Why is Newt Gingrich waging class warfare?

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

Quote:

---

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] Gingrich has disputed that account.[139] 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]

---

In consilience, I'll remove the attachment and keep the text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

...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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

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.

Here is what Gail say's in her piece...

Quote:

---

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:

:dancing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

: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:

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.

Nightline's Pointless Interview With Marianne Gingrich:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ngrich/251688/

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.

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.

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.

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

And after that, the rest is silence!

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/romn...ing/singleton/

Justin Raimondo is a libertarian -- :)

Adelson, Gingrich, and the Selling of America:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...ng-of-america/

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

Nothing has changed in US politics - YouTube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

...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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

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.

Quote:

---

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.

The stark difference between Gingrich and Paul:

Newt Gingrich: Constitution doesn't apply in GWOT - YouTube

Ron Paul on The Constitution and War - from 11/12/11 CBS Debate - YouTube

How Citizens United Created Newt:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01...ated-newt.html

Gingrich Attacked by Conservative Media:

Gingrich Attacked by Conservative Media - YouTube

Ann Coulter: I would prefer Ron Paul as president to Newt Gingrich - YouTube

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27...aught-misleadi

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/27/ma...richs-defense/

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/cr...ent-moon-base/

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arnie666

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27...aught-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

Newt Gingrich Can't Identify a Smartphone:

VIDEO: Newt Gingrich Can't Identify a Smartphone - YouTube