Thomas Friedman and Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press

[Inthemiddle]

These two paint quite the interesting contrast of conservative speak in our nation at the time, don't they? Here's Friedman talking about how the GOP has been running obstructionist against the President and criticizing Obama by asking why didn't he "leverage the American people." He says that the GOP is mostly to blame for our current problems, citing how Bush led us into two wars which, for the first time in our history, weren't paid for by raising taxes.

On the other hand, here's Gingrich, talking about how Obama he sooo baaaaad!, reciting the common BS about how the very idea of Romney as President will drive the economy forward and how that alone will create great enough revenue, paired with some controls on spending, to balance the budget. Basically, he's doing nothing more than campaigning against Obama instead of actually addressing any issues.

It seems like most of the right has sold its soul. Why doesn't the right speak more like Friedman? The GOP could sweep this election if they were only focused on real issues, instead of anti-Obama talking points.

 

[HUGGY]

These two paint quite the interesting contrast of conservative speak in our nation at the time, don't they? Here's Friedman talking about how the GOP has been running obstructionist against the President and criticizing Obama by asking why didn't he "leverage the American people." He says that the GOP is mostly to blame for our current problems, citing how Bush led us into two wars which, for the first time in our history, weren't paid for by raising taxes.

On the other hand, here's Gingrich, talking about how Obama he sooo baaaaad!, reciting the common BS about how the very idea of Romney as President will drive the economy forward and how that alone will create great enough revenue, paired with some controls on spending, to balance the budget. Basically, he's doing nothing more than campaigning against Obama instead of actually addressing any issues.

It seems like most of the right has sold its soul. Why doesn't the right speak more like Friedman? The GOP could sweep this election if they were only focused on real issues, instead of anti-Obama talking points.

Now you know why Gingrich ran in the GOPer primaries. To make himself relevant again. He has replaced Man Coulter as the GOP darling pundit on the tube.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

These two paint quite the interesting contrast of conservative speak in our nation at the time, don't they? Here's Friedman talking about how the GOP has been running obstructionist against the President and criticizing Obama by asking why didn't he "leverage the American people." He says that the GOP is mostly to blame for our current problems, citing how Bush led us into two wars which, for the first time in our history, weren't paid for by raising taxes.

On the other hand, here's Gingrich, talking about how Obama he sooo baaaaad!, reciting the common BS about how the very idea of Romney as President will drive the economy forward and how that alone will create great enough revenue, paired with some controls on spending, to balance the budget. Basically, he's doing nothing more than campaigning against Obama instead of actually addressing any issues.

It seems like most of the right has sold its soul. Why doesn't the right speak more like Friedman? The GOP could sweep this election if they were only focused on real issues, instead of anti-Obama talking points.

"During the War, Americans purchased approximately $186 billion worth of war bonds, accounting for nearly three quarters of total federal spending from 1941-1945."

How did America pay for World War II?

 

[AquaAthena]

This is the Friedman, whose words and thoughts, I listen to: Milton Friedman's.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A]Milton Friedman - Greed - YouTube[/ame]

 

[candycorn]

These two paint quite the interesting contrast of conservative speak in our nation at the time, don't they? Here's Friedman talking about how the GOP has been running obstructionist against the President and criticizing Obama by asking why didn't he "leverage the American people." He says that the GOP is mostly to blame for our current problems, citing how Bush led us into two wars which, for the first time in our history, weren't paid for by raising taxes.

On the other hand, here's Gingrich, talking about how Obama he sooo baaaaad!, reciting the common BS about how the very idea of Romney as President will drive the economy forward and how that alone will create great enough revenue, paired with some controls on spending, to balance the budget. Basically, he's doing nothing more than campaigning against Obama instead of actually addressing any issues.

It seems like most of the right has sold its soul. Why doesn't the right speak more like Friedman? The GOP could sweep this election if they were only focused on real issues, instead of anti-Obama talking points.

It's like having George Jetson (Friedman) and Fred Flintstone (Gingrich) on the air at the same time.

The reason the right doesn't speak like Friedman is because it has archaic basic policies.

Lets look at Romney. It says on his website;

Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.

The savings listed is $300,000,000. It will not prevent one abortion from taking place since it doesn't pay for abortion. It will remove one of the key funding sources--in most states the ONLY funding source--that helps prevent unwanted pregnancy. So it's a very small jump in logic to see that the $300M "savings" is ignorant of the costs that you'll experience later on in the form of more schools, more public assistance, and yes, more prison cells. Not to mention the degraded education in those overcrowded schools, degraded assistance since that pie certainly won't be getting larger too, and the human wreckage caused by crime.

The Governor's approach to saving $300M--it costs Americans about $1 each--is straight out of Bedrock and will do nothing to prevent abortions from taking place.

 

[Synthaholic]

Newt has been making the heavy audition pitch at MSNBC. He wants a job.

 

[candycorn]

Newt has been making the heavy audition pitch at MSNBC. He wants a job.

He couldn't do worse than Al Sharpton. I think they should hire SE Cupp. At least she has a fresh voice to dusty old ideas.

 

[Synthaholic]

Newt has been making the heavy audition pitch at MSNBC. He wants a job.

He couldn't do worse than Al Sharpton.

WHAT??? A wingnut replacing a Liberal is a step up?

You must have not had your coffee yet.

I think they should hire SE Cupp. At least she has a fresh voice to dusty old ideas.

Ummm... she already has a show on MSNBC called 'The Cycle'. She consistently makes dishonest arguments, and consistently gets proven wrong by the other hosts.

 

[candycorn]

Newt has been making the heavy audition pitch at MSNBC. He wants a job.

He couldn't do worse than Al Sharpton.

WHAT??? A wingnut replacing a Liberal is a step up?

You must have not had your coffee yet.

I think they should hire SE Cupp. At least she has a fresh voice to dusty old ideas.

Ummm... she already has a show on MSNBC called 'The Cycle'. She consistently makes dishonest arguments, and consistently gets proven wrong by the other hosts.

Her own show is more or less what I'm thinking of. As I understand, the Cycle is where there are rotating hosts/hostesses with panel discussions etc (I don't watch much MSNBC as you can tell ).

As for being proven wrong; yeah and...

MSNBC and Fox are about entertainment. CNN is getting there themselves and the networks are moving that way too although the number of "news magazines" are dwindling--thank goodness.

You're right; the gig is old but at least she's a fresh face regurgitating long debunked blather. I guess I'll put it this way; I'd rather have her up there instead of Major Garrett.

 

[Eaglewings]

I have it taped on my DVR, will be sure not to eat anything to heavy before watching, thanks for the heads up!

 

[Synthaholic]

He couldn't do worse than Al Sharpton.

WHAT??? A wingnut replacing a Liberal is a step up?

You must have not had your coffee yet.

I think they should hire SE Cupp. At least she has a fresh voice to dusty old ideas.

Ummm... she already has a show on MSNBC called 'The Cycle'. She consistently makes dishonest arguments, and consistently gets proven wrong by the other hosts.

Her own show is more or less what I'm thinking of. As I understand, the Cycle is where there are rotating hosts/hostesses with panel discussions etc (I don't watch much MSNBC as you can tell ).

As for being proven wrong; yeah and...

MSNBC and Fox are about entertainment. CNN is getting there themselves and the networks are moving that way too although the number of "news magazines" are dwindling--thank goodness.

You're right; the gig is old but at least she's a fresh face regurgitating long debunked blather. I guess I'll put it this way; I'd rather have her up there instead of Major Garrett.

Well, I'll give you that: Major Garrett is one of the biggest hacks. And his RW bias is so transparent.

Cupp can be entertaining, but her points do not stand up to scrutiny. The Cycle features 4 hosts together for the full hour. It's Cupp, Toure, Krystal Ball, and Steve Kornacki. It's 3 against one, granted, but if her arguments are solid that shouldn't matter.

 

[candycorn]

WHAT??? A wingnut replacing a Liberal is a step up?

You must have not had your coffee yet.

Ummm... she already has a show on MSNBC called 'The Cycle'. She consistently makes dishonest arguments, and consistently gets proven wrong by the other hosts.

Her own show is more or less what I'm thinking of. As I understand, the Cycle is where there are rotating hosts/hostesses with panel discussions etc (I don't watch much MSNBC as you can tell ).

As for being proven wrong; yeah and...

MSNBC and Fox are about entertainment. CNN is getting there themselves and the networks are moving that way too although the number of "news magazines" are dwindling--thank goodness.

You're right; the gig is old but at least she's a fresh face regurgitating long debunked blather. I guess I'll put it this way; I'd rather have her up there instead of Major Garrett.

Well, I'll give you that: Major Garrett is one of the biggest hacks. And his RW bias is so transparent.

Cupp can be entertaining, but her points do not stand up to scrutiny. The Cycle features 4 hosts together for the full hour. It's Cupp, Toure, Krystal Ball, and Steve Kornacki. It's 3 against one, granted, but if her arguments are solid that shouldn't matter.

They have a guy with a one-word name and a woman (I hope) named Krystal Ball? Apparently, I'm not missing much by not watching that show. I'll catch the Morning Joe in the morning and think Chuck Todd is one of the best if not the best political beat reporters on television.

But I think it would be awesome if they were to give her Olbermann's old time slot--he is the guy she referred to as a "giant dick". Can't say I disagree with her. Then again, referring to someone on the open airwaves as "giant dick" may be prohibitive to getting such a time slot.

Lets move on. Can you watch Al Sharpton? I mean, can you physically sit there and listen to this guy with that voice? In my view it is absurdly terrible television; content aside.

 

[Synthaholic]

Her own show is more or less what I'm thinking of. As I understand, the Cycle is where there are rotating hosts/hostesses with panel discussions etc (I don't watch much MSNBC as you can tell ).

As for being proven wrong; yeah and...

MSNBC and Fox are about entertainment. CNN is getting there themselves and the networks are moving that way too although the number of "news magazines" are dwindling--thank goodness.

You're right; the gig is old but at least she's a fresh face regurgitating long debunked blather. I guess I'll put it this way; I'd rather have her up there instead of Major Garrett.

Well, I'll give you that: Major Garrett is one of the biggest hacks. And his RW bias is so transparent.

Cupp can be entertaining, but her points do not stand up to scrutiny. The Cycle features 4 hosts together for the full hour. It's Cupp, Toure, Krystal Ball, and Steve Kornacki. It's 3 against one, granted, but if her arguments are solid that shouldn't matter.

They have a guy with a one-word name and a woman (I hope) named Krystal Ball? Apparently, I'm not missing much by not watching that show. I'll catch the Morning Joe in the morning and think Chuck Todd is one of the best if not the best political beat reporters on television.

But I think it would be awesome if they were to give her Olbermann's old time slot--he is the guy she referred to as a "giant dick". Can't say I disagree with her. Then again, referring to someone on the open airwaves as "giant dick" may be prohibitive to getting such a time slot.

Lets move on. Can you watch Al Sharpton? I mean, can you physically sit there and listen to this guy with that voice? In my view it is absurdly terrible television; content aside.

I don't blame her for what her parents named her - her father, a physicist, wrote his doctoral dissertation on crystals. She's actually pretty good. She also is a former candidate.

Toure writes for Time, I think.

Kornacki is the brainy, fact-based member of the team, who usually produces the data that discredits whatever Cupp is trying to sell.

While I agree that Olbermann can be a dick, he's also a talented broadcaster. I hope he resurfaces somewhere besides 'This Week With George Stephanopoulos', talking about politics. I argue with him on twitter, but only about baseball. He knows a lot, but not as much as he thinks.

Sharpton shouldn't have a TV show.

 

[Liability]

These two paint quite the interesting contrast of conservative speak in our nation at the time, don't they? Here's Friedman talking about how the GOP has been running obstructionist against the President and criticizing Obama by asking why didn't he "leverage the American people." He says that the GOP is mostly to blame for our current problems, citing how Bush led us into two wars which, for the first time in our history, weren't paid for by raising taxes.

On the other hand, here's Gingrich, talking about how Obama he sooo baaaaad!, reciting the common BS about how the very idea of Romney as President will drive the economy forward and how that alone will create great enough revenue, paired with some controls on spending, to balance the budget. Basically, he's doing nothing more than campaigning against Obama instead of actually addressing any issues.

It seems like most of the right has sold its soul. Why doesn't the right speak more like Friedman? The GOP could sweep this election if they were only focused on real issues, instead of anti-Obama talking points.

It seems that YOU lap up pablum.

Because your pal Friedman made a couple of claims doesn't make it so. And because you deem him a "conservative" doesn't make that true, either.

And your dismissive spin on whateverthefuck Newt said is not exactly the same thing as quoting WHAT he actually DID say.

 

[beretta304]

WHAT??? A wingnut replacing a Liberal is a step up?

You must have not had your coffee yet.

Ummm... she already has a show on MSNBC called 'The Cycle'. She consistently makes dishonest arguments, and consistently gets proven wrong by the other hosts.

Her own show is more or less what I'm thinking of. As I understand, the Cycle is where there are rotating hosts/hostesses with panel discussions etc (I don't watch much MSNBC as you can tell ).

As for being proven wrong; yeah and...

MSNBC and Fox are about entertainment. CNN is getting there themselves and the networks are moving that way too although the number of "news magazines" are dwindling--thank goodness.

You're right; the gig is old but at least she's a fresh face regurgitating long debunked blather. I guess I'll put it this way; I'd rather have her up there instead of Major Garrett.

Well, I'll give you that: Major Garrett is one of the biggest hacks. And his RW bias is so transparent.

Cupp can be entertaining, but her points do not stand up to scrutiny. The Cycle features 4 hosts together for the full hour. It's Cupp, Toure, Krystal Ball, and Steve Kornacki. It's 3 against one, granted, but if her arguments are solid that shouldn't matter.

Toure...biggest racist on T.V.