View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 25th, 2014, 9:39 pm



Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy 
Author Message
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
in Thursday's debate, when CNN's John King asked Gingrich to respond to the "open marriage" allegations, Gingrich railed against "the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media" and added that asking about "personal pain" is "as close to despicable as anything I can imagine". Gingrich was not always so sensitive about personal matters, having once tried to impeach Bill Clinton over "personal pain", AKA lying about having an affair with a woman 22 years younger than him. But considering Gingrich himself was having an affair with a woman 22 years his junior at exactly the same time, "hypocrisy" has for him always been an elastic concept.

There is a little flaw in this "argument" UK. You see Clinton was blatantly lying about which woman (en) he had an affair with, and he was HAVING an affair while operating AS President. (See the Presidential Seal on the Blue dress). Clinton and now Obama have and are demonstrating that the rules don't apply to them. It was a do as I say not as I do leadership.

Looking at healthcare, no one in Congress is going to be forced into substandard, middle of the road treatment like the rest of us who pay their salary. Maobama got that enacted.

More recently: Insider trading; it is perfectly legal for Congress to use inside information to increase their fortunes but Mr. and Mrs. America would go to jail for doing it.

We've had three years of hypocrisy, lies upon lies, and yet W was the President that supposedly lied about WMD's and such. I am dumbfounded by how willing people are to suck on the government tit, so they can play their x box, spawn more welfare babies, smoke cigarettes, and complain about those who chose to EARN their millions by untold hours of effort, and heartache.

Let's boil this down to something simple: If you work really hard to get an "A" in science class, and your roommate chooses to party and not turn in his homework, and he gets a "C", is it fair for the teacher to say in the effort of fairness your "A" becomes a "B" and your roommates "C" becomes a "B" too, because it's only fair? Granted this is a very SIMPLE example of what's going on, but let me ask the board is Congress giving up anything to become fair with the rest of us?

Newt seems to be the only one with fire in the belly and a willingness to fight dirty if necessary (because you know maobama will). Romney has nothing to fight from, he is the vanilla version of maobama. Plain, tasteless, used car salesmanesque, and really doesn't do anything that would earn my trust.

Newt is passionate, upfront about his past mistakes, and absolutely inflammatory about taking it to the media that shelters this President and all of his untruths, mis steps, and willingness to trample our Constitution.

Santorum may be too far Conservative for many, and he doesn't appear to be able to get the face time to support his reasoning for President.

It is obvious that we are walking a razors edge with this election. America needs a clean patriot, who will run for the United States, and not treat the job as his own personal kingdom.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


January 26th, 2012, 10:18 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3871
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Quote:
a willingness to fight dirty


not pickin on ya...but i have to ask..is that really a quality we crave in a US President??

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 26th, 2012, 11:59 am
Profile
3rd Round Selection

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1189
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
WarEr4Christ wrote:
in Thursday's debate, when CNN's John King asked Gingrich to respond to the "open marriage" allegations, Gingrich railed against "the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media" and added that asking about "personal pain" is "as close to despicable as anything I can imagine". Gingrich was not always so sensitive about personal matters, having once tried to impeach Bill Clinton over "personal pain", AKA lying about having an affair with a woman 22 years younger than him. But considering Gingrich himself was having an affair with a woman 22 years his junior at exactly the same time, "hypocrisy" has for him always been an elastic concept.

There is a little flaw in this "argument" UK. You see Clinton was blatantly lying about which woman (en) he had an affair with, and he was HAVING an affair while operating AS President. (See the Presidential Seal on the Blue dress).

Surely Newt's reaction to the whole Clinton scandal should have been to rail against whoever asked Clinton whether he was having an affair, given that to do so "as close to despicable as anything I can imagine"? Oh no, Newt's problem wasn't that someone did the "despicable" thing of asking Clinton the question - his problem was with Clinton's response. Or, in other words, he is a hypocrite.

Newt was also having his affairs whilst he was operating as Speaker of the House, I believe.

The man is a gigantic hypocrite.


January 26th, 2012, 12:34 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
UK: I got ya, I didn't put the timeline together with my response, so yes I see your point.

Reg Joe: I don't think fighting dirty is necessarily the best quality, but with these cards stacked against the conservative, I think it's imperative that the candidate who would be President be PASSIONATE, TRUE, and represent whats best about America.

Since we are banking on a perfect candidate, which can't be found we need to understand what do we want. I mean seriously, can the United States take another four years of the status quo? The most "ethical" Congress wasn't, the audacity of Hope is actually a joke, and what they are trying to do is force a value change on America. Let's face it, the unemployed are finding it far easier to continue to exist off the government handout, than to continually try to find employment because companies can't afford to hire anyone.

Let's ask the Native Americans in South Dakota Reservations how good that's been. They've eeked out an existence off of government welfare for a hundred and fifty years, and what has it got them? Unemployment rates of 80%, child abuse, sex abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, high crime rates, increased anger and much more.

The US can survive if we return to a mind set where PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is a mainstay of what happens. If you don't work, you don't eat. We need to stop wringing our hands, and feeling sorry for Ray Ray, or Billy Bob, or Pe Pe who choose not to contribute, and provide an atmosphere where they can contribute.

You want shovel ready employment? Ok here's a start! Food stamps will be issued at a $10.00 per hour rate, for hours worked. Work programs include: trash and litter pick up, graffiti removal, lawn mowing and brush cleaning, vacant home refurbishment via programs like Jimmy Carters program. This gives people dignity because they've EARNED their money, it gives them training in various skills, it cleans up much of inner city living areas, and will keep it clean because people will guard their work and efforts.

Instead we have lifetime unemployment, ssi, and other programs being taken advantage of. Funnel the money appropriately and watch us bounce back. And EVERYTHING should be transparent except for covert operations against National Enemies.

These bs laws that Congress passed to line their own pockets should have authors of said law, and more up on charges just like the rest of us would be.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


January 26th, 2012, 1:07 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
OK, I give up. You guys win. It's long been known that the GOP establishment isn't conservative and doesn't give a damn about it's base. But now, several so-called conservatives have sold out to the establishment, so it's a lost cause. Romney will be the nominee and he will lose to Obama. Our Republic as we knew it, is now officially over.

Yesterday was a very long, sad, and frustrating day for me. I had discussions with dozens of conservatives, Tea Partiers, and anti-establishment types and most of us came to the same conclusion - You can't beat the machine. Even though we have the numbers and are right on the issues, it is not enough to overcome the money, power, organization, corruption, and influence of the establishment. If people were strong enough in their convictions and principles, this would not be the case. But regrettably, it became abundantly clear yesterday that far too many people can be bought for the right price.

I could go on and on and on, but what's the point? Even if Romney somehow beats Obama, will it really make much of a difference? There would be tweaks here and tweaks there, but we would still be moving in the wrong direction, just at a slightly slower pace.

_________________
Image


January 26th, 2012, 1:42 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
I don't normally like Ann Coulter, but this article really struck a nerve with me. I don't have time to research every claim she's made here, but if it's true, it sure paints a different picture of Newt being the Conservative and Romney being the Moderate. I agree with most of what she's said here.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-01-25.html

There's also a couple articles on Drudge right now about how Gingrich was actually opposed to many things Reagan did while in office, and said so at the time. Interesting considering how often Newt now mentions Reagan and has even said he considers himself a sort of successor to Reaganism. It's this kind of erratic behavior that bugs me about Newt. He's got an uncanny ability to make claims with such vigor and certainty that he comes across as more credible than Romney, but the more I look into it, the more unreliable Newt appears. He's actually very similar to Bill Clinton in that regard. An amazing ability to connect with certain people, even when not telling the truth.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


January 26th, 2012, 1:53 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Touchdown Jesus, Ann Coulter has been one of the biggest sellouts of the bunch. It's been that way for close to two years now. Anybody that has paid attention has known that. What's funny is that a year ago, she said that if the GOP didn't nominate Chris Christie, Romney would be the nominee and he would lose to Obama.

_________________
Image


January 26th, 2012, 2:07 pm
Profile
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
I don't normally like Ann Coulter, but this article really struck a nerve with me. I don't have time to research every claim she's made here, but if it's true, it sure paints a different picture of Newt being the Conservative and Romney being the Moderate. I agree with most of what she's said here.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-01-25.html

There's also a couple articles on Drudge right now about how Gingrich was actually opposed to many things Reagan did while in office, and said so at the time. Interesting considering how often Newt now mentions Reagan and has even said he considers himself a sort of successor to Reaganism. It's this kind of erratic behavior that bugs me about Newt. He's got an uncanny ability to make claims with such vigor and certainty that he comes across as more credible than Romney, but the more I look into it, the more unreliable Newt appears. He's actually very similar to Bill Clinton in that regard. An amazing ability to connect with certain people, even when not telling the truth.



TDJ, haven't you ever had a professor that you disagreed with that you later learned from? I don't find fault in Newt for disagreeing with Regan then, and invoking him now. I had a professor in college that was a staunch proponent of the parliamentary form of government. I wrote paper after paper disagreeing with him, and it effected my grade negatively (if you were in line step, making his argument, he couldn't argue against it, but if you took the other side you had to do so much more vigorously). That said, 10 years later I totally agree with the guy, I would say that I had Professor Deegan Krause at WSU, and I support parlimentary politics. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

And I'll add... there's a difference between being a "flip-flopper" (John Kerry, Romney) stating very recently that they're for something that they're now against (or the inverse), and changing your opinion over a maturation and education after a number of years.


January 26th, 2012, 2:13 pm
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
A guy on Red-Eye last night on Fox made a weird point to me... He said that Newt isn't great at winning debates, he's "just great at saying the right thing and riling up the audience." He said that he's just "great at saying what the audience wants to hear." However, the audience is "the people," and what he says are his beliefs and reasons for running for office. I have no reason to doubt that when Newt says that he is going to hold Washington accountable, or that he is not going to approve an unbalanced budget, that he would do otherwise. IMO, his time as Speaker has shown that he sticks to his convictions, virtually at all costs.


January 26th, 2012, 2:20 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
slybri19 wrote:
Touchdown Jesus, Ann Coulter has been one of the biggest sellouts of the bunch. It's been that way for close to two years now. Anybody that has paid attention has known that. What's funny is that a year ago, she said that if the GOP didn't nominate Chris Christie, Romney would be the nominee and he would lose to Obama.

That doesn't make her a sellout. She could still think he won't win, but that he's got a better shot than Newt. Regardless, it doesn't matter what you think of her. What matters is the facts she wrote about. For example, she said the following about Newt:

- He lobbied Bush to support embryonic stem cell research
- He supports having a guest worker program for illegal immigrants
- He referred to Paul Ryan's entitlement reform plan "Right Wing social engineering"
- He has spent his entire career in Washington
- He supported Romneycare (and also supported the federal mandate to purchase insurance)

Are those things true or not?

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


January 26th, 2012, 2:23 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12208
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
wjb21ndtown wrote:
A guy on Red-Eye last night on Fox made a weird point to me... He said that Newt isn't great at winning debates, he's "just great at saying the right thing and riling up the audience." He said that he's just "great at saying what the audience wants to hear." However, the audience is "the people," and what he says are his beliefs and reasons for running for office. I have no reason to doubt that when Newt says that he is going to hold Washington accountable, or that he is not going to approve an unbalanced budget, that he would do otherwise. IMO, his time as Speaker has shown that he sticks to his convictions, virtually at all costs.

He's a politician, therefore there is reason to doubt any and everything that comes out of his mouth.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


January 26th, 2012, 3:15 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TDJ, haven't you ever had a professor that you disagreed with that you later learned from? I don't find fault in Newt for disagreeing with Regan then, and invoking him now. I had a professor in college that was a staunch proponent of the parliamentary form of government. I wrote paper after paper disagreeing with him, and it effected my grade negatively (if you were in line step, making his argument, he couldn't argue against it, but if you took the other side you had to do so much more vigorously). That said, 10 years later I totally agree with the guy, I would say that I had Professor Deegan Krause at WSU, and I support parlimentary politics. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

And I'll add... there's a difference between being a "flip-flopper" (John Kerry, Romney) stating very recently that they're for something that they're now against (or the inverse), and changing your opinion over a maturation and education after a number of years.

Yes of course I have. But that's not quite what Newt is doing here. He's invoking Reagan's name over and over, implying that he agreed with him and played an integral role is Reagan's success (at the time). Not that he looks back and realizes that Reagan was right. There's a huge difference. For example, he has said "We helped defeat the Soviet empire" and "I helped Reagan create millions of jobs". Yet, back in the 80s, Gingrich said the following: "Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire's challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail... President Reagan is clearly failing." and "The burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on Ronald Reagan." Also, he compared Reagan's meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as "the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich". He also criticised Reagan's delivery in speeches and claimed his policies towards the USSR were "pathetic" and "incompetent".

This is what I mean. He isn't saying he now realizes Reagan was right. He is saying that he was there, helping, when in fact he was speaking out saying it was a failure.

As for flip flopping, Newt has done it just as much. His comments on Ryan's plan a year ago compared to today (then is was "right wing social engineering" and now he supports the plan), he supported the health insurance mandate at the federal level (which Romney has always been against) but now opposes it, he supported cap and trade, but now opposes it, etc.

I think every candidate (except perhaps Paul) has changed their position on some things. They're politicians, it goes with the territory.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


January 26th, 2012, 3:29 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12208
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
slybri19 wrote:
I could go on and on and on, but what's the point? Even if Romney somehow beats Obama, will it really make much of a difference? There would be tweaks here and tweaks there, but we would still be moving in the wrong direction, just at a slightly slower pace.


IMO listening to the Right/Repubs during this election cycle reminds me an awful lot of the Left/Dems during the 2004 election cycle. Think about it, back then the Left/Dems were saying pretty much the same things about Bush as the Right/Repubs are saying about Obama:
Then: ANYONE can beat Bush, Kerry will be the next Pres
Now: ANYONE can beat Obama, Romney/Newt will be the next Pres

Then: Bush is a fascist and the worst Pres in History
Now: Obama is a socialist and the worst Pres in History

I don't have time to add more, but I'm sure you get my point. IMO this reinforces the theory that it doesn't matter which letter follows the candidates name, they are all the same and are all bought and paid for and do not and will not work for the American people.

There is currently a Republican Presidential candidate that has experience as Governor as well as in Congress (4 terms). Has owned / started businesses. Does NOT have a PAC and is NOT taking any contribution over $100. (One of his main topics of his platform is: Get Money Out of Politics). Masters from Harvard business school in banking and finance. Studied economics @ Harvard.

Let me ask all of you this: Why hasn't he been invited/involved in ANY of the debates?


_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


January 26th, 2012, 3:33 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
Yes of course I have. But that's not quite what Newt is doing here. He's invoking Reagan's name over and over, implying that he agreed with him and played an integral role is Reagan's success (at the time). Not that he looks back and realizes that Reagan was right. There's a huge difference. For example, he has said "We helped defeat the Soviet empire" and "I helped Reagan create millions of jobs". Yet, back in the 80s, Gingrich said the following: "Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire's challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail... President Reagan is clearly failing." and "The burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on Ronald Reagan." Also, he compared Reagan's meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as "the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich". He also criticised Reagan's delivery in speeches and claimed his policies towards the USSR were "pathetic" and "incompetent".

This is what I mean. He isn't saying he now realizes Reagan was right. He is saying that he was there, helping, when in fact he was speaking out saying it was a failure.

Some of that is just ridiculous. As you allude to above, Newt wanted Reagan to be tougher against the Soviet Union and brought strong rhetoric which is the norm in Washington. But in the end, he usually voted with Reagan, and actions speak louder than words. Most of Reagan's advisors have even said that Newt was a strong supporter of Reagan and some of them have even endorsed him. Nancy Reagan even said in a speech in 1995 that "Ronnie passed the torch to Newt", and his son, Michael Reagan, has endorsed Newt.

Conversely, Romney voted for the very liberal Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary and it's rumored, but I can't verify, that he voted for Carter and Mondale over Reagan. He even said back in 1994 when he was running against Ted Kennedy that he didn't want to go back to the Reagan-Bush years. It's pretty obvious who the pro-Reagan candidate is in this race.

Wags, you and I both know that Buddy Roemer never stood a chance. While noble, his decision not to take more than $100 from any individual ended his campaign before it even started. I'm thinking it was just a stunt in order to make a point than anything else.

_________________
Image


January 26th, 2012, 9:02 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2747
Post Re: Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Schiff says most what I think perfectly in this video. However, he pays too much lip service to Romney. Probably because he plans to run for the senate again and doesn't want to completely sever ties with the Republican establishment.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout ... 57202.html


February 1st, 2012, 9:23 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.