Newt Gingrich

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Gingrich is a scumbag posing as a conservative with family values. I think his second wife had cancer and he was out fooling around on her.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Gingrich is a scumbag posing as a conservative with family values. I think his second wife had cancer and he was out fooling around on her.

Would it be better to have no values at all, or to be human and err on occasion? I have alot of respect for Newt, certainly he is not perfect, who is????? If you heard a speech of his, you would know that this man thinks outside the box on a number of ideas, particularly EDUCATION (such as paying schoolkids for good grades in science and math). He is not just a partisan thinker, he has large ideas about what the US could be doing in several important arenas. To simply dismiss him because of an indescretion (hell, several of the apostles screwed up also, if u remember), would be a mistake.

 

[lattedatte]

Would it be better to have no values at all, or to be human and err on occasion? I have alot of respect for Newt, certainly he is not perfect, who is????? If you heard a speech of his, you would know that this man thinks outside the box on a number of ideas, particularly EDUCATION (such as paying schoolkids for good grades in science and math). He is not just a partisan thinker, he has large ideas about what the US could be doing in several important arenas. To simply dismiss him because of an indescretion (hell, several of the apostles screwed up also, if u remember), would be a mistake.

you just sounded like every democrat in the late 90's only change a couple words, replace education with welfare, etc., we have come full circle.

I agree with your last sentence 100%.

 

[onenybrother]

They all are scumbags. I just vote on the one who stink's the less.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Hard to argue with that, onenybrother. Although some of the basic principles of each party are very different. The time to limit the scumbags is during the primaries, while most people vote their party in the general election because of the desire to promote agendas important to them. If I feel less government is best, lower taxes helps the economy, traditional judges instead of more left-leaning ones, having a strong military instead of downsizing, I'm probably going to vote republican unless he/she is the devil incarnate. I guess it all depends on what is important in each person's life.
What I can't stand, is the nasty political process where people feel its necessary to tear down people on the other side to promote themselves. Most people on both sides of the spectrum agree with that, it's just hard to get the media, politicians, and interest groups to go along with that.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

But to cheat on your wife who has cancer is pretty low. If thats how he treats his own wife, what is he doing behind the backs of his constituents?

 

[lattedatte]

Hard to argue with that, onenybrother. Although some of the basic principles of each party are very different. The time to limit the scumbags is during the primaries, while most people vote their party in the general election because of the desire to promote agendas important to them. If I feel less government is best, lower taxes helps the economy, traditional judges instead of more left-leaning ones, having a strong military instead of downsizing, I'm probably going to vote republican unless he/she is the devil incarnate. I guess it all depends on what is important in each person's life.
What I can't stand, is the nasty political process where people feel its necessary to tear down people on the other side to promote themselves. Most people on both sides of the spectrum agree with that, it's just hard to get the media, politicians, and interest groups to go along with that.

Now that we agree that both sides are a bunch hypocrites. What are you going to do if Guliani gets the nod? He is quite liberal on his domestic social issue. he also has quite an interesting history with women, makes Clinton look like a semi-prude. I kind of like him the best right now, I think he'll tell the religious right to go suck it, just like my favorite politician of all time, barry goldwater.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Gingrich is a scumbag posing as a conservative with family values. I think his second wife had cancer and he was out fooling around on her.

He served her papers while she was recovering in the hospital.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

you just sounded like every democrat in the late 90's only change a couple words, replace education with welfare, etc., we have come full circle.

I agree with your last sentence 100%.

I agree as well...

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

If I feel less government is best, lower taxes helps the economy, traditional judges instead of more left-leaning ones, having a strong military instead of downsizing,

OK, so you say that you care most about:
1) Less government
2) Lower taxes
3) right leaning judges
4) Strong military

So you vote Republican?

1) Republicans have grown government more than anyone in the last 20 years.
2) True, they have lowered taxes, but they keep spending so really your taxes are not being lowered, YOUR debt is increasing
3) You don't want traditional judges, you want right leaning ones...ok, I will give you this one
4) Strong military? Ummm...have you watched what the Republicans have done for our men and women these past 6 years? Honestly. Over-extended on deployments, called up multiple times, military not trying to be grown, lack of equipment, lack of people, lack of money, Walter Reed, humvee armor, etc. Republicans have PROVEN conclusively these past 6 years that their statements about a strong military are lies. Not even exagerations...but LIES.

I watched as my friends and colleagues went over and served proudly in Afghanistan and Baghdad. THEY WOULD DO IT AGAIN TOO. But, even the most conservative of them HATES the way the military has been treated these past 6 years. Faster, lighter, cheaper...that's the Bush-Rumsfeld model. And military people are paying for it with their lives.

Now, the interesting thing is that all my buddies are officers. Non are enlisted. I have heard the enlisted types are a bit happier. But the officers in charge are fully aware of the skimping, etc.

ANYHOW... If you truly believe in those 4 things above, you should be voting Libertarian, not Republican.

 

[marv81s]

Lies??

Disagree. Let's talk about why they are having to deploy longer, rely on reservist more. Back when I was in there was a certain president that, while spending more on military technology, was reducing and cutting cost on manpower. That president cut more troops, closed more bases, and decommissoined more miltary equipment that add all those together it would be enough manpower and equipment to provide an army to a small country. Thanks to that shit, we are now in the predictment that our troops are in now. I saw some great guys be denied re-enlistment back in those days.

Lets not blame our current conditions totally on Bush. Plenty of blame to go around. Can't blame conditions at Walter Reed on Republicans either, conditions at Veterans hospitals have been shit for years.

Dems have proven time and time again that they are anti military more than Republicans. Look at most of the voting records of Dems when it comes to military voting maters and statements that they make.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Lies??

Disagree. Let's talk about why they are having to deploy longer, rely on reservist more. Back when I was in there was a certain president that, while spending more on military technology, was reducing and cutting cost on manpower. That president cut more troops, closed more bases, and decommissoined more miltary equipment that add all those together it would be enough manpower and equipment to provide an army to a small country. Thanks to that shit, we are now in the predictment that our troops are in now. I saw some great guys be denied re-enlistment back in those days.

Lets not blame our current conditions totally on Bush. Plenty of blame to go around. Can't blame conditions at Walter Reed on Republicans either, conditions at Veterans hospitals have been shit for years.

Dems have proven time and time again that they are anti military more than Republicans. Look at most of the voting records of Dems when it comes to military voting maters and statements that they make.

I agree that Clinton cut back. No argument there.

HOWEVER, Stonebreaker was talking about Republicans. And in the last 6 years of controlling government they STARTED A WAR and did not adjust to that reality. Hence the problems we encountered in Walter Reed (which is overwhelmed), or getting supplies to troops (which get rejected for $$$ reasons), or increasing active duty rolls (which have barely changed).

And notice I did not tell him to vote Dem...I told him to vote Libertarian.

But the Republicans have failed the military UTTERLY.

You cannot take a reduced peacetime force and expect them to be able to wage a war without increasing funding, men, infrastructure, and giving them what they need in general. They have been denied this time and time again these last 4 years (since the war started).

Cutting forces and funding during peacetime is not nearly as bad as keeping funding and forces low during war time.

The relationship between the Republicans in power now and the military is like a dysfuntional wife-beating relationship.

The more the Republicans mistreat the military the more the military loves them. (although that seems to be changing a bit recently)

 

[marv81s]

agreed for the most part.

To me, it all comes down to the planning, and that is where the disappointment, for me, lies the deepest.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Now that we agree that both sides are a bunch hypocrites. What are you going to do if Guliani gets the nod? He is quite liberal on his domestic social issue. he also has quite an interesting history with women, makes Clinton look like a semi-prude. I kind of like him the best right now, I think he'll tell the religious right to go suck it, just like my favorite politician of all time, barry goldwater.

Look, the man who took down the mob, cleaned up NYC, and was resolute after 9-11 going to run. I'll gladly vote for him over ANYONE. It is actually not about prolife views, and we understand the weakness of man (its why we go to confession). He is a great leader, unlike most of the other running mates. No slam on Hilary, Kerry, Edwards, but what have they ever run?? Or even, what great legislation have they led to passage?
People, even dems, still respect Rudy (gotta luv that!) in new york.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

agreed for the most part.

To me, it all comes down to the planning, and that is where the disappointment, for me, lies the deepest.

Yup...the planning was done assuming everything went perfectly and according to plan. After all, they will greet us as liberators right?

What hacks me off the most is the way they denied requests from the front lines. Like Humvee armor. My former boss was the XO at a base in Baghdad...he had been ordering that armor for over 6 months. Then finally that Sgt stood up and asked Rumsfeld why they could not have it. That one incidient got them the armor they needed so desperately.

However, it was a PR move, nothing more. That's how this whole thing is being run. "Squeaky wheels get oiled." It's sad and wrong.

I can't say how the Dems or Libs would have done in this case, but the fact remains I DO KNOW how the Republicans did...their actions speak louder than their words.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (Walter Reed)
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (body armor)
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (armored humvees)
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (enjoy your 3rd deployment)
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (no, you may not have enough troops to secure Iraq)
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (let me cut military family housing budgets)

Just a few examples...

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Look, the man who took down the mob, cleaned up NYC, and was resolute after 9-11 going to run. I'll gladly vote for him over ANYONE. It is actually not about prolife views, and we understand the weakness of man (its why we go to confession). He is a great leader, unlike most of the other running mates. No slam on Hilary, Kerry, Edwards, but what have they ever run?? Or even, what great legislation have they led to passage?
People, even dems, still respect Rudy (gotta luv that!) in new york.

- His actions cleaning up the mob are tremendous.
- Cleaning up NYC? I give him 50% on that, since a LOT was due to his police chief who was amazing...but Giuliani DID HIRE HIM...so that speaks well for Rudy's ability to choose some good folks.
- 9-11? Hmmm...I have struggled with this one. He was resolute in the face of a disaster...but I cannot say his actions shocked me. He was simply a good New Yorker that day.

No one is perfect though and out of all the Republican candidates Giuliani is head and shoulders above them all.

 

[cclanofirish]

But to cheat on your wife who has cancer is pretty low. If thats how he treats his own wife, what is he doing behind the backs of his constituents?

Ill agree with you on that.....that is completely and utterly SCREWED up.

 

[cclanofirish]

- His actions cleaning up the mob are tremendous.
- Cleaning up NYC? I give him 50% on that, since a LOT was due to his police chief who was amazing...but Giuliani DID HIRE HIM...so that speaks well for Rudy's ability to choose some good folks.
- 9-11? Hmmm...I have struggled with this one. He was resolute in the face of a disaster...but I cannot say his actions shocked me. He was simply a good New Yorker that day.

No one is perfect though and out of all the Republican candidates Giuliani is head and shoulders above them all.

No one person can clean up the mob and crime. The fact that he hired the people he did to affect change in New York is what makes him a good leader. The best anyone can do is to hire people who will passionately go about changing things for the better.

 

[cclanofirish]

Never said they were good...just said it never got better when government changed hands.

As long as politicians have power and can get more money, they will always find a way to "fool" us peons.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

No one person can clean up the mob and crime. The fact that he hired the people he did to affect change in New York is what makes him a good leader. The best anyone can do is to hire people who will passionately go about changing things for the better.

I agree.

However, the mob thing is important.

You see, he could not do it on his own...this is true. But the courage it took to do it speaks highly of him.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Yup...the planning was done assuming everything went perfectly and according to plan. After all, they will greet us as liberators right?

What hacks me off the most is the way they denied requests from the front lines. Like Humvee armor. My former boss was the XO at a base in Baghdad...he had been ordering that armor for over 6 months. Then finally that Sgt stood up and asked Rumsfeld why they could not have it. That one incidient got them the armor they needed so desperately.

However, it was a PR move, nothing more. That's how this whole thing is being run. "Squeaky wheels get oiled." It's sad and wrong.

I can't say how the Dems or Libs would have done in this case, but the fact remains I DO KNOW how the Republicans did...their actions speak louder than their words.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (Walter Reed)
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (body armor)
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (armored humvees)
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (enjoy your 3rd deployment)
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (no, you may not have enough troops to secure Iraq)
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! (let me cut military family housing budgets)

Just a few examples...

There is a limited amount of money in the budget, you know. My brother, being a budget officer at the pentagon, knows that tough choices need to made every month as to what gets funded and what doesn't.

 

[marv81s]

In the first gulf war, the Hummers we drove were in the same shape as some of the ones now, we had ZERO armor.

Is it bullshit, absolutely, but its all part of that budget for defense. Only want to fund so much, and bombs, fuel, ammo and weapons get the larger part of it. Does that make it right, hell no, we bitched then, but we weren't facing IEDs back then either, let alone IEDs with armor piercing capability like what Iran is supplying now.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

It seems to me that requirements change frequently in times of war. Think of all the things that were needed at the outset of WWII and Korea. Hell, our guys didn't have good winter clothes or boots in either of them. It's easy to criticize an administration, but for some, it's all they want to do. Ignore the successes, and highlight the negatives.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

There is a limited amount of money in the budget, you know. My brother, being a budget officer at the pentagon, knows that tough choices need to made every month as to what gets funded and what doesn't.

Sure there is limited budget...but let's talk about Budget for a moment shall we?

Remember that infamous $87 Billion supplemental war bill???

I would like to know why $55Million of it was allocated BY CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA) for an AMAZON RAIN FOREST BIO-DOME in Iowa.

That is only ONE of the many DOZENS of allocations that REPUBLICANS made using that bill. All were for use in the US for NON-military purposes. $10 Million for a fish hatchery in Tennessee. No problem...done.

All of this came from the SUPPLEMENTAL WAR BILL.

These were not Democrats messing with money allocated for the military...

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

In the first gulf war, the Hummers we drove were in the same shape as some of the ones now, we had ZERO armor.

Is it bullshit, absolutely, but its all part of that budget for defense. Only want to fund so much, and bombs, fuel, ammo and weapons get the larger part of it. Does that make it right, hell no, we bitched then, but we weren't facing IEDs back then either, let alone IEDs with armor piercing capability like what Iran is supplying now.

This is exactly it though. Back in Gulf I over half the bill was footed by our allies. This time we tried to do it on the cheap. And that is criminal to do to our men and women in the field.

I am not talking about gold plated Hummers, I am talking about getting them guns.

Does everyone here realize that many who were sent over were sent with too few guns? Literally men were sent into the field without arms. In the first 6 months of occupation MANY American soliders were carrying AKs because the Army did not have enough Rifles to go around. And soliders who were in harms way were not issued them due to COST.

It's just criminal...

Remember when they asked Rumsfeld about the armored Humvees. He responded that they were ordering as many as they could get. The ONE manufacturer of the armor responded "I have had no orders in months."

Rumsfeld lied. And then when ALL these things happen on his watch he shrugs and says it's not his fault.

There will be a special place in hell reserved for him.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

It seems to me that requirements change frequently in times of war. Think of all the things that were needed at the outset of WWII and Korea. Hell, our guys didn't have good winter clothes or boots in either of them. It's easy to criticize an administration, but for some, it's all they want to do. Ignore the successes, and highlight the negatives.

In WWII we mobilized MILLIONS of troops. Drafted people. Increased the size of the army, etc.

This time around we knew how many we were sending, where, when, etc. And they were DENIED what they needed because it was determined at the very highest levels of the pentagon that ground commanders did not know what they needed as much as the fucking paper pushers in Washington.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Are we done with the rant yet? I wouldn't call anybody who works to defend our country something beginning with F.... Those are smart, dedicated people who work a hell of a lot more than I do, Sundays included. I don't mind criticism, but when it is ALL criticism, I start losing interest. If republicans can do no right, why even try to have a discussion?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Are we done with the rant yet? I wouldn't call anybody who works to defend our country something beginning with F....

Not done I suspect. When any of the pencil pushers in Washington think they know better than commanders or leaders on the ground, I want them out...removed...eliminated. The job of the Pentagon is to ensure that men and women who defend us get the equipment they need. When they determine that people in Baghdad don't need guns, when the commanders say they do THEY ARE NOT HELPING DEFEND AMERICA.

Those are smart, dedicated people who work a hell of a lot more than I do, Sundays included.

Working hard and making bad decisions is not a good thing, I cannot commend that.

I don't mind criticism, but when it is ALL criticism, I start losing interest. If republicans can do no right, why even try to have a discussion?

Some Republicans can do right...and over the last few years some have tried...only to be told to shut up and back off. Those leading the charge these last 6 years need to be removed. November 7th was the first step. But the next step is for the true conservatives in the Republican party to stand up and take back their party...to push for what matters most to them:
1) Strong defense
2) Balanced Budgets
3) Fairness of opportunity
4) Reduced Government Spending (and eventually lower taxes)
5) Honesty & Integrity
7) Pro-Life

Right now, the Republicans are only trying to push for #6. And that is why they were unelected last November. It's a wake up call from the people that neo-conservatism is a failure and that a return to conservatism is WANTED by the people.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Rumsfeld has been trying to streamline all the redtape in order to allow the streamling of acquistions and the hiring of federal employees. There was a process in place that made if difficult to act quickly, on many fronts.

If we are going to nitpick every single "disaster" in Iraq, fine. To this day, however, the mother of all F.U.'s belongs to the somalia "humanitarian tour" when our troops had NO tanks at its ready disposal. Great call!
Btw-hummers were never intended to be used in the environ that they operate now. Things change in war, why expect the other side to cooperate. It just seems that politicians and other people who don't give a crap about our troops find it CONVENIENT to badmouth the administration on issues like this. When did we expect wars to go perfectly anyway?????????????????????????

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Rumsfeld has been trying to streamline all the redtape in order to allow the streamling of acquistions and the hiring of federal employees. There was a process in place that made if difficult to act quickly, on many fronts.

Iraq? What about Afghanistan? Don't forget that fuck up.

Rumsfeld has been the worst SecDef since McNamara.

To this day, however, the mother of all F.U.'s belongs to the somalia "humanitarian tour" when our troops had NO tanks at its ready disposal. Great call!

That is precisely why people like Rumsfeld and Les Aspin should never be in those jobs.

Btw-hummers were never intended to be used in the environ that they operate now.

But when commanders on the ground have a way to fight better, why deny them that? We are not talking about Hundreds of Billions of dollars here.

We are not talking about buying AMAZON RAIN FOREST BIO DOMES. We are talking about simple armor for vehicles.

It just seems that politicians and other people who don't give a crap about our troops find it CONVENIENT to badmouth the administration on issues like this. When did we expect wars to go perfectly anyway?????????????????????????

It's not about whether it goes bad and nitpicking. We are talking about a consistent pattern of behvior where the Pentagon overrules commanders on the ground about simple things.

Rumsefeld is McNamara - Round 2.