The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: fightingquaker13 on November 30, 2011, 01:34:31 PM
-
I have rarely read a quote that so catured a politician in my life, but then, Maureen Dowd makes the big bucks for a reason. Love Newt or hate him, she is not wrong. ;D
"As one commentator astutely noted, Gingrich is a historian and a futurist who can’t seem to handle the present. He has more exploding cigars in his pocket than the president with whom he had the volatile bromance: Bill Clinton."
M. Dowd
Here is the whole column from the NYT 11/30/11. It really is a must read on Newt. It is devestating, and every word true. Funny, but true. ;D Of course I'll stil vote for him, but its a lot of reasons to beat your head against the wall while doing so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/opinion/my-man-newt.html?_r=1&hp
-
Dowd and truth have very little in common. When she hits on something, think "Broken Clock Syndrome".
And she makes big bucks from the uber-liberal NYT cuz she so willingly strokes the uber-liberal mindset so well. Nothing more.
Stop making it so easy, FQ. Time was, you actually used to make us think. Now? Not so much?
-
Dowd and truth have very little in common. When she hits on something, think "Broken Clock Syndrome".
She's not running for President. He is, and she is not wrong about a word in that article. The only difference between her and us is that she is laughing because its true, and we are crying in our beer for the same reason. :-\
FQ13
-
Maureen Dowd is an extremely bright twit and the NYT hasn't printed the truth about anything in some time!
-
Maureen Dowd is an extremely bright twit and the NYT hasn't printed the truth about anything in some time!
That was just giving her too much credit.
-
The fact that FQ rads this leftist rag explains a lot about some of his dumber political opinions.
-
You know what I find amusing? Its the fact that four of you have offered an ad hominem attack on either myself, Maureen Dowd or the New York Times. Yet not a single one of you has refuted, much less disagreed with a single word she wrote. That seems rather telling. It should also scare the crap out of you if Newt becomes the noinee, because if you guys are any indication of how conservatives will respond to people saying true things about Newt, eg trying to smear them rather than offering arguments or refutations, then we have a problem in November. Seriously guys, shouting "She's a LIBERAL!" or yelling "MAINSTREAM MEDIA" just doesn't cut it with anyone anymore. We need to better. Step one is finding a real candidate.
FQ13
-
It sounds like you just found your new set of gloves.. You sound pretty comfortable slipping your hands in Maureen Dowd's bucket of slime du jour..
It's a shame that bunch you seem so loyal to isn't half as loyal to you..
November 27, 2011, 11:34 pm
The Future of the Obama Coalition
By THOMAS B. EDSALL
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.
All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/
I know how you feel.. Ann Coulter talks about 2A rights and then screams for Chris Christie to run for Pres.. We lost Jesse Helms on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and South Carolina replaces him with Gomer Pyle.. We've got some knuckleheads on the right, to be sure.
I'd like to leave you with a thought though..
When you go "Rah Rah" for Dowd for hoping to stick Gingrich's nose in it.
You go "Rah Rah" just as loudly for Edsall too..
Kinda seems like between the two, it kinda sucks to be you..
When the left rears up and says "Screw You!" to the conservatives of the nation, just remember that they're saying "Screw You" too..
Joe
-
Maureen Dowd or the New York Times. Yet not a single one of you has refuted, much less disagreed with a single word she wrote. That seems rather telling.
FQ13
It's because I didn't read it FQ. I used to listen to her ridiculous diatribe every morning going to work on Imus. As I said, she writes well but her opinions are meaningless to me. I've never in my life read the NYT and haven't read a newspaper in thirty years. I make all my news up in my head, it's more believable that way!
You still consider Politics as a Science! I consider it bullshit covered in chocolate with jimmies and sprinkles...
-
Santahog, I'm not cheering her, much less edall (either Edsall). I'm just saying she is right, and you take truth where you find it. Don't lump me in with an agenda because you don't like what you hear. And by the way, you're the fifth guy with an ad hominem attack, and not a word of refutation. ;D
FQ13 who is getting worried about November if this is the best conservatives can do ;)
-
Easy to refute a liberal hag like Dowd. The first paragraph is all Dem talking points,....Irrelevant.
Here's one.
FTA
Gingrich has excoriated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for dragging the country into a financial spiral and now demands that Freddie Mac be broken up. But it turns out that he was on contract with Freddie for six years and paid $1.6 million to $1.8 million (yacht trips and Tiffany’s bling for everyone!) to help the company strategize about how to soften up critical conservatives and stay alive.
In 2006, the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight office reported Democratic Party operatives James Johnson and Franklin Raines earned millions – Johnson earning roughly $100 million as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991-1998 and Raines earning more than $90 million as Fannie Mae CEO from 1999-2005 – after manipulating accounting.
Google who else was paid MUCH MORE than Newt.... All the MILLIONS paid to consultants, and F&F needs another bailout?
All the while Bawney Fwank said all is well. Even GWB saw the red flags of F&F.
Newt bought jewelry for his wife with his own money!!!!! (The Horror!!!)...
The rest of the article is Rampant blather from the Head Bit** In Charge of the NY Times...(not worth lining my bird cage)...
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/YT03MDAmYj02MDAmYz1BdmVuaXImZD05NiZlPTQ0JmY9I2MxYmVhMiZnPSNjMTBjMDYmaD1RVUFLRVImaT1QVVQgRE9XTiZqPVRIRSZrPUtPT0wtQUlEJmw9Jm09Y191c2FmbGFnLnBu.jpg)
;D
-
Now that's funny right there TW!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
What koolaid? I said I'd vote for the guy. But you prove my point TW. You are saying:
Newt took ONLY 1.6 MILLION FREAKING US DOLLARS from Freddie, while some Democrats (who aren't running for President) took ten times that. And isn't Dowd a bitch for pointing that inconvient fact out? She's a liberal!, and how dare you quote her? By God, she commited truth on one of own, the nerve of that commie! Get a rope! ::) ::)
Am I making my point here? If the best you can do is say: "The other guy is a bigger crook" or engage in trying to smear the people who call your guy on their BS, when those people are telling truth, You (we) have a problem, because that is not a winning campaign strategy. If you don't recognize that simple fact guys, I'm not the one who needs to step away from the koolaid, because this is just reality right there. And until you realize that just getting pissed at people who say true stuff you don't want to hear isn't a wining campaign strategy you might as well rehire Bob Dole's campaign staff and try to sell Romney/Palin 2012. :P
FQ13
-
Newt wasn't entertaining a run for POTUS at the time. I not proving your "gotcha" point at all.
The Libs are scared that the voters are pissed and going to hand them a new ass this Nov. They damn sure won't get the House Back, and will Likely lose the Senate...
Another brain child Debbie Wasserman Schultz, says Marco Rubio doesn't relate to Hispanics???? :o
Certainly part of the Lib brain trust...
-
Admit it FQ. You post this kind of crap in order to get this response from the forum because you love a debate and it's what you've been trained to do, correct?
Find another candidate to put your support behind that is better, from any side, than the two or three remaining contenders, please!
Give us a reason to support them instead of posting liberal hogwash from rags that haven't checked a fact in years!
The problem is, you can't, and you find humor in these little arguments. I'm at best a little "c" conservative because I just want the government to leave me the hell alone and stop making laws that only serve to protect no one!
I'm not the type to work for the campaign of a liberal socialist purely to make money but I recall that you considered it! Decide what team you're on Johnny boy!
-
I want to add this.
Regardless of whom we rally behind, our one combined effort is to get the man in the White House into the unemployment line.
We have at least four SCOTUS Justices over 70 years of age. Obama could possibly get a chance to put four liberal sacks-o-crazy socialists in the Supreme Court if he's reelected. We're one heartbeat (or lack thereof) away from that happening. This would change the face of our society for the next forty years!
We cannot let that happen under any circumstance!
Find some common ground, get behind whomever is the candidate and drag your dead uncle to the polls to get them to cast a ballot.
It's that important!
-
Another hypocritical point is every Republican Candidate gets a media anal probe,...The Washington Post is now soliciting for those with the dirt on Newt.
Yet, what do we know about BHO? College records? Former teachers? Former girlfriends? Former classmates? We know he voted present in Ill. ALOT. We know he associated with known domestic terrorists and racist preachers.
His brother lives in a box, and he has at least two illegal immigrant relatives that got in trouble. Other than that,....what else? A xerox copy of a copy of a birth certificate?
They had folk dumpster diving in Alaska for dirt on Palin, and bitch** like Dowd, called BHO the Messiah.
Why don't you post Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews rant last week admitting BHO is failing. He's telling the truth too.
-
Another hypocritical point is every Republican Candidate gets a media anal probe,...The Washington Post is now soliciting for those with the dirt on Newt.
Yet, what do we know about BHO? College records? Former teachers? Former girlfriends? Former classmates? We know he voted present in Ill. ALOT. We know he associated with known domestic terrorists and racist preachers.
His brother lives in a box, and he has at least two illegal immigrant relatives that got in trouble. Other than that,....what else? A xerox copy of a copy of a birth certificate?
They had folk dumpster diving in Alaska for dirt on Palin, and bitch** like Dowd, called BHO the Messiah.
Why don't you post Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews rant last week admitting BHO is failing. He's telling the truth too.
Where is the "thunderous applause" icon when you need it...
;)
-
Newt is by far the most intelligent person running. If not for Newt, the Republican Revolution would never have happened. I, for one, will be proud to vote for Newt!
-
The NYT has been a proven communist propaganda rag since Walter Durante managed to miss the Ukrainian famine in the 20's.
The reason it's been loosing money for decades is that no one reads it for anything but sports and the crossword puzzle.
The fact that the tag "Liberal" or "mainstream media" are used in a derogatory manner a lot does not detract from the truth of the statement.
In FQ's mind the fact that the R's resist everything the dems propose does not mean they hold opposing views, it means they are "the Party of NO".
He can not grasp that all the Dems proposals are provably bad.
Another lesson in the dangers of college education versus actually thinking.
Another thing, FQ accuses us of "ad hominem" attacks, but they are not.
Ad hominem attacks need to be inaccurate or unjustified. The fact is that reading politics or gun news in the NYT is quite similar to believing the Alien stories in Weekly World News.
-
The lizard wants to be fuhrer.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/24/showdown-at-neocon-central/
Showdown at Neocon Central
Newt Gingrich vs. Ron Paul
by Justin Raimondo, November 25, 2011
| Print This | Share This | Antiwar Forum
The Republican "national security" debate sponsored by Neocon Central the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation captured perfectly the intellectual and political bankruptcy of the Republican party when it comes to foreign policy. Here the party’s pandering demagoguery, reflexive ultra-nationalism, and visceral hostility to liberty was on full display in all its exhibitionistic belligerence. It was only natural, therefore, that the first question was asked by disgraced former US Attorney General Edwin Meese, who was forced to resign as Reagan’s AG as a result of his complicity in obtaining big defense contracts for a phony "minority"-owned company. Here is his "question":
"At least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the United States have been thwarted since 9/11. Tools like the Patriot Act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorists. Shouldn’t we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act so that our law enforcement officers can have the tools that they need?"
What a set up for Newt Gingrich! And he certainly took advantage of it: naturally he was given the first answer –with poor Herman Cain having outlived his usefulness and been unceremoniously dumped, Newt is the "mainstream" media’s new darling. That’s because he can always be counted on to reiterate the neocons’ favorite talking points, and on this occasion he did not disappoint:
"BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, only this weekend there was an alleged terror plot uncovered in New York City. What do you think?
"GINGRICH: Well, I think that Attorney General Meese has raised a key point, and the key distinction for the American people to recognize is the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements.
"I think it’s desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty, if it’s a matter of criminal law. But if you’re trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city, I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence.
"The Patriot Act has clearly been a key part of that. And I think looking at it carefully and extending it and building an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives. This is not going to end in the short run. And we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from those who, if they could, would not just kill us individually, but would take out entire cities."
In less than 200 words, Newt managed the wholesale bifurcation of American law into two parallel tracks, one that acknowledges how "desperately important" it is to "preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty," and the other which recognizes no such necessity – and, in fact, negates it.
Oh, isn’t he glib – isn’t he clever? With a mere sleight of hand he has obviated the Constitution and upended the legal and moral traditions of two hundred years. What an achievement! He smiles a greasy, easy grin, well-pleased with himself. The audience dutifully applauds.
"I’ve spent years studying this stuff," he adds, and one could well believe he had indeed spent years learning how to start out with a libertarian premise – "It’s desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty" – and coming out the other end with a purely authoritarian conclusion. This, as I’ve pointed out in the past, is Bizarro Conservatism – a doctrine that preaches the precise opposite of what the traditional "less government," pro-individual rights conservatives used to believe.
Newt’s clash with Ron Paul over this issue defined the parameters of the subsequent hour or so: this was the first Paul-centric debate, preceded by his rise in the polls and his increasingly important role as the ideological catalyst of this GOP presidential primary. Once again, as in the economic sphere – with even former Federal Reserve board member Herman Cain echoing Paul’s call to audit the Fed – the Texas congressman set the tone of the discussion with his ringing defense of the Founders’ concept of what freedom means:
"I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. I’m concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it’s a crime and we should deal with it.
"We dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh. But why I really fear it is we have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our early founders were very clear. They said, don’t be willing to sacrifice liberty for security.
"Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights."
Newt thought he’d won by making a dramatic pause and intoning:
"Yes. Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point."
Looking like a Halloween pumpkin left out in the rain, Gingrich went into novelist mode, scaring the children with the specter of "losing a major American city" and bringing his fist down hard on the podium as he thundered
"I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you!"
Paul’s answer was perfect:
"This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child-beating and wife-beating. You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state. So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms. And we will throw out so much of what our revolution was fought for. So don’t do it so carelessly."
In short: why not just set up a dictatorship and be done with it? Paul is too polite to point out that Newt would make the perfect dictator, strutting about the stage and puffing out his chest like a peacock on parade – so I will.
I thought I detected an elegiac note in Paul’s remarks, a sadness in his voice as he pleaded with his audience not to throw away the Founders’ gift "so carelessly." As if he fears that they probably will, anyway.
There is reason for pessimism: we are, after all, living in a time when a half-baked professional bloviator like Gingrich is considered a conservative "intellectual." With the help of the "mainstream" media – which would like nothing more than to see the singularly unattractive and baggage-laden Gingrich up against their hero Obama – the Newtster is having his moment in the sun. It will, however, be a brief moment – and he’s not really running for president anyway. Everyone knows his campaign has been a vanity project and moneymaking operation from the outset.
Quietly gaining traction, the growth and development of the Paulian movement occurring largely beneath the media’s radar, the Paul campaign has achieved tremendous gains for the peace movement in America. No matter how it ends, it has created a new chapter in the history of the foreign policy discourse in this country: anti-interventionism is no longer considered the exclusive preserve of the "radical" left. For the first time since the 1930s, the anti-imperialist tendency in American conservatism is in the ascendant: the Old Right is back, more organized and intellectually coherent than ever.
This is a development the neocons have long feared, and the vicious attacks on Paul coming from those quarters are bound to increase in number and intensity as the campaign succeeds in becoming the conservative alternative to the supposedly "inevitable" Mitt Romney.
Gingrich’s job in all this is to act as the "moderator," the Deep Thinker who polices the discussion, always on the lookout for any deviation from neoconservative orthodoxy. His role-playing is underscored by the post-debate speculation over whether he imperiled his rising star by taking a "soft" stand on immigration.
It may seem passing strange that someone so concerned about a nuclear bomb being smuggled into a major American city would take such a lax attitude about policing our borders. But that’s the Newtster for you: he can think up an argument for anything – even taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac while at the same time claiming to be in favor of abolishing it! I tell you, the man’s a genius – and if you don’t believe that, then just ask him. After all, he’s "spent years studying this stuff."
There’s nothing new in Newt’s stance on immigration: he’s been saying the same thing for years. He said at the debate he’s "willing to take the heat" on this issue because the neocons – who see America as a "universal nation," like Rome, Great Britain, and the other great empires of the past – have always been for amnestying so-called illegal aliens. On the other hand, Paul echoes the concerns of the Republican base in wondering why, when we’ve lost control of our own borders, we’re so concerned about securing the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Every conservative aspirant but Paul has had his moment in the media spotlight as the rightist "alternative" to the Inevitable Romney – not, you’ll note, on account of any actual votes being cast, except in widely variable polls of oftentimes dubious provenance, but largely due to the amount of media attention lavished on them. Cain was propelled into the spotlight, and just as quickly abandoned: Perry was once hyped, and he too fell by the wayside – not to mention Bachman (and Palin) before them.
Now it’s Paul’s turn – but his rise is coming about in quite a different way, which is why it may prove more lasting than the others. That’s because his steadily rising poll numbers are due entirely to his own efforts, and the efforts of his supporters: the antiwar libertarian certainly has not gotten a push from the "mainstream" media. Quite the opposite: it got to the point where Jon Stewart was able to write an entire comedy routine around how deliberately the media was ignoring Paul.
The media Establishment’s current line on Ron Paul is that he is preparing a third-party run: that way, they don’t have to even discuss the prospect that he could mount an effective challenge to Romney. Yet the new GOP primary rules, which give proportional representation instead of "winner take all," are conducive to Paul’s steady-as-it-goes come-from-behind campaign strategy – and Iowa, where organization and dedication count most of all, is now in Paul’s sights. Independents can vote in the New Hampshire primary, and the momentum of a Paul victory in Iowa could bring in an influx of antiwar voters and give him a breakthrough victory in the “Live Free or Die” state.
Both Paul and the foreign policy issue have gotten short shrift this election season, at least so far – but so what else is new? Insofar as the latter is concerned, inattention to what would seem to be an important issue has been the norm for many years. That’s why the American people woke up, one day, to find themselves in possession of a world empire, without having any memory of having voted on it or consented to it in any way.
This election, however, may turn out different. It’s a long way to Election Day, 2012 – and in politics, a year might as well be a century. A lot can happen: for example, Israel could strike at Iran and drag us into a war that all the GOP candidates but one would reflexively support. Not that the Israelis would even think of trying to influence the outcome of the election through such a ploy – or would they?
-
Oh, I'm so shocked ! Mauler posted more Ron Paul crap.
I'll be meeting him tomorrow night, I'll tell him you want to have his love child.
-
Oh, I'm so shocked ! Mauler posted more Ron Paul crap.
I'll be meeting him tomorrow night, I'll tell him you want to have his love child.
And the good Doctor can deliver it himself!
;D
-
Newt is by far the most intelligent person running. If not for Newt, the Republican Revolution would never have happened. I, for one, will be proud to vote for Newt!
I too will vote for Newt, but I am less than confident he will win. And again guys, re-read your posts. Please, seriously, no BS re-read them. You are attacking the bearer of bad news. When did conservative political debate (big or little C) come from the Carville/Rove playbook of smearing the other guy? Why are you after me or Dowd for saying things you don't want to hear? Not one of you has refuted anything. There is not one post that has said "No, she's wrong, Newt didn't do that"! the best you've come up with is TW saying, "They did it too, and did it worse". That's the equivalent of Clinton pointing the finger at W. and saying "He inhaled, I never did"! ::)
Look guys, Timothy had a point. He said I liked to debate and occasionally I post stuff even I don't believe just to get an interesting conversation started. This is no longer one of those times. This is serious. BO has to go. We all agree on this. But why is it that y'all's response to attacks on your candidate are attacks on the accuser rather than refutation of their points? This is a damn serious question because most Americans who aren't all that political are turned off by this. They will listen to an argument, but when you are basically saying "She's got cooties" they wisely walk away.
FQ13
PS As far as who I want to run? Well I'll take crap for saying it, but I think Charlie Crist would win in a landslide. He's good on guns, taxes and education and is smart and honest. If you could resurrect Goldwater he'd get my vote, but short of that? Jan Brewer of Arizona is looking pretty good, although I am judging that on her immigration policies and don't know enough about the rest of the package.
-
BUT, she's got cooties and she ain't real attractive either!
Hell, I can tolerate a beautiful liberal woman but they are in very short supply as we're well aware!
;D
-
-
I could have really spent waaaayyyy too much time and effort proving Dowd is a liberal hack and wrong on a few points in her toilet paper unworthy same ol same ol....article...But it's the same playbook, the same stuff.
Gee, FTA, Newt tore down the bipartisanship, between parties? REALLY? All by himself? But Robert Byrd and Murtha, Schumer, Fwank, and Uncle Teddy K, Pelosi, and Durbin, and Reid, and, and, and,...we're all not participants?
Newt did it, FTA, all by himself and "he" should own it? C'mon FQ,....
and I already have a headache.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/YT03MDAmYj02MDAmYz1BdmVuaXImZD05NiZlPTQ0JmY9I2MxYmVhMiZnPSNjMTBjMDYmaD1TVE9QJmk9VEhFJmo9TUFETkVTUyAmaz1GUSEhISEmbD0mbT1kZW1vY3JhdGljLnBuZw.jpg)
I'm making a bunch for the upcoming year.... ;D
-
Yea FullAuto we got that..
That being said, making 1.5 to 2 million bucks over 6 years really ain't a lot of money compared to the rest of these thieves.
No one is beyond reproach in politics but we gotta support the one we're bringing to the dance! Right now it's down to the Newt or Romney. Something very strange would have to happen for the Doc to make a run. Not saying he doesn't make sense on some issues but the molten crazy he spews on some issues is bothersome.
-
You damn commie bastard! You've got cooties! ;D
FQ13
-
From FQ,
"Jan Brewer of Arizona is looking pretty good, although I am judging that on her immigration policies and don't know enough about the rest of the package."
I need to check my meds since I actually could have made the same statement.
As for "why is it that y'all's response to attacks on your candidate are attacks on the accuser"
My comment onMauler is because I am so f*cking sick of hearing about this 6 time loser and his impractical, foolish, and just plane wrong idea's from some zombie who was still in diapers the first time this so called "outsider ran for pres.
This so called "outsider" is a poster child for term limits, having first run for office before most of his supporters were even born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Paul became a delegate to the Texas Republican convention and a Republican candidate for the United States Congress. During 1974, incumbent Robert R. Casey defeated him for the 22nd district. When President Gerald Ford appointed Casey to direct the Federal Maritime Commission, Paul won an April 1976 special election to the vacant office.[21] Paul lost some months later in the general election, to Democrat Robert Gammage, by fewer than 300 votes (0.2%), but defeated Gammage in a 1978 rematch, and was reelected during 1980 and 1982.
Paul was the first Republican representative from the area; he also headed the Texas Reagan delegation at the national Republican convention.[22] His successful campaign against Gammage surprised local Democrats, who had expected to retain the seat easily due to the Watergate scandal. Gammage underestimated Paul's popularity among local mothers: "I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he practiced, because he'd delivered half the babies in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the county, and the other one was his partner."[23]
-
Okay FQ.. Lets try it your way for a minute..
Let's say that calling Doud's article doggerel, (of little literary value) is the same as an ad hominim, (ie. character assasination) attack on you. You walked down range and stuck up a target. If you don't like that somebody put a round through it, you shouldnt have stuck it up there. Cry... If it hurts, quit doing it.. You can't cry just because you don't like the answer.. If you are, in fact, Maureen Doud, posting as FQ13, why the big secret? The first ammendment says nothing about a prohibition on opposing views.
Let's try this a different way now.. You seem to hold forth that this blurb in the NYT is the definition of Newt Gingrich. Okay.. How bout this.. Which post in this thread, excluding yours or mine gets to be in Brittanica under your name? Oh, and you don't get to pick which one. That honor goes to a political/philosophical opponent.
I get the idea that you come down on the left side of the aisle because of a cursory glance at your posts in the last few weeks. Your squeal at being challanged tells me that my observations have some basis.
You can't call for compromise the way the political left in this country defines it, (Do what I want and you can followin my shadow) and expect to be taken as a rational advocate for some mythical, moderate position. The article I posted in response to Doggerel Dowd only exists in public discourse because nobody is buying what she's peddling anymore. Those who accept it already have a yard full of the stuff. She's playing to an audience. We all know that..
If Washington showed up on the debate stage, would Maureen Dowd support him, not knowing who he was ? Or would she react with more contempt than she did Gingrich?
Find truth where ever you can, but make sure what you know is so before you go shouting it on the mountain.. That Dowd piece is a string of ad-hominim half truths, which is a whole lot of nothing worth knowing.. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife, hmmm?
Call me Joe..
-
Ok joe.......
Umm, I never said I stopped beating my wife, she just annoys me. ;) As to the rest, again, you may think I am a jerk. That's fine, you will be in good company. The same can be said for Dowd (who I am not endorsing for office, I just thought she wrote a good column). But here is the crux of the matter. You have not, nor has anyone else, refuted a single point. People slam" me. They slam Dowd. They slam the Times. They say "The Dems did it too", they say I'm whining. But does anyone refute the charges.........crickets. "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury you hear what? Oh, nothing but insults? Its because they have nothing to say".
Am I making my point? Because seriously, I'm not the enemy here. I will be voting NO and HELL NO, in 2012 unless Santorum or Bachman get the nod. I'm just making the point that if Newt irritates someone who WANTS to vote against BO, how is this going to play with the great unwashed and undecided who might be inclined to vote for him unless we can convince them other wise? You better have a better selling point than "The other guy sucks" because speaking as someone who does this for a living? That almost never wins an election.
FQ13
-
Am I the only one who finds it humerous that you guys are now on page four arguing over something that wasn't even Dowd's original thought? It came from a commenter. ;D
-
Am I the only one who finds it humerous that you guys are now on page four arguing over something that wasn't even Dowd's original thought? It came from a commenter. ;D
Herk, we have made it to 5 pages in a debate over what the topic was. ;D Frankly, I just think the point is simply this. We need to be about what we are for, not we are against, or we will get our asses handed to us. And yes, if I had thought to sum it up that neatly earlier we could have saved some bandwidth, but sometimes it takes a guy like you to make us summarise Doh!. :-[ ;)
FQ13
-
I too will vote for Newt, but I am less than confident he will win. And again guys, re-read your posts. Please, seriously, no BS re-read them. You are attacking the bearer of bad news. When did conservative political debate (big or little C) come from the Carville/Rove playbook of smearing the other guy? Why are you after me or Dowd for saying things you don't want to hear? Not one of you has refuted anything. There is not one post that has said "No, she's wrong, Newt didn't do that"! the best you've come up with is TW saying, "They did it too, and did it worse". That's the equivalent of Clinton pointing the finger at W. and saying "He inhaled, I never did"! ::)
OK, sometimes it takes a while for things to get through to you, FQ, so I will keep this simple. Just like mauler quoting Infowars, or Tom mentioning the Weekly World News as a source, there are just some things you cannot ever trust. For all it may have ever been at one point in the long distant past, the NYT has become a highly unreliable source. They are well renowned to be far left in their presentation of the news. For example, my ex-SIL, a card-carrying liberal Jew, was shocked - shocked I tell you - to discover that their coverage of the Israelis was biased - a little tidbit I had seen for over 10 years at that point.
So when you quote the NYT, a number of us, knowing how questionable they are, kinda roll our eyes and try to hit other sources to see what the real story is.
But then you compound the issue by quoting a twit like Dowd who has been firmly planted well inside the far left's arse for years. And you wonder why we don't read her? As I said in my first post, think Broken Clock if she seems to be onto something. And verify the heck out of what she says.
Lastly, FQ, and this is heartfelt, I do not consider you to be a jerk. Not even close. I see you as a secular Saul, who has yet to make his journey to Damascus. I also see in you a lot of who I once was a long time ago before the scales fell from my eyes.
Lastly, as for Newt, he will sell Americans out just like most of the candidates will. It is inevitable at this point. So point at his feet of clay all you want, some of us know they're there and their just part of what's expected from .gov these days.
BTW - anyone notice the correct usage of they're, there, and their in the last paragraph? I hope so! ;D
-
Herk, we have made it to 5 pages in a debate over what the topic was. ;D Frankly, I just think the point is simply this. We need to be about what we are for, not we are against, or we will get our asses handed to us. And yes, if I had thought to sum it up that neatly earlier we could have saved some bandwidth, but sometimes it takes a guy like you to make us summarise Doh!. :-[ ;)
FQ13
He is not exaggerating about that, If I could remember the title I would link to the thread.
-
FQ..
It drives me nuts to be accused of attacking you personally when I haven't done that.. It's leftist, adolescent logic, designed to be offended. That's why I asked you that silly old saw.. If I call an article by Dowd Bullshit, it does not mean that I'm saying that pot heads are picking psilocybin mushrooms out of your hair. Your holding up the article up as a serious consideration for conservatives to take note of does make me question your judgement. As for doing whatever you do for a living, (and I'm very curious to find out more about that, btw. You have my attention.) the biggest idiots in political discourse are Political Consultants. Begala and Beckel are two prime examples of that. Your debate tactics are those of the political left. You can call that an insult if you want. I'd be pretty annoyed if I was told that about myself. It's what I'm seeing in your posts. I say this as a simple observation, not a personal attack. If that doesn't make you question why I say so, maybe you're a product of the school of though of the political left that so readily employs such tactics. Wanna hear a name of a double minded political commentator? Ann Coulter.. She touts the 2A as as big a deal as any of us here and holds forth Governor Christie of NEW JERSEY and Mitt Romney of MASSACHUSETTS... as her two top picks for President!!!!! That makes her a party establishment type, a sell out or a moron. You can make the case about Newt being among the worst "viable" candidates we could run against Obama but you don't have to make it to me. I already know.. I trust Newt with 2A, Healthcare and privacy about as much as I do Mitthew... That said, I've been actively advocating for Newt for about 5 years now.. One more reason I could only cast a vote for McCain was Palin.. One thing I didn't see in your article was "Gingrich-Feingold" or "Gingrich-Kennedy". The difference between Mitt and Newt, for me, is that I can't vote for Mitt anymore than you can vote for Bachmann. I'll sit that one out, thank you very much.
I have all confidence that you are not "all wrong", because you're here.. I'm guessing you're a "Militant Moderate". It will take me several months to be comfortable that I have some real sense of who you are. You do seem to be an enigma of sorts, unless, as it's been suggested, that you just like throwing shit in the fan to watch how people react to it.. But if you can't tell the difference between a vigorous political discourse and a personal attack, you either haven't been doing this long enough, or you've been doing it too long.. I don't have a good enough sense of you yet to think you're a jerk. I do think, based on the relatively conservative company that you keep here, that you don't spend nearly enough time, or don't have the ability to look at yourself in a third person context. If a blanket dismissal of Maureen Dowd is an ad hominim attack on you personally, you probably don't have the ability to change your own mind, (and having it changed for you is a painful endeavour) let alone have an objective debate over a legitimate difference of opinion with someone who considers themself an intellectual equal.
This seems like a waste of time. I get saying something something 4000 times and not having the patience to explain positions to someone who is just tuning in. My dueling has been done on another forum for over 4 years now. I joined this forum about the same time I joined that one. The other one has a more user-friendly format and it was a newer group with a focus on learning CC from folks who want to help, with that as a primary focus. It blew up over fee structure and now I'm trying to come in here and take part with a group of intellegent observers. I addressed you on this thread because the presence of Dowd doesn't make sense to me as a serious consideration.. If you'll allow, I'll learn how to approach you, (if possible) :o and pull out what I'm looking to get from you here...
As for being a jerk.. I are one.. I can point you to several Democrats who will be happy to take an oath to that effect.. Many of which I'm related to by blood or marriage..
Pleased to meet ya..
Joe
-
Santahog,
FQ, our resident faux libertarian, is a Political Science professor with a lot of letters after his name from a very prestigious university who's tuition was paid for, in part, by the US Taxpayer!
Correct me if I'm wrong FQ...
BTW Joe, nice to have you here. Keep up the fight!
-
Joe
First, welcome aboard and please don't leave on my account. Nothing I wrote was meant as a personal insult to you. I rarely make those and if I do insult you, believe me you'll know it.
Second I wasn't whining about "poor me I've been insulted". I've been insulted by experts and it really doesn't bother me. Just ask Tom. ;D
Third, I was way off my game in this thread. :-X I kept trying to make a point and just couldn't find the words to do it succinctly so I kept floundering around with lengthy posts trying to find the right words (a very bad thing in my line of work, particularly since I want to be Peggy Noonan when I grow up :-[). The point was simply that we (we defined as those want change and hope to get it in 2012) need to be about what we are for rather than what we are against. Blasting our critics won't win an election. Telling people why our guy is the best thing since sliced bread will.
Now that said, there was the 1991 Louisiana Governors race between David Duke and indicted felon Evin Edwards where Edwards own people put out a bumper sticker that read "Vote for the crook, it's that important". ;D :P :'( I really fear that it might come to that this year.
Anywho, my politics don't fit neatly into a box and like you I have little love for either party. I look forward to debating you. Just don't take what I say personally and I promise to do the same. its all in good fun and the hope is that we might learn something from each other. I know that I have from being here.
FQ13
PS As to my job I am a currently underemployed political scientist who works doing legal research. I also have moonlighted as a political consultant (and yes I have worked for candidates of the D, R and L persuasion, and no, none of them ever gave me a "tingle up my leg" ;D).
-
Joe, bear in mind some things,
1- People who learned their "politics" and "history" in college don't know squat about those subjects.
They know what the leftist teacher wants them to write down at test time.
2- A "political consultant" is some one who needs to know squat about politics, history, or current events,
They need to know how to get votes.
FQ, have any of the candidates gotten elected ?
Joe
First, welcome aboard and please don't leave on my account. Nothing I wrote was meant as a personal insult to you. I rarely make those and if I do insult you, believe me you'll know it.
Second I wasn't whining about "poor me I've been insulted". I've been insulted by experts and it really doesn't bother me. Just ask Tom. ;D
Third, I was way off my game in this thread. :-X I kept trying to make a point and just couldn't find the words to do it succinctly so I kept floundering around with lengthy posts trying to find the right words (a very bad thing in my line of work, particularly since I want to be Peggy Noonan when I grow up :-[). The point was simply that we (we defined as those want change and hope to get it in 2012) need to be about what we are for rather than what we are against. Blasting our critics won't win an election. Telling people why our guy is the best thing since sliced bread will.
Now that said, there was the 1991 Louisiana Governors race between David Duke and indicted felon Evin Edwards where Edwards own people put out a bumper sticker that read "Vote for the crook, it's that important". ;D :P :'( I really fear that it might come to that this year.
Anywho, my politics don't fit neatly into a box and like you I have little love for either party. I look forward to debating you. Just don't take what I say personally and I promise to do the same. its all in good fun and the hope is that we might learn something from other. I know that I have from being here.
FQ13
PS As to my job I am a currently underemployed political scientist who works doing legal research. I also moonlight as a political consultant (and yes I have worked for candidates of the D, R and L persuasion).
He could be a politician him self, the only way I've managed to get a rise from him was to spell his name wrong.
-
Joe, bear in mind some things,
1- People who learned their "politics" and "history" in college don't know squat about those subjects.
They know what the leftist teacher wants them to write down at test time.
2- A "political consultant" is some one who needs to know squat about politics, history, or current events,
They need to know how to get votes.
FQ, have any of the candidates gotten elected ?
Um, well, you see......(you see what I was saying about being insulted by experts Joe ;D). Actually, I am 2-6, but four of those were Libertarians so it really doesn't count. My batting average is a respectable .500 with major party candidates. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;)
FQ13
-
Um, well, you see......(you see what I was saying about being insulted by experts Joe ;D). Actually, I am 2-6, but four of those were Libertarians so it really doesn't count. My batting average is a respectable .500 with major party candidates. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;)
FQ13
So, what your saying is that the people you actually claim to agree with are so lame they don't have a snowflakes chance in hell ?
Shouldn't that and the result of your BO vote be enough to make you rethink some of your political opinions ?
-
So, what your saying is that the people you actually claim to agree with are so lame they don't have a snowflakes chance in hell ?
Shouldn't that and the result of your BO vote be enough to make you rethink some of your political opinions ?
Hey, the fact that they won't win doesn't mean they shouldn't run. Just ask Barry Goldwater or for that matter Ronald Reagan (the 1976 version). The Libertarian party is dysfunctional, and it does make me want to tear my hair out. But the very act of putting those ideas out there is a worthwhile thing. Just don't join one of their campaigns thinking you'll get a cabinet post after the election. In normal years I am all in favor of voting third party because they can shift the debate. But this is not a normal year and so I will not check the L box unless the GOP makes me do it.
FQ13
FQ13
-
Thanks for the welcome.. I haven't taken anything personally. I'm walking gently because I don't know you.. I'll take it I have permission to debate without reservation. Thank you!
FQ, No offence taken. I'm looking forward to seeing you straighten out that circular logic for me ;D.. On the other hand, with friends like these, who needs hallucinations!!! You guys are fun!!
Joe
-
Thanks for the welcome.. I haven't taken anything personally. I'm walking gently because I don't know you.. I'll take it I have permission to debate without reservation. Thank you!
FQ, No offence taken. I'm looking forward to seeing you straighten out that circular logic for me ;D.. On the other hand, with friends like these, who needs hallucinations!!! You guys are fun!!
Joe
Just wait till we really start arguing. ;D ;D ;D
-
Thanks for the welcome.. I haven't taken anything personally. I'm walking gently because I don't know you.. I'll take it I have permission to debate without reservation. Thank you!
FQ, No offence taken. I'm looking forward to seeing you straighten out that circular logic for me ;D.. On the other hand, with friends like these, who needs hallucinations!!! You guys are fun!!
Joe
It's like rugby with out all that damned running ;D
-
It's like rugby with out all that damned running ;D
Good.. I hate running.. It's not in my nature.. Even when I was in the Army.. That's what makes CC so practical for me..
"Too slow to run and too fat to hide. Come and get me"..
-
Good.. I hate running.. It's not in my nature.. Even when I was in the Army.. That's what makes CC so practical for me..
"Too slow to run and too fat to hide. Come and get me"..
You'll fit in perfectly here. ;D
-
Santahog....welcome. You jumped right in with the big dogs and did fine. You'll do well here.
-
Santahog....welcome. You jumped right in with the big dogs and did fine. You'll do well here.
With FQ, mauler, TAB, and a couple others,....I have found the perfect comparison regarding the posts they sometimes make:
They are the guitar players, we are Belushi....But we apologize,....and it's never personal.....
;D
-
With FQ, mauler, TAB, and a couple others,....I have found the perfect comparison regarding the posts they sometimes make:
They are the guitar players, we are Belushi....But we apologize,....and it's never personal.....
;D
That's hysterical.. I feel like that sometimes...I never saw the movie..
A serious question on Newt, though.. How, (should he...) do we keep the guy in check, with a Congress that individually ignores their constituants? Newt does have a tendency to go off the Constitutional reservation in pursuit of a big idea..
His version of "Health Care" violates the privacy of every "Citizen". (I don't think that our rights apply to non-citizens, but that's another upcoming, I hope discussion..)
I hear what he says on the 2A at the NRA convention but he can be so "pragmatic" as to be dismissive that which he claims to defend..
He thinks that one can be reasoned with, it seems, as it applies to foreign policy. That has demonstrated itself to be... naive.. (think Carter) over the years, and getting worse as our reputation for intellegence, resolve, consistancy and decisiveness declines..
He's still a free "traitor". I have yet to see one positive impact for the US economy as a whole from NAFTA, GATT, WTO, or any of the little "_afta's". Even Rush has started to reexamine the supposed virtues of "free" trade..
---I realize I might get some push back on that view. Can't help it.. It's what I think---
The PATRIOT Act blows the Fourth and Sixth Ammendments (as t applies to US Citizens, residing in the US) all to hell and even the best of the Senate seem to treat that thing as mainstream thought.
Ya know what I mean?
I have to say here.. I like Perry, but he has a bad back and I think he hasn't been taking the Vicodin long enough to build up a working tolerance to it.. (Hence, the slightly curious speech performances.) I don't mind him being a little goofy. Actions are what count. I don't think he can. as Pres. really rearrange the Congressional Calendar to resemble that of the Texas or New Hampshire Legislature, making promises he cannot keep. Can he?
On that line of thought, can the EPA (or Dept. of Ed., for that matter) even be castrated/disbanded solely by the Executive Branch?
Any thoughts?
Joe
-
We should require all politicians to attend the National matches a Camp Perry, a few Prairie dog hunts, and Knob Creek.
When they realize how well citizens shoot, and how much stuff they do shoot, it should make them rethink some of their BS.