Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gingrich will lose a debate with Obama if he states the Supreme Court is not in the Constitution or that public sector employees should be fired and replaced by minor children.
That type if ignorance and idiocy is all that’s heard from Gingrich; his ‘brilliance’ and ‘intelligence’ clearly a myth.
Newt isn't brilliant. He's an idiot with an articulate speaking style that just sounds brilliant.
Correction: increasingly popular. A majority of americans support the individual mandate now.
And actually obama has only had a filibuster proof senate for about 6 months.
And you realize he ran on his healthcare bill right? And you realize that CBO says it will save $200 billion right? And you realize the entire point of the law is to shift the cost of healthcare away from businesses right?
Do you understand the healthcare law at all?
No, increasingly unpopular.
No, increasingly popular:
Poll: Voters Like Much of Health Care Law -- But Not the Individual Mandate - Washington Wire - WSJ
1. The law is still unpopular but not as disliked as it was in October. In the latest tracking poll, 44% of voters held an unfavorable opinion of it compared with 51% who said in October that they viewed it unfavorably.
3. Even though there are more voters who dont like the law than voters who do, some 50% want to keep it, and only 38% definitely know they want to repeal it.
4. Almost every individual element in the package is popular with a majority of the public, especially the requirements that insurers provide easy-to-understand plan summaries (84% like that) and provide coverage to people regardless of their medical histories (67% like that). Even increasing the payroll tax on higher-income earners to help fund Medicare is acceptable to more than half of the respondents.
Idk, maybe the WSJ is a liberal paper now...
How long did Bush have a filibuster proof senate? He still managed to get things done.
Thanks for pointing this out.
It just goes to show how conservatives will hold up all progress for the sake of politics while democrats will compromise so that the government actually functions.
What was the CBO estimate for Medicare? What was reality?
Graph please.
No actually quite the opposite. He was a Senior Lecturer, one of just 7. Do you know what that means? The dean of the law school was a senior lecturer as well, along with Judge Richard Posner, one of the most respected legal minds in the world.
Senior lecturer is a title they give to someone that doesnt have the time or desire to be a full time professor. Obama was elected to the state senate the same year he became Senior Lecturer, he couldnt exactly just be a full time teacher.
UC Law School Statement: The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law Schools Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
FactCheck.org : Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?
Does it matter? You dont graduate magna cum laude with bad grades. Magna cum laude is pretty much the definition of having received good grades.
Lol your so condescending for someone thats so stupid.
Does this mean you can't show any of his articles? I am shocked.
Thats your only argument?
Obama is an idiot because i dont have a copy of the harvard law review right next to me?
Wow. Debating with you is fun.
No, increasingly unpopular.
No, increasingly popular:
Poll: Voters Like Much of Health Care Law -- But Not the Individual Mandate - Washington Wire - WSJ
1. The law is still unpopular but not as disliked as it was in October. In the latest tracking poll, 44% of voters held an unfavorable opinion of it compared with 51% who said in October that they viewed it unfavorably.
3. Even though there are more voters who dont like the law than voters who do, some 50% want to keep it, and only 38% definitely know they want to repeal it.
4. Almost every individual element in the package is popular with a majority of the public, especially the requirements that insurers provide easy-to-understand plan summaries (84% like that) and provide coverage to people regardless of their medical histories (67% like that). Even increasing the payroll tax on higher-income earners to help fund Medicare is acceptable to more than half of the respondents.
Idk, maybe the WSJ is a liberal paper now...
Thanks for pointing this out.
It just goes to show how conservatives will hold up all progress for the sake of politics while democrats will compromise so that the government actually functions.
What was the CBO estimate for Medicare? What was reality?
Graph please.
There is evidence that governments chronically underestimate health-care program costs. A report released over the summer by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) argues that health care appears to be an area with great room for overly optimistic assumptions regarding changes in the behavior of patients and providers, the impact of technology, future health cost inflation and the likely success of cost controls.
The report cites numerous instances of faulty health-care estimates from Medicare and Medicaid, the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Massachusetts universal-coverage plan and the United Kingdoms National Health Service.
For example, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the original Medicare hospital insurance program would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual spending that year was $67 billion.
The same committee predicted in 1967 that the total Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending was $110 billion.
In the case of Medicaid DSH a program that reimburses states for payments to hospitals that treat Medicaid and uninsured patients CBO estimated in 1987 that payments would amount to less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was $17 billion.
Congressional Budget Office consistently wrong on health-care estimates | The Daily Caller
There's nothing brilliant about a reader.
If Obama starts telling lies and Newt catches him in the lie and exposes him he won't be able to lie his way out of it convincingly.
The way he held his own against McCain was by knowing the questions ahead of time and having prepared answers ready for it. McCain ether didn't know how to respond or he refused to.
Oh yes....same old "Obama can't speak without a telepromter" nonsense
Obama trounced McCain regardless of the debate format. There were no telepromters for either side. Candidates did not know the questions in advance, but Obama was prepared.
He will also be prepared to discuss Newts proposed policies and what they would mean to the American people
All Newt has to do is look at the camera and say how many of you are enjoying Obama's Hope and Change when you get together at the diner table? Are you able to make the income you used to? Do you have a steady job? Are you able to do more than just "get by" with your bills? If the answer to any of these questions is no, are you prepared to go through 4 more years of the same policies by this man? Is THIS today, the promise of hope and change that you wanted for you and your family? Newt can deliver, and Obama would be forced to see his record front and center on the minds of the American people.
Here you go idiot:
Obama kept Law Review balanced - Jeffrey Ressner and Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
If you want to read the actual articles, your probably going to have to go back in time. Or get access to some place i dont have.
Newt isn't brilliant. He's an idiot with an articulate speaking style that just sounds brilliant.
Actually...Newt is rather intelligent. Barack on the other hand is "supposed" to be brilliant. The thing is...he's been President for almost 3 years now, Carbineer and I can't think of one brilliant thing he's said or done. I mean come on...if he were really that bright why can't he give us a budget? He's "brilliant" but he's gonna need until 2013 to make up his mind about the pipeline from Canada to the Gulf? If he were "brilliant" then why didn't he ever publish any scholarly works about constitutional law when he was a law professor? If he was "brilliant" how come he never published any articles under his name in the Harvard Law Review? If he was "brilliant" then why couldn't he get a single piece of legislation passed that he authored in the first two and a half years he was an Illinois state senator? If he was "brilliant" then why did other Democrats have to let him "piggyback" on their legislative work to make it look like he'd accomplished something? If he really IS "brilliant" then why doesn't he have solutions to our economic situation...and when I say a solution I don't mean blaming others for his own shortcomings.
It's been 3 years now...when are we going to SEE some "brilliance"?
Newt had a couple decades in the House to prove he was brilliant. And didn't.
\Sooo, you ask a question - and then answer it...
Obama is brilliant; he's the incumbent - and he has inside knowledge that Newt isn't privy to...
So, yes, I would expect Obama to win a debate against Newt.
No, increasingly popular:
Poll: Voters Like Much of Health Care Law -- But Not the Individual Mandate - Washington Wire - WSJ
1. The law is still unpopular but not as disliked as it was in October. In the latest tracking poll, 44% of voters held an unfavorable opinion of it compared with 51% who said in October that they viewed it unfavorably.
3. Even though there are more voters who dont like the law than voters who do, some 50% want to keep it, and only 38% definitely know they want to repeal it.
4. Almost every individual element in the package is popular with a majority of the public, especially the requirements that insurers provide easy-to-understand plan summaries (84% like that) and provide coverage to people regardless of their medical histories (67% like that). Even increasing the payroll tax on higher-income earners to help fund Medicare is acceptable to more than half of the respondents.
Idk, maybe the WSJ is a liberal paper now...
Thanks for pointing this out.
It just goes to show how conservatives will hold up all progress for the sake of politics while democrats will compromise so that the government actually functions.
Graph please.
There is evidence that governments chronically underestimate health-care program costs. A report released over the summer by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) argues that health care appears to be an area with great room for overly optimistic assumptions regarding changes in the behavior of patients and providers, the impact of technology, future health cost inflation and the likely success of cost controls.
The report cites numerous instances of faulty health-care estimates from Medicare and Medicaid, the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Massachusetts universal-coverage plan and the United Kingdoms National Health Service.
For example, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the original Medicare hospital insurance program would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual spending that year was $67 billion.
The same committee predicted in 1967 that the total Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending was $110 billion.
In the case of Medicaid DSH a program that reimburses states for payments to hospitals that treat Medicaid and uninsured patients CBO estimated in 1987 that payments would amount to less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was $17 billion.
Congressional Budget Office consistently wrong on health-care estimates | The Daily Caller
Do you think Newt will win the Presidential election of 2012?
Here you go idiot:
Obama kept Law Review balanced - Jeffrey Ressner and Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
If you want to read the actual articles, your probably going to have to go back in time. Or get access to some place i dont have.
You can't find any articles?
But they were so brilliant, right?
Oh yes....same old "Obama can't speak without a telepromter" nonsense
Obama trounced McCain regardless of the debate format. There were no telepromters for either side. Candidates did not know the questions in advance, but Obama was prepared.
He will also be prepared to discuss Newts proposed policies and what they would mean to the American people
All Newt has to do is look at the camera and say how many of you are enjoying Obama's Hope and Change when you get together at the diner table? Are you able to make the income you used to? Do you have a steady job? Are you able to do more than just "get by" with your bills? If the answer to any of these questions is no, are you prepared to go through 4 more years of the same policies by this man? Is THIS today, the promise of hope and change that you wanted for you and your family? Newt can deliver, and Obama would be forced to see his record front and center on the minds of the American people.
Sounds like Newt is making an appeal to the 99%. He will have to explain how he intends to help them by protecting the 1%
Here you go idiot:
Obama kept Law Review balanced - Jeffrey Ressner and Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
If you want to read the actual articles, your probably going to have to go back in time. Or get access to some place i dont have.
You can't find any articles?
But they were so brilliant, right?
Are you trying to claim that Obama is unintelligent, or what?
You can't find any articles?
But they were so brilliant, right?
Are you trying to claim that Obama is unintelligent, or what?
Looking for proof of his brilliance. Have you seen any?
Are you trying to claim that Obama is unintelligent, or what?
Looking for proof of his brilliance. Have you seen any?
Yes, in his speeches, his debate performances, his accomplishments.
There is evidence that governments chronically underestimate health-care program costs. A report released over the summer by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) argues that health care appears to be an area with great room for overly optimistic assumptions regarding changes in the behavior of patients and providers, the impact of technology, future health cost inflation and the likely success of cost controls.
The report cites numerous instances of faulty health-care estimates from Medicare and Medicaid, the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Massachusetts universal-coverage plan and the United Kingdoms National Health Service.
For example, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the original Medicare hospital insurance program would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual spending that year was $67 billion.
The same committee predicted in 1967 that the total Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending was $110 billion.
In the case of Medicaid DSH a program that reimburses states for payments to hospitals that treat Medicaid and uninsured patients CBO estimated in 1987 that payments would amount to less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was $17 billion.
Congressional Budget Office consistently wrong on health-care estimates | The Daily Caller
Do you think Newt will win the Presidential election of 2012?
Only if he's running against Obama.
Do you think Newt will win the Presidential election of 2012?
Only if he's running against Obama.
Thank you. Your lack of political knowledge has been confirmed. no further interaction is needed.
Looking for proof of his brilliance. Have you seen any?
Yes, in his speeches, his debate performances, his accomplishments.
Reading off a screen doesn't prove brilliance.
What accomplishments?
Because, WT, the country would be far more screwed up if the GOP as it is constituted right now in national leadership were in charge. It is screwed up because it is taking years to do undo the damage of the bushies and the newts. They screwed it up that badly.
