Why I would not support Newt Gingerich for President

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:57 am

Atheist Ethicist: Newt Gingrich on Atheists in America

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:12 pm

Is that the only reason? I mean I've heard Gingrich make equally ridiculous statements on every other subject in which he's been questioned.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:25 pm

Ahso!;1375665 wrote: Is that the only reason? I mean I've heard Gingrich make equally ridiculous statements on every other subject in which he's been questioned.

No------there are many other reasons that I would not vote for him, as well as most of the other candidates. Ron Paul? Maybe, but he doesn't have a chance.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:47 pm

The one that tops my list is that all the time he was leading the charge to get Clinton impeached for fooling around with Monica, Newt was cheating on his wife.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:50 pm

Lon;1375666 wrote: No------there are many other reasons that I would not vote for him, as well as most of the other candidates. Ron Paul? Maybe, but he doesn't have a chance.I personally think Paul is a little wacky on economics, but who knows, perhaps it's me who's wacky on economics. Otherwise I could support Paul because even though he'd be very restricted by the congress, he just might be able to make a significant enough dent in the establishment to cause a little bit of change. Paul may, for all we know, enjoy enough of a groundswell of support from people who occupy the republican party outside of those regularly polled.

Anyway, I don't see voting for Paul in the primary a wasted vote. Voting for any of the other clowns besides him, Huntsman or Johnson is, IMV. I can tell you that I would advocate very strongly for either Paul, Johnson or Huntsman if any of them were to receive the nomination. I enjoy a little bit of political credibility among many of my neighbors and friends because I study the subject intensely. I was pretty influential in a local election of a very entrenched township supervisor being voted out of office two years ago.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:19 am

What is frightening is the appalling level of ignorance and prejudice it shows if he is really speaking for mainstream america you are in deep ****.

How can you have a secular atheist country dominated by radical islam? The sentence does not make sense. Please tell me he has no chance.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:23 am

gmc;1375711 wrote: What is frightening is the appalling level of ignorance and prejudice it shows if he is really speaking for mainstream america you are in deep ****.

How can you have a secular atheist country dominated by radical islam? The sentence does not make sense. Please tell me he has no chance.Gingrich likes to play with words, using them to form relations which don't exist (there may be a word for it, if someone in that department would like to help). In relating atheism and Islam, what Newt is advancing is the notion that both are religions (sort of) but neither worship the real God (that makes them them equal), which is, of course, the Christian one, Christianity being the only true religion. These mini-speeches get him a lot of attention via press; television; youtube; forums; social networks; and twitter with people trying to decipher, discuss and argue his meaning, similar to a rock vocalist who purposely make it difficult to understand a song's lyrics. Gingrich is quite aware of what he's saying and the practice has worked both for and against him his entire political life. This is Gingrich's sword: many, including him have fallen on it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:56 pm

Ahso!;1375732 wrote: Gingrich likes to play with words, using them to form relations which don't exist (there may be a word for it, if someone in that department would like to help). In relating atheism and Islam, what Newt is advancing is the notion that both are religions (sort of) but neither worship the real God (that makes them them equal), which is, of course, the Christian one, Christianity being the only true religion. These mini-speeches get him a lot of attention via press; television; youtube; forums; social networks; and twitter with people trying to decipher, discuss and argue his meaning, similar to a rock vocalist who purposely make it difficult to understand a song's lyrics. Gingrich is quite aware of what he's saying and the practice has worked both for and against him his entire political life. This is Gingrich's sword: many, including him have fallen on it.

Malapropism perhaps? Maybe not, doesn't seem quite right if

That's even more depressing, it's an incitement to hatred stirring up religious bigotry like that. bigots are capable of the most appalling atrocities in the name of religion, it's also ignorant. I believe gingrich has written a couple of history books surely he understands that the freedom of religion in your constitution was to prevent one religious sect oppressing another. Surely he understands what secular means? It is deliberate incitement isn't it? either that or he is simply an idiot.

Christianity being the only true religion.

Which version of christianity? catholic or protestant? if fundamentalists get control, they were very soon turn on each other protestant against catholic etc etc.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:07 pm

gmc;1375771 wrote: Which version of christianity? Whichever version or combination thereof that sell more books or garners more votes. We live in a free-for-all free market system. We're unique, us Americans, you know.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:56 pm

Maybe he's doing it on purpose. Maybe he's trying to sabotage his candidacy. It kind of dovetails with what we discussed in the other thread.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:35 am

I heard about this op ed on the radio so I held my nose and went to Ann Coulter's website. So that you won't have to sully yourselves, here's the part that pertains to this thread:

So now, apparently, we have to go through the cycle of the media pushing Newt Gingrich. This is going to be fantastic.

In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton's impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson on behalf of J.C. Watts -- one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized "poverty pimps," and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; supporting George Soros' candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan's plan to save Social Security "right-wing social engineering," we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money.

(Even I will admit, however, that Newt was great when he was chairman of GOPAC back in the '90s with Gay Gaines at the helm.)

Although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the institutions most responsible for the nation's current financial crisis -- were almost entirely Democratic cash cows, they managed to dirty up enough Republicans to make it seem like bipartisan corruption.

Democrats sucked hundreds of millions of dollars out of these institutions: Franklin Raines, $90 million; Jamie Gorelick, $26.4 million; Jim Johnson, $20 million.

By contrast, Republicans came cheap. For the amazingly good price of only $300,000 apiece, Fannie and Freddie bought the good will of former Reps. Vin Weber, R-Minn., Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., and Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.* Former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., was even cheaper at $240,000.

[*Correction: After Gingrich admitted last week to receiving $300,000 from Freddie, we found out this week that it was actually closer to $1.6 million.]
Ann Coulter - November 16, 2011 - IF NOT ROMNEY, WHO? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

Now if you'll excuse me, I need a really hot shower. :yh_sick

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:32 pm

There is a working understanding in the UK that one party does not come in and immediately major changes made by previous administrations - so labour didn't come in and renationalise all the industries Thatcher sold off to her mates in the city, I take it there is no such gentleman's agreement in the states?

In UK terms she is a right wing fascist heidbanger. I've seen her being interviewed by paxo, it was quite funny he's not used to nutters like her.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:00 pm

LarsMac;1375667 wrote: The one that tops my list is that all the time he was leading the charge to get Clinton impeached for fooling around with Monica, Newt was cheating on his wife.

Bingo. I'm not voting for ANY sleazy candidates. If you'll cheat on the girl who loves you, you have no morals to speak of.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:11 pm

Accountable;1376007 wrote: I heard about this op ed on the radio so I held my nose and went to Ann Coulter's website. So that you won't have to sully yourselves, here's the part that pertains to this thread:

Ann Coulter - November 16, 2011 - IF NOT ROMNEY, WHO? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

Now if you'll excuse me, I need a really hot shower. :yh_sickShe's a prize, isn't she. I have to admit I'm enjoying watching conservatives trip all over themselves and one another.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:14 pm

Ahso!;1376029 wrote: She's a prize, isn't she. I have to admit I'm enjoying watching conservatives trip all over themselves and one another.

Isn't there a book out called "Why I Hate Ann Coulter?" I need to read that....

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:42 pm

gmc;1376021 wrote: There is a working understanding in the UK that one party does not come in and immediately major changes made by previous administrations - so labour didn't come in and renationalise all the industries Thatcher sold off to her mates in the city, I take it there is no such gentleman's agreement in the states?

In UK terms she is a right wing fascist heidbanger. I've seen her being interviewed by paxo, it was quite funny he's not used to nutters like her.
There's no gentleman's agreement like that that I'm aware of. Campaigns are often built around dismantling what the incumbent has built. The promises never become action, though.