Quotes of the day

posted at 10:55 pm on December 7, 2011 by Allahpundit

“At the end of Gingrich’s first year as House speaker, his endless, nutty pronunciamentos — in addition to his plan to entrust Republicans’ legislative agenda to an old couple whose living room VCR continuously flashed ’12:00′ — had driven his public approval numbers into the dirt…

“It’s true that the liberal media attack Republicans unfairly. But that’s a fact to be dealt with, not ignored by nominating a candidate who keeps giving the media so much to work with.

“Gingrich has spent his years since then having an affair, divorcing his second wife and making money by being the consummate Washington insider — trading on access, taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, and palling around with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton…

“Newt Gingrich is the ‘anti-Establishment’ candidate only if ‘the Establishment’ is defined as ‘anyone who remembers what happened the day before yesterday.’”

***

“Even as he surges ahead in the polls, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is struggling to get out from under a mountain of debt from luxury jets and other pricey expenses racked up in the early weeks of his campaign.

“Creditors say Gingrich has begun paying back nearly $1.2 million in bills he owed at the end of September, and his spokesman says most will be taken care of by the end of the year. Other debts — including $42,000 owed to Gingrich himself for the campaign’s use of a mailing list — have already been paid, ahead of those owed to other vendors, according to aides and disclosure records…

“Gingrich’s financial health could prove crucial in the coming weeks as he attempts to hold on to his sudden lead over Romney and other Republican candidates in many state and national polls. Romney reported raising $32 million through September — more than 10 times the amount Gingrich reported — allowing him to easily fund major advertisements and organizing efforts for early contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.”

***

“Mr. Gingrich has little or no campaign organization in Iowa and most other states. He didn’t file a complete slate of New Hampshire delegates and alternates. He is the only candidate who didn’t qualify for the Missouri primary, and on Wednesday he failed to present enough signatures to get on the ballot in Ohio. Redistricting squabbles may lead the legislature to move the primary to a later date and re-open filing, but it’s still embarrassing to be so poorly organized.

Organization truly matters, especially in low-turnout caucuses. Four years ago, for example, 118,917 Republicans turned out in Iowa—and only 424 votes separated the third- and fourth-place finishers. The total turnout was considerably less than the 229,732 Iowans who voted in the GOP primary for governor two years later. Being organized in all 99 Iowa counties means more people can be dragged to caucus meetings who might otherwise stay home on a wintery eve, believing their vote doesn’t matter.”

***

“‘I think Romney is going to win,’ a top Romney adviser said. ‘I can’t tell you exactly when he’s going to win or how he’s going to win.’

“Romney campaign has ‘a pretty good oppo package’ on Gingrich and is prepared to go nuclear, said a top GOP consultant familiar with the campaign.

“Many who know him best remain skeptical that Gingrich will have the discipline to avoid self-immolation.

“‘He’s a little bit like charcoal briquettes in the backyard,’ said Rich Galen, who was an aide to Gingrich on and off between 1982 and 1998. ‘When you first light them, there’s a lot of smoke and fire and a lot of stuff going on. But you can’t cook a steak on that.’”

***

“Something similar is happening with Gingrich and the image of the Master Debater. People see Gingrich handle himself well in eight-way debates (an easy task when no other candidate has even bothered criticizing you all year because you seemed so irrelevant), and they imagine that he’s the one to take the fight to Obama. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he has always been not only anti-conservative on cap-and-trade, but has lied about what his position was. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he said the profiteers at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be criminally investigated even though he was one of the profiteers — and that he, again, apparently has been prevaricating about what he did for Freddie. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that he has always been wrong on a health-care mandate, wrong on ethanol for all the years he’s been paid to be wrong on ethanol, wrong on entitlements and on Paul Ryan’s budget, wrong on amnesty for illegal immigrants, wrong as wrong could be on ethical issues and behavior aplenty, wrong on the TARP bailouts, wrong on liberal candidate Dede Scozzafava, wrong in the past on the Fairness Doctrine, wrong on leadership, weak at actual negotiating (actually, ‘melting’) against Bill Clinton, weak at actually running a government, and about as personally trustworthy as Joe Isuzu: He’s gonna pummel Obama, yesiree, and then all will be well!…

“The important thing is this: Even if Gingrich’s debating invincibility weren’t an utter myth, the notion that debates next fall will be tremendously important is a myth, and a much bigger one. The deal is this: General-election presidential debates rarely make a big difference. What makes a bigger difference is unpaid (establishment) media (Gingrich will get crushed), organization (Gingrich will get crushed), paid media (Obama’s $800 million campaign will crush him), and the voters’ sense of whether they would mind seeing and hearing the candidate on their TV screens for the next four years (not bloody likely, based on the Gingrich persona’s long-established propensity to wear out its welcome and become grating after a few months).”

***

“But when you’ve cheated on your first wife with your second and you’ve cheated on your second wife with your third, and your policy positions in the past decade have been all over the place, how do I first know you won’t cheat on me politically and how do I reconcile my desire for a President my kids can respect with your life?

“I feel guilty for feeling this way, but I just don’t know that I can support him in the primary. Over Romney? Sure. Newt won’t be nearly as devastating down ballot as Romney if things go wrong for the GOP. But over Bachmann, Huntsman, and Perry in alphabetical order?…

“But if Perry is not ready, I have to say I may have to seriously reconsider saying I’d never, ever, never vote for Jon Huntsman. He is more consistently conservative than either Newt or Romney, more pro-life than either, and a far more competent executive than either. He and Perry also are very real and sincere family men. Jon Huntsman clearly adores his family and I have concluded, despite my own misgivings about him, that he would govern more consistently to the right of Mitt Romney than even his campaign team would have us believe.”

***

“Gingrich has 30 years of history with most Washington pols, much of it bad blood – remember the attempted coup? Still, few are likely to go so overtly at Gingrich as Coburn. Instead, they’ll take the tried and true Washington path: anonymously leak every damaging and embarrassing story the Speaker has ever been even remotely involved in (see Politico story above). The question is this: Given his momentum with primary voters, will anything stick at this point? ‘A tough effort to push Romney through could backfire,’ says Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. ‘The ‘establishment’ — it has been co-opted by the insurgent forces it tried to co-opt in 2010 — may fall back on plan B: try to keep anyone from winning enough delegates to claim a majority and take it to the convention to get [former Florida Governor] Jeb Bush or [former Indiana Governor] Mitch Daniels.’”

***

***

“He spent [1998] pre-emptively surrendering on anything of legislative consequence, but then, feeling bad at having abandoned another two or three of his ‘Fourteen Steps to Renewing American Civilisation’, he’d go on television and snarl at everybody in sight. . . . For Republicans it was the worst of all worlds: a lily-livered ninny whom everyone thinks is a ferocious right-wing bastard.

“That’s how it would go this time round. We’d wind up with a cross between Teddy Roosevelt and Alvin Tofler who canoodled on the sofa with Nancy Pelosi demanding Big Government climate-change conventional-wisdom punitive liberalism just as the rest of the planet was finally getting off the bandwagon . . . but the media would still insist on dusting off their 1994 ‘The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas’ graphics.”

Via the Daily Caller.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Again, Rep. Paul never claimed that ALL terrorists are motivated by our military interventions in the Middle East. There will always be a core of radical jihadis who wish to destroy the West.

Unfortunately, in his stubbornness, Ron Paul refuses to address this real threat. He, instead, sort of throws out that fire and brimstone sermon about the evils of American intervention. Let’s say we followed Ron Paul’s vision for American foreign policy. THEN what would be his plan to deal with the terrorists that would hate American capitalists exporting their materialism, MTV, Barbies, and luxurious way of life?

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:25 AM

I get a blue screen every time I try to listen to the Stein audio.

FloatingRock on December 8, 2011 at 12:24 AM

I wish I had that bug when I try to load an Obama video.

the_souse on December 8, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Conservatives hate winnings. First McCain then Newt. Obama’s second term is gonna suck, but you get what you deserve by backing terrible candidates.

TheBlueSite on December 8, 2011 at 12:27 AM

As Mark Levin says:
I would vote for an Orange Juice can over Obama.
Yesterday Obama made it clear who he was…we already knew..of course.
Now it’s on record.
Anyone but Obama….even if he is on his forth wife.
We as a Country can survive this.

Electrongod on December 7, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Did you hear Levin’s opening yesterday? Destroyed 0bamas speech without having a day to prep. The dude may grate some people with his delivery, but there is no one better at dissecting the left and their bankrupt philosophy. Can’t wait for his book this Jan.

Meat Fighter on December 8, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Other debts — including $42,000 owed to Gingrich himself for the campaign’s use of a mailing list — have already been paid, ahead of those owed to other vendors, according to aides and disclosure records

Newt has ALWAYS cared about Newt first. He demonstrates this every day, but then coyly asks to not be FOR him but be WITH him. That’s why it’s so easy for him to explain that his Freddie Mac dealings were perfectly fine because he had a no lobbying clause. That’s why it was so easy for him to abandon his wives under any circumstances. He is a smooth liar, ALMOST as good as Obama, I’ll give him that. Sincerity is everything, once you fake it, everything else is easy.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:27 AM

So Ron Paul suggests that we could dramatically reduce the resources and manpower available to radical jihadists by removing our troops from the Middle East, and could more effectively take out that core group with targeted killings via Constitutional letters of reprisal.

You mean like perhaps offering a $25 million bounty bin Laden dead or alive?

Cause that didn’t work.

We need to remember that the fight against jihadism is a generational conflict, it will probably go on forever, or at least for many decades. I am a believer in the “Long War”, and we must fight it in a sustainable fashion. Only Ron Paul is advocating for such.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:21 AM

So we run away and fight a never ending war and just suffer through the terrorism and put out warrants of arrest on those who blow things up hoping that Muslim governments will turn them over?

Sounds brilliant. /

sharrukin on December 8, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Knock it off, you two. There’s a right way and a wrong way to discuss immigration policy, and that’s decidedly the wrong way.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:28 AM

I’m a Newt supporter and I think he’s the best in the field to take on Obama.

But, I can’t help but feel that if someone like Ryan (yes I know, too late) could join the field that he’d immediately take 20% from both Romney and Newt and win the nomination.

cpaulus on December 8, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Let’s say we followed Ron Paul’s vision for American foreign policy. THEN what would be his plan to deal with the terrorists that would hate American capitalists exporting their materialism, MTV, Barbies, and luxurious way of life?

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Did you not read my full comment? We would fight them with targeted killings using letters of reprisal, extensive military intelligence gathering, and by securing the borders. Ron Paul wants to send the troops we bring home to plug our porous borders.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Where is Standford University?

GaltBlvnAtty on December 8, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Right beside Stanford University where this miracle Road To Damascus moment took place. /

sharrukin on December 8, 2011 at 12:21 AM

I was thinking that was what the author was thinking.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 8, 2011 at 12:28 AM

two Paulbots

Again, Rep. Paul never claimed that ALL terrorists are motivated by our military interventions in the Middle East. There will always be a core of radical jihadis who wish to destroy the West.

However, it is also indisputable that this radical core – people like bin Laden – have been able to very successfully use our presence there as a propaganda and recruiting tool to convince young idiots to strap on suicide vests. This is an objective fact: the 9/11 Commission Report concludes as much.

So Ron Paul suggests that we could dramatically reduce the resources and manpower available to radical jihadists by removing our troops from the Middle East, and could more effectively take out that core group with targeted killings via Constitutional letters of reprisal. This strategy would be both more effective than our current strategy of “nation-building”, and, importantly, would be much lower cost. This would make it sustainable in the long run. We need to remember that the fight against jihadism is a generational conflict, it will probably go on forever, or at least for many decades. I am a believer in the “Long War”, and we must fight it in a sustainable fashion. Only Ron Paul is advocating for such.

Those who think the “War on Terror” can be won like a conventional war and ended with a victory parade are going to be waiting for a long time.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Would be nice. But the people funding the terrorists will be immune from those targeted attacks. Each on you kill will have a large family, and they can claim that America is a paper tiger again as we go off war footing again. Vietnam, Somalia and the first world trade center attacks, as well as the African embassy bombings told them we could be attacked and the worst they could expect from us was a few missiles lobbed at empty buildings. They build up supplies over there, and then come in from our open southern Boarder that Paul refuses to close.

The day that an Arab power, through their government initiates military force against us then I’ll be the first in line to see if it warrants WAR. If it does, I’ll contact my congressman to support war against them. Then let congress declare war, win the war, DESTROY THEM and then DO NO HELP THEM REBUILD.

Destroy their government, and then get the hell out of there.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Great, you will have just created a massive number of non government Jihadists to attack us non stop for a generation, who will work to fight us on our own soil. The current activity gets rid of the government, keeps our troops there to be the targets of the Jihadists who are easily picked off and keep American civilians alive.

When you talk about the last 20 years, you are talking about 2 diametrically opposed versions of what we have been doing. Clinton made America look like a paper tiger that would send a missile or two over to retaliate for an attack on the homeland. They were willing to make that sacrifice and made the attack plans. For the most part, this current war footing seems to be keeping us much safer than the idea that we go over there, bomb the hell out of their government and come home and have a couple tens of thousands of pissed off Jihadists willing to kill us outside of their government sanction. So, answer what happens with those tens of thousands of newly created Jihadists that happen to be in a country with massive weapons catches and no government to keep those weapons our of their hands? Are we going to build massive fences to keep them from coming here through Canada or Mexico? I am quite sure Ron Paul is completely all for illegals crossing into our nation unmolested.

Remember, Al Qaeda was not a government entity. They just happened to have refuge in Afghanistan.

astonerii on December 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM

I wish I had that bug when I try to load an Obama video.

the_souse on December 8, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Oh, but you can! Use Windows 95.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Ron Paul is a loon and Jihadi butt kisser. That man should be locked away in a mental asylum. He’s deranged.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM

TheBlueSite on December 8, 2011 at 12:27 AM

So who’s the answer?

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Did you not read my full comment? We would fight them with targeted killings using letters of reprisal, extensive military intelligence gathering, and by securing the borders. Ron Paul wants to send the troops we bring home to plug our porous borders.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:28 AM

No Fence, just man power. Not so cheap is it? What happens in a real war? Do we have unsecure our borders to fight it?

astonerii on December 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM

What will you do when Marco Rubio becomes President in the future? Probably sit home and cry.

Fe a la Falnge!

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:24 AM

I was for Rubio until I discovered (actually he showed me) how pro-Amnesty he was. Yes, I will be VERY unhappy if Rubio is anywhere close to the White House, and it’s not because I don’t like anyone of any race. I was a Cain supporter until he dropped out.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Did you not read my full comment? We would fight them with targeted killings using letters of reprisal, extensive military intelligence gathering, and by securing the borders. Ron Paul wants to send the troops we bring home to plug our porous borders.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:28 AM

So why doesn’t Ron Paul emphasize this strategy? I’m definitely not getting that from him. He most definitely comes off as someone that believes the majority of our problems will be solved once we leave the middle east. I say, at best, 50%.

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Question for Real Conservatives and sane Libertarians.

Who are worse?
a) Paulbots
b) Romneybots

Discuss.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Ron Paul is a loon and Jihadi butt kisser. That man should be locked away in a mental asylum. He’s deranged.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM

Yeah, yeah, yeah… crazy crank!

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Where is Standford University?

GaltBlvnAtty on December 8, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Same campus as Hartford and Yail.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 12:33 AM

If Newt gets the nomination, Obama will have to debate him. I can’t wait for that.

newportmike on December 8, 2011 at 12:33 AM

Oh boy.


Woman says she performed sexual acts on married Newt in 1977, thinks voters should know

Newt supporters, brace yourself for bushels of this. Herman Cain’s about to look like an amateur.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:33 AM

i have real reservations about newt. He was a real hero 15 years ago…but that’s a long time ago

MA is a nutcase of a state, cf. Warren race to crush Brown…That’s the same Warren who is so proud of the ows people.

I’ve read both Romney’s and Newt’s wikipedia profiles. There is a story there.

Newt has been in the public sector forever. In the 70s when he was at W. Georgia College he ran several times for congress…finally won. His entire career has been either a person paid by some government, or has been some murky ‘interface’ between government and the private sector (like Center for H/C transformations) Very lucrative. He is a self-promoter.

Romney has had a much different life. Much more focused on private sector…and things like missionary work and Olympics. He’s rich, but I don’t think its thru self-promotion…but thru a keen sense of enterprises and what makes them tick

Clinton was a self-promoter, as is barry. Maybe W too. I think this country is in dire need of a good steward

r keller on December 8, 2011 at 12:33 AM

Question for Real Conservatives and sane Libertarians.

Who are worse?
a) Paulbots
b) Romneybots

Discuss.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:32 AM

The True Believers a la Rick Perry.

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:34 AM

I was for Rubio until I discovered (actually he showed me) how pro-Amnesty he was. Yes, I will be VERY unhappy if Rubio is anywhere close to the White House, and it’s not because I don’t like anyone of any race. I was a Cain supporter until he dropped out.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM

If it was North Europeans you would be all for amnesty. Be honest about.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Woman says she performed sexual acts on married Newt in 1977, thinks voters should know

Newt supporters, brace yourself for bushels of this. Herman Cain’s about to look like an amateur.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:33 AM

1977? Was that before or after Newt became a serial cheater?

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Conservatives hate winnings. First McCain then Newt. Obama’s second term is gonna suck, but you get what you deserve by backing terrible candidates.

TheBlueSite on December 8, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Conservatives didn’t back McCain. The same people who are self immolating because the base doesn’t prefer Mitt to Newt are the people who told us to back McCain last time. Try ignoring them. You’ll feel better. Mainly because they don’t know sh*t.

Kataklysmic on December 8, 2011 at 12:36 AM

The True Believers a la Rick Perry.

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:34 AM

I used to support him. Then he went all on that bible thumping stuff. I only care about economic issues, fiscal issues, law and order, National Security. Everything else is nonsense to me.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Romney has had a much different life. Much more focused on private sector…and things like missionary work and Olympics.

Wow, Missions work must be paying a lot these days.

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:36 AM

I used to support him. Then he went all on that bible thumping stuff. I only care about economic issues, fiscal issues, law and order, National Security. Everything else is nonsense to me.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Watch out for the Perry people, then!

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Dunno. Not Newt and not Romney. That’s kind of the problem. It seems as if intelligent electable republicans stay away from the nomination process.

TheBlueSite on December 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM

You mean like perhaps offering a $25 million bounty bin Laden dead or alive?

Cause that didn’t work.

No, sharrukin, I don’t. You should read Paul’s Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. We’re talking about 40 BILLION DOLLARS to equip and motivate private actors around the world to hunt down and destroy the jihadis. These actors will not be bound by the US’s treaty obligations or rules of engagement – they will be able to be far more ruthless and effective than any conventional force.

So we run away and fight a never ending war and just suffer through the terrorism and put out warrants of arrest on those who blow things up hoping that Muslim governments will turn them over?

Sounds brilliant. /

sharrukin on December 8, 2011 at 12:27 AM

No, we don’t put out warrents of arrest (unless we think they have vital intelligence), we put out sovereignty-backed kill orders – letters of reprisal.

You also seem to think it’s only a “never ending” war in my mind. So tell me this: do you actually believe our current strategy will actually succeed in destroying all jihadism worldwide within any of our lifetimes? If so, I’m sorry to say you misunderstand the nature of the world we live in.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Your pardon. Just about everyone who supports Newt asserts that he would “absolutely destroy” Obama in a debate. I assumed your comment was in that vein as well.

KingGold on December 8, 2011 at 12:22 AM

Destroy? I won’t presume to say that. But I do think he would give Obama a run for his money.

I just don’t buy into the narrative that debates do not matter, no matter who the nominee may be.

For instance, my mother has neither a computer or the cable news stations. So the only way she can learn about the candidates is through the alphabet news stations or her local newspaper. And we know how biased they are against the GOP.

Debates are how she is able to discern where each candidate stands on the issues.

And despite what many may think, there are many many more people just like her out there.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 12:38 AM

If it was North Europeans you would be all for amnesty. Be honest about.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:34 AM

You’re dipping dangerously close into the ernesto-zone, man. This discussion forum does its best to be a Race Card Free Zone.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Romney has had a much different life. Much more focused on private sector…and things like missionary work and Olympics.

r keller on December 8, 2011 at 12:33 AM

How about Mitt buying companies and sending good paying jobs offshore? Mittens replaced them with low paying retail jobs like Staples. Do you really want that as the national economic model?

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:39 AM

If it was North Europeans you would be all for amnesty. Be honest about.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Since I am of Eastern European (and not Northern at that) background, that’s an interesting twist there, but it’s not true. Your accusations of racism are laughable because you have nothing to back them up.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:39 AM

TheBlueSite on December 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM

I find it hard to blame them.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 12:40 AM

If it was North Europeans you would be all for amnesty. Be honest about.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:34 AM

With all due respect (and it ain’t much), North Europeans are generally western civilized. Which means they would not come into the country the way the campesinos do. Nor wouldd they come in and demand rights and welfare and keep their own language.

We’ve already had a flood of European immigrants and they wanted to assimilate, which they mostly did.

You sound like a lefty infiltrator. I hope you’re not because we already have three of them and that’s enough.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 12:40 AM

You’re dipping dangerously close into the ernesto-zone, man. This discussion forum does its best to be a Race Card Free Zone.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Ernesto? I am no fan of that Commie Che. My idols are Francisco Franco, Augosto Pinochet, Carlos Castano and Alvaro Uribe.

La Raza I am not. Falangist, Maybe!

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:40 AM

No, sharrukin, I don’t. You should read Paul’s Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. We’re talking about 40 BILLION DOLLARS to equip and motivate private actors around the world to hunt down and destroy the jihadis. These actors will not be bound by the US’s treaty obligations or rules of engagement – they will be able to be far more ruthless and effective than any conventional force.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:38 AM

So wait, RP doesn’t want us to use our own military for overseas nation building and whatnot, but he’s cool with arming and funding a paramilitary vigilante force that technically has allegiance to no country, is bound by no treaties and has no legitimacy in regards to international organizations?

That seems, uh…insane.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 12:41 AM

So why doesn’t Ron Paul emphasize this strategy? I’m definitely not getting that from him. He most definitely comes off as someone that believes the majority of our problems will be solved once we leave the middle east. I say, at best, 50%.

aryeung on December 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM

But he does talk about these things. It’s just that the media never replays those portions of his speeches. Ron Paul is just as much the victim of a media distortion campaign as Sarah Palin or many other prominent conservatives.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Gingrich recommended The Third Wave as essential reading to his colleagues when he became Speaker of the House. In his forward to another Toffler book, Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, he grieved at the lack of appreciation for “Toffler’s insight” in The Third Wave and blamed politicians who had not applied his model for the “frustration, negativism, cynicism and despair” of the political landscape. He went on to explain that Toffler advocated a concept called “anticipatory democracy,” and bragged that he had worked with him for 20 years “to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition” to a Third Wave civilization.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:43 AM

The Tea Party has made substantial gains in the House. Let’s tip the Senate, and then we are home free. If our executive has balls enough to humiliate Obama and the mainstream media, then so much the better.

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 12:43 AM

With all due respect (and it ain’t much), North Europeans are generally western civilized. Which means they would not come into the country the way the campesinos do. Nor wouldd they come in and demand rights and welfare and keep their own language.

We’ve already had a flood of European immigrants and they wanted to assimilate, which they mostly did.

You sound like a lefty infiltrator. I hope you’re not because we already have three of them and that’s enough.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Latin America is part of the Western World. Who stopped the Turks at Lepanto? Hint, it wasn’t North Europeans.

In case you haven’t notice, much of Latin America is doing economically good. Most of Europe is in the dumps.

As for me being a Leftist, I am to the Right of you. You believe in Biological supremacy which is a form of Progressivism.

You are arguing with the wrong Colombian/Portuguese American here. I know my history very well.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:44 AM

Ernesto? I am no fan of that Commie Che. My idols are Francisco Franco, Augosto Pinochet, Carlos Castano and Alvaro Uribe.

La Raza I am not. Falangist, Maybe!

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Well then, you should aim for discourse higher than “you’d be cool with immigration if it were all white people.”

I have a feeling most of our families didn’t come over on the Mayflower, man. Almost all of us are descended from immigrants. So how exactly can we be ‘nativists’?

I won’t comment on having dictators and drug runners as idols. Hell, my hero growing up was Brook Jacoby, so I’ve got no room to talk.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Gingrich gave a speech before the Center for Strategic and International Affairs in which he said,

The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution. Under our constitutional system — either we’re going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we’re going to have to rethink our process of decision-making.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:45 AM

“Romney campaign has ‘a pretty good oppo package’ on Gingrich and is prepared to go nuclear, said a top GOP consultant familiar with the campaign.

If Romney calling Gingrich out on his “child labor law” comment, or his 3 marriages, is any indication of his ‘oppo package’, then, that’s just petty. A petty, spiteful, small little man, and I won’t support that Romney. I could go either way — Mitt or Newt. But not if he’s going to act like a whiny little b!+ch, with cheap political points like that.

So Newt’s been married 3 times. So he thinks kids should be able to work part time. So what. That’s nothing. There are more important issues.

Paul-Cincy on December 8, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Since I am of Eastern European (and not Northern at that) background, that’s an interesting twist there, but it’s not true. Your accusations of racism are laughable because you have nothing to back them up.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Just answer the question. If you don’t want to I don’t care. You’re a political dinosaur whose form of Progressivism will be extinct soon.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:46 AM

No, sharrukin, I don’t. You should read Paul’s Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. We’re talking about 40 BILLION DOLLARS to equip and motivate private actors around the world to hunt down and destroy the jihadis. These actors will not be bound by the US’s treaty obligations or rules of engagement – they will be able to be far more ruthless and effective than any conventional force.

Hiring mercenaries to do our killing for us isn’t going to change a thing. That ruthlessness you talk about will do exactly what you claim American military presence now does, so what exactly is the point? I do not believe that a guy like Ron Paul who gets all panicky about killing someone like al-Awlaki, is suddenly going to get medieval on the Muslims.

No, we don’t put out warrents of arrest (unless we think they have vital intelligence), we put out sovereignty-backed kill orders – letters of reprisal.

That isn’t what Paul said in the debates. He said warrants and even when 911 was brought up he talked about law enforcement using Timothy McVeigh as an example.

You also seem to think it’s only a “never ending” war in my mind. So tell me this: do you actually believe our current strategy will actually succeed in destroying all jihadism worldwide within any of our lifetimes? If so, I’m sorry to say you misunderstand the nature of the world we live in.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:38 AM

No I don’t think the present strategy will work. I think it will fail, but that doesn’t mean Ron Paul’s strategy will work either.

sharrukin on December 8, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Understand they would only be paid for results. They wouldn’t be compensated ex ante. And the key here is that these killings would be done in a way not directly attributable to the US, and free from the many constraints that tie the hands of official agents of the US.

There is no perfect approach to the problem of terrorism, but this strategy would be both more effective and far more sustainable than our current strategy. Indeed, the idea that we can somehow win a generational struggle against jihadism by nation building in a few select nations in the Middle East and Central Asia strikes me as the insane notion.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:47 AM

So Newt’s been married 3 times. So he thinks kids should be able to work part time. So what. That’s nothing. There are more important issues.

Paul-Cincy on December 8, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Well said! It’s good to meet another sane Conservative! Newt 2012!

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Gingrich doesn’t really believe in the free market, it seems to me. In his interview with Glenn Beck, he metioned the Transcontinental Railroad as an example of the need for Federal Government to “invest in national infrastructure.” Only the TR is not a testament to the FedGov’s ability to invest in national infrastructure. Both the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific railroads were rife with corruption, fraud, and waste, due to Federal involvement.

The Great Northern, on the other hand, eschewed government subsidies (it was actually built out of a the failed “Northern Pacific”); it paid for the land it acquired with cash rather than lobby for government land grants.

The point isn’t necessarily that projects with private financing outperforms those with public financing (although I believe that’s the case), but that public financing isn’t necessary for “national infrastructure” projects..

cavalier973 on December 8, 2011 at 12:48 AM

When a lame-duck Congress was considering ceding U.S. sovereignty over tariffs and trade regulations to the World Trade Organization in 1994 (before more conservatives were sworn in and would likely have blocked it), Newt expressed his own understanding in a Congressional hearing:

I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.

I agree … this is very close to Maastrict [the European Union treaty by which the EU member nations have surrendered considerable sovereignty], and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Just answer the question. If you don’t want to I don’t care. You’re a political dinosaur whose form of Progressivism will be extinct soon.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:46 AM

I am for expelling any illegals of any variety.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Gingrich’s voting record shows him siding with the left and the UN more often than his current conservative rhetoric would lead most people to believe. The list includes,

1979 Elected to Congress from Georgia’s 6th District

1979 Voted to create the Department of Education, under President Jimmy Carter

1990 Becomes member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

1993 Voted for NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement

1994 Supported the WTO, the World Trade Organization. Voted for GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that subjected Americans to the international authority of the WTO (See his exact quote in accompanying article.) See additional link.

1995 Becomes Speaker of the House of Representatives and recommends reading The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler as required reading for all of his Congressional colleagues.

1995 Delivers speech to the Center for Strategic and International Affairs in which he blames the US Constitution for making America’s role in leading the world more difficult! Read his full quote in accompanying article, “The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution…”.

1995 Wrote the foreword to another one of Toffler’s books, The Politics of the Third Wave, Creating a New Civilization

1995 The liberal establishment Time Magazine names Newt Gingrich their “Man of the Year”

1995 Appeals to the US House of Representatives to increase the power of the Presidency by repealing the War Powers Act of 1972, and urged President Clinton to expand the US military presence in Bosnia.

1996 Under his leadership, Congress passed the largest single spending increase on education in US history, a whopping $3.5 billion dollars!

1999 Newt resigns over failed midterm elections in which Republicans lost 5 seats, the worst loss in history for a Party who did not control the White House! At the same time, he was also involved in a flap over an extra marital affair and a controversial book deal!

2008 Records the ‘We Can Solve It’ global warming TV commercial for Al Gore along with Nancy Pelosi

2009-2010 Travels the country with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan to promote President Obama’s new educational policies: i.e. increased local control of schools with increased Federal subsidies and regulations from Washington.

2010 Supported ultra-liberal, pro-abortion, pro-union, establishment candidate Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd Congressional District in a special election, over conservative candidate Doug Hoffman.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:52 AM

I think Romneybots are worse than Paulbots. Paulians are naive and delusional. Romney cultists are cynical and manipulative. They their guy is a Socialist.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:53 AM

You are arguing with the wrong Colombian/Portuguese American here. I know my history very well.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 12:44 AM

If you know your history, then you know that virtually all of Latin America is anything but Latin origin. It was conquered by conquistadores and the equivilent from Portugal. Mexico, for example, is ruled by the descendants of the conquerors and the native Mexicans are little more than slaves.

One more little annoying fact about South America is the way the various countries there welcomed fleeing Nazis after the war. I doubt those Nazis left their Nazi attitudes in Germany.

America is a former British colony. Generally, everybody else came later.

And you’re not to the right of me. Not with what I’ve read from you so far. Today is your first day, right?

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 12:53 AM

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:47 AM

I guess I just don’t see the big advantage to this form of international vigilantism.

I mean, our enemies already accuse us of doing these sorts of things, so I’m not 100% against it, I just prefer the accountability and orderliness of an actual national military.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 12:53 AM

panic!

equanimous on December 8, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Well, Newt is going to have a harder time competing with Romney, now that Romney is using a Kid Rock song as his campaign theme.

cavalier973 on December 8, 2011 at 12:55 AM

Hiring mercenaries to do our killing for us isn’t going to change a thing. That ruthlessness you talk about will do exactly what you claim American military presence now does, so what exactly is the point? I do not believe that a guy like Ron Paul who gets all panicky about killing someone like al-Awlaki, is suddenly going to get medieval on the Muslims.

The key is that it couldn’t be traced back to us. These terrorists typically hide in regions rife with tribal warfare and have links to organized crime. Their death at the hands of non-state actors would raise few eyebrows, and certainly wouldn’t make for inspiring propaganda.

That isn’t what Paul said in the debates. He said warrants and even when 911 was brought up he talked about law enforcement using Timothy McVeigh as an example.

You’re mistaken. Ron Paul was speaking about the treatment of American citizens, not foreign terrorists. Yes, American citizens, even those accused of mass murder or child rape enjoy a right to due process, but that’s just the 4th Amendment. Of course, if you can prove they meet one of the 7 conditions for stripping citizenship, then it’s a different ball game.

No I don’t think the present strategy will work. I think it will fail, but that doesn’t mean Ron Paul’s strategy will work either.

sharrukin on December 8, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Then I ask you, who has a more sustainable strategy for the war on terror than Paul? And if no one else does, doesn’t that mean Paul is 100% right on fiscal issues and no more wrong than anyone else on fighting jihad (personally I think he’s completely right on this, too, but just for the sake of argument)? So why wouldn’t you support him?

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:55 AM

The key is that it couldn’t be traced back to us. These terrorists typically hide in regions rife with tribal warfare and have links to organized crime. Their death at the hands of non-state actors would raise few eyebrows, and certainly wouldn’t make for inspiring propaganda.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:55 AM

Wouldn’t be traced back to us? When a bird takes a crap in the ME, the instant response is to blame either the US or Israel. If jihadis start getting popped in mass numbers by paramilitary forces, you don’t think they would immediately blame us?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 12:57 AM

While in Congress, Gingrich co-sponsored 418 bills with Pelosi

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/06/while-in-congress-gingrich-co-sponsored-418-bills-with-pelosi/#ixzz1fv6LhBV7

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 12:58 AM

And you’re not to the right of me.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 12:53 AM

I am so glad someone else stepped up to administer the purity tests.

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 12:58 AM

While I disagreed with the choice of Ms. Scozzafava and donated to her opponent, I believe that Newt was supporting the candidate that had been chosen by the lawful procedures of that area. As a party Republican, that’s what you do, as a constituent you vote against her. That area is one of those where the insiders got to pick another insider to be the candidate, they should work on changing that.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Hell, my hero growing up was Brook Jacoby, so I’ve got no room to talk.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 12:45 AM

The key phrase you use is growing up. There’s a reason why younger people are treated more leniently than grownups – they’re still learning.

You’ve got plenty of room to talk since I haven’t seen a stupid comment from you yet. So there’s that.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 12:59 AM

If you know your history, then you know that virtually all of Latin America is anything but Latin origin. It was conquered by conquistadores and the equivilent from Portugal. Mexico, for example, is ruled by the descendants of the conquerors and the native Mexicans are little more than slaves.

One more little annoying fact about South America is the way the various countries there welcomed fleeing Nazis after the war. I doubt those Nazis left their Nazi attitudes in Germany.

America is a former British colony. Generally, everybody else came later.

And you’re not to the right of me. Not with what I’ve read from you so far. Today is your first day, right?

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 12:53 AM

Bull crap. As someone from that region that’s nonsense. Most Latins are White or White mixed with Natives. They are cultural and biological descendants of the Spanish, Portuguese and Italians. Most Latin Americans are proud of their European heritage. Europeans acknowledge Latin America as part of the west. Onlt in America thanks to the Progressives and the Nativists is this not the case.

You have the North European tribal identity, which is based on biological descent. South Europeans (Latins and Greeks) are based on cultural identity. That comes from our Roman ancestors and the concept of civitas. Anyone who spoke Latin was a Roman. Like wise, Latin Americans are the cultural and biological descendants of Latin Europeans.

Clearly you’re ignorant and don’t know crap about Latin America.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 1:00 AM

If jihadis start getting popped in mass numbers by paramilitary forces, you don’t think they would immediately blame us?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Oh, they’ll try. But again, these guys getting taken out by local tribesmen or hitmen simply won’t have the propaganda value of being able to point at a uniformed US agent or serviceman and shout “Oppressor! Occupier!” Without occupation, suicide terror recruitment drys up. Robert Pape’s longitudinal study of suicide terrorism worldwide confirms this.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:00 AM

And you’re not to the right of me. Not with what I’ve read from you so far. Today is your first day, right?

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 12:53 AM

Yes I am. I am based on Cultural/Civilization identity. You are based on biological which is a Progressive concept. You are a Leftist and I am the real Rightwinger.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 1:02 AM

The key is that it couldn’t be traced back to us. These terrorists typically hide in regions rife with tribal warfare and have links to organized crime. Their death at the hands of non-state actors would raise few eyebrows, and certainly wouldn’t make for inspiring propaganda.

Iran just shot down a drone. Iran arrested several American spies. How exactly do you think these groups will operate without being traced back to the US? Do you think people are stupid? They will know pefectly well who was behind the attacks assuming they could be hidden which I doubt.

They don’t observe the courtroom niceties now so why do you think it would matter to the Muslims if they weren’t carrying American passports or uniforms when caught?

You’re mistaken. Ron Paul was speaking about the treatment of American citizens, not foreign terrorists. Yes, American citizens, even those accused of mass murder or child rape enjoy a right to due process, but that’s just the 4th Amendment. Of course, if you can prove they meet one of the 7 conditions for stripping citizenship, then it’s a different ball game.

And he was wrong. It has always been the case that participation in a military effort obviates American citizenship.

So why wouldn’t you support him?

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 12:55 AM

I would if he was the last man standing.

sharrukin on December 8, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Nativists, Progressives and Islamists are all pees from the same pod. Totalitarian jerks who fear the other.

Long live Real Reagan style Conservative-Libertarianism.

Goodnight to all the good people!

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Anyone who spoke Latin was a Roman.

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Er, no. They were speaking Latin in the Holy Land. Because of the empire, it was the language of commerce, as was Greek before it. That has nothing to do with ethnicity.

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Well, I’m sure there is a chief rabblerouser opening somewhere you could fill. Or maybe a poly sci professorship is more to your liking.

Orwell warned us about war is peace and freedom is slavery. Thanks for reminding me what that looks like in the 21st century.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Gingrich noted that Scozzafava agrees with him on many of the key issues of the day, including her opposition to a cap-and-trade bill to limit pollution associated with climate change.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/newt_gingrich_endorses_dede_sc.html

It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Oh, they’ll try. But again, these guys getting taken out by local tribesmen or hitmen simply won’t have the propaganda value of being able to point at a uniformed US agent or serviceman and shout “Oppressor! Occupier!” Without occupation, suicide terror recruitment drys up. Robert Pape’s longitudinal study of suicide terrorism worldwide confirms this.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:00 AM

I dunno, man. Islam did pretty well for itself engendering anti-Western resentment for about 1,200 years before American ‘occupation.’

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM

You’ve got plenty of room to talk since I haven’t seen a stupid comment from you yet. So there’s that.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Oh, I’ve definitely made stupid comments. I just hope that my quality posts outweigh the detritus.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Er, no. They were speaking Latin in the Holy Land. Because of the empire, it was the language of commerce, as was Greek before it. That has nothing to do with ethnicity.

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 1:04 AM

In the early days, you have a point. Later, Roman was a Cultural/Citizenship identity. Many Non Romans served in the Army. After their service, they were given Roman citizenship. By the 3rd Century all inhabitants were Roman Citizens. In fact, the Romans called their Empire, Romania (Land of the Romans)

I will have a good night now. I am long time reader and view you as one of the good people here! I hope this little disagreement over a technicality will effect how we interact. We are both right depending on the time period.

Goodnight and keep up the good fight!

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 1:09 AM

That area is one of those where the insiders got to pick another insider to be the candidate, they should work on changing that.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 12:58 AM

I gave Newt a pass on that. He was caught with his pants at his ankles, and it showed.

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 1:10 AM

Iran just shot down a drone. Iran arrested several American spies. How exactly do you think these groups will operate without being traced back to the US? Do you think people are stupid? They will know pefectly well who was behind the attacks assuming they could be hidden which I doubt.

Again, drones and spies are actual and official agents of the US. With letters of reprisal, forces can act at the best of the US, but are not US agents. As I said above, these terrorists typically hide in regions rife with tribal warfare and have links to organized crime. Their death at the hands of non-state actors would raise few eyebrows, and certainly wouldn’t make for inspiring propaganda.

And he was wrong. It has always been the case that participation in a military effort obviates American citizenship.

Indeed, if you can prove it. A simple accusation isn’t enough. Of course, if it’s actually on a battlefield, that’s proof and they’re fair game just as much as anyone else. But that’s not what we’re talking about.

I would if he was the last man standing.

sharrukin on December 8, 2011 at 1:03 AM

If you wait too long, we may end up with far, far worse.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:10 AM

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:07 AM

That’s why it isn’t worth making enemies of people, you’ll always agree on something. I’m speaking of people in the party in general, not ideological opposites.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:11 AM

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 1:10 AM

That visual was totally uncalled for. How am I suppose to sleep? Other than that I agree.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:12 AM

I dunno, man. Islam did pretty well for itself engendering anti-Western resentment for about 1,200 years before American ‘occupation.’

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM

And the sad part is that the Catholic Church didn’t kill them all when there were a lot less of them. But the Pope decided to stop, for whatever reason. And here we are.

We need a another Crusade. But that’s not likely to happen until the Messiah comes back.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:13 AM

I gave Newt a pass on that. He was caught with his pants at his ankles, and it showed.

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 1:10 AM

That was really a no-win situation, considering what happened to Hoffman. Had he backed Hoffman, there would be the same refrain of “See, Newt is backing Angle-style candidates who can’t win! He’s got bad judgment!”

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Does anyone think Blago’s sentence was a tad too severe?

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Well, I’m sure there is a chief rabblerouser opening somewhere you could fill. Or maybe a poly sci professorship is more to your liking.

Orwell warned us about war is peace and freedom is slavery. Thanks for reminding me what that looks like in the 21st century.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:07 AM

What’s wrong, the truth hurts? Did I shatter your wold view? You are not arguing with a Campesino here. You are arguing with a Padron who knows his history and culture. I have been to Spain, Italy, Portugal, Philippines and many Latin American countries. Although made up of different races or combos of, we are one people united by a common culture and our Catholic faith. People like you try to strip of us of our heritage. People like me call you out on your nonsense.

Now I am out. I wish you a good night!

Serendipity3 on December 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM

That’s why it isn’t worth making enemies of people, you’ll always agree on something. I’m speaking of people in the party in general, not ideological opposites.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:11 AM

We just look at these things differently. I believe in vocal support for clear conservative values. If you don’t have a conservative philosophy, you’ve got nothing. Anyone can make up any unconstitutional framework and claim that’s the right solution for the times. That’s called “Progressivism” and eventually it leads to pyramids built of skulls.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:15 AM

How am I suppose to sleep? Other than that I agree.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:12 AM

You always bring a laugh and a smile to my face!

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 1:15 AM

That visual was totally uncalled for. How am I suppose to sleep? Other than that I agree.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Wow. I would have never suspected that nekkid Newt would keep you awake in bed. I wouldn’t tell too many people, though, if I were you.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:17 AM

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Yes. Especially when I am pretty sure the thug in the White House has done worse.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:18 AM

I dunno, man. Islam did pretty well for itself engendering anti-Western resentment for about 1,200 years before American ‘occupation.’

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Certainly, but not much suicide terrorism. It’s notable that, for all the talk of “progress” in defeating al Qaeda, suicide attacks are now about 200 times more prevalent against US interests than before the wars began.

We can’t make them like us, but the question we’re trying to answer is “how to defeat the jihadis?”, not “how to make Muslims love us?”.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:18 AM

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:17 AM

It’s hard to sleep when your nauseous? I like Newt for his mind.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:20 AM

That’s called “Progressivism” and eventually it leads to pyramids built of skulls.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:15 AM

We survived Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter and now Obama without any Idi Amin-style skull pyramids cropping up in the heartlands. Pretty sure Newt’s not going to be the guy who changes that.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Wow. I would have never suspected that nekkid Newt would keep you awake in bed. I wouldn’t tell too many people, though, if I were you.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Well Newt has claimed that he is basically Knute, and then talked about polar bears. Just imagine Newt as a marine mammal on a rock and then the though of him naked won’t keep you awake. It will keep ME awake, but that’s because I will think about his love of Knute the polar bears being connected to cap and trade, but that’s a different train of thought.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Yes. Especially when I am pretty sure the thug in the White House has done worse.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:18 AM

I was thinking more 5-7. That’s a hell of a punishment to take down a man.

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Does anyone think Blago’s sentence was a tad too severe?

John the Libertarian on December 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM

On the earlier thread, I said I hoped he would flee to a non-extradition country and then threaten to sing if he wasn’t pardoned.

I sort of think the judge secretly wants him to do that which is why he gave him so much time to turn himself in. IIRC, they didn’t do this for Ryan when he was sentenced. Or Rezko.

Something smells funny. And yeah, 14 years is absurd since nobody died and no taxpayer funds were stolen.

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:22 AM

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:18 AM

Easy Answer: Nuke the bastards.

UODuckMan on December 8, 2011 at 1:23 AM

We survived Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter and now Obama without any Idi Amin-style skull pyramids cropping up in the heartlands. Pretty sure Newt’s not going to be the guy who changes that.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 8, 2011 at 1:20 AM

On that we agee. The skulls I talked about were in Cambodia, and they wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for American progressivism among other things, but no Newt will not lead to such pyramids on the American soil within HIS lifetime.

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:23 AM

Igor R. on December 8, 2011 at 1:15 AM

The problem there is that you are the arbitrator of your version of conservatism only. Individuals have their own issues that are deal breakers, I would never presume to make mine the goal line of everyone else.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:24 AM

It’s hard to sleep when your nauseous? I like Newt for his mind.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Seriously, do I need to use a sarc tag with you?

platypus on December 8, 2011 at 1:24 AM

A quick point for those Gingrich fans who claim that balancing the budget in the late ’90s means anything today: if Newt is committed to balancing the budget, why hasn’t he released a plan to do so, or pledged to veto any budget plan that doesn’t balance in the near future? And why does he refuse to endorse the landmark entitlement reform that will be needed to close the structural deficit?

It’s easy to balance the budget when the economy is booming and Federal revenues have increased by 8-12% year-on-year for 6 years running. Newt has no credible plan to do the same in our current economic environment.

Inkblots on December 8, 2011 at 1:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4