Re-Evaluating Newt..

[JoeB131]

In short, you didn't like Bush took him out... let's get real here. You were probably cheering when Clinton was bombing him in Operation Wag the Dog 2.

In short, bullshit. You're just throwing shit out without any basis for that comment.

Well, since I didn't see ONE democrat actually protest his December attack on Iraq (you know, the one we just had to do the exact same four days the House was holding impeachment proceedings), it stands to reason you weren't all that outraged at the time.

Saddam wasn't every tyrannt. He was one who had attacked four of his neighbors, who sponsored terrorists, who plotted the assassination of a former US president. In short, the cockroach was just asking to be stomped, and we stomped him. Which is a great message to the other cockroaches.

Yes, he was. Tyrants do that shit. He was contained. He was not worth the cost to America. [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Until when? Until some terrorist he sponsored or supported sank a cruise ship or knocked down a skyscraper? Everyone thought Bin Laden was contained when he was in Afghaninstan.

Yes, it was a common false perception, furthered by the Bush administration. So your point is....:?

That it isn't the big crime you say it is. It's like saying, "Well, Jeffrey Dahmner wasn't friends with John Gacy." So what? Seriously.

She accomplished nothing else. Ever. Affirmative Action. Giving success to the useless without hard work since 1970.

Heck, we're in the "Affirmative Action" presidency, and look how well that's working out.

I believe we're into "they're black people, so it must have been affirmative action" territory.

No, we're in to, "They suck at their jobs, but don't you dare say so or I'll call you a racist" territory. Judging by the way liberals treats black folks like Herman Cain and Clarance Thomas, I think we know who the racists are.... You minorities and women can only be successful when we say you can be.

A bunch of dirty-ass hippies who hate America don't count, man.

in an earlier day, such people would have been sent to spend the war in prison, which is what we did to their type in World War 1 and World War 2.

You're completely mistaken, Archie. From start to finish on that one. You mislabel your ideological opponents, and want to attack their 1st Amendment rights, showing yourself to be yet another totalitarian.

Again, there were massive protests. Some of the biggest protest rallies ever. And you know what? Those people were right. The war was a mistake.

[/QUOTE]

The mistake was not carting these traitors off to prison camps until we won or they died of old age. We did that to Socialist Eugene Debs in WWI and Nazi Ernst Kuhn in WWII. If we did that to Jane Fonda and Michael Moore, so much the better.

All it takes to win a war is for some brave men to go out and fight and the rest of us not to whine about. Half of that is too difficult for some of you.

I saw those demonstrations, the ones with the Pro-Palestinian posters and burning American flags. These people aren't my countrymen.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Gee......"conservatives" got tired o' hailing Porky Gingrich?????

 

[Divine Wind]

Gee......"conservatives" got tired o' hailing Porky Gingrich?????​

Only a few. Most know there's no friggin' way he'd be elected. He's a pariah to the religious right due to his infidelities and other ethical lapses. He's an "also ran". Anyone seriously advocating his candidacy over all others is either ignorant of his past or pulling "liberal" chains for a good laugh.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Gee......"conservatives" got tired o' hailing Porky Gingrich?????​

Only a few. Most know there's no friggin' way he'd be elected. He's a pariah to the religious right due to his infidelities and other ethical lapses. He's an "also ran". Anyone seriously advocating his candidacy over all others is either ignorant of his past or pulling "liberal" chains for a good laugh.​

Gee......we can't very-well ignore the needs o'.....

.....The IGNORANT.

(It wouldn't be the Christian-thing-to-do.)


​

 

[Divine Wind]

Gee......we can't very-well ignore the needs o'.....

.....
Kick! Newt Gingrich the Philosopher ClownThe IGNORANT.

http://rackjite.com/graphics/noot.gif

(It wouldn't be the Christian-thing-to-do.)

True that it wouldn't be Christian. It also wouldn't be civil. OTOH, acceding to the ignorant, be they left or right in political person or people who just hate a lot isn't smart.

As you no doubt realize, there are lots of people on this forum who are so caught up in politics emotionally, it affects their personality. They need to step back a bit to gain a better perspective and understand that it will be okay in the end.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Gee......we can't very-well ignore the needs o'.....

.....
Kick! Newt Gingrich the Philosopher ClownThe IGNORANT.

http://rackjite.com/graphics/noot.gif

(It wouldn't be the Christian-thing-to-do.)

True that it wouldn't be Christian. It also wouldn't be civil. OTOH, acceding to the ignorant, be they left or right in political person or people who just hate a lot isn't smart.

As you no doubt realize, there are lots of people on this forum who are so caught up in politics emotionally, it affects their personality. They need to step back a bit to gain a better perspective and understand that it will be okay in the end.

Don't hold-your-breath, on that one......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y]9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48]9.12 DC TEA PARTY - INTERVIEW B-ROLL - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Divine Wind]

True that it wouldn't be Christian. It also wouldn't be civil. OTOH, acceding to the ignorant, be they left or right in political person or people who just hate a lot isn't smart.

As you no doubt realize, there are lots of people on this forum who are so caught up in politics emotionally, it affects their personality. They need to step back a bit to gain a better perspective and understand that it will be okay in the end.

Don't hold-your-breath, on that one......​

Idiots can be found at any demonstration. Look at the anti-Semites at the Occupy protests.

Do you think that means all members of the Occupy movement are anti-Semitic assholes?

LAUSD Teacher Fired after Anti-Semitic Comment on Camera | FOX 11 News

"Jews have been run out of 109 countries throughout history, and we need to run them out of this one."

 

[Synthaholic]

The famous 16 words were correct. The British did have evidence the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium. MI-6 stood by that statement. So it was an accurate statement. they didn't get it, but they asked for it.

Look, guy, George Tenat went into Bush's office and said "It's a slam dunk, Mr. President!"

Joe Wilson wrote in the LA Times that no only did Saddam have WMD's, but we needed to give him a graceful way out because he'd use them.

This is a lot of people playing CYA when something goes wrong. If you had a real job, you see it happens every day in the business world, who ends up holding the bag of dog poop.

Wow, you have totally drank the kool-aid. Next, you're gonna tell us that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Myself. Saddam was a scumbag and I'm glad he's dead. Aren't you?

Not at the cost of over $1 Trillion and over 5,000 U.S. military deaths. HELL NO!!!!

Two points.

1) The Democrats looked at the same evidence,and came to the same conclusions.

False. They looked at the evidence that Bush allowed them to see.

2) So you are saying that it wasn't worth it if it went over a certain cost. Good thing you werne't around during WWII. "Wow, getting Hitler is too expensive. Better just let him kill those people."

Deflection. Hitler had attacked our closest ally, and had already invaded our second closest ally.

And Obama proved that you do not need a massive invasion force and trillions of $$$ to remove a dictator.

Thank you, President Obama!

 

[Synthaholic]

Gee......we can't very-well ignore the needs o'.....

(It wouldn't be the Christian-thing-to-do.)

True that it wouldn't be Christian. It also wouldn't be civil. OTOH, acceding to the ignorant, be they left or right in political person or people who just hate a lot isn't smart.

As you no doubt realize, there are lots of people on this forum who are so caught up in politics emotionally, it affects their personality. They need to step back a bit to gain a better perspective and understand that it will be okay in the end.

Don't hold-your-breath, on that one......

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y"]9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48"]9.12 DC TEA PARTY - INTERVIEW B-ROLL - YouTube[/ame]​

I just watched that first, 8 minute video, and I am astounded at the sheer ignorance. And I'm not saying that to be insulting.

I'm bookmarking...no, downloading that one! It may disappear from youtube.

Thanks, Shaman!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can't understand how anyone could be so lacking in common sense as to believe that Newt Gingrich could ever be elected president.

 

[Foxfyre]

True that it wouldn't be Christian. It also wouldn't be civil. OTOH, acceding to the ignorant, be they left or right in political person or people who just hate a lot isn't smart.

As you no doubt realize, there are lots of people on this forum who are so caught up in politics emotionally, it affects their personality. They need to step back a bit to gain a better perspective and understand that it will be okay in the end.

Don't hold-your-breath, on that one......

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y"]9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48"]9.12 DC TEA PARTY - INTERVIEW B-ROLL - YouTube[/ame]​

I just watched that first, 8 minute video, and I am astounded at the sheer ignorance. And I'm not saying that to be insulting.

I'm bookmarking...no, downloading that one! It may disappear from youtube.

Thanks, Shaman!

I am guessing several of the clips are NOT Tea Party related in these videos and even if they are, they are cherry picked out of the tens of thousands of people attending the events. I have seen NO offensive signs at ANY of the Tea Party events I have attended because the few who show up with what we consider offensive signs are asked to put them away and they always do. The only offensive signs we have seen at Tea Party events are carried by people none of us have ever seen and who refuse to identify themselves and who scramble like crazy to get in front of the TV cameras every chance they get and who disappear immediately after the media leaves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I realize this is going to upset all the leftist freaks earnestly doing their best to derail this thread, but to me, that's just an extra reason to do it.

Back to Newt, the putative topic of the thread, and on to something other than the voyeuristic, Weekly World News view of politics:

Newt.org has put up a comparison of his optional flat tax plan and Perry's.

First, he points out that his rate would be 15%, while Perry's would be 20%, and mentions that Perry's is even higher than the 17% that Steve Forbes was proposing during his Presidential campaigns.

Second, under Gingrich's plan, EVERYONE would be able to take deductions for charitable contributions and home ownership. Perry's plan would only allow these for families making under $500,000 a year. Newt points out that the existence of two distinct tax brackets calls into question the claim that it's a "flat tax" at all, and claims - rightly, I think - that this is just more of the same class warfare that we get from Obama.

Third are state and local tax deductions. These are not deductible under Gingrich's plan, but are under Perry's. Newt claims that 1) because his rate is lower, they're not needed, and 2) that this is a federal subsidy for states to adopt higher taxes. Not being a tax expert, I'll admit to not being terribly clear on this point, so by all means, discuss amongst yourselves.

Fourth, Gingrich's plan would eliminate the capital gains tax entirely. Perry's plan would only eliminate long-term capital gains, leaving a 35% tax on short-term capital gains.

Fifth, Gingrich calls for a corporate income tax of 12.5%, while Perry's plan calls for 20%. Newt points out that this is still only average for the developed world, and higher than Canada's rate of 16.5%.

Sixth, Newt's plan "supports personal savings investment and insurance accounts that would eventually be expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax ultimately to be phased out altogether." Perry's plan makes no changes to the payroll tax.

Seventh, Newt's plan preserves the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit to ensure that low-income Americans don't feel unfairly targeted by the flat tax, a criticism that has been leveled at both Perry's plan, which has not currently provided any info on this subject, and Cain's 999 plan, prompting him to alter it.\

I think the details sound really good, even adjusting for the fact that it's his campaign website, so obviously is unabashedly partisan in his favor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From Newt Gingrich's handout to the College Board Forum on education:

(I skipped down to the actual policy proposals. The points concerning history and the state of our education system are interesting, and I encourage everyone to go to the website and read them, but I really wanted to discuss this part.)

9. Parents and learners should choose the systems that work best for them.A locally-funded Pell Grant for K-through-12 would be the ideal model, with a KIPP schools-style parent-student-teacher contract.Charter schools with parental choice are a vital interim step. No child should be trapped in a bad school.

10. Parents who home school their children should receive a tax credit or be allowed to keep the Pell Grant.

11. Individualized, 24/7 learning should be universally available online, with mentors and through other learning systems.The Florida Virtual School (with over 120,000 students) for K-12, and the University of Phoenix and Kaplan are forerunners of this system.

12. Students who graduate early should get the cost of the years they skip as an automatic scholarship, following the model of Governor Daniels’s program in Indiana.

13. Unemployment compensation should have a business-training component so we are improving human capital with every payment.

14. Every state should have a work-study college that enables students to graduate debt free, following the model of the College of the Ozarks in Arkansas.

15. Higher education should become dramatically more productive and less expensive.

16. The federal and state departments of education should be dramatically shrunk in size and authority, and the money saved used to pay teachers more within a merit system.

17. Tenure should be abolished. No bad teacher should be permitted to ruin a child’s future.

 

[Synthaholic]

Don't hold-your-breath, on that one......

9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS - YouTube
*
9.12 DC TEA PARTY - INTERVIEW B-ROLL - YouTube​

I just watched that first, 8 minute video, and I am astounded at the sheer ignorance. And I'm not saying that to be insulting.

I'm bookmarking...no, downloading that one! It may disappear from youtube.

Thanks, Shaman!

I am guessing several of the clips are NOT Tea Party related in these videos and even if they are, they are cherry picked out of the tens of thousands of people attending the events. I have seen NO offensive signs at ANY of the Tea Party events I have attended because the few who show up with what we consider offensive signs are asked to put them away and they always do. The only offensive signs we have seen at Tea Party events are carried by people none of us have ever seen and who refuse to identify themselves and who scramble like crazy to get in front of the TV cameras every chance they get and who disappear immediately after the media leaves.

Did you watch that first video? Have you ever seen so much ignorance of basic political knowledge?

 

[Synthaholic]

I realize this is going to upset all the leftist freaks earnestly doing their best to derail this thread, but to me, that's just an extra reason to do it.

Back to Newt, the putative topic of the thread, and on to something other than the voyeuristic, Weekly World News view of politics:

Newt.org has put up a comparison of his optional flat tax plan and Perry's.

First, he points out that his rate would be 15%, while Perry's would be 20%, and mentions that Perry's is even higher than the 17% that Steve Forbes was proposing during his Presidential campaigns.

Second, under Gingrich's plan, EVERYONE would be able to take deductions for charitable contributions and home ownership. Perry's plan would only allow these for families making under $500,000 a year. Newt points out that the existence of two distinct tax brackets calls into question the claim that it's a "flat tax" at all, and claims - rightly, I think - that this is just more of the same class warfare that we get from Obama.

Third are state and local tax deductions. These are not deductible under Gingrich's plan, but are under Perry's. Newt claims that 1) because his rate is lower, they're not needed, and 2) that this is a federal subsidy for states to adopt higher taxes. Not being a tax expert, I'll admit to not being terribly clear on this point, so by all means, discuss amongst yourselves.

Fourth, Gingrich's plan would eliminate the capital gains tax entirely. Perry's plan would only eliminate long-term capital gains, leaving a 35% tax on short-term capital gains.

Fifth, Gingrich calls for a corporate income tax of 12.5%, while Perry's plan calls for 20%. Newt points out that this is still only average for the developed world, and higher than Canada's rate of 16.5%.

Sixth, Newt's plan "supports personal savings investment and insurance accounts that would eventually be expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax ultimately to be phased out altogether." Perry's plan makes no changes to the payroll tax.

Seventh, Newt's plan preserves the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit to ensure that low-income Americans don't feel unfairly targeted by the flat tax, a criticism that has been leveled at both Perry's plan, which has not currently provided any info on this subject, and Cain's 999 plan, prompting him to alter it.\

I think the details sound really good, even adjusting for the fact that it's his campaign website, so obviously is unabashedly partisan in his favor.

Perhaps Newtie could land a job as adviser to some president, but he will never be president.

 

[SAT]

Well, since I didn't see ONE democrat actually protest his December attack on Iraq (you know, the one we just had to do the exact same four days the House was holding impeachment proceedings), it stands to reason you weren't all that outraged at the time.

That is pretty irrational. You're comparing a full scale invasion to one attack on a factory?

Until when? Until some terrorist he sponsored or supported sank a cruise ship or knocked down a skyscraper? Everyone thought Bin Laden was contained when he was in Afghaninstan.

No, everyone didn't. Richard Clarke tried to warn the Bush administration repeatedly about bin Laden. The Clinton administration conveyed their concerns. Our intel knew that bin Laden had directed attacks from Afghanistan. Maybe bin Laden was news to you, but he wasn't news to me, and he sure wasn't to the administration.

That it isn't the big crime you say it is. It's like saying, "Well, Jeffrey Dahmner wasn't friends with John Gacy." So what? Seriously.

Misleading the public into war is as big a crime as I can imagine.

She accomplished nothing else. Ever. Affirmative Action. Giving success to the useless without hard work since 1970.

Backed up by nothing, as usual.

No, we're in to, "They suck at their jobs, but don't you dare say so or I'll call you a racist" territory. Judging by the way liberals treats black folks like Herman Cain and Clarance Thomas, I think we know who the racists are.... You minorities and women can only be successful when we say you can be.

You are talking yourself into a circle. You're not racist when you baselessly insist that Hill is an affirmative action hire, but some imaginary liberals are racist if they criticize Thomas and Cain for specific, non-racial reasons.

The mistake was not carting these traitors off to prison camps until we won or they died of old age. We did that to Socialist Eugene Debs in WWI and Nazi Ernst Kuhn in WWII. If we did that to Jane Fonda and Michael Moore, so much the better.

All it takes to win a war is for some brave men to go out and fight and the rest of us not to whine about. Half of that is too difficult for some of you.

I saw those demonstrations, the ones with the Pro-Palestinian posters and burning American flags. These people aren't my countrymen.

Free speech is only for people who agree with you.

Regarding signs at the Tea Party, there was a large sign of a concentration camp at a prominent rally in DC. Well known Republican politicians spoke at the rally. No, offensive signs were not necessarily taken care of. And I certainly saw a lot of those Obama as witch doctor signs at a lot of rallies, and I didn't see people being told to leave.

 

[JoeB131]

Two points.

1) The Democrats looked at the same evidence,and came to the same conclusions.

False. They looked at the evidence that Bush allowed them to see.[/quote]


Oh, right. Because clearly, none of these guys who had been around Washington longer than Bush had knew anyone over at the CIA or Pentagon. Because they hadn't been looking at the same intelligence in the 1990's that said the same things.

Reality check, guy. The Democrats went along with the war because most of the country was in a mood to kill someone in 2003, and they didn't much care who. Then like naughty children who had too much candy, they looked for someone else to blame.

2) So you are saying that it wasn't worth it if it went over a certain cost. Good thing you werne't around during WWII. "Wow, getting Hitler is too expensive. Better just let him kill those people."

Deflection. Hitler had attacked our closest ally, and had already invaded our second closest ally.

We weren't allies with those countries. Americans didn't want a second war. They thought the first one was a pretty dumb idea. Had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor, we'd have let Hilter win and not really cared.

And Obama proved that you do not need a massive invasion force and trillions of $$$ to remove a dictator.

Thank you, President Obama!

A dictator who wasn't a threat to us, hadn't caused us any problems, and who was actually co-operating with us at that point. And all he had to do was let power go to some crazy Islamists who are already sizing everyone up for Burhkas...

yeah, Thanks, Obama, for giving us another war to fight within a decade by enabling Jihadists...

 

[JoeB131]

Well, since I didn't see ONE democrat actually protest his December attack on Iraq (you know, the one we just had to do the exact same four days the House was holding impeachment proceedings), it stands to reason you weren't all that outraged at the time.

That is pretty irrational. You're comparing a full scale invasion to one attack on a factory?

Uh, once again, you get your facts wrong... and wonder why you are a joke. Operation Desert Fox was NOT just an attack on one factory. It was a widescale attack on hundreds of Iraqi facilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)

You are probably thinking of Operation Infinite Reach, which was an attack on Sudan and Afghanistan...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_(August_1998)

I know, it's tough. So many half-ass, ill thought out bombing raids to distract from his piccadillos, it's hard to keep track.

No, everyone didn't. Richard Clarke tried to warn the Bush administration repeatedly about bin Laden. The Clinton administration conveyed their concerns. Our intel knew that bin Laden had directed attacks from Afghanistan. Maybe bin Laden was news to you, but he wasn't news to me, and he sure wasn't to the administration.

Clarke was part of the Administration that thought issuing an indictment for Bin Laden was calling it a day... He also tried to claim that Condi Rice didn't know who Bin Laden was, until they dug up a bunch of interviews that indicated she clearly did.

Misleading the public into war is as big a crime as I can imagine.

And oddly enough, the Democrats never impeached anyone for that when they got control of Congress. In fact, Bush flipped them off and said, "Screw you, I'll escalating the war!" and they ran off like whipped dogs... Hilarious.

No, we're in to, "They suck at their jobs, but don't you dare say so or I'll call you a racist" territory. Judging by the way liberals treats black folks like Herman Cain and Clarance Thomas, I think we know who the racists are.... You minorities and women can only be successful when we say you can be.

You are talking yourself into a circle. You're not racist when you baselessly insist that Hill is an affirmative action hire, but some imaginary liberals are racist if they criticize Thomas and Cain for specific, non-racial reasons.

What specific reasons are those? Frankly, all I see is that you guys are made these men made it without the welfare state or the pity party...

Free speech is only for people who agree with you.

Regarding signs at the Tea Party, there was a large sign of a concentration camp at a prominent rally in DC. Well known Republican politicians spoke at the rally. No, offensive signs were not necessarily taken care of. And I certainly saw a lot of those Obama as witch doctor signs at a lot of rallies, and I didn't see people being told to leave.

You know what else you didn't have at the TEA Party rallies. The police didn't have to come in and arrest anyone. People weren't defecating in the street and littering the place. They cleaned up after themselves and left peacefully after they had made their point.

Unlike these dirty, filthy OWS people, who are now hoping for a "Kent State" moment to bolster their cause.

 

[SAT]

Oh, right. Because clearly, none of these guys who had been around Washington longer than Bush had knew anyone over at the CIA or Pentagon. Because they hadn't been looking at the same intelligence in the 1990's that said the same things.

Reality check, guy. The Democrats went along with the war because most of the country was in a mood to kill someone in 2003, and they didn't much care who. Then like naughty children who had too much candy, they looked for someone else to blame.

I believe I said the same thing a few posts back. Yes, Democrats failed in their duty. So did the media. They are guilty of insufficient diligence. The Bush administration is guilty of actually pushing the war. You know, sins of omission and sins of commission.

The nation had a lot of questions about Iraq, and was willing to wait for inspections. Bush wasn't.

A dictator who wasn't a threat to us, hadn't caused us any problems, and who was actually co-operating with us at that point. And all he had to do was let power go to some crazy Islamists who are already sizing everyone up for Burhkas...

Yes, and then his people rose up. Unlike the people of Iraq. They asked for UN help. Unlike the people of Iraq. They overthrew a dictator with limited help from the outside world. Unlike the war in Iraq.

They may choose badly in their new leader, but they are at least off to a good start.

 

[Dot Com]

Newt is a throw-back and has PLENTY of baggage. PLUS, he serially goes off on tangents when debating.