Newt bs Romney

[parsley]

All results from precincts are in:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2012/b
y_state/SC_Page_0121.html?
SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

[bduke]

Parsley... The answer to which candidate would be better for Canada is...IMHO..
which ever can win.

Regarding your second question...who will win... I don't know.. perhaps neither.

When a person's income tax rate/amount becomes an issue within a so called
"capitalist party", my confidence in the US society is further diminished.

Should someone who invests in the equity of domestic corporations, which have paid
probably 35% tax on their profits, pay an additional 15% on the dividends be considered
not paying their fair share?

While someone who is paying a 40% tax rate on speaking fees, personal contracts
and consulting per diems be deemed more honourable?

The employment generated by the equity investments is far greater than the jobs
involved in speaking and consulting, and the total tax is 10% more.

I enjoyed the SC debate and watched last night's coverage of the primary, and I
especially paid attention to the candidates closing comments.

IMHO opinion Newt was on a roll. He closed very strongly and seemed to maintain
the momentum he started by chastising John King in the last debate.

My concern is that this contest will become far too personal and nasty.. probably
is now.

POTUS Obama has a huge war chest, and he is focussing on the seaboard enviros
and college students.

I think about 50% of eligible voters actually voted in the last Presidential election.

Therefore, with the GOP's bashing each other, and BO's campaign funding, the
sentiment among headline readers and the effect TV neg ads could be re-election.

Regardless of the winner... Ron Paul should be a domestic policy advisor..,
especially if BO wins!... LOL

Cheers... Bill

[cottonpicken]

I have my doubts about newt.

Obama snowballed lots and lots and lots of
people.

At this point the medicine may kill the patient
anyway.

[wilagro]

Neither of those amoral jerks should win the nomination let alone the presidency.
Despite the fact that Ron Paul is fairly old, he still would be my choice and I think that Canada would get fair treatment from his administration.

[parsley]

bduke, Capitalism, yes. Capitalism run amok, no


Nancy Pelosi got to buy some IPO's a USA-
cotton would never would have had an
opportunity to buy.
An IPO is the first stock offering when a
company goes public. Visa's stock was
traditionally held by banks, but the hair stood up
on Visa's profit arm when the Credit Card Fair
Fee Act popped which would allow retailer fee-
negotiation. Fees are Visa's sugarmomma.

Pelosi stalled, thwarted, & ignored the bill that
later reappeared looking like it had undergone an
identity -change.
Visa rewarded Nancy with initial IPO options.
Now I like capitali. But I have this notion that
swcticw capitalism is not on my best interest
unless my name is , yup, Nancy.

It happens routinely. I want change. So does
Newt. Pars

[parsley]

Wil, some of these immoral jerks have learned
their fidelity, sexuality and harem morality from
the church and it's leaders.

Who am I to quibble with such teachings?
Thankfully, some nominees have set themselves
to a higher standard; albeit after their mistakes.
Pars

[bduke]

Parsley... Don't confuse preferential political treatment with capitalistic
investment and risk/reward.

I disagree with the lack of insider info benefits US politicians and their
assistants reap. Their laws,or lack of, are the problem.. not capitalism.

I disagree with the US system of adding personal policy preferences to
major bills, thereby diluting and practically negating the original intent.

I also believe the major benefit of a democracy is we can learn from our
mistakes, and become successful. Winston Churchill perhaps?

Newt was a House Leader and he has baggage which may be problematic.

He lead the impeachment process to oust President Clinton.

Newt was successful achieving support from the House of Reps,
but he was unable to get enough votes through Congress.

Clinton remained, Newt left and, in Newt's defence, he said he left for
the benefit of his party.

Two thirds of Americans disagreed with the impeachment effort.

There had not been a more publicized, more bitter and more divisive issue
between the two major parties.

This animosity has grown, and.. IMHO.. the US congress is now practically
dysfunctional.

I looked up the speaking fees of the two impeachment poster boys.

Newt reported $21625 in speaking fees last year.

Bill Clinton is expected to be about $8 million....$75 mil since Pres!

My concern is the "history" of a loser that could easily haunt Newt.

Voters that determine elections are not the party faithful, but the approx
1/3 that are not aligned.

In today's world of negative advertising, Rock Star and Hollywood
worshiping, with little interest in details nor diligence, the BO campaign
will be strong.

Romney's baggage is mainly that he is a Mormon.... and one of the
very wealthy non occupiers.

Attacking each other is beneficial to BO, and I don't believe he needs help.

When you asked the question... "who will win?".. I stated perhaps neither.

I don't believe leading the GOP is a win... becoming the POTUS is.

I am worried the GOP is self destructing by attacking via personalities,
wealth, religion and misleading negative ads.

The focus is distracted from the policies to "fix".

As Cottonpicken states... "the (US) medicine may kill the patient anyway"!

I think it will take a few more years, although.

Cheers... Bill

[parsley]

What is blandly overlooked, perhaps bcaue you
are busy driving your tractor, is not only blatant
preferential treatment, but the political class
trading in government- sanctions entities in one
room, while deciding what will happen to those
entities in another room. Freddie and Fannie
comes to mind; Kerry made a fortune.

What is most obscene is the political class, is
their private trading options betting on losses,all
the while able to regulate and influence who will
have l and who will have gains. When elected
regulators can bet on a loss they can incurr,
when they can make money through destruction
they design, in their own country, this is not
capitalism, this is financial obscenity that cannot
be defended or ignored. Parsley.
Newt is not one to ignore such madness hence
the vitriol. IMHO.

[bduke]

Parsley... I agree with your concern about the political class trading in
Gov sanctioned entities.

I rewrote my second sentence in my previous post and left "lack" in by
mistake.

Should be.. I disagree with the insider info benefits. BTW.. Nice 'pick'.

But why else should insider laws and regs be required?

Newt was a Congressman from 1979 to 1999, and House Speaker
from 1995 to 1999.

He was also under contract with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the 2000's,
reportedly receiving $1.6 million for advice.

Newt was also fined $300,000 for an 1984 ethics charge... passed in the
House by a 395 to 28 margin.

Ergo... he has been a lawmaker, a beneficiary of GSE's, and has been fined.

You say he is not one to ignore this madness....seems he certainly didn't!

I surely hope he has reformed... because he may win the GOP battle.

He did speak very well last night .

Cheers... Bill

[rockpile]

Parsley, in reading the title of your post carefully, is it
fair to say there may be a subliminal message in the
back of your mind? My take on the crop of GOP
contenders left in the pool is that BO must have had a
hand in picking the lot.