The truth about Newt Gingrich [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Bubblehead1980

01-22-12, 05:14 PM

I am in Florida until this evening visiting family, just saw a Romney superpac add against Gingrich telling lies.So lets correct the record on Gingrich:

84 ALLEGED ethics violations were filed against Gingrich(all by Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi) 83 were dropped and one was upheld, Newt Paid 300k fine for alleged misleading statements.Well as a law student, I can attest that people unintentionally perjure themselves at times by being uninformed or not remembering things exactly as they once did, thus why prosecutions for perjury are rare.Basically, Democrats had enough to convict him of violating house rules(which is not much), so they slammed him, who was a successful speaker of the house at the time.The IRS investigated the alleged tax violations, guess what? the IRS cleared him.The Republicans who vored against him, well he made enemies, esp after some seats were lost due to voter backlash over the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Newt's private life, well that is his business.So what if he had an affair? Humans have a right to be happy, obviously he was not happy with his first two wives, so he found another who he is apparently happy with.People get self righteous and say I would never blah blah, most of those are guys who could not do any better anyway. Newt was a hypocrite then to rail against Clinton for infidelity, but that was years ago and he was humbled by his loss of his position as speaker, reputation etc. Gingrich has made the point himself saying his perspective is different now, he's a grandfather, he's older etc, it makes sense.Honestly, who here has not made a mistake? Learned from it and moved on?

Choice boils down to this.An empty suit who is basically a liberal like Romney, who does not have the fighting spirit needed to defeat obama or someone who has demonstrated he can't be knocked out, who will absolutely own Obama in the debates.Sure, Newt will prob trail obama in the polls for a while, but once summer gas prices come in, he will call out obama on the keystone pipeline decision, he will point out his many, many failures and then demonstrate just what an empty suit obama really is.

Remember, the media said Reagan could not win and he did.They say the same about Newt, they have said he was dead twice already, well he is proving them wrong.

Don't agree on the facts? look it up.

mookiemookie

01-22-12, 05:32 PM

Another Gingrich thread??!!!??!

http://i.imgur.com/1hheK.gif

This is now an animated gif thread.

mookiemookie

01-22-12, 05:33 PM

http://i.imgur.com/QjKEf.gif

Tribesman

01-22-12, 05:35 PM

Keep 'em coming Bubbles:rotfl2:

Bubblehead1980

01-22-12, 05:44 PM

Keep 'em coming Bubbles:rotfl2:

I will tribes, have to keep jobbernowls such as you informed of the truth. :arrgh!:

Tribesman

01-22-12, 05:48 PM

Are you aiming for Glenn Becks job on the "truth"?
Did you get a chalkboard of conspiracy from santa

Please keep it up, you are priceless

mookiemookie

01-22-12, 06:02 PM

http://i.imgur.com/8NeiR.gif

Bubblehead1980

01-22-12, 06:03 PM

Are you aiming for Glenn Becks job on the "truth"?
Did you get a chalkboard of conspiracy from santa

Please keep it up, you are priceless

Look forward to the day you can discuss and not try to insult, oh wait that will probably never come. Hmm no, not a fan of Beck and never been one on conspiracy. When you enemies control the investigation, you can not be shocked at the outcome, especially when Pelosi is involved.That is not conspiracy speak, that is just how it goes.

Takeda Shingen

01-22-12, 06:05 PM

Newt's private life, well that is his business.So what if he had an affair? Humans have a right to be happy, obviously he was not happy with his first two wives, so he found another who he is apparently happy with.People get self righteous and say I would never blah blah, most of those are guys who could not do any better anyway. Newt was a hypocrite then to rail against Clinton for infidelity, but that was years ago and he was humbled by his loss of his position as speaker, reputation etc. Gingrich has made the point himself saying his perspective is different now, he's a grandfather, he's older etc, it makes sense.Honestly, who here has not made a mistake? Learned from it and moved on?

You're always saying that they've learned their lesson. After the 2008 election cycle, you said that the Republicans had learned their lesson. They were done with NeoConservatism. Gingrich is one of the leaders of the modern NeoConservative movement--an individual labeled a 'RINO' by many hardcore R's. 'New' Newt is just as spendy and hawkish as 'old' Newt; a throwback to 1994 and the policies that helped shape this financial meltdown. Clearly, Team R has not learned it's lessons, and Gingrich hasn't either. I'm not falling for it this time.

Reverting to old policy is not change. And adherence to the failed doctrine of 90's-style NeoConservatism does not offer me an improvement over Obama. I already have failure, either show me something new or don't get my vote.

CaptainHaplo

01-22-12, 06:06 PM

Face it Bubblehead - there are those who can't fathom anyone not supporting the Great Leader, eh no the Great Dunbo, no... oh yes the Great Golf Player - yea that is it. Anyone who wants to "cut government" has to be a radical. Anyone who suggests the poor should get a job instead of food stamps has to be a racist. Anyone who could take the "smartest man ever" and whip him in a debate must be a threat to the country - and thus must be stopped.

Facts are not things the left likes. Its also not something the "moderate" (read rino) team R folks like either.

Thankfully - as the people in SC just showed, including the Independants (who are the ones that really matter) that they prefer Gingrich over Romney. According to the NY Times - 33% went for Newt, while both Paul and Romney got ~ 25% each. It shows that even the Independants would prefer a Newt run than they would Mitt.

Course - the left FEARS Newt - absolutely NO ONE can make a case that Obama could beat Newt in a debate of ideas. No one can make the case that Obama can run on his record...

So what else do they have but personal attacks? Of course, we have seen that the politics of personal destruction are beginning to backfire. How long before the left learns that lesson?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/us/politics/exit-poll-tells-story-behind-gingrich-win.html

Independents divided their support among Mr. Gingrich, who received about 3 in 10 of their votes, and Ron Paul and Mr. Romney, who each got about a quarter of their votes.

*Edited to include link and data

CaptainHaplo

01-22-12, 06:13 PM

Reverting to old policy is not change. And adherence to the failed doctrine of 90's-style NeoConservatism does not offer me an improvement over Obama. I already have failure, either show me something new or don't get my vote.

1990's Newt had to work with a center left president - and other than the .com bust (which neither congress nore the president were responsible for), the economy was not bad.

Reverting to 1980's Reaganism, proven to be effective, is however a vast improvement over the current situation.

Tribesman

01-22-12, 06:14 PM

Look forward to the day you can discuss and not try to insult
Bubbles , you do not discuss, you have a mind that is so closed and naive it is almost beyond belief.

But hey I am willing, try this for size.
In relation to your statement......
Well as a law student, I can attest ......
as a law student at a school where none of the teachers know anything about law, all the books on law are wrong and 99.999999999999999999999999% of the students are brainless inarticulate idiots who cannot even string a coherent sentence together doesn't that mean you yourself have totally disqualified any view you hold as "a law student"?

Hmm no, not a fan of Beck and never been one on conspiracy.
Oh bubbles , that is so sad, don't you even remember any of the nonense you have written

Takeda Shingen

01-22-12, 06:21 PM

1990's Newt had to work with a center left president - and other than the .com bust (which neither congress nore the president were responsible for), the economy was not bad.

Reverting to 1980's Reaganism, proven to be effective, is however a vast improvement over the current situation.

Reaganism is the problem. The man started us on this suicidal path of deficit spending, free trade and belligerence in foreign policy. The 1980's are when the Republican party started to lose it's way, and the Cult of Reagan has been just as destructive to our nation as the radical left. Death by gunshot and death by drowning both result in the same thing. Don't try to tell me that one is better than the other.

mookiemookie

01-22-12, 06:23 PM

Course - the left FEARS Newt

Oh here's this idea again. :roll: People criticize Newt Gingrich because they FEAR him. Wasn't that what they said about Palin, too? They make fun of her because they FEAR her.

Maybe people criticize him because he's a hypocrite? No? Well, whatever makes you feel good, I guess.

Tribesman

01-22-12, 06:23 PM

Face it Bubblehead - there are those who can't fathom anyone not supporting the Great Leader
There are those on both extremes who cannot fathom much at all.

Facts are not things the left likes. Its also not something the "moderate" (read rino) team R folks like either.

Facts are not something extremists like, need I remind you that you got some facts very wrong today in your political contributions?

Course - the left FEARS Newt - absolutely NO ONE can make a case that Obama could beat Newt in a debate of ideas. No one can make the case that Obama can run on his record...

CAPS LOCK strikes again
Hold on, your recent arguement was that "the left" feared the black man, are you simply making up rubbish as you go along?

Blood_splat

01-22-12, 06:29 PM

People still believe in our bought and paid for Democracy.:haha:

Sailor Steve

01-22-12, 06:35 PM

And once again the extremists who claim they represent the center go to extremes to justify their guy over the other guy. You don't get it. It's obvious that you don't really care about anything other than getting one of your own into office. The only ones you seem to be fooling are yourselves.

Tribesman

01-22-12, 06:47 PM

Steve, on a local perspective as you are pretty much central station, what have been the recent local takes on a LDS polling well in a primary in an area dominated by evangelicals?

CaptainHaplo

01-22-12, 07:10 PM

Reaganism is the problem. The man started us on this suicidal path of deficit spending, free trade and belligerence in foreign policy. The 1980's are when the Republican party started to lose it's way, and the Cult of Reagan has been just as destructive to our nation as the radical left. Death by gunshot and death by drowning both result in the same thing. Don't try to tell me that one is better than the other.

OK... I have to warn you...

"THEM THERE ARE FIGHIN WORDS!" :rotfl2:

I would disagree with you on a number of points. First, suicidal path of deficit spending. This country has had debt since at least 1791, and it had grown every year. However, the question is by how much (measured against GDP). If you look at the treasury reports and compare them, Reaganism had the lowest GDP / debt spending since the 1950's, and is MUCH lower than it is today. Curbing government spending is healthy for an economy - especially when its deficit spending. If you look at GDP in relation to debt spending, the idea that "Reaganism" is worse than "Obamaism" is clearly not factually based.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Free Trade - I agree - this needs to be more "Fair Trade", but the reality is that the US began moving to Free Trade right after WW2, well before Reagan. To label it "Reaganism" is inaccurate from a historical overview.

Aggressive Foreign Policy - OK yes he did act outside our borders repeatedly, but not in ways that are comparable to the neocon idiocy that was created by Bush 1 and everone after. Reagan struck Hard, Fast and Decisively. He didn't stick around for "nation building" that would suck up our national treasure. He was in and out of Grenada in less than a year, knocking back the communist rebellion and causing the country to return to its legitimate constitution. Libya? No real deployments of ground troops. The Reagan Doctrine didn't cause protracted wars. It was effective without being provocative. The later presidents never learned how to implement it!

A return to true conservatism - as demonstrated by Reagan, and fleeing from the neocon crap that the Bushes and folks like McCain (and Romney) promote is where we need to be. Newt is one who can do it - and will.

*edit for correction of link

Sailor Steve

01-22-12, 07:20 PM

Steve, on a local perspective as you are pretty much central station, what have been the recent local takes on a LDS polling well in a primary in an area dominated by evangelicals?
To be honest, I haven't really been paying attention. I've sort of fallen into 'Who mode'. You know, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." For all the talk, I don't see any of these guys wanting to help anyone but themselves.

Also, I live in the middle of Romneyland, so the majority here are happy about it. I'll admit I'm shallow. I don't like Romney because he created so much hype over the Olympics here, and I was one of the few who had a bad experience. It probably had nothing to do with him, but as I said, I'm shallow.

Takeda Shingen

01-22-12, 07:24 PM

Nuts. You're going to make me multi-quote. I hate multi-quoting. It's not that I don't like the look of the format, only that I am a lazy, lazy man.

OK... I have to warn you...

"THEM THERE ARE FIGHIN WORDS!" :rotfl2:

I would disagree with you on a number of points. First, suicidal path of deficit spending. This country has had debt since at least 1791, and it had grown every year. However, the question is by how much (measured against GDP). If you look at the treasury reports and compare them, Reaganism had the lowest GDP / debt spending since the 1950's, and is MUCH lower than it is today. Curbing government spending is healthy for an economy - especially when its deficit spending. If you look at GDP in relation to debt spending, the idea that "Reaganism" is worse than "Obamaism" is clearly not factually based.

No spin from me. Just graph. Find when the spending starts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Budget_Deficit_1971_to_2001.png

Free Trade - I agree - this needs to be more "Fair Trade", but the reality is that the US began moving to Free Trade right after WW2, well before Reagan. To label it "Reaganism" is inaccurate from a historical overview.

Who negotiated NAFTA? Was is Nixon? Truman? Ford? Nope. Negotiations began in 1986. It was completed under Bush '41 and signed by Clinton. They're hands are dirty too. But it was started by Reagan. American manufacturing was never the same.

Aggressive Foreign Policy - OK yes he did act outside our borders repeatedly, but not in ways that are comparable to the neocon idiocy that was created by Bush 1 and everone after. Reagan struck Hard, Fast and Decisively. He didn't stick around for "nation building" that would suck up our national treasure. He was in and out of Grenada in less than a year, knocking back the communist rebellion and causing the country to return to its legitimate constitution. Libya? No real deployments of ground troops. The Reagan Doctrine didn't cause protracted wars. It was effective without being provocative. The later presidents never learned how to implement it!

Are you kidding me? He set the mold! It was all 'let's go in here' and 'let's go in there'. Every president, R or D, that has followed has continued that tradition. Nation building or not, it exacerbated our 'role' as world police. Under Reagan, we started fighting fights that didn't need to be fought.

A return to true conservatism - as demonstrated by Reagan, and fleeing from the neocon crap that the Bushes and folks like McCain (and Romney) promote is where we need to be. Newt is one who can do it - and will.

I agree that we need a return to true conservatism. Unfortunately, Reagan does not represent true conservatism. Everything about the prosperity of this era was an illusion. He set the tone for the out-of-control spending that has plagued us. I personally like the quote from Senator Benson in saying that if he had hot checks for $200 billion, he could give the impression of prosperity as well. Sure, the growth was there, but it wasn't sustainable. It wasn't responsible. Hell, even the tax cuts were an illusion. Sure, Reagan cut income tax rates, but he compensated for it by raising the payroll tax. He gave with one hand and took with the other. And so, what we see is not conservatism, but a repackaged NeoConservatism that has been, through no small effort of many, many supporters, touted as the conservative path to fiscal responsibility. And that's just crazy.

CaptainHaplo

01-22-12, 08:02 PM

No spin from me. Just graph. Find when the spending starts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Budget_Deficit_1971_to_2001.png

Mind sourcing that? I don't know how to paste pictures, so I can't post the graph - but here are a few for you.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.php

The graph you show does not reference GDP. The ratio of debt to GDP went DOWN under Reagan. See the link. The GDP to debt ratio was higher under Carter and under Bush (and later presidents) than it was under Reagan. Even Clinton had a higher one because the debt was so much higher because of Bush.

Who negotiated NAFTA? Was is Nixon? Truman? Ford? Nope. Negotiations began in 1986. It was completed under Bush '41 and signed by Clinton. They're hands are dirty too. But it was started by Reagan. American manufacturing was never the same.

Again - I didn't say Reagan didn't support free trade - I merely pointed out that Free Trade predates Reaganism.

Are you kidding me? He set the mold! It was all 'let's go in here' and 'let's go in there'. Every president, R or D, that has followed has continued that tradition. Nation building or not, it exacerbated our 'role' as world police. Under Reagan, we started fighting fights that didn't need to be fought. [/quote

Actually - if you look at Clinton - and I know I will make heads spin here - Clinton was the only one who followed the Reagan model when it came to "intervention". He almost didn't when you look at Bosnia, but he never got us embroiled in something we couldn't just walk away from. There is a difference between striking and then walking away because the goal has
been met compared to striking, camping and helping to "rebuild".

Your right, he set a mold. Its not HIS fault that the Neocon administrations - aka both Bush presidents - have failed utterly to follow it.

[quote]I agree that we need a return to true conservatism. Unfortunately, Reagan does not represent true conservatism. Everything about the prosperity of this era was an illusion. He set the tone for the out-of-control spending that has plagued us. I personally like the quote from Senator Benson in saying that if he had hot checks for $200 billion, he could give the impression of prosperity as well. Sure, the growth was there, but it wasn't sustainable. It wasn't responsible. Hell, even the tax cuts were an illusion. Sure, Reagan cut income tax rates, but he compensated for it by raising the payroll tax. He gave with one hand and took with the other. And so, what we see is not conservatism, but a repackaged NeoConservatism that has been, through no small effort of many, many supporters, touted as the conservative path to fiscal responsibility. And that's just crazy.

Again, here we differ. Yes, there were tax cuts and tax increases. Reagan was not perfect. The increase in payroll taxes helped to fund social programs for the non-working. COMPASSIONATE Conservatism or so its called. I don't agree with it. But the reality is that not one president - or candidate really - that team R has had until now has been a true Reagan conservative.

mookiemookie

01-22-12, 08:27 PM

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees. On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000.

In 1980, the U.S. national deficit was $2.78 trillion. In 1989 it was $5.48 trillion.

So much for the good ol' conservative values of small government and deficit reduction. :doh: I guess we'll just ignore all that when facts differ from our rosy mental image of Saint Ronnie.

antikristuseke

01-22-12, 09:49 PM

Anyone who wants to "cut government" has to be a radical.

Republicans are not for small government, never have been
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBavo8IIVCM

mookiemookie

01-22-12, 10:54 PM

Reagan during the 1982 State of the Union speech: "The budget plan I submit to you on Feb. 8 will realize major savings by dismantling the Department of Education." The Department of Education still exists today.

Also in 1982, he promised to dismantle the Department of Energy. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42265#axzz1kFYOJS2h) The Department of Energy still exists today.

In addition to NOT cutting the size of government, he expanded it. Reagan elevated the VA into a cabinet level position in 1988.

Anyone that tries to conjure the shade of ol' patron Saint Ronnie in talking about smaller government is a fool.

Blood_splat

01-23-12, 12:16 AM

He sure let the Bull loose.

kraznyi_oktjabr

01-23-12, 09:28 AM

Tchocky

01-23-12, 09:28 AM

Expect a strong effort by Republican campaign committees and high-level consultants to ensure that Romney is the nominee. Nominating Gingrich would be a gift to the Obama team.

Ahh, the invasion of Grenada. Never was so much owed by so, er....communism...domino theory....medical students... to so few.

August

01-23-12, 10:08 AM

The Department of Education still exists today.....
The Department of Energy still exists today.

And who controlled the Congress during those years? A president can make all the speeches and promises he wants but if he doesn't control Congress he isn't dismantling anything.

Rilder

01-23-12, 10:54 AM

Newt's private life, well that is his business.So what if he had an affair? Humans have a right to be happy, obviously he was not happy with his first two wives, so he found another who he is apparently happy with.

Alright, we can give him a pass on that as long as he supports Gay marriage rights as well as Polygamous and Polyamorous marriages (hey he wanted one!).

Hey, as you said: humans have a right to be happy.

He's still a douchebag, like every other politician.

MothBalls

01-23-12, 01:54 PM

So lets correct the record on Gingrich:

Neal should start charging for paid political announcements. Fair is fair, use his board to promote your candidate, you should have to pay for the commercial.

Oh here's this idea again. :roll: People criticize Newt Gingrich because they FEAR him. Wasn't that what they said about Palin, too? They make fun of her because they FEAR her.

The only thing I feared about Palin was the thought of McCain kicking the bucket and her actually becoming president. I would be embarrassed for America if we showed the world that we think this woman is presidential material. It's not even funny, Matt Damon summed it up perfectly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk), it's like a bad Disney movie, soccer mom turns president.

To be honest, I haven't really been paying attention. I've sort of fallen into 'Who mode'. You know, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." For all the talk, I don't see any of these guys wanting to help anyone but themselves.

What party is this and where can I sign up?

I think the reality of it is; no president knows the true reality of our situation until after he's sworn in. Then he's given the book of secrets, told all the truths that nobody knows, told where we are really heading, and the only way to survive is become a figurehead for the true masters. (Probably the owners of the Federal Reserve, since nobody knows who they really are).

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe~

August

01-23-12, 02:40 PM

Neal should start charging for paid political announcements. Fair is fair, use his board to promote your candidate, you should have to pay for the commercial.

Be careful what you wish for. If I were Neal i'd charge you for using Matt Damon to make a political point...

vienna

01-23-12, 03:23 PM

As a BTW, this site is pretty good at separating the wheat from the chaff:

http://www.politifact.com/

Bubblehead1980

01-23-12, 03:52 PM

Bubbles , you do not discuss, you have a mind that is so closed and naive it is almost beyond belief.

But hey I am willing, try this for size.
In relation to your statement......
Well as a law student, I can attest ......
as a law student at a school where none of the teachers know anything about law, all the books on law are wrong and 99.999999999999999999999999% of the students are brainless inarticulate idiots who cannot even string a coherent sentence together doesn't that mean you yourself have totally disqualified any view you hold as "a law student"?

Oh bubbles , that is so sad, don't you even remember any of the nonense you have written

Again, tell me why I am wrong, do not try to insult me, somewhere it along the line things got personal for you.I am not close minded, offer something valid instead insulting me in an attempt to mask your inability to counter what I say with sarcasm and your poor attempt at humor.Really, it never fails, you exaggerate about past comments I made concerning professors and texts providing inaccurate information etc.They are not always wrong but it is a well known fact that majority of academia is liberal and fail to remain objective in lieu of perpetuating the left wing perspective.I encountered this most often in undergrad, such as in history courses.Law School, well I have had a few radicals thus far but most are fair.

Tribes, I remember making statements supporting Beck but I am not a fan.However, at times he makes valid points and has done a service to the country.Beck lead to Van Jones(dangerous guy) resignation from the Obama Admin as well as Mao loving Anita Dunn.I despise Ed Schultz and Keith Olberman, but at times they are correct and I agree(ever defended them before against some right wing friends), definitely does not make me a fan.

AVGWarhawk

01-23-12, 03:58 PM

I watched American Idol during the last debates.

I'm with Steve...."Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." Nothing changes in DC except the last name of the person residing at PA Ave. Nothing gets done. Spend. Travel the world. Play golf. Cut wood on your ranch. Ride ponies on your ranch. Get a little something in the Oval Office. Quit. Get a book deal. Retire denying anything of any significance occurred during your term. Go to a new library dedicated to you. Cut the ribbon. Next TV appearance for you will be in a casket. Life moves on.

Bubblehead1980

01-23-12, 04:06 PM

There is no universal "truth" in world. Everyone on this mud ball we proudly call Earth (among other names) has their invidual point of view. There will always be someone who disagrees with "truth" someone else attempts to shovel down their throats.

What Bubblehead1980 have posted in this thread is not an "truth" its merely his opinion.

That kind of relativism is crap, but does not surprise me considering you are in Europe.Sure, there is a gray area often but there is a truth out there.For example, Keynesian Economics does not work, never has and never will yet there are people who defy that truth and still advocate that garbage .Fact aka the truth, Gingrich was later cleared by the IRS and was basically forced out by a Democratic lead witch hunt.Opinion? no, we are are far enough removed from those years and the info is out there, just do some reading and consider the times to put things in context.

Bubblehead1980

01-23-12, 04:07 PM

CCIP

01-23-12, 04:15 PM

That kind of relativism is crap, but does not surprise me considering you are in Europe.

Ohhhhhh boy :haha:

Fact: your first post was about 1/3 historical figures and past events, 1/3 personal justification/interpretation of said events, and 1/3 conjecture about possible future events based on completely theoretical summer oil prices and your own previous justifications.

1/3 facts and 2/3 conjecture does not make for "truth".

Takeda Shingen

01-23-12, 04:22 PM

Wow, this one went downhill pretty fast. I was going to reply to Halpo now that I am home from work, but I don't want to get in the way of Bubblehead trashing kraznyi for being European and placing all of America's problems at the feet of AVG (who, by the way, is absolutely correct). And to think that I was about to compliment you for your improved tone and rhetoric, Bubblehead. Boy would I have looked silly.

Halpo, the graph is just from Wikipedia's 'Reaganomics' (a crappy term, to be honest) page. It was quick and handy. Also, if you want to paste an image, right click, select copy, then right click the forum text box and select paste where you want it. So much easier than it used to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Budget_Deficit_1971_to_2001.png

kraznyi_oktjabr

01-23-12, 04:27 PM

That kind of relativism is crap, but does not surprise me considering you are in Europe.Sure, there is a gray area often but there is a truth out there.For example, Keynesian Economics does not work, never has and never will yet there are people who defy that truth and still advocate that garbage .Fact aka the truth, Gingrich was later cleared by the IRS and was basically forced out by a Democratic lead witch hunt.Opinion? no, we are are far enough removed from those years and the info is out there, just do some reading and consider the times to put things in context.Bubbles, you were first one to come here with really big shovel and bulk carrier. You opted in your original post to just throw to us your version of "truth" without providing references on where you are basing your assesment of "truth". I have been on this forum relatively short time but I have learned this: when somebody comes here telling people about "facts" and what is "truth" in American politics its best to remember to take your own salt mountain with you to that "discussion".

Until you prove to me otherwise I'm going to assume that that bulk carrier is loaded with political brown stuff.

CCIP

01-23-12, 04:27 PM

Wow, this one went downhill pretty fast. I was going to reply to Halpo now that I am home from work, but I don't want to get in the way of Bubblehead trashing kraznyi for being European and placing all of America's problems at the feet of AVG (who, by the way, is absolutely correct). And to think that I was about to compliment you for your improved tone and rhetoric, Bubblehead. Boy would I have looked silly.

I know, I honestly didn't even want to jump in since for a bit it looked like just discussion and nitpicking around definitions of conservatism and the Reagan legacy, but IMO those two posts were just unfounded and rude :down:

There's better ways to disagree than just throwing all possible critiques back at others with something like "you can't handle the truth!" and "it's your own fault for being such a cynic". And they weren't even directed at, you know, Tribesman or something who would've actually been asking for that and even happy to get it.

AVGWarhawk

01-23-12, 04:39 PM

Attitudes like that are how we end up in the situation we are in, people just give up, never understood that.Truth is, as a voter you are never going to get just what you want but you can stay informed and not by such a cynic.

Bubble, I voted in every election since 1984. I'm informed. Guess what...we are in the same boat. Bubble, talk all day about what you want. Feel this and that about this and that. At the end of the day it does not amount to a hill of beans. That is the 'truth'. Nothing changes. It is the same old song and dance. Raise taxes, play the numbers game, pretend you have a handle on the entire world and go play golf. What type of attitude would you like everyone to have? There is no results....ever. Just more nonsense. I have plenty of years dealing with the rubbish to justify my cynicism. It does not happen over night. It comes from disingenuous nonsense on Capital Hill and PA Ave. Oh boy, the people have spoken in the last election. Congress is full of Repubs now. They are going to show you. Just like the Contract with America. Still..nothing is done. Staying informed only grows tiresome. Believing that somehow taxes will be reduced is nothing but a pipe dream. Washington..."Read my lips. No new taxes." We will just raise the old ones. :shifty:

mookiemookie

01-23-12, 04:47 PM

Bubble, I voted in every election since 1984. I'm informed. Guess what...we are in the same boat. Bubble, talk all day about what you want. Feel this and that about this and that. At the end of the day it does not amount to a hill of beans. That is the 'truth'. Nothing changes. It is the same old song and dance. Raise taxes, play the numbers game, pretend you have a handle on the entire world and go play golf. What type of attitude would you like everyone to have? There is no results....ever. Just more nonsense. I have plenty of years dealing with the rubbish to justify my cynicism. It does not happen over night. It comes from disingenuous nonsense on Capital Hill and PA Ave. Oh boy, the people have spoken in the last election. Congress is full of Repubs now. They are going to show you. Just like the Contract with America. Still..nothing is done. Staying informed only grows tiresome. Believing that somehow taxes will be reduced is nothing but a pipe dream. Washington..."Read my lips. No new taxes." We will just raise the old ones. :shifty:

:sign_yeah:

As I get older, I'm realizing more and more that any real change in the political system is just a pipe dream. There's too much money and influence entrenched in Washington, and people will lie, cheat, scheme and spin in order to maintain their hold on power. It doesn't matter what side you're on, they're both as crooked as the other. Nothing's going to change it.

They play their silly marketing games, and people lap it up and regurgitate it back. It's all a marketing and PR spin game to them.

Tribesman

01-23-12, 05:42 PM

Again, tell me why I am wrong, do not try to insult me, somewhere it along the line things got personal for you.
Because you have zero credibility and are unable to distinguish fact from fiction.
You are ranting like a crazed fan of a candidate in exactly the same way as you were ranting like a crazed fan about another candidate in exactly the same way you ranted like a crazed fan about a total fruitloop non candidate, while each time going on about how you knew the truth and how all these conspiracies were going on and no one else knew anything.
If you cannot see why you are not right then you are simply proving beyond question that you do have the closed mind and are naive

Mothballs
Neal should start charging for paid political announcements. Fair is fair, use his board to promote your candidate, you should have to pay for the commercial.

But that does raise a question, who exactly is Bubbles promoting, is it Romney or Obama?

Bubblehead1980

01-23-12, 07:12 PM

Because you have zero credibility and are unable to distinguish fact from fiction.
You are ranting like a crazed fan of a candidate in exactly the same way as you were ranting like a crazed fan about another candidate in exactly the same way you ranted like a crazed fan about a total fruitloop non candidate, while each time going on about how you knew the truth and how all these conspiracies were going on and no one else knew anything.
If you cannot see why you are not right then you are simply proving beyond question that you do have the closed mind and are naive

Mothballs

But that does raise a question, who exactly is Bubbles promoting, is it Romney or Obama?

And you have credibility? LOL you are known for being a troll.I remember when you used to attack other members, now it's me and it is fine because well it is an internet forum and until the day I see you actually say no bubblehead, this is why you are incorrect in lieu of trying to trash me, well you will just be a troll.

CaptainHaplo

01-23-12, 07:20 PM

And you have credibility? LOL you are known for being a troll.I remember when you used to attack other members, now it's me and it is fine because well it is an internet forum and until the day I see you actually say no bubblehead, this is why you are incorrect in lieu of trying to trash me, well you will just be a troll.

Bubblehead - first off stop quoting tribesman. The more you do the more you encourage him to continue. As soon as you go off of "prove your point or prove me wrong" and into "your just a troll" - you lose focus and credibility just like he does.

To the both of you - stop the personal attacks. Takeda and I disagree, but we don't get personal. Looks like its personal for both of ya. Settle it in PM or ignore the other person.... But Subsim is here for discussion, not personal attacks.

Sailor Steve

01-23-12, 07:23 PM

That kind of relativism is crap, but does not surprise me considering you are in Europe.
Wow! Jingoism forever! You try to tell people you are a centrist, but you march in lockstep with the hard right and never even see it. You are also so convinced of your rightness and that of your cause you seem to be incapable of actually discussing anything. You pronounce your "wisdom" and dismiss any disagreement as "crap". It's no wonder you get so little respect here.

Attitudes like that are how we end up in the situation we are in, people just give up, never understood that.
No, we end up in these situations because people would rather have their favorite candidate in power. You are so one-sided all you can do is preach to your own choir, denounce the other guy's and tell everyone you're the only one who's right.

Truth is, as a voter you are never going to get just what you want but you can stay informed and not by such a cynic.
And when you get what you thought you wanted you then get to listen to the other side tell you it's all your fault until they convince the voters to put them back in office so you can start blaming them again.

Better to be a cynic than a "true believer".

Tribesman

01-24-12, 04:41 AM

To the both of you - stop the personal attacks.
what personal attacks?
Looks like its personal
You said the same regarding yourself before didn't you.
The more you do the more you encourage him to continue
Not at all, if someone writes rubbish it gets addressed. Skybird never quotes me but I will always point out when he is making up "truth" about legislation that doesn't exist outside his mind(or when he goes all wahhibi with his fundamentalism or when he is into his mein kampf mode).

And you have credibility? LOL you are known for being a troll.I remember when you used to attack other members, now it's me and it is fine because well it is an internet forum and until the day I see you actually say no bubblehead, this is why you are incorrect in lieu of trying to trash me, well you will just be a troll.
Bubbles that makes no sense and shows you are having problems with your comprehension.
Take it slow....you by your own comments have destroyed your own arguement:yep:
....you by your own comments have destroyed the specific credibilty that you are trying to claim:yep:
....by attempting stupid sweeping generalisations you show you are way out of your depth on the issues:yep:
....morphing your same old conspiracy theories into new settings shows that you have a closed mind:yep:
....your purely partisan crazed fanboy rants about whichever of the candidates is for you this months chosen savior of the world show for you that you are totally naive when it comes to politics:yep:

Type941

01-24-12, 07:55 AM

I just read Wikipedia on WIllard Mitt Romney.

Fun read. He's an accomplished guy, no denying.

To me what's fun is that one of Republican potential nominees is basically a Lloyd Blankfein/Dick Fuld/Jamie Diamon kind of guy, no mistake. Even better, he's smarter PE VC kinda guy. Republicans can do only better if their pick would've been someone like LTCM's John Meriwether or even John Paulson. I mean you can't be more funny. I can't even figure out what republicans like and what they don't like - do they like the idea of capitalism or not? Because Romney is perfect example of capitalism at its maximum. So why is he now called liberal and bad? How's Gingrich who's record arguably is much less distinguished by virtue of being a politician all his life, is any better?...

I don't know, i think republicans should embracy the HUGELY successful Romney to run USA Inc. I think this country could us a little more business sense and a little less politics. Debt is way too much and I think Mitt will actualy KNOW what to do in ballpark terms to get things reasonable (i.e. he'll probably cut the government a lot and eliminate waste, his whole life he's done that and successfully). He's so rich he doesn't need to make money anymore, he'll be after legacy, greatness etc and that may benefit US, perhaps (one can hope). But he is obvioulsy way out of touch in terms of what money's worth to him and to regular people . i say make fun of that, not shy of it. They can't dig much on the guy after all these weeks - what, he has a photo holding dollar bills? Come on. :)

On balance if he makes US profitable I think it's good. I think Dems will actually work with Romney as opposed to NG who they despise.

that's my take on the matters from abroad. Looks like gonna be a fun election to watch...

only downside - a republican in white house = middle east war. :(

the_tyrant

01-24-12, 08:57 AM

only downside - a republican in white house = middle east war. :(

I have to say right here, they just don't do wars like they used to any more

If this guy knows what he is doing, he will understand that wars in the middle east are not profitable

It is too easy to equate the current wars in the middle easy with the classic colonialist and for profit wars of Cortes and the East India Company.

The Aztec empire was conquered on a "shoestring budget", and yet it fueled the Spanish economy for years.

We all know that Net income = Gross profit – Total operating expenses

Afghanistan has a GDP of 11 billion, the US millitary spends 44 billion a year in Afghanistan(not counting other NATO countries, nor does it count the aid the USA gives to Afghanistan.)

sources: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
http://www.google.ca/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:AFG&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+of+afghanistan

if the US wants to make money, waging war in the middle east is not the way to do it, it is just not profitable

CCIP

01-24-12, 01:13 PM

only downside - a republican in white house = middle east war. :(

Not if that republican is Ron Paul!

(as if that would ever happen though :shifty: - but it is worth pointing out that not all republicans and certainly far from all US conservatives are pro-war. Likewise those democrats are far from doves themselves...)

mookiemookie

01-24-12, 01:44 PM

Likewise those democrats are far from doves themselves...)

Indeed. Obama's foreign policy has not been much different than W's. And that is a bad thing.

August

01-24-12, 02:09 PM

We all know that Net income = Gross profit ***8211; Total operating expenses

Afghanistan has a GDP of 11 billion, the US millitary spends 44 billion a year in Afghanistan(not counting other NATO countries, nor does it count the aid the USA gives to Afghanistan.)

if the US wants to make money, waging war in the middle east is not the way to do it, it is just not profitableA false premise. We didn't go to Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter, to make a profit.

Type941

01-24-12, 02:14 PM

US needs to have presence in the region to control it and noone wants it without US paying a lot or by military. simple as that. US can survive just FINE at home but its got so much business interests abroad that it basically needs to be global to protect it, otherwise the Chinese and Russians will start to play.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Geopolitics. I think they nailed very well why US does what it does and I have nothing more to add.

Put it another way - it DOESN'T matter who comes to power in US 2012 elections - country is efficient enough to run by itself. Being a European, US is a country I'd bank on any day compared to the socialism in Europe, Nationalism in Russia and that hybrid of capitalism/theft economy China has going on.

I think US fundamentally has things right, even though its population is poor overall and politicians are just talking heads. Americans deep down seem to have a sort of compass that's pointing correctly. I'm afraid in Europe it's messed up too much lately (well, not in Nordics and Germany but the rest) and Russia is fast sliding to nationalism - Let's hope Putin holds them back (I kid you not, he's way more liberal than views of average russians are).

tater

02-01-12, 02:18 PM

Newt's speech on losing Fl was the best of the night. When he's good, he's good. The end though... quoting the Declaration is fine, but unlike the founders, he's not really pledging his life, sorry. Had they lost, they'd have been executed for treason. I'd call out that kind of hyperbole in Obama or Romney, too.

Tribesman

02-01-12, 04:24 PM

When he's good, he's good
I thought he was pathetic in his speech and at times bordering on totally deranged.

I must ask though, if the "liberal elite" can make the party faithful vote against him what will happen to his nonsense in a national vote with all sorts of people?

Takeda Shingen

02-01-12, 04:25 PM

I hereby swear my vote to Mitt Romney so long as he pledges to never, ever sing again.

Stealhead

02-01-12, 04:42 PM

"O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!"

Thank you so much The Villages.
(it really is called The Villages and it is full of retied people it is down the road from Ocala)

vienna

02-01-12, 04:50 PM

Gingrich's pledge reminds me of his previously failed "Contract On..." er, ah, excuse me, "Contract With America"... :D

tater

02-01-12, 05:31 PM

I thought he was pathetic in his speech and at times bordering on totally deranged.

I must ask though, if the "liberal elite" can make the party faithful vote against him what will happen to his nonsense in a national vote with all sorts of people?

"Best of the night" is a pretty low bar, the others were pretty weak. He said to his supporters what needed to be said, and spoke pretty well. That's what "good" is. Not "great," but as I said, good. I don't think he's right about having a chance, mind you, but he has to say that if he's continuing.

He can speak well about total nonsense some of the time, which is his problem.

Regarding the media, that's for the kind of search we can't do, but will likely be done at some point. I don;t doubt that negative coverage on him is high, but on the other hand, Newt makes it so very easy for them to do.

His real problem is how he polls in states that matter for the real election vs Mitt.

Takeda Shingen

02-01-12, 05:42 PM

I must ask though, if the "liberal elite" can make the party faithful vote against him what will happen to his nonsense in a national vote with all sorts of people?

The GOP always falls back on this sort of complaint against the elites and the media. Gingrich lost because this is not South Carolina. Florida is a more diverse state in terms of the electorate, and Gingrich polls poorly among just about everyone except for the NeoConservative right.

I think that it's pretty much a done deal for Romney now. Santorum is going to go and be with his daughter, as he should. Ron Paul, who would get my vote, never really got any traction at all. Gingrich will hang around to try and steal some votes, but it is more to be a thorn in Romney's side than anything else. It's just the kind of guy he is.

Tribesman

02-01-12, 05:43 PM

"Best of the night" is a pretty low bar, the others were pretty weak
They are all very weak, but gingritch was making as much sense with his rambling nonsense as Ron Paul does when he goes off on one.
Actually that is wrong, when Ron Paul goes off on one he occasionaly says some good things.

Tribesman

02-01-12, 05:50 PM

The GOP always falls back on this sort of complaint against the elites and the media.
I know , but with his background its incredibly unbelievable, besides which the media which is taking him apart is the same media which spends all its time complaining about the liberal media.

Gingrich lost because this is not South Carolina.
Romney was the wrong religion for SC.

I think that it's pretty much a done deal for Romney now.
Do you entirely rule out the possibility of a new face?

Takeda Shingen

02-01-12, 05:57 PM

Do you entirely rule out the possibility of a new face?

Well, yeah. It's way too late for a new candidate to get into the election now. He'd never catch Romney, and both Team D and Team R bend over backwards to avoid even the idea of a brokered convention. It may result in a much greater representation of the will of the people, but it makes the party look indecisive or fractured and, well, it's just really, really important that the party looks good, right?

Tribesman

02-01-12, 07:14 PM

It may result in a much greater representation of the will of the people, but it makes the party look indecisive or fractured and, well, it's just really, really important that the party looks good, right?

But that is why it may be a possibility still, the party is fractured and indecisive and it already doesn't look good. So far its pretty much been a bunch of candidates who are either complete jokes or simply unelectable due to their divisive backgrounds.

If you think of it like, at the moment there are two monkeys throwing poo at each other by the time convention comes you are going to have two poo covered monkeys who won't scrub up at all and stink to high heaven, a fresh chimp could come in and crap all over the convention roll around in the filth and he will still look cleaner and more appealing than the other two apes.

Sailor Steve

02-01-12, 10:49 PM

Ron Paul, who would get my vote...
Will still get mine. :sunny:

MothBalls

02-02-12, 03:57 PM

I'm going to write in my candidate, George Carlin for President.

vienna

02-02-12, 04:18 PM

Three questions:

One:

Is there a possibility of Gingrich running a 3rd party (Tea Party) campaign?

Two:

Who could the GOP select as a running mate for Romney (Gingrich, perhaps)?

Three:

What the hell happened to Palin? Wasn't she supposed to be the Tea Party's sort of stalking horse? Or, at least, a mover and shaker of the GOP right?

tater

02-02-12, 04:25 PM

Three questions:

One:

Is there a possibility of Gingrich running a 3rd party (Tea Party) campaign?

He could, which would demonstrate his lack of conservative creds, since he has almost no chance of winning as the republican nominee, and zero chance as a third party. Any "real" 3d party from the conservative side guarantees 4 more years of Obama. A vote in that direction is a positive vote for Obama.

Two:

Who could the GOP select as a running mate for Romney (Gingrich, perhaps)?

I think there is too much bad blood for that.

Three:

What the hell happened to Palin? Wasn't she supposed to be the Tea Party's sort of stalking horse? Or, at least, a mover and shaker of the GOP right?

She was never a mover and shaker in the GOP (leadership). She has a vocal following in the electorate, but even though people think she's an idiot, I think she's smart enough to know she's out of her depth (or ability to withstand more literally insane scrutiny (I'm not a Palin fan, but it's clear that the amount of effort the press spent to investigate her was crazy compared to their weak efforts vs Obama (wither his state government records, law firm papers, transcripts?).

mookiemookie

02-02-12, 05:03 PM

Will still get mine. :sunny:

Word is that Romney and Paul are good friends. It'd be interesting to see a Romney/Paul ticket. Kind of a slap in the face to the Neocons too. A moderate conservative and a Paleoconservative together, and probably the GOP's best chance to beat Obama.

Takeda Shingen

02-02-12, 05:05 PM

Word is that Romney and Paul are good friends. It'd be interesting to see a Romney/Paul ticket. Kind of a slap in the face to the Neocons too. A moderate conservative and a Paleoconservative together, and probably the GOP's best chance to beat Obama.

Crap. I might actually vote for that ticket.

vienna

02-02-12, 05:06 PM

mookiemookie

02-02-12, 05:13 PM

Crap. I might actually vote for that ticket.

I'd give some serious thought to it as well.

antikristuseke

02-02-12, 05:18 PM

I'm going to write in my candidate, George Carlin for President.

I thought being dead sort of invalidates one for the presidency.

mookiemookie

02-02-12, 05:25 PM

I thought being dead sort of invalidates one for the presidency.

It's actually the best trait for a president to have. If he's dead, he can't screw anything up more.

August

02-02-12, 05:38 PM

It's actually the best trait for a president to have. If he's dead, he can't screw anything up more.

Although if anyone can screw things up from beyond the grave it would be George Carlin. :DL

tater

02-02-12, 05:41 PM

Thanks, Tater. I just threw out those questions to see if anyone else would have any opinions on those matters...

Agree on answer to Question 1...

On Question 2, stranger things have happened. Go back as far as the JFK/LBJ ticket: neither one was a big fan of the other, but, in order to keep the Dems unified, JFK accepted LBJ to get things done he would have could not have done on his own..

As far as Palin, that question was a bit more tongue in cheek than serious. It's just funny how the GOP leadership and mainstream supporters bent over backwards to justify her being on the GOP ticket and taking grand umbrage at any who questioned her bona fides. Now, she is reduced to being just another talking head on Fox News...

I agree, stranger things have happened. Historically, nominating someone for VP was thought to be a good way to get rid of them (didn't work so well when the person they "got rid of was TR ;) ). Still, I just don't see Newt as wanting the job.

It'd be a helluva thing to see Romney and Paul, where Romney makes a point of saying he'll actually empower Paul to do something useful.