Gingrich Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Darryl1958
Code:
 **Actually, I think the US reputation is mixed. **True, this country has angered many people, as when we stupidly invaded Iraq. A major problem here is that under Bush the neocons had a strong influence on our foreign policy. I had hoped that this would be less true of Obama, but the Democratic Party also is under strong pro-Israeli influence. I'm sure that Israel is more hated than the US, but the unflinching support we give to Israel - billions of dollars a year, our latest military equipment and inevitable cover in the UN - is a serious detriment to our position in the world. I hope that if Obama gets a second term he will take a more independent stand on the Israeli-Palestinian question. We can be pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian at the same time - and should be. We can most help Israel in the long run by pushing Netanyahu as well as the wild extremists in Israel to indulge in serious peace negotiations instead of constantly building new settlements on the West Bank. The two are not compatible.

 **What scares me is that if Gingrich is elected president, which I fear is a serious danger, our policy in the Middle East, bad enough already, will become even worse, leading to more and more conflict.** On this issue, I have some sympathy for Ron Paul who has been saying for years that we shouldn't involve ourselves in all the conflicts that inevitably will flare up around the world. This factor contributed enormously to 9-11 and targeting of US by Islamic crazies. And it will continue to contribute to terrorism and hatred of the US until we learn to mind our own business - and to stop boasting of our dedication to democracy while we supporting the Israeli occupation and the discrimination that goes along with it. For example, "Jews only roads" on the West Bank? How are they compatible with democracy?

 **Now, as to Gingrich, his comments on the Palestinians in the last debate "as an historian" were outrageous. ** He tried to paint all Palestinians as terrorists. Nonsense. The Palestinians go back well beyond his false assertions. True, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire and the Arab world, but the inhabitants developed a sense of nationality long before the date stated by Gingrich. He was simply adopting the line of Israeli extremists - a popular thing to do among ardent Zionists, including millions of evangelical Protestants who are constantly fed the 'Chosen People' theme them from their pulpits. I am an amateur stamp collector and have Palestine stamps that come from the '20s. I also have visited Israel four times, and each time I have become more convinced that while Israel needs to be preserved the Palestinians have been and continue to be abused and mistreated. The least that should have been done is that when their homes were taken from them - places they had lived in for generations - they should have at least been generously compensated.
** Gingrich as president would be an American disaster.** No, more than that. A world disaster!
Code:
 **On the other hand, I do not agree that the US is the most hated nation in the world. M**y French-Canadian kinfolk up in Quebec disagree with US policy (as I do) but they admire and love America. Obviously, when millions from around the world stand in line to come here (or illegally cross into the USA) this says something. There is resentment of US hubris and arrogance, something I too can resent, but along with it widespread appreciation for our many democratic principles and much more.

 **By the way, I love Canada.** "Oh, Canada!" My second favorite nation after the USA. Vancouver - what a beautiful city. I am proud of my French-Canadian heritage (paternal side). But I am also proud to be an American despite our checkered history and current mistakes.
 
Sorry Darryl, I should have directed my last posting to MontChevalier. His name here suggests that he also might be of French-Canadian heritage. I was responding to him, in particular.
 
Darryl1958
Code:
 ......     **What scares me is that if Gingrich is elected president, which I fear is a serious danger, our policy in the Middle East, bad enough already, will become even worse, leading to more and more conflict.** On this issue, I have some sympathy for Ron Paul who has been saying for years that we shouldn't involve ourselves in all the conflicts that inevitably will flare up around the world. This factor contributed enormously to 9-11 and targeting of US by Islamic crazies. And it will continue to contribute to terrorism and hatred of the US until we learn to mind our own business - and to stop boasting of our dedication to democracy while we supporting the Israeli occupation and the discrimination that goes along with it. For example, "Jews only roads" on the West Bank? How are they compatible with democracy?......
If you missed it, “Islamic crazies” were using Islam as a justification to attack the US, 147 years prior to the forming of modern Israel.
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
-“American Peace Commissioners to John Jay,” March 28, 1786, “Thomas Jefferson Papers,” Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651–1827, Library of Congress.
 
If you missed it, “Islamic crazies” were using Islam as a justification to attack the US, 147 years prior to the forming of modern Israel.

-“American Peace Commissioners to John Jay,” March 28, 1786, “Thomas Jefferson Papers,” Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651–1827, Library of Congress.
Ummm, Islamic “crazies” have been attacking EVERYONE since…well, 610 AD. Europe was content paying tribute payments to the Barbary corsairs. Jefferson wasn’t.
 
The REAL problem is where Ms. Noonan says:

And then, in the fall of 2012, once party leaders have come around and the GOP is fully behind him,

… in 2008, the GOP totally sandbagged and stabbed McCain and Palin … in the back, in the front, on top of the head … even the head of the GOP, Michael Steele, said he didn’t think they could win. And that stunt with the phoney wardrobe for Palin was just over the top.

The GOP deliberately sabotaged the 2008 election … “as if” they really wanted to lose.

Other people have made this comment as well.

The GOP seems more comfortable in the “loser role”, than in the winner role.

All the GOP wants to do is go to parties hosted by people who despise them. The GOP just wants to dance backwards all the time, instead of leading.

The GOP even acquiesced to the Democrat demand for “power sharing” after the Democrats lost an earlier election.

Even the Democrats call the GOP the stupid party.

So, while I love Peggy Noonan, … sorry, Peggy, but the GOP cannot be trusted to support their local sheriff.
👍
 
The REAL problem is where Ms. Noonan says:

And then, in the fall of 2012, once party leaders have come around and the GOP is fully behind him,

… in 2008, the GOP totally sandbagged and stabbed McCain and Palin … in the back, in the front, on top of the head … even the head of the GOP, Michael Steele, said he didn’t think they could win. And that stunt with the phoney wardrobe for Palin was just over the top.

The GOP deliberately sabotaged the 2008 election … “as if” they really wanted to lose.

Other people have made this comment as well.

The GOP seems more comfortable in the “loser role”, than in the winner role.

All the GOP wants to do is go to parties hosted by people who despise them. The GOP just wants to dance backwards all the time, instead of leading.

The GOP even acquiesced to the Democrat demand for “power sharing” after the Democrats lost an earlier election.

Even the Democrats call the GOP the stupid party.

So, while I love Peggy Noonan, … sorry, Peggy, but the GOP cannot be trusted to support their local sheriff.
The problem in 2008 was John McCain. He was not conservative enough. I would have rather had Sarah Palin, but the press destroyed her.

So we had a moderate candidate -annointed by the press - and the conservatives couldn’t get behind him.

I’m sure many just said, maybe it’s better for the country to go down under Democrat control rather than under a moderate Republican.
 
The problem in 2008 was John McCain. He was not conservative enough. I would have rather had Sarah Palin, but the press destroyed her.
If a candidate can’t handle the stress of dealing with the media - as Palin obviously was unable to do - then that person has no business running for the presidency of the United States, whose office faces threats to national security far graver than the likes of Katie Couric, et al. The only “credible,” as it were (as opposed to frivolous), evidence supporting this view would be Tina Fey’s SNL impersonation - which influenced America’s perception of her the same way people equated Gerald Ford with Chevy Chase. Which is to say, a more credible claim can be made against SNL and not the whole mass media.
 
The problem in 2008 was John McCain. He was not conservative enough. I would have rather had Sarah Palin, but the press destroyed her.

So we had a moderate candidate -annointed by the press - and the conservatives couldn’t get behind him.

I’m sure many just said, maybe it’s better for the country to go down under Democrat control rather than under a moderate Republican.
A moderate Republican ran in 2008 and look at how that turned out. A warning for this election and the choosing of the Republican nominee.
 
If a candidate can’t handle the stress of dealing with the media - as Palin obviously was unable to do -
Herman Cain would be a better example of this than Palin.

Palin couldn’t afford it anymore.

Get the facts straight.
 
Herman Cain would be a better example of this than Palin.

Palin couldn’t afford it anymore.

Get the facts straight.
Palin couldn’t afford it anymore? Book deals? Her own show on TLC?

Cain, whose Godfather’s Pizza chain, has fewer than 50 chains in all of North America, could?

Have I gotten my facts straight? 🙂
 
Palin couldn’t afford it anymore? Book deals? Her own show on TLC?
Hard to make money off of book deals/tours when your nearly two years out till the end of your term and over half a million in debt on a Gov’s. salary and not coming from a wealthy family. I’m betting she would have ran for a second term had it not been for the legal fees, which is what put her out of office, not the media.
Cain, whose Godfather’s Pizza chain, has fewer than 50 chains in all of North America, could?
Would you like to compare Palins net worth as a two year governor vs. Cain’s net worth?
Have I gotten my facts straight? 🙂
Like most people, no you do not.
 
Gingrich Running Strong With Traditionally Reliable Voters

Older Republicans and core GOP identifiers show solid preference for Gingrich


by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ – Newt Gingrich’s current lead in Republican preferences for the GOP presidential nomination is largely attributable to particularly high support from the types of Republicans who might be expected to turn out heavily in the upcoming primaries – older Republicans and core identifiers with the Republican Party. Roughly 40% of Republicans aged 55 and older as well as core Republicans (as opposed to independents who lean Republican) and conservatives currently favor Gingrich for the nomination. This contrasts with 21% to 23% of each group backing Mitt Romney.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/qt7gillsykuvdk8ovnki8a.gif

%between%

Gingrich also leads Romney among those 35 to 54 years of age. Romney leads among young Republicans, aged 18 to 34, but, at 26%, is only slightly ahead of Gingrich and Ron Paul among this group, with both receiving close to 20%.

gallup.com/poll/151547/Gingrich-Running-Strong-Traditionally-Reliable-Voters.aspx
 
If you missed it, “Islamic crazies” were using Islam as a justification to attack the US, 147 years prior to the forming of modern Israel.

-“American Peace Commissioners to John Jay,” March 28, 1786, “Thomas Jefferson Papers,” Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651–1827, Library of Congress.
As others have posted, the “Islamic crazies” have been using Islam as a justification to attack the U.S. for a VERY long time.

There are a number of books and articles about “Jefferson’s War” … of 1805 against the “Islamic crazies” of North Africa … the birthdate of the U.S. Marine Corps … " … the shores of Tripoli …" etc.

The Islamics invaded Spain in AD 711 and were not ejected until AD 1492 … and after that, they began attacking European coastal towns and European ships and taking Europeans as slaves.

It wasn’t until around 1825 or so, that the Europeans finally had enough and simply occupied North Africa. The Spanish and French into what is now Morocco. The French into Algeria and Tunisia. The Italians into Libya. And the British into Egypt. And etc.

THAT “pacified” the area.

Until they got independence after WW II. And oil and natural gas were discovered in the region, so they could finance their own wars against the Christians/ the West.

If we can get the price of oil down to $20 per barrel, then the Islamic nations will no longer be able to finance their attacks.

And NOW, finally, with the discovery of horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing and very accurate seismic studies, the whole world is able to develop HUGE deposits of oil and natural gas at very low cost.

So, the dream of simply bankrupting the Islamic states … so that they can no longer afford to finance their expansionist terrorism … may be a reality … finally.
 
I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I hope I would do the same for a Democrat should I be inclined to vote for one. That inclination left me many years ago. I think becoming a Catholic might bring to mind that adultery is a sin. Don’t think he will get the nomination because there are too many people who think like you do, but I do think his superior intellect and his experiences might very well make him the best president of the lot.
This is a surprise to me. A few years ago I was wondering why Gingrich was not considered presidential material and you had expressed reservations about him. What made you change your mind?
 
Darryl1958
Code:
 **Actually, I think the US reputation is mixed. **True, this country has angered many people, as when we stupidly invaded Iraq. A major problem here is that under Bush the neocons had a strong influence on our foreign policy. I had hoped that this would be less true of Obama, but the Democratic Party also is under strong pro-Israeli influence. I'm sure that Israel is more hated than the US, but the unflinching support we give to Israel - billions of dollars a year, our latest military equipment and inevitable cover in the UN - is a serious detriment to our position in the world. I hope that if Obama gets a second term he will take a more independent stand on the Israeli-Palestinian question. We can be pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian at the same time - and should be. We can most help Israel in the long run by pushing Netanyahu as well as the wild extremists in Israel to indulge in serious peace negotiations instead of constantly building new settlements on the West Bank. The two are not compatible.

 **What scares me is that if Gingrich is elected president, which I fear is a serious danger, our policy in the Middle East, bad enough already, will become even worse, leading to more and more conflict.** On this issue, I have some sympathy for Ron Paul who has been saying for years that we shouldn't involve ourselves in all the conflicts that inevitably will flare up around the world. This factor contributed enormously to 9-11 and targeting of US by Islamic crazies. And it will continue to contribute to terrorism and hatred of the US until we learn to mind our own business - and to stop boasting of our dedication to democracy while we supporting the Israeli occupation and the discrimination that goes along with it. For example, "Jews only roads" on the West Bank? How are they compatible with democracy?

 **Now, as to Gingrich, his comments on the Palestinians in the last debate "as an historian" were outrageous. ** He tried to paint all Palestinians as terrorists. Nonsense. The Palestinians go back well beyond his false assertions. True, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire and the Arab world, but the inhabitants developed a sense of nationality long before the date stated by Gingrich. He was simply adopting the line of Israeli extremists - a popular thing to do among ardent Zionists, including millions of evangelical Protestants who are constantly fed the 'Chosen People' theme them from their pulpits. I am an amateur stamp collector and have Palestine stamps that come from the '20s. I also have visited Israel four times, and each time I have become more convinced that while Israel needs to be preserved the Palestinians have been and continue to be abused and mistreated. The least that should have been done is that when their homes were taken from them - places they had lived in for generations - they should have at least been generously compensated.
** Gingrich as president would be an American disaster.** No, more than that. A world disaster!
Code:
 **On the other hand, I do not agree that the US is the most hated nation in the world. M**y French-Canadian kinfolk up in Quebec disagree with US policy (as I do) but they admire and love America. Obviously, when millions from around the world stand in line to come here (or illegally cross into the USA) this says something. There is resentment of US hubris and arrogance, something I too can resent, but along with it widespread appreciation for our many democratic principles and much more.

 **By the way, I love Canada.** "Oh, Canada!" My second favorite nation after the USA. Vancouver - what a beautiful city. I am proud of my French-Canadian heritage (paternal side). But I am also proud to be an American despite our checkered history and current mistakes.
I agree. As a Republican thinker, he is interesting. I would not characterize him as conservative, though he definitely is positioning himself that way to win the Tea Party votes. But as an individual capable of ‘governing’ I have my doubts. Yes, he was House Speaker, but when has he acted as an executive over a large organization- and I would not count boards or small consulting/media firms. I don’t think the presidency is a good fit for on the job training.
 
This is a surprise to me. A few years ago I was wondering why Gingrich was not considered presidential material and you had expressed reservations about him. What made you change your mind?
I have not changed my mind about Newt, if that is what you are asking. I was responding to a post that said because of his three marriages and two divorces with adultry, he couldl not vote for Newt. Newt has worked out his past with the church and that is good enough for me. It is not my place to judge. As far as who I support, I have not decided yet. I want the strongest one to go against Obama because our country cannot afford four more years of this man. If you thought I expressed reservations about Newt, it was because I wonder if he can be elected. There are good people who would not vote for him for the reasons I have stated above.
 
All you need to know about Iowa: for this week, Romney SuperPac has $713K in ads scheduled to run. Gingrich has $21K on books. 34-1 ratio
 
From the Daily Caller:
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich handily won a straw poll conducted on Sunday night of more than 23,000 activists affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots organization.

The former speaker of the House won 31 percent of the vote, according to results released on Monday morning. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann followed with 28 percent.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in third with 20 percent, and Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum followed with 16 percent of the votes cast.
Of course, we all know that the first poll that actually means anything happens on Jan 3.
 
I have not changed my mind about Newt, if that is what you are asking. I was responding to a post that said because of his three marriages and two divorces with adultry, he couldl not vote for Newt. Newt has worked out his past with the church and that is good enough for me. It is not my place to judge. As far as who I support, I have not decided yet. I want the strongest one to go against Obama because our country cannot afford four more years of this man. If you thought I expressed reservations about Newt, it was because I wonder if he can be elected. There are good people who would not vote for him for the reasons I have stated above.
Well if bailouts matter to you then I wouldn’t vote for Gingrich or Romney.

If military adventurism matters to you I wouldn’t vote for Gingrich or Romney.

I the individual mandate bothers you I wouldn’t vote for Gingrich or Romney.

Those should be the reasons why neither of these guys gets elected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top