America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by frankj1. 73 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Newt Rises To The Top
jackconrad Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Architect of the Contract With America

Largest Forehead

Likes The Opposite Sex

Doesn't Give a Sheet if you don't like him

Would swallow Obama alive

Would probably swallow anything if it taste good

Married his chick on the side
ZRX1200 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
Totally not suspicious @all....
pdxstogieman Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
Like scum on a pond in August.
bloody spaniard Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Enough with the full Obamaostomy bag. We need some gray, Newt matter in the White House.
rfenst Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
He'd kill Romney one on one in a debate.

Polls currently show Obama over Romney by 6 points.
What do current polls show on Obama v. Gingrich?
MACS Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,844
Gingrich isn't the answer either. Better than Obama, maybe... but bidness as usual as far as politics and the economy go.

WE NEED FRESH IDEAS! Um... like not giving money to ANY country while we owe China.

No aid, no equipment, no food... nothing.

Scrap the retirement/pay/benefits plan for politicians and model it EXACTLY like the military.

Nobody in there now will do this. So we need to get them the fuck out and vote in someone who will.

Until we stop their gravy train, they have ZERO motivation to listen to the people.
dpnewell Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
pdxstogieman wrote:
Like scum on a pond in August.


That's no way to talk about the current POTUS.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
MACS wrote:
Gingrich isn't the answer either. Better than Obama, maybe... but bidness as usual as far as politics and the economy go.

WE NEED FRESH IDEAS! Um... like not giving money to ANY country while we owe China.

No aid, no equipment, no food... nothing.

Scrap the retirement/pay/benefits plan for politicians and model it EXACTLY like the military.

Nobody in there now will do this. So we need to get them the fuck out and vote in someone who will.

Until we stop their gravy train, they have ZERO motivation to listen to the people.



Sounds like you're a Perry man!


Fundamental Reform of the Legislative Branch

•Establish a part-time, Citizen Congress, cutting congressional pay in half and allowing them to hold jobs in their states and communities.
•Slash congressional staff budgets and force lawmakers to do more of their own work.
•Criminalize insider trading by members of Congress.
•Amend the Freedom of Information Act to make it apply to Congress and the White House.
Fundamental Reform of the Judiciary

•Nominate judges who respect the Constitution and who will not make law from the bench.
•End life-time appointments to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary through Constitutional Amendment.
Fundamental Reform of the Executive Branch
Regulatory Reform and Reining in the Federal Bureaucracy
Regulatory Reform

•Halt all pending federal regulations, order an audit of every regulation passed since 2008 and repeal those not affordable, effective and appropriate.
•Pass legislation to automatically end federal regulations unless Congress renews them.
•Require federal agencies to justify every dime every year – including a specified regulatory budget for each agency.
•Develop an online, searchable database of all current federal regulations.
Federal Bureaucracy

•Eliminate the Department of Commerce, Department of Education and the Department of Energy, consolidating key programs into other agencies.
•Restructure and reform the Department of Homeland Security (including transitioning the Transportation Security Administration to a public-private partnership) and the EPA.
•Review all federal departments from the top-down.
•Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
•Order a Full Audit of all federal agencies to identify waste, fraud, and abuse within the executive branch.
•Work with Congress to require that duplicative programs actually get cut.
Fundamental Spending Reform
Balance the Federal Budget

•Fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) that protects against tax and spending increases.
•Cut Congressional pay in half if Congress fails to propose a long-term balanced budget. Freeze federal civilian hiring and salaries until the budget is balanced.
•Veto any budget bill that contains earmarks, and work with Congress to ban them.
•End federal bailouts.
•Cap federal spending at 18% of GDP and balance the budget by 2020.
•Reduce non-Defense discretionary spending by $100 Billion in the first year.
•Pass a law that requires Congress to reduce existing spending equal to or greater than any new proposed federal spending.
•Work with Congress to institute automatic Government Shut-down Protection.
•Veto bills with new, unfunded mandate on states, local communities, or schools.
•End Baseline Budgeting and require common-sense scoring rules.
•Require Emergency Spending to be spent only on emergencies.
•Pass legislation requiring a two-thirds majority for any tax increase.



Even during this recession, our federal government has continued to wastefully spend and expand its reach. Members of Congress continue to fund their pet programs, while the executive branch creates new programs on a whim. Instead of tailoring the budgets of our current departments to the needs of the people, government bureaucrats continue to justify increasing federal budgets simply because of past increases in funds; we cannot continue down this road towards unchecked budgets feeding our uncontrollable deficit.

The federal government is too large, too wasteful, and involved in far too many aspects of our daily lives. Last year the federal government spent more money in a single day – roughly $9.5 billion – than it spent on the entire annual budget in 1940.1 Federal spending in 2010 was nearly six times higher than in 1980; its rate of growth more than doubled the rate of inflation.2
DrMaddVibe Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
dpnewell wrote:
That's no way to talk about the current POTUS.



That's just plain insulting to ponds and scum.
bloody spaniard Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
rfenst wrote:
...Polls currently show Obama over Romney by 6 points.
What do current polls show on Obama v. Gingrich?


Obama's anywhere from 8- 15 points ahead depending on the poll.
rfenst Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
bloody spaniard wrote:
Obama's anywhere from 8- 15 points ahead depending on the poll.



The Christian Science Monitor say CNN pols show Gingrich beating Obama head-to-head. Maybe Gingrich will become the Republican Messiah?


Bloody, wouldn't it be interesting, based on my comment yesterday about Mitney only being VP material, if the R ticket was Gingrich/Romney?
rfenst Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
MACS wrote:


Scrap the retirement/pay/benefits plan for politicians and model it EXACTLY like the military.




Hey, as long as we are at it... why not scrap military benefits too?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
rfenst wrote:
Bloody, wouldn't it be interesting, based on my comment yesterday about Mitney only being VP material, if the R ticket was Gingrich/Romney?



I don't even think Mittens is VP material. What's he gonna do...win somebody MA and NH?

Whopie doo!
Brewha Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
jackconrad wrote:
Would swallow Obama alive

Would probably swallow anything if it taste good


So . . . . . he would smoke Obama pole?
wheelrite Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Brewha wrote:
So . . . . . he would smoke Obama pole?


Duuude,,,

when did you catch the Gay ???



wheel,
fiddler898 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
Newt is the flavor of the week. He is not going to beat any one in the voting booth, period, no matter how much you might like him.
wheelrite Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
fiddler898 wrote:
Newt is the flavor of the week. He is not going to beat any one in the voting booth, period, no matter how much you might like him.


Really ?

elaborate ,please...
jetblasted Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
Newt was a professor at the college I attended . . .
jackconrad Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Brilliant , lAST MAN TO BALANCE THE BUDGET AND KEEP 2 CHICKS HAPPY AT THE SAME TIME..
MACS Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,844
rfenst wrote:
Hey, as long as we are at it... why not scrap military benefits too?


Military pay/benefits/retirement are not absurd like the politician's. A military member has to serve 20 years or more to get any retirement or medical benefits at all (unless they have a disability, then they get disability pay). Then if they DO retire they get 50% of their last three years BASE pay, averaged. Then that free medical isn't free... it's $520 a year, plus small co-pays, or $0 a year plus HUGE co-pays, unless you go to a military hospital where retirees rank right below active duty, dependents, reservists and everyone else.

Politicians serve 1 term and get full pay, medical and benefits. They never even have to get shot at. How cool is that? The men and women they send INTO war shouldn't get less than the fools who send them there. I'm not asking to increase what the military retirees get... it's fair. I'm proposing the politicians get the same. If they don't do what's good for the people and get re-elected 4 times to get to 20 years-- they get nuthin'!
ZRX1200 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
Plus insider trading isn't illegal for them!
DrafterX Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,566
MACS wrote:
I'm proposing the politicians get the same. If they don't do what's good for the people and get re-elected 4 times to get to 20 years-- they get nuthin'!



ThumpUp
DrMaddVibe Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
DrafterX wrote:
ThumpUp


ThumbDown ThumbDown ThumbDown


They HAD a job prior to getting elected. Being a politician should NEVER be considered a career nor should it have benefits like it is one! Strip away ALL pay...ALL benefits.

It should go back to being an honor to serve...not a career.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
..Gingrich says he received Freddie Mac compensation
By PETE YOST and THOMAS BEAUMONT | AP – 14 mins ago....

URBANDALE, Iowa (AP) — Rising in national polls, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich found himself on the defensive Wednesday over huge payments he received over the past decade from the federally backed housing agency Freddie Mac.

Gingrich said he didn't remember exactly how much he was paid, but a former Freddie Mac official said it was at least $1.5 million for consulting contracts stretching from 1999 to 2007. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter.

Speaking with reporters in Iowa, Gingrich said he provided "strategic advice for a long period of time" after he resigned as House speaker following his party's losses in the 1998 elections. He defended Freddie Mac's role and said, "every American should be interested in expanding housing opportunities." Long unpopular among Republicans, the federally backed mortgage lender has become a focal point of anti-government sentiment because of the housing crisis.

On Tuesday, a House committee voted to strip top executives of Freddie and its larger competitor, Fannie Mae, of huge salaries and bonuses and put them on the same pay scale as federal employees.

Gingrich sought to portray his role as a sign of valuable experience.

"It reminds people that I know a great deal about Washington," Gingrich said Wednesday. "We just tried four years of amateur ignorance and it didn't work very well. So, having someone who actually knows Washington might be a really good thing."

Gingrich's history at Freddie Mac began in 1999, when he was hired by the company's top lobbyist, Mitchell Delk. He was brought in for strategic consulting, primarily on legislative and regulatory issues, the company said at the time. That job, which paid about $25,000 to $30,000 a month, lasted until sometime in 2002.

In 2006, Gingrich was hired again on a two-year contract that paid him $300,000 annually
, again to provide strategic advice while the company fended off attacks from the right wing of the Republican Party.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for years had been under scrutiny from Republicans on Capitol Hill who opposed government involvement in the mortgage business and wanted to scale back the companies' size and impose tough regulation.

In last Wednesday's Republican presidential debate, Gingrich sought to explain his role at Freddie Mac as that of an "historian" sounding dire warnings about the company's future. He said Freddie Mac officials told him "we are now making loans to people that have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do." He said his advice was to tell them, "this is insane."

"I said at the time, this is a bubble ... this is impossible. It turned out unfortunately I was right," Gingrich said.

Former Freddie Mac executives dispute Gingrich's description of his role.

Four people close to Freddie Mac say he was hired to strategize with his employer about identifying political friends on Capitol Hill who would help the company through a very difficult legislative environment. All four people spoke on condition of anonymity to be able to discuss the personnel matter freely.

Freddie Mac executives hoped that would speak positively about the company and its business model as he circulated among conservative groups and help to build intellectual support within his party.

Freddie Mac executives were looking to Gingrich to offer up new, inventive ways to think about old problems, the officials said, but that didn't materialize.

Gingrich's hiring was a small — but because of his name, important — piece of a much larger initiative by the company. Freddie Mac and its larger competitor, Fannie Mae, are government-sponsored enterprises, created by Congress to buy up mortgages so that the housing industry has a ready flow of funds.

The two companies had long been the darlings of Democratic politicians in Washington, hailed as the champions of affordable housing, but they had few supporters on the political right.

Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin sought to remedy that by hiring a stable of conservative consultants, including Gingrich.

Before Gingrich was hired, Freddie Mac paid $2 million to a Republican consulting firm to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed both companies.

The $2 million was money well spent. The legislation died without ever coming to a vote on the Senate floor. But the danger of regulation wasn't dead, so Freddie Mac hired more consultants, Gingrich among them.

Internal Freddie Mac budget records show $11.7 million was paid to 52 outside lobbyists and consultants in 2006, all of them former Republican lawmakers and ex-GOP staffers. Besides Gingrich, the hires included former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York, former Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota and Susan Hirschmann, the former chief of staff to ex-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

By September 2008, amid the collapse of the housing industry, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were in disastrous financial condition, were both taken over by the government and remain in conservatorship.

http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-says-received-freddie-mac-compensation-155709459.html
DrafterX Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,566
DrMaddVibe wrote:
ThumbDown ThumbDown ThumbDown


They HAD a job prior to getting elected. Being a politician should NEVER be considered a career nor should it have benefits like it is one! Strip away ALL pay...ALL benefits.

It should go back to being an honor to serve...not a career.




one step at a time..... Mellow
MACS Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,844
DrMaddVibe wrote:
ThumbDown ThumbDown ThumbDown


They HAD a job prior to getting elected. Being a politician should NEVER be considered a career nor should it have benefits like it is one! Strip away ALL pay...ALL benefits.

It should go back to being an honor to serve...not a career.



Next time you get in line for a job that pays NOTHING, let me know.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
MACS wrote:
Next time you get in line for a job that pays NOTHING, let me know.



If I ever run for public office...I will!

Not to mention that they'll spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that pays 130-250k...yeah, do the math. Someone is paying someone off.

Those leeches are living off of OUR money!

Couple it with the benefits and graft as well as the loopholes that make them richer than they were when they entered...makes me sick.

We deserve the "leaders" we elect.
rfenst Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Strip away ALL pay...ALL benefits.

It should go back to being an honor to serve...not a career.


I do favor term limits.

However, no pay and no benefits will prohibit anyone, but the wealthy from full-time office.
fiddler898 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/11/the-newt-express.html
rfenst Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
MACS wrote:
Military pay/benefits/retirement are not absurd like the politician's. A military member has to serve 20 years or more to get any retirement or medical benefits at all (unless they have a disability, then they get disability pay). Then if they DO retire they get 50% of their last three years BASE pay, averaged. Then that free medical isn't free... it's $520 a year, plus small co-pays, or $0 a year plus HUGE co-pays, unless you go to a military hospital where retirees rank right below active duty, dependents, reservists and everyone else.

Politicians serve 1 term and get full pay, medical and benefits. They never even have to get shot at. How cool is that? The men and women they send INTO war shouldn't get less than the fools who send them there. I'm not asking to increase what the military retirees get... it's fair. I'm proposing the politicians get the same. If they don't do what's good for the people and get re-elected 4 times to get to 20 years-- they get nuthin'!



Macs,

I was just yanking your chain a bit.
frankj1 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
rfenst wrote:
I do favor term limits.

However, no pay and no benefits will prohibit anyone, but the wealthy from full-time office.

agree on both.

I have felt all along that Newt would get the nomination, though I also believe he has such a closet full of skeletons he could never be elected Prez.
rfenst Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
frankj1 wrote:


I have felt all along that Newt would get the nomination, though I also believe he has such a closet full of skeletons he could never be elected Prez.


I like him as apundit. But, i don't agree with him on many issues important to me.
He kind of scares me.
MACS Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,844
Why term limits? What if the guy or girl in office is doing an awesome job?

Again, making them accountable to us would ensure they do the right things. Term limits just put another douche in there who gets to serve one term and be set.

Fix the system and term limits won't be an issue.
rfenst Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
MACS wrote:
Why term limits? What if the guy or girl in office is doing an awesome job?

Again, making them accountable to us would ensure they do the right things. Term limits just put another douche in there who gets to serve one term and be set.

Fix the system and term limits won't be an issue.



Term limits keep individuals from serving "forever".
If someone is doing an awesome job, let them run for another position where the could do the same.
As things stand now, electing, re-electing or voting out are our only options.
"Fix the system" is vague...
frankj1 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
rfenst wrote:
I like him as apundit. But, i don't agree with him on many issues important to me.
He kind of scares me.

I am not a supporter at all! I just think he has the ability and comparatively superior intellect to work through this insultingly weak crop of candidates for the nomination. He's watching them kill themselves and each other without his participation. But oh yeah, agreed Robert, much about him is disturbing.

It's very difficult to oust an incumbent, even in this current situation, and I do not believe the GOP is offering solutions...they certainly can assume a giant share of the blame. In fact, there's a better chance that things (the economy) fix themselves through time without any brilliance on the part of any philosophy or party. This alone may make people who actually do vote decide to cause less disruption with a "new" start all over again. Plus, there's more than enough time for incremental improvements, assuming no partisan sabotage, that will be attributed to the current administration.

A few jobs created will do more to change minds than slanderous attack ads by either of the leading parties. Whoever wins should not think that the victory is an endorsement of his/her party's fringe philosophy as most of America longs for parties able to compromise with less polarized positions, more representative of the position of the vast middle.

Newt is not that person, Obama is probably not either, but he is the incumbent and that is a huge edge, especially against this crew of self destructive geniuses.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
rfenst wrote:
I do favor term limits.

However, no pay and no benefits will prohibit anyone, but the wealthy from full-time office.



Is ANY of that in the founding documents of our nation?

No?

Strip it away.

It doesn't belong and we cannot afford it.

We really need to think more like it's OUR house...not theirs to tell us how it's ran.
wheelrite Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
frankj1 wrote:
I am not a supporter at all! I just think he has the ability and comparatively superior intellect to work through this insultingly weak crop of candidates for the nomination. Agreed, Robert, much about him is disturbing though.

It's very difficult to oust an incumbent, even in this current situation, and I do not believe the GOP is offering solutions...they certainly can assume a giant share of the blame. In fact, there's a better chance that things (the economy) fix themselves through time without any brilliance on the part of any philosophy or party. This alone may make people who actually vote decide to cause less disruption with a "new" start all over again. Plus, there's more than enough time for incremental improvements that will be attributed to the current administration.

A few jobs created will do more to change minds than slanderous attack ads by either of the leading parties. Whoever wins should not think that the victory is an endorsement of his/her party's fringe philosophy as most of America longs for parties able to compromise with less polarized positions, more representative of the position of the vast middle.

Newt is not that person, Obama is probably not either, but he is the incumbent and that is a huge edge, especially against this crew of self destructive geniuses.


It's very easy to OUST a Democrat incumbent,,
Only ONE has been re-elceted to a 2ND TERM SINCE FDR...


wheel,
frankj1 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
wheelrite wrote:
It's very easy to OUST a Democrat incumbent,,
Only ONE has been re-elceted to a 2ND TERM SINCE FDR...


wheel,

well,

going with your arbitrary choice of when to begin counting (following a four time Dem winner) you aren't exactly correct. Technically, yes, only one has won twice, but that is misleading as only one lost

Carter was the only Dem not re-elected who ran since FDR. But he's the only Dem who actually lost a bid for reelection. Johnson won reelection after finishing Kennedy's term (Kennedy would have won again easily).

Ford and Bush I hold the distinction for the GOP. So the reality is that it has been twice as easy to oust a Republican incumbent.

What were you thinking?

But it is a very short list even when combined over the last 55/60 years. I'll stand on my comment, regardless of party.

fiddler898 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. And when statistics don't work, just pick the numbers - and the years - you like!
wheelrite Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
frankj1 wrote:
well,

going with your arbitrary choice of when to begin counting (following a four time Dem winner) you aren't exactly correct. Technically, yes, only one has won twice, but that is misleading as only one lost

Carter was the only Dem not re-elected who ran since FDR. But he's the only Dem who actually lost a bid for reelection. Johnson won reelection after finishing Kennedy's term (Kennedy would have won again easily).

Ford and Bush I hold the distinction for the GOP. So the reality is that it has been twice as easy to oust a Republican incumbent.

What were you thinking?

But it is a very short list even when combined over the last 55/60 years. I'll stand on my comment, regardless of party.



Ok, Einstein,,,

JFKs poll numbers were in the toilet when his head exploded. LBJ was a criminal that dug us deep in Vietnam and knew he had no chance..
Carter,well we all about him..

And Clinton co-opted the Republican platform to get re-elected...

A Ham sandwich could beat Obama now...


count on it,,,


wheel,,whip
fiddler898 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
Maybe you're right (I really don't like ham), but the election isn't now.
HockeyDad Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
Four more years!
frankj1 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
wheelrite wrote:
Ok, Einstein,,,

JFKs poll numbers were in the toilet when his head exploded. LBJ was a criminal that dug us deep in Vietnam and knew he had no chance..
Carter,well we all about him..

And Clinton co-opted the Republican platform to get re-elected...

A Ham sandwich could beat Obama now...


count on it,,,


wheel,,whip

Wrong name, right tribe.

I'm sorry that I responded to what your words said instead of what you meant. Couldn't read your mind, just your point. It wasn't an opinion on who is good/bad, just a correction of the facts as messed up by you.

Let's recap: You clearly stated it is easy to OUST a Dem incumbent, I pointed out that in the time frame YOU chose for your incorrect statement that it has been the other party in the lead of that dubious distinction. Once for Dems, twice for Reps. Not easy to oust any incumbent, which was what I had said, your reply is still wrong. Case closed.

frankj1 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
HockeyDad wrote:
Four more years!

no savior on the horizon. sad for us, good for globalists.
wheelrite Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
frankj1 wrote:
Wrong name, right tribe.

I'm sorry that I responded to what your words said instead of what you meant. Couldn't read your mind, just your point. It wasn't an opinion on who is good/bad, just a correction of the facts as messed up by you.

Let's recap: You clearly stated it is easy to OUST a Dem incumbent, I pointed out that in the time frame YOU chose for your incorrect statement that it has been the other party in the lead of that dubious distinction. Once for Dems, twice for Reps. Not easy to oust any incumbent, which was what I had said, your reply is still wrong. Case closed.



Your're really dense...

Be so kind as to list all the incumbents re-elected in American History,their party affilliation and enlighten us all...

And ,Queen Elizabeth's Uncle abdicated the Throne does that make a difference..

Shame on you
MACS Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,844
HockeyDad wrote:
Four more years!


LMFAO!! Le Hockeydad takes my honey badger reference to the next level! I love it!
frankj1 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
wheelrite wrote:
Your're really dense...

Be so kind as to list all the incumbents re-elected in American History,their party affilliation and enlighten us all...

And ,Queen Elizabeth's Uncle abdicated the Throne does that make a difference..

Shame on you

wow. you were wrong so I'm dense because I pointed it out.

Using your choice of the last 60 or so years to predict what is likely to happen wasn't good enough? You don't want to go with your own selected frame of reference? Post another "fact" and maybe I'll agree with it.

In my lifetime, and in yours, it has not been easy to vote out an incumbent. Now, if it makes you feel better, it certainly could happen again, and maybe it should, but that's off subject.

Last time, Wheel, cuz it's getting tedious. I say it has been an extremely rare occurence (3 times exactly) that it has happened in a presidential election. This translates into a tremendous advantage to the incumbent. Do you disagree with that simple statement? Cuz all we have are historical facts from the six decades you referenced. That's our generation, that's how we roll.

Einstein, out.
wheelrite Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
frankj1 wrote:
wow. you were wrong so I'm dense because I pointed it out.

Using your choice of the last 60 or so years to predict what is likely to happen wasn't good enough? You don't want to go with your own selected frame of reference? Post another "fact" and maybe I'll agree with it.

In my lifetime, and in yours, it has not been easy to vote out an incumbent. Now, if it makes you feel better, it certainly could happen again, and maybe it should, but that's off subject.

Last time, Wheel, cuz it's getting tedious. I say it has been an extremely rare occurence (3 times exactly) that it has happened in a presidential election. This translates into a tremendous advantage to the incumbent. Do you disagree with that simple statement? Cuz all we have are historical facts from the six decades you referenced. That's our generation, that's how we roll.

Einstein, out.


Whether you agree with me it matters not...
What Dem incumbents have been re-elected to their 2nd term other than Clinton and FDR ?

But,
Obviuosly Republican incumbents have a better re-election record since FDR..

So,
Obama has history against him...

sorry,the facts don't lie...
frankj1 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
wheelrite wrote:
Whether you agree with me it matters not...
What Dem incumbents have been re-elected to their 2nd term other than Clinton and FDR ?

But,
Obviuosly Republican incumbents have a better re-election record since FDR..

So,Obama has history against him...

sorry,the facts don't lie...


No, facts do not lie, but these weren't the facts I replied to originally. It was your "fact" that it has been easy to beat a Dem incumbent since FDR and then tried to muddy the waters with misdirection. Anyway,

I'm gonna hate myself in the morning but...

Truman was reelected after finishing FDR's last term. He was an incumbent. a sitting president. Did not run again but did not lose an attempt at reelection.

Johnson was reelected after finishing Kennedy's term (the one you said Kennedy had no shot to win, yet Johnson the "criminal" won). Johnson was the incumbent, a sitting president. Did not run again but did not lose an attempt at reelection.

In the same situation as above Ford, a sitting president, lost in an attempt at reelection.

Dude, I did not divide the incumbent question into parties, you did. All I said was incumbents are difficult to beat. The only facts that relate to that are that one dem and 2 rep incumbents have lost since FDR. I think that tends to support me, you know, if only factually.

Whatever you're drinking is making you angry.

Oh yeah, and my real real point was that I think Newt takes the nomination, but loses in the finals.
wheelrite Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
frankj1 wrote:
No, facts do not lie, but these weren't the facts I replied to originally. It was your "fact" that it has been easy to beat a Dem incumbent since FDR and then tried to muddy the waters with misdirection. Anyway,

I'm gonna hate myself in the morning but...

Truman was reelected after finishing FDR's last term. He was an incumbent. a sitting president. Did not run again but did not lose an attempt at reelection.

Johnson was reelected after finishing Kennedy's term (the one you said Kennedy had no shot to win, yet Johnson the "criminal" won). Johnson was the incumbent, a sitting president. Did not run again but did not lose an attempt at reelection.

In the same situation as above Ford, a sitting president, lost in an attempt at reelection.

Dude, I did not divide the incumbent question into parties, you did. All I said was incumbents are difficult to beat. The only facts that relate to that are that one dem and 2 rep incumbents have lost since FDR. I think that tends to support me, you know, if only factually.

Whatever you're drinking is making you angry.

Oh yeah, and my real real point was that I think Newt takes the nomination, but loses in the finals.


Ok,
Veeps that finish a term of a deceased or a Pres that resigned and get re-elected have not been re-elected to a 2nd term,,,

And Incumbent Dems are not difficult to beat when running for a 2nd term.

Clinton is the only one since FDR. Republican incumbents have a MUCH better record of re-election.

Therefore, history tells us that Obama will likely lose...

If you don't get it now..

you're hopeless...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>