Newt
-
And back to Newt. This is from David Frum today:
The headline from the Monday night debate was of course Romney's burst of combativeness against Gingrich, and Gingrich's oddly listless replies.
Newt Gingrich toned down something else as well: his racial politics. In South Carolina he fired off a cannonade of racial cues, culminating—incredibly—in his assertion that work was a "strange concept" to Juan Williams.
In Florida, Gingrich celebrated multilingualism, endorsed an (amended) DREAM act, and praised the costly new prescription drug benefit in Medicare.
In South Carolina, Gingrich defined the American nation tightly and exclusively. In Florida, he opened the borders much wider—literally.
You don't need me to explain the different reasons Gingrich might have in the different states. But as to what he's doing: that's hard to mistake.
Mitt Romney pounded Gingrich as the very opposite of the agent of change he wishes to seem. Romney outright called Gingrich an influence-peddler, a charge that draws extra blood because it is exactly true.
But does it matter? The conservative movement these past three years has shown an amazing ability to forgive offenses once deemed unforgivable, providing they are committed by "one of our own." The contest is to prove that you are "one of us." That's a contest to which Gingrich comes with large advantages.
Gingrich might not have what it takes to be a viable national candidate, much less an effective president. But he knows this party better than anybody.
-
Ur probably right about that whole crack thing haha, as I said in the other thread I'll stop posting right when I wake up. You definitely made the point clearer than I did. If I want to convince someone to legalize weed, talking about crack probably isn't the best choice haha
-
Social conservatives want smaller government except when it comes to telling people who they should be allowed to marry. Also, cal, could you please explain why the alcohol analogy doesn't fly? I think it certainly can be compared against marijuana. LSD, heroin, and cocaine, not so much.
*****************************
We do want smaller gov. But it doesn't require a larger gov to have social mores and institutions established for the
healthy existence of a society. Society must have the ability to establish some degree of protection of itself to survive.
Our American society has the family, marriage, eduction... etc. It doesnt' take a FED dept of ed to run the local schools.
The states already have their own dept of ed.... make gov smaller and get rid of the federal dept. That's just one example.
The institution of marriage, as we define it, and has predominately been defined by nature and God forever...is between a man and a woman.
The laws about the institution involve the rights of the man and woman, and the rights of, so much of the time, children.
Gay couples can't even have children - it's a natural law since God created (or the big bang created..
)human beings and animals. And insects. And plants. Outside of that natural law that has existed since the beginning of
the male/female existence... is an anomaly. A relatively tiny minute bunch of occurences that are outside the norm,
outside of -general- natural law. Albino's exist. But are they the norm? No.
For instance, genetic defects, like the claw hand. Saw on tv just a few days ago, about the very sad, and rare occurence
of people with claws, two main digits, instead of five. I actually saw that at a county circus one year when I was kid. Spooky.
Very not normal. A liberal would think to make the gov force glove manufacturers to make an equal amount of gloves
for those unfornate folks, and for stores to provide them in equal amounts in some kind of "civil rights of gloves" thing.
That's obviously really dumb. That's too big of a gov.
Anyways, back to marriage - our society already concurs with most all societies on earth - we have male/female human beings,
and that is a marriage pair. It's universally fundamental in nature.
Gays occur, who knows, a genetic anomaly, or a psychological disorder... but a society that lets a small percentage of anomalies
distort the basic institutions of it's healthy existence would be damaged beyond recognition.
Liberals always seem to fancy turning everything upside down and inside out at every turn.
It takes far bigger gov to enforce critical mandated changes to society. It took a lot of gov to mandate
civil rights for blacks. But color of skin is no anomaly - it's completely the same except color - like
a black rose, or red or pink rose,,, they are still roses. With all the rights and any other rose... oh.. never mind. GGG
Freedom is a societal institution. The desire to be free is innate in human beings since the beginning of time.
More and more gov instrusion is less and less freedom. Freedom unregulated is freedom denied when freedoms
conflict. You only need gov to keep order and security for a society and it's institutions.
Liberals always seem to want to turn over the apple cart with freedoms that interfere with other's freedoms.
Like, freedom to murder unborn and born children denies the right of the children to live.
Freedom to make all drugs legal denies the right of the rest of society to be safe and healthy.
Freedom from having to work for a living, freedom to have everything handed to you moneywise, housewise, etc...
denies the rest of society to have their own freedom to live with the money that they earned.
Why should the gov have the right to mandate that others who have, should give it up for others who don't?
Lennon's stupid song "Imagine" has apparently created pot smokie smokie dimwits who really think that
we should not have private borders of countries, and no countries, and no God and no hell and no this and no that..
I say, baloney, and so do most countries on earth, most societies. But, thinking it lets liberals feel super elite.
Very, very, super duper very special. It's JUST A FREAKIN STUPID SONG, but somewhere in the deep dark recesses
of liberals minds, they dote on it actually being a utopian goal.
But, societies have institutions and they protect them to whatever degree, to survive as a society.
Which brings me to marijuana. It has THC. Alcohol does not. Alcohol goes completely away, although it's abuse
can cause eventual permanent damage to organs. And lives.
But the manner that THC is metabolized is bad. It breaks down and stays in the body in different forms.
That's all I remember, no, I don't remember what THC stands for, but it's something long.
So, it's the difference in metabolism, and it's affects, that effect the disputed? studies that show
that smoking it can lead to more and more tolerance and the addictive need to go to harder drugs that
do the same.
It's a freakin good thing I type fast as all get out.
-
"You can't have somebody that's really as irrational and perceives himself as Winston Churchill or the equivalent of Margaret Thatcher or Charles de Gaulle." - John Sununu
"Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive." - George Will
"He is not a reliable and trustworthy conservative because he is not a reliable and trustworthy leader." - Jim Talent
"Newt Gingrich had a leadership style that can only be described as leadership by chaos. ...It would be very difficult for me to support Newt Gingrich for president." - Susan Molinari
"Over a political career of nearly 40 years, Gingrich has convinced almost everybody who has ever worked closely with him that he cannot and should not be trusted with executive power." - David Frum
...Steve, thoughts? Give you pause? I'll give you one more quote, because it made me think of you:
“Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall." - Ann Coulter
Isn't that what you really want to see? Newt stick it to smarty-pants Obama and everyone else who thinks he's so smart?
-
This sucks. I was hoping that republicans would actually nominate someone worthy to be president. With Gingrich winning in SC and now leading in Florida, it looks like he's going to be their nomination. I just won't vote this election, there's going to be no one worthy of my vote.
-
I just won't vote this election, there's going to be no one worthy of my vote.
Just vote Colbert
-
The institution of marriage, as we define it, and has predominately been defined by nature and God forever...is between a man and a woman.
You talk to God? Cool... cuz I didn't here anything say that.
Also, I didn't know animals got married? Even though there are many animals that are more faithful than Newt...
Claw hand comparison... genius.
I don't see how letting gays get married and serve in the military could negatively affect anyone in anyway.
-
Like I said I don't believe anyone here is an anarchist.
that would be the smallest government no?
Sure. 0 is very small
I'd imagine you'll have a hard time convincing anybody that crack should be legal.
If you get your wish and it is legalized would you then refuse health services to those who choose to take it and become addicted? or should be taxpayers pick up that tab?
Yeah, that crack talk didn't help me at all haha. I don't wish to have it legalized, I was just trying to make a point, and apparently I failed.
And as I asked you before do you believe abortion should be legal up entirely through the third trimester for any reason?
Tough call. I couldn't imagine doing that, that late in the pregnancy. I don't think it should be an end all be all no abortions any time after conception... but at the same time I think there is a time when it gets too late. I'm not really sure when though. I am not clouded by religious views but at the same time I don't have a lot of experience or knowledge on this. I am not going to sit here and act like I know the definite answer. I think I know part of the answer but not all of it.
And exactly what do you mean by equal rights? Marriage is not a right as you probably know.
Isn't marriage the pursuit of happiness? I can't think of any legitimate reason why we shouldn't let gays marry or serve in the military. I don't see how that negatively affects anyone...
-
Like I said I don't believe anyone here is an anarchist.
that would be the smallest government no?
Sure. 0 is very small
I'd imagine you'll have a hard time convincing anybody that crack should be legal.
If you get your wish and it is legalized would you then refuse health services to those who choose to take it and become addicted? or should be taxpayers pick up that tab?
Yeah, that crack talk didn't help me at all haha. I don't wish to have it legalized, I was just trying to make a point, and apparently I failed.
And as I asked you before do you believe abortion should be legal up entirely through the third trimester for any reason?
Tough call. I couldn't imagine doing that, that late in the pregnancy. I don't think it should be an end all be all no abortions any time after conception... but at the same time I think there is a time when it gets too late. I'm not really sure when though. I am not clouded by religious views but at the same time I don't have a lot of experience or knowledge on this. I am not going to sit here and act like I know the definite answer. I think I know part of the answer but not all of it.
And exactly what do you mean by equal rights? Marriage is not a right as you probably know.
Isn't marriage the pursuit of happiness? I can't think of any legitimate reason why we shouldn't let gays marry or serve in the military. I don't see how that negatively affects anyone...
Sure. 0 is very small
Yeah, that crack talk didn't help me at all haha. I don't wish to have it legalized, I was just trying to make a point, and apparently I failed.
Tough call. I couldn't imagine doing that, that late in the pregnancy. I don't think it should be an end all be all no abortions any time after conception... but at the same time I think there is a time when it gets too late. I'm not really sure when though. I am not clouded by religious views but at the same time I don't have a lot of experience or knowledge on this. I am not going to sit here and act like I know the definite answer. I think I know part of the answer but not all of it.
Isn't marriage the pursuit of happiness? I can't think of any legitimate reason why we shouldn't let gays marry or serve in the military. I don't see how that negatively affects anyone...
Well since you don't and never have served in the military, who really gives a fuck what you think?
-
Well I like to base my opinions off of common sense, science, statistics, and what actual experts think. Not based off of what my party thinks, what other people in my life think (assuming they aren't experts) or what a magic book tells me to think.
From what I have read many high ranking officials in the military oppose the ban and would be fine with gays serving. I sure as hell am not going to serve in the military, so if a gay guy wants to you should be happy someone is going to.
-
That's a lousy argument - that only people who have served should be able to decide what happens in the military. After all, if you polled the military in the 40s and early 50s, there wasn't support for racial integration of the military, was there?
But let's play along, because the Defense Department did ask the military what they thought. And what did they find?
Of 400,000 serving members of the United States military and their families surveyed, most do not believe reform of the rules on gays and lesbians serving in the military would affect morale, unit cohesion or military effectiveness. A survey conducted by The Pentagon has concluded only 30% believed that changing the law would have a negative effect.
So looks like you're in the minority here, not the majority. Even by your own standard.
-
More Newt:
"What a political movement gets when it spends years marshaling more demagoguery than sound arguments against its opponents, what it gets when its intellectuals are deposed by its entertainers, what it gets when Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaugh are its agenda-setting personalities; what it gets when all these factors and more prevail, is a Newt Gingrich victory in South Carolina, where the voters, having been trained to elevate emotion and style over substance, didn't even realize that they've chosen as their champion a man who is neither conservative nor capable of leading anyone." - Conor Friedersdorf
Again, Steve, these are all Republicans I'm quoting.
-
That's a lousy argument - that only people who have served should be able to decide what happens in the military. After all, if you polled the military in the 40s and early 50s, there wasn't support for racial integration of the military, was there?
But let's play along, because the Defense Department did ask the military what they thought. And what did they find?
Of 400,000 serving members of the United States military and their families surveyed, most do not believe reform of the rules on gays and lesbians serving in the military would affect morale, unit cohesion or military effectiveness. A survey conducted by The Pentagon has concluded only 30% believed that changing the law would have a negative effect.
So looks like you're in the minority here, not the majority. Even by your own standard.
That's a lousy argument - that only people who have served should be able to decide what happens in the military. After all, if you polled the military in the 40s and early 50s, there wasn't support for racial integration of the military, was there?
But let's play along, because the Defense Department did ask the military what they thought. And what did they find?
Of 400,000 serving members of the United States military and their families surveyed, most do not believe reform of the rules on gays and lesbians serving in the military would affect morale, unit cohesion or military effectiveness. A survey conducted by The Pentagon has concluded only 30% believed that changing the law would have a negative effect.
So looks like you're in the minority here, not the majority. Even by your own standard.
I doubt it Heck. But, if you want to believe the "Pentagon Survey", go ahead.
-
Haha. Apparently if you put it n quotes, and add a little sneer, you've effectively called the survey into question.
Sorry, my brother, but there are two generations behind you who just don't care what gay people do or are in the same way that your generation does. You're not only going to see DADT die, you're going to see gay marriage legalized fairly soon.
Washington looks to be next.
-
Diehard, I hate to break it to you (who am I kidding, I love this), but I am friends with a bunch of officers, noncoms and enlisted in a bunch of different branches of the military. This may be anecdotal evidence, but these guys could give a shit if gays serve with them, and many of them don't like the fact that gays have to hide something. The only ones who really support DADT, are the super religious Mormons. These guys are the future of the military. 25 years from now, we're going to look back at this battle for gay rights and it will be taught alongside the Black civil rights movement.
-
Diehard, I hate to break it to you (who am I kidding, I love this), but I am friends with a bunch of officers, noncoms and enlisted in a bunch of different branches of the military. This may be anecdotal evidence, but these guys could give a shit if gays serve with them, and many of them don't like the fact that gays have to hide something. The only ones who really support DADT, are the super religious Mormons. These guys are the future of the military. 25 years from now, we're going to look back at this battle for gay rights and it will be taught alongside the Black civil rights movement.
Diehard, I hate to break it to you (who am I kidding, I love this), but I am friends with a bunch of officers, noncoms and enlisted in a bunch of different branches of the military. This may be anecdotal evidence, but these guys could give a shit if gays serve with them, and many of them don't like the fact that gays have to hide something. The only ones who really support DADT, are the super religious Mormons. These guys are the future of the military. 25 years from now, we're going to look back at this battle for gay rights and it will be taught alongside the Black civil rights movement.
Maybe your crowd is, but the grunt crowd is not. The Marine Corps is not. I'm sorry, I will never agree with this. But as you said, I'm an old fuck and no one cares what I think. I would not compare this to the black civil rights movement either. But time will tell, and I fear tell in a bad way. I hope to hell I am wrong. If gays can serve along side (not too close) then that is cool. LOL.
-
I hope when I am old I am not going to be a salty closet racist impeding cultural change and the overall improvement of society
-
I hope when I am old I am not going to be a salty closet racist impeding cultural change and the overall improvement of society
I hope when I am old I am not going to be a salty closet racist impeding cultural change and the overall improvement of society
Dude, your still shitting yellow.
-
Yellow crayons aren't my favorite
Edit:
Or maybe I could have said something along the lines of
"No man, I shit maize"
But that would be bad cuz ur not supposed to shit your teams colors...
-
Diehard, I hate to bring to break it to you, but you served alongside gays. You probably just didn't know it.
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