Newt Gingrich Controversies

[Papist]

Newt's basic political outlook was established long before his conversion to Catholicism in 2009. Since, he has not held public office in many years, there is no evidence how his new found Catholic faith has shaped his political outlook through policies. All we have is what is on paper today. The five non-negotiables need to be sifted through first.

As far as the personal character...yes some of the media reported stuff about Newt is troublesome. I do think when processing such stories we need to understand that it is a lot of hearsay and he-said/she-said. And for me, I am skeptical when MSM does stories about people on the right. I am sure there is some truth in the story, but I am not confident I got the full truthful story.
Also, If my wife would of met me 5 years before she did, she would have not married me...in fact, she would have not even gave me a second look. It is possible to turn your life around.

[Amppax]

Norseman, you do realize that BG is studying criminology? He probably knows more about those issues than you do. Jussayin.

[kujo]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1327121739' post='2372510']
FuturePriest, you must be very young if you keep referring to the 90s as if they were some ancient long-ago erawith no relevance to the present day.

To all: wait patiently. Mr. Gingrich will eventually mash his self-destruct button. He cannot resist, it is only a matter of time.
[/quote]

Is there a standing ovation emoticon? If so, it belongs after this post!

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1327159364' post='2372636']
Newt's basic political outlook was established long before his conversion to Catholicism in 2009. Since, he has not held public office in many years, there is no evidence how his new found Catholic faith has shaped his political outlook through policies. All we have is what is on paper today. The five non-negotiables need to be sifted through first.[/quote]

Excellent point!

[quote]As far as the personal character...yes some of the media reported stuff about Newt is troublesome. I do think when processing such stories we need to understand that it is a lot of hearsay and he-said/she-said. And for me, I am skeptical when MSM does stories about people on the right. I am sure there is some truth in the story, but I am not confident I got the full truthful story.
[/quote]

You make an excellent point above, and then ruin in by invoking the same, tired "mainstream media" talking points. The fact is that there is no media outlet more "mainstream" than Fox News, the largest mass media corporation in the country. Fox and its affiliates employ a veritable cast of thousands, and has a ratings monopoly on its television, radio and internet broadcasts. The personalities on Fox are household names, and write columns in newspapers and internet blogs across the country. This is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they pull in annually with speaking engagements and books that they write. Then there's the whole cyclonic-narrative thing they have going on over there, where Murdoch-owned papers like the New York Post report a story, which is then "commented" on by Fox News, an activity which is then used as evidence of "outrage" in a follow-up piece done by the author of the original article.

Oh, and how can I forget that Fox News is THE standard bearer for all things political and commentary in the business.

They're an omnibus. Plain and simple. While I do not have the statistics to support the claim, it would be intuitive to state that they make more money, have more ratings and own a majority of the market share in this industry. Therefore, trying to separate them from the "mainstream" (see: liberal) media is ridiculous! They [i]are[/i] the mainstream! They're the top of the trash heap, baby! Rejoice!

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1327163606' post='2372654']
Norseman, you do realize that BG is studying criminology? He probably knows more about those issues than you do. Jussayin.
[/quote]

And if a math major said 2+2=5, who would be correct?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327117922' post='2372473']
The overflowing prisons in the states is not due to not enough people being executed... its due to throwing too many people in jail for things that should not be illegal, or should not be punished as hard as they are, simply. there is a reason why the USA has such a large portion of its population in prison.

and the lesser amount of people being thrown in jail for stuff like smoking pot, etc hasnt caused every other first world country to collapse.



this can be said to downplay many other unjust laws. dont wanna go to prison, stop drinking on sundays/owning guns/being so religious/etc
[/quote]

Apples and oranges. I have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to be religious and own guns (which would take 2/3 of Congress and the majority of all houses of the legislature in 38 states to reverse). Smoking pot does NOT have that constitutional protection.

[Papist]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327163696' post='2372655']
Is there a standing ovation emoticon? If so, it belongs after this post!



Excellent point!



You make an excellent point above, and then ruin in by invoking the same, tired "mainstream media" talking points. The fact is that there is no media outlet more "mainstream" than Fox News, the largest mass media corporation in the country. Fox and its affiliates employ a veritable cast of thousands, and has a ratings monopoly on its television, radio and internet broadcasts. The personalities on Fox are household names, and write columns in newspapers and internet blogs across the country. This is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they pull in annually with speaking engagements and books that they write. Then there's the whole cyclonic-narrative thing they have going on over there, where Murdoch-owned papers like the New York Post report a story, which is then "commented" on by Fox News, an activity which is then used as evidence of "outrage" in a follow-up piece done by the author of the original article.

Oh, and how can I forget that Fox News is THE standard bearer for all things political and commentary in the business.

They're an omnibus. Plain and simple. While I do not have the statistics to support the claim, it would be intuitive to state that they make more money, have more ratings and own a majority of the market share in this industry. Therefore, trying to separate them from the "mainstream" (see: liberal) media is ridiculous! They [i]are[/i] the mainstream! They're the top of the trash heap, baby! Rejoice!
[/quote]

Why would you conclude that I am excluding Fox News Channel? Obviously, you have some ax to grind with FNC and want to rant against them. Fine, but please do not make my post(s) out to be what they are not in order to springboard into your rant.

[kujo]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1327166339' post='2372668']
Why would you conclude that I am excluding Fox News Channel? Obviously, you have some ax to grind with FNC and want to rant against them. Fine, but please do not make my post(s) out to be what they are not in order to springboard into your rant.
[/quote]

I have no "ax to grind" with FNC. I was merely pointing out that individuals who use the term "mainstream media" typically do so as a euphemism for "liberal news outlets whose political opinions I do not share." You invoked the term, and yes, I used it as an opportunity to make my point. If you don't like having your posts used as an opportunity to comment on a subject, perhaps message boards aren't the place for you!

[mortify]

Yea, Obama sux

[kujo]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1327169844' post='2372686']
Yea, Obama sux
[/quote]

On this, we agree

[Papist]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327169663' post='2372683']
I have no "ax to grind" with FNC. I was merely pointing out that individuals who use the term "mainstream media" typically do so as a euphemism for "liberal news outlets whose political opinions I do not share." You invoked the term, and yes, I used it as an opportunity to make my point. If you don't like having your posts used as an opportunity to comment on a subject, perhaps message boards aren't the place for you!
[/quote]

If want to rant about something, then start a thread. Don't be gutless and pose your rant as a rebuttal from someone else's statements. You must work for a MSM outlet b/c you have no qualms about adding meaning that does not exist to statements.

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1327166339' post='2372668']
Why would you conclude that I am excluding Fox News Channel?
[/quote]

Because you come off as the type who would.

[kujo]

[size=4][quote name='Papist' timestamp='1327171843' post='2372707']
If want to rant about something, then start a thread. Don't be gutless and pose your rant as a rebuttal from someone else's statements. You must work for a MSM outlet b/c you have no qualms about adding meaning that does not exist to statements.
[/quote][/size]

[size=4]There was a time when snide little comments like these would get me riled up. Today, however, is a different day. The sky is clear, the sun is hot, and my laundry smells lovely. Life couldn't be better.[/size]

[size=4]As to the general point of your response, I will again fall back on the fact that [b]YOU[/b] brought up "the mainstream media," not I. I didn't want to "rant" about anything until [b]YOU[/b] brought it up. Further--and I'll have to claim ignorance if I am mistaken, for it has been quite a while since I've interacted with t[/size]he fine people on the Phatmass Phorum-- I was not aware that there was a policy about keeping 100% focused on the original topic of the post. Take a random sample of the many threads currently active, and you'll see that the conversations therein evolve and mutate based on the discussions that occur. Besides, considering you drew a correlation between the veracity of the allegations levied against Newt and the skepticism you have whenever the "[color=#282828]MSM does stories about people on the right," this topic--and my response-- seems perfectly germane.[/color]

[color=#282828]In any case, I will leave it at that. Oh, before I go, I assure you, I do [b]NOT[/b] work for a "MSM outlet." I am a part-time butcher, a full-time restaurant manager, a full-time graduate student. So I guess the superpowers you so charitably-attributed to me--"you have no qualms about adding meaning that does not exist to statements"-- came from some amalgamation of the experiences I've had at those occupations.[/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]EDIT: Forgot to add an "and" in between "full-time restaurant manager" and "full-time graduate student." Clearly I'm not pursuing my Masters in typing or the English language![/size][/font][/color]

Edited January 21, 2012 by kujo

[kujo]

My mistake...sorry....

Edited January 21, 2012 by kujo

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327079844' post='2372044']
"Actual facts" according to whom?



He is one and he is definitely for the other. The fact is that he, like all progressives, views the federal government as a legitimate "arm" into the public sphere. The difference is that he views it as only "legitimate" in terms of doing things that he, as a neo-conservative, finds appropriate, which is really no different than what the Democrats believe.



First off, what are you, Gingrich's press secretary?

Secondly, Romney doesn't believe in "nationalized health care," but he does believe that a healthcare program requested by the citizens of Massachusetts and only applicable TO the citizens of Massachusetts, is in no way unconstitutional. If you think about it, it is absolutely in line with federalist thinking--each state should be in charge of creating and administering their own healthcare plan for the citizens of their state. The major difference between "Romney-Care" and "Obama-care" is that one is a state-level program (Constitutional) and the other is a federal intrusion (un-Constitutional).



So did Romney, as governor of Mass.
[/quote]
[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327079844' post='2372044']
"Actual facts" according to whom?



He is one and he is definitely for the other. The fact is that he, like all progressives, views the federal government as a legitimate "arm" into the public sphere. The difference is that he views it as only "legitimate" in terms of doing things that he, as a neo-conservative, finds appropriate, which is really no different than what the Democrats believe.



First off, what are you, Gingrich's press secretary?

Secondly, Romney doesn't believe in "nationalized health care," but he does believe that a healthcare program requested by the citizens of Massachusetts and only applicable TO the citizens of Massachusetts, is in no way unconstitutional. If you think about it, it is absolutely in line with federalist thinking--each state should be in charge of creating and administering their own healthcare plan for the citizens of their state. The major difference between "Romney-Care" and "Obama-care" is that one is a state-level program (Constitutional) and the other is a federal intrusion (un-Constitutional).



So did Romney, as governor of Mass.
[/quote]
[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327079844' post='2372044']
"Actual facts" according to whom?



He is one and he is definitely for the other. The fact is that he, like all progressives, views the federal government as a legitimate "arm" into the public sphere. The difference is that he views it as only "legitimate" in terms of doing things that he, as a neo-conservative, finds appropriate, which is really no different than what the Democrats believe.



First off, what are you, Gingrich's press secretary?

Secondly, Romney doesn't believe in "nationalized health care," but he does believe that a healthcare program requested by the citizens of Massachusetts and only applicable TO the citizens of Massachusetts, is in no way unconstitutional. If you think about it, it is absolutely in line with federalist thinking--each state should be in charge of creating and administering their own healthcare plan for the citizens of their state. The major difference between "Romney-Care" and "Obama-care" is that one is a state-level program (Constitutional) and the other is a federal intrusion (un-Constitutional).



So did Romney, as governor of Mass.
[/quote]
[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327079844' post='2372044']
"Actual facts" according to whom?



He is one and he is definitely for the other. The fact is that he, like all progressives, views the federal government as a legitimate "arm" into the public sphere. The difference is that he views it as only "legitimate" in terms of doing things that he, as a neo-conservative, finds appropriate, which is really no different than what the Democrats believe.



First off, what are you, Gingrich's press secretary?

Secondly, Romney doesn't believe in "nationalized health care," but he does believe that a healthcare program requested by the citizens of Massachusetts and only applicable TO the citizens of Massachusetts, is in no way unconstitutional. If you think about it, it is absolutely in line with federalist thinking--each state should be in charge of creating and administering their own healthcare plan for the citizens of their state. The major difference between "Romney-Care" and "Obama-care" is that one is a state-level program (Constitutional) and the other is a federal intrusion (un-Constitutional).



So did Romney, as governor of Mass.
[/quote]

Oh really? Show me one case where Gingrich is for big government, and make it recent.

Romney made Romney-care, and it destroyed Massachusetts. Massachusetts is bankrupt because of it. Plus, abortions are payed through it. You can't vote for him for that reason. And let's not forget that when Obamacare was made, Mitt Romney said it was a great idea and a great invention.

[kujo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1327173130' post='2372720']
Oh really? Show me one case where Gingrich is for big government, and make it recent.

Romney made Romney-care, and it destroyed Massachusetts. Massachusetts is bankrupt because of it. Plus, abortions are payed through it. You can't vote for him for that reason. And let's not forget that when Obamacare was made, Mitt Romney said it was a great idea and a great invention.
[/quote]

LOL...

You're funny.

Massachusetts wasn't "destroyed" by Romney-Care.

And refer to Winchester's posts at the end of the previous page re: Newt's "big government" predispositions. He's a progressive, my dear friend. He's a Fed-lovin' progressive who is on-record as saying that he "loves" Teddy Roosevelt, the father of the progressive movement. While I am absolutely not a fan of Glenn Beck, he is DEAD ON about this:

[url="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-can-hardly-believe-that-gingrich-actually-calls-himself-a-realpolitik-wilsonian/"]http://www.theblaze....itik-wilsonian/[/url]

EDIT: I'd also respond to your desire for a "recent" example of Newt being pro-big government is unfair, mainly because Newt hasn't held elected office in something like 10 years! But then again, you knew that, which is why you said what you did. But I learned my lessons about sneakiness from one of the best Adam Sandler movies ever:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lYBVi3ALWA&feature=related[/media]

Edited January 21, 2012 by kujo