Ann Coulter hammers Gingrich

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 5:42 AM GMT
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/22/coulter-with-newt-gingrich-you-throw-out-the-baby-and-keep-the-bath-water-video/
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 23, 2012 6:08 AM GMT
    Why does this remind me of socalfitness's arguments:

    Some of what Gingrich has said might appear to make sense, she said, but should be analyzed more closely.

    “Something that sounds like it makes sense like, ‘Mitt Romney doesn’t have influence over his super PAC — that makes you wonder if he’ll have influence as president,’” she continued. “How many times does Mitt Romney have to say it is illegal for a candidate to have influence on the super PAC. It is not, interestingly, though, for a president to have influence. So it makes no sense if you think about it for all of three seconds, but it sounds like it makes sense

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 23, 2012 6:36 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidhttp://dailycaller.com/2012/01/22/coulter-with-newt-gingrich-you-throw-out-the-baby-and-keep-the-bath-water-video/



    She kind of hit the nail on the head icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 7:12 AM GMT
    Doesn't this make you Repubs regret the Citizens United Ruling which brought about the PAC's/SUPER PAC's ?


    See what a can of worms this opened up ?


    How do you like a dual National Adelson who is a major supporter of Netanyahu in Israel Spending money also on Gingrich's campaign to influence our elections like he does in Israel. IS THIS WHAT YOU REPUBS WANT ?


    What if we start getting millions from Chinese Dual Nationals, or Russiona Dual Nationals, or say Saudi Arabians. That also support certain factions in another country. Its easy to see how financing certain factions on 'both ends' could present a big conflict of interests. WOULD THAT BE OK ?

    Think about that scenerio, if its happening on one hand it can happen on the other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 7:25 AM GMT
    creature saidWhy does this remind me of socalfitness's arguments:

    Some of what Gingrich has said might appear to make sense, she said, but should be analyzed more closely.

    “Something that sounds like it makes sense like, ‘Mitt Romney doesn’t have influence over his super PAC — that makes you wonder if he’ll have influence as president,’” she continued. “How many times does Mitt Romney have to say it is illegal for a candidate to have influence on the super PAC. It is not, interestingly, though, for a president to have influence. So it makes no sense if you think about it for all of three seconds, but it sounds like it makes sense



    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 10:40 AM GMT
    creature saidWhy does this remind me of socalfitness's arguments:

    Some of what Gingrich has said might appear to make sense, she said, but should be analyzed more closely.

    “Something that sounds like it makes sense like, ‘Mitt Romney doesn’t have influence over his super PAC — that makes you wonder if he’ll have influence as president,’” she continued. “How many times does Mitt Romney have to say it is illegal for a candidate to have influence on the super PAC. It is not, interestingly, though, for a president to have influence. So it makes no sense if you think about it for all of three seconds, but it sounds like it makes sense

    Why don't you be specific if your think something I said doesn't make sense? If you're going to take snipes, why don't you be man enough to back it up, or is your style more of the continual duck and hide?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 4:37 PM GMT
    realifedad said Doesn't this make you Repubs regret the Citizens United Ruling which brought about the PAC's/SUPER PAC's ?


    See what a can of worms this opened up ?


    How do you like a dual National Adelson who is a major supporter of Netanyahu in Israel Spending money also on Gingrich's campaign to influence our elections like he does in Israel. IS THIS WHAT YOU REPUBS WANT ?


    What if we start getting millions from Chinese Dual Nationals, or Russiona Dual Nationals, or say Saudi Arabians. That also support certain factions in another country. Its easy to see how financing certain factions on 'both ends' could present a big conflict of interests. WOULD THAT BE OK ?

    Think about that scenerio, if its happening on one hand it can happen on the other.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





    You guys woulld rather argue with each other than breath ?


    How about the above questions? They are very pertinent to our election process or have you not thought about it ?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 4:54 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature saidWhy does this remind me of socalfitness's arguments:

    Some of what Gingrich has said might appear to make sense, she said, but should be analyzed more closely.

    “Something that sounds like it makes sense like, ‘Mitt Romney doesn’t have influence over his super PAC — that makes you wonder if he’ll have influence as president,’” she continued. “How many times does Mitt Romney have to say it is illegal for a candidate to have influence on the super PAC. It is not, interestingly, though, for a president to have influence. So it makes no sense if you think about it for all of three seconds, but it sounds like it makes sense

    Why don't you be specific if your think something I said doesn't make sense? If you're going to take snipes, why don't you be man enough to back it up, or is your style more of the continual duck and hide?


    You continually argue that liberals view issues using emotion and republicans use logic. Clearly, SC republicans voted for Gingrich to gain "emotional satisfaction" as Coulter stated in the article.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 23, 2012 5:35 PM GMT
    realifedad said

    You guys woulld rather argue with each other than breath ?


    How about the above questions? They are very pertinent to our election process or have you not thought about it ?





    Some would argue that you would rather spout conspiracy theories than breathe. That said, I respect your passion for all of this, however at some point you need to get realistic. Ron Paul is NOT going to get the nomination, and even if he ran as a 3rd Party candidate, he would only succeed in handing the election to Obama. Consequently, at the end of the day we will, as usual, be left with TWO candidates to choose from -- and as usual, unfortunately, we will have to vote (if we vote) for the lesser of two evils.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 5:45 PM GMT
    Didn't Anne Coulter say if Christie didn't get in, they would nominate Romney and he would lose to Obama? icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 5:57 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad said

    You guys woulld rather argue with each other than breath ?


    How about the above questions? They are very pertinent to our election process or have you not thought about it ?





    Some would argue that you would rather spout conspiracy theories than breathe. That said, I respect your passion for all of this, however at some point you need to get realistic. Ron Paul is NOT going to get the nomination, and even if he ran as a 3rd Party candidate, he would only succeed in handing the election to Obama. Consequently, at the end of the day we will, as usual, be left with TWO candidates to choose from -- and as usual, unfortunately, we will have to vote (if we vote) for the lesser of two evils.






    LOL !! come on CuriousJock, you know my main point wasn't Ron Paul and I repeated no 'Conspriacy theories" Its only reasonable to point out that these PAC's bring about bad results, Its not a conspiracy that Adelson is a Dual National who support a far right agenda through Netanyahu, and he is seeking through donations to Gingrich to buy someone who will bring about the promotion of that far right agenda with US help, and he's betting his money on Gingrich being the vehicle . That's no a conspiracy, that's the reality.

    Is this What you want for our country? If an Israeli Dual National can do it, why not a Chinese Billionaire, Why not a Russian Billionaire or A Saudi Arabian Billionaire ?

    Citizens United opened this mess up for these Dangerous PAC's prior to this there was I believe a $5,000 limit.

    So instead of going on on Conspiracy charges to diflect the conversation, lets discuss these Dangerous PAC'S.


    Do you republicans now see how dangerous to our deomcracy these PAC's are for their ability to buy the government the monied interests want ?


    Thats the main point !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 6:13 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    socalfitness said
    creature saidWhy does this remind me of socalfitness's arguments:

    Some of what Gingrich has said might appear to make sense, she said, but should be analyzed more closely.

    “Something that sounds like it makes sense like, ‘Mitt Romney doesn’t have influence over his super PAC — that makes you wonder if he’ll have influence as president,’” she continued. “How many times does Mitt Romney have to say it is illegal for a candidate to have influence on the super PAC. It is not, interestingly, though, for a president to have influence. So it makes no sense if you think about it for all of three seconds, but it sounds like it makes sense

    Why don't you be specific if your think something I said doesn't make sense? If you're going to take snipes, why don't you be man enough to back it up, or is your style more of the continual duck and hide?


    You continually argue that liberals view issues using emotion and republicans use logic. Clearly, SC republicans voted for Gingrich to gain "emotional satisfaction" as Coulter stated in the article.


    As do I !
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2012 6:33 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    catfish5 said
    socalfitness said
    creature saidWhy does this remind me of socalfitness's arguments:

    Some of what Gingrich has said might appear to make sense, she said, but should be analyzed more closely.

    “Something that sounds like it makes sense like, ‘Mitt Romney doesn’t have influence over his super PAC — that makes you wonder if he’ll have influence as president,’” she continued. “How many times does Mitt Romney have to say it is illegal for a candidate to have influence on the super PAC. It is not, interestingly, though, for a president to have influence. So it makes no sense if you think about it for all of three seconds, but it sounds like it makes sense

    Why don't you be specific if your think something I said doesn't make sense? If you're going to take snipes, why don't you be man enough to back it up, or is your style more of the continual duck and hide?


    You continually argue that liberals view issues using emotion and republicans use logic. Clearly, SC republicans voted for Gingrich to gain "emotional satisfaction" as Coulter stated in the article.


    As do I !


    You dont make a lot of sense either bud.