Newt Gingrich on the issues

[public servant]

 

[Mkidwe01]

If standing up for what I believe and calling out those who I believe do not understand how the work works, makes me a bully than so be it. But I am not surprised by that comment. Some people are afraid of a debate and want to bad mouth those that disagree.

I do have to give Rambone props, he stands up for what he believes in, even if I don't agree

 

[hornadylnl]

If standing up for what I believe and calling out those who I believe do not understand how the work works, makes me a bully than so be it. But I am not surprised by that comment. Some people are afraid of a debate and want to bad mouth those that disagree.

I do have to give Rambone props, he stands up for what he believes in, even if I don't agree

I have zero problem with debate. If someone posts something that isn't true, counter with the facts and let the readers decide. Accusing people of living in their mom's basement, being anarchists, etc is not debate but bullying in an attempt to silence posters.

 

[mrjarrell]

Back on the OP....we have a piece by Indiana's own, Radley Balko taking a look at one of the major reasons I will never cast a vote for Gingrich. His stance on the war on drugs is abominable and I have seen nothing to make me think that he's changed his stance on it. Executing people for having as little as 2 ounces of pot on them? Escalating a lost "war"? This stance alone, and it's intended and unintended consequences makes him unelectable. He wants to start a real war within the boundaries of this country, and if he thinks it wouldn't end in shooting he's insane. He's not what we need at this time, or any other time. He's a long time supporter of big government and has no intention of making things better.

Newt Gingrich, Drug Warrior Extraordinaire | The Agitator

 

[gunowner930]

Back on the OP....we have a piece by Indiana's own, Radley Balko taking a look at one of the major reasons I will never cast a vote for Gingrich. His stance on the war on drugs is abominable and I have seen nothing to make me think that he's changed his stance on it. Executing people for having as little as 2 ounces of pot on them? Escalating a lost "war"? This stance alone, and it's intended and unintended consequences makes him unelectable. He wants to start a real war within the boundaries of this country, and if he thinks it wouldn't end in shooting he's insane. He's not what we need at this time, or any other time. He's a long time supporter of big government and has no intention of making things better.

Newt Gingrich, Drug Warrior Extraordinaire | The Agitator

Depends on what the goal is. If you want a candidate that is truly anti-big government, there is only one viable choice. But if you want Obama gone in Jan 2013, Newt is not a bad pick because of his communication skills. He's very good in debates and would completely ragdoll Obama in debates.

I don't think Newt is unelectable based on his positions. Mitt Romney doesn't even have positions and he has been a "frontrunner" for a long time. Newt is probably the smoothest of the bunch. Most voters are not going to dig into his record like you and others have.

 

[mrjarrell]

Depends on what the goal is. If you want a candidate that is truly anti-big government, there is only one viable choice. But if you want Obama gone in Jan 2013, Newt is not a bad pick because of his communication skills. He's very good in debates and would completely ragdoll Obama in debates.

I don't think Newt is unelectable based on his positions. Mitt Romney doesn't even have positions and he has been a "frontrunner" for a long time. Newt is probably the smoothest of the bunch. Most voters are not going to dig into his record like you and others have.

Replacing Obama with Gingrich is a non starter. We'd certainly be worse off with a Gingrich presidency, if what we want is more freedom, smaller government and an end to government interference in our lives. I'd much rather see a flip flopper like Romney than Gingrich. Hell, I'd rather see a blithering idiot like Cain or Perry, than Gingrich. Gingrich would do more damage to us than Obama ever could.

 

[24Carat]

Gingrich would do more damage to us than Obama ever could.

That comment thoroughly excludes the author from any further serious consideration.

On the one hand you have an intact populace to temper any imaginary attempts to mold the "One World Government" scenario.

On the other you have a society steeped in anarchy and being fully focused on mere survival.

The comparison is sheer idiocy or simple sensationalism.

 

[mrjarrell]

That comment thoroughly excludes the author from any further serious consideration.

On the one hand you have an intact populace to temper any imaginary attempts to mold the "One World Government" scenario.

On the other you have a society steeped in anarchy and being fully focused on mere survival.

The comparison is sheer idiocy or simple sensationalism.

Not sure how you go to where you're at, but you're not making much sense. Gingrich is a big government lover and, given the chance to implement his war on drugs vision, would start a war on cops. We have much bigger problems facing us and he would make things infinitely worse. If you choose not to look at his words and "principles" and take the "anyone but Obama" stance, then you're putting your head in the sand. Better 4 more years of gridlock.

 

[24Carat]

Not sure how you go to where you're at, but you're not making much sense. Gingrich is a big government lover and, given the chance to implement his war on drugs vision, would start a war on cops. We have much bigger problems facing us and he would make things infinitely worse. If you choose not to look at his words and "principles" and take the "anyone but Obama" stance, then you're putting your head in the sand. Better 4 more years of gridlock.

Yep, gridlock works well until manipulation by inciting anarchy (where have we seen this?? Hmmmm) opens the door for Marshall Law (the President is the Supreme Military Leader) or use of a different legal construct, such as a "state of emergency" and two of the three branches of government are removed from the equation.

 

[spec4]

Regarding mrjarrel's comment on gridlock; we don't have gridlock. I define gridlock as nothing getting done. Unfortunately, Obama and his gang are getting things done to the detriment of all of us. Consider the stonewalling on "Fast and Furious", or the blocking of the pipeline from Canada, or the endless push to grow govt. I read that in his first two years, federal employee increased by 140,000. In the latest issue of American Rifleman, there is an article by LaPierre regarding Obama's desire to disarm us, interesting and scary read. IMO, while each GOP candidate has their shortcomings, these shortcomings pale in the spectre of Obama getting four more years. Folks, what will we have left?

 

[dross]

I would have been okay with four years of gridlock. It's the two years where we spent fifty years worth that bothers me.

 

[firehawk1]

Not sure how you go to where you're at, but you're not making much sense. Gingrich is a big government lover and, given the chance to implement his war on drugs vision, would start a war on cops. We have much bigger problems facing us and he would make things infinitely worse. If you choose not to look at his words and "principles" and take the "anyone but Obama" stance, then you're putting your head in the sand. Better 4 more years of gridlock.

We have MUCH more pressing problems other than whether we can have a few ounces of pot or not. Legalizing what is now considered a drug is something that shouldn't even be on the stove, let alone on the back burner. Surely to God THAT issue isn't a concern of your's at this time.

As other's have stated, we don't have gridlock. By Executive Order Obama is doing an end around Congress. First and foremost OBAMA has to go. He is bankrupting us at record speed. By continuing on the present course, with the present occupier of the White House, worrying about being able to smoke weed would be the least of our worries.

We have much bigger fish to fry.

 

[24Carat]

We have MUCH more pressing problems other than whether we can have a few ounces of pot or not. Legalizing what is now considered a drug is something that shouldn't even be on the stove, let alone on the back burner. Surely to God THAT issue isn't a concern of your's at this time.

As other's have stated, we don't have gridlock. By Executive Order Obama is doing an end around Congress. First and foremost OBAMA has to go. He is bankrupting us at record speed. By continuing on the present course, with the present occupier of the White House, worrying about being able to smoke weed would be the least of our worries.

We have much bigger fish to fry.

When you throw in the "second term administration" mentality the prospects become absolutely haunting.

 

[rambone]

Chairman Newt on drug policy

Its more than just disagreeing with prohibition laws. Newt actually wants to take the "Drug War" to totalitarian levels. Executing people for carrying contraband?! For plants?! No way Newt. Quit trying to emulate China.

 

[mrjarrell]

We have MUCH more pressing problems other than whether we can have a few ounces of pot or not. Legalizing what is now considered a drug is something that shouldn't even be on the stove, let alone on the back burner. Surely to God THAT issue isn't a concern of your's at this time.
We have much bigger fish to fry.

This isn't about legalisation, which you would have known had you read the article. This is about a candidate who wants to murder people for having small amounts of pot on them and imprisoning others with even smaller amounts. We do have bigger fish to fry and Newt isn't the one we need to be at the fryer. He's the worst sort of drug warrior and not who we need at the helm. His history shows he's all about bigger government, not smaller and spending less. If you're good with that, then vote for the maniac.

 

[rn7554]

I'd rather Obama in the office than this idiot. Ron Paul 2012.

 

[firehawk1]

This isn't about legalisation, which you would have known had you read the article. This is about a candidate who wants to murder people for having small amounts of pot on them and imprisoning others with even smaller amounts. We do have bigger fish to fry and Newt isn't the one we need to be at the fryer. He's the worst sort of drug warrior and not who we need at the helm. His history shows he's all about bigger government, not smaller and spending less. If you're good with that, then vote for the maniac.

Sorry hyperbole, no where did I read "murdering" people for SMALL amounts of contraband. He was referring to MAJOR importers of (as of right now) illegal drugs. Not even saying that is the correct way to deal with it either, but again, no where did I read he wanted to murder people for small amounts of contraband.

Just a little over the top I think....

 

[rambone]

LOL. Wow.


Newt Gingrich's Hypocrisy

In a blockbuster story this week, Bloomberg News revealed that Newt Gingrich’s business received between 1.6 and 1.8 million in consulting fees from Freddie Mac, the quasi-federal government mortgage lender. According to spokespeople at Freddie Mac, Gingrich’s role was to try to win over support for Freddie Mac among Conservatives. While Gingrich was receiving the money, he was also railing against Freddie Mac publicly, and even suggested recently that Congressman Barney Frank should be arrested because of his close lobbying connections at Freddie Mac.

As the Monica Lewinsky scandal was unfolding during the Clinton Presidency, Gingrich was one of the most outspoken critics of President Clinton. Later, we discovered that while Gingrich was criticizing Clinton for his immoral behavior with Lewinsky, he was having his own affair with one of his staffers, a woman he later married.
Advertisement

Newt Gingrich has been one of the most vocal critics of Obamacare, but as Mitt Romney pointed out in a recent Republican debate, Gingrich was in favor of the most controversial aspect of Obamacare, the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

He made these statements one month before it became public that he was also lobbying for Freddy Mac.

Gingrich Swings Hard: THROW BARNEY FRANK IN PRISON

Newt Gingrich: "If they want to change things, the first thing to do is fire Bernanke, who is a disaster as chairman of the Federal Reserve. The second person to fire is Geithner. The fact is, in both the Bush and the Obama administrations the fix has been in. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to be angry. But let's be clear about who put the fix in. The fix was put in by the federal government. If you want to put people in jail, I want to second what Michele said, you ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. And let's look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment and the politicians who put this country in trouble."

Charlie Rose, moderator: "Clearly, you're not saying they should go to jail?"

Gingrich: "Well, in Chris Dodd's case, go back to look at the Countryside deals. In Barney Frank's case, go back and look at the lobbyist who was close to Freddie Mac. All I'm saying is, everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who were at the heart of the sickness which is weakening this country and ought to start with Bernanke, who still has not been exposed for the hundreds of billions of dollars."

 

[KG1]

It almost seems to me like Gingrich is running for POTUS just to try and point out how screwed up the country is if you are even willing to consider someone like him with the kind of baggage he's carrying.

Romney has baggage too but compared to Newt his looks more like a carry on bag as opposed to a whole cargo hold full.

 

[Pocketman]

This "anyone but Romney" is a circus.