Newt
-
And hey, if it makes you feel better, ABC News has nothing new in this interview. It'll hurt him because it brings it all up again, and puts a face to it, but it's nothing we didn't already know.
And hey, if it makes you feel better, ABC News has nothing new in this interview. It'll hurt him because it brings it all up again, and puts a face to it, but it's nothing we didn't already know.
But that's not the point.
The point is to remind everybody right before the primary!
Nothing hacky about that huh?
WSS
-
Okay he never had 2 thirds.
My bad.
Then again you don't need 2 thirds to pass budgetary matters.
Or nationalized healthcare for that matter.
WSS
Okay he never had 2 thirds.
My bad.
Then again you don't need 2 thirds to pass budgetary matters.
Or nationalized healthcare for that matter.
WSS
He didn't even have a filibuster-proof majority. And health care wasn't nationalized. But cheers on the retraction.
-
And hey, if it makes you feel better, ABC News has nothing new in this interview. It'll hurt him because it brings it all up again, and puts a face to it, but it's nothing we didn't already know.
But that's not the point.
The point is to remind everybody right before the primary!
Nothing hacky about that huh?
WSS
But that's not the point.
The point is to remind everybody right before the primary!
Nothing hacky about that huh?
WSS
I don't know the genesis of how the interview came to be, who approached who, so I don't know and I don't think you do either. It's certainly newsworthy and they'd run it if it were a Democrat, and did. (Remember Gennifer Flowers?) But I think, for the reason you mentioned, conservatives will see this as a liberal media attack on Gingrich right before the primary and it will either not hurt him or actually help him by rallying the troops.
There really isn't anything new in there except her saying it on camera instead of in print. Plus, I assure you that right now Gingrich and his top staff are preparing a chunk for the debate that will have three beats: I'm a sinner and I'm not perfect, I asked for forgiveness from God and my family, and despite the liberal media's timing and intention to turn this into a media circus I will not say anything negative about Marianne, who is the mother of my children, so suck it. (Pause for applause.)
Sinner, God, doesn't the liberal media suck.
-
One thing I'd ask you is if Newt's megalomania frightens you at all. He really is a unique character. When you look at some of the stuff he's said and written about himself, the self-regard, the belief that the rules don't apply to him, the fact that even his own staff used to refer to him as a sociopath, does that give you pause?
The guy who says stuff like this:
"I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it...Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it."
Or writes this down - about himself:
"Gingrich--primary mission: advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces."
And try to answer without saying the exact same thing is true of Obama, and not making distinction between two different people with two different personalities, because I could write that post for you I've seen it so many times.
And look, it doesn't matter because Newt's not going to be president. I'm just asking you. Don't you think the guy is a little, well, off?
I mean, I think Mitt Romney is a total phony and his ambition is a little frightening, but I don't worry about his mental stability. That's why I like him - because I think he's calm and rational and mostly evidence-based once an election is over. Whereas I think Gingrich probably suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.
-
He didn't even have a filibuster-proof majority egg-sucking weasel hatemonger Heck
******************************
Heck, you are stinking up this forum with your partisan denial.
More people are on food stamps now, than ever before in our history.
Obamao has no interest in fixing problems. He wants to use them for emotional Heck style
belligerent manipulation for more votes.
Otherwise, he would never have done all the stupid ass things he's done.
Like, most recently, turning down the pipeline because he "only had 60 days)...
that didn't run out until late Feb.
The dirtbag hatemonger in our White House needs to go.
He has failed, and failed completely, in being the "intelligent, charming, bringer of all of us together,
fix unemployment, make us more respected in the world"...
instead, he's been found out to have been a fraud, and an empty suit all along.
Even on the pipeline, he was really voting "present".
The totally dishonest blaming of Obamao's failed policies on Bush, or the Tea Party, is stupid ass.
That's you, Heck. You aren't honest enough to stop your bs, and actually criticize Obamao objectively.
Liberals never can. That would require thinking, and you liberals "feel" instead of analyzing.
BTW, I believe you most certainly did say something like "I do this for a living"... If I'm right,
what the freakin were you referring to?
-
One thing I'd ask you is if Newt's megalomania frightens you at all. He really is a unique character. When you look at some of the stuff he's said and written about himself, the self-regard, the belief that the rules don't apply to him, the fact that even his own staff used to refer to him as a sociopath, does that give you pause?
The guy who says stuff like this:
"I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it...Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it."
Or writes this down - about himself:
"Gingrich--primary mission: advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces."
And try to answer without saying the exact same thing is true of Obama, and not making distinction between two different people with two different personalities, because I could write that post for you I've seen it so many times.
And look, it doesn't matter because Newt's not going to be president. I'm just asking you. Don't you think the guy is a little, well, off?
I mean, I think Mitt Romney is a total phony and his ambition is a little frightening, but I don't worry about his mental stability. That's why I like him - because I think he's calm and rational and mostly evidence-based once an election is over. Whereas I think Gingrich probably suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.
"I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it...Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it."
Yeah you are really enlightening the whole world and we are supposed to be impressed? Sorry hippy nobody buys your BS.
Meanwhile lets look at the double standard of ABC who wasn't interested in the John Edwards story about him cheating on his cancer stricken wife. But some BS from Newt's ex-wife is somthing they think is big time news story. When was the last time ABC ever ran a story investigating any or all of Obama's crooked ways?
-
But that's not the point.
The point is to remind everybody right before the primary!
Nothing hacky about that huh?
WSS
I don't know the genesis of how the interview came to be, who approached who, so I don't know and I don't think you do either. It's certainly newsworthy and they'd run it if it were a Democrat, and did. (Remember Gennifer Flowers?) But I think, for the reason you mentioned, conservatives will see this as a liberal media attack on Gingrich right before the primary and it will either not hurt him or actually help him by rallying the troops.
There really isn't anything new in there except her saying it on camera instead of in print. Plus, I assure you that right now Gingrich and his top staff are preparing a chunk for the debate that will have three beats: I'm a sinner and I'm not perfect, I asked for forgiveness from God and my family, and despite the liberal media's timing and intention to turn this into a media circus I will not say anything negative about Marianne, who is the mother of my children, so suck it. (Pause for applause.)
Sinner, God, doesn't the liberal media suck.
I don't know the genesis of how the interview came to be, who approached who, so I don't know and I don't think you do either.
Right.
I'm sure it was a big coincidence.
Now who's 12?
Sinner, God, doesn't the liberal media suck.
True dat.
WSS
-
What I'm saying is that she might have approached them. If she does that, and offers to speak on camera about Newt for the first time, of course they're going to run it.
Contrary to what you think, this isn't some plot designed to sink Newt. It's a plot to make news and to get ratings. After all, if you're a Democrat super secret spy journalist, like they ALL are, you want Newt to be the nominee. This is the guy you want to face. Because Obama will clean his clock.
Plus, this is going to help Newt, not hurt him.
I would also agree that the fact that this was the first question asked in the debate is sort of pathetic, and Gingrich is half-right, though that was quite a performance. Like I said, he knows what you guys want to hear.
-
One thing I'd ask you is if Newt's megalomania frightens you at all. He really is a unique character. When you look at some of the stuff he's said and written about himself, the self-regard, the belief that the rules don't apply to him, the fact that even his own staff used to refer to him as a sociopath, does that give you pause?
The guy who says stuff like this:
"I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it...Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it."
Or writes this down - about himself:
"Gingrich--primary mission: advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces."
And try to answer without saying the exact same thing is true of Obama, and not making distinction between two different people with two different personalities, because I could write that post for you I've seen it so many times.
And look, it doesn't matter because Newt's not going to be president. I'm just asking you. Don't you think the guy is a little, well, off?
I mean, I think Mitt Romney is a total phony and his ambition is a little frightening, but I don't worry about his mental stability. That's why I like him - because I think he's calm and rational and mostly evidence-based once an election is over. Whereas I think Gingrich probably suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.
One thing I'd ask you is if Newt's megalomania frightens you at all. He really is a unique character. When you look at some of the stuff he's said and written about himself, the self-regard, the belief that the rules don't apply to him, the fact that even his own staff used to refer to him as....
That's a fair question.
I've already said I've had my misgivings.
What I've got a little more time I'll get to some of them, okay?
But one thing we all seem to miss on occasion is why we even bother to vote.
If it's just to elect the front runner then why bother?
Or is it just to advance a particular party?
or an agenda?
Just going with the front runner reminds me of the guy with dallas green bay niners steelers and patriots jerseys hanging in his closet.
WSS
-
I agree completely. I hate that argument - the "rally around the frontrunner" nonsense. That makes more sense in the general election. But in the primaries? You vote for who you want to see on the ticket, even if they're polling at 5%.
As for Newt, I don't think he's got the right personality for a president. But I don't begrudge you your choice. Those four are pretty lousy choices, and I think they all lose to Obama. A European collapse, or another event, could change everything of course.
I just think the country would be far better off under Romney than Gingrich. Gingrich has a real contempt for people he'd be representing, and expresses it willingly. It's like he's running to be a talk radio host, not a president.
-
Obamao has a real contempt for people he's supposed to be representing, and expresses it willingly.
***********
*Fixed
I'm looking for a Santorum/Gingrich ticket.
They would win.
-
I think our system of government itself has contempt for the people.
rightly so in many cases.
WSS
-
Santorum / Gingrich ticket?
The guy that equated homosexuality to beastiality and the guy that left his ill wife for his mistress, twice.
Good luck getting moderate/independent votes.
-
Santorum / Gingrich ticket?
The guy that equated homosexuality to beastiality and the guy that left his ill wife for his mistress, twice.
Good luck getting moderate/independent votes.
Santorum / Gingrich ticket?
The guy that equated homosexuality to beastiality and the guy that left his ill wife for his mistress, twice.
Good luck getting moderate/independent votes.
Glad to see you democrats suddenly in the moral majority.
WSS
-
Who said I was a Democrat?
You guys and your labeling of those that disagree with you
-
Who said I was a Democrat?
You guys and your labeling of those that disagree with you
And who says you disagree with me?
I just saw a common thread with the people you choose to attack.
You will probably find some variations in ideology here.
Bill clinton probably paved the way for marital infidelity eh?
Besides I don't think the pro gay platform is necessarily a winner.
The current president was smart enough to affect the other side during the campaign.
WSS
-
True true
I just think it is a shame part of your campaign can be to NOT allow equal rights to some people.
Clinton cheating on his wife is bad, I agree, but I think leaving an ill wife with cancer to marry the mistress, twice, is worse.
Some things you can overlook, but that, that is too much.
Christians and conservatives love talking about the sanctity of marriage as a reason gays can't get married. How can anyone take him seriously when Newt wats that?
-
Welcome, rare sane person.
Newt's infidelities don't matter much in the grand scope of things, as Clinton's didn't either. But they do tell you something about the extreme narcissism - among other things - of the people involved, and it's going to hurt you with women voters. Clinton's escapades told you about his personal neediness and his recklessness - the guy was willing to risk his entire presidency over a blowjob. Newt's tell you more about his callousness and enormous ego issues.
Look at the polls - female voters really, really don't like Newt.
-
Welcome, rare sane person.
Newt's infidelities don't matter much in the grand scope of things, as Clinton's didn't either. But they do tell you something about the extreme narcissism - among other things - of the people involved, and it's going to hurt you with women voters. Clinton's escapades told you about his personal neediness and his recklessness - the guy was willing to risk his entire presidency over a blowjob. Newt's tell you more about his callousness and enormous ego issues.
Look at the polls - female voters really, really don't like Newt.
Welcome, rare sane person.
Newt's infidelities don't matter much in the grand scope of things, as Clinton's didn't either. But
Lest we forget the old political axiom:
"Everything before the 'but' is bullshit.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login