The Real Newt Gingrich
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I think the republican party and most of those "conservatives" would Newt to hell if given a chance ... seeing they have a habit of digging up hasbeens and political idiots to represent the party.
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
Say what you want about Newt.I tink right now he is the best one running.As little as a couple months ago there were folks on here saying how the candidates should be going after Obama and stop going after each other.The only person that seems to be doing that is Newt.As the rest of them go after each other Newt is the only one who seems to want to talk about the ways Obama has faild this country.
Funny how some think that Obama will tear Newt apart on the morality thing.Yep newt has been married a few times.Yes he has cheated on his wifes so whats the point.This is nothing that no one does not already know.Nevr mind the fact that Newt has said more then once he welcomes that conversation.do any of you really belive that a republican voter or an independent voter who votes republican will vote for Obama just because of this.After all it is Obama who thinks gay marriage should be looked at the same as between a man and a woman.Not newt.Who is it that is ok with abortion?Not newt.(you can dispute that with all the news articles you want does not change how he voted.For the 20 years that Gingrich served in Congress (1979-1999), Gingrich supported the pro-life position in 70 out of 71 votes.)Who was it that has admitted to using a little blow now and then when he could afford it?Not newt.Yep thats a conversation I would like to hear also.
You see the thing about Newt is there really are few things that the liberals can truly attack him on.Mosy of the things he did during his tenure a SOH they can not slam him on with out making thier GOD Clinton look bad also.Nafta was befor his time as speaker and the bank deregulation was after he left the house.Take JOBS,in the first 34 months as speaker America created 7.7 million jobs.Since Obama became president the country has seen more people lose their job then ever befor.Him cheating is something I belive that most voters can and will get past.More so when you look at what Obama stands for when it comes to morals.
As far as his stand on IRAN goes I would rather have a guy as president that sees them for the threat they are not just to us but the whole world and what could happen if they get nukes.After all it was IRAN who has called for other countrys to be wiped off the face of the earth.Funny how some people seem to forget that when they say IRAN is no threat.
At least with Newt you get an idea of how he would change things.Not just I would do away with this or that and thats it.Also for better or for worse no matter how you look at it Newt is able to work with the other side something Obama has not seem to been able to do.
Funny how some think that Obama will tear Newt apart on the morality thing.Yep newt has been married a few times.Yes he has cheated on his wifes so whats the point.This is nothing that no one does not already know.Nevr mind the fact that Newt has said more then once he welcomes that conversation.do any of you really belive that a republican voter or an independent voter who votes republican will vote for Obama just because of this.After all it is Obama who thinks gay marriage should be looked at the same as between a man and a woman.Not newt.Who is it that is ok with abortion?Not newt.(you can dispute that with all the news articles you want does not change how he voted.For the 20 years that Gingrich served in Congress (1979-1999), Gingrich supported the pro-life position in 70 out of 71 votes.)Who was it that has admitted to using a little blow now and then when he could afford it?Not newt.Yep thats a conversation I would like to hear also.
You see the thing about Newt is there really are few things that the liberals can truly attack him on.Mosy of the things he did during his tenure a SOH they can not slam him on with out making thier GOD Clinton look bad also.Nafta was befor his time as speaker and the bank deregulation was after he left the house.Take JOBS,in the first 34 months as speaker America created 7.7 million jobs.Since Obama became president the country has seen more people lose their job then ever befor.Him cheating is something I belive that most voters can and will get past.More so when you look at what Obama stands for when it comes to morals.
As far as his stand on IRAN goes I would rather have a guy as president that sees them for the threat they are not just to us but the whole world and what could happen if they get nukes.After all it was IRAN who has called for other countrys to be wiped off the face of the earth.Funny how some people seem to forget that when they say IRAN is no threat.
At least with Newt you get an idea of how he would change things.Not just I would do away with this or that and thats it.Also for better or for worse no matter how you look at it Newt is able to work with the other side something Obama has not seem to been able to do.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I assume you meant:
"..... would follow Newt to hell if given a chance ....."
Yes, I think you are right - hey, if the dimwits don't wish to listen to reasonable voices, and continue further on their little journey to political suicide ..... I say: let them have at it .....
Given the poisonous nature of their political discourse, they cannot be a part of the solution ..... only part of the problem ... if they wish to willingly continue to consign themselves to the dustbin of political history, then so be it ...
Something is afoot politically ..... others will rise to the occasion, and the body politic will survive ....
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Bubbie,
Thanks for sharing your political delusions - stick to it - I guarantee you that you and your ideologically blind brethren are killing your party.
That you have to ask the following question (believing you already know the answer) is quite telling indeed:
"..... do any of you really belive that a republican voter or an independent voter who votes republican will vote for Obama just because of this ...."
My condolences.
Thanks for sharing your political delusions - stick to it - I guarantee you that you and your ideologically blind brethren are killing your party.
That you have to ask the following question (believing you already know the answer) is quite telling indeed:
"..... do any of you really belive that a republican voter or an independent voter who votes republican will vote for Obama just because of this ...."
My condolences.
One thing is clearly evident and has always been so, Ron Pauls supporters are extraordinarily staunch in their love of the Paul philosophies, and just as kookie!!!
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
Originally Posted by RLENT
Whatever the motivation is, the relevant fact that remains is that Newt is unelectable against Obama - completely aside from any question of whether he is competent ..... or even sane, he is an incredibly divisive figure - utterly repugnant to many conservative-leaning Democrats and Independents.
Thats funny right there.As this is how millions of voters in this country on a nantional level view RON PAUL.
Whatever the motivation is, the relevant fact that remains is that Newt is unelectable against Obama - completely aside from any question of whether he is competent ..... or even sane, he is an incredibly divisive figure - utterly repugnant to many conservative-leaning Democrats and Independents.
Thats funny right there.As this is how millions of voters in this country on a nantional level view RON PAUL.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Yeah I forgot the word, follow.
Well I was just proven right from comments made on some conservative blog. My God the dribble about Paul even being on the polls radar have a lot of them scared to death.
Got to tell you, many just don't get the connection - republicans are democrats with a different mascot and a lot of them seems to think Gingrich will lead them to the promise land. If he does by chance get nominated, I think what some of the things I said about congress under his control will be front and center with the dems fighting to keep the O in office and they will make it nasty. I don't think this will happen to Paul or even Romney. BUT IF Paul gets the nod, I think he may have a good chance to beat Obama in a lot of places that are undecided or fed up.
Well I was just proven right from comments made on some conservative blog. My God the dribble about Paul even being on the polls radar have a lot of them scared to death.
Got to tell you, many just don't get the connection - republicans are democrats with a different mascot and a lot of them seems to think Gingrich will lead them to the promise land. If he does by chance get nominated, I think what some of the things I said about congress under his control will be front and center with the dems fighting to keep the O in office and they will make it nasty. I don't think this will happen to Paul or even Romney. BUT IF Paul gets the nod, I think he may have a good chance to beat Obama in a lot of places that are undecided or fed up.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
So were the Founding Fathers apparently ....
One thing is clearly evident and has always been so: Ron Paul's detractors are extraordinarily staunch in their unquestioning acceptance of the 'conventional wisdom' [which is nothing of the sort!] regarding the 'Paul philosophies', and just as misguided.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I was called one of them kooks tonight and had to explain what Paul stood for by asking the same thing everyone should be asking themselves;
Do you want the federal government to shrink?
Do you want the freedom to choose for yourself?
Does it really matter what the couple down the street does?
These are the three things that I have heard for the last 32 years from people who call themselves conservative but have failed to convince people who actually want to see both sides of the issue for themselves as being true. I have yet seen anything that suggests this outside of some tea party members, who by the way seem to be following Paul's exact path of being consistent.
The rather sad thing that many seem to miss is with someone like Gingrich or Romney (and who neither of them have come up with and stuck by a plan to help the country by the by), is that both of them are the conservative type of politician who neither want smaller government, returning our freedoms back to us and do want to control what goes on in people's lives.
Gingrich, as much as people make him out as some sort of great brain, has no integrity to follow through with any idea or plan. I have seen how he has sided with democrats and has been part of the problem too much to know he would be just like Obama, not in form but in function. Romney is another who seems to be inconsistent with his ability to stand firm and fight for things. Too many compromising moves in his political career.
Paul has his failings too, not a perfect candidate by any means. But he is a start and I think much of what he wants to do is what many citizens want to have done.
Do you want the federal government to shrink?
Do you want the freedom to choose for yourself?
Does it really matter what the couple down the street does?
These are the three things that I have heard for the last 32 years from people who call themselves conservative but have failed to convince people who actually want to see both sides of the issue for themselves as being true. I have yet seen anything that suggests this outside of some tea party members, who by the way seem to be following Paul's exact path of being consistent.
The rather sad thing that many seem to miss is with someone like Gingrich or Romney (and who neither of them have come up with and stuck by a plan to help the country by the by), is that both of them are the conservative type of politician who neither want smaller government, returning our freedoms back to us and do want to control what goes on in people's lives.
Gingrich, as much as people make him out as some sort of great brain, has no integrity to follow through with any idea or plan. I have seen how he has sided with democrats and has been part of the problem too much to know he would be just like Obama, not in form but in function. Romney is another who seems to be inconsistent with his ability to stand firm and fight for things. Too many compromising moves in his political career.
Paul has his failings too, not a perfect candidate by any means. But he is a start and I think much of what he wants to do is what many citizens want to have done.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Quite true - on both counts.
Paul is a human being just like the rest of us. He most assuredly has his faults and shortcomings, but my view (and many others apparently) is that the upside is far, far greater than the downside.
With competition like [not concerned with actual facts] Bachmann, [born with a silver spoon stuck up his arse] Romney, ["pray for relief"] Perry, and [more baggage than Paris Hilton] Gingrich, how can Paul lose?
I believe Paul is more likely to make decisions that carefully balance the rights of every citizen and the US as a whole than any candidate running against him. Or any candidate in recent history, for that matter.
We don't expect perfect, we just want leadership that represents we, the people, without putting his or her own self interest first. None of the other candidates strike me as remotely capable of doing that, but I can imagine Paul doing it because he has one thing they don't seem to possess: integrity.
We need that.
Unfortunately, truth in politics doesn't ferment - it has a short shelf life. Newt has some obvious baggage in addition to his considerable accomplishments that have accumulated in his long political career, and it's up to the voters to decide which one outweighs the other. If morality is defined as marital infidelity, the Democrats will have an impossible situation playing that card against Newt if he's the nominee, considering the extent to which they went in giving a pass to Bill Clinton and the reasoning they used to justify it. Come to think of it, it's highly doubtful the Democrats or any other politicians will bring up morality as a serious campaign issue. No matter who the GOP nominee is, they'll run on a conservative economic vision for the country's future and against Obama's miserable record as president. If he's forced to defend his record, he's a dead duck - morality won't even be mentioned.
Ah, the real Newt Gingrich. The real Newt is a master political strategist who sees the entire battlefield at once and calculates vulnerabilities ripe for exploitation. The real Newt led a conservative revolution ending 40 years of Democratic rule in Congress. The real Newt has a record of 4 consecutive balanced budgets, reforming welfare and developing the Contract With America. The real Newt has an unequalled depth and breadth of knowledge on geo-political issues.
In an odd way, Newt can remind us of Winston Churchill. Brilliant, overbearing and sometimes unappreciated by his own people. Whether Newt can withstand the gauntlet of his political enemies, time will tell. Churchill had problems with alcohol. Lincoln is said to have had trouble with depression. Newt has had trouble with marriage. So it goes.
In an odd way, Newt can remind us of Winston Churchill. Brilliant, overbearing and sometimes unappreciated by his own people. Whether Newt can withstand the gauntlet of his political enemies, time will tell. Churchill had problems with alcohol. Lincoln is said to have had trouble with depression. Newt has had trouble with marriage. So it goes.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
ROFLMAO ......
Heheheh ..... if you believe that The Lizard™'s only troubles are with marriage, you musta called Pilot .... and had them dump a full tanker load of industrial strength Neo-Con Kool-aid™ in one of the undergound tanks, and then went around to the back pumps and stuck the nozzle in your mouth and then wired the handle open ....
...... you ain't just guzzlin' ..... you's injectin .....
Winston Churchhill ..... yeah ......
I'm goin' with the 'Hawk on this one: .... Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man all the way ....
Last edited:
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
I dont care how many times paul has voted no on bills that would raise our countrys debt.He still had his EARMARKS in the bills worth hundreds of millions of dollars.Knowing full well the bills would pass and he could take that money back to texas get keep getting votes.Paul has no chance of getting the nod and some of you should accept this now so it is not so hard to take when it is givin to someone else.
You see here is the thing for many people that dont like NEWT there are 20 times that,that dont like paul.Dont belive me?
Since 1997, he has acted as the primary sponsor of 422 bills. Just four of those have ever made it to the floor of the House for a vote with only one of them passing. Paul says abortion law should be settled at the state level, but in Congress in 2005, 2007, 2009 and this year he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define life as beginning at conception.
Think about it.Do any of you really think Paul would END THE FED.I know he has been ranting about it since he first got to washington.Well hate to break it to you but the answer is NO!!If tomorrow we closed the Fed and started using a gold standard, it would be so chaotic nobody would know what to do," he says. "There are interim positions, such as allowing competition in currencies." But, he admits, "People aren't ready for that. It's complicated—it is very complicated." his words not mine.
Do any of you think If he were president he would build a fence or a wall?Nope he sure wont.At least going by what he has recently said about it being used against the american people to keep them from leveing.Or is it he is just flip floping?Do any of you really think he would round up the 30 million plus illeagels here in america and send them home.I dont and you are a fool if you belive he would.
It is funny how some on here talk about us cold blooded republicans that would end welfare.Yet you claim Paul is theman for the job.Makes me wounder if you have ever bothered to see where Paul stands on that.
If paul did some how get the nod he would not stand a chance.Think about this for a minute and I mean really think about this.Here we have our first Black president.With Ron Paul we have the RACIST news letters.Did he or did he not write them.I think we will never know.Way back when they were first brought up he said that they were being taken out of context, he would later change his story and deny he wrote them.You all think cheating on you wife or sexual herassment is bad for a guy running for president.What do you think Racist news letters with under Pauls name.Keep in mind they were written in the first person so for many it wont matter if he wrote them or not he will be seen as a racist that will turn back the clock on civil rights.Not just for Blacks but JEWS AND GAYS ALSO.And for that reason alone he has no,I repeat No chance of beating Obama.But hey maybe Obama and his camp dont know about those letters and if they do maybe they wont use them against Paul.Maybe we wont hear Paul praising his son Rand who just last year said he would not have voted for the civil rights act.And maybe just maybe if we tell Iran we are sorry and ask real nice they will give us our drone back.Nope didnt think so
You see here is the thing for many people that dont like NEWT there are 20 times that,that dont like paul.Dont belive me?
Since 1997, he has acted as the primary sponsor of 422 bills. Just four of those have ever made it to the floor of the House for a vote with only one of them passing. Paul says abortion law should be settled at the state level, but in Congress in 2005, 2007, 2009 and this year he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define life as beginning at conception.
Think about it.Do any of you really think Paul would END THE FED.I know he has been ranting about it since he first got to washington.Well hate to break it to you but the answer is NO!!If tomorrow we closed the Fed and started using a gold standard, it would be so chaotic nobody would know what to do," he says. "There are interim positions, such as allowing competition in currencies." But, he admits, "People aren't ready for that. It's complicated—it is very complicated." his words not mine.
Do any of you think If he were president he would build a fence or a wall?Nope he sure wont.At least going by what he has recently said about it being used against the american people to keep them from leveing.Or is it he is just flip floping?Do any of you really think he would round up the 30 million plus illeagels here in america and send them home.I dont and you are a fool if you belive he would.
It is funny how some on here talk about us cold blooded republicans that would end welfare.Yet you claim Paul is theman for the job.Makes me wounder if you have ever bothered to see where Paul stands on that.
If paul did some how get the nod he would not stand a chance.Think about this for a minute and I mean really think about this.Here we have our first Black president.With Ron Paul we have the RACIST news letters.Did he or did he not write them.I think we will never know.Way back when they were first brought up he said that they were being taken out of context, he would later change his story and deny he wrote them.You all think cheating on you wife or sexual herassment is bad for a guy running for president.What do you think Racist news letters with under Pauls name.Keep in mind they were written in the first person so for many it wont matter if he wrote them or not he will be seen as a racist that will turn back the clock on civil rights.Not just for Blacks but JEWS AND GAYS ALSO.And for that reason alone he has no,I repeat No chance of beating Obama.But hey maybe Obama and his camp dont know about those letters and if they do maybe they wont use them against Paul.Maybe we wont hear Paul praising his son Rand who just last year said he would not have voted for the civil rights act.And maybe just maybe if we tell Iran we are sorry and ask real nice they will give us our drone back.Nope didnt think so
greg334
Veteran Expediter
The funny thing about Gingrich is he is the poster child for the republican party of the past. We don't need someone who is an insider with the facade that he is a great deal maker. He is part of the problem of Washington politics no matter how one wants to make it out otherwise.
Paul, no matter what his problems are with some of the ideas (I don't agree with this Gold standard thing), he seems to be far better than what many consider great conservative ideals because the definition of the very word "conservative" is to conserve, meaning that it would not be a big change in our government but rather just a few things done to appease the more vocal of the republican base.
Paul, no matter what his problems are with some of the ideas (I don't agree with this Gold standard thing), he seems to be far better than what many consider great conservative ideals because the definition of the very word "conservative" is to conserve, meaning that it would not be a big change in our government but rather just a few things done to appease the more vocal of the republican base.
People who whine about earmarks don't understand earmarks. Taking that money "back to Texas" is a very good way to put it, since that money was taken from Texans by the federal government in the first place. Earmarked money is money that has already been allocated and will be spent by someone. The money will be spent by someone. That is an absolute. There is no way around it. And the money earmarked in no way adds to the debt. Rather than let some other congressman in some other state spend the money of his Texas constituents, Ron Paul chooses to take that money back from the government to be spent in Texas. And you have a problem with that? Seriously?