[INDENT]MR. GREGORY: Now, I know you’ve got big difference with what you call Obamacare. But back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.
(Videotape, October 3, 1993)
REP. GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals–exactly like automobile insurance–individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his healthcare legislation, is it not?
REP. GINGRICH: No, it’s not precisely what he did.
…
REP. GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay–help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond…
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
REP. GINGRICH: …or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.
MR. GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?
REP. GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.

[/INDENT]

Gingrich is a great speaker and expert politician. He is also a slimy, big government statist. I don't even care about his "baggage".

BGFalcons82;972765 wrote: I just don't think Paul's American retraction, while noteworthy for saving money we don't have, would lead to a more stable world.

So just keep spending money we don't have?

I haven't paid that much attention yet, but here are ten questions that are pretty good that need or needed to be asked:
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/11/my_10_questions_for_the_gop_foreign_policy_debate

and his view of the debate on Saturday.
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/12/grading_tonights_gop_foreign_policynational_security_debate

Huntsman, Romney and Gingrich are the only ones that would make a legit Commander-in-Chief.

Wow, huge fail boat on this. As President, you never have all the information. You have to go with it on shaky intelligence sometimes. What an idiot.
http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/video/?bcpid=13960334001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAGgk8Us~,dLqgruaIT6qax7DY_kjdAMdXZHYCM8zP&bctid=1275195602001

ptown_trojans_1;972923 wrote: Huntsman, Romney and Gingrich are the only ones that would make a legit Commander-in-Chief.

How can you tell the difference? Other than one guy, they all want to go to war with Iran, almost all of them want war with Pakistan. Newt's answer was to go to war with everyone in the region. I guess we won't realize that we can't afford it until people are starving here at home.

BGFalcons82;972765 wrote:http://www.newt.org/news/newt-i-oppose-obamacare-mandate-period





I would support Mr. Paul and not just because you don't. My hunch is that after the Obama media-bots gets done going through Newt's trash cans and finding a woman from 1980 that he tried to get up into his hotel room, he'll be rendered harmless. I just don't think Paul's American retraction, while noteworthy for saving money we don't have, would lead to a more stable world. Bebe is already withholding info from Barry because he doesn't trust him. I would expect more of the same from Bebe should Paul exercise his, "you're on your own, Israel" strategy.

Cleveland Buck has a nice retort about Newt not supporting the mandate these days. But as to your points about Paul's foreign policy. P-town has asked on here before "what does the Tea Party have to say about foreign policy?" Your response was that the Tea Party's number one goal is domestic policy...getting our own "fiscal house in order" because the U.S. is taxed too much already. The government is too big, taxes are too high, the people are not free enough, etc.

Of course Newt is against the mandate these days. But, you know who was against it in 1978, 1993 and 2011? Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the answer for all of the tea party's domestic concerns. With any other candidate it is not clear that the government would shrink in size. Conservatives keep inventing ways not to support Ron Paul when he is the only candidate who would see through with the Tea Party's domestic agenda. Period. I mean, conservatives say we are on a trajectory for fiscal disaster in our own country and yet you're concerned about a "more stable world" all of a sudden?

The tea party conservatives choosing not to vote for him because of foreign policy concerns will reveal their true colors.

QuakerOats;972847 wrote:I agree whole heartedly. And when he does get the nomination he will simply destroy obama in the debates. I cannot wait.

Obama does not want to debate Newt. Newt is a very smart politician and knows his history. Newt is also very fond of the ladies. I am sure Axelrod can dig up a few that Newt made "unwanted" advances on.

Cleveland Buck;972916 wrote:So just keep spending money we don't have?

Though I disagree with parts of Paul's foreign policy, its not as big of an issue as it has been in the past. When you are spending money you don't have hand over fist eventually the laws of economics will catch up.

BoatShoes;972636 wrote:Of course your leaning towards Newt. They guy Romney and Obama got the individual mandate from! If either He or Romney gets the nomination, their sole big government talking point will be destroyed by Obama's team pointing out this simple, verifiable fact. Of course you're holding Ron Paul's foreign policy against him when the Tea Party has said that this presidential race is about domestic issues.

It is also ironic that you're drawn to him over his skills as an orator rather than anything substantive. He is the only one of the conservative candidates not to put forward substantive policy proposals.

If you are serious about decreasing the size of government in a very serious way, the only answer is Ron Paul. Although all of these candidates policy proposals will make life worse for most Americans, Ron Paul scares me the most as he is true believer and has not waivered in his truth faith in the Austrian school since the Nixon shock. Methinks if it would make me unhappy it ought to make you want to support him.

He's the last Speaker to balance the damn budget...that alone makes him worthy of consideration.

fish82;973101 wrote:He's the last Speaker to balance the damn budget...that alone makes him worthy of consideration.

See, in other posts you have said "not another dime" and yet you're lauding Gingrich for being part of a government that achieved a balanced budget while bringing in greater than 20% of GDP in income taxes alone and higher marginal tax rates than those supported by President Obama during most of his tenure as speaker. We're currently bringing in less than 15% of GDP in tax revenue and you say "not another dime" and then praise Gingrich for a balanced budget when he had more than 20% of GDP to work with.



In fact, Newt Gingrich has voted for higher marginal rates for more Americans than President Obama ever has. If the Republicans on the deficit commission supported the type of taxation that Gingrich did we wouldn't be having any kind of budget stalemate at all.

The only way Newt deserves your consideration is if you belief actual policy records mean nothing and you won't hold him to the same standard you hold democrats.

BoatShoes;973470 wrote: If the Republicans on the deficit commission supported the type of taxation that Gingrich did we wouldn't be having any kind of budget stalemate at all.

Some say the Dems refuse to lower rates even when combined with elimination of deductions and loopholes it would raise revenues. Who to believe? Of course, the Dems HAVE kind of backed themselves into a corner with the class warfare debate that makes any sort of tax decrease, even like the aforementioned, politically untenable.

ptown_trojans_1;972923 wrote:I haven't paid that much attention yet, but here are ten questions that are pretty good that need or needed to be asked:
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/11/my_10_questions_for_the_gop_foreign_policy_debate.

1) In the last debate, all of you declared that the United States should not help out Italy or other eurozone countries plagued by sovereign debt crises. If these economies received rescue funds from China instead, would that undermine U.S. national security?

No. If China wants to piss money down the drain to try and revive Italy's socialist failure go for it. Its not going to happen anyways. Italy is in a defense treaty with the US. They have no balls to drop out and sign up with China. We have subsidized Italy's defense needs so they can sustain their socialist utopia. China does not have the ability or desire to take our place.

2) Many of you on the dias have declared that there should be no daylight between Israel and the United States. Israeli officials have repeatedly and formally requested that Jonathan Pollard's sentence be commuted for spying for Israel. As president, will you accede to this Israeli request?

No. Pollard represented the violation of trust between friends. I understand the need for intelligence. I know the game. All nations do at times mistrust even their friends and check them out. When caught accept due punishment.

3) In previous debates, many of you have warned about the dangers of a debased dollar. At the same time, many of you have also complained that China is undervaluing its currency vis-a-vis the dollar to augment its economic growth. Which issue do you believe is more important to America's economic strength?

Both.

4) Why should the United States pay any dues to the United Nations? Do you all agree with Governor Perry that the U.S. should reconsider those dues payments?

I understand we have an agreement. Yes we should reconsider it. Its bad enough we are subject to the clowns in DC. Let alone the loons at the UN.

5) The Doha round of world trade talks has stalled out, and bilateral free-trade agreements have proliferated in recent years. As the president of the world's largest economy, what approach would you favor to promote greater trade liberalization?

If people seek free trade with the largest economy. Throw off your rulers. Demand equal wages and work place protections.

6) The United States recently dispatched 100 military advisors to Uganda in an attempt to subdue the Lord's Resistance Army. What criteria would you use, as president, to decide when to use American force for the purpose of humanitarian intervention?

Is it in the context of our national defense? I would seek the approval of congress. If there is an unjust mass slaughter of human beings occuring outside of our immediate national security and we have the power to stop it morally we should. The constitution is a legal document. If it needs amended to support these types of internventions if strictry defined I could support it.

7) Many of you have complained about illegal immigration flows during the campaign, but the hard data suggests that these flows have slowed dramatically over the past few years. What is the appropriate amount of effort to devote to this issue?

Not so sure about the "hard data". But even so devote enough effort to assure compliance with the law. Also take a hard look at at the 14th amendment and citizenship law.

8) What steps would you take, as president, to ensure that elements of the Pakistani government cease supporting violent non-state actors in Afghanistan and India?

This question would not have to be asked had we entered the war in Afghanistan with a formal declaration of war on the goverment Afghanistan for refusing to turn Bin Laden over. Then unleashed hell on them. Pakistan would be quaking in their boots rather than extorting money from us. Combat could have ended years ago.

9) Many of you have criticized the Obama administration for ignoring military advice on troop decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq. During the pre-war debate with respect to Iraq, however, the Bush administration rejected troop estimates from Army Chief of Staff (and now Secretary for Veterans Affairs) Eric Shinseki. When would you be prepared to overrule the advice you receive from the military?

Anytime the commander in chief sees fit within the context of the constitution.

10) Who, in your opinion, was the greatest foreign policy president in American history besides Ronald Reagan, and why?

James Monroe. I have always liked the Monroe doctrine. The world is quite different today. But the point is don't pull shit directly around us. If you do we have a problem. The Ruskies and the ChiComs do at times have a point.

BoatShoes;973470 wrote:See, in other posts you have said "not another dime" and yet you're lauding Gingrich for being part of a government that achieved a balanced budget while bringing in greater than 20% of GDP in income taxes alone and higher marginal tax rates than those supported by President Obama during most of his tenure as speaker. We're currently bringing in less than 15% of GDP in tax revenue and you say "not another dime" and then praise Gingrich for a balanced budget when he had more than 20% of GDP to work with.



In fact, Newt Gingrich has voted for higher marginal rates for more Americans than President Obama ever has. If the Republicans on the deficit commission supported the type of taxation that Gingrich did we wouldn't be having any kind of budget stalemate at all.

The only way Newt deserves your consideration is if you belief actual policy records mean nothing and you won't hold him to the same standard you hold democrats.

And as if by magic...BS arrives with the standard overly verbose strawman...complete with graph.

I could set my watch by you, bro.

fish82;973513 wrote:And as if by magic...BS arrives with the standard overly verbose strawman...complete with graph.

I could set my watch by you, bro.

I can't imagine if Nancy Pelosi proposed balancing the budget by increasing taxes by 3-4% of GDP you would think highly of her.

The same Nancy Pelosi that teamed with other socialists to destroy the U.S. federal budget and the national economy with obamaKare, which will escalate spending by an astounding multi trillions of dollars over just the next 10 years? There is not enough wealth, GDP, or earnings, let alone 'taxes', to begin to pay for that disastrous legislation.

I look forward to Newt totally dismantling obama in the debates; he is easily obama's worst nightmare.

BoatShoes;973645 wrote:I can't imagine if Nancy Pelosi proposed balancing the budget by increasing taxes by 3-4% of GDP you would think highly of her.

And when exactly did Newt propose it?

1) In the last debate, all of you declared that the United States should not help out Italy or other eurozone countries plagued by sovereign debt crises. If these economies received rescue funds from China instead, would that undermine U.S. national security?

Of course not. I don't see how it would. China would never get that money back, so it would definitely hurt China's financial security, which is why I doubt China would get involved anyway. Besides, China is the only country in the world that has the money to help them. We certainly don't.

2) Many of you on the dias have declared that there should be no daylight between Israel and the United States. Israeli officials have repeatedly and formally requested that Jonathan Pollard's sentence be commuted for spying for Israel. As president, will you accede to this Israeli request?

If I were president, I could consider it as a good faith effort to show that we can still be friends even though we would not be giving them any more foreign aid and pulling our troops out of the region.

3) In previous debates, many of you have warned about the dangers of a debased dollar. At the same time, many of you have also complained that China is undervaluing its currency vis-a-vis the dollar to augment its economic growth. Which issue do you believe is more important to America's economic strength?

The debased dollar is a much bigger concern. The Chinese only hurt their own citizens with their inflationary monetary policy. If we had sound money the input costs for our manufacturers would be low enough to compete with the debased foreign currencies, and the unsustainability of Chinese debasement will become apparent as they have political turmoil from growing poverty and wealth disparity.

4) Why should the United States pay any dues to the United Nations? Do you all agree with Governor Perry that the U.S. should reconsider those dues payments?

We shouldn't. We are funding a group that tries to override our sovereignty? Makes zero sense. The whole thing should be dissolved.

5) The Doha round of world trade talks has stalled out, and bilateral free-trade agreements have proliferated in recent years. As the president of the world's largest economy, what approach would you favor to promote greater trade liberalization?

0% tariffs on everyone and everything. No need for elaborate agreements that pick winners and losers in various industries and subject American companies to legal jurisdiction outside of the United States.

6) The United States recently dispatched 100 military advisors to Uganda in an attempt to subdue the Lord's Resistance Army. What criteria would you use, as president, to decide when to use American force for the purpose of humanitarian intervention?

When they are attacking or on their way to attacking U.S. soil.

7) Many of you have complained about illegal immigration flows during the campaign, but the hard data suggests that these flows have slowed dramatically over the past few years. What is the appropriate amount of effort to devote to this issue?

Eliminate their handouts and you eliminate much of their incentive to come here and much of the reason for the uproar about them coming here.

8) What steps would you take, as president, to ensure that elements of the Pakistani government cease supporting violent non-state actors in Afghanistan and India?

I would worry about that when elected president of Pakistan.

9) Many of you have criticized the Obama administration for ignoring military advice on troop decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq. During the pre-war debate with respect to Iraq, however, the Bush administration rejected troop estimates from Army Chief of Staff (and now Secretary for Veterans Affairs) Eric Shinseki. When would you be prepared to overrule the advice you receive from the military?

It would depend on the situation, but when there is no war declared and no defined enemy then you know the war will drag on for years and troop decisions are politically motivated. When you declare a war and declare the enemy and declare the objective then you can send the proper amount of troops in there to get the job done and get out.

10) Who, in your opinion, was the greatest foreign policy president in American history besides Ronald Reagan, and why?

This is a tough question. George Washington's foreign policy was pretty good, even if his domestic policy was a disaster. He decided to stay out of French affairs in the 1790s, and his comment that we should avoid entangling alliances is something that we have ignored over the last 100 years, at our own peril. Kennedy wasn't bad either. I could imagine the warmongers today if the Soviets were moving missiles into Cuba. We would print up barrels full of money and send our troops into Cuba and Russia and the shit would hit the fan. There aren't too many presidents over the years who did exceptionally well in foreign policy though.

[h=1]Poll: Ron Paul Emerges As Frontrunner in Iowa[/h]

The new poll, conducted for Bloomberg News by Selzer & Co., the respected West Des Moines pollster that also conducts surveys for the Des Moines Register, shows businessman Herman Cain leading the pack, with 20 percent. But he is statistically tied with Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, with 19 percent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with 18 percent, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, with 17 percent.

"In Iowa, it's long been a two-person race between Romney and someone else," Ann Selzer, who conducted the poll, told Bloomberg News. "It is now a four-person race between Romney and three someone elses."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry was fifth, with 7 percent, trailed by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who won the Ames straw poll in August, who was at 5 percent. Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who has visited all of the state's 99 counties, was at just 3 percent.
The race remains fluid: 10 percent of likely caucusgoers are undecided, and 60 percent say they could still be persuaded to switch to another candidate.
The poll was conducted Nov. 10-12, surveying 503 likely caucusgoers. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-ron-paul-emerges-frontrunner-iowa-065457664.html

Cleveland Buck;973846 wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/poll-ron-paul-emerges-frontrunner-iowa-065457664.html

I normally don't watch national news, but I did watch CBS Evening News last night and they showed the results of the poll with Herman Cain 1st, Ron Paul 2nd.. etc. Then they spent the rest of the segment talking about Cain, Newt, and Romney. No further mentions of anything about Paul.

I am almost to the point where I will only vote for Ron Paul. If he runs third party I will vote for him. It is upsetting to watch/read the news and see Ron Paul lumped in with these other Candidates. He is nothing like the other Republican Candidates. It is sad that his biggest downfall is he isnt a charismatic and soundbite speaker and that he is old. I honestly believe if Mitt Romney had all of Ron Pauls views and ideas, he would win in a landslide.

I was watching MSNBC show last night, The Ed show and they brought this poll up. Just mentioned Ron Pauls name and number then went into discussing Cain, Romney, Gingrich and Rick Perry who was at 7%.

pmoney25;975104 wrote:I was watching MSNBC show last night, The Ed show and they brought this poll up. Just mentioned Ron Pauls name and number then went into discussing Cain, Romney, Gingrich and Rick Perry who was at 7%.

This is what you get for listening to the Ed Show.Absolutely the worst, most negative show on television regardless of party affiliation.

pmoney25;975104 wrote:I am almost to the point where I will only vote for Ron Paul.

I'm already at that point.

wkfan;975125 wrote:This is what you get for listening to the Ed Show.Absolutely the worst, most negative show on television regardless of party affiliation.

I agree, that is why I watch honestly. For some reason I prefer watching Political Shows where I don't agree with the people on the show.

Oil goes over $101/barrell this morning. If there are any hints at recovery, they will be squashed by this. Last quarter, $4/gallon gas was predicted for the end of the year. Looks like that prediction is coming true by the day. The Obama energy policy can only make it worse for all of us if enough Americans get so irritated at the Republican nominee.

For you Ronulans that will only vote for your guy - congrats. I commend your morals and ethics. Go ahead and write his name in the ballot in November, 2012. Make your statement to Americans that only Ron Paul is worthy enough for the post and all others suck.

Just remember this is one of the most important elections in our lifetime. If enough of your passionate kind turn out in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania (or even don't show up at all), you might as well just go ahead and vote for Barry. A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama. You can be proud to write that on America's epitaph.

BGFalcons82;975206 wrote:Oil goes over $101/barrell this morning. If there are any hints at recovery, they will be squashed by this. Last quarter, $4/gallon gas was predicted for the end of the year. Looks like that prediction is coming true by the day. The Obama energy policy can only make it worse for all of us if enough Americans get so irritated at the Republican nominee.

For you Ronulans that will only vote for your guy - congrats. I commend your morals and ethics. Go ahead and write his name in the ballot in November, 2012. Make your statement to Americans that only Ron Paul is worthy enough for the post and all others suck.

Just remember this is one of the most important elections in our lifetime. If enough of your passionate kind turn out in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania (or even don't show up at all), you might as well just go ahead and vote for Barry. A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama. You can be proud to write that on America's epitaph.

Romney, Gingrich, Perry, or Cain would be absolutely no different. If you get one of them elected, you can be proud to write that on America's epitaph. Oil is going to keep going up. So is food. So is everything. They keep printing money. To keep interest rates at 0% they have to keep printing it. Romney isn't going to stop them. Neither is Perry. Cain is one of them. Gingrich can't wait to go to war with every country in the Middle East.

There is no difference between any of them. If one wants to spend on one thing, the others want to spend on something else. Endless wars. Fuck the Constitution. Why would I give a fuck is my write-in vote allows Obama to win the election? Because he has a D after his name? He is a dictatorial, warmonger, big government corporatist, just like the others. We will be bankrupt within the next 5-10 years either way. If Paul doesn't win, it doesn't matter who does, and I will not vote for anyone else.