Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:58:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17
Poll
Question: Which is the most absurd objective proposed by Newt Gingrich?
#1
Putting mirrors in outerspace to light highways
 
#2
Colonizing the moon for resources such as moon rocks
 
#3
Repealing child labor laws so children can spend time in school being janitors rather than learning
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 81

Author Topic: Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular  (Read 39767 times)
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #250 on: December 11, 2011, 11:06:10 AM »

It is pretty simple: A man with a wife who is younger than his daughters is not the leader of the party of values.

Still, he doesn't break the half-plus-seven rule.

well, when they were married Gingrich was about 57 and Callista was about 34; (57/2)+7 = 35.5.  would have been invalid in BRTDland.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #251 on: December 11, 2011, 11:08:47 AM »
« Edited: December 11, 2011, 11:11:35 AM by Gays made America strong »

It is pretty simple: A man with a wife who is younger than his daughters is not the leader of the party of values.

Still, he doesn't break the half-plus-seven rule.

well, when they were married Gingrich was about 57 and Callista was about 34; (57/2)+7 = 35.5.  would have been invalid in BRTDland.

Dammit.

It's interesting to note though that Gingrich's first wife broke the half-plus-seven rule herself. She was 26, he was 19. Then again, the rule probably doesn't apply to women anyway. Tongue
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #252 on: December 11, 2011, 11:12:40 AM »

It is pretty simple: A man with a wife who is younger than his daughters is not the leader of the party of values.

Still, he doesn't break the half-plus-seven rule.

well, when they were married Gingrich was about 57 and Callista was about 34; (57/2)+7 = 35.5.  would have been invalid in BRTDland.

Dammit.

It's interesting to note though that Gingrich's first wife broke the half-plus-seven rule herself. She was 26, he was 19. Then again, the rule probably doesn't apply to women anyway. Tongue

the BRTD rule has a 'cougar clause' that allows for heterosexual marriages in which the women are older.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #253 on: December 11, 2011, 02:09:03 PM »

How on Earth has the GOP ever been the Party of Values? I suppose we all value different things in life, but Newtie was their Speaker of the House. He didn't just fall out of the sky several months ago to run for President.

I guess you never heard of abolitionists?
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #254 on: December 11, 2011, 02:21:57 PM »

The scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig exposed the campaign line that Republicans are the "party of values" for the raging hypocrisy it is. Gingrich is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of them all, impeaching Bill Clinton for having an affair with an intern while he himself was carrying on an affair.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #255 on: December 11, 2011, 04:35:03 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc_LIR5ExIU&feature=related
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #256 on: December 11, 2011, 06:49:46 PM »

What defines moral values anyhow? I bet no two people will define it alike.  Also, since when is the GOP the party of values? The party is a laughingstock based upon its platforms.

Then again, Newt got what he wanted with the GOP revolution post 1994.  Careful what you wish for.
Logged
TomC
TCash101
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,973


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #257 on: December 11, 2011, 08:32:21 PM »

Why is it that I detest Gingrich, want Romney to win the nomination, yet these threads annoy the crap out of me?
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #258 on: December 11, 2011, 09:04:11 PM »

How on Earth has the GOP ever been the Party of Values? I suppose we all value different things in life, but Newtie was their Speaker of the House. He didn't just fall out of the sky several months ago to run for President.

I guess you never heard of abolitionists?
The original GOP was a free soil party, not an abolitionist party. Real abolitionists wouldn't be caught dead in any major party. And no major party would want them.  But yes, the GOP was better a long long time ago when it was the more progressive party. But, alas, that was a very very long time ago. You got me on the "ever." Touché.
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #259 on: December 11, 2011, 11:55:54 PM »

Mooooooooooo
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #260 on: December 11, 2011, 11:57:42 PM »

I look forward to the day the GOP stops being the "party of values."  I also look forward to the day when the Democratic Party does the same.

However, America will always be moralfriend country.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #261 on: December 12, 2011, 06:32:44 PM »

...Romney. In other words, there are no more potential anti-Romneys after Gingrich. One slip by Gingrich, and this is going to end early.

"And while another round of NBC-Marist polling data shows Gingrich with double-digit leads in South Carolina and Florida, there is a large silver lining for Romney: More than half of Gingrich’s supporters in both states picked the former Massachusetts governor as their second-choice pick."

Source: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/12/9389121-first-read-shades-of-hillary-in-late-07
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #262 on: December 12, 2011, 06:34:49 PM »

cool thread bro
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #263 on: December 12, 2011, 06:35:58 PM »

Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #264 on: December 12, 2011, 06:37:24 PM »

Hardy-har. I know it may look like I am grasping, but this is significant.
Logged
Reginald
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 802
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #265 on: December 12, 2011, 06:45:49 PM »

So in the event Gingrich doesn't implode, you'll at least be comforted by the fact that Mitt came just that close?
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #266 on: December 13, 2011, 01:04:50 AM »

Here we go. Every Politico thread from the last two weeks, all in one convenient location! Politico, post your new threads here, unless they have nothing to do with Romney and/or Gingrich. Also, feel free to change the thread title if you want.

(PROTIP: if you're reading back through this thread, and get confused, just look at the subject of each post to see which thread it was posted in)
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #267 on: December 13, 2011, 02:46:37 AM »

Jim, "We learned from Reagan not that amnesty doesn't work, but, you can't call it amnesty" Talent and John Sununu are hardly representative of "conservatism."

In a conference call today, former White House chief of staff John Sununu and ex-senator Jim Talent rapped the former House speaker as "anti-conservative" and "unreliable" as they defended the credentials of their guy, Romney.

"The speaker is running as a reliable and trusted conservative leader, and what we're here to say, with reluctance ... he's not a reliable and trusted conservative leader because he's not a reliable or trustworthy leader," said Talent, a Missouri senator from 2002 to 2007 and former House member.

On the call and in an e-mail, Romney's team hit on Gingrich's comments in the spring calling House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's Medicare plan "right-wing social engineering."

The comment was widely criticized by conservatives as undermining Ryan and nearly derailed Gingrich's campaign just as it began. Gingrich apologized.

Sununu, chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush and an influential voice in New Hampshire politics, says the Gingrich remark was "self-serving."

"For Newt Gingrich, in an effort of self-aggrandizing, to come out and throw a clever phrase that had no other purpose than to try and make himself a little smarter than the conservative Republican leadership, to undercut Paul Ryan is the most self-serving, anti-conservative thing one can imagine happening," Sununu said.

Source: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/12/mitt-romney-newt-gingrich-attacks-john-sununu/1?csp=34news
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #268 on: December 13, 2011, 02:50:31 AM »

I'm still having trouble believing Mitt is dumb enough to have Sununu craw out from under his rock.

the fear of a repeat of the Bush41/Sununu administration is EXACTLY why the jmfcsts are against Romney...so why roll out Sununu?!

it's as if Mitt doesn't even understand why he never had a path to the nomination to being with...and he's just compounding his problem with this error

the guy is tone deaf

I'm 100% against Gingrich, and jmfcst is 100% right about this.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #269 on: December 13, 2011, 02:57:38 AM »

I'm still having trouble believing Mitt is dumb enough to have Sununu craw out from under his rock.

the fear of a repeat of the Bush41/Sununu administration is EXACTLY why the jmfcsts are against Romney...so why roll out Sununu?!

it's as if Mitt doesn't even understand why he never had a path to the nomination to being with...and he's just compounding his problem with this error

the guy is tone deaf

Other than raising taxes, something Romney will never do, Bush 41 wasn't so bad. It certainly beats Bush 43, not to mention eight years of Obama.

Let me get this straight.

Cheating on your most solemn vow to the electorate doesn't show a disqualifying lack of character, but, cheating on your spouse does?

Forchristsake man don't you remember David Souter!
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #270 on: December 13, 2011, 03:00:54 AM »

I'm still having trouble believing Mitt is dumb enough to have Sununu craw out from under his rock.

the fear of a repeat of the Bush41/Sununu administration is EXACTLY why the jmfcsts are against Romney...so why roll out Sununu?!

it's as if Mitt doesn't even understand why he never had a path to the nomination to being with...and he's just compounding his problem with this error

the guy is tone deaf

Other than raising taxes, something Romney will never do, Bush 41 wasn't so bad. It certainly beats Bush 43, not to mention eight years of Obama.

yeah, Souter has been the pride and joy of the jmfcsts

What did you expect after the Bork fiasco? Souter was a necessary compromise. Kennedy would not have had it any other way in 1990. While the timing of his retirement is unforgivable, along with some of his votes, we cannot blame Bush 41 and Sununu for unforeseeable events...

Um, Bush 41 used his appointment of David Souter as example of why he believed that he had been unfair criticized for trying to pack the courts with conservative ideologues.

Can we blame him for being unapologetic about appointing Souter?
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #271 on: December 13, 2011, 03:07:37 AM »

I saw her on Rachel Maddow. The last name is actually pronounced Ging-rick (it only started sounding more like -rich when Newt moved from Pennsylvania to Georgia).

That's a funny way of saying that Newt pronounces his last name "Ging-rich" not "Ging-rick."

We could go on at length about how "Murkowski" is really pronounced "Mur koff ski," but, that would serve absolutely no purpose. People Anglicize the pronunciation of their names all the time.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #272 on: December 13, 2011, 03:15:40 AM »

While space mirrors lighting our highways is a bit impractical, largely because there are good reasons to have darkness most places at night, the idea of orbital solar energy satellites is a fairly standard trope of science fiction, and working to develop such things would certainly be a better use of the NASA budget than the useless boondoggle known as the International Space Station.  From an economic point of view, the main hurdle to such a system is the cost to lift the satellites into orbit.  If we ever do reach the point where it becomes desirable to engage in mega-engineering in space, it would be less costly to build a lunar base that would then build and launch the satellites from Luna than to build them directly from Terra.

Correct, the luna idea is absurdly expensive, while the terra idea is orders of magnitude even more costly.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #273 on: December 13, 2011, 03:17:03 AM »

I am not saying Gingrich is going to win, but he may win. I admit there is a chance. But I will bet $10,000 on this: If Gingrich does win, people are not going to get what they want. In fact, they're going to deeply regret enabling the return of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. If you thought the original was bad, just wait until you get the sequel. They will shove a tax hike right down your throat immediately in February 2013. And it will ultimately be brought to you by Newt Gingrich's epic loss.

The same could be said of Newt Romney, err, Mitt Romney.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #274 on: December 13, 2011, 03:17:56 AM »

The scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig exposed the campaign line that Republicans are the "party of values" for the raging hypocrisy it is. Gingrich is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of them all, impeaching Bill Clinton for having an affair with an intern while he himself was carrying on an affair.

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, not adultery.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 14 queries.