or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy - Page 3

post #81 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But we're not talking about that situation. We're talking about you voting for Ron Paul as a third party candidate, despite your intense dislike of the current President, and despite the fact that you KNOW your candidate cannot win. It practically gives new meaning to "cognitive dissonance."

I also intensely dislike Newt Gingrich. I think I'm quite consistent in my desire not to vote for candidates I intensely dislike.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #82 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I also intensely dislike Newt Gingrich. I think I'm quite consistent in my desire not to vote for candidates I intensely dislike.

I agree with you. This your choice to vote whom you like. I hate Romney and Gingrich both.
post #83 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

I agree with you. This your choice to vote whom you like. I hate Romney and Gingrich both.

They're on occasion the top 2 Republican candidates in the polls . What does this mean to you? Curious.
post #84 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Gingrich suggesting that employment early teaches good skills is nothing controversial nor is it mean or "grinchy".

Government itself declares that people who have been on long term unemployment have troubles getting back into the job market because they forget how to do things like.....show up on time.

The dependency culture has many downfalls. This article hits pretty well at explaining why Gingrich says this.

The part where I'd go further is to note that most poor kids have no fire in their belly at this stage due to the nature of government assistance. As a teacher I have no problem teaching someone who is ignorant of how to do something. I have major problems teaching people who find no fault with their ignorance since it creates no shortcomings in their lives. People don't feel the desire to fix that which they can't see is broken and it isn't broken if there is no consequence or problems associated with that attribute.

So we have kids who chronically wander in late. They get fed two meals a day. They largely gossip and distract themselves and often others. They never bring homework, minimally attempt the classwork and even with incentives, do not feel any need to improve their lot. They are years behind at times but blissfully happy becaue that has no consequence in their lives. This percentage of kids grows larger every year.

If his message was employment teaches kids skills, then fair enough. But the way he put it is so vindictive and his vitriol notwithstanding, fails on several levels.

1. Poor kids are the ones that need to be taught "a work ethic"
While it may be possible that poor kids are more likely to have a poorer work ethic, you can't just say, well, you're poor, therefore your work ethic has to suck, therefore you have to become a janitor. That doesn't make sense. If a kid *has* a poor work ethic as you mention, such as being late, etc. then yes, you could assign them "punishment" to make them have a better work ethic, possibly through employment. Speaking of employment...

2. Being a school janitor, in your own school
This is such an absolutely retarded concept that it beggars belief rational people would consider it to any degree. The idea says, let's prepare the children for a new world of high-skilled, information and technology-based careers by... making them clean toilets. Even better, they're poor, so, well, might as well get them started on... staying poor and doing menial jobs... Why bother, right? The humiliation of doing it in their own school, boy, I don't know about you all but that would have scarred me for life. If the "kids of today" suck, well, there has to be a better way than forcing them to clean toilets just because they're poor.

3. Long term unemployment
This is a separate issue from child labour. Firstly one would assume a child should be able to complete K-12 without having to be forced to work by the government. By their parents or circumstance, fair enough. By the government, maybe, if there was a more sensible plan, not being a school janitor because they are poor. Secondly, long term unemployment issues generally should be dealt with in relation to adults post-K-12. In Australia long-term ADULT (18+) unemployed (6-12 months) can and are assigned "Work For The Dole". This is a way to get long-term unemployed out of the house and doing community service, active participation and a variety of things not just "being janitors". They have to complete requisite number of hours of this community work to continue to receive assistance. And they are also required to continue to apply for jobs and go to interviews. "Work For The Dole" has drawbacks though, which is perhaps a topic for another time. Does the US have anything like this?

The problem I see in the US is that things are so polarised between the "angry father" "right-wing" and the "clueless mother" "left-wing". Certain so-called "socialist" Western societies have what I would say "the concerned mother" approach where a bit of brain is applied, while being stern with people.
post #85 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

If his message was employment teaches kids skills, then fair enough. But the way he put it is so vindictive and his vitriol notwithstanding, fails on several levels.

Sometimes the truth hurts. Sometimes the truth is mean. Truth is about more than feelings.

Quote:
1. Poor kids are the ones that need to be taught "a work ethic"
While it may be possible that poor kids are more likely to have a poorer work ethic, you can't just say, well, you're poor, therefore your work ethic has to suck, therefore you have to become a janitor. That doesn't make sense. If a kid *has* a poor work ethic as you mention, such as being late, etc. then yes, you could assign them "punishment" to make them have a better work ethic, possibly through employment. Speaking of employment...

The issue he was addressing was two-fold. He said that it would also address how menial labor as you termed it is unionized and thus earning $50-75k a year. As for assigning a punishment, you have no idea of the magnitude of the problem. If it were just one kid, then you can give a consequence, never mind that one kid per class still equals about 25 kids per school. It is larger than that. It is a solid ten percent of kids which means 75 kids per elementary school per day.

Why are these kids late everyday? No one in their household has to get up and go anywhere. The only reason they come to school is because their parents have been pulled before the district attorney and threatened with jail. If you were to give them the punishment you claim, they would come down and pull them out of school over it. They don't feel the need to pick up, care for, or address anything because everything in life is handed to them or handled for them.

Quote:
2. Being a school janitor, in your own school
This is such an absolutely retarded concept that it beggars belief rational people would consider it to any degree. The idea says, let's prepare the children for a new world of high-skilled, information and technology-based careers by... making them clean toilets. Even better, they're poor, so, well, might as well get them started on... staying poor and doing menial jobs... Why bother, right? The humiliation of doing it in their own school, boy, I don't know about you all but that would have scarred me for life. If the "kids of today" suck, well, there has to be a better way than forcing them to clean toilets just because they're poor.

Everyone has to start some where and that is true even in our high skilled and high tech world. They aren't having employment issues due to lack of computer skills. They can't show up on time. They don't remember what day of the week it is or can't recall their schedule. We are talking baby steps here. I have no idea why this would have scarred you for life. Work is work and that is another point to learn. I've got my master's degree but that doesn't mean I didn't ever bus tables or work as a dishwasher. Finally if certain work bothers you or if you feel the station in life assigned to it is beneath you, then isn't that a great bit of motivation to improve yourself?

That's the point. There's no fire in the belly. There's no "man I'm not going to be a dishwasher forever, I want better than this and I'll work to make it happen." That doesn't currently exist. They go home and demand unemployment, welfare or Social Security Disability and the job becomes one filled by an illegal immigrant since it is one "Americans won't do."

Quote:
3. Long term unemployment
This is a separate issue from child labour. Firstly one would assume a child should be able to complete K-12 without having to be forced to work by the government. By their parents or circumstance, fair enough. By the government, maybe, if there was a more sensible plan, not being a school janitor because they are poor. Secondly, long term unemployment issues generally should be dealt with in relation to adults post-K-12. In Australia long-term ADULT (18+) unemployed (6-12 months) can and are assigned "Work For The Dole". This is a way to get long-term unemployed out of the house and doing community service, active participation and a variety of things not just "being janitors". They have to complete requisite number of hours of this community work to continue to receive assistance. And they are also required to continue to apply for jobs and go to interviews. "Work For The Dole" has drawbacks though, which is perhaps a topic for another time. Does the US have anything like this?

No the U.S. will require education and job retraining classes. They will require attempts to seek work but they do not require you to show up some place and engage in labor for your money. There is no "work for the dole." If there were then the point of Gingrich would be null and void. You wouldn't have an entire class of people who have collected checks for 99 weeks and forgetten how to answer an alarm clock.

Quote:
The problem I see in the US is that things are so polarised between the "angry father" "right-wing" and the "clueless mother" "left-wing". Certain so-called "socialist" Western societies have what I would say "the concerned mother" approach where a bit of brain is applied, while being stern with people.

Concern can be expressed in more than money. Concern does not need to be unionized. Concern does not require trillion dollar a year annual deficits. Almost all Western societies are going broke due to their welfare states. One prevailing issue that seems to be out there related to what you say about being stern is once they become multicultural or multiethnic, the government attempts to be stern are often branded as racist or as a form of cultural imperialism.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #86 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I also intensely dislike Newt Gingrich. I think I'm quite consistent in my desire not to vote for candidates I intensely dislike.

OK, let's make this more direct: Someone has a gun to your head. You have to choose Gingrich, Romney or Obama. Whom do you choose?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #87 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sometimes the truth hurts. Sometimes the truth is mean. Truth is about more than feelings.



The issue he was addressing was two-fold. He said that it would also address how menial labor as you termed it is unionized and thus earning $50-75k a year. As for assigning a punishment, you have no idea of the magnitude of the problem. If it were just one kid, then you can give a consequence, never mind that one kid per class still equals about 25 kids per school. It is larger than that. It is a solid ten percent of kids which means 75 kids per elementary school per day.

Why are these kids late everyday? No one in their household has to get up and go anywhere. The only reason they come to school is because their parents have been pulled before the district attorney and threatened with jail. If you were to give them the punishment you claim, they would come down and pull them out of school over it. They don't feel the need to pick up, care for, or address anything because everything in life is handed to them or handled for them.



Everyone has to start some where and that is true even in our high skilled and high tech world. They aren't having employment issues due to lack of computer skills. They can't show up on time. They don't remember what day of the week it is or can't recall their schedule. We are talking baby steps here. I have no idea why this would have scarred you for life. Work is work and that is another point to learn. I've got my master's degree but that doesn't mean I didn't ever bus tables or work as a dishwasher. Finally if certain work bothers you or if you feel the station in life assigned to it is beneath you, then isn't that a great bit of motivation to improve yourself?

That's the point. There's no fire in the belly. There's no "man I'm not going to be a dishwasher forever, I want better than this and I'll work to make it happen." That doesn't currently exist. They go home and demand unemployment, welfare or Social Security Disability and the job becomes one filled by an illegal immigrant since it is one "Americans won't do."



No the U.S. will require education and job retraining classes. They will require attempts to seek work but they do not require you to show up some place and engage in labor for your money. There is no "work for the dole." If there were then the point of Gingrich would be null and void. You wouldn't have an entire class of people who have collected checks for 99 weeks and forgetten how to answer an alarm clock.



Concern can be expressed in more than money. Concern does not need to be unionized. Concern does not require trillion dollar a year annual deficits. Almost all Western societies are going broke due to their welfare states. One prevailing issue that seems to be out there related to what you say about being stern is once they become multicultural or multiethnic, the government attempts to be stern are often branded as racist or as a form of cultural imperialism.

I'm actually more with nvidia on this one, though I see your points. I don't think forcing kids to be janitors is something that will solve any real problem. These kids are forced to go to a government school. We're going to force them to perform menial labor too? I think all that will do is breed resentment, trigger unbelievable lawsuits, etc. On the other side, unionized custodians making $50-75K a year (which is probably fantasy for many of them) is not where the financial "leak" in our system is.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #88 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm actually more with nvidia on this one, though I see your points. I don't think forcing kids to be janitors is something that will solve any real problem. These kids are forced to go to a government school. We're going to force them to perform menial labor too? I think all that will do is breed resentment, trigger unbelievable lawsuits, etc. On the other side, unionized custodians making $50-75K a year (which is probably fantasy for many of them) is not where the financial "leak" in our system is.

It's not about being forced. He was talking about paying kids to do it as a first job rather than paying one person a union rate to dump wastebaskets.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #89 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's not about being forced. He was talking about paying kids to do it as a first job rather than paying one person a union rate to dump wastebaskets.

Fair enough. I still don't know that it's a solution that really works, but whatever.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #90 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OK, let's make this more direct: Someone has a gun to your head. You have to choose Gingrich, Romney or Obama. Whom do you choose?

Ron Paul.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #91 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Ron Paul.

Not an option. I'm asking. Which one. In fact, let's make it easier. The choices are Gingrich and Obama. Paul doesn't run. What do you do?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #92 of 328
Thread Starter 
Ron Paul. I don't buy the false dilemma.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #93 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Ron Paul. I don't buy the false dilemma.

He's asking you which of the three you find least offensive. Quit being obstinate and just answer.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #94 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Ron Paul. I don't buy the false dilemma.

It's not a false dilemma. It's a hypothetical, and one that is actually quite likely to happen. I can't believe I'm writing this, but "as BR posted" (ugh...that hurt), which one do you find least offensive? Which one of the two or there would you take if those were the choices you had?

I don't mean to go all BR on you here but you're intelligent enough to know the reason I ask is that this is the very choice you are GOING to face come next November. You will realize that Paul has no shot at winning as a third party candidate, or isn't running at all. You'll then have to decide if you want to help reelect Obama, or make your vote mean that's less likely to happen. I know, I know..it sucks and I wish things didn't work that way. But they do, and I think you know it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 328
Thread Starter 
There will be other third party candidates. I will vote for one of them like I did in 2008.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #96 of 328
See, he chooses Obama. Satisfied, SDW?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #97 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's not about being forced. He was talking about paying kids to do it as a first job rather than paying one person a union rate to dump wastebaskets.

No, I was talking about kids being forced to be janitors in their own school for no other reason than them being poor. This seems to be what Newt is saying.

That's why it's plain crazy.

The issue is not that kids have to work low-end jobs. It is the idea of "Ok hey you there... you're poor right? Alright, now you are now forced to work as a janitor in your OWN SCHOOL, too bad, so sad. That rich kid over there? Yeah, he's late all the time too and smokes pot and throws wild parties at his dad's mansion, but that doesn't matter, he can do whatever he wants because his dad's buddies will hook him up".

This is not a straw man. This is a logical scenario that could arise from what Gingrich is suggesting. And it displays his highly disturbing ideology. And I'm not even going to touch on his hypocrisy yet, because I want to address the ideology not the person so much.
post #98 of 328
But this is what I'm talking about in terms of the polarity and breakdown of discussion and common sense in the political arena in the US and other countries. Everything is becoming so ideological.

Between Trumpt, SDW and myself, we could probably sit down and look at the different issues and hammer out a sensible approach. Which is the role of government, not lobbyists:
  • How do we assess kids with a poor school/work ethic regardless of their family's income
  • How do we assign corrective measures regardless of their family's income
  • How to mitigate psychological harm while being stern enough
  • What employment opportunities can be provided to them that benefit them and the broader society
  • How to bring higher-end skillsets to them as well as adults of all walks of life, on benefits or not
  • For those out of K-12, over 18 and on government assistance how to make them productive
  • How to identify, prevent and treat mental illness (this is a massive factor) and/or drug abuse as contributors to unemployment
  • School districts - this one confuses me. Why can you not go to any school you choose? Does this encourage bad schools in bad neighbourhood to remain so? I'm not up to speed on this one.
post #99 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OK, let's make this more direct: Someone has a gun to your head. You have to choose Gingrich, Romney or Obama. Whom do you choose?

Given that choice, I would go with Romney right now.
Obama's a disaster and Gingrich talks conservative and lives liberal.

Speaking personally about religion (and not, of course, for all evangelicals), if there's no-one on the ballot that honours Christ in both word and deed, you should probably go with the least-bad option.

Romney isn't a Christian, and may be more liberal in philosophy than I'd prefer for a U.S. President, but the man has shown perseverance and strict personal discipline throughout the race, and I do admire those qualities for a nation's leader. Especially with what the world's facing at the moment.

This may change as the campaign moves on to the final phase, but it's what I think right now.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #100 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

No, I was talking about kids being forced to be janitors in their own school for no other reason than them being poor. This seems to be what Newt is saying.


Here is the direct quote of what he said.

Quote:
"You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine," Mr. Gingrich said. "You're totally poor. You're in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I've tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising."

Quote:
That's why it's plain crazy.

Actually you can see that in no form or fashion forces anyone to do anything.
Quote:
The issue is not that kids have to work low-end jobs. It is the idea of "Ok hey you there... you're poor right? Alright, now you are now forced to work as a janitor in your OWN SCHOOL, too bad, so sad. That rich kid over there? Yeah, he's late all the time too and smokes pot and throws wild parties at his dad's mansion, but that doesn't matter, he can do whatever he wants because his dad's buddies will hook him up".

I hate to break it to you but declaring to someone who is poor that opportunity should be denied until it is the same sort of opportunity that the rich kid is going to get from his rich dad is just ridiculous. Life isn't fair. A rich kid with a rich dad has a much larger margin of error to screw up. Anyone with money has more margin of error with regard to room to screw up. That is the nature of having more money.

Quote:
This is not a straw man. This is a logical scenario that could arise from what Gingrich is suggesting. And it displays his highly disturbing ideology. And I'm not even going to touch on his hypocrisy yet, because I want to address the ideology not the person so much.

So Gingrich claims that instead of one uneducated person being paid union wages of $50-75k to empty wastepaper baskets, dust shelves, wipe desks, mop floors, etc. that a select portion of these jobs could be done by students who would earn minimum wage but be given an opportunity in a neighborhood where there aren't as many opportunities.

How is that in any form or fashion wrong or disturbing? My first job was as a dishwasher. I've delivered pizzas, scrubbed floors, done whatever was necessary to earn a buck. As Gingrich notes most successful people self-start on this type of stuff and do so at an early age.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #101 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Romney isn't a Christian.

Point of clarification: Mormons are Christians. The official name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The scriptures we study include the King James Bible and The Book of Mormon, subtitled "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".

While members include people from many different nations (there are more members outside of the U.S. than inside), walks of life, and political persuasions, we all believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world and worship the Father in his name.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #102 of 328
Thread Starter 
I'd take another look at Romney if he wanted to bring our troops home and at least audit the fed.

If he chooses Ron Paul as his veep (and Ron Paul accepts), I'd consider that, too.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #103 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Point of clarification: Mormons are Christians. The official name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The scriptures we study include the King James Bible and The Book of Mormon, subtitled "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".

While members include people from many different nations (there are more members outside of the U.S. than inside), walks of life, and political persuasions, we all believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world and worship the Father in his name.

Yeah, but you guys take your Christian fanfiction seriously so all the other Christians don't really consider what you believe to be canon. Also, the whole when you die you become the god of your own planet thing is a bit of a divergence.

It is pretty funny though watching Christians and Mormons have these silly nomenclature disputes. Popcorn!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #104 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'd take another look at Romney if he wanted to bring our troops home and at least audit the fed.

If he chooses Ron Paul as his veep (and Ron Paul accepts), I'd consider that, too.

Hey good progress, and now SDW can stop waving guns around all crazy like!

Now for the paradox... Newt picks Ron Paul as V.P.....what do you do then?

A couple videos that show what I want Newt to do. The first one is older. It shows exactly what the media does and what OTHER Republican candidates don't see to address, questions loaded with a false negative pretense toward a Republican person or idea. In this case the pretense is "Sarah Palin's resume is weak compared to others." Newt destroys it and better still, shows how the media was sheltering Obama.

Here are some CNBC debate highlights where again, there is the realization that the question frames the answer. I don't mean you dodge the question but you don't answer something where you are stuck defending your premise as a flawed one and thus you are on your heels. You go on offense. That is part of what Newt does best and he appears to be the only one out there doing it well.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #105 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

They're on occasion the top 2 Republican candidates in the polls . What does this mean to you? Curious.

It means they both stink!No one decent running in the GOP Party.
post #106 of 328
But one does have to observe that Gingrich is an awesome debater though. He certainly knows how to engage.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #107 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Point of clarification: Mormons are Christians. The official name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The scriptures we study include the King James Bible and The Book of Mormon, subtitled "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".

While members include people from many different nations (there are more members outside of the U.S. than inside), walks of life, and political persuasions, we all believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world and worship the Father in his name.

No, Mormons aren't Christians. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and those from the generation which learned from Him firsthand. Christians do not 'supplement' the Gospel with other teachings. Paul says in Galatians that no other Gospel of Jesus was ever to be received, even if it came from an angel. Both Mormons and Muslims seem to conveniently miss that page.

In terms of your "belief in Jesus Christ", your Church also believes he is Satan's brother and the Journal of Discourses says he was married. The Mormon Church has taught that Jesus was not virgin-born, which would certainly mean you don't understand, at the very least, WHY He is the Saviour and Redeemer of the world.

As for the Father, Mormons believe God was once a man, has a physical body and goddess wives. The Mormon Church teaches that Men may become gods. Perhaps you should take that KJV again and read what the serpent promised to Eve in the Garden. Mormonism has more in common with New Age teachings than Christianity.

There are many, many other problems with Mormon theology that place it outside the gates of Christianity. But suffice it to say that there is good reason why the LDS Church claims the Bible has errors and the word of LDS prophets supercede it, and why Joseph Smith claimed that all other churches were wrong.

Mormonism invokes Jesus the same way Islam does, exalting Him at first to gain acceptance and then replacing every precept He taught with other doctrines. Some of these doctrines are merely foolish, but others are quite dangerous and lead to very dark places.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #108 of 328
Yeah, but in YOUR version Greedo shot first. You're not a real Star Wars fan. You tell him, Frank!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #109 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Ron Paul.

Choose Bachman over Paul. He is getting to old and really set in his ways.
post #110 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

But one does have to observe that Gingrich is an awesome debater though. He certainly knows how to engage.

Gingrich is a lot of B------t and always boasting who wants that person to be a leader! He is full of crap!
post #111 of 328
Thread Starter 
I don't want to get into a point-by-point theological debate and derail the thread, Frank777.

We believe in Christ. He is the central figure in our religion, our church bears his name, and every Sunday we partake of the Sacrament (Lord's Supper) in remembrance of His sacrifice for all mankind.

We can bicker over the finer points of doctrine if you want (that's really not what I want because it's rarely productive), but you telling me what I believe instead of asking me what I believe will get us nowhere.

I invite you to learn the truth about what we believe for yourself. http://www.mormon.org is a good place to start.

Anti-mormon websites and literature are full of half-truths and outright falsehoods about us, and are designed to mock, sensationalize and trivialize our beliefs.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #112 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

See, he chooses Obama. Satisfied, SDW?

Not really He won't admit that's going to be his choice. If he came out and said he'd rather have Obama reelected than Romney or Gingrich, that would be one thing...but he's not there. Yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Given that choice, I would go with Romney right now.
Obama's a disaster and Gingrich talks conservative and lives liberal.

Speaking personally about religion (and not, of course, for all evangelicals), if there's no-one on the ballot that honours Christ in both word and deed, you should probably go with the least-bad option.

Romney isn't a Christian, and may be more liberal in philosophy than I'd prefer for a U.S. President, but the man has shown perseverance and strict personal discipline throughout the race, and I do admire those qualities for a nation's leader. Especially with what the world's facing at the moment.

This may change as the campaign moves on to the final phase, but it's what I think right now.

He is a Christian as has been pointed out. I agree with you on the discipline and perseverance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'd take another look at Romney if he wanted to bring our troops home and at least audit the fed.

If he chooses Ron Paul as his veep (and Ron Paul accepts), I'd consider that, too.

<facepalm> I'm not asking you to take another look at Romney. I'm not arguing that you should change your mind in thinking Paul is a much better option. I'm saying once again that come next November, your choice will be Romney or Gingrich vs. Obama. You'll either choose to help reelect Obama by voting for a third party, or you'll hold your nose and vote for the GOP candidate, who will at least be better than Obama on most issues. This is the cold, hard reality no matter how much you deny it, call it a false dilemma or scream "Ron Paul."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

But one does have to observe that Gingrich is an awesome debater though. He certainly knows how to engage.

I think Romney is better, because he doesn't complain about the questions constantly and is more focused. Gingrich's sparring with the media is amusing and often appropriate, but it wears thin when done all the time.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #113 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

<facepalm> I'm not asking you to take another look at Romney. I'm not arguing that you should change your mind in thinking Paul is a much better option. I'm saying once again that come next November, your choice will be Romney or Gingrich vs. Obama. You'll either choose to help reelect Obama by voting for a third party, or you'll hold your nose and vote for the GOP candidate, who will at least be better than Obama on most issues. This is the cold, hard reality no matter how much you deny it, call it a false dilemma or scream "Ron Paul."

Here's the reality: on the issues that matter to me, the issues that I belive are at the heart of the rest of our problems, there is NO DIFFERENCE between Gingrich/Romney and Obama.

Perpetual war? Yep.

Federal Reserve? No change.

Significant government spending cuts? Nope.

All other issues are secondary. We can't work on the other things if our economy implodes, the dollar collapses, and inflation explodes.

This is how your reasoning comes across to me:

1. We have to choose between "Big Government A" and "Big Government B". There are no other choices.

2. A vote for "Smaller Government" (which shouldn't be a choice in the first place) is really a vote for "Big Government A" because "Smaller Government" can't possibly win.

3. All the votes for "Smaller Government" would have gone to "Big Government B" if "Smaller Government" hadn't been so selfish, sanctimonious, and stupid and just told its supporters to vote for "Big Government B".

4. You must vote for "Big Government B" so that "Big Government A" doesn't win. This will be better for us, somehow.

Our two party system is indeed one giant false dilemma. There are ALWAYS more than two choices. And I am part of a growing number who have the courage to look beyond the facade and say we don't have to vote for the "lesser of two evils" anymore. In fact, we never had to.

Join us.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #114 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Here's the reality: on the issues that matter to me, the issues that I belive are at the heart of the rest of our problems, there is NO DIFFERENCE between Gingrich/Romney and Obama.

Perpetual war? Yep.

Federal Reserve? No change.

Significant government spending cuts? Nope.

All other issues are secondary. We can't work on the other things if our economy implodes, the dollar collapses, and inflation explodes.

You claim to be comparing Romney/Gingrich with Obama, but what you're really doing is comparing them with Ron Paul. Both Gingrich and Romney would be better than Obama on all of the above. And "perpetual war" as you put it is not going to change.

Quote:

This is how your reasoning comes across to me:

1. We have to choose between "Big Government A" and "Big Government B". There are no other choices.

That is correct.

Quote:

2. A vote for "Smaller Government" (which shouldn't be a choice in the first place) is really a vote for "Big Government A" because "Smaller Government" can't possibly win.

Correct.

Quote:

3. All the votes for "Smaller Government" would have gone to "Big Government B" if "Smaller Government" hadn't been so selfish, sanctimonious, and stupid and just told its supporters to vote for "Big Government B".

Correct. Especially with Paul voters.

Quote:

4. You must vote for "Big Government B" so that "Big Government A" doesn't win. This will be better for us, somehow.

Correct...much better.

Quote:

Our two party system is indeed one giant false dilemma. There are ALWAYS more than two choices. And I am part of a growing number who have the courage to look beyond the facade and say we don't have to vote for the "lesser of two evils" anymore. In fact, we never had to.

Join us.

A statement made completely ignorant of the political reality.

Please try and understand: A VOTE FOR PAUL AS A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE IS A VOTE FOR OBAMA'S REELECTION. Go ahead. Refute it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #115 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You claim to be comparing Romney/Gingrich with Obama, but what you're really doing is comparing them with Ron Paul. Both Gingrich and Romney would be better than Obama on all of the above. And "perpetual war" as you put it is not going to change.



That is correct.



Correct.



Correct. Especially with Paul voters.



Correct...much better.

So...we must vote for your preferred flavor Big Government so that the other flavor of Big Government doesn't win. That makes perfect sense. Glad to know you are in favor of Big Government, though. That helps me understand your perspective.

Quote:
Please try and understand: A VOTE FOR PAUL AS A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE IS A VOTE FOR OBAMA'S REELECTION. Go ahead. Refute it.

If I wanted big government, I'd vote for Newt Romney or Obama. I don't want big government, therefore I plan to vote for someone else. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

A VOTE FOR ROMNEY/GINGRICH/OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR BIG GOVERNMENT.

Go ahead. Refute it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #116 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

A VOTE FOR PAUL AS A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE IS A VOTE FOR OBAMA'S REELECTION.

Please. Are you that scared that the republicans might lose? In fact, nothing beats a house that is tied. It will force the two major parties to deal with one other in a more constructive way or face re-election. Do coalitions exist in the US political system? It would be nice if either party was forced to form a coalition with Paul to run the government.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #117 of 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

<facepalm> I'm not asking you to take another look at Romney. I'm not arguing that you should change your mind in thinking Paul is a much better option. I'm saying once again that come next November, your choice will be Romney or Gingrich vs. Obama. You'll either choose to help reelect Obama by voting for a third party, or you'll hold your nose and vote for the GOP candidate, who will at least be better than Obama on most issues. This is the cold, hard reality no matter how much you deny it, call it a false dilemma or scream "Ron Paul."

SDW, he's going to do what he's going to do. People are allowed to choose against their own self-interest. A third party candidate on the right helps Obama. It's early though. Clearly risking Obama is still a palatable choice for him. Let it rest for a bit and let's see if after another 8-9 months of everybody on the right being called a greedy, global hating, racist, sexist, need to be shot, occupied and harmed Nazi and if that doesn't alter his views a bit.

It's clear Obama cannot run on his record. So whoever he runs against and whoever is willing to vote for that person is going to have to be labeled as pretty much evil incarnate by both the Obama campaign and the media. It's easy to say one thing right now when the campaign for general election hasn't begun yet.

Quote:
I think Romney is better, because he doesn't complain about the questions constantly and is more focused. Gingrich's sparring with the media is amusing and often appropriate, but it wears thin when done all the time.

He wouldn't have to do it all the time if the media weren't so completely off the sidelines and basically engaging in a full-court press for Obama. I mean watching that last debate and seeing George "I worked for Clinton, it's just sex and a personal matter that in no way shapes professionalism" Stephanopoulos ask the candidates about marriage and fidelity just was shocking. It shows the Democrats have no shame. They'll put on the klan hats and burn the crosses themselves and then turn around and blame the Republicans. I mean many members of the media are just former Democratic staffers or in the case of the Clinton's their kiddo just works for the media.

The media for better or worse in no different than the DNC. Any candidate that is going to win has to realize that and treat them accordingly. They'll do crazy stuff like write an article asking if McCain is eligible to run since he was born in the American controlled Panama Canal and then turn around and call anyone who applies the same question to Obama a racist. I have no doubt with Romney as an example they'll go after him and his past money associations while Tony Rezko is sitting in a cell after having basically gifted land to Obama for his primary home among other dealings.

The media needs to be called out and put on their heels at a minimum and Newt can do that. We need someone who can take the pretentions in those questions and expose them and the agenda behind them.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #118 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

SDW, he's going to do what he's going to do. People are allowed to choose against their own self-interest. A third party candidate on the right helps Obama. It's early though. Clearly risking Obama is still a palatable choice for him. Let it rest for a bit and let's see if after another 8-9 months of everybody on the right being called a greedy, global hating, racist, sexist, need to be shot, occupied and harmed Nazi and if that doesn't alter his views a bit.

Nah, I just believe voting for more government is against my own self-interest. And a vote for Newt Romney is just as much a vote for more government as a vote for Obama.

So, you see, Obama is no more or less palatable than Newt Romney to me right now. They both make me gag.

I've already stated under what circumstances I'd look at Romney again. But nothing could make me vote for Newt.

Quote:
It's clear Obama cannot run on his record. So whoever he runs against and whoever is willing to vote for that person is going to have to be labeled as pretty much evil incarnate by both the Obama campaign and the media. It's easy to say one thing right now when the campaign for general election hasn't begun yet.

Ron Paul would wipe the floor with Obama. The mainstream media knows it and that's why they've been trying to ignore him.

Newt Romney would be spending too much time trying to explain his record and positions over the years and enduring relentless attacks from the media. With 2 flip-flopper Big Government crony capitalist shills to chose from and the media on Obama's side, they'll likely manage to put enough spin on things to persuade enough people to reelect Obama.

They've got nothing on Ron Paul. Consistent in his political positions for 30 years, they can't attack him on his record. A family man married for over 50 years, they can't attack him on his personal life. No distractions. Obama would have to compete with him on the issues, in which case Obama is a one-term president.

Ron Paul gives Republicans the best chance to win.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #119 of 328
Thread Starter 
Newt takes no-adultery pledge

Aren't marriage vows themselves a "no-adultery pledge"?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #120 of 328
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy