Newt

[Mr. T]

For those who missed the debate here are some excerpts from Newt.

 

This is like a prize fight and worth watching.

 

[calfoxwc]

Obamao has a real contempt for people he's supposed to be representing, and expresses it willingly.

 

***********

*Fixed

 

I'm looking for a Santorum/Gingrich ticket.

 

They would win.

[Westside Steve]

I think our system of government itself has contempt for the people.

rightly so in many cases.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Santorum / Gingrich ticket?

 

The guy that equated homosexuality to beastiality and the guy that left his ill wife for his mistress, twice.

 

Good luck getting moderate/independent votes.

[Westside Steve]

Santorum / Gingrich ticket?

 

The guy that equated homosexuality to beastiality and the guy that left his ill wife for his mistress, twice.

 

Good luck getting moderate/independent votes.

Glad to see you democrats suddenly in the moral majority.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Who said I was a Democrat?

 

You guys and your labeling of those that disagree with you

[Westside Steve]

Who said I was a Democrat?

 

You guys and your labeling of those that disagree with you

And who says you disagree with me?

I just saw a common thread with the people you choose to attack.

 

You will probably find some variations in ideology here.

 

Bill clinton probably paved the way for marital infidelity eh?

Besides I don't think the pro gay platform is necessarily a winner.

The current president was smart enough to affect the other side during the campaign.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

True true

 

I just think it is a shame part of your campaign can be to NOT allow equal rights to some people.

 

 

Clinton cheating on his wife is bad, I agree, but I think leaving an ill wife with cancer to marry the mistress, twice, is worse.

 

Some things you can overlook, but that, that is too much.

 

Christians and conservatives love talking about the sanctity of marriage as a reason gays can't get married. How can anyone take him seriously when Newt wats that?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Welcome, rare sane person.

 

Newt's infidelities don't matter much in the grand scope of things, as Clinton's didn't either. But they do tell you something about the extreme narcissism - among other things - of the people involved, and it's going to hurt you with women voters. Clinton's escapades told you about his personal neediness and his recklessness - the guy was willing to risk his entire presidency over a blowjob. Newt's tell you more about his callousness and enormous ego issues.

 

Look at the polls - female voters really, really don't like Newt.

[Westside Steve]

Welcome, rare sane person.

 

Newt's infidelities don't matter much in the grand scope of things, as Clinton's didn't either. But

 

Lest we forget the old political axiom:

"Everything before the 'but' is bullshit.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Lest we forget the old political axiom:

"Everything before the 'but' is bullshit.

WSS

 

Not really in this case. We're not electing Newt to be our husband. We're electing him to be our president. How he cheats on his wife doesn't really tell us something anything about his position on Iran. Plus, it's a lot easier to get at his position on Iran by listening to what he says about Iran or, even better, the type of foreign policy people he surrounds himself with.

 

So in the grand scheme of things, for the stuff that matters, it doesn't matter. In the political realm is matters a great deal.

[MLD Woody]

Exactly.

 

Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead

 

But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected

[Pumpkin Eater]

Any republican ticket that has Gingrich almost guarantees a second term for Obama. The guy is a stooge.

[Mr. T]

 

Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead

 

But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected

 

 

Please explain your opinion and how you got to this conclusion.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Exactly.

 

Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead

 

But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected

 

I don't think that his narcissism is a great quality in a leader at all. I think it's a bit frightening, actually. But that doesn't have to do with his affairs so much as the clear evidence of his megalomania. He really thinks he's a historic, transformational figure, and I'm a little afraid of what he thinks he needs to do to cement his place in history.

 

There's a reason none of his former Republican colleagues seem to be for his candidacy, and many are speaking out against him, sometimes loudly. He was a disaster at everything after the 94 elections.

[calfoxwc]

Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead

 

But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected

*****************************************

You meant to say this about Obamao, right?

 

If I had to pick someone to run for pres, it would be Rubio. Romney is a rhino and I want him out.

 

The dem libs want to use "character" as a weapon all of a sudden, because it's politically expedient.

 

When it was Obamao running for pres, it was NOT politically expedient.

 

So, there ya go.

 

With libs, the only principle is the one that benefits their emotionalism.

 

Which changes again and again. Clinton? Character didn't matter. Edwards? Character doesn't matter.

 

Newt? CHARACTER REALLY MATTERS .......

 

Experience in national leadership? Clinton/Obamao/Edwards... doesn't matter.

 

But Palin and Romney? EXPERIENCE IN NATIONAL LEADERSHIP MATTERS.

 

And back and forth they go. Whatever gets them gay marriage, murder of unborn and born children, and leglized mary jane wana @@,

 

thats their "principle" . Otherwise, they have no genuine belief systems. It's just attacking everything that doesn't fit. And anyone who isn't part of their "movements"

[MLD Woody]

I'm sure they could have taken their pick for how they wanted to discredit Palin lol

 

 

and you act like your party and people who think like you do NEVER take advantage of certain traits and what not to gain the upper hand, that's politics dude, lol. It is pretty damn obvious you have your blinders all the way up. Its actually really funny how you can't see the irony in so many things you say...

 

 

 

I know I am going to regret saying this... but what were Obama's character flaws?

 

Also, I might regret this too, but why is legalizing weed bad? Before you go and attack my character/intelligence, because, well you know, you're a master debater, I don't smoke weed and I don't think people should but I do have a couple close friends that do.

[calfoxwc]

Principle. Illegal drugs are a threat to society. LSD, cocaine, etc. Fringe smokie smokie? Still not good, studies show it leads to the other hard drugs.

 

Alcohol analogy doesn't fly -- though the abuse of it is a huge problem with some people.

 

And Obamao? Seriously? He falsely represented himself to get elected.

 

The "Fast and Furious" scandal is exploding, and so is his penchant for throwing billions and billions of

 

debt monies into entitlement votes to unions and the left.

 

I can repost Obamao bitterly accusing Bush of our national debt putting the burden on our children. But now?

 

He couldn't care less that he has exploded our national debt into nearly 15 TRILLION.

 

And 4 TRILLION was bad enough to make liberals become enraged ...

 

it's all unprincipled, emotional manipulation. The acquisition of local, personal, and even national power and privilege sp? by

 

lying one way, then the opposite way, depending on what gets you that power.

 

Unprincipled, extremist greed and dishonest reigns in the left.

 

Obamao is no more an American values president than Chavez is.

[MLD Woody]

You don't believe people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves about drugs? So you want the govt. to regulate them? I thought conservatives wanted smaller govt.?

 

 

 

Also, I gotta tell you I can't believe any of your facts or figures straight up. I also don't understand all these Tea Party code words like "Fast and Furious Scandal" I mean... after that whole "look at what this neurosurgeon said you can't discredit that" thread (which suspiciously ended with me calling out that source, lulz), I really have a had time believing what you think is truth, as truth.

[VaporTrail]

Social conservatives want smaller government except when it comes to telling people who they should be allowed to marry. Also, cal, could you please explain why the alcohol analogy doesn't fly? I think it certainly can be compared against marijuana. LSD, heroin, and cocaine, not so much.

[Westside Steve]

You don't believe people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves about drugs? So you want the govt. to regulate them? I thought conservatives wanted smaller govt.?

 

 

 

Also, I gotta tell you I can't believe any of your facts or figures straight up. I also don't understand all these Tea Party code words like "Fast and Furious Scandal" I mean... after that whole "look at what this neurosurgeon said you can't discredit that" thread (which suspiciously ended with me calling out that source, lulz), I really have a had time believing what you think is truth, as truth.

 

Fast and furious scandal..... code words? Maybe you'd like to expound on that a bit.

 

As far as conservatives wishing for smaller government, it doesn't mean that they are anarchists.

But here's a question for you if you think that people in general are smart enough to make their own decisions on drugs should everything be legal and available without a prescription? If not, why?

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I we legalized crack today, I don't think by tomorrow everyone would be a crackhead. Also, just because it is legal doesn't mean people will sell it. I don't think crack emporiums will start popping up because 99.9% of the population would hate those people and their business would get run into the ground. The market wouldn't allow it, probably.

 

The only reason tobacco is legal and not weed is just how our culture developed. If anything cigarettes are more dangerous than weed.

 

Conservatives want less regulation so the govt. stays out of people's lifes. They people in the strong individual mindset. But when it comes to drugs they think that if we don't regulate them, everyone will instantly become an addict.

 

Yes, the case is harder to make with drugs that we know are very harmful, but that's just the thing, we know they are harmful. You aren't just going to go "Crack is legal now? I should try that out."

 

It just seems like, from this board, conservatives want smaller govt. in every place where it helps push their agenda, but increased govt. involvement in other areas to help push their agenda (forcing pro-life, regulating weed, not allow gays equal rights, etc.)

[Westside Steve]

Like I said I don't believe anyone here is an anarchist.

that would be the smallest government no?

I'd imagine you'll have a hard time convincing anybody that crack should be legal.

If you get your wish and it is legalized would you then refuse health services to those who choose to take it and become addicted? or should be taxpayers pick up that tab?

And as I asked you before do you believe abortion should be legal up entirely through the third trimester for any reason?

And exactly what do you mean by equal rights? Marriage is not a right as you probably know.

 

The reason I ask these things is just to get a better handle on what you actually believe as opposed to what you repeat to attack conservatives.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

The government should differentiate between drugs the same way most people do. Marijuana is not a serious drug, and there's no good reason for the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars compelling its citizens not to use it. That money is wasted, and people who end up in the criminal justice system because of it have their lives ruined for no good reason.

 

But I'm with Steve here. I don't like the pure libertarian argument either because, especially when you get to harder drugs, you're talking about serious social costs. I have no problem saying that harder drugs like meth, crack, and the like should remain illegal. But I'd also change the way we make them illegal. The drug war is an epic, colossal failure, and I have no idea why that's not a bigger issue.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And back to Newt. This is from David Frum today:

 

The headline from the Monday night debate was of course Romney's burst of combativeness against Gingrich, and Gingrich's oddly listless replies.

Newt Gingrich toned down something else as well: his racial politics. In South Carolina he fired off a cannonade of racial cues, culminating—incredibly—in his assertion that work was a "strange concept" to Juan Williams.

In Florida, Gingrich celebrated multilingualism, endorsed an (amended) DREAM act, and praised the costly new prescription drug benefit in Medicare.

In South Carolina, Gingrich defined the American nation tightly and exclusively. In Florida, he opened the borders much wider—literally.

You don't need me to explain the different reasons Gingrich might have in the different states. But as to what he's doing: that's hard to mistake.

Mitt Romney pounded Gingrich as the very opposite of the agent of change he wishes to seem. Romney outright called Gingrich an influence-peddler, a charge that draws extra blood because it is exactly true.

But does it matter? The conservative movement these past three years has shown an amazing ability to forgive offenses once deemed unforgivable, providing they are committed by "one of our own." The contest is to prove that you are "one of us." That's a contest to which Gingrich comes with large advantages.

Gingrich might not have what it takes to be a viable national candidate, much less an effective president. But he knows this party better than anybody.

[MLD Woody]

Ur probably right about that whole crack thing haha, as I said in the other thread I'll stop posting right when I wake up. You definitely made the point clearer than I did. If I want to convince someone to legalize weed, talking about crack probably isn't the best choice haha

[calfoxwc]

Social conservatives want smaller government except when it comes to telling people who they should be allowed to marry. Also, cal, could you please explain why the alcohol analogy doesn't fly? I think it certainly can be compared against marijuana. LSD, heroin, and cocaine, not so much.

*****************************

We do want smaller gov. But it doesn't require a larger gov to have social mores and institutions established for the

healthy existence of a society. Society must have the ability to establish some degree of protection of itself to survive.

 

Our American society has the family, marriage, eduction... etc. It doesnt' take a FED dept of ed to run the local schools.

The states already have their own dept of ed.... make gov smaller and get rid of the federal dept. That's just one example.

 

The institution of marriage, as we define it, and has predominately been defined by nature and God forever...is between a man and a woman.

 

The laws about the institution involve the rights of the man and woman, and the rights of, so much of the time, children.

 

Gay couples can't even have children - it's a natural law since God created (or the big bang created.. )

human beings and animals. And insects. And plants. Outside of that natural law that has existed since the beginning of

the male/female existence... is an anomaly. A relatively tiny minute bunch of occurences that are outside the norm,

outside of -general- natural law. Albino's exist. But are they the norm? No.

 

For instance, genetic defects, like the claw hand. Saw on tv just a few days ago, about the very sad, and rare occurence

of people with claws, two main digits, instead of five. I actually saw that at a county circus one year when I was kid. Spooky.

Very not normal. A liberal would think to make the gov force glove manufacturers to make an equal amount of gloves

for those unfornate folks, and for stores to provide them in equal amounts in some kind of "civil rights of gloves" thing.

 

That's obviously really dumb. That's too big of a gov.

 

Anyways, back to marriage - our society already concurs with most all societies on earth - we have male/female human beings,

and that is a marriage pair. It's universally fundamental in nature.

 

Gays occur, who knows, a genetic anomaly, or a psychological disorder... but a society that lets a small percentage of anomalies

distort the basic institutions of it's healthy existence would be damaged beyond recognition.

 

Liberals always seem to fancy turning everything upside down and inside out at every turn.

 

It takes far bigger gov to enforce critical mandated changes to society. It took a lot of gov to mandate

civil rights for blacks. But color of skin is no anomaly - it's completely the same except color - like

a black rose, or red or pink rose,,, they are still roses. With all the rights and any other rose... oh.. never mind. GGG

 

Freedom is a societal institution. The desire to be free is innate in human beings since the beginning of time.

More and more gov instrusion is less and less freedom. Freedom unregulated is freedom denied when freedoms

conflict. You only need gov to keep order and security for a society and it's institutions.

 

Liberals always seem to want to turn over the apple cart with freedoms that interfere with other's freedoms.

 

Like, freedom to murder unborn and born children denies the right of the children to live.

 

Freedom to make all drugs legal denies the right of the rest of society to be safe and healthy.

 

Freedom from having to work for a living, freedom to have everything handed to you moneywise, housewise, etc...

denies the rest of society to have their own freedom to live with the money that they earned.

 

Why should the gov have the right to mandate that others who have, should give it up for others who don't?

 

Lennon's stupid song "Imagine" has apparently created pot smokie smokie dimwits who really think that

we should not have private borders of countries, and no countries, and no God and no hell and no this and no that..

 

I say, baloney, and so do most countries on earth, most societies. But, thinking it lets liberals feel super elite.

Very, very, super duper very special. It's JUST A FREAKIN STUPID SONG, but somewhere in the deep dark recesses

of liberals minds, they dote on it actually being a utopian goal.

 

But, societies have institutions and they protect them to whatever degree, to survive as a society.

 

Which brings me to marijuana. It has THC. Alcohol does not. Alcohol goes completely away, although it's abuse

can cause eventual permanent damage to organs. And lives.

 

But the manner that THC is metabolized is bad. It breaks down and stays in the body in different forms.

That's all I remember, no, I don't remember what THC stands for, but it's something long.

 

So, it's the difference in metabolism, and it's affects, that effect the disputed? studies that show

that smoking it can lead to more and more tolerance and the addictive need to go to harder drugs that

do the same.

 

It's a freakin good thing I type fast as all get out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

"You can't have somebody that's really as irrational and perceives himself as Winston Churchill or the equivalent of Margaret Thatcher or Charles de Gaulle." - John Sununu

 

"Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive." - George Will

 

"He is not a reliable and trustworthy conservative because he is not a reliable and trustworthy leader." - Jim Talent

 

"Newt Gingrich had a leadership style that can only be described as leadership by chaos. ...It would be very difficult for me to support Newt Gingrich for president." - Susan Molinari

 

"Over a political career of nearly 40 years, Gingrich has convinced almost everybody who has ever worked closely with him that he cannot and should not be trusted with executive power." - David Frum

 

 

...Steve, thoughts? Give you pause? I'll give you one more quote, because it made me think of you:

 

“Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall." - Ann Coulter

 

 

Isn't that what you really want to see? Newt stick it to smarty-pants Obama and everyone else who thinks he's so smart?

[Pumpkin Eater]

This sucks. I was hoping that republicans would actually nominate someone worthy to be president. With Gingrich winning in SC and now leading in Florida, it looks like he's going to be their nomination. I just won't vote this election, there's going to be no one worthy of my vote.

[MLD Woody]

I just won't vote this election, there's going to be no one worthy of my vote.

 

Just vote Colbert