Newt Gingrich: Will You Vote For Him?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1327876406' post='2377165']
I would be way more likely to vote for a man who wanted to pre-emptively bomb brown people, wage economic warfare, and continue to steal money through inflation if I'd shared donuts with him on Sunday.
[/quote]
Pre-emptively bombing white or yellow people is way more razzle dazzle.

[Socrates]

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not a big fan of Newt, but I'd vote for him against Obama if he winds up the GOP nominee. Heck, I'd even grit my teeth and vote for Romney against Obama for that matter.

Vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. After that, he's had his chance.

The long-term damage to this country that will result from another four more years of Obama is simply too serious to allow.

I don't think Gingrich or Romney will do much good for this country, but Obama will do much more harm, and he needs to be booted from the White House.

Voting for Ron Paul or another such candidate after the GOP nominee is chosen won't do any good for this country. If it does anything, it will ensure four more years of the most leftist, statist of them all (and Obama's actions will likely be even more leftist and statist when he does not have re-election to worry about).

I'd rather soil my precious ideological purity and support a less-than-ideal candidate against Obama than contribute to four more years of the Greater Evil, let the country go completely to hell, then slap myself on the back for my ideological purity in the voting booth.

But then I'm a godless pragmatist (as well as a fascist pig).

Edited January 30, 2012 by Socrates

[ardillacid]

It's not aboot intellectual purity. I just don't believe newty or mitt will be different than the last two presidents. After all, George W campaigned on limited government and no nation building and we all know how that turned out. Dr Paul is the only candidate worth driving to city hall to vote for. When mitt/newt/barry O gets elected it'll be business as usual. Massive government expansion and another war in the middle east

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1327947113' post='2377712']
Pre-emptively bombing white or yellow people is way more razzle dazzle.
[/quote]
I don't think they're considering that, right now.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1327955301' post='2377808']
It's not aboot intellectual purity. I just don't believe newty or mitt will be different than the last two presidents. After all, George W campaigned on limited government and no nation building and we all know how that turned out. Dr Paul is the only candidate worth driving to city hall to vote for. When mitt/newt/barry O gets elected it'll be business as usual. Massive government expansion and another war in the middle east
[/quote]I can promise you that Newt and Romney won't risk alienating a large portion of their supporters by fighting a war on religious liberty.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1327949893' post='2377744']
As I've said elsewhere, I'm not a big fan of Newt, but I'd vote for him against Obama if he winds up the GOP nominee. Heck, I'd even grit my teeth and vote for Romney against Obama for that matter.

Vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. After that, he's had his chance.

The long-term damage to this country that will result from another four more years of Obama is simply too serious to allow.

I don't think Gingrich or Romney will do much good for this country, but Obama will do much more harm, and he needs to be booted from the White House.

Voting for Ron Paul or another such candidate after the GOP nominee is chosen won't do any good for this country. If it does anything, it will ensure four more years of the most leftist, statist of them all (and Obama's actions will likely be even more leftist and statist when he does not have re-election to worry about).

I'd rather soil my precious ideological purity and support a less-than-ideal candidate against Obama than contribute to four more years of the Greater Evil, let the country go completely to hell, then slap myself on the back for my ideological purity in the voting booth.

But then I'm a godless pragmatist (as well as a fascist pig).
[/quote]Socrates, I feel like you haven't changed much in the last few years. This is good.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1327970292' post='2377953']
I can promise you that Newt and Romney won't risk alienating a large portion of their supporters by fighting a war on religious liberty.


[/quote]
They also won't attempt to dismantle the beliefs that lead our government to believe it can stick guns in people's ribs and make them buy health insurance. For those two, it's an issue about healthcare. Their foundation is croutons. Both at one time or another have supported the very same programs. Newt's praised that, supported TARP, and was merely upset by the size of Obama's bailout and where the money went. Woo hoo. Vote for the establishment shills, and our slide slows a bit, but the GOP learns nothing. I'm done cooperating with those pieces of poo.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1327931775' post='2377619']
Newtster has committed himself to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear capability, and has not put anything off the table. He has consistently spoken the language of war. He has shown no intent to wait for real threats to develop, and supports acts of economic warfare against them now. We are at war with Iran. That our leaders use euphemisms does not change that fact.
[/quote]

Are you waiting for a mushroom cloud over Tel-Aviv to be convinced of the real threat?

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1327931775' post='2377619']
Inflation is a form of tax. It is not explained to the people as tax. Instead, the government foists the ridiculous CPI upon us while inflating. Newt has not once spoken against the CPI, and has no interest in abolishing the Fed or removing our fiat currency. Juan deMariana said that debasing currency was a form of theft from the people. Inflation of fiat currency is a form of debasement. Newt believes all the fairy tales about our monetary system and knows the benefits of monetary expansion for the first recipients of the new money. He therefore advocates theft.
[/quote]

That's a stretch.

The CPI is not a cause of inflation; it is a measurement of it. To say otherwise is like saying that rain gauges are the cause of floods.

And Gingrich has called for an audit of the Federal Reserve System and is a supporter of the gold commission. I believe I posted links elsewhere in this phorum with supporting documentation. You simply do not have all your facts straight.

Additionally, I have not heard Congressman Paul talk about the war on the Catholic Church being waged by the Obama-Sebellius machine. The only two candidates whom I've heard talk about the war on religion are Gingrich and former candidate Perry. Also, Gingrich has expressed concern that the "Arab Spring" will turn into an "anti-Christian Spring". What has Congressman Paul stated about this danger? All I hear from him in debates is "Let them solve their own problems". Considering the recent history of how Christians are being treated in Iraq and Egypt, all I forsee in leaving them alone to solve their own problems is violent persecution for these oppressed Christian communities.

[Norseman82]

And if I'm wrong about nobody else talking about the war on religion, I will stand corrected.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1327990668' post='2378148']
Are you waiting for a mushroom cloud over Tel-Aviv to be convinced of the real threat?[/quote]
Sadly, it takes more than the third in power going off about croutons to justify war by the "good guys". We're already at war with them. We contribute quite a bit of aid to the enemies of Israel, currently.

[quote]
The CPI is not a cause of inflation; it is a measurement of it. To say otherwise is like saying that rain gauges are the cause of floods.[/quote]
I didn't say the CPI caused inflation. The CPI is not a measure of inflation. It's a measure of a rise in the price of certain goods chosen by the government. A general rise in prices is an effect of inflation, not inflation itself.

[quote]And Gingrich has called for an audit of the Federal Reserve System and is a supporter of the gold commission. I believe I posted links elsewhere in this phorum with supporting documentation. You simply do not have all your facts straight.[/quote]
An audit of the Fed will turn up abuses. Newt will then push for legislation to reduce those abuses. He does not view government control the money supply as a problem. When he starts talking about abolishing the Fed, I'll believe he wants to end inflation. Does Newt want a gold standard, or a gold-exchange standard?

[quote]Additionally, I have not heard Congressman Paul talk about the war on the Catholic Church being waged by the Obama-Sebellius machine. The only two candidates whom I've heard talk about the war on religion are Gingrich and former candidate Perry. Also, Gingrich has expressed concern that the "Arab Spring" will turn into an "anti-Christian Spring". What has Congressman Paul stated about this danger? All I hear from him in debates is "Let them solve their own problems". Considering the recent history of how Christians are being treated in Iraq and Egypt, all I forsee in leaving them alone to solve their own problems is violent persecution for these oppressed Christian communities.
[/quote]
Ron Paul's basic beliefs would be against that war against Catholicism, which is really an outgrowth of Obama's statism.

Christians in Iraq were better off prior to the war we waged. Our interventionism has not made things better for Christians in Muslim lands.

[Papist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1327970292' post='2377953']
I can promise you that Newt and Romney won't risk alienating a large portion of their supporters by fighting a war on religious liberty.

Socrates, I feel like you haven't changed much in the last few years. This is good.
[/quote]

Could that be change we can believe in?

Edited January 31, 2012 by Papist

[LaPetiteSoeur]

I haven't read all of the comments, but I will tell y'all this much.

You have to look at how a man (or woman) treats his family. Newt cheated on his first wife (as she was DYING OF CANCER) and then cheated on his second before marrying his third.

That doesn't seem very gentlemanly to me. Really, who cheats on their wife as she's dying of cancer?

[Socrates]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1327955301' post='2377808']
It's not aboot intellectual purity. I just don't believe newty or mitt will be different than the last two presidents. After all, George W campaigned on limited government and no nation building and we all know how that turned out. Dr Paul is the only candidate worth driving to city hall to vote for. When mitt/newt/barry O gets elected it'll be business as usual. Massive government expansion and another war in the middle east
[/quote]
That's "ideological purity.'' Nothing intellectual about it.

I hear your point, and might be inclined to agree were not Obama's agenda so destructive.
Mostly I respectfully disagree that there will be absolutely [i]no[/i] difference between a Newt or Mitt presidency and an Obama presidency. Yes, the difference will for the most part (especially under Romney) be woefully and pathetically inadequate, but it would still be better than four more years of Obama.

The way I see it, it's about limiting damage. There's a fire spreading and destroying the building and everything inside. You have the options of containing it somewhat and limiting its spread, preserving a little bit of the property in the building, or you can do nothing and just let the whole beaver dam thing burn to the ground, on the basis that too much will be destroyed under the first option.

Neither option is pleasant, but the second is still preferable. Especially when you consider that two or three Supreme Court justices will likely be nominated in the next four years.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1327969942' post='2377947']
I don't think they're considering that, right now.
[/quote]
Simply saying "pre-emptively bombing people" would suffice perfectly to make your point. No need to gratuitously play the race card like some kind of pinko liberal pantywaist.

What's next, yammering about "Islamophobia"? I've come to expect better from you.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LaPetiteSoeur' timestamp='1328042130' post='2378443']
I haven't read all of the comments, but I will tell y'all this much.

You have to look at how a man (or woman) treats his family. Newt cheated on his first wife (as she was DYING OF CANCER) and then cheated on his second before marrying his third.

That doesn't seem very gentlemanly to me. Really, who cheats on their wife as she's dying of cancer?
[/quote]
Actually, Newt and his first wife were separated before she was dying of cancer. I certainly don't in the least bit approve of Newt's adulterous behavior, but the political mudslinging is exaggerated.

[LaPetiteSoeur]

Well, his position on the poor, especially children is not great at all. The fact that he claimed child labor laws were "truly stupid," he also said poor kids didn't understand work unless it was illegal.

[i]Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods, have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day; they have no habit of "I do this and you give me cash," unless it is illegal[/i]

In fact, three out of every 4 people under the poverty line have at least a part time job--many have more than that.

Since I have studied poverty, and have worked with the poor and will hopefully serve them as a religious sister one day, I cannot vote an adulterer or a man who knows absolutely nothing about poverty (and claims that poor children have no idea what "work" is) into office. I can't do it. He's not even pro-life.