The truth about Newt Gingrich

[Bubblehead1980]

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]

Another Gingrich thread??!!!??!




This is now an animated gif thread.

[mookiemookie]

Keep 'em coming Bubbles

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Keep 'em coming Bubbles

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

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]

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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!"

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/r...t/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

[Takeda Shingen]

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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

"THEM THERE ARE FIGHIN WORDS!"

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Oh here's this idea again. 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, , it's like a bad Disney movie, soccer mom turns president.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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