Gingrich insults GOP members

[Sarah G]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Gingrich insult rankles RNC members « - Blogs from CNN.com

This happens all the time., When I was a kid, I had Guppys. When they gave birth, they would turn around and eat them. It usually gets pretty nasty before it is over with.

Newt does this all the time, he is all over the place. As soon as you start thinking he is leaning left, he makes a sharp right turn again.

I don't believe he knows what he is talking about anymore.

People who actually think in realistic terms often seem inconsistent and weak-willed to those who are beholden to dogma.

Newt understands that the Republican Party stands for no issues other than putting Republican team members into office.

Naturally those Republicans who believe that the GOP stands for some principles and political theories are going to be disappointed with how the party is run.

The Dems have exactly the same problem.

This disconnect between rehetoric and policies usually don't trouble the Rep partisans, but since they're now a party out of favor with the majority of American somebody needs to get the blame.

Ironically, it's those Republicans who can actually think on their feet who seem to be getting most of the blame.

the partisans actually BLEIVE the blather they'd been fed and are shocked to discover that the leaders into whom they put their trust, have been lying to them all along.

Hence we read on this board, for example, that Bush II is a liberal or socialist or whatever.

Their confusion would be amusing if it didn't actaully matter so much that they wake up from their childish dreamworld.

He isn't merely inconsistent, he's erratic.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I took them at face value sir. The problem with most of it is that it is empty rhetoric or vacuous phraseology that is almost as likly to fly in the face of this current reality as a three legged camel sans airplane.

Well then we have a problem, because those are the principles that teh party were founded on.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Gingrich's comments apply to both sides of the aisle. Both Democrats and Republicans are out of touch with the American people.

Yes... because they're BOTH SELLING COLLECTIVIST, LEFT-THINK, Do-For-Me... future policy failures...

Americans are about individual rights, which gives them the means to be whatever it is to which they aspire... and collectivist, left-think, do-for-me, future policy failures can only get in the way of Americans; which is why leftists are always in the face of Americans... because their mamby pamby feminized Mommy State mindset is the antithesis of America and Americans remind them of how they ended up with such a low self esteem...

The simple fact is, THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS... And should that day come when there's nothing remaining in the United States but leftists and their Centrist appeasers... there will be NO America; just the ethereal memory of what used to be, which will fade very quickly as the Leftists revise the history to destroy any sense of the Freedom that once was.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Define moderate.

I assume you want moderate Republican to be defined. This is what it is as I know it to be. These are principles that have defined the animal that is the moderate Republican since the 1850's, with the exception of renewable energy.

A passion for civil liberties;
A belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document with timeless values that must be made relevant in a modern age;
A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation's natural beauty. A spirited case must be made for reusable energy sources like solar power. Modern technology provides many options before the earth is harshly, brutally, and needlessly pillaged.
A strong belief that diversity -- gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious -- should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength. Diversity -- in the long-term, encourages respect, understanding, and a greater sense of community;
A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government;
A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need;
A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities;
A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda;
A belief that the national government should be used in a limited manner to advance the common good;
A commitment never to put party above country; and
A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits. Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good. Doing so doesn't make them less Republican; it demonstrates that they have the honor, political courage, and intellectual honesty to put nation above party.

With all due respect to the member author... This litanny of rationalizations proves why you have no place in the GOP... You're a leftist... plain and simple; you're simply a Progressive... OKA: A fascist. You're ignorant... you have an insufficient understanding of what America is, what it came from, how it got here and what it takes to sustain her; and your advocacies are the perfect formula for destroying the individual liberty which lends her life.

Allow me to discuss your stated definition, point for point:

A passion for civil liberties; "Civil Liberties" is merely double speak for Protections enumerated in the Constitution. What is rarely stated and what you opted NOT TO STATE are the SPECIFICS OF THE LIBERTIES THEMSELVES, for which you advocate. This is because as a general rule, but not in every instance, the 'liberties' are counter-productive to the principles which sustain valid and true individual HUMAN RIGHTS.

The Moderate republican for instance finds themselves advocating for the Civil Liberty for individuals to publically demonstrate hedonism, debauchery and self-, thus culturally destructive behavior; behavior which necessarily undermines the concept of personal responsibility, through authorizing/normalizing behavior which is not sustainable and inevitably must require the culture to subsidize the addled individual which results from having practiced it.

Which no doubt will now be demonstrated by the looming complaints that even posting a contest to such behavior is, in and of itself, a contest of "Civil Liberties."

The simple fact is the valid civil liberties serve the principles which sustain human rights; which in every instance, lends to the individuals who were formerly deprived of liberty with the responsibility to sustain their rights.

For instance, the chronic cry to 'legalize' the use of recreational drugs, can only serve valid human rights is to hold such users accountable; where such users find themselves addled by their misuse, they will be responsible for their inability to sustain themselves... meaning no welfare, no unemployment subsidy, no WIC for their children, no nothing...

Same with those who choose to live the lifestyle of a homosexual... No requirement for insurance to pay for medications which result from this CHOICE...

No Legal requirement which forces the culture to change the standard on which Marriage rests... and so on.


A belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document with timeless values that must be made relevant in a modern age;
A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation's natural beauty. A spirited case must be made for reusable energy sources like solar power. Modern technology provides many options before the earth is harshly, brutally, and needlessly pillaged.
A strong belief that diversity -- gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious -- should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength. Diversity -- in the long-term, encourages respect, understanding, and a greater sense of community;
A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government;
A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need;
A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities;
A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda;
A belief that the national government should be used in a limited manner to advance the common good;
A commitment never to put party above country; and
A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits. Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good. Doing so doesn't make them less Republican; it demonstrates that they have the honor, political courage, and intellectual honesty to put nation above party.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

A belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document with timeless values that must be made relevant in a modern age;

Here we find more double speak... which seeks to drape the facade of respect over the position that the US Constitution and the principles on which that CONSTITUTION rests... The problem here is that principles are timeless... they don't wear out, they don't succumb to modernity... where immutable principle is rejected and that's what we're talking about here, the culture suffers the certainty of calamity for having rejected them.

The Leftist will immediately run to highlight that the US Constitution 'once legitimized slavery,' where they will drone on about the fight for slave suffrage etc... completely ignoring the FACT that the principles inherent in the US Constitution were always at odds with this unjustice and provided the means to cull such from our culture. But they'll use that discrepency to demand the right to undermine the principles themselves by authorizing the normalization of debauchery and hedonism... as if the two notions are even potentially equitable...

Slavery was anathema to liberty... it provided the possession of human beings by another human being; standing wholly antithetical to the very concept of human rights... where on individual exercised their rights to the direct and unambiguous expense of another human beings rights. Prhibiting another human being, through civil statute, from behaving in such a way that they become a burden to another is HARDLY an equitable concept; by depriving individuals from the liberty to addle themselves, wherein they must eventually declare themselves incapable of sustaining themselves, thus delcaring an entitle to public funds to subsidize themselves is ITSELF a position which stands at direct opposition to human rights... as it demands an entitlement to the product of another person's labor... robbing that individual of the means to exercise their rights.

A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation's natural beauty. A spirited case must be made for reusable energy sources like solar power. Modern technology provides many options before the earth is harshly, brutally, and needlessly pillaged.

This notion simply conceals an anti-liberty position... under sophistic rhetoric.

Human rights bring with them intrinsic responsibility. The essential human right to own property, which is the essence to the Right to life and the pursuit of the fulfillment of that life, comes with the responsibility (as all valid rights do) to not exercise one's right to the detriment of the right of others to exercise their rights...

Now your position may very well be valid where someone is inadvertantly using their property to poison common elements; water and air... where such is not valid is where you take such a position that any thing set on the gorund or emitted into the air constitutes poison... and the notion of CO2 emmission is just such an invalid notion. As one can't complain that another is poisoning the air through emmission of CO2 when with every breath, they emit the very same 'poison'...

As a general rule, this notion is little more than an anti-capitalist trojan horse and as such is in invalid... as the USC inherently provides for the means to contest instances where individuals are misusing their rights to the detriment of others to exercise their rights.

A strong belief that diversity -- gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious -- should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength.Diversity -- in the long-term, encourages respect, understanding, and a greater sense of community;

The word "Diversity" is rooted in "Division"... Division, where such is applied to the chain of cultural unity can never result in anything but a broken chain and broken chains aren't strong chains... they're the antithesis of ctrong chains. Thus the advocacy of 'diversity' for the sake of diversity is a lie... it is the attempt to create a principle upon a misnomer and it is destructive to what ever culture subsribes to it.

A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government;

WOO HOO! Sounds nice and would be wonderful if your other defining traits actually correlated to the viability of this one... Sadly they do not and if you'll read what you advanced NEXT... you'll see why..

A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need;

A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities;

Super... Does this include supporting allies against attack? Does it include protecting our interests abroad as well? Or are we defining 'responsibility' as Janet Reno, Bubba Clinton and The Lord of the Idiots define it... wherein they love to 'take responsibility' for reject any notion that such comes with accountability for that responsibility?

 

[garyd]

Sorry they aren't they are vague non specific generaliztions that can be looked at in so many different ways that they simply do not form a rational basis for anything let alone a meaningful political dialogue.

Define thinking on your feet edit what you think is thinking on your feet looks to me to be rather more like been blown about by a leftist gale.

Between a 1/3 and a half of the people in this country work for major corporations. You screw the corporation you screw 1/3 to 1/2 the eople in the country as well.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda;

Ahh... The notion that 'Religion is all well and good, just keep it to yourself!'

The problem here is that religion bring with it a set of principles which are intrinsic to such beliefs... those principles are inseparable from one's understanding of acceptable governance; where one 'tolerates the belief', but not the advocacy of the principles in which that belief rests... one rejects the religion.

Again... this element of your defining traits of the 'Moderate Republican' defines the Moderate Leftists... The Secular fascists wherein Religion is a nuisance to be seen but not heard and runs antithetical to the founding principles and the founding Charter of America.

The very concept of Human Rights as demonstrated, practiced and defended throughout the history of the United States is founded directly in Christianity; which is a decidedly "religious" concept... Separate the United States from the Judeo-Christian principles on which it is founded and you separate the United States from "America"...

A belief that the national government should be used in a limited manner to advance the common good;

Well sure... it's just that what the left sees as the common good, NEVER results on good, but instead an endless stream of 'unintended consequences'... so when I see this sort of vague sophistry being advanced in the name of 'Progressive-ism...' I tend towards doubt, with regard to the veracity of the stated advocacy...

A commitment never to put party above country; and

Huh... would that include the principles on which the party rests? Would ya put the principles on which the party stands above
'country?' For instance the Principles on which the GOP stand are inseparable from those of the US Declaration of Independence and the other elements of our nations Charter; would you allow someone who was opposed to those principles, but who managed to find power in your country, draw you from the defense of those principles?

A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits. Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn't serve the greater good.

The GOP stands against everything Progressives stand for... There is no place in the GOP for Progressives... And we flat reject your ideas, your feelings on our ideas and your presence in the GOP...

Doing so doesn't make them less Republican;

Well, from a purely logical perspective that is true... In that what makes you 'less Republican' is your tendency to advance that which republicanism stands steadfastly against.

it demonstrates that they have the honor, political courage, and intellectual honesty to put nation above party.

There is no potential honor to be found in progressive-ism... it is a lie... an untruth draped behind a facade of deceit... a litany of conclusions drawn from spurious reasoning and it sets that which is UNAMERICAN as an illustration of America.

I regret that you've taken to advancing this point, as I believe you to be a decent human being from what I've read from you... but if these are the foundation of your membership in the GOP, I tell you now that your time remaining in this Conservative Association, can be measured with a stop-watch.

We are not interested in tolerating those who stand against immutable principle and FOR advancing policy which is anathema to those principles… we were foolish to consider it in the first place, but that lesson has been learned and there is no turning from it.