Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Well, its next Tues, and it looks like its Gingrich's to lose...

"2012 Florida Republican Primary
Florida GOP Primary: Gingrich 41%, Romney 32%

Less than two weeks ago, Mitt Romney had a 22-point lead in Florida, but that’s ancient history in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Following his big win in South Carolina on Saturday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich now is on top in Florida by nine.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Florida Republican Primary Voters, taken Sunday evening, finds Gingrich earning 41% of the vote with Romney in second at 32%. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum runs third with 11%, while Texas Congressman Ron Paul attracts support from eight percent (8%). Nine percent (9%) remain undecided....."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... an_primary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We've looked at a brand new "front runner" about every 3 weeks or less ever since all this hoop-la has started. Now it's Newt, given past experiences there will be several more lead changes in the next 10 months.

Looks to be a very unstable electorate here, but then anybody but Obama, right?

Since 1860 the south has followed South Carolina

















One would think they would have learned their lesson by now

A week to go? Still time for Newt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!

Wedgebuster wrote:but then anybody but Obama, right?

Worked for the Left.

Since I live in Florida and am a registered republican I can give all of you clowns the take from "down here."

After talking to a lot of my friends and family- who are mostly registered republicans, I don't hang with anybody in the moocher class- a LOT of folks are voting for Newt with the understanding that they'll vote for Romney in November.

The ass raping Newt gave Anderson Cooper the other night in South Carolina has played really well with a lot of folks.

blueballs wrote:Since I live in Florida and am a registered republican I can give all of you clowns the take from "down here."

After talking to a lot of my friends and family- who are mostly registered republicans, I don't hang with anybody in the moocher class- a LOT of folks are voting for Newt with the understanding that they'll vote for Romney in November.

The ass raping Newt gave Anderson Cooper the other night in South Carolina has played really well with a lot of folks.

I'll bet Anderson enjoyed it, too.

blueballs wrote:Since I live in Florida and am a registered republican I can give all of you clowns the take from "down here."

After talking to a lot of my friends and family- who are mostly registered republicans, I don't hang with anybody in the moocher class- a LOT of folks are voting for Newt with the understanding that they'll vote for Romney in November.

The ass raping Newt gave Anderson Cooper the other night in South Carolina has played really well with a lot of folks.

Speaking of moochers, how's your conk governor who received the largest fine in medicare fraud history doing? What's the percentage of moochers testing positive in drug labs at?

Christie on Newt, Palin on Christie:

[youtube][/youtube]

BDKJMU wrote:Christie on Newt, Palin on Christie:

[youtube][/youtube]

That would be a helluva threesome!

kalm wrote:

blueballs wrote:Since I live in Florida and am a registered republican I can give all of you clowns the take from "down here."

After talking to a lot of my friends and family- who are mostly registered republicans, I don't hang with anybody in the moocher class- a LOT of folks are voting for Newt with the understanding that they'll vote for Romney in November.

The ass raping Newt gave Anderson Cooper the other night in South Carolina has played really well with a lot of folks.

Speaking of moochers, how's your conk governor who received the largest fine in medicare fraud history doing? What's the percentage of moochers testing positive in drug labs at?

Gov. Scott was never fined, never questioned, never accused, and never convicted of any fraud whatsoever.

The ad also claims of Scott: “His company defrauded Medicare and taxpayers while he pocketed $300 million.” That’s true. Scott’s company, Columbia/HCA, paid a record $1.7 billion in fines for Medicare fraud for practices that took place while he was its chief executive officer. It is also true that when Scott left the company he received $300 million in stock and options.

But the ad goes too far when it accuses Scott of "ripping off taxpayers." The fact is, Scott was not charged personally and says he wasn’t even questioned during the investigation. According to the Miami Herald, Scott issued a statement saying:

Rick Scott: An army of federal investigators spent seven years examining every aspect of this case. If they found any merit in these allegations . . . they would have certainly charged me, or at the very least questioned me — neither of which ever happened.

http://www.factcheck.org/tag/rick-scott/feed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As far as drug testing welfare recipients, if they catch one it is a success as far as I'm concerned because we can't quantify how many it may have stopped because of it who, when they finally have a clear head, may be able to turn their lives around.

blueballs wrote:As far as drug testing welfare recipients, if they catch one it is a success as far as I'm concerned because we can't quantify how many it may have stopped because of it who, when they finally have a clear head, may be able to turn their lives around.

AZGrizFan wrote:

blueballs wrote:As far as drug testing welfare recipients, if they catch one it is a success as far as I'm concerned because we can't quantify how many it may have stopped because of it who, when they finally have a clear head, may be able to turn their lives around.

Meh, there are drugs for that too.

So defrauding the Government is ok if you are a multi-millionaire, as long as they can't PROVE it beyond a reasonable doubt, but you ok with wasting millions to catch one welfare reciepiant that is smoking a doobie.




got it.

dbackjon wrote:So defrauding the Government is ok if you are a multi-millionaire, as long as they can't PROVE it beyond a reasonable doubt, but you ok with wasting millions to catch one welfare reciepiant that is smoking a doobie.




got it.

That's quite a stretch there Jon... re-read Factcheck's findings, Scott wasn't accused, interviewed, deposed, or in any way implicated in the medicare fraud. I don't see how you can possibly draw the conclusion HE defrauded the government, and his personal financial status has nothing to do with any of that.

As for the drug testing, IIRC the cost (seems like I remember it being about $40) is paid by the moocher and then credited back to them if they pass. Sounds reasonable to me.

blueballs wrote:

dbackjon wrote:So defrauding the Government is ok if you are a multi-millionaire, as long as they can't PROVE it beyond a reasonable doubt, but you ok with wasting millions to catch one welfare reciepiant that is smoking a doobie.




got it.

That's quite a stretch there Jon... re-read Factcheck's findings, Scott wasn't accused, interviewed, deposed, or in any way implicated in the medicare fraud. I don't see how you can possibly draw the conclusion HE defrauded the government, and his personal financial status has nothing to do with any of that.

As for the drug testing, IIRC the cost (seems like I remember it being about $40) is paid by the moocher and then credited back to them if they pass. Sounds reasonable to me.

Oh, I was under the impression that the drug testing companies were for-profit. Perhaps enough moochers fail the tests for them to still make a buck.

kalm wrote:

blueballs wrote:

That's quite a stretch there Jon... re-read Factcheck's findings, Scott wasn't accused, interviewed, deposed, or in any way implicated in the medicare fraud. I don't see how you can possibly draw the conclusion HE defrauded the government, and his personal financial status has nothing to do with any of that.

As for the drug testing, IIRC the cost (seems like I remember it being about $40) is paid by the moocher and then credited back to them if they pass. Sounds reasonable to me.

Oh, I was under the impression that the drug testing companies were for-profit. Perhaps enough moochers fail the tests for them to still make a buck.

According to some numbers I saw a few months ago- and I'm too busy to look it up- there hasn't been that many folks failing. In fact the percentage of failures was very small, which means that the moochers are getting themselves clean before going for the free taxpayer money. Hopefully getting them clean will translate into getting them off the dole and into the taxpayer class... one can only hope, right?