisan hack you truly are.

Name one person in your entire life who has never had a change of heart.. JUST ONE, you idiot.

We're not talking about random, everyday working stiffs changing their opinions; we're talking about people who are vying for the office of the POTUS - possibly the most powerful position on the face of the earth - flip-flopping on immensely important issues. If you can't wrap your little head around that, then you are beyond my help.

I think it would sort of depend on the issue and the circumstances, wouldn't it.

Now, if you are talking about Romney, who has flip flopped a couple times on nearly every issue in attempt to get votes, that's a serious thing.

If someone changed his mind on Global Warming based on being given more information, that would be something else.

 

[Synthaholic]

But for some reason I get the feeling you supported Kerry.

Who was stupid enough to vote for Bush in 2004?

Irrelevant.

You don't get to trot around saying flip flopping is bad thing and that it deserves your derision and only people who stand firm and don't change their position deserve your support while at the same time having voting for Kerry.

Cause Bush was the one who stood firm (even though he was an idiot) and Kerry was the flip-flopper.

Thats whats known as hypocrisy, just in case you didn't know.

There is a difference between Kerry flip flopping on supporting some spending bill and Mitt flip-flopping on core values.

 

[Synthaholic]

Name one person in your entire life who has never had a change of heart.. JUST ONE, you idiot.

We're not talking about random, everyday working stiffs changing their opinions; we're talking about people who are vying for the office of the POTUS - possibly the most powerful position on the face of the earth - flip-flopping on immensely important issues. If you can't wrap your little head around that, then you are beyond my help.

I think it would sort of depend on the issue and the circumstances, wouldn't it.

Now, if you are talking about Romney, who has flip flopped a couple times on nearly every issue in attempt to get votes, that's a serious thing.

If someone changed his mind on Global Warming based on being given more information, that would be something else.

Correct. Mittens had all the information he could want about abortions back in 1994. That was the same year that Randall Terry was a co-defendant in the SCOTUS case, NOW v. Scheidler.

There was no 'new information' to change his mind in 2006 when it came to abortions.

 

[JoeB131]

I think it would sort of depend on the issue and the circumstances, wouldn't it.

Now, if you are talking about Romney, who has flip flopped a couple times on nearly every issue in attempt to get votes, that's a serious thing.

If someone changed his mind on Global Warming based on being given more information, that would be something else.

Correct. Mittens had all the information he could want about abortions back in 1994. That was the same year that Randall Terry was a co-defendant in the SCOTUS case, NOW v. Scheidler.

There was no 'new information' to change his mind in 2006 when it came to abortions.

No new information, perhaps. But it's not an easy question.

For most of my life, I've been what could be classified as "Pro-Life". Starting with my Catholic upbringing, it was a value I didn't shake when I stopped being religious.

What changed was not the facts on the ground, but a realization that even if we did outlaw abortion, as a practical matter, it would be as effective as laws against prostitution. They are too easy to perform, and even before Roe v. Wade, anyone who wanted them could get one.

I could easily see how someone could take the pragmatic view, but still change his mind when considering a fetus still looks a hell of a lot like a baby. Maybe holding a new baby in his arms.

Now, I don't think this is the case with Romney. Don't like, trust or believe anything he says. If he's against abortion now, it is purely a political calculation.

There is a difference between Kerry flip flopping on supporting some spending bill and Mitt flip-flopping on core values

Not really. I think they did it for the same reason- political calculation. Kerry, despite having protested the war in Vietnam, was all for the war in Iraq when polls showed that 70% of Americans thought that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. It was pure calculation. But when it came closer to the Democratic nomination, he was happy to cozy up to the anti-war left.

His "I was for it before I was against it" might have been a clinical examination of how legislation works, but image wise, it shows a guy who calculates, not stands on principle.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who was stupid enough to vote for Bush in 2004?

Irrelevant.

You don't get to trot around saying flip flopping is bad thing and that it deserves your derision and only people who stand firm and don't change their position deserve your support while at the same time having voting for Kerry.

Cause Bush was the one who stood firm (even though he was an idiot) and Kerry was the flip-flopper.

Thats whats known as hypocrisy, just in case you didn't know.

There is a difference between Kerry flip flopping on supporting some spending bill and Mitt flip-flopping on core values.

No there is not. I suspect you like spector also don't you?

 

[bodecea]

Who was stupid enough to vote for Bush in 2004?

Irrelevant.

You don't get to trot around saying flip flopping is bad thing and that it deserves your derision and only people who stand firm and don't change their position deserve your support while at the same time having voting for Kerry.

Cause Bush was the one who stood firm (even though he was an idiot) and Kerry was the flip-flopper.

Thats whats known as hypocrisy, just in case you didn't know.

There is a difference between Kerry flip flopping on supporting some spending bill and Mitt flip-flopping on core values.

The thing is, Kerry wasn't really flip-flopping...they changed the bill in between votes.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think it would sort of depend on the issue and the circumstances, wouldn't it.

Now, if you are talking about Romney, who has flip flopped a couple times on nearly every issue in attempt to get votes, that's a serious thing.

If someone changed his mind on Global Warming based on being given more information, that would be something else.

Correct. Mittens had all the information he could want about abortions back in 1994. That was the same year that Randall Terry was a co-defendant in the SCOTUS case, NOW v. Scheidler.

There was no 'new information' to change his mind in 2006 when it came to abortions.

No new information, perhaps. But it's not an easy question.

For most of my life, I've been what could be classified as "Pro-Life". Starting with my Catholic upbringing, it was a value I didn't shake when I stopped being religious.

What changed was not the facts on the ground, but a realization that even if we did outlaw abortion, as a practical matter, it would be as effective as laws against prostitution. They are too easy to perform, and even before Roe v. Wade, anyone who wanted them could get one.

I could easily see how someone could take the pragmatic view, but still change his mind when considering a fetus still looks a hell of a lot like a baby. Maybe holding a new baby in his arms.

Now, I don't think this is the case with Romney. Don't like, trust or believe anything he says. If he's against abortion now, it is purely a political calculation.

Well, we are talking about Romney. I am making the case that he flip-flops on core values, because he has none.

There is a difference between Kerry flip flopping on supporting some spending bill and Mitt flip-flopping on core values

Not really. I think they did it for the same reason- political calculation. Kerry, despite having protested the war in Vietnam, was all for the war in Iraq when polls showed that 70% of Americans thought that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. It was pure calculation. But when it came closer to the Democratic nomination, he was happy to cozy up to the anti-war left.

His "I was for it before I was against it" might have been a clinical examination of how legislation works, but image wise, it shows a guy who calculates, not stands on principle.

This is false.

Kerry explained that he had supported an earlier Democratic measure that would have paid for the $87 billion in war funding by reducing Bush's tax cuts.

After it was defeated, he said he voted against final passage of the bill to voice his displeasure with the president's Iraq policy.




​

He supported the $87,000,000,000 when the millionaires and billionaires were going to be paying their fair share. Once that was off the table he changed his vote.

 

[Synthaholic]

Irrelevant.

You don't get to trot around saying flip flopping is bad thing and that it deserves your derision and only people who stand firm and don't change their position deserve your support while at the same time having voting for Kerry.

Cause Bush was the one who stood firm (even though he was an idiot) and Kerry was the flip-flopper.

Thats whats known as hypocrisy, just in case you didn't know.

There is a difference between Kerry flip flopping on supporting some spending bill and Mitt flip-flopping on core values.

No there is not. I suspect you like spector also don't you?

Of course there's a difference. You could think that climate change is a scam, then be shown new information which changes your mind. That's not a flip-flop.

I can't stand Arlen Specter. He is responsible for Clarence Thomas being on the bench. I think he is as dishonest as they come.

 

[Synthaholic]

Irrelevant.

You don't get to trot around saying flip flopping is bad thing and that it deserves your derision and only people who stand firm and don't change their position deserve your support while at the same time having voting for Kerry.

Cause Bush was the one who stood firm (even though he was an idiot) and Kerry was the flip-flopper.

Thats whats known as hypocrisy, just in case you didn't know.

There is a difference between Kerry flip flopping on supporting some spending bill and Mitt flip-flopping on core values.

The thing is, Kerry wasn't really flip-flopping...they changed the bill in between votes.

Correct. They changed the funding.

 

[JoeB131]

There is a difference between Kerry flip flopping on supporting some spending bill and Mitt flip-flopping on core values

Not really. I think they did it for the same reason- political calculation. Kerry, despite having protested the war in Vietnam, was all for the war in Iraq when polls showed that 70% of Americans thought that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. It was pure calculation. But when it came closer to the Democratic nomination, he was happy to cozy up to the anti-war left.

His "I was for it before I was against it" might have been a clinical examination of how legislation works, but image wise, it shows a guy who calculates, not stands on principle.

This is false.

Kerry explained that he had supported an earlier Democratic measure that would have paid for the $87 billion in war funding by reducing Bush's tax cuts.

After it was defeated, he said he voted against final passage of the bill to voice his displeasure with the president's Iraq policy.

He supported the $87,000,000,000 when the millionaires and billionaires were going to be paying their fair share. Once that was off the table he changed his vote.[/QUOTE]

This would be the SAME war he voted for in 2002.

Again, no principles at all.

When war was popular, he voted for war. When war was less popular, he voted against it. I think he finally did come out unequivoably against the war- after he lost the election.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

NEWT has proven he can work with a divided congress to get a balanced budget passed as long as he has a president willing to sign off on the budget (like clinton was but obama isn't)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is a difference between Kerry flip flopping on supporting some spending bill and Mitt flip-flopping on core values.

No there is not. I suspect you like spector also don't you?

Of course there's a difference. You could think that climate change is a scam, then be shown new information which changes your mind. That's not a flip-flop.

I can't stand Arlen Specter. He is responsible for Clarence Thomas being on the bench. I think he is as dishonest as they come.

To change your point of view because of how the political winds blow is not a good reason to change you view. Newt is doing it kerry did spector did it

 

[Flaylo]

Newt has a proven track record of being a deficit hawk. Newt states he will balance the budget in 5 years.

Newt Gingrich Estimates Budget Could Be Balanced in 5 Years - ABC News


Newt brought Bubba kicking and screaming to the table regarding welfare reform and a balanced budget. He's as proven leader.

Stop your hackery bullshitslinger


PolitiFact | Newt Gingrich inaccurate in budget, debt claims in video announcement


You dumb facking partisan hacks need to get your information straight.

 

[Flaylo]

Newt is full of shit. He can't even balance his personal life.

I can smell the fear dripping from your brow all the way over here.. You and every leftist should be worried. This man will make Barry look like a 1st rate idiot without so much as blinking an eye.

Fear? Shut the fuck up, you fear this

PolitiFact | Newt Gingrich inaccurate in budget, debt claims in video announcement

The federal budget runs on a fiscal year calendar that begins October 1 and ends September 30. During fiscal years 1996 and 1997 -- the first two that Gingrich helped shape as speaker -- there were deficits, of $107 billion in 1996 and about $22 billion in 1997.

By fiscal year 1998, the federal budget did reach a surplus of $69 billion. And in fiscal year 1999 -- which Gingrich can claim some responsibility for, even though he was out as speaker for most of the fiscal year -- it was in surplus as well, to the tune of $126 billion.

But that’s only two balanced budgets he can claim credit for. The federal government did run four consecutive surpluses, but for the last two of those -- fiscal years 2000 and 2001 -- Gingrich was no longer serving in the House.

Now for Gingrich’s comments about the debt.

The national debt was slightly above $4.8 trillion when Gingrich became House speaker in January 1995. By the time he left the position in January 1999, the debt was more than $5.6 trillion. That’s an increase, not a decrease.
If you look just at the two years Gingrich can claim credit for where the federal government was in surplus -- fiscal years 1998 and 1999 -- the government did pay down about $200 billion in debt. But that would be cherry-picking, because over the full four years of his speakership, the debt rose by about $800 billion.
Efforts to contact Gingrich’s top spokesman, Rick Tyler, were unsuccessful.

To summarize, Gingrich was off on both claims concerning the budget. The budget was indeed balanced for four years, but it’s a stretch for him to take credit for more than two of those years.As for paying off $405 billion in debt, the data we found shows the debt actually increased during Gingrich’s four-year tenure as speaker by more than $800 billion.

We rate Gingrich’s claim False.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But for some reason I get the feeling you supported Kerry.

Who was stupid enough to vote for Bush in 2004?

Irrelevant.

You don't get to trot around saying flip flopping is bad thing and that it deserves your derision and only people who stand firm and don't change their position deserve your support while at the same time having voting for Kerry.

Cause Bush was the one who stood firm (even though he was an idiot) and Kerry was the flip-flopper.

Thats whats known as hypocrisy, just in case you didn't know.

Most people don't remember how Kerry got the flip flopping label. He got it for saying he was for the 87 billion Iraq funding bill before he was against it.

The facts are:

The Bush administration wanted 87 billion for the war. The Democrats like Kerry supported an 87 billion dollar bill (he was 'for' it)

but their version PAID FOR IT. Bush did not want to pay for it, and in fact, vowed to veto that version (Bush was thus, first, against it).

The GOP version of the 87 billion did NOT PAY FOR IT. They just borrowed it and added it to the debt (you remember the debt, it comes up every once in a while nowadays) Kerry opposed the GOP budget busting version. He was against it. Bush was for it.

So...

Kerry was for it before he was against it. Bush was against it before he was for it.

Unlucky for Kerry, he got the flip flop label out of it, Bush didn't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Name one person in your entire life who has never had a change of heart.. JUST ONE, you idiot.

We're not talking about random, everyday working stiffs changing their opinions; we're talking about people who are vying for the office of the POTUS - possibly the most powerful position on the face of the earth - flip-flopping on immensely important issues. If you can't wrap your little head around that, then you are beyond my help.

You didn't answer my question. Thanks for making my case.

You still didn't provide the specific details of the Gingrich cuts that get us to a balanced budget.

 

[Claudette]

I like Newt.

I think he's the smartest guy in the room. He's got the brains and ability to straighen out the mess this country is in.

His prsonal baggage doesn't bother me one iota.

If he gets the nom I won't have problem one voting for him.

I'd love to see him debate Barry Boy. My moneys on Newt.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I like Newt.

I think he's the smartest guy in the room. He's got the brains and ability to straighen out the mess this country is in.

His prsonal baggage doesn't bother me one iota.

If he gets the nom I won't have problem one voting for him.

I'd love to see him debate Barry Boy. My moneys on Newt.

The libs believe all of his old history is going to make a difference with the electorate. They're in for a surprise.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

We're not talking about random, everyday working stiffs changing their opinions; we're talking about people who are vying for the office of the POTUS - possibly the most powerful position on the face of the earth - flip-flopping on immensely important issues. If you can't wrap your little head around that, then you are beyond my help.

You didn't answer my question. Thanks for making my case.

You still didn't provide the specific details of the Gingrich cuts that get us to a balanced budget.

I'm still waiting for you to provide every detail of the Health Care fiasco shoved on to American's by Barry and the Left.. Note it, detail by detail, all the cuts that it supposedly makes and how much it saves the individual taxpayer.