Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Newt Gingrich will run for president in 2012

Page 2 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

13 May 2011, 1:39 pm

Let me remind you that clinton was impeached for adultry...well lying in oath too, however dont all adulters lie anyway? If Ginrich does win the rebulican primary it will only blatently prove that the motive for the repubulicans impeaching him was purely political having nothing to do with values and everything to do with control. However, I think the republicans are going to throw this election because they dont want to be in the hotseat when the economy goes belly up. This is the same reason why they could not get their act together in 2008 because they knew the economy was about to crash. I read a rebublican magizine in 2008 and it said that they were afraid that if McCain got ellected after bush that it would be the end of the rebublican party. However with the rebublicans throwing the election this time and Obama as the imcumbant...it looks strong for the tea party. I have met enough racists that support the tea party, and certain prominant tea partiers who supported racial segragation to conclude that they might be neo nazi's....which is a scary thought.


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


Erisad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,058
Location: United States

13 May 2011, 3:12 pm

[bad joke]I don't know, he turned me into a newt! I got better. [/bad joke]



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 May 2011, 3:50 pm

jojobean wrote:
Let me remind you that clinton was impeached for adultry...well lying in oath too, however dont all adulters lie anyway? If Ginrich does win the rebulican primary it will only blatently prove that the motive for the repubulicans impeaching him was purely political having nothing to do with values and everything to do with control. However, I think the republicans are going to throw this election because they dont want to be in the hotseat when the economy goes belly up. This is the same reason why they could not get their act together in 2008 because they knew the economy was about to crash. I read a rebublican magizine in 2008 and it said that they were afraid that if McCain got ellected after bush that it would be the end of the rebublican party. However with the rebublicans throwing the election this time and Obama as the imcumbant...it looks strong for the tea party. I have met enough racists that support the tea party, and certain prominant tea partiers who supported racial segragation to conclude that they might be neo nazi's....which is a scary thought.


Just think how the Republicans will have egg on their faces if the economy recovers under Obama.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

13 May 2011, 9:25 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
jojobean wrote:
Let me remind you that clinton was impeached for adultry...well lying in oath too, however dont all adulters lie anyway? If Ginrich does win the rebulican primary it will only blatently prove that the motive for the repubulicans impeaching him was purely political having nothing to do with values and everything to do with control. However, I think the republicans are going to throw this election because they dont want to be in the hotseat when the economy goes belly up. This is the same reason why they could not get their act together in 2008 because they knew the economy was about to crash. I read a rebublican magizine in 2008 and it said that they were afraid that if McCain got ellected after bush that it would be the end of the rebublican party. However with the rebublicans throwing the election this time and Obama as the imcumbant...it looks strong for the tea party. I have met enough racists that support the tea party, and certain prominant tea partiers who supported racial segragation to conclude that they might be neo nazi's....which is a scary thought.


Just think how the Republicans will have egg on their faces if the economy recovers under Obama.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


that would be nice to see republicans with eggy faces...and a recovered economy, but I wish Obama would not run again and the dems get a better canadate. There was a senator here in Georgia for 20+ years who just got ousted because of siding with Obama on healthcare which is a shame cause he was a really decent guy who really did alot for us. His name is Jim Marshal. He is also squeaky clean as far as ethics go. Hell if it comes down to Newt, Obama, and Ron Paul. I might just write Jim Marshal in...I know that is a wasted vote, but at least I can have a clean conscience and still voted.


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

13 May 2011, 10:26 pm

SuperMario wrote:
My bet that Obama is going to be reelected in 2012 is looking better and better. I would really like to see a debate between Gingrich and Trump. That would be so funny.


If Obama is re-elected in 2012 we as a country are screwed.



dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

13 May 2011, 11:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
If Obama is re-elected in 2012 we as a country are screwed.


Because after 32 years of right wing rule, we need a liberal in office?



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 May 2011, 12:01 am

dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
If Obama is re-elected in 2012 we as a country are screwed.


Because after 32 years of right wing rule, we need a liberal in office?


?

Republicans got control of Congress in 1994, they lost it in 2006. They regained it in November 2010.

Bush was elected President in 2000, started on January 2001. Clinton was no conservative, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are leftists.



dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

14 May 2011, 12:05 am

Inuyasha wrote:
?

Republicans got control of Congress in 1994, they lost it in 2006. They regained it in November 2010.

Bush was elected President in 2000, started on January 2001. Clinton was no conservative, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are leftists.


Clinton was a centrist, moderate president with a Republican congress. The result of that is right wing policy. Obama is also a centrist, moderate president. And the compromised, ineffective senate during the first part of his term basically ensured a continuation of Bush era policies... Right wing rule. it's been 30 years since there has been any liberal or progressive leadership in this country.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 May 2011, 12:28 am

dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
?

Republicans got control of Congress in 1994, they lost it in 2006. They regained it in November 2010.

Bush was elected President in 2000, started on January 2001. Clinton was no conservative, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are leftists.


Clinton was a centrist, moderate president with a Republican congress. The result of that is right wing policy. Obama is also a centrist, moderate president. And the compromised, ineffective senate during the first part of his term basically ensured a continuation of Bush era policies... Right wing rule. it's been 30 years since there has been any liberal or progressive leadership in this country.


Very good point. Couldn't have said it better.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

14 May 2011, 3:56 pm

I read in a book called "the american history you never learned" that the spanish/american war was not so much of a war but a masicure for the purpose of creating the southern midwest states which where once part of mexico. Why?? so they can turn these states into republican states in order to gain majority. Before then, progressives were dominant for a long time. It seemed to have worked. Ever wonder why texas is so big...that is why.


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 May 2011, 5:04 pm

dionysian wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
?

Republicans got control of Congress in 1994, they lost it in 2006. They regained it in November 2010.

Bush was elected President in 2000, started on January 2001. Clinton was no conservative, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are leftists.


Clinton was a centrist, moderate president with a Republican congress. The result of that is right wing policy. Obama is also a centrist, moderate president. And the compromised, ineffective senate during the first part of his term basically ensured a continuation of Bush era policies... Right wing rule. it's been 30 years since there has been any liberal or progressive leadership in this country.


He only took the moderate tone after the Democrats received a royal thrashing in 1994 at the advice of Dick Morris, or have you forgoten Hillary care.



dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

14 May 2011, 6:40 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
He only took the moderate tone after the Democrats received a royal thrashing in 1994 at the advice of Dick Morris, or have you forgoten Hillary care.

I would just reiterate that centrists tend to become a vehicle for whatever the majority party prioritizes. Of course a centrist is going to lurch to the right when the conservatives take over.

Plus... and I think you know this... Hillary care never happened. It never became the policy of the government, and therefore isn't an example of anything other than political posturing. It is helpful to hone the ability to distinguish between the actual functioning of government, and the rhetoric of various politicians. There's a big difference between the statements of our political leaders, and the nature of the policies we end up with. Democratic majorities in congress and/or a Democratic president do not ensure we get liberal government.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

14 May 2011, 7:07 pm

Newt Gingrich is just like Ebinezer Scrooge.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 May 2011, 7:59 pm

jojobean wrote:
I read in a book called "the american history you never learned" that the spanish/american war was not so much of a war but a masicure for the purpose of creating the southern midwest states which where once part of mexico. Why?? so they can turn these states into republican states in order to gain majority. Before then, progressives were dominant for a long time. It seemed to have worked. Ever wonder why texas is so big...that is why.

Wrong on so many different levels...

  • The Spanish-American War did not gain us southwest territories, and Texas had already been part of the Union for a long time. You are thinking of the Mexican-American War.
  • The Republican Party did not exist at the time of the Mexican-American War.
  • For at least the first 50-60 years of its existence, the Republicans were the more progressive party
  • Before the Mexican-American war, the Democratic party was dominant, but Democrat != Progressive. At that point in history, the Democrats were the more right-wing side of the political spectrum.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

15 May 2011, 3:15 am

Orwell wrote:
jojobean wrote:
I read in a book called "the american history you never learned" that the spanish/american war was not so much of a war but a masicure for the purpose of creating the southern midwest states which where once part of mexico. Why?? so they can turn these states into republican states in order to gain majority. Before then, progressives were dominant for a long time. It seemed to have worked. Ever wonder why texas is so big...that is why.

Wrong on so many different levels...

  • The Spanish-American War did not gain us southwest territories, and Texas had already been part of the Union for a long time. You are thinking of the Mexican-American War.
  • The Republican Party did not exist at the time of the Mexican-American War.
  • For at least the first 50-60 years of its existence, the Republicans were the more progressive party
  • Before the Mexican-American war, the Democratic party was dominant, but Democrat != Progressive. At that point in history, the Democrats were the more right-wing side of the political spectrum.


Thank you for correcting that.


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

16 May 2011, 12:26 am

androbot2084 wrote:
Newt Gingrich is just like Ebinezer Scrooge.

I loled when I read this because it's so true! We can hope he has visitations by ghosts if he gets elected president and they help alter his point of view.
How appropriate because I just saw Disney's A Christmas Carol on Starz InDemand. It's the first I've seen it. I can picture Newt in place of Jim Carrey only he wouldn't be acting.