Why is Newt Gingrich waging class warfare?

[Ben]

When Mitt Romney Came To Town — Full, complete version - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE)

[arnie666]

I like Newt, he is a complete cunt and can't help sticking his foot in his mouth. At least he doesn't pretend otherwise like other candidates. I like the attitude, yeah I cheated on my cancer stricken wife. So what? Believe me the other candiates including Obama have similar skeletons in the closet ,even worse,because to get to be a politician at the highest level you have to be a psychopath.

I think he could be doing it for two reasons

1 He is throwing everything including the kitchen sink at romney because Newt was fucked over in Iowa. Newt knew it ,everyone knew it ,he probably knows he can't win as all the establishment have annointed romney similar to Obama,Notice how if anything negative is said about romney on fox , it is similar to how Obama was treated by the liberal media in 2008? Wahh wahh ,don't be mean. etc etc. So he is trying to drag Romney down with him,even if he wins once Newt is done with him,he will be damaged goods.

2 Newt might have been 'asked' by some powerful person to drag this stuff out on romney now even if it means falling on his own sword as they know Obama and the dems will be running with this as part of their campaign against romney. They want to test romney out to see how he handles it,how his campaign handles it.They want to see how the US voters think about this. If things go tits up for romney they can annoint someone else.. Even get someone else to enter the race and annoint,like palin or jeb bush if they think the rest of the field is shit and can't win (I think that) .I think romney is going to struggle against Obama as well. It is also possible a powerful person/people dislikes romney or doesn't think he can win,and wants him gone. So trying to ruin his chances,though it is an odd way to do it,far better in my opinion to focus on Romneys questionable conservatism. I think the former in point two is most likely. Not 1 newt isn't stupid.

[onmyknees]

Well Ben......I get your point, but as a matter of fact, the video has been deconstructed, and discredited as being largely false.....


I have to admit, there's something about Newt I like too. I'd never support him, but that's a different matter. I guarantee you if you injected sodium pentothal into Axlerod's fat white ass, he's tell you he'd prefer to run against anyone but Newt, not because he doesn't think he couldn't beat him, but because when Obama crosses the finish line in Nov. 2012, Newt would leave him so torched and battle scared, he'd be unable to govern ( not that he can now either) .. Newt is Axlerod ten fold.
Newt is undisciplined, unforgiving, and has the heart of a political assassin, but for most of us.....it's about winning. And Newt can't win....but man it sure would be a fun summer if he were the nominee.

[Silcc69]

Well Ben......I get your point, but as a matter of fact, the video has been deconstructed, and discredited as being largely false.....


I have to admit, there's something about Newt I like too. I'd never support him, but that's a different matter. I guarantee you if you injected sodium pentothal into Axlerod's fat white ass, he's tell you he'd prefer to run against anyone but Newt, not because he doesn't think he couldn't beat him, but because when Obama crosses the finish line in Nov. 2012, Newt would leave him so torched and battle scared, he'd be unable to govern ( not that he can now either) .. Newt is Axlerod ten fold.
Newt is undisciplined, unforgiving, and has the heart of a political assassin, but for most of us.....it's about winning. And Newt can't win....but man it sure would be a fun summer if he were the nominee.

Who do you exactly support?

[trish]

There is nothing about Newt one can possibly like. He's morally bankrupt, intellectually sophomoric, a puff-up pastry with an over reaching ego. He's a successful liar because he convinces himself of [the] truth of his own lies. Not just lies. Newt makes stuff up and believes it. Sometimes it true, sometimes it's not. Doesn't matter. If it came out of his brain, or he thinks it came out of his brain, it's gotta be true. That's why this particular turn of events is a little bit interesting. Newt might actually convince himself that certain kinds of venture capitalism [are] not good for the country. He might actually start to believe there should be some form of regulation of the financial markets. Now that's an interesting turn of events.

[Prospero]

I just love the idea that Romney is being attacked for the crime of being able to speak French.

[trish]

I just love the idea that Romney is being attacked for the crime of being able to speak French.
QUELLE horreur!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/kristof-why-is-europe-a-dirty-word.html

[muh_muh]

I just love the idea that Romney is being attacked for the crime of being able to speak French.

well clearly being well educated is a bad thing in a country where shows like jersey shore get made
akthough i agree with the general notion that being able to speak the language of the surrender monkies is a bad thing

[hippifried]

I just love the idea that Romney is being attacked for the crime of being able to speak French.
Rrrrrribbit!

[robertlouis]

well clearly being well educated is a bad thing in a country where shows like jersey shore get made
akthough i agree with the general notion that being able to speak the language of the surrender monkies is a bad thing

Those would be the same surrender monkeys without whose help and active military support you would never have won your own revolution, I take it. Have you heard of Lafayette? Check your own history.

And to suggest that the ability to speak another language is somehow a bad thing indicates a level of xenophobic anti-intellectualism that surprises, even from a Merkin.

[muh_muh]

Those would be the same surrender monkeys without whose help and active military support you would never have won your own revolution, I take it. Have you heard of Lafayette? Check your own history.

what are you on about? the last time the surrender monkies had military success against us that i can think of was napoleon
from 1870 on it was all downhill for them

[giovanni_hotel]

Those would be the same surrender monkeys without whose help and active military support you would never have won your own revolution, I take it. Have you heard of Lafayette? Check your own history.

And to suggest that the ability to speak another language is somehow a bad thing indicates a level of xenophobic anti-intellectualism that surprises, even from a Merkin.


I bring this up all the time to those dittoheads who relish in bashing the French.
Or for those who forget who gave us the Statue of Liberty overlooking NYC.

This country is fucked in a thousand different ways, I can't keep count anymore.

[giovanni_hotel]

what are you on about? the last time the surrender monkies had military success against us that i can think of was napoleon
from 1870 on it was all downhill for them


THe French provided material and logistical support during the American Revolution.

Without their contributions militarily, there would not be a United States.:yayo:

[robertlouis]

what are you on about? the last time the surrender monkies had military success against us that i can think of was napoleon
from 1870 on it was all downhill for them

The monkeys - you can't even fucking spell it - didn't fight the US during the Napoleonic Wars you moron. They were on the same fucking side. The Americans remembered France's critical support during the War of Independence and tacitly supported them as much as they could. They were definitely outfought and outthought by the Prussians in 1870 and their soldiers were let down by confused leadership and direction in both world wars. Any country can have crap generals, but it's a huge insult to the bravery and resourcefulness of the ordinary French soldier to call them surrender monkeys. The Simpsons use satire, but I guess you're too dumb to recognise that too.

Your ignorance of your own history is frankly staggering.

[Ben]

I like Newt, he is a complete cunt and can't help sticking his foot in his mouth. At least he doesn't pretend otherwise like other candidates. I like the attitude, yeah I cheated on my cancer stricken wife. So what? Believe me the other candiates including Obama have similar skeletons in the closet ,even worse,because to get to be a politician at the highest level you have to be a psychopath.

I think he could be doing it for two reasons

1 He is throwing everything including the kitchen sink at romney because Newt was fucked over in Iowa. Newt knew it ,everyone knew it ,he probably knows he can't win as all the establishment have annointed romney similar to Obama,Notice how if anything negative is said about romney on fox , it is similar to how Obama was treated by the liberal media in 2008? Wahh wahh ,don't be mean. etc etc. So he is trying to drag Romney down with him,even if he wins once Newt is done with him,he will be damaged goods.

2 Newt might have been 'asked' by some powerful person to drag this stuff out on romney now even if it means falling on his own sword as they know Obama and the dems will be running with this as part of their campaign against romney. They want to test romney out to see how he handles it,how his campaign handles it.They want to see how the US voters think about this. If things go tits up for romney they can annoint someone else.. Even get someone else to enter the race and annoint,like palin or jeb bush if they think the rest of the field is shit and can't win (I think that) .I think romney is going to struggle against Obama as well. It is also possible a powerful person/people dislikes romney or doesn't think he can win,and wants him gone. So trying to ruin his chances,though it is an odd way to do it,far better in my opinion to focus on Romneys questionable conservatism. I think the former in point two is most likely. Not 1 newt isn't stupid.

You write: "... to get to be a politician at the highest level you have to be a psychopath." Well, psychopathy helps.
That, too, applies to the business world.
A helluva lot of CEOs are psychopaths or sociopaths. And it certainly makes sense. Ya know, you've absolutely no empathy for people under you. You can't care. Because you lack the ability to care.
Also the entire corporate structure is psychopathic. It doesn't accept responsibility for its actions. Completely irresponsible. (Think: ExxonMobil.) Plus it can't assume responsibility. The corporate structure is guided by one thing and one thing only. It has no long-term goals. A corporation is concerned about the next quarter. To make as much money as it can and as fast as it can. And it must. By law.
So, who should head this callous and shallow and pathological and manipulative institution? I mean, who would you want? Betty White or Mitt Romney? Jane Goodall or Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon? It makes sense why you'd want a psychopath.
Same with government. There are slight differences between government and corporate structures. I mean, corporations are merely private governments. But they do have some different interests....

Bloomberg TV's Shannon Pettypiece reports on psychopath executives - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUstdYTtw0k)

[Ben]

Romney and the pathology of Bain:

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/romney_and_the_sociopathology_of_bain/singleton/

[Faldur]

Without the French we would have lost 10's of thousands of good men taking Yorktown. The landing at Normandy might have never happened had it not been for the French underground.

Modern day politics seem to fuck up any relationship, the US owes a lot to our friends in France.

[notdrunk]

THe French provided material and logistical support during the American Revolution.

Without their contributions militarily, there would not be a United States.:yayo:

And, a decade later after the American Revolution, there was the Quasi-War. For the first hundred years, after the Revolutionary War, the relationship between the United States and France wasn't so great.

Don't you love politics..:dancing:

[trish]

The Quasi-War lasted from 1798 to 1800. The French Revolution followed on the heels of the American Revolution. It was the French monarchy that aided us during our own revolution. After the monarchy fell, the U.S. resumed trade with Britain which didn't sit well with the new government in France. It also didn't sit well that we refused to pay our debts to France declaring that they were owed to the fallen monarchy. Consequently when we were set upon by French pirates the French Navy joined in. This was until 1800 when the provisional government in France was replaced by Napoleon. French pirates actually helped us in the War of 1812. Of course France's troubles weren't over by a long shot, and our relationship with France over the next half century was via a number of changing governments.

Our cultural relationship with France was always constant. Throughout the past we admired their philosophers (basing our own Constitution on Enlightenment values), writers, composers and scientists. We followed their styles, sent our children to France to be educated and spoke their language whenever we wanted to put on aires of sophistication. The ugliness with "freedom fries" and cries of "socialism" is relatively recent. I blame Bush :)

[Faldur]

I blame Bush :)

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/28/129118896491966922.jpg

[Stavros]

A helluva lot of CEOs are psychopaths or sociopaths. And it certainly makes sense. Ya know, you've absolutely no empathy for people under you. You can't care. Because you lack the ability to care.
Also the entire corporate structure is psychopathic. It doesn't accept responsibility for its actions. Completely irresponsible. (Think: ExxonMobil.) Plus it can't assume responsibility. The corporate structure is guided by one thing and one thing only. It has no long-term goals. A corporation is concerned about the next quarter. To make as much money as it can and as fast as it can. And it must. By law.
So, who should head this callous and shallow and pathological and manipulative institution? I mean, who would you want? Betty White or Mitt Romney? Jane Goodall or Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon? It makes sense why you'd want a psychopath.


Ben, please explain in what way are either Richard Branson or Bill Gates 'psychopaths'? Was Steve Jobs a psychopath who didn't care about his own employees or his customers? Really?

As for this: Also the entire corporate structure is psychopathic. It doesn't accept responsibility for its actions. Completely irresponsible. Corporations might try and fix it so that law suits and other litigation doesn't cost them, but they usually take full responsibility -monitor the share price, thats one way of doing it! Have you really never heard of Ralph Nader and the campaigns he mounted in the 1960s and 1970s to get motor car maufacturers to make safer vehicles? What about corporation social responsibility?

And this: A corporation is concerned about the next quarter. To make as much money as it can and as fast as it can. So if you find out that a firm has a 50-year growth strategy how does that fit with the 'fast buck'? If you are in it for the long term, long term planning takes place- in fact, its the firms who don't plan for the next 50 years who are least likely to survive.

Ben, I beg you, get a job, in the private sector, preferably with a mulitnational, at least get some inside experience of business; you will be surprised to find out how different it looks...ps they pay better than most other employers...

[muh_muh]

Your ignorance of your own history is frankly staggering.

im german

whos the moron now dipshit?

[Ben]

Ben, please explain in what way are either Richard Branson or Bill Gates 'psychopaths'? Was Steve Jobs a psychopath who didn't care about his own employees or his customers? Really?

As for this: Also the entire corporate structure is psychopathic. It doesn't accept responsibility for its actions. Completely irresponsible. Corporations might try and fix it so that law suits and other litigation doesn't cost them, but they usually take full responsibility -monitor the share price, thats one way of doing it! Have you really never heard of Ralph Nader and the campaigns he mounted in the 1960s and 1970s to get motor car maufacturers to make safer vehicles? What about corporation social responsibility?

And this: A corporation is concerned about the next quarter. To make as much money as it can and as fast as it can. So if you find out that a firm has a 50-year growth strategy how does that fit with the 'fast buck'? If you are in it for the long term, long term planning takes place- in fact, its the firms who don't plan for the next 50 years who are least likely to survive.

Ben, I beg you, get a job, in the private sector, preferably with a mulitnational, at least get some inside experience of business; you will be surprised to find out how different it looks...ps they pay better than most other employers...

Two things about corporations (and, again, they're very rational and great at achieving one aim: maximizing money): they are not benevolent institutions and they aren't concerned about externalities. So, for instance, the negative cost of oil companies is global warming. (In the 1990s, and Al Gore has affirmed this, oil companies commissioned their own scientific studies about global warming and said it's real and it poses a serious threat but we're going to have to undermine the science to serve our very narrow interests. Which, of course, is to maximize return on investment. So, the externality is future generations. And oil company executives cannot, because of their company code, as it were, be concerned about the cost of global warming to humankind and to future generations.) I mean, we can restructure the corporate framework. We can make them completely democratic. We can make them be concerned about the stakeholders. The stakeholders are separate from the stockholders. And they'd include communities. I mean, just to show how corporations aren't kind and caring institutions, well, they'll shut a factory in, say, Des Moines, Iowa and move those jobs offshore. Now, a corporation is looking for lower costs. So, it makes sense for them, as it were. But what about the people in Iowa? And it's easier for the CEO not to be, say, stressed out if he or she is a psychopath. It's easier to do your job: offshoring jobs -- :)
The American psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton coined the term doubling. Meaning in your personal life (and this could and most likely does apply to both Branson and Gates; and I'm sure they're very nice people) you can be the nicest person. Nice to your wife, kids, the neighbors and your family pets, as it were.
But in your institutional role, well, you've to be a monster. What do I mean by that? Well, take, say, Rex Tillerson. The CEO of ExxonMobil. He can't be concerned about global warming. If he becomes overly concerned about global warming and starts to care about future generations and says, ya know, we need to stop burning oil like right now. Well, he can't. If he does, well, he's out and someone else is in. I mean, the board would make sure he's pushed out. And this makes sense. I mean, if I'm a shareholder of ExxonMobil I don't want a CEO trying to stem global warming by stopping the burning of fossil fuels. I mean, my income comes from my Exxon shares.
The institution demands that you can't be concerned about future generations, the planet etc., etc. Now Rex Tillerson in his private life may care deeply about global warming. (Again, the Lifton term: doubling.) He may give generously to Greenpeace etc. But in his institutional capacity he can't be concerned because he's required, and this is by law, to put the interests of the shareholders above all else. Everything. Including the planet and future generations. (Take, say, Richard Branson. He's deeply concerned about global warming. Again, as a person he is committed to doing something about it. But in his professional life he owns an airline. And we know that the airline industry bears a great deal of responsibility for global warming. Again, doubling.)
And the corporate institution demands that Branson put the interests of shareholders above all else. The planet, future generations. I mean, Branson is indirectly saying, because of global warming, again to which he is deeply worried , that his grandchildren's future has no value.
So, again, Branson is a nice person with genuine worries about the future. But corporate structures aren't organized that way. And they can't be. Because it would be irrational.
Actually, we're called rational wealth maximizers. No one matters but me. Future generations, well, who cares. Depressing. But true.

[Ben]

The author and journalist Chris Hedges (all of his books are well worth reading) talks about varying forms of capitalism -- and the insidious form of corporate capitalism.

Chris Hedges: Forms of Capitalism - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBaSbtcYyRA)

Even ol' Sarah has been critical of corporate or crony capitalism. Albeit she doesn't critique the overall corporate structure or even the free movement of capital or free trade. Now, according to Adam Smith, the absolute core of free trade is the free circulation of labor. So, in that respect, we don't have free trade. Neither do we have free markets. We merely have corporate tyranny. And you can't live in a democratic society if the most powerful institutions in that society are de facto Kingdoms. Which is what corporations are. But, again, they're rational. Which is why they're sooo frightening because, as I've mentioned, things like global warming are simply externalities:

Sarah Palin "Crony Capitalism" Tea Party of America Indianola Iowa - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A_q831Ldrs)

[trish]

So, again, Branson is a nice person with genuine worries about the future. But corporate structures aren't organized that way. And they can't be. Because it would be irrational.So CEO's aren't psychopaths. What you seem to be saying is that given their current structure, if each corporation were a person, then [corporations] would be psychopaths. I might add to that: never give a psychopath the keys to your car.

[Dino Velvet]

I might add to that: never give a psychopath the keys to your car.

What if he insists it's his car and really believes it?

[Ben]

More of Chris Hedges:

Chris Hedges: The Treason of the Intellectuals - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZLMhQ_ZCTo)

[trish]

What if he insists it's his car and really believes it?
Fake like you're throwing the keys to him (but instead throw something shiny and jingly (like your medical alert bracelet). Pretend you throw like a girl and make sure the "keys" go between his legs and behind him. When he turns to pick them up, run for the car, unlock the door remotely, dive in, lock, start and lay rubber.

[Dino Velvet]

Fake like you're throwing the keys to him (but instead throw something shiny and jingly (like your medical alert bracelet). Pretend you throw like a girl and make sure the "keys" go between his legs and behind him. When he turns to pick them up, run for the car, unlock the door remotely, dive in, lock, start and lay rubber.

That's some good thinking there. Have a good supper tonight?

[Ben]

Life Inc. Dispatch 06: Why Corporations Hate the Free Market - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv3sJD384Yk)

GRITtv: Douglas Rushkoff: Get Corporations Out of Our Net - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okE-mrbZf8c)

[Ben]

Newt is screwed:

Newt Gingrich Ex-Wife Bombshell, Says Newt Wanted Multiple Partners - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z40luwWsxI)

[Faldur]

Newt is screwed:

Make sure you tell the voters, cause they don't think so.

[onmyknees]

Make sure you tell the voters, cause they don't think so.



Yea....that 60 seconds may propel him to win South Carolina, and weathervanes like Ben don't have a clue as to why. It's not that they suddenly discovered Gingrich, ...shit he's been around longer than dirt. It's not that they think he's even electable, it's because figuratively speaking he sticks his boot right in the ass of these pampas, insulting , condescending liberal main stream media types. That alone is worthy of their vote. My only regret that the NY Times isn't sanctioning a debate !! I gotta admit when he schooled that asshole Scott Pelly about shoot to kill orders, I was cheering like I was at a Giants game. Well done Newt. Take no prisoners, these fuckers don't deserve it

[Ben]

Maybe Newt isn't screwed. There are too many twists and turns in this amazing reality show.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/20/the_power_of_conservative_victimhood/singleton/

[Ben]

GOP Race Rattled Before SC Primary as Perry Exits, Newt's Ex-Wife Speaks, Santorum Gets Iowa - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1leOk3dY3A)

[onmyknees]

Wait, Wait....A Democracy Now review of the Republican Debate?? Let me get right to it.

I could have told you what it was going to say before I even hit play. Nothing to see here...2 liberal pinheads with the usual cast of characters...a liberal pundit, and a black guy with an axe to gring that sees a racist behind every tree. Let's cut to the angry black guy now and get his take........Yawn. Already been seen Ben. Nothing new here. Don't waste me time if this is all ya got.

Here's a useful rule of thumb Benny......the more you hear empty, baseless, redundant cries of racism, the more you know the internal polling of the Democrats is showing them Obama is falling further behind the generic Republican candidate....so by mid summer, we should be rockin' around the clock with cries of racism...what a fucking joke.

[Ben]

Newt Gingrich Schools Chris Wallace on Clinton Impeachment - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VOzpdat9Lo)

Hypocrite-in-Chief Newt Gingrich - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItKffr0gjjI)

Gingrich Pro-Adultery Site Endorsement (Ashley Madison Billboard) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5rJDNkZOiw)

[Stavros]

I think there is a problem with the Presidency at election time -on the one hand a President is part of the policy-making process, so his policy proposals must be analysed; on the other hand he also becomes Head of State -like our Queen, for example- and should have popular appeal to fuflil the functional requirements of a Head of State. Too much is made of the candidates popular appeal -their electability- even if most people -not necessarily the ones who actually vote- are not interested that much in policy, or just have one thing that concerns them.

Gingrich is the consummate politician -cold, analytical, incisive, with a tendency to think of ten ideas when one will do, he has no popular appeal beyond an amusing sarcasm when being questioned by people he considers to be his inferiors; and as far as I know he is not a serial philanderer, he was married to Wife no 1 for 18 years, for Wife no 2 for 18 years and frankly if women fall to their knees when he enters a room, I would expect it to be them falling over each other in the stampede to get away as fast as possible, or maybe he has some charm and charisma I don't notice.

Look, if the USA wants a serious debate on the policy options on domestic and foreign policy, it would make more sense for Gingrich and Ron Paul to be the focus of attention, as both are interesting to listen to on policy detail, and have strong views which would at least draw out the folly of voting Republican, whoever the candidate is.

[trish]

I don't know whether Newt is schtupping a different gal every week or not. Don't really care. He does, however, seem to be frightened of the idea of taking care of a wife in sickness unto death. He dumped his first wife while she's in the hospital dying of cancer. He dumped his second wife, on the phone, shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. A slow degenerative disease that can leave one seriously decapacitated for years. I really can't see Newt changing diapers and taking care of someone in that condition, and nor could Newt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/opinion/collins-opening-newts-marriage.html

[fred41]

He dumped his first wife while she's in the hospital dying of cancer.

I'm not judging either way...but his own daughter disputes that story..

...and for those that don't know: she's still alive today, it was a benign tumor.

[trish]

Thank you for the correction. This from Wikipedia (the everyman's research tool)


In 1984, Jackie Gingrich told The Washington Post that the divorce was a "complete surprise" to her. According to Jackie, in September 1980, Gingrich and their children visited her while she was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, and Gingrich wanted to discuss the terms of their divorce.[138] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#cite_note-137) Gingrich has disputed that account.[139] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#cite_note-autogenerated2-138) In 2011 their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay, and that Gingrich's visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple's children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.[140] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#cite_note-139) In consilience, I'll remove the attachment and keep the text.

[onmyknees]

...and for those that don't know: she's still alive today, it was a benign tumor.

What????? Sorry Fred. I'm not buyin' it. I read it in the NY Times and saw it on MSNBC. They said it....and therefore it has to be true. He left his dying, cancer ridden wife ....that's all there is to it. :dancing:

[fred41]

What????? Sorry Fred. I'm not buyin' it. I read it in the NY Times and saw it on MSNBC. They said it....and therefore it has to be true. He left his dying, cancer ridden wife ....that's all there is to it. :dancing:

:)...well to be fair...Ms. Collins didn't quite say that in NY Times piece that was quoted.

...but to be honest, I've always hated Gail Collins...starting way back, when she used to write regularly for the Daily News.

[trish]

Here is what Gail say's in her piece...
Beyond the hypocrisy of this sort of behavior from a guy who wants to protect the sanctity of holy matrimony from gay couples, there also seems to be a streak of almost crazed self-absorption that runs through the Newt saga. Who would ditch a spouse of 18 years in a phone call? Shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis? And, of course, he broke up with his first wife while she was battling cancer. Do you see a theme developing here? This is the same guy who proudly announced “I think grandiose thoughts” during the last debate. The actual scenario is more like: Newt's first wife, Jackie, was possibly battling cancer. Surgery revealed the tumor was benign, so it turned out to be a good time to spring a divorce on her. Gail should be ashamed of herself for getting the facts so wrong.:rolleyes: :dancing:

[onmyknees]

:dancing:
Here is what Gail say's in her piece...The actual scenario is more like: Newt's first wife, Jackie, was possibly battling cancer. Surgery revealed the tumor was benign, so it turned out to be a good time to spring a divorce on her. Gail should be ashamed of herself for getting the facts so wrong. :dancing:


I missed Grandma Collin's piece. What was I thinking? Tell me...was there any mention of a blue dress in her article...?:dancing:

[trish]

:dancing:


I missed Grandma Collin's piece. What was I thinking? Tell me...was there any mention of a blue dress in her article...?:dancing:Well that just proves you respond to posts without reading them and their accompanying links. Thanks for being a asshole, loser. :dancing::dancing::dancing::dancing::dancing:

[giovanni_hotel]

What happened to the 'Family Values' party?

Or does that only count when a Democratic POTUS is caught inserting cigars into his intern???

Winning SC wins nothing. It's a back water state and doesn't reflect the USA.

If Newt wins FLA, then Houston we have a problem....for the GOP.

[Ben]

Nightline's Pointless Interview With Marianne Gingrich:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/nightlines-pointless-interview-with-marianne-gingrich/251688/

[hippifried]

Newt Gingrich wasn't removed as Speaker of the house because he was a philanderer. He resigned because they (the Republicans) were about to boot him for being a crook. Nobody cares where his dick goes or has gone except as an example of the hypocracy in just one set of his lies. You guys are focused on the wrong shit.

[trish]

Marianne was being kind when she portrayed Newt's proposition as an offer to open up their marriage. But Newt was simply asking if Marianne would be okay with Newt keeping a mistress. Would she be okay with having a sister wife, as it were. I don't believe for a minute that Newt would've been okay with Marianne screwing around with other men, which would be allowed in an open marriage.

But really, I don't care if our leaders indulge in open marriages, plural marriages, have mistresses or smear peanut butter on their ass-cracks to be licked by Irish-setters. They can ruin as many blue dresses as they can afford to have dry-cleaned. That's their business and their private lives. But then they can't pretend to be the family values candidate, the defend marriage candidate or the I'm-right-with-God-and-the-others aren't candidate. Newt doesn't believe any of that shit he preaches about the sanctity of marriage or the Christian foundation of the Nation. Anyone who believes he's sincere about these issues is being played like a Gingrich wife. His own example is more corrosive to the institution of marriage than the old orthodox Mormon institution of plural wives. Like I said, I'm okay with that. I've been intimate with a number of unhappily married, unfaithful men. But then they never ask me for any character references either.

As hippie says, it's not where he puts his dick; his unsuitability stems from the fact that he is a dick.

[Stavros]

Well yes...but...maybe the question is why the USA seems to demand that its Presidential candidates be happily married men with children, grandchildren and an unshakeable belief in Almighty God -not a reflection of the population that elects them. Family values is a tired old concept that is also an inaccurate reflection of how people live, so its part of the package deal you have created for yourselves presumably because the alternative would be too -unpredictable? Is that it? Single man who doesn't believe in God, whatever will he do to the country? Encourage fornication? Don't get a relationship, get drunk!

We had a Prime Minister who was single, gay and was not once outed in public or held up to ridicule because of it. But here, he became PM because he was leader of the Party, and attempts to get people to vote on the basis of the PM's character tend to fail, because party loyalty is, or was at one time, the key indicator.

So Gingrich fell out with his wife -they probably detested each other by the time she got to hospital, that's personal and their business; is he the kind of man who would make a good President? Some argue his wayward ranging over ideas would make policy making chaotic and haphazard, but from what I have read of his policy statements, he has no practical alternative to lift the USA out of recession, and would stumble through expensive foreign policy nightmares caused by the man's lamenable ignorance of world affairs. But so far, as Ron Paul pointed out, the GOP has selected about 3% of the convention delegates, and a week is a long time in politics. This election is still Obama's to lose.

[trish]

Sonnet 116

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

___William Shakespeare

[Stavros]

And after that, the rest is silence!

[Ben]

In last night's debate (debate number 2,123 -- ha ha! :)) Newt hinted at Mitt's crony capitalist ties...

Mitt's use of subsidies and tax loopholes at Bain directly contradicts his "free market" ideals:

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/romney_corporate_welfare_king/singleton/

[Ben]

Justin Raimondo is a libertarian -- :)

Adelson, Gingrich, and the Selling of America:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/01/24/adelson-gingrich-and-the-selling-of-america/

[Ben]

Gingrich is being bankrolled by the Adelsons. Mitt is being bankrolled by billionaire Paul Singer. It, well, seems we've an unelected dictatorship of billionaires -- ha ha!
But BOTH parties are vying for the same corporate dollars -- or billionaire bucks -- :)

Miriam Adelson Winning Our Future Donation: Gingrich Super PAC Gets Millions - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0qhhi-TAx0)

Nothing has changed in US politics - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTdp7dZyEYM)

[Faldur]

So our president hosts jimmy buffets poor downtrodden secretary for the state of the campaign speech. This poor woman pays a higher tax rate than her boss! She is probably surviving on cat food and cardboard shavings. That damn Bush! Lets ignore the fact that she pays personal income and her boss pays capitol gains taxes on his investments, (funds that were most likely previously taxed at the personal income rate). Facts like that just muddy the water and dull the effectiveness of demonizing a class of people.

Oh wait, she earns between $200k - $500k. She just purchased her second home, (well you have to keep the cat food somewhere). What purposed does this serve other than class warfare?

obummer gives 1% annually in charitable gifts, Biden a whopping $368.00. These are the people who demand we give more. Maybe they ought to look at there own balance sheet and start giving more. Romney gives close to 15% of his income to charity, Bush regularly gave over 10%. Its a common difference between liberal and conservative, one wants government to take all your money so it can decide who should have it. The other believes in personal responsibility to community, and the right to donate to the caused you believe in.

[trish]

...Lets ignore the fact that she pays personal income and her boss pays capitol gains taxes on his investments, (funds that were most likely previously taxed at the personal income rate). Funds are not taxed. It is the transfer of money from one set of hands to another that is taxed. If you think Capital (with an “o”) gains are taxed twice you just don’t understand how money and taxes work. I got a paycheck sent to my checking count at the end of last month (I’m looking forward to the next one too). Taxes were taken out before it got there. The hundred that I withdrew yesterday came from what’s left over. Was that hundred taxed? Of course not. I have all of it. Was the money taken out taxed? No. Of course not. It was used to pay the taxes on the total paid to me by my employer. I paid taxes, but you can’t point to a single dollar that was taxed. That’s because money isn’t taxed. Transfers of money from one entity to another are taxed. The same with capital gains. They're called gains because someone receives them while another entity pays them. It's a transfer of wealth. Taxing capital gains is not double taxation. There’s no such thing. It’s an invention of lobbyists designed to confuse and muddle the muddled. Well that’s only the secondary reason for the invention. The primary reason is to keep the tax rates of their clients as low as possible.

[hippifried]

Romney gives close to 15% of his income to charity

He "tithes". It's the Mormon tax. Deductable for paying real taxes of course. That's how they pay for their socialist system. Other Churches do the same thing, Cafholics especially, but the LDS are much more adament about it. It ain't passing the plate. They can bill you, do payroll deduction, pay quarterly, monthly, weekly, however you like. As long as you pay. If it stops, they send somebody around to find out why. They dun the shit out of people who just get cheap.

[Faldur]

He "tithes". It's the Mormon tax. Deductable for paying real taxes of course. That's how they pay for their socialist system. Other Churches do the same thing, Cafholics especially, but the LDS are much more adament about it. It ain't passing the plate. They can bill you, do payroll deduction, pay quarterly, monthly, weekly, however you like. As long as you pay. If it stops, they send somebody around to find out why. They dun the shit out of people who just get cheap.

I believe he "tithes", which would be giving 10% of his income to the church. Not fully familiar with the Mormon church, but I think its a "recommended" commitment not mandated. I can speak from my own experience, I tithe because I believe its biblical. Who gets my donations is up to me, some goes to my church and the rest to charities that I believe in and want to support. I do it because I believe its the right thing to do.

Mitt's tithe is not deducted from his paycheck. It is a voluntary gift given because he wants to, and believes its where he wants his money to go.

[hippifried]

Mitt's tithe is not deducted from his paycheck.

He doesn't get a paycheck. Nothing is deducted. He's not on salary or earning a wage. He doesn't even have a job. Every dime of his personal income is in some way called a capital gain, for which he pays a lower rate than someone who does have a job.

[Ben]

The stark difference between Gingrich and Paul:

Newt Gingrich: Constitution doesn't apply in GWOT - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z18Ct7J_Mqc)

Ron Paul on The Constitution and War - from 11/12/11 CBS Debate - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVPWFllYiKo)

[Ben]

How Citizens United Created Newt:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/how-citizens-united-created-newt.html

[Ben]

Gingrich Attacked by Conservative Media:

Gingrich Attacked by Conservative Media - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOcWXLamh8E&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=1&feature=plcp)

Ann Coulter: I would prefer Ron Paul as president to Newt Gingrich - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPnRXv7nsJo)

[arnie666]

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/elliott-abrams-caught-misleadi

[arnie666]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/27/mark-levin-bucks-conservative-media-trend-comes-to-gingrichs-defense/

[trish]

Too bad Newt decided to take the looney route. I was hoping he'd be the GOP candidate. I think his appeal to independents is nil and he has way to much baggage (lobbyist, adulterer, professional obstructionist, ethics violator etc. etc. )The lunar base proposal was an entirely political move. He thought he was appealing to the laid-off NASA workers in Florida. Here what real space scientists think of Newt's Moon station.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/01/27/the-newt-onian-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/

[trish]

David Brooke reports that one of Newt’s “Big Ideas” is to light cities at night with sunlight reflected from orbiting mirror or perhaps an array of orbiting mirrors. Just because an idea is about big things (the Earth, a mirror with a one kilometer diameter, a 26000 mile orbital radius etc.) it doesn’t follow the idea itself is big or in any way substantial. The flux of solar electromagnetic radiation (not all visible) at Earth orbit is about 1300 Watts per square meter. A mirror one kilometer in diameter (if the light struck the surface orthogonally) could capture roughly 1 billion watts of incident light. Suppose, just for a concrete example, you wanted to light up Manhatten with the reflected light, an area of about 3 billion square meters. If the mirror is properly aimed, has the right curvature, reflects 100% of the incident light and no light gets lost or redirected as it passes through the atmosphere, those 1 billion Watts will get distributed over the 3 billion square meters delivering a flux of 0.33 Watts of power per square meter. For the photographers among you that’s about 30 lux. Accounting for the fact that no mirror reflects 100% of the incident light and the fact that the reflected light, just like direct sunlight, will be refracted, reflected and diffused by the atmosphere, Newt would be very lucky to get 3 lux of light out of the project. Hardly enough to find your keys. For those of you who aren’t photographers, daylight at noon has a brightness of 100 thousand lux, indoor lighting has a brightness that ranges from 100 to 500 lux.

Okay no, problem all we do is just use a bigger mirror or an array of big mirrors to direct more light down on Manhatten. Can’t cost that much, right? This has got to be the most expensive, most idiotically complicated urban lighting proposal ever dreamed up by any historically transformative personage.

Not only is this a lame-brain idea out of Newt’s science fiction, it’s an idea that is anathema to Newt’s current theme of “small government.” Wait a minute. Surely Newt envisions that the whole project should be undertaken by private enterprises. Yes, of course that’s what he thinks. But even if the mirrors are owned by private concerns, were built and launched by private concerns etc. this whole project effects a whole city full of people whether they like it or not. Surely Newt is not suggesting people live in perpetual daylight at the whim of some profit making private concern. No, the way this would work is the government will okay the project and pay the private concern to provide the nighttime sun. How else could it work? Say there’s a vote and 60% of the city dwellers are fine with paying the extra taxes to have a nighttime sun. Sill 40% of the populace will view it as an intrusion of government on their lives...and this is no small intrusion like saying you can’t carry a concealed firearm in a public school, this is a real intrusion. There will be no darkness. No stars. No nighttime. But hey I’m not complaining, nor am I worried. It's never going to happen. I’m just amazed that Newt’s small-government following aren’t complaining. Oh wait, they know it's never going to happen too. They're happy with Newt's demagoguing.

[Stavros]

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/elliott-abrams-caught-misleadi

I don't particularly care about Elliot Abrams re-writing Gingrich's speeches in order to reduce his appeal to Republican voters, what is interesting is the re-writing of history to rescue Ronald Reagan from the mess he made of the USA during his Presidency, and the more pertinent fact that by the time that he negotiated the INF treaty with Gorbachev, he had alienated his former allies from the 'Committee on the Present Danger', many of whom were brought into his staff, who accused Reagan of 'appeasement'.

Reagan was in a bind in the second half of his Presidency because of the worldwide unpopularity of the perception that the USA had cranked up a 'New Cold War' complete with new weapons -Cruise and Pershing- and the fantastical 'Strategic Defence Initiative', and the inability or unwillingness of Congress to approve the expenditure.

Popular resentment of this approach to war and peace, notably in Europe, then meshed with the emergence of Gorbachev to offer an alternative vision of the future, and Reagan became more pragmatic than the fanatics in his administration like Richard Perle, or Terry Dolan, the same corps of violent fanatics who re-emerged in 2000 to propel the USA into the trillion dollar madness of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thus, the article quotes Gingrich on the floor saying:
"The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail."

In fact, the administration was weak and divided, but on the issue of real reductions in nuclear capability, it was Reagan who was perceived -by his own staff- to be weak. History has proven Gorbachev to have been the man who changed history, it was the one time that Reagan conceded that his own ideological fixation should take second place to reality, but it so angered his fanatical friends, that they re-defined Conservatism to put back the violence in a policy framework where patient negotation had been shown to succeed, although it was something Reagan never bothered to try with either Nicaragua, Turkey or Israel, to name but three of many failures on his record.

We live with the peaceful consequences of Gorbachev's vision; and suffer from the consequences of the neo-con's not-so-subtle concept of politics: if you don't hit it, it won't fall.

For an alternative interpretation try this:
http://bostonreview.net/BR25.2/wittner.html

[Ben]

Newt Gingrich Can't Identify a Smartphone:

VIDEO: Newt Gingrich Can't Identify a Smartphone - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6qKGHtDk5g)