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

Page 3 of 6 [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 May 2011, 12:20 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
simon_says wrote:
What did more harm? This guy's rap or the many "hell ya, k*ck a**" country songs that helped pave the way for war? That war cost a lot of money.


You give too much credit to people who - I'm assuming - you think lowly of.

That is our impulse since inception. From toppling the monarchy's rulership over the states to giving the finger to every European empire and taking all their land on the North-American continent, to declaring our ownership of the western-hemisphere to Washington's farewell address to the Monroe doctrine to ripping panama from the belly of Colombia to taking the SouthWest from Mexico to advancing across the plains to the pacific ocean, to taking the Philippines, to WWI to WWII to Korea to Vietnam, and so forth (and any other political or military intervention in other people's business.)

We are an Empire animated by Idealism that propels us to remake this world in our own image.


the preceding is the definition of Jingoist idiocy
If this is your view.
I will risk the genetic fallacy and ignore every thing else you say.
assuming it is moronic and emotionally based.
at least Inayusha does not wax poetic about genocide.
our impulse -my lord- what well of stupid do you drink from?
America was founded as a reaction against Empire.
not the founding of a new one.
we have lost our way.
and apparently you celebrate that?



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...


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.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

16 May 2011, 1:37 am

Inuyhusa wrote:
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.


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.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

16 May 2011, 1:55 am

JakobVirgil wrote:

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.


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.


Quote:
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.


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.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 May 2011, 2:39 am

We sort of had no choice but to go to war with the south, as they attempted to secede from the United States by force of arms.
And as I recall, Hawaii had actually petitioned to become part of the U.S.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 May 2011, 2:44 am

Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Quote:
And I should care what Politilie says why?


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.


Meh, I still think he'd oppose Obama, even if Obama did everything that he (Gingrich) wanted - just because Obama's the one doing it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 May 2011, 7:45 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

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.


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.


Quote:
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.


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.


and none of them are out of the western hemisphere.
you use so many action verbs it makes my head hurt.
you are obviously a sentimental anthropomorphizer.

maybe the argument that america should be isolationist has been "hurled" though out
the history of america because it reflects a valid and traditional view.
one that goes back to the founding. perhaps a minority view but I think the authentic and truly american one.
but rah rah go team I guess I don't got the spirit.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

16 May 2011, 3:34 pm

**Sorry, double post


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Last edited by MarketAndChurch on 16 May 2011, 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

16 May 2011, 3:39 pm

**sorry, double post


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Last edited by MarketAndChurch on 16 May 2011, 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

16 May 2011, 3:39 pm

**Sorry, Double Post


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Last edited by MarketAndChurch on 16 May 2011, 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

16 May 2011, 3:40 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

and none of them are out of the western hemisphere.
you use so many action verbs it makes my head hurt.
you are obviously a sentimental anthropomorphizer.

maybe the argument that america should be isolationist has been "hurled" though out
the history of america because it reflects a valid and traditional view.
one that goes back to the founding. perhaps a minority view but I think the authentic and truly american one.
but rah rah go team I guess I don't got the spirit.


Come on jakob, that is a bit disingenuous. Just because not all of them were successfully kicked out of our hemisphere doesn't mean that it wasn't an intention of ours to do so. That is the point, and the underlying motivation. We did a pretty good job of kicking all of those monarchies and colonies out of our continent, and if Washington's Farewell's Address was taken seriously, we would have become an Empire ruling both the North and South American continents.

You certainly are right about isolationism being a constant alternative throughout American foreign policy history. Patrick Henry was very vocal about his resentment that our constitution was being used as a tool for becoming an Empire instead of worrying about liberty There were even those who objected to our Declaration of Independence being too hawkish because it didn't say just Americans had inalienable rights endowed by a creator... it said all of mankind had inalienable rights endowed by a creator, which makes us inherently internationalists by any definition of the word. This has come to define Americanism in that it is a word whose definition does not have any boarders with regards to who can use it. An example to contrast what I mean: a frenchmen is one because he lives in France, has French parents, and lived out French culture and values.

Your position is as American as the one I put forth, and it is a constant battle between our two positions throughout American history. Had your position won, we would be two separate countries, we wouldn't own California to Texas, we wouldn't have gotten involved in WWII even after pearl harbor, and so on. It's just that my position has won out every time because of our adherence to Liberalism and the Liberal way, our Declaration of Independence, and our evangelistic nature to 1.) look at the world and its problems as systemic to their lack of Democracy and 2.) go about recreating the world in our own image to ultimately end these problems.

Why am I a sentimental anthropomorphizer...


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 May 2011, 3:55 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

and none of them are out of the western hemisphere.
you use so many action verbs it makes my head hurt.
you are obviously a sentimental anthropomorphizer.

maybe the argument that america should be isolationist has been "hurled" though out
the history of america because it reflects a valid and traditional view.
one that goes back to the founding. perhaps a minority view but I think the authentic and truly american one.
but rah rah go team I guess I don't got the spirit.


Come on jakob, that is a bit disingenuous. Just because not all of them were successfully kicked out of our hemisphere doesn't mean that it wasn't an intention of ours to do so. That is the point, and the underlying motivation. We did a pretty good job of kicking all of those monarchies and colonies out of our continent, and if Washington's Farewell's Address was taken seriously, we would have become an Empire ruling both the North and South American continents.

You certainly are right about isolationism being a constant alternative throughout American foreign policy history. Patrick Henry was very vocal about his resentment that our constitution was being used as a tool for becoming an Empire instead of worrying about liberty There were even those who objected to our Declaration of Independence being too hawkish because it didn't say just Americans had inalienable rights endowed by a creator... it said all of mankind had inalienable rights endowed by a creator, which makes us inherently internationalists by any definition of the word. This has come to define Americanism in that it is a word whose definition does not have any boarders with regards to who can use it. An example to contrast what I mean: a frenchmen is one because he lives in France, has French parents, and lived out French culture and values.

Your position is as American as the one I put forth, and it is a constant battle between our two positions throughout American history. Had your position won, we would be two separate countries, we wouldn't own California to Texas, we wouldn't have gotten involved in WWII even after pearl harbor, and so on. It's just that my position has won out every time because of our adherence to Liberalism and the Liberal way, our Declaration of Independence, and our evangelistic nature to 1.) look at the world and its problems as systemic to their lack of Democracy and 2.) go about recreating the world in our own image to ultimately end these problems.

Why am I a sentimental anthropomorphizer...


Obviously if both opinions are still current then one did not win.
and listen close this is the tricky part.
since your view is nearly identical to British imperialism and mine seems to be homegrown.
I am forced to say that mine is the uniquely American view even if most of our regimes have
been European style internationalists.

For the question of why you are sentimental beats me maybe you are more NT than me.
maybe you were raised wrong. Maybe you believe in a giant ghost that smiles on Americas murders.
I think there might be organic physiological reasons that Theism and Jingoism correlate so strongly.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 May 2011, 4:08 pm

simon_says wrote:
Inuyhusa wrote:
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.


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.


You mean snippets taken out of context from various interviews to make it look like he said something he didn't.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

16 May 2011, 4:29 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Inuyhusa wrote:
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.


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.


You mean snippets taken out of context from various interviews to make it look like he said something he didn't.


Think whatever you like sweetpea. Facts have never bothered you before.

http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_ne ... C2%A0time/

Quote:
VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Libya?

GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive ... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.


Two weeks later:

Quote:
GINGRICH: I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.


He went from saying "I would impose a no-fly zone this evening", to "I would not have intervened". The third interview he gave was his attempt to make those comments gell.

I see your friend is also getting dinged by the conservative Club for Growth for his previous support of health care mandates and subsidies for insurance. Maybe they are just taking his comments out of context too.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 May 2011, 4:52 pm

simon_says wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Inuyhusa wrote:
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.


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.


You mean snippets taken out of context from various interviews to make it look like he said something he didn't.


Think whatever you like sweetpea. Facts have never bothered you before.

http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_ne ... C2%A0time/

Quote:
VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Libya?

GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive ... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.


Two weeks later:

Quote:
GINGRICH: I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.


He went from saying "I would impose a no-fly zone this evening", to "I would not have intervened". The third interview he gave was his attempt to make those comments gell.

I see your friend is also getting dinged by the conservative Club for Growth for his previous support of health care mandates and subsidies for insurance. Maybe they are just taking his comments out of context too.


You left out the change in the situations in which he said what he said.

1. He was talking about the fact if we're going to say we want Qaddafi out, we should make sure to get him out of power.

2. He would have preferred other Arab Countries to go after Qaddafi so the radical nuts can't claim it is a war against Islam.

3. He is pointing out we can't be everywhere at once, though he was still spot on with instance 2 and instance 1.

There is "involved" and there is "involved" we could get some of our allies to deal with the Libya situation, or we could send our own military in.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

16 May 2011, 5:00 pm

Yes, I believe you believe that. :lol:

I also love the war he's started with the GOP over the Republican Medicare plan. Ryan said of Gingrich, ""with allies like that, who needs the left?" That is classic Newt. He's on 12 sides of every issue. His record on global warming is equally erratic.

His candidacy will be an epic disaster.



Last edited by simon_says on 16 May 2011, 5:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 May 2011, 5:15 pm

simon_says wrote:
Yes, I believe you believe that. :lol:

I love the war he's started with the GOP over the Republican Medicare plan. Ryan said of Gingrich, ""with allies like that, who needs the left?" That is classic Newt. He's on 12 sides of every issue. His record on global warming is equally erratic.

His candidacy will be an epic disaster.


I disagree with Newt over Ryan's healthcare plan. The Global Warming ad was before climate gate was exposed, so that can be explained as something other than a flip flop.