Here's the deal as I see it.
Neither side wants to get behind a candidate that is on cruise-control.
You could say that about John Kerry. You could say that about Mitt Romney.
You definitely can't say that about Newt Gingrich. This explains the debate response bumps he keeps getting.
Tom_Spangler wrote:poopshovel wrote: A man whose mother (Stanley,) goes around the world, desperately seeking the next black, muslim phallus she can fit her various bits around (presumably because her parents named her Stanley,) And whose father is an alcoholic, legless (drunk driving) Muslim, polygamist oil man receives an overwhelming share of the popular vote. This man WORSHIPS the sperm donor who left for greener pastures, so much so that he writes a book in his honor, but refers to the people who raised him as "just your average white people" and insinuates that his grandmother, who RAISED his ass while his mama was traveling the world in search of more sweet muslim lovin', is a racist because some black hawaiians intimidated her. He then skips her funeral, because, you know, he's busy fighting "social injustice." So this guy, who's never had a real job, and has very little political experience, has a fundraiser in the home of Bill Ayers (a 'guy from the neighborhood' who proudly takes credit for bombing the pentagon, but feels he just 'didn't do enough') This guy is squeeky berkeleyin clean and deserving of the nomination, assuming he's a democrat.I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the Republican primary in South Carolina. What, exactly, does Obama and his dad's "black, muslim phallus" have to do with it?
I believe the point was that Obama was unelectable based on baggage. He won though. Therefore baggage doesn't mean a thing.
My point is that there is no difference bewteen whichever Newt Romney gets the nomination, because those two and Obama are the same. Little substantive differences between Bush and Obama just like the little to no substantive differences between Obama and Newt Romney. Apparently the people want more of the same and they will get it. Wall St. banks and Washington insiders will be pleased, the rest of us will continue to get screwed.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: The president's first job is to represent the American people. Newt is a disgusting Human being. So is the majority of the general population in my opinion. Perfect! He might be too smart for the job, though.
"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
ST_ZX2 wrote:poopshovel wrote:Don't care...if I did....mmmmmaybe the 9ers...ST_ZX2 wrote: I'm on board with Poop here...Poop, we'll just have to agree to not talk football for a while.We are both sad, miserable losers in that game. Go...Giants(?)
See? We can all get along.
poopshovel wrote: A man whose mother (Stanley,) goes around the world, desperately seeking the next black, muslim phallus she can fit her various bits around (presumably because her parents named her Stanley,) And whose father is an alcoholic, legless (drunk driving) Muslim, polygamist oil man receives an overwhelming share of the popular vote. This man WORSHIPS the sperm donor who left for greener pastures, so much so that he writes a book in his honor, but refers to the people who raised him as "just your average white people" and insinuates that his grandmother, who RAISED his ass while his mama was traveling the world in search of more sweet muslim lovin', is a racist because some black hawaiians intimidated her. He then skips her funeral, because, you know, he's busy fighting "social injustice." So this guy, who's never had a real job, and has very little political experience, has a fundraiser in the home of Bill Ayers (a 'guy from the neighborhood' who proudly takes credit for bombing the pentagon, but feels he just 'didn't do enough') This guy is squeeky berkeleyin clean and deserving of the nomination, assuming he's a democrat. But Newt? The guy responsible for welfare reform, and the first balanced budget since the late sixties? Whooooo lawd. He got ho trouble. TOTALLY unelectable. If you have half a brain, don't believe this 'Newt is unelectable' garbage. The liberals WANT Romney so they can play their "EVIL rich white guy" class warfare game. Like Chuck D said: Don't believe the hype.
That was possibly one of the most unintelligent and offensive things I have ever read on this forum.
Good read - http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/21/newt-gingrich-wins-what-it-means/
WilberM3 wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: The president's first job is to represent the American people. Newt is a disgusting Human being. So is the majority of the general population in my opinion. Perfect! He might be too smart for the job, though."I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
As WilberM3 has pointed out, it is NOT the job of the president to represent the American people. That's touchy-feely nonsense (though it IS a nice vote-grabbing catch phrase).
His job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, regardless of the people's opinion of it.
DILYSI Dave wrote: Good read - http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/21/newt-gingrich-wins-what-it-means/
That's a good article. Pretty much sums up my perspective.
I'll be looking harder at Mr. Gingrich, though I am no fanboy.
Giving the finger to the Washington establishment is about all I can do.
Obama can't help who his parents were any more than the rest of us can so for me that's a non issue as is his race. Tim Scott down here is a black Republican, I don't agree with him 100% but I like a lot of his stances on issues. Of course the Rev Darby, who writes the occasional column for the Post and Courier, has in a roundabout way accused Scott of being an Uncle Tom and a traitor to his race for daring to not go Democrat.
But Obama hanging out with Bill Ayer (and that is incontrovertible fact)? Yes that was within his power but he did so anyway. That is one of the things that gives me deep concern about him and his policies. Oh, let's not forget his preacher buddy Wright who got dropped like he was on fire when he became a political liability.
His 'typical white person' comment also bugs me. If (insert white candidate here) said 'typical black person' in the same context then out comes the rail, tar and feathers.
OTOH, The O has kept Guantanamo open when he said during the campaigns he would close it and made the call to have OBL taken out. So maybe, just maybe, he has enough sense to listen to at least some of what his advisors say.
Gingrich is as big a crook as any of them. $1.6 million from Fannie Mae for work as a 'historian'? Oh, please. A $300,000.00 ethics violation fine? Ethics reprimand? Well, that came from Congress which is, if you think about it, laughable.
There are allegations that the 'government shutdown' was triggered by his having to ride in the back of the plane coming back from Rabin's funeral. He resigned as Speaker of the House after the 'Republican Revolution'. What's he gonna do, throw a tantrum and resign as President if things don't go exactly his way?
His divorces? Well, as a divorcee myself I can't say much. But his extramarital affairs bug me. That is just not good. Character is one of those things that can't be compartmentalized, i.e. you believe it's OK to screw around but not OK to steal. Hmmm. Wouldn't THAT be great to have in the White House again? Particularly in light of the fact that Gingrich was leading the charge to get rid of Clinton on the basis of the exact same thing he was guilty of but just hadn't been caught at yet. Hypocrite, anyone? He also claims that his infidelity was driven by how hard he was working for the country. (Where is a rolleyes emoticon when it's needed?)
Not to mention his second and third wives had NO problem stealing another woman's husband. Now isn't that nice. He hangs out with some really moral folks, doesn't he? No, I don't like him. As I said, he's just another damn crook.
I guess I will root for the Pats, well more accurately I will root against the Ravens.
I also suppose I will root for the 49ers because they are less irritating than the Giants.
Since I really do not pay much attention to football and do not watch any regular season games and only sorta casually watch the playoffs and superbowl, I don't have much to base those picks on. I know I can't root for a team that employs Ray Lewis, and if it were 15 years ago I would definitely root for the Giants over the niners, but I do not like those chintzy 9/11 themed red white and blue unifiorms the giants have. The niners were boring as snot to watch last week, good defensive line and nothing really special on offense, but they got it done.
T.J. wrote: My point is that there is no difference bewteen whichever Newt Romney gets the nomination, because those two and Obama are the same. Little substantive differences between Bush and Obama just like the little to no substantive differences between Obama and Newt Romney. Apparently the people want more of the same and they will get it. Wall St. banks and Washington insiders will be pleased, the rest of us will continue to get screwed.
yep
In reply to Curmudgeon:
I don't disagree that Gingrich and the entire Republican party at the time had a bug up their butt for Clinton.
However, I don't remember the primary charge being infidelity.
The primary offense was the distrust Clinton earned by violating the oval office then looking in the camera and lying to the entire American people while wagging his finger and saying, "I did not have sex with that woman...". The primary legal charge was perjury and obstruction of justice, for which his license to practice law was suspended and he was impeached by the House.
I am not excusing Gingrich for his infidelity, but I think I'll stop short on the accusations of "hypocrisy". His job was to guide the investigation of whether Clinton should be impeached or not based on his perjury. He did that job.
Clinton was good at responses like, "Yeah, but I never inhaled". At least Obama tried a bit of honesty when asked the same question and said, "Yes I did. It was the 70's. Most everyone did."
Gingrich has a huge amount of baggage. I don't care for him one bit. But his baggage and the baggage of Mr. Clinton which he was charged with responding to were not the same.
poopshovel wrote: This idiot will be voting for him in the primary, and will look forward to him berkeleying slaughtering Obama in the debates.
That would be fun to watch. Gingrich is undoubtedly the most intelligent of the candidates and Obama. But can he work with others? My concern is that if he is elected, nothing will get done because with him it's pretty much my way or no way. What do you think?
Congress is also key. Making sure the people who win are sane and sober thinkers would go along way towards balancing out whomever wins. If it's Obama vs the All Republican congress, you can expect a lot less skirting of the Constitution.
SVreX wrote: In reply to Curmudgeon: I don't disagree that Gingrich and the entire Republican party at the time had a bug up their butt for Clinton. However, I don't remember the primary charge being infidelity. The primary offense was the distrust Clinton earned by violating the oval office then looking in the camera and lying to the entire American people while wagging his finger and saying, "I did not have sex with that woman...". The primary legal charge was perjury and obstruction of justice, for which his license to practice law was suspended and he was impeached by the House. I am not excusing Gingrich for his infidelity, but I think I'll stop short on the accusations of "hypocrisy". His job was to guide the investigation of whether Clinton should be impeached or not based on his perjury. He did that job. Clinton was good at responses like, "Yeah, but I never inhaled". At least Obama tried a bit of honesty when asked the same question and said, "Yes I did. It was the 70's. Most everyone did." Gingrich has a huge amount of baggage. I don't care for him one bit. But his baggage and the baggage of Mr. Clinton which he was charged with responding to were not the same.
Harrumph.
Gingrich was DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING AT THE SAME TIME, i.e having an affair and covering it up. The difference: his infidelity came out LATER, after he left office. That relieved him of facing a possible perjury charge because he never testified under oath while in office as to having an affair. Whoop de frickin' doo. Split them legal hairs.
That is REAL similar to Al Gore's 'no controlling legal authority' answer to a direct question about fundraising improprieties. Maybe Gore was technically correct that there wasn't but that didn't make what he did right. Typical lawyer weaseling.
I don't give Gingrich or Clinton either one a 'get out of jail free' card on this one.
EDIT: I do think Gingrich is probably the smartest of all the candidates, Ron Paul is a close second. He's also the most abrasive which makes him least likely to accomplish anything. Romney isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer but he is less likely to alienate the whole Congress (and possibly the planet) against him.
WilberM3 wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: The president's first job is to represent the American people. Newt is a disgusting Human being. So is the majority of the general population in my opinion. Perfect! He might be too smart for the job, though."I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
We follow the instructions of the founding father via the Constitution to a "T" as well, too!
Obviously, nothing works right anymore, so berkeley it.
Let's get an accurate figurehead in the office and really clear up to the rest of the world what this country is.
I remember when Ginrich was running congress. My only thought, we have to get rid of that guy. Now he wants to be president. Oh My.
and you all questioned my hatred of the upstate.
bravenrace wrote: My concern is that if he is elected, nothing will get done because with him it's pretty much my way or no way. What do you think?
I disagree. It's a popular charge, but the reality is that he has a strong history of taking issues that have broad based support and reaching across the aisle to move the country forward. Even the times when he did get all "my way or the highway", I tend to think he was on the correct side. The biggest being the government shutdown. His own party railroaded him in response, but he was right.
In reply to Curmudgeon:
You harrumphed me! 
I am rooting for the Ravens over the Pats just cause I really don't like the Pats. I think I am going to root for the 49ers for the whole thing though.
T.J. wrote: My point is that there is no difference bewteen whichever Newt Romney gets the nomination, because those two and Obama are the same. Little substantive differences between Bush and Obama just like the little to no substantive differences between Obama and Newt Romney. Apparently the people want more of the same and they will get it. Wall St. banks and Washington insiders will be pleased, the rest of us will continue to get screwed.
This!!!
This thread marked as no value AND inflammatory. And I suggest you all do the same.
You'll need to log in to post.
