Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

and Mitt...

Newt Shcrute?

AustonT wrote:Why would you like to see Mitt in the White House. And Newt is most certainly the smartest person in the room at debates, it hasnt made him many friends in the past, when he was speaker most other Reps thought he was a total dick.

People just keep on saying this, but no-one seems to actually think it ought to mean Gingrich would say smart things. Weird.

Although I guess he was the smartest person in the debates, but that's a bit like being the toddler who urinated the least in the wading pool.

Aside from the "saluting the flag during the Anthem" picture posted, one of the big reasons why I do not like Obama is due to many of his actions.

-He has broadcast to the entire televised and internet accessible world when we will be leaving areas. This is in direct contradiction to ALL military operating principles and OPSEC that all soldiers and servicemembers are taught from Day One of their military career.

-He did NOT salute SSG Giunta when pinning him the Medal of Honor. This is a big one for me, because the Medal of Honor is a HUGE deal! The MOH is the only thing that will cause a General to salute a Private (as he is actually saluting the medal, not necessarily the private wearing it). Many may not realize it, but POTUS is actually considered a MILITARY GRADE and position, hence why he is also known as Commander-in-Chief

-He, according to certain news sources, ignores the constitution with his appointment orders, and with attempts to pass certain bills into law. Of course, most of these same sources are VERY quick to point out that he was a "constitutional law professor" who hasn't written or done anything with that particular degree except for public/special interest work (which there is nothing wrong with that, I just wouldn't be proclaiming myself to be the ultimate expert on the subject unless I could back it up with volumes of work).


During his original campaign, every televised event that I saw (I was in Iraq at the time), from all sides of the news spectrum, I just felt that he was an overly smooth talker who could flower up his words without actually saying much of anything of real substance.

As I am watching the current debates, I can't help but feel something of a repeat, especially in regards to Romney. Watched the Myrtle Beach debates the other night, and I definitely feel that Romney didn't truly answer a single question. On the flip side, my faith in the candidate that I liked "most" of all of them (Ron Paul), seemed to talk a little TOO straight-forward, and he sort of ran on with much of what he was talking about.

sebster wrote:
People just keep on saying this, but no-one seems to actually think it ought to mean Gingrich would say smart things. Weird.

Its politics, saying smart things doesn't necessarily mean saying things that stand up to discerning scrutiny.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
-He, according to certain news sources, ignores the constitution with his appointment orders, and with attempts to pass certain bills into law. Of course, most of these same sources are VERY quick to point out that he was a "constitutional law professor" who hasn't written or done anything with that particular degree except for public/special interest work (which there is nothing wrong with that, I just wouldn't be proclaiming myself to be the ultimate expert on the subject unless I could back it up with volumes of work).

To be fair, even if he knows Con Law inside and out, that doesn't mean he has a material interest in being especially picky about respecting it.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
During his original campaign, every televised event that I saw (I was in Iraq at the time), from all sides of the news spectrum, I just felt that he was an overly smooth talker who could flower up his words without actually saying much of anything of real substance.

Welcome to politics.

So how bout that newt?

Cheating donkey-cave asks for open marriage,

"values" voters have huge problem with second part, completely ignore first part.

Rented Tritium wrote:So how bout that newt?

Cheating donkey-cave asks for open marriage,

"values" voters have huge problem with second part, completely ignore first part.

King got his ass kicked when he brought it up.

feth Newt. Politicians who cheat on their spouses should not be outraged when confronted with the fact by the media.

olympia wrote:feth Newt. Politicians who cheat on their spouses should not be outraged when confronted with the fact by the media.

-Real unemployment is about 15%.
-GDP growth does not generate enough employment for mere population growth.
-The deficit is in the trillions.
-We have open borders with a country that is in the middle of a defacto civil war with it spreading into the lower states now.
-We have the military in nearly every country outside of China and the Russia.
-Our educational system, infrastructure and ability to compete is crap.
-We can't build new refineries, new nuke generators, or even put windmills up because of regs and NIMBYism.
-China is growing. Iran is about to get The Bomb and is threatening the strait.
-Matty is in LA, messing with our Hollywood wimminz!


But yes, what an ex wife says about her former husband from 10 years ago is a big damn deal.

"I feel his pain."
-Bill Clinton, feeling his pain.

olympia wrote:feth Newt. Politicians who cheat on their spouses should not be outraged when confronted with the fact by the media.

But that's the thing, he's not being confronted about cheating. He's being confronted about asking for an open marriage. The cheating was known a decade ago and nobody batted an eye.

Frazzled wrote:

-Real unemployment is about 15%.
-GDP growth does not generate enough employment for mere population growth.
-The deficit is in the trillions.
-We have open borders with a country that is in the middle of a defacto civil war with it spreading into the lower states now.
-We have the military in nearly every country outside of China and the Russia.
-Our educational system, infrastructure and ability to compete is crap.
-We can't build new refineries, new nuke generators, or even put windmills up because of regs and NIMBYism.
-China is growing. Iran is about to get The Bomb and is threatening the strait.

Best stop them gays from marrying then ! .......

Rented Tritium wrote:

olympia wrote:feth Newt. Politicians who cheat on their spouses should not be outraged when confronted with the fact by the media.

But that's the thing, he's not being confronted about cheating. He's being confronted about asking for an open marriage. The cheating was known a decade ago and nobody batted an eye.

"Why didn't I think of that?"
-Bill Clinton


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
Best stop them gays from marrying then ! .......

In the words of the immortal SNL skit on marriage:
"Screw him. No one warned me."

Rented Tritium wrote:So how bout that newt?

Cheating donkey-cave asks for open marriage,

"values" voters have huge problem with second part, completely ignore first part.

Doesn't matter. As long as he continues to rant about the "mainstream media" every time it's brought up, he'll continue to score more points than he loses with the conservative base. That gak is like catnip for them.

I think "values voters" are idiots personally for that very same reason, they ignore what they want and believe they are "getting back to" a make-believe moral high-ground US history that never really existed in the first place, only in propaganda and revisionist histories.

dsteingass wrote:I think "values voters" are idiots personally for that very same reason, they ignore what they want and believe they are "getting back to" a make-believe moral high-ground US history that never really existed in the first place, only in propaganda and revisionist histories.

Actually, just like Gingrich, the evangelicals and other turbo-christians are hypocrites. Half of that audience applauding Newt were probably on their second or third marriage having gone through a first spouse in much the same way as Newt did.

olympia wrote:

dsteingass wrote:I think "values voters" are idiots personally for that very same reason, they ignore what they want and believe they are "getting back to" a make-believe moral high-ground US history that never really existed in the first place, only in propaganda and revisionist histories.

Actually, just like Gingrich, the evangelicals and other turbo-christians are hypocrites. Half of that audience applauding Newt were probably on their second or third marriage having gone through a first spouse in much the same way as Newt did.

In that case they wouldn't be hypocrites, if they are agreeing its not an issue.

Objectively it is an issue with their professed faith. Cognitive dissonance to get through the day I suppose.

olympia wrote:Objectively it is an issue with their professed faith. Cognitive dissonance to get through the day I suppose.

Er no. Unless of course you're saying all Republicans are part of the "values crowd," in which case what does that make the Democratic Party?

Newt knows EXACTLY what to say to get the votes from the conservative Evangelical Christians, it's the same basic rhetoric Dubya ran with to get elected. However in reality, his walk has always been more moderate than his talk.

He fully admits to the GOP identifying with the Pat Robertson types in the early to mid eighties to help the GOP remain viable. He is not a dumb man at all.

Frazzled wrote:
King got his ass kicked when he brought it up.

That's a good response in context (King isn't going to really come back at him.), but the obvious counter is "By introducing family values into the political sphere, you have necessarily subjected the personal lives of all Americans, yourself included, to scrutiny."

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
King got his ass kicked when he brought it up.

That's a good response in context (King isn't going to really come back at him.), but the obvious counter is "By introducing family values into the political sphere, you have necessarily subjected the personal lives of all Americans, yourself included, to scrutiny."

Agreed, if he, in fact, has done that. Merely being a member of the Republican Party and running for office does not do that.

Frazzled wrote:
-Our educational system, infrastructure and ability to compete is crap.

While the educational system has its problems, it isn't crap. Its still a top 10 system by most established ratings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Agreed, if he, in fact, has done that. Merely being a member of the Republican Party and running for office does not do that.

He has definitely run on family values in the past. The point of the response isn't attacking his present positions, but his past positions, and therefore characterizing him a flip-flopper, and part of the problem to which he is objecting.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
King got his ass kicked when he brought it up.

That's a good response in context (King isn't going to really come back at him.), but the obvious counter is "By introducing family values into the political sphere, you have necessarily subjected the personal lives of all Americans, yourself included, to scrutiny."

Agreed, if he, in fact, has done that. Merely being a member of the Republican Party and running for office does not do that.

You know we're talking about the guy who led the charge in denouncing Clinton for having an affair with a member of his staff, right? While he was having an affair with a member of his staff, no less.

Oh yeah, Newt was responsible for having him (technically) impeached.

PM sent check your mail