Jim Hightower: The Deep Shallowness of Professor Gingrich

» lou segal on 12.07.11 @ 08:55 PM

Oh shut up! All Gingrich said is that poor teenagers should be put to work, so they can learn a work ethic and acquire the necessary work skills to be successful in life. This idiot has distorted Newt’s remarks beyond recognition. Talk about a political hack job.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 12.08.11 @ 10:34 AM

All Jimmy knows how to do is serve up the worst form of hypocrisy on planet earth. Jimmy calling anyone shallow or ignorant is beyond laughable. Rambo chiming in is predictable. Lou is a Mitt guy, but unlike you Rambler knows an idiot when he reads one.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Rambler on 12.08.11 @ 08:57 PM

“Lou is a Mitt guy, but unlike you Rambler knows an idiot when he reads one.”

But Bishop, I know you when I read you. You are bonafide! As is Father Lou.

Go Newt!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» GeeWillikersWally on 12.09.11 @ 07:59 PM

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=73762
Hey Rambler , see this one today ?  Pretty much sums up the GOP candidate field . Just when we thought the race couldn’t get more bizarro with the Palin , Bachman , Perry types - then they try and give us these two clowns . What a freak show.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» GeeWillikersWally on 12.10.11 @ 06:37 AM

Thanks Lou , I will give your opinion it’s proper regard.  I might even use your last few ballot box choices for President to evaluate the importance I place in your opinion.
I will(and have any times) cross party lines when a better candidate emerges. This GOP freak show is unlikely to produce that candidate this time around.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» GeeWillikersWally on 12.11.11 @ 05:00 AM

Lets see now… the party of “family values” has a repeat adulterer as it’s top candidate.  O.K. ...hmmmm… if I want to vote GOP but feel Newt to be a phony, then there is always Mitt.  But wait , I hate Obama and his socialist health care act . You know… the main thing the right has been screaming about for three years. You know .. the plan that Obama based upon ... ooops ...  Romneys Massachusetts plan .
  I know ... Perry…um..maybe not.  Bachman.. no.  I GOT IT - BRING BACK SARAH!!!!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» GeeWillikersWally on 12.11.11 @ 06:31 PM

So Lou, you like Newt because he tells the truth? How about this lie from Saturday nights ” debate” . GINGRICH: “Well, Michele, a lot of what you say just isn’t true, period. I have never - I oppose cap-and-trade. I testified against it the same day that Al Gore testified for it. I helped defeat it in the Senate through American Solutions. It is simply untrue. ... You know, I think it’s important for you, and this is a fair game and everybody gets to pick fights. It’s important that you be accurate when you say these things. Those are not true.”

THE FACTS: Bachmann’s suggestion that Gingrich and Romney are in lockstep was oversimplified. But she was right that Gingrich once backed the idea of capping carbon emissions and letting polluters trade emission allowances.

Asked in a 2007 PBS “Frontline” interview about President George W. Bush’s endorsement of mandatory carbon caps in his 2000 campaign, Gingrich said: “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”
  Also , I guess you are o.k. with Newt as the candidate for the “party of family values” ? This is the hypocrite who was trying to get Clinton impeached while at the same time being fully immersed in an extramarital affair. You crack me up.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» lou segal on 12.11.11 @ 11:33 PM

Unfortunately, there is no perfect political candidate; they all have some flaws. Most people make a choice by comparing the candidates and choosing the best one. In this case, it will be a choice between one of the Republican candidates and Obama.

Our clueless President is singlehandidly destroying our country by over-regulating and strangulating private business, enacting redistributionist socialist policies which will do nothing to help the middle class except kill the economy for everyone, and running up suicidal public debt which threatens to turn us into Greece or worse. I would be happier if Obama was a pathological liar instead of a misguided, witless opportunist who only cares about getting reelected even if he has to destroy the country in the meantime. I would vote for Bozo the clown over this guy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 12.12.11 @ 05:57 PM

Willie, its pointless. Newt for all his baggage is still smarter than the rest. Pointing out his many character flaws, as though no other candidate has any or the president for that matter is of no use. We will never find a squeaky clean candidate. Even the Boy Scout Mormon, Mitt, who no one has yet found a glitch in, belongs to a religious cult for God’s sake. I mean really?

When assessing the candidate field I look for problem solvers grounded in some portion of reality (just running for any office means you are already one foot out of reality and one foot into the Land of Oz). Mitt has a plan, but only after Cain came out with one and Newt has had one, the others? We would be far better off looking at what these people are planning to do once in office and what sort of executive skills they have rather than relying on stupid character assassination as though we are all perfect. Yes character counts and the biggest flaw Newt has is the thinnest of his. But if he has even a smidgeon of executive skill he is miles above what we have now.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 12.12.11 @ 09:14 PM

Yep and your point is what? Oh gee we didn’t even look for dirt on Obama so he must be ok? What about Newts competitors? What about you?

Look I’m not defending Gingrich. I know he is an opportunistic guy with a very checkered past, name me a politician who isn’t. All I’m saying is he is a lot smarter than anyone else running and your man is at the bottom. Sorry I know you lefties don’t want to hear that but its true. Further more, had the media not had a slobbering love affair with the Obama campaign in 2007 and 2008 we might be looking at quite a different man than the one we see sitting in the white house now. The media failed the country by not vetting the prominent deficiencies of Mr. Obama. I have said it before, I feel bad for the guy. He was terribly unqualified for the job and his failures to date will haunt him the rest of his life. That stain falls on those who voted for him. Sure he should have known he didn’t have what it took, but few human beings really do. The test is what you do when you get there.  Bush, for all the shellacking he took from his detractors, passed a formidable test when he responded to 911. He failed on the course of the wars and later to deal with the economic crisis that occurred in his lame duck. Obama was handed a terrible economy but chose an ideological route instead of a practical one. That was a failure, one he compounded with more ideologically driven “fixes” and now his class war.

So the question is not whether Gingrich or any of the other candidates has flaws, they all do, but whether or not they have what it takes to get us out of the crisis we are in. You dredging up dopy past mistakes while ignoring solutions put on the table don’t help. Try to see your way past the polarizing rhetoric and divide and concur politics and see what I’m on about. I will say this; the next presidential term is about the life and death of our country. It’s no time to settle for ideals, but action. I’ll take the smart guy, flaws and all, over some dopy clean guy without a brain. And your guy, the sooner we relieve him the better we are no matter who else we choose (accept Biden, of course).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» GeeWillikersWally on 12.13.11 @ 04:01 AM

You guys are the walking , talking co-chairmen of contradiction here on Noozhawk. Spines of spaghetti , bending with forgiveness with each and every new burning star, reality show type, candidate of the week that the GOP foolishly foists upon us. The rest of us can only hope you fools dont end up successful. Jeez, you guys wanted to put us one heart attack away from Palin as President . You guys are scary.
  Oh ,and Lou , .... I guess Newt speaking from his high chair in Congress, living a lie ,is not the same as telling a lie.Maybe you could tell us about Newt’s Fannie millions next.
  BTW , I dont like Obama much more than you do. And I still think Clinton is a sleazeball. The difference is that you clowns , and your party, are the ones always lecturing about values and morals while personally ignoring your own lack of same.Barf.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 12.13.11 @ 12:10 PM

Passing, its not friggen yours! I am sick of the bottom dwellers constantly screaming for their fair share of the pie they did not earn, work for, or do anything to obtain. “Oh I’m poor so someone else should bankroll my lousy existence”, they cry. It used to be that you saw what other people could accomplish and you strived to do that yourself. Now it’s gimmy this and gimmy that.

It doesn’t help when the other side is not interested one bit in generating new wealth but instead engages in the worst form of capitalism, gambling. The Wall Streeters and speculators are not wealth generators but the same kind of wealth redistributors they fund on the left. It makes no difference to me if you take from the many to give to the few or take from the few to give to the many, you are not adding anything and the whole process consumes more than it makes. That’s a hell of a stupid thing to do when you owe the world twice your worth!

No one in this country seems to understand that you need to make wealth to have wealth to gamble with, redistribute and fund what ever crap you want. Borrowing our prosperity from corrupt inhuman foreign governments is not the answer. You Harvard economists can stuff that one where the sun doesn’t shine.

Get back to work America, the free ride bought and paid for by OPEC and Asia is over. Lawyers, bankers, brokers, entertainers and all the other parasitic industries can take a hike. Your prestige is gone, exposed by the worst damned ponzi scheme ever perpetrated on a country in history. We owe the world more than twice our worth. You Keynesians tell me how just moving currency around is going to pay that back. Tell me how stealing from the gamblers is going to pay a debt 100 times greater. Earn the value you think you have damn it! And by earn I mean real value not what you made off someone else’s work or got from the government.

Get a friggen clue people.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 12.14.11 @ 01:00 PM

You know Hammie I actually entertained the special tax status of non producers. The problem is I am a capitalist and even though the parasitics do not usually add intrinsic value some are necessary evils (economically speaking).
No I won’t shame a gambler or speculator into a more productive line of work and taxing them will just allow the biggest parasite of all government to continue to grow. So I just want the producer end of the spectrum to see less tax.

Thanks Hammie. I know these sectors will never be shamed into more productive endeavors. But I would rather not feed the biggest parasite of all, government, with punitive taxation. As a strong believer in privately controlled economies I would rather we lessen the tax burden on producers and leave the consumer end alone and reduce the size and scope of government.

The fact that you and I, a lefty and a righty, can see eye to eye on the real problem, production versus consumption, means there is real hope we can turn things around. I have said it before many times, it really doesn’t matter at this point, whether you believe in a publically controlled economy (left) or a privately controlled economy (right), if you are consuming more than you produce you will go broke, period.

I only hope that folks like Passing-by and Willie get the message. We can all go back to being hard core partisans and enjoy arguing the merits of our personal economic philosophy, but first we have to stop the damned wealth drain or we won’t have much to argue over in the end.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 12.14.11 @ 03:03 PM

And then there are those whose only skills are personal attacks. Somedolt, you would make a better point if your logic weren’t so ass backwards. Think about what you wrote (minus the childish display of venomous remarks). Lou and I are against more regulations, true, but what difference does it make who wrote the things? It’s the regulation that screws the system up, not who authored it or how they got there.

As for the agency and the administration that controls it, its chain of command. If some lunatic at the NLRB wants to screw a non union company that is in direct competition with a unionized company and writes the regulation to do such a thing, then yes, the current administration is ultimately responsible. That’s how it works, just like your mom and dad are responsible for your behavior until you grow up and move out on your own.

As for Newt and intellect, when you are capable of demonstrating more than a 6th grade conversation, we might consider your qualifications in judging the intellect of others. Until then I think your mommy is calling you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 12.16.11 @ 12:17 PM

Sorry Willie that was not what I was saying. My discussions have been oriented toward wealth adding activities versus wealth consuming activities and that is separate from economic ownership/control issues (socialism versus capitalism).

If you are confused by that then I have failed to articulate my point well enough. But I do get tired of constantly repeating the same definitions and comparisons over and over again and getting the same reaction from people to impatient to read what I have written. Not saying you are one of them but it certainly sounds that way.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.