Why is Newt Gingrich waging class warfare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muh_muh

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muh_muh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Romney and the pathology of Bain:

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/romn...ain/singleton/

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

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:

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I blame Bush :)

---

http://images.cheezburger.com/comple...6491966922.jpg