Now Bob Dole (RINO loser, 1976 presidential race) and John McCain (RINO loser, 2008 presidential race) have come out in support of Romney over Gingrich. Same with other RINOs. Reason? Gingrich is a challenge to the GOP RINO establishment. At the RNC, they know heads will roll if Gingrich gets elected. They want things to stay the same, and probably many of them would even prefer four more years of obama than have RINO rule in the GOP overturned. This is the REAL reason most of them turned against Gingrich when he was speaker in the 1990s - he was a snotty upstart who overturned the comfy relationship the RINOs had with the libs, and demanded conservative reform.
Yeah everybody believes that. Or they think he is a untrustworthy loose cannon that can't be trusted.:unsure:
:giggle: Look up RINO in the dictionary. The Newt's picture appears next to the word.
If the RINOs are the establishment then maybe they are the new Republicans and who you consider not RINOs are the real RINOs? Also, Newt supported the GSEs, has a big government pro-war foreign policy, and on and on. Not exactly the most traditionally conservative guy out there.
There is supposed to be a two-party system in this country. How "real" are things when the GOP is merely a slightly pale version of the democrat party? A party whose spokesmen claim to be "conservative", and whom the lib media like to preposterously lable "right wing, but who are undistinguishable from the democrats on many issues. And when some republican starts to suggest opposition on a major issue, the RINOs start calling him a "loose cannon" etc.
Noooooooo.....he WORKED for them, and in the framework established by liberals. LOTS of libs have worked at Goldman-Sachs, but you never hear about that, if the only info you get is brainwashing from the lib media.
The defense of this country and its allies is strictly conservative. It's our current leftwing president who is walking away from wars, and quivering before the mighty Iran.
Did you see the second to last debate? He flatout said that he believed the GSEs have done good and he especially felt that way when he was there.
As for Goldman, it is really irrelevant. Why do you see Goldman as some sort of conservative firm?
And the "liberal media" isn't trying to cover anything up mostly because there is nothing to cover up. Democrats and Republicans have worked for Goldman- who cares?Offense is not defense
The GSEs actually DID do good for the american public for decades - they gave the US one of the highest rates of home ownership of major countries. It's when the leftwing got in and politicized them that they became engines of economic collapse.
As for Goldman, it is really irrelevant. Why do you see Goldman as some sort of conservative firm?
Gingrich worked for fanny mae - who cares?
Offense is not defense
Sorry, 18th century notions of defense ("we'll put a shot across your bow if you bring a warship with cannon range of our coast!") don't work in the 21st century.
Lol so now you are pro-GSE (you know that is not a free market right?) all because your boy Newt is. And there is no inherent problem that Gingrich worked for fannie mae, but there is a problem when what happened to it happened and if housing GSEs are undesirable when Gingrich vouches for them.
Riiiiiiiight Captain Reading Challenged, I'm pro-GSE.
You suck at consistency.
You suck at reading comprehension.
I clearly stated that the good the GSEs did was >>>BEFORE<<< the libs screwed them up by politicizing them.
You suck at reading comprehension.
So you admit that GSEs could do good and hence hold a pro-GSE position if they are run the right way? Your hypocrisy is amazing, but your denial of hypocrisy if even more astounding.
Garsh, I've stumbled into a convention of the reading comprehension challenged.
Listen carefully now, Sparky, I'll give you the idiot footnotes version:1. The housing market, like all markets, are best served by lack of government interference.
2. That said, when the GSEs simply served as a secondary market for mortgages given to >>>QUALIFIED<<<< borrowers, they served a good purpose (but not as well as a free housing market would have).
3. The GSEs became an engine of destruction when they were mandated, in effect, to back mortgages given to people based on >>>POLITICAL<<< qualification, principally, dark skin.
Did Sparky GET IT this time?? I'll vote no.
How are you claiming they served a good purpose if the alternative in your opinion (a free market) would have produced better results? And how far do you go to protect your boy Newt?
Relatively that makes GSEs worse than a free market. Newt supported them. You can either support them or the free market, doing both is contradictory.
No it isn't. For the last 80 years, people have become used to a big role for government, especially in those aspects where they can understand what seems to be a direct benefit to themselves. Opposing all those things would just keep one from being elected. You get elected and change what you can.
