Newt Gingrich vs. Rick Santorum

His refutation 1sources told Bloomberg News that Gingrich was hired to build bridges with Republican members of Congress who were wary about the organization’s work. [1]He tried to convince peole to be pro freddie mae and mac, while being paid by them, aka political lobbying. Freddie Mac officials disputed both claims and government watchdogs noted that politicians like Gingrich often deliberately structured “consultant” jobs to circumvent lobbying registration requirements. [2]Also how is he trust worthy if he won't even admit toflip flopping in libya, as said in my second source. So you trust him to admit something like this yet he won't even admit to flip flopping on one minor issue? No he won't tell your logic = fallacy. His refutation 2so then why did he1. do that add (which you didn't adress why, so basically admiteflip flopped)2. support cap and trade.let's explain number one:the Romney campaign highlights footage from a bipartisan commercial starring Gingrich and Pelosi for Gore's "liberal Global Warming agenda," which aims "to push job-killing climate change legislation." [3]1989: Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) co-sponsors the ambitious Global Warming Prevention Act (H.R. 1078) [4]He is FOR global warming, ust flip flopped to help his election efforts. Explain number two:"I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's very, very good," he said. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support." - Newt gingrich and [5]FLip flop. Also he has not adressed his new cap and trade opinon. He is for this mandatory tax. You have not provided many sources proving you point, here I have one, also a quote from newt, and like 3 last round. Lets have one more:It's true he's never favored the approach taken by Democrats, but he said in 2007 that he would "strongly support" cap-and-trade if combined with "a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions". [6]andFurthermore, Gingrich said in House testimony in 2009 that he still might support a cap-and-trade system covering "the 2,000 most polluting places," if packaged with incentives for nuclear power and "green coal," among other things. [6] refutation3You hve admited 3 times so far he is a flip flop. That means his views now, and then are unreliable AND WILL change if elected. You are really just proving that he not reliable. SO basically he was for the department, now against. He is th emost unreliable person yet. You are proving this. His views now are irrelavant as (according to his flip flop record) will all be different in the general election. He will become moderate to help him win. YOU HAVE HELPED ME.Refutation 4 and 5Another flip flop. His views now =/= his voews in the general election. Newt Gingrich called for an expansion of government health care when he praised the Veterans Health Administration for serving as “a model for modernization and a model of using information technology that’s very impressive” during a veterans issues forum in Iowa on Saturday [7]So really he ven if he did change his opinion (which he didn't) then he flip flopped. But since he didn't he is a liberal. The ad names both former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and focuses on their previous statements and actions in support of health insurance mandates. [8]for mandated HC “If you explore the mandate, it ultimately ends up with unconstitutional powers. It allows the government to define virtually everything. And if you can do it for health care, you can do it for everything in your life, and, therefore, we should not have a mandate.” — Remarks by Newt Gingrich during GOP debate in Manchester, N.H., June 13, 2011 [9] Really all of what you have said either proves he is a flip flop, or is false. If he is for a mandate HC then he is for your 4 refutation, so he either flip flopped, or I am right, either way it proves if your a conservative newt is not your man.=end rebuttals. conclusion to them=Remember voters vote as you are conservative. Also my opponent basically roves my point, he has flip flopped. This makes him unreliable. Also I have many me sources then he, so my points are more factual. further more I have his recent quotes and his record on my side, his site says he is anti what he is for, therefore he is:1, lying2. flip flop for election services3. a moderate. It is a mix of all 3. Newt is not your man. Also he has given up his anti santorum stuff, therefore he concedes my canidate. No refutation for santorum = you concede his greatness. C1: santorums economic planhe dropped my point here, therefore it is conceded by him, no need to add on. C2: Newt is a moderateHe has dropped this point as this debate progressed. Now is just trying to justfy his flip flops, but I debunked his arguments there too. I have basically won this debate in this argument (like no significant rebuttals, so a semi-drop on his side)Agh I do not need to add on. =conclusion=I have proven newt a cerial flip flopping moderate corupt lobbier, that is not fit to run the country, also my opponent has not reute many of my main points, and has dropped his first rebuttals and only tried to jusify the flip flops. He didn't push his arguments. Also I have taken apart his arguments one by one, and have provided sources 1 by one. He has few sources, I had many. Also I have proven santorum a viable canidate, and newt as a poor choice. I have done well in this debate, VOTE PROP.S. remember vote like you wan't the most conservative person. So your RFD saying a moderate is better is a VB. Only from a conservative point of view, so vote on who you thought was proven a better conservative and reliable person based on this debate. Act liek your reading this from my view, or HG's. sources. http://abcnews.go.com... [1]http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com... [2]http://nymag.com... [3]http://planetsave.com... [4]http://www.politico.com... [5]http://www.usatoday.com... [6]http://thinkprogress.org... [7]http://www.texastribune.org... [8]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [9]