Gingrich just thinks Obama won't go for the throat.

Post Reply New Topic

And your view of rappers is what? Physician, heal thyself. John Stewart really demolished this whole thing by showing Johnny Cash meeting Bush. Johnny "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" Cash visited ~4 presidents at the WH. Not to mention his wife shooting lyrics. Do you really imagine that every country singer who ever visited the WH had their song lists endorsed by the president? This whole talking point is pure FOX news masturbation.

Anyway, just to keep this on topic. Gingrich is now calling the Ryan medicare plain, "right wing social engineering". Which is really funny. FIrst he changed his opinion on health care mandates to court the right wing, and now he's attacking an unpopular right-wing position to court the elderly voters.

He's really trying to thread the needle here.

As I recall, the Gingrich who stole Christmas had originally wanted to intervene in Libya - till Obama did it, then he was against intervention. Gingrich is as consistent with his policies it seems, as he is with his marriages and personal morals.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You know who else was welcomed to the Bush White House? Eazy-E, a gangsta rapper in the 90's had dinner with Dubya's father. That's right, an actual gangsta rapper had dinner with a Republican president.

Also I looked into this whole thing and it does turn out Common's lyrics do appear thuggish and can easily be misinterpreted that way but I know for a fact Common isn't gangsta by any stretch of the imagination. It wasn't Gingrich that called him a thug but Karl Rove.

Yeah, I remember that. He flip-flopped on that within a few days. But his profile is so low that it didnt get much notice.

He is amusing in that he is unpredictable. I'll give him that. But the conservatives had their fill of that with McCain I think.

If you bothered to do any research you would know it is the way Obama went about it. Obama consulted everyone except congress and the American People. Obama basically thumbed his nose at the Constitution.

Politifact rates Gingrich is full flip flop on this issue. Your fever dreams are, as always, of no interest to me.

And I should care what Politilie says why?

exactly it is not an official organ of Minitrue
so I think we should discount it completely.

I was speaking to a wider point, not your opinion. Why should I care what you think? Deify him and make excuses for his every waffle. Please do. Have fun.

I'm not making excuses, unlike you, I actually watched the interview in question on the Libya situation, I'm not going to rely on what politi-scam tells me.

Here is an article:
GREENVILLE, S.C.—Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich slammed President Obama’s handling of the situation in Libya on Thursday, arguing that he president changed his position on the U.S. role only after the president did.

The one-time Georgia congressman and acknowledged presidential hopeful told an audience of GOP activists in this early presidential primary state that he had initially advocated for a no-fly zone over Libya as a "first step to defeating Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi." But he said he now questions the direction of the mission.

Gingrich charged that the White House has severely mishandled the situation by having "pitted our prestige against Qaddafi.” If Qaddafi survives, Gingrich added, “it is a significant defeat for the United States and it puts us in a very bad position.”

In an interview after the speech, Gingrich told National Journal that the media had taken his remarks out of context in alleging he was flip-flopping on Libya.

“I had one comment before March 3, which was we should favor freedom and we should help them indirectly using other forces and our own," he said, referring to Libyan rebels. "The president on March 3 said Qaddafi has to go and I said, 'If he uses the no-fly zone as the first step toward getting rid of him, then we should do it immediately.’ On the other hand, I am deeply opposed to having a no-fly zone as a humanitarian mission. It won’t work.... I think they’re in a total muddle," Gingrich said.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... s-20110324

He didn't flipflop, he is accusing Obama of being an incompetitent idiot.

**sorry, double post

Last edited by MarketAndChurch on 15 May 2011, 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

None of that was emotionally based. It is an accurate take on our nationhood and the idealism that animates this great nation.

There are enduring qualities about our nation that has continued to shape our foreign policy and our approach to the world. The nature of our government and society determines foreign policy more-so then external factors do. We work out our identity at home by our actions of abroad. This hasn't been more true of any country then the US.

We've always seen ourselves advancing what we uniquely regard as the universal rights of mankind. It is no accident that we persist in thinking that among our many missions in the world is to defend those rights, which we are often hypocritcal of, but no one can deny that this is what animates and moves this great nation.

Our ambition predates our nationhood. We were ambitious when we were part of the british empire, and this tradition continued long afterwards up to the present day. The Washington Farewell Address viewed as the US a nation that threw off the shackles of European colonialism and then retreated behind the two oceans is a constructed myth to make people feel that "recent" military engagements were not normative or characteristic of American foreign policy or American history. If you were a Native American, if you were a Spaniard, French, Russian, or Brit on the North American continent, you didn't see an America that was putting up walls and retreating from world influence.

You saw a young nation that was relentlessly expanding across the West, and quite the dramatic scene that would have been to see this country topple empire after empire off of this continent. The monroe doctrine built on this by making the entire hemisphere our backyard. Monroe's original intent was based on his view that monarchy is corruption at its very highest.

The British - in our attempt to take Canada from them during the war of 1812 - viewed us as a war-mongering, trigger-happy nation. It should be noted that Canada viewed us in the same manner. Every chance we got, our idealism + our power made military intervention impossible to avoid.

Please explain the things you've said:
1.) Why did you think that I celebrated the things that I wrote?

2.) Why is it assumed that my writing above was emotionally based?

3.)Poetic? I could see how you would read that, but it is true. We pin the immorality of the world with it's lack of a moral system of governance, Democracy. Our idealism and this notion that there are universal rights, and that we are defenders of that right makes us interventionists.

4.) How were we not an Empire from inception? As Catherine the Great said: "The only way I can defend my Empire is to expand it." This was true even before we became a nation. This was true when we moved to take territory from Mexico out of slave-holder interests.

5.) We have lost our way? I'd like to hear your case for why, and see your viewpoint as to what "tradition" this is drifting away from...

That's fine if the point about Common not being able to visit the White House is just FOX News Masturbation. I don't care. I already made an exception for Common anyways.

Who cares if Johnney Cash visited the White House. Rock Music hasn't been a hinderance to whites as Rap has been to blacks. Everyone has a track from Mos Def or KRS on their Ipod, but they don't have the ear of the young generations. The form of rap they idolize is detrimental to their development as a healthy human being. It reinforces terrible definitions of what it means to be a man or women, and many other things.

Dick Cheney shot guns, and even shot a guy, and lived in the White House. You don't get the point. I'll restate it for you to read below:




Obviously, there are exceptions to everything, and circumstance is key.

you are a writer of glurge it is a patri-erotic flag porn.
Americas "interest" in world politics started at WWII and
is imho essentially the continuation of British imperialism.
Americas interventions have invariably reduced American
safety and international interest .
But go ahead with your great moronic faith in the goodness of the "American impulse"
whatever creams your jeans.

I think this boils down to an weird mental tick of particularism.
every atrocity is predicated on a emotional belief
that it is different when we do it.

so I guess that sums up your point 1-3 you are a particularist hence not logical.
4. America had strong tradition of minding our own business of not having foreign entanglements
of rejecting the game of nations to deny that is a bit simplistic and simple minded.

It's not about one interview. There were a series of interviews (thus the opportunity for the flip flop). The one you provided was a third case where he tried to reconcile the perception of a flip flop. You are not addressing his earlier comments.

I could look up and post his actual comments but there is no point. I don't think you would process anything I wrote and it would prolong this ridiculous interaction with you.

That is a misinterpretation of Washington's farewell address. One should not pin their view of history on one word or phrase in a 30+ page document. The sum totality of the document doesn't tell the story of a nation that should mind it's own business. For those who want to read it for themselves: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/sena ... 106-21.pdf

America had a strong tradition of minding its own in what way?

1.) Attempting to steal Canada from Great Britain is not minding your own business.
2.) Stealing the SW away from Mexico out of slave-holder interest is not minding your own business.
3.) John Quincy Adams pushing the spanish to their breaking point over Florida and Calfifornia is not minding your own business.
4.) Declaring in the Monroe doctrine that the entire western hemisphere is our sphere of influence is not minding your own business.
5.) Making treaties with native americans only to end up supporting your citizens who wanted to expand westwards is not minding your own business
6.) Building up the largest Navy in the Americas after the Civil War to rule the western hemisphere and our commercial interests in Asia is not minding your own business.
7.) Ruling the Philippines after we were left with it from our battle with spain is not minding our own business.
8.) Going to war with the South is not minding our own business.
9.) Stealing Panama from Colombia to build a canal for commercial interests is not minding our own business.
10.) Annexing Hawaii is not minding our own business.

All of these Acts were before WWII.

Everyone sees the founders in their own image though, but the facts don't support isolationism, and nor does our Declaration of Independence which does not give a realpolitik approach to the world but rather an inherently internationalist one. The french was there with us with their rights of man but we took our concept to the world first and have been missionaries of its values since our arrival in this nation.




Every generation likes to create an idealized image of ourselves in the past that we are never living up to in the present. The same arguments - like the one above, that, essentially, we are deviating from an isolationist past, and our current actions have reduced american safety and international interest - hurled against Bush and his doctrine were the same arguments hurled against William McKinley and many presidents throughout our history.


Our impulse is determined by what our normative and average gut reaction throughout history, which has been: internationalist / interventionist. That is a progressive position.