ieatcrayonz Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 On the whole, exploring the cosmos with unmanned vehicles and satellites is probably the most efficient use of $ at this point in time, combined with more research on technology that would make extra-planetary living easier (i.e. travel/transport of materials by supermagnet 'elevator,' artificial gravity, etc. We're still at a stage where a spacewalk and changing a camera on a satellite is a Big Deal, cost a ton of money and which almost went awry because of one stuck bolt. What does it profit to colonize the moon for what everyone knows would cost many times that estimate? What would we do there? What's the purpose? I don't mind the boldness of it so much, but especially considering that we don't have a commissioned shuttle to do manned travel into space at present, the timeframe is in no way realistic. We have a hard enough time with life on earth.... (BTW, when moon statehood occurs, would we get to rename Congress the "Intergalactic Council"?) Would it change your mind about my idea if I told you that the number 34,108,752 represents the estimated population of Canada? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Too amusing not to share... Newt Gingrich Pointing At Things Condescendingly: The Fifteen Fingers Of Newt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 It's that simple huh? Yep, that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) You can't make this up. Newt hasn't gotten much support from elected Republicans who served with him in Congress and know him personally. Probably most of all because they know his nomination would make for a sinking tide among moderates and independents. But Gingrich did pick up the support of a former Congressional colleague last month: Duke Cunningham. Yes, that Duke Cunningham. Link Cunningham apparently has been watching the Republican presidential primary debates while spending 100 months in a Tucson, Ariz. federal prison. Cunningham, a Republican who represented northern San Diego, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion in 2005 in one of the biggest federal bribery scandals in recent memory. Cunningham tells Gingrich in an electronic message he says he sent to the candidate last month that his fellow prisoners, and their families, support Gingrich: Newt, a voice out of the past. Down but not out and still fighting. First I do not want anything from you but have been watching the debates. I have 80% of inmates that would vote for you. They might not be able to but their extended families will. Edited January 27, 2012 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Newt did his usual Newt thing vis a vis the moon colony. He made a good idea sound crazy. But if you think about it, how bad of an idea is it in terms of driving the economy forward? I live on Long Island. Basically this whole Islands economy was focused on defense and space in the 40s-90s. Grumman, Republic (then Fairchild) plus a multitude of subcontractors made up the bulk of the economic engine here. All that driven by the DoD and NASA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Wow! did you guys here pieces of Newt's stump tirade today? Dude went on an incoherent, diatribed rant today. Newt Unhinged! I predict tonite is gonna get really nasty tonite. Hear and tonight unless you're 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Doesn't matter who runs against Obama. He's going to mop up anyone who runs against him. Newt is a horror. Smart. Says some bright things. But I wouldn't want him to be the president. Edited January 27, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 But if you think about it, how bad of an idea is it in terms of driving the economy forward? I'm surprised to see you write this. Low-hanging jokes aside, whatever benefits there are to colonizing the moon, I'm not sure "driving the economy forward" is any more a reason to colonize the moon than it is a reason to start building hi-speed rail throughout the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Newt did his usual Newt thing vis a vis the moon colony. He made a good idea sound crazy. But if you think about it, how bad of an idea is it in terms of driving the economy forward? I live on Long Island. Basically this whole Islands economy was focused on defense and space in the 40s-90s. Grumman, Republic (then Fairchild) plus a multitude of subcontractors made up the bulk of the economic engine here. All that driven by the DoD and NASA. Good idea? Okey dokey Doesn't matter who runs against Obama. He's going to mop up anyone who runs against him. Larry Sabato disagrees. Also, surprises me someone of your intelligence happens to believe that Obama will win over the independents over a candidate such as Romney. Just curious and for ***** and giggles, what makes you believe that Obama will win over the independents? Considering he hasn't been able to break into the 40's since after the health insurance debacle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Good idea? Okey dokey Maybe in some sort of abstract principle it is. Most abstract principles become less good once you attach a price tag to them (unless you're my wife). By the way, Newt...granting statehood to a moon colony? Violates international treaty, you moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Also, surprises me someone of your intelligence happens to believe that Obama will win over the independents over a candidate such as Romney. Just curious and for ***** and giggles, what makes you believe that Obama will win over the independents? Considering he hasn't been able to break into the 40's since after the health insurance debacle? I don't think Obama is going to win over a ton of independents, but his populist message is resonating with the public and Romney is the poster child for anti-populist sentiment. IMO, Romney vs. Obama leaves a lot of Independents on the sidelines, and certainly neither inspires independents. Plus, if the economy keeps up its little bit of momentum (real or not), people will not vote for change. The debt and spending reduction issues, ones that Romney might win on, have lost all traction in the public due to both the left and the right tanking all the real proposals. Obama has a better story to sell America: health care, brought troops home, economy growing, turning around worst economic crisis since 1929...a lot of horseshit but he's got a better and more coherent message than Mitt. Romney will put up the better fight against Obama than Newt, of that I have no doubt, but he will lose handily. Jesus and Joseph Smith, Mitt can't even get his own party to vote for him! By the way, Newt...granting statehood to a moon colony? Violates international treaty, you moron. The least of his idiocy on that topic. Edited January 27, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I don't think Obama is going to win over a ton of independents, but his populist message is resonating with the public and Romney is the poster child for anti-populist sentiment. IMO, Romney vs. Obama leaves a lot of Independents on the sidelines, and certainly neither inspires independents. Plus, if the economy keeps up its little bit of momentum (real or not), people will not vote for change. The debt and spending reduction issues, ones that Romney might win on, have lost all traction in the public due to both the left and the right tanking all the real proposals. Obama has a better story to sell America: health care, brought troops home, economy growing, turning around worst economic crisis since 1929...a lot of horseshit but he's got a better and more coherent message than Mitt. Romney will put up the better fight against Obama than Newt, of that I have no doubt, but he will lose handily. Jesus and Joseph Smith, Mitt can't even get his own party to vote for him! Well, Obama may win, that's a possibility, the only way is if he successfully racks up Mitt's negative favorability so high,that they go for the lesser of two evils argument. Having said that, Obama doesn't have a good story to tell, the economy is underperforming what it should be doing, health care??? Now thats funny, Obama didnt even mention it in his State of the Union address, and in regards to turning this economy around, that is only working with those who lean to the left. He doesn't have a positive record to run on, independents see him as your typical tax and spend liberal. Romney on the other hand has a list of accomplishments to run on. When Independents have to make thatchoice,they will have to choose either for the big government liberal who failed on his promises including apoor record on the economy, or with the out of touch wealthy man that may not like too much personally, but that is infinitely more qualified to get this economy going. At the end of the day, they'll choose the man that has a better chance at improving their lives. And I always said Mitts challenge will be getting out of the primaries, and the man is beginning to find his voice. At the end of the day, those in his own party that don't like him will vote for him, when push comes to shove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 1327688167[/url]' post='2372098']Well, Obama may win, that's a possibility, the only way is if he successfully racks up Mitt's negative favorability so high,that they go for the lesser of two evils argument. Having said that, Obama doesn't have a good story to tell, the economy is underperforming what it should be doing, health care??? Now thats funny, Obama didnt even mention it in his State of the Union address, and in regards to turning this economy around, that is only working with those who lean to the left. He doesn't have a positive record to run on, independents see him as your typical tax and spend liberal. Romney on the other hand has a list of accomplishments to run on. When Independents have to make thatchoice,they will have to choose either for the big government liberal who failed on his promises including apoor record on the economy, or with the out of touch wealthy man that may not like too much personally, but that is infinitely more qualified to get this economy going. At the end of the day, they'll choose the man that has a better chance at improving their lives. And I always said Mitts challenge will be getting out of the primaries, and the man is beginning to find his voice. At the end of the day, those in his own party that don't like him will vote for him, when push comes to shove. That's what I've been saying for a while. The Republicans need to stop worrying about their base. Their base is already fired up and will vote for anyone that isn't Obama. They need a nominee and VP running mate that will fire up the independents. That, in my opinion, is exactly why Newt (or Santorum) would lose a general election. They can get the conservative base fired up, sure, but not enough independents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Well, Obama may win, that's a possibility, the only way is if he successfully racks up Mitt's negative favorability so high,that they go for the lesser of two evils argument. My only concern at this point is the absolute stunning stupidity of the electorate to believe what he says. His comment today to students at University of Michigan: “A quarter of all millionaire [earners] pay lower taxes than millions of middle-class households… Is that fair? … does it make sense to you? It shouldn't make sense to anyone, let alone college students. But there they are, booing the rich because they somehow believe that millionaires pay lower takex than middle-class households. Unfuggingbelievable. What the hell does it take to get accepted to University of Michigan? Fog a mirror? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 My only concern at this point is the absolute stunning stupidity of the electorate to believe what he says. His comment today to students at University of Michigan: It shouldn't make sense to anyone, let alone college students. But there they are, booing the rich because they somehow believe that millionaires pay lower takex than middle-class households. Unfuggingbelievable. What the hell does it take to get accepted to University of Michigan? Fog a mirror? I mentioned this before but Mitt phrased this perfectly, it's a fight for America's soul. It's an inflection point, do we move more towards a wealth distributing nanny state or do we go back to our capitalistic system. No system is perfect, and without a doubt people have all the rights in the world to look at the gross misdeeds that occurred during the years of Wall Street Gone Wild, but it is the system that made the U.S number one in virtually almost every economic category. There just need to be better Enforced regulations,not more, just better implemented. All one has to do is look at Europe, is this what we want to become? High debt, high taxes and high unemployment? No thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Well, Obama may win, that's a possibility, the only way is if he successfully racks up Mitt's negative favorability so high,that they go for the lesser of two evils argument. Having said that, Obama doesn't have a good story to tell, the economy is underperforming what it should be doing, health care??? Now thats funny, Obama didnt even mention it in his State of the Union address, and in regards to turning this economy around, that is only working with those who lean to the left. He doesn't have a positive record to run on, independents see him as your typical tax and spend liberal. Romney on the other hand has a list of accomplishments to run on. When Independents have to make thatchoice,they will have to choose either for the big government liberal who failed on his promises including apoor record on the economy, or with the out of touch wealthy man that may not like too much personally, but that is infinitely more qualified to get this economy going. At the end of the day, they'll choose the man that has a better chance at improving their lives. And I always said Mitts challenge will be getting out of the primaries, and the man is beginning to find his voice. At the end of the day, those in his own party that don't like him will vote for him, when push comes to shove. Obviously it's a lesser of two evils argument, but Mitt can't get Republicans to vote for him (except by holding their noses) and Independents wont' get out and vote for him...I don't see him firing up much of a base. Romney can't attack healthcare credibly and that's one of Obama's biggest failures. Agree that he's finally owning who he is and growing a pair. It should help him finally vanquish the field. You can bet Obama will mention healthcare plenty of times in his populist messages. "I got you affordable healthcare" has been a repeated point over and over again already. Edited January 27, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Obviously it's a lesser of two evils argument, but Mitt can't get Republicans to vote for him (except by holding their noses) and Independents wont' get out and vote for him...I don't see him firing up much of a base. Romney can't attack healthcare credibly and that's one of Obama's biggest failures. Agree that he's finally owning who he is and growing a pair. It should help him finally vanquish the field. You can bet Obama will mention healthcare plenty of times in his populist messages. "I got you affordable healthcare" has been a repeated point over and over again already. Romney may not be able to make a credible case against Obama care, but the super Pacs can, don't underestimate the power of those TV ad's. The superpacs against Obama will have just as much if not more money than Obama will. Also, I've said this before, Obamacare isn't nearly as big of an issue asit is with GOP primary voters. Sure,indepedents don't like it, but they know where each stand, one said he will repeal it and the other one will push forward. Remember, independents are not nearly as ideologically driven as the lefies and righties are. The damage has been done on Obama in regards to Obamacare, and the superpacs will be the sufficent daily reminder Romney needs to keep it in their minds. So this argument that Santorum makes is ridiculous, independents don't want this to be the crux of a candidates campaign, they care about the economy much more so than this bill. All Obamacare will be for independents is just ONE more reason not to support him. And on a sidenote I see that Obama is tryig to make an indirect defense of Solyndra.... BIG MISTAKE!! also the more Obama brings up healthcare.... BIG MISTAKE!! These are tremendously unpopular initiatives and subjects. This is a tactical mistake they are making regardingthe alternative energy push. The Obama machine have three major negatives in this area, Solyndra which the right will paint as the poster boy of crony capitalism and desperate push to impliment their unsustainabe and nonfeasible green energy initiative at the expense of the U.S taxpayer. The decision to not build the Keystone pipeline which would have added PRIVATE SECTOR dollars in order to appease his enviro base and the high price of gasoline. Yeah, independents may not be fired up to go out and vote, but they do want a competent economic leader, sure Obama has wildly exceeded anyone's goals when it comes to fighting terrorism, but the economy is #1,#2 and #3 on voters minds. There is a reason why the political forecasters have this as tossup sort of election. Obama won't beat him easily, that you can count on, if Rubio accepts the VP offer, I would say that Romney stands at least a 60% shot at winning. Florida would be locked up, and many states that are battleground states with highlatino populations could be influenced enough at the margins to make te difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I couldn't imagine either of these guys as President. Obama is goign to win by default. Of course if Newt wins, he could be in a claim in as ugliest president ever (Nixon currently holds the throne). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 GOP 2012! You Decide...the 1% or their lobbyist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 GOP 2012! You Decide...the 1% or their lobbyist! Yes, I want to find someone who hasn't been highly successful to be my president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts