What do you make of this article on Gingrich?

[Si modo]

Newt Gingrich is the petulant asshole who forced a government shutdown and impeachment of a president because of a "snub" he got from Clinton during a flight.

Normally a character like Gingrich would have been out of the political game for the rest of his life. He's been disciplined by congress for financial shennigans and he was eventually booted. But in the GOP, everything old is new again. Romney is populating his "cabinent" with former Bushie PNAC wackos while talking about invading Iran. Even Ralph Reed is making a comeback. What's next? David Duke?

Ooookay, now you need to take the thorazine the nice doctor gave you and calm down a bit.

To clarify -

1) The GOP Congress shut down teh government because Clinton refused to go along with spending controls HE already insisted were necessary. The GOP wanted to limit Medicare increases to 6%- twice the rate of inflation. Clinton had already proposed this in HillaryCare. then he refused to go along with it and shut down the government. It wasn't just Newt, it was BOTH houses of Congress.

2) After 63 investigations into various activities, there were 62 vindications, and one case where they found underlings had not filed the proper paperwork. That was the so-called "ethics violation".

3) Clinton lied in court, subourned perjury and abused his office. He settled his case and surrendered his law license. A lot of other politicians resigned for a lot less than he did. Sanford, Ensign, Weiner, Spitzer, to name a few. You guys started this sexual McCarthyism bullshit with Clarance Thomas, don't come whining to me when it bites one of your guys in the ass.

4) Not voting for Romney, but give him props for hiring people who know what they are doing, as opposed to the community organizer...

That was a GOP led shutdown. They were braying on and on about how nobody needs the government and it should be smaller. And yeah..they wanted to cut Medicaid..and villified Hillary Clinton for "daring" to come up with a real live workable plan to reform healthcare. They shut 'er down..and people missed the government services. The GOP lost big..really big. And Gingrich's "ethics violation" was exempting his wages earned from a class he taught from taxes. And he was using that class for political purposes. He then LIED about it to congress. That was a real live lie.

And Clinton didn't "lie" in court. He gave them the answers as he understood them to be. Had it been a court case..it would have been laughed right out. He really should have told them to go fuck themselves. It would have saved his law license and a good deal of embarrassment in the long run. And it probably would have been backed by America in general.

Clinton was totally blameless in the government shutdown. Nah, he didn't do anything except veto the budget.

 

[Katzndogz]

Maybe he should have. You can't whine that you are shocked that there is gambling going on at Ricks when you are collecting your winnings.

"What we need are better gambling laws to make me behave."

And you can't whine about greed on Wall Street while taking gobs of their money.

Conservatives oppose campaign finance reform because 1) it usually produces worse results and 2) It's a suppression of the first amendment.

Sure you can. I'm not voting for wall street. I don't give a damn if they hedge their bets either..because at this point the system allows for that. The alternative is not to vote.

It looks as we are going to need another amendment or two to the constitution defining human beings as people..and the sounds that humans utter and understand..as speech. Because corporations aren't people and money is not speech.

So, let's reverse the law and make corporations not be persons.

Then, no one can sue them if their product or service injures them.

Doesn't it sometimes make you gasp when confronted by the public's utter stupidity?

 

[mudwhistle]

Gingrich discusses how Romney's positions on social issues has changed since 1994 and implies that is a bad thing.

I know my position on several social issues has changed since 1994. I would imagine most rational Americans' positions on social issues have changed through the decades as well.

Personally, I am a fan of those with open minds.

It is extremely important before you vote to know what the candidates stand for.

Having an open mind is more important for voters, not candidates.

Romney is a bit wishy-washy on issues that are important to Republican voters so it's no wonder he is not running away from the rest of the field.

 

[JoeB131]

Gingrich is just more of the same. That he has risen again is simply telling of the republican party today and its lack of genuine candidates. Listening to them - every republican - is like watching a puppet show in which the rich pull their strings.

"Newt, on the other hand, is always good in debates if you like extremely pompous people who appear to be practically levitating with their own sense of personal wonderfulness. During the last outing, Gingrich’s most fascinating moment came when he explained why the mortgage lender Freddie Mac paid him $300,000 in 2006. First of all, it had nothing whatsoever to do with lobbying, or attempting to influence the Republicans who happened to control Congress at a time when there was talk of clamping down on the way Freddie operated. Just put that out of your mind."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/o...time-for-a-gop-debate.html?src=me&ref=general

are you really trying to claim that rich people aren't pulling the Community Organizer's Strings?

I hate to keep doing this, but let's look at Obama's top donors.

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers

NOt sure what your point is here...

The thing is, individuals with these groups donated millions to Obama. So essentially, yeah, he's been bought.

Cha-ching.

 

[L.K.Eder]

are you really trying to claim that rich people aren't pulling the Community Organizer's Strings?

I hate to keep doing this, but let's look at Obama's top donors.

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers

NOt sure what your point is here...

The thing is, individuals with these groups donated millions to Obama. So essentially, yeah, he's been bought.

Cha-ching.

my point is that you left out the lead-in to the table.

so i quoted it.

not "goldman sachs" bought obama.

there is a difference. and i think you know it.

 

[auditor0007]

If Bill Clinton could run again for president, would the right bring up his personal baggage?

If Bill Clinton were running right now, he'd be so far ahead in the polls that everyone else would drop out.

 

[Lakhota]

Gingrich: I'm not perfect, yet better than Romney - Yahoo! News

Newt is simply telling the righteous right what they want to hear. Is he sincere? Unlikely.

 

[JoeB131]

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers

NOt sure what your point is here...

The thing is, individuals with these groups donated millions to Obama. So essentially, yeah, he's been bought.

Cha-ching.

my point is that you left out the lead-in to the table.

so i quoted it.

not "goldman sachs" bought obama.

there is a difference. and i think you know it.

NO, actually, there isn't and I don't.

How the money Got to Obama isn't as important as where it came from and what it bought.

Obama has yet to indict a SINGLE executive of one of the banks that failed and caused the recession. Not a one. In fact, there aren't even any real investigations going on.

Hells bells, Bush prosecuted Ken Lay. So even though Enron gave Bush a lot of money over his career, at the end of the day, they did wrong, they got prosecuted they went to jail. (Except Ken Lay, who had a heart attack before he went to jail.)

So Obama winks to the OWS shitters while Democratic Mayors purge them out of the parks they've occuppied, and they will still all vote for him next year.