PDA

View Full Version : Newt Gingrich




Reason
04-20-2009, 07:43 PM
Someone asked me what I thought of him and I really don't know much about him.

I know what I have learned at my university about when he was speaker of the house and such but that was before I was very involved in politics.

nayjevin
04-20-2009, 07:48 PM
...the Republicans under the leadership of Armey and his cronies Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay proceeded to rack up excesses in spending and boodling that made the old Democratic congressional leaders look quite stingy. When he was asked once why he and his GOP comrades were chomping so much more federal pork than the Democrats ever did, he replied bluntly: “To the victors go the spoils.” --- http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090415_obamas_cup_of_tea/http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=188458


The 1995 Murdoch Deal

You probably heard something about Newt's book scandal. He was offered first $2.5 million, then $4.5 million by Harper Collins, a publishing company owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox TV network and newspapers and TV stations around the world. Murdoch has been having problems with a complaint by NBC that Fox is a foreign owned TV network, which is against US law. In the past, Harper Collins has offered million dollar book contracts to several conservative politicians in countries where Murdoch was having regulatory trouble, including England (Margaret Thatcher, Jeffrey Archer) and China (Deng Xiaoping's daughter). A week after the initial offer, Newt met with Rupert Murdoch - and Murdoch's legislative lobbyist - to discuss politics, including the NBC complaint. As facts about the deal were made public, and even Republicans criticized him, Gingrich decided to give up the $4.5 million advance for a still-lucrative deal based on royalties. -- http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

Reason
04-20-2009, 11:27 PM
anyone else have thoughts on newt?

bossman068410
04-20-2009, 11:59 PM
NEO-CON

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/7/75/Neo.JPG http://blog.proporta.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/burglar.gif

emazur
04-21-2009, 02:51 AM
Here's some unpleasantness from a 9 year old article I just finished reading (the whole thing is worth reading - there's plenty of ranting but some really good info within):
http://www.devvy.com/dodd_20001221.html
The grassroots Republicans in this country have got to wake up and recognize that your party has played you all for fools and let me give you one glaring example: when I ran for Congress, the well-meaning and very patriotic Republicans in my district were all excited about the "Contract with America". They pushed all the party faithful to watch the propaganda films put out by former House hot-shot, Newt Getrich. This guy is as evil as they come, but the party faithful either refuse to recognize this or they simply haven't had access to just how bad this guy is....here's a clue:

On 11.13.96, I spoke with the Washington, DC based Roll Call to confirm the following information which ran in the New American magazine, November 25th issue. The staff at Roll Call was very helpful in verifying the accuracy of this excerpt:

"House Speaker New Gingrich has admitted that a hidden motive behind his 'Contract With
America' two years ago was to control the large and stridently conservative freshman class that
was expected to come into the house with the 1994 mid-term elections. 'Nobody fully understands
this,' Gingrich explained in confidential tapes obtained by Roll Call, 'but if you think of the
Contract with America, it was, in fact, a training implementation document masquerading as
a public relations device...It was designed as a training implementation document for the
freshmen when they arrived...It was guaranteed that from election day through April, early April,
that the House Republican Party would have to behave in a deviant manner from what it would
morally be expected to do.'"

Roll Call said there was much more on these confidential tapes they managed to acquire and will be printing it in their newspaper. Got that, party faithful? You were taken for a ride. Hood-winked. Newt, a new world order lackey, got all the desperate folks that belong to the Republican Party worked into a dither of false hope with phony promises. How did Mr. Newt know enough in advance to plan this little "public relations device" even would be needed for the '94 "elections" and incoming freshmen? Because somebody whispered in his ear not to worry, there would be this "Republican revolution," and the millions would be neutralized.

Objectivist
04-21-2009, 03:01 AM
He's a Professor of History who did what he said he'd do during the Clinton Administration. What we are experiencing today with Obama could have started under Clinton if not for Newt, and some smart guys building computers.

bunklocoempire
04-21-2009, 03:52 AM
Newt will get no praise from myself.


The latest example I saw from the slippery newt was him “commenting” on Obama being beholden to the teamsters union regarding Mexico, and, NAFTA, Mexican border, Mexican trucks crossing the border, protectionism, keeping our word, etc.

Really really paraphrased-

Newt during his FOX “news” contribution of slime and poison:
1 “Obama is beholden to the teamsters union”
2“Teamsters don’t want Mexican trucks in U.S.”
3“We’re a part of NAFTA”
4“We gave our word to trade on the up and up”
5“Obama is breaking that word and bad for American business who trade with Mexico”
6“Obama is practicing protectionism”

Here’s how I hear his spin:

1 Obama is a democrat as are unions- democrats bad.
2 democrat teamsters are running the show and bad for business- democrats bad.
3 We’re a global community- you’re hearing that from a republican- republican good-global community good.
4 We have no honor if a democrat breaks our word regarding NAFTA and the global community.
5 It’s bad for business if a democrat breaks an American agreement concerning NAFTA/global community- business good, republican good, democrat bad.
6 A democrat is practicing protectionism- democrat bad.

Newt is as slimy as you can find based on the amount of fear and division he preaches, and his loyalties to a global community over our Country are obvious as you study him.

Bunkloco

max
04-21-2009, 05:35 AM
Newt is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations - a group that has been working towards world socialism for almost 100 years.

Newt is a moral scumbag...left his first wife (mother of his kids) when she had cancer, frequent user of prostitutes.

Newt squandered the 1994 "revolution." and never really opposed Clinton on important stufff.

Newt is a vicious warmonger and a total puppet of the Israel lobby.

Newt promoted the Weapons of Mass destruction Lie and the claim that Saddam had a hand in 9/11/

Newt has a personality disorder. Mean little bully who controlled his GOP freshman with threats and coercian.

Newt is a big spender....supported the bailouts...and he cut nothing when his GOP ran the house..

Newt HATES Ron Paul. Years ago, Newt came to Texas to campaign for Ron Paul's opponent in GOP primary.

Newt is pro NAFTA...pro New World Order 100%. His role to misdirect conservatives.

Bern
04-21-2009, 06:09 AM
I made the mistake of registering on Newt's blog once to post a comment. Ever since, I get email alerts every time Newt is about to appear on Hannity's show. I get a lot of emails.

MPN
04-21-2009, 07:46 AM
As I type this, I'm looking at an add that says ‘Free Newt!’ on this website, I had to laugh. His advertisements are everywhere in the conservative blogosphere. The placement of his advertisements here seems to be part of an effort to bring libertarians into his support base.

Newt is an adept politician. I'm not a professional political scientist, but from a fairly active casual observer's standpoint he is almost undoubtedly positioning himself for the 2012 Republican primaries. In 2012 he’ll be 69, still younger than John McCain, and in seemingly better health (note: I haven’t seen any medical records substantiate this claim, but base this statement on their life experiences).

I suspect that the only way he won’t run in 2012 will be if he judges Obama unbeatable for any Republican. Newt strikes me as a guy who doesn’t like losing. In 2016, his next chance, he’ll be 73 - the same age as McCain in 2008. He’d have to decide to throw in his hat for 2012 or wait for 2016 by carefully weighing his chances of winning, how much his age would affect his political capital if he waited until 2016, and how he feels personally about the other Republican contender’s ability to unseat Obama. If he does enter in 2012 I’ll bet he’ll be one of the last to announce entry. I think he’d try to cultivate the underdog mentality by seeming reluctant to enter the race.

I think the only reason he didn't run in 2008 was that he felt it was a Democrat year, and judged it to be unwinnable for any Republican.

Say what you want about Newt Gingrich’s ideological choices and private lifestyle, but I think it would be hard to argue against the judgment that when it comes to politics, he knows how to play the game.

max
04-21-2009, 07:57 AM
As I type this, I'm looking at an add that says ‘Free Newt!’ on this website, I had to laugh. His advertisements are everywhere in the conservative blogosphere. The placement of his advertisements here seems to be part of an effort to bring libertarians into his support base.

Newt is an adept politician. I'm not a professional political scientist, but from a fairly active casual observer's standpoint he is almost undoubtedly positioning himself for the 2012 Republican primaries. In 2012 he’ll be 69, still younger than John McCain, and in seemingly better health (note: I haven’t seen any medical records substantiate this claim, but base this statement on their life experiences).

.

I have a different theory on Newt. I believe his assignment is to run third party to guarantee that Obama is reelected.

Carole
04-21-2009, 07:59 AM
Total neocon. Needs to go away. Wants to be President. LOL

He is a disaster. :eek:

He is a globalist and divider. He would be very bad for liberty, but very good for socialism/totalitarianism/corporatism.

kahless
04-21-2009, 08:03 AM
Newt Gingrich was responsible for the "Welfare Reform Act of 1996" which effected the privacy and liberty of every American regardless of income. The man is a big government neocon that does not deserves a seat at our table.

MPN
04-21-2009, 08:35 AM
I have a different theory on Newt. I believe his assignment is to run third party to guarantee that Obama is reelected.

There is an underlying tone, expressed by some members of this forum, which I find rather repulsive. Among these members there exists a rather anarchist worldview that is expressed in their comments. This underlying theme is a perversion of libertarianism and shows a profound lack of social understanding.

The repetitious advocacy of conspiracy theories on these forums is irresponsible. Every one of us is entitled to their own opinion, but these kinds of comments are self destructive and detrimental to the promotion of libertarian views.

Every irresponsible comment publicly expressed by a self professed libertarian turns away those inquiring into the movement.

I advise that if you do profess yourself to believe in limited government and the power of the free market, you take into account that irresponsible comments cause others to cast their vote for those who do not share these values.

Athan
04-21-2009, 09:52 AM
Fuck Newt. He's a neocon.

max
04-21-2009, 10:17 AM
Among these members there exists a rather anarchist worldview that is expressed in their comments. This underlying theme is a perversion of libertarianism and shows a profound lack of social understanding.

The repetitious advocacy of conspiracy theories on these forums is irresponsible.

To the contrary, I believe it is "irresponsible" for people to continue believing that everything happens "by accident."

This plays into our enemies hands by making them seem like well meaning idiots instead of the calculating criminals that they are.

When the incumbent William Taft turned out to be a libertarian/constitutionalist, former president Teddy Roosevelt ran third party KNOWING he had no chance to win. The GOP vote was split and Woodrow Wilson was then elected and we got the FED, WW1, and the Income tax.

When Taft's son, Robert, seemed to be a cinch for the GOP nod in 1952, out of nowhere comes the ex-Democrat Dwight Eisenhower to derail Taft.

When Obama ran for Illinois Senator, instead of the GOP putting up a viable contender for a winnable open seat....they recruit an out-of-state nutcase like Alan Keyes in a clear surrender of the Senate seat.

These things didn't happen by accident. They happened because the Establishment wanted it to.

It is apparent by now that Obama is the chosen front man for 8 years. No one...not even a "moderate" republican is supposed to defeat him in 2012. And if an Establishment stooge like Gingrich has to run 3rd party to keep the New World Order on track.....he will.

acptulsa
04-21-2009, 10:36 AM
To the contrary, I believe it is "irresponsible" for people to continue believing that everything happens "by accident."

This plays into our enemies hands by making them seem like well meaning idiots instead of the calculating criminals that they are.

It has been, historically, a handy way to keep people from seeing the big picture, as well. And if you can't see the big picture, you can't see the direction the thing is headed, and you can't prepare for it. How handy is that?

Ever play chess with someone who can't read your strategy until it is too late? Ever play chess with someone who could?

max
04-21-2009, 10:53 AM
It has been, historically, a handy way to keep people from seeing the big picture, as well. And if you can't see the big picture, you can't see the direction the thing is headed, and you can't prepare for it. How handy is that?

Ever play chess with someone who can't read your strategy until it is too late? Ever play chess with someone who could?

that's exactly right.

If one cannot detect the straight line progression of this thing dating back really to the French Revolution,..... then present events cannot be understood....and future events cannot even be imagined.

yes.....I used to play chess with a neighbor who a master. He ALWAYS saw through my bullshit and would foil my plans every time. That comes from playing and studying for many years.

Our side needs to get to that point if we are ever to have a shot at beating the Grandmasters of the global game. Hard to do when so many of our closed minded brethren stand ready to do our adversary's bidding by dismissing us as "conspiracy nuts."...without even doing the research for themselves.

MPN
04-21-2009, 11:25 AM
To the contrary, I believe it is "irresponsible" for people to continue believing that everything happens "by accident."

You're entitled to an oppinion.


When the incumbent William Taft turned out to be a libertarian/constitutionalist, former president Teddy Roosevelt ran third party KNOWING he had no chance to win. The GOP vote was split and Woodrow Wilson was then elected and we got the FED, WW1, and the Income tax.

Both Taft and Roosevelt failed to garner an electoral majority, Wilson did not. Like it or not, this is the system we live under. You would do more to change things by attempting to win over opposing views through a reasonable debate rather than posting conspiracy theories and anti-establishment bologna.


These things didn't happen by accident. They happened because the Establishment wanted it to.

Where is this "Establishment"? Who does it consist of? How do they coordinate so flawlessly, while "our side" is unable to do so? Absolutely ridiculous.

Global Grandmasters? How do they exert such perfect control over things?

Conspiracy theorists are all the same, if you challenge their babble they instantly classify you as either 'uninformed and closed minded' or 'in on it'.

max
04-21-2009, 11:40 AM
Global Grandmasters? How do they exert such perfect control over things?

Conspiracy theorists are all the same, if you challenge their babble they instantly classify you as either 'uninformed and closed minded' or 'in on it'.

Those two sentences are intrinsically contradictory.

In the former, you confess to being uninformed because you ask who the Grand Masters are and how do they exert control.

In the latter, you claim that when you "challenge the babble" of the "conspiracy theorists" you are "classified as misinformed."

How can you - by virtue of asking "who" and "how" (an admission of being misinformed)...then turn around and complain about being labeled "misinformed."

As to your question about "Who" and "How"....

WHO: A network of networks....Central bankers, Council on Foreign Relations, Bildeberger Group, Zionist power brokers, Media Moguls, Tri-lateral commission etc.

HOW: Selective editing by the newsmedia.

Example: Ron Paul banned from FOX news while a nobody like Obama is exalted day and night by the media and achieves overnight rock-star status.

Example: Global Warming proponents praised and showered with Nobel prizes.....while scientists who refute get no air time.

Example: Keynesian economists on TV constantly....Austrian school economists ignored

Example: Claims that Saddam had WMD's aired day and night in run up to war. ...But counter claims by weapons inspectors ignored or given a tiny fraction of the air time.

Example: 1000's of Palestinian civilians massacred and very little if any images of suffering dead women and children....yet, a damn bottle rocket lands in an empty Israeli parking lot and its treated like a bloody A-bomb was launched.

Is it really that hard for you to see that the media pushes an agenda under the guise of "news"??????? You dont think the examples I cited have an impact on public sentiment and then public policy??????

You think such blatant manipulation of the news is merely the result of accidental careless journalism?

MPN
04-21-2009, 11:44 AM
Those two sentences are intrinsically contradictory.

In the former, you confess to being uninformed because you ask who the Grand Masters are and how do they exert control.

In the latter, you claim that when you "challenge the babble" you are "classified as misinformed."

How can you - by virtue of asking "who" and "how" (an admission of being misinformed)...then turn around and complain about being labeled "misinformed."


I'll grant you that. I wrote the last part in error. I should have let you explain yourself.

MPN
04-21-2009, 12:09 PM
You think such blatant manipulation of the news is merely the result of accidental careless journalism?


Bias in the media is not indicative of a group of global masters pulling their strings.