Newt

[MLD Woody]

Two things you can say to shut him up (that I have come across in my short time here)

 

"Neurosurgeon interview"

something along the lines of, "How do polls work again?"

[Westside Steve]

Westside Steve, out of all the conservatives on here, I think you might be the most sane.

 

 

 

Side note, I love how Gingrich played the victim card when he was asked about his marital affairs, lol

Well thanks for the props woody, but there are an awful lot of issues we can all agree or disagree on .

Given some of my positions I'd suppose some conservatives wouldn't think me one of the bretheren.

 

As far as playing the victim, I guess the moderator should of thought twice about his little gotcha question. Newt picked up the blitz.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Lets try another one and see if we can agree.

 

What is ur stance on nuclear power in the US?

[calfoxwc]

When liberals use polls, they are gospel, no matter how unscientific..

 

When conservatives use polls, the libs say they aren't "scientific", even if they are.

 

Libs use an emotional lie to counter a thousand truths.

 

An emotional, albeit bogus, picture equals a thousand facts.

 

A poll is only an indicator. It isn't the end all reason to enact laws to implement

liberalism/marxism.

[MLD Woody]

Dude, we aren't talking about the poll itself. We're saying you have no idea how they work.

 

Neurosurgeon

[calfoxwc]

That was two quick links. The point was, you can do your own research, dimwit, and find your own links.

 

Want to bet I can find a bunch more that you can't refute?

 

I just cut and pasted them, woody mz the pussy the pussy.

[Westside Steve]

Lets try another one and see if we can agree.

 

What is ur stance on nuclear power in the US?

Build as many nuclear power plants as possible as quickly as possible.

Begin a change over of lighting in the US to l e d which will save probably 90 percent of the power used to illuminate us.

Take a more serious look toward implementing the pickens plan.

Drill and refine where ever we can.

 

 

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's extremely difficult and costly to build new nuclear plants. The government should do more to reduce the barriers to building them, as they're one of the few non-carbon emitting sources we have. But to suggest that we should start building them everywhere is crazy. You've got to be very careful about where you build them. Plus, nobody wants them near where they live. We only get about 9% of our power from nuclear and that's not going to change anytime soon. The idea that we're going to become like France doesn't square with the reality/economics of nuclear power. There are also real costs associated with it, not just the disastrous consequences of a meltdown or a Fukashima, but there's always the question of what you do with the waste. Right now, we don't have a good answer to that question.

 

But I'd rather build nuclear plants than burn coal.

 

And I don't know where Steve's getting his LED figures, but let's get back to reality: we just put a system in place to make lightbulbs more energy efficient. Business was on board and complying. And then the Republicans pulled the plug on it under the guise of "freedom from government tyranny/mandates." And then came the misinformation, about how Obama was trying to ban lightbulbs and make you buy the weird curly ones no one likes. You saw some of it in here. (I know, I know. What a stunner.)

 

Of course, this program was started under President Bush, and it didn't ban incandescent lightbulbs, just made them more energy efficient. But that never matters to the crazies. They hear "energy efficiency" are freak, because anything the government might do to help the environment is bad.

 

I wish their formulation is more complicated than that, but there's no evidence that it is.

 

So could we have done something with lightbulbs along the lines of what Steve is suggesting? Yes. Did we? No. Why? Because of the crazies in the Republican Party.

[MLD Woody]

Considering I cam into college originally planning to be a nuclear engineer, and I still plan to work in the energy field, I am pro nuclear power. Too bad too much of our population is completed Retarded when it comes to anything involving science...

[heckofajobbrownie]

Environmentalists who oppose nuclear power (many are for it, of course) need to ask themselves two questions: why would you swear off the most effective non-carbon emitting power source we know of? And also, don't you prefer building newer, more technologically advanced nuclear power plants as opposed to continuing to run older, more dated plants that date back to the 60s and 70s? (They're not still running on technology from the 60s and 70s, but you get the point.)

[Chicopee John]

>>So could we have done something with lightbulbs along the lines of what Steve is suggesting? Yes. Did we? No. Why? Because of the crazies in the Republican Party.>>

 

How so, Heck? (assuming you havent already answered).

[heckofajobbrownie]

We had a bill from Bush in 2007 that increased lightbulb efficiency by 30%. The manufacturers were on board, and had begun production. In December, after lots of noise on the right about how Obama was "banning incandescent light bulbs", which wasn't even close to being true, Republicans put a rider in a December spending bill to eliminate the requirements.

 

Now the lightbulb manufacturers like GE and Sylvania, who had already started complying and were good to go with the new regulations, are pissed. This is costing them money, not freeing them from government tyranny.

 

Do a search on this board and I'm sure you'll find T or some other nut screeching about how Obama wanted to ban lightbulbs, liberty, and apple pie.

[MLD Woody]

I saw this today and my first thought was Mr T and calfoxwc

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't think anyone really thinks putting nuclear waste on a rocket and shooting it into space is a good idea, Vapor.

 

See: Space Shuttle Columbia, Space Shuttle Challenger

[MLD Woody]

I'm pretty sure a lot of research and progress is being made in the recycling of the waste. We don't put any money into nuclear power though so we're probably way behind the curve....

[VaporTrail]

I don't think anyone really thinks putting nuclear waste on a rocket and shooting it into space is a good idea, Vapor.

 

See: Space Shuttle Columbia, Space Shuttle Challenger

 

Well, yeah, publicity of failed missions, especially when human life is involved is going to make people extremely wary of them. On the other hand, how many times do NASA, Russia, China, or even private companies, now, send up an unmanned satellite into space? We don't hear about those. Negative publicity is obviously a huge issue with it, and I think that there's next to zero chance of us actually doing it, but I still think it's a better idea than burying it. We're an earthquake away from a breach, the odds of a rocket being compromised are much lower. Then again, we'd have to send a bunch of rockets out to get rid of all the shit, and you'll have way more fuel than payload when trying to escape gravity, so it'd end up being really expensive, too.

 

Hell, or build a giant rail gun, already. Or a space elevator.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'd much prefer Yucca Mountain to rockets.

[calfoxwc]

First of all, that was honestly hiliarious, Woody, LOL.... *colbert...

 

Now, about nuclear waste. My professional opinion is,

 

I haven't the slightest idea. It's kinda cool for Vapor to think of a rail gun.

 

But seriously, we can't just keep burying the crap. We should just invent an anti-gravity device,

 

maybe with tech from some downed alien craft... and let the waste float up into space.

 

But building a nuclear plant near a fault, on a fault, like Japan did. Not good.

 

We still need some advanced tech we don't have yet.

[MLD Woody]

maybe with tech from some downed alien craft

 

I think we already got everything we can out of Megatron

[Chicopee John]

We had a bill from Bush in 2007 that increased lightbulb efficiency by 30%. The manufacturers were on board, and had begun production. In December, after lots of noise on the right about how Obama was "banning incandescent light bulbs", which wasn't even close to being true, Republicans put a rider in a December spending bill to eliminate the requirements.

 

Now the lightbulb manufacturers like GE and Sylvania, who had already started complying and were good to go with the new regulations, are pissed. This is costing them money, not freeing them from government tyranny.

 

Do a search on this board and I'm sure you'll find T or some other nut screeching about how Obama wanted to ban lightbulbs, liberty, and apple pie.

 

Thanks. No comment other than, another example of the government potentially influencing the free market.

 

Surprised, to a certain extent, that some didn't complain that such a requirement - and the associated increase in cost (at least at time of purchase), was regressive and negatively impacted those most unable to pay the incremental cost.

 

Me? I'm most notably incented by the impact on my expenses. I do have a longer-term view than others, perhaps, but I turn off lights, keep the heat down, etc. because it saves me money. Maybe a case of doing the right thing for the 'wrong reason'.

[Chicopee John]

I don't think anyone really thinks putting nuclear waste on a rocket and shooting it into space is a good idea, Vapor.

 

See: Space Shuttle Columbia, Space Shuttle Challenger

 

I could argue - but won't - that Space Shuttle 'Anything' is a waste of money that can be better spent is so many other ways.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Thanks. No comment other than, another example of the government potentially influencing the free market.

 

Surprised, to a certain extent, that some didn't complain that such a requirement - and the associated increase in cost (at least at time of purchase), was regressive and negatively impacted those most unable to pay the incremental cost.

 

Me? I'm most notably incented by the impact on my expenses. I do have a longer-term view than others, perhaps, but I turn off lights, keep the heat down, etc. because it saves me money. Maybe a case of doing the right thing for the 'wrong reason'.

 

Lightbulbs aren't exactly a major expense for a family. Energy bills, on the other hand, tend to add up.

[VaporTrail]

I could argue - but won't - that Space Shuttle 'Anything' is a waste of money that can be better spent is so many other ways.

 

This is so unbelievably ignorant. You do realize that the satellites that are broadcasting anything and everything need maintenance, yes? Who do you think performs that maintenance? The techs at NBC? Fox? ESPN? God damn, willful ignorance really pisses me off. People really take for granted little things that putting people in space allows us to do, y'know, like watch the Browns every Sunday in the Fall, along with other, more important things that they don't care to try to understand.

[heckofajobbrownie]

The Space Shuttle program is also finished.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, turns out Newt's epic rant was, in part, false. But Newt also knows factually accuracy doesn't matter when you're media bashing is playing well with the crowd, and that for every 100 people who heard his rant, 2 or 3 will hear the correction. But here it is anyway. Yes, turns out ABC News played it by the book.

 

"Newt Gingrich's campaign admitted Wednesday night the former House speaker was inaccurate when he claimed his team offered several witnesses to ABC News to refute statements made by Gingrich's second wife in a controversial interview aired last week.

 

CNN Chief National Correspondent John King reported the campaign said it only recommended Gingrich's two daughters from his first marriage, who wrote a letter discouraging ABC to release the interview."

 

 

Also, Gingrich likes to make it sound like his two daughters are denouncing their mother. They're not. They're his daughters from his first marriage denouncing the woman who Newt dumped their mother to marry.

 

Not that any of this matters, because Newt isn't going to be the nominee, as much as Democrats would like him to be.

[heckofajobbrownie]

"Now, let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They [i.e., ABC] weren't interested, because they would like to attack any Republican."

 

Oh, well. The audience liked it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Wow. Bob Dole's statement today:

 

I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.

 

Gingrich served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. Already in 1997 a number of House members wanted to throw him out as Speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when the writing was on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.

 

Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. He loved picking a fight with Bill Clinton because he knew this would get the attention of the press. This and a myriad of other specifics helped to topple Gingrich in 1998.

 

In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty ice-bucket in his hand—that was a symbol of some sort for him—and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it.

 

In my opinion if we want to avoid an Obama landslide in November, Republicans should nominate Governor Romney as our standard bearer. He has the requisite experience in the public and private sectors. He would be a president we could have confidence in.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Newt needed another big debate and got beaten. I thought Romney handled him pretty good. Even before tonight the polls had started swinging back to Romney.

 

Oh, well. It was fun while it lasted.

[Westside Steve]

Newt needed another big debate and got beaten. I thought Romney handled him pretty good. Even before tonight the polls had started swinging back to Romney.

 

Oh, well. It was fun while it lasted.

Heck do you remember the old joke about the missionary in the jungle?

All of a sudden the constant beating of the drums goes silent!

The guide gravely says to the missionary drums stop bad sign!

The startled missionary asks why why?

The guide replies "bass solo......"

 

Allows me to paraphrase:

Gingrich drop in polls bad sign.

Why why?

Rick Santorum!!!

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ha. Like the joke.

 

Newt's cooked, though. He needed Florida. This is post-debate:

 

"A new Quinnipiac Poll released on Friday morning showed Mr. Romney with 38 percent of the vote in Florida and Mr. Gingrich with 29 percent. The previous survey, released on Wednesday, showed the top candidates in a virtual tie."