(01-22-2012 04:30 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Ok..Whatever makes one feel warm an fuzzy about Newt is fine with me. His record in regard to his character is not open for much interpretation. It speaks volumes to anyone that cares about that stuff and chooses to apply character as criteria for choosing a leader. Some folks simply don't care. That also is fine with me. I happen to think it is very important.

You choose to call Ron a liar. That is your prerogative.

When one makes two irreconcilable statements about the same incident one is a lie... Hmm what should I choose to call someone who lies?

I'm confident Romney will win as Wall Street has already picked him to be president. Whoever gets the most money from Wall Street ends up being the President. They picked Bush, then Obama, and they've picked Romney so far this go around.

(01-22-2012 04:56 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I'm confident Romney will win as Wall Street has already picked him to be president. Whoever gets the most money from Wall Street ends up being the President. They picked Bush, then Obama, and they've picked Romney so far this go around.

If it ends up being Obama vs. Romney, Wall Street wins regardless. WS will dump money on both of them as a hedging of bets, but I doubt they'll care much one way or the other.

Max.. want to cut down on the huge pictures? Kinda ridiculous.. and I'm an NIU fan.

(01-22-2012 03:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 09:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 07:59 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 02:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Ill call it now.
Americans are just dumb and unprincipled enough to allow a disgraced former speaker of the HOR and admitted adulterer to be their leader. This election will really be the between the "evil of two lessers".

I agree that Newt is an "admitted adulterer", and that is "disgraceful" all by itself. But since you said Gingrich is disgraced "and" an adulterer, I am wondering if you think he is disgraced in some other way, too. If so, how?

*******

I would much rather live in a country where adulterers were considered politically untouchable in terms of high public office. America used to be such a country itself, and it is "disgraceful" to me that it no longer is. But we passed that exit about 20 years ago with Bill Clinton, and a majority of Americans have seemed to accept that. If Newt Gingrich is able to parlay that acceptance to his own political advantage, it will not signify anything "dumb" or "unprincipled" about the American people that they haven't signified many time before already.

Newt had 84 ethics charges filed against him, was fined $300K...was the first speaker in US history to be censured by the House...and was forced to resign. This is the guy we now choose to lead? Damn.

Honestly...His adultery bothers me less than his resume.

Let's be clear Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term as speaker, all by Democrats. Eighty-three of the charges were later dropped. Those charges were payback for going after Clinton.

After extensive investigation and negotiation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was reprimanded and penalized $300,000 by a 395–28 House vote.

The one charge not dropped was a charge of claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Then in 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.

Newt was not lining his pockets or abusing his position. He claimed tax exempt stats on something he should not have but later the IRS clear the organization.

The ethics charge was for violating House rules, not the Internal Revenue Code. He had this blatantly right wing propaganda course set up (centered around blaming the welfare state, the counterculture and liberal elite for promoting America's decline since 1965, skipping over the Civil War without even mentioning slavery etc) and had it funded with millions of dollars given to tax exempt organizations, so it was tax deductible for his buddy donors, and had his conservative PAC staff and House staff members work on the course for him, and to top it off he lied to the ethics subcommittee about the PAC's involvement. The question of whether or not this violated the IRC is not always easy to discern because 501c3s are generally speaking prohibited from engaging in "political activity" and it's very fact specific and the committee determined whether or not it technically violated the law, he broke House rules and acted unethically. You can read the committee report here:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nat...art_ix.htm

(01-22-2012 04:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 03:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I wouldn't exactly call Obama centrist, but he's not far left of center.

I find it mind-boggling that an intelligent person could make that statement.

Quote:I don't think he's a true progressive or social democrat though, considering he caved on the Bush tax cuts, caved on the Patriot Act, caved on the wars overseas, caved on Gitmo, is offering entitlement cuts to Medicare and SS, doesn't support gay marriage, etc.

All of the things he "caved" on were because he didn't have the votes to do anything else. And in most cases, including Obamacare and the "stimulus," it was the more centrist members of his own party, not the republicans, that he has "caved" in to.

Obamacare does not include a public option. But that's not because Obama didn't want one, or didn't pull every string he could to try to get one. It's because he couldn't find 218 members of the house of representatives who were willing to vote for one. So that says nothing about Obama but much about the blue dogs. Same thing on other issues.

He has pushed the needle as far left as he could get away with at every step. Disagree? Fine, give me an instance where he had an opportunity to push it further to the left and didn't. And none of the above, whether listed by you or me, constitute what I'm talking about, because in none of those cases was a further left solution realistically available to him.

I don't know whether always pushing the needle as far left as possible makes him a socialist or communist, or just someone very close to there. The needle hasn't moved far enough yet for there to be any basis for determining which side of the "socialist/communist" versus "far left but non-socialist/non-communist" line he belongs on. But the need.le has clearly moved far enough left on several issues, and Obama has made it clear enough that it would have moved further left had he had his way, that the idea that he is anywhere near the center just fails.

His whole history says that he is at best very far left of center, at worst socialist/communist. His parents, his grandparents, and every individual that we know of who has ever been a significant role model were all socialists. His books read like they were written by Karl Marx--which if one of them was written by Bill Ayers, as is widely rumored, is essentially the same thing. His involvement with Ayers and Wright, at whatever level (and available facts suggest that neither relationship was as casual as the official stories accepted by the media would indicate) indicate at least some attraction to socialist/Marxist ideas. His voting records, in both Springfield and Washington, were at the extreme left end of the scale. There is a very consistent pattern there. If the only evidence going the other way is the compromises he's been forced to make with the centrists in his own party to get legislation passed, then that's pretty uncompelling. If there is other evidence, what is it?

He didn't need large majorities behind him to do all of those things. He could have vetoed the Bush tax cuts extension and it may or may not have been overridden, but that's something anyone who could reasonably be called a radical would do. He could have taken the troops home from overseas faster without Congress. He betrayed his base by offering SS and Medicare cuts in the Grand Bargain. While he'd need much more support in Congress to push for marriage equality at the national level, he could at least express support for the idea to encourage individual states to pass it. Sure you can point to health care reform but presidents have been aiming for universal health care for decades, including Nixon. Bush supported Keynesian stimulus and I don't think anyone would call him far left. He could have proceeded with civilian terrorism trials without Congress. The Patriot Act extension? He didn't have to sign it.

He voted present a lot of the time in the Illinois senate and hardly had a radical left voting record.

I think his association with Ayers and Wright is more indicative of an ambitious young politician who knows where he needs to build contacts, than a man who sought them out because he agreed with them point by point.

It's also widely rumored he wasn't born in America, and we saw how that turned out.

(01-22-2012 05:07 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Max.. want to cut down on the huge pictures? Kinda ridiculous.. and I'm an NIU fan.

Yeah it's starting to annoy me too.

(01-22-2012 03:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yes the official charge against Clinton was perjury, but it's not like Newt was only criticizing Clinton for lying to a federal judge (How will you explain it to your kids? He lied to all of us!).

I wouldn't exactly call Obama centrist, but he's not far left of center. I don't think he's a true progressive or social democrat though, considering he caved on the Bush tax cuts, caved on the Patriot Act, caved on the wars overseas, caved on Gitmo, is offering entitlement cuts to Medicare and SS, doesn't support gay marriage, etc. Technocrat is a good descriptor though. Of course conservatives don't see this because he's their bogeyman.

Obama is social democrat, but he is smart enough to know he lives in a center right nation. Obama is an idealogue, but he is not stupid.

(01-22-2012 05:40 PM)Max Power Wrote:  He didn't need large majorities behind him to do all of those things. He could have vetoed the Bush tax cuts extension and it may or may not have been overridden, but that's something anyone who could reasonably be called a radical would do. He could have taken the troops home from overseas faster without Congress. He betrayed his base by offering SS and Medicare cuts in the Grand Bargain. While he'd need much more support in Congress to push for marriage equality at the national level, he could at least express support for the idea to encourage individual states to pass it. Sure you can point to health care reform but presidents have been aiming for universal health care for decades, including Nixon. Bush supported Keynesian stimulus and I don't think anyone would call him far left. He could have proceeded with civilian terrorism trials without Congress. The Patriot Act extension? He didn't have to sign it.

He didn't need large majorities to do some of those things, but he did need majorities. Socialist and communist countries are routinely very militaristic and routinely trample human rights, so I wouldn't interpret not bringing the troops home sooner or not vetoing the patRIOT act as indicative that he is not socialist or communist. I would certainly call Shrub's support of Keynesian stimulus leftist; outside of social conservatism, he was certainly no conservative. Obama was pretty much forced by congress to give up civilian terrorism trials; but sort of like the patRIOT act and continuing the wars, I would tend to think that giving up civilian trials is more socialistic/communistic, not less. I am not aware of any socialist/communist country that is at the forefront on gay rights, so I fail to see the relevance of that. As for health care, many have been pushing for health care reform, just different versions. The republican vision of health care reform, at least the version put forth until recently, was very much like the Dutch system, which is the best in the world. The version of health care reform represented by Obamacare goes in a different direction, and comes as close to socialism as the democrats could muster 218 votes to go. As for the Bush tax cuts, it seemed to be the consensus that the cuts for lower incomes needed to be retained for the sake of the economy, and continuing the cuts for higher incomes too was the bargain needed to get majorities in both houses of congress. As for the SS and Medicare cuts, the numbers force the inescapable truths that cuts had to be made, and that the cuts made fall far short of what's needed. So for all the issues you cite, either his hand was forced or the position you are describing as non-socialist/communist simply isn't.

Quote:He voted present a lot of the time in the Illinois senate and hardly had a radical left voting record.

Compared to you, Karl Marx wouldn't have had a radical left voting record. You have made it clear from other opinions that you are so far left that it would be hard to find someone sufficiently further left than you for you to find him/her radical. I don't know the full Springfield voting record, but what anecdotes I have heard, including those offered with intent to support the notion that he somehow wasn't radical, look pretty radical to me. And I notice that you didn't take exception to my characterization of his Washington voting record.

Quote:I think his association with Ayers and Wright is more indicative of an ambitious young politician who knows where he needs to build contacts, than a man who sought them out because he agreed with them point by point.

Maybe, maybe not. But these issues didn't get vetted thoroughly enough for you or me to know the answer to this, did they? But we were told how thoroughly the media had vetted them, weren't we? You can make your guess. I would make a different one. I note that here again you didn't take exception to the other influences I cited. And I didn't even mention the people like Valerie Jarrett and Cass Sunstein and Van Jones with whom he has surrounded himself in Washington

Quote:It's also widely rumored he wasn't born in America, and we saw how that turned out.

Nice disingenuous attempt to marginalize a post about legitimate concerns by trying to smear it by association with stupid claims which I have myself routinely and repeatedly denied since day one. You are trying to make an association that does not work. I have never asserted that he was a Kenyan or a Muslim. His religion actually appears to be liberation theology Christianity, which is basically the communist party at prayer.

Wall Street is going to win. And until the rules are changed, they are always going to win!

(01-22-2012 09:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 07:59 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 02:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Ill call it now.
Americans are just dumb and unprincipled enough to allow a disgraced former speaker of the HOR and admitted adulterer to be their leader. This election will really be the between the "evil of two lessers".

I agree that Newt is an "admitted adulterer", and that is "disgraceful" all by itself. But since you said Gingrich is disgraced "and" an adulterer, I am wondering if you think he is disgraced in some other way, too. If so, how?

*******

I would much rather live in a country where adulterers were considered politically untouchable in terms of high public office. America used to be such a country itself, and it is "disgraceful" to me that it no longer is. But we passed that exit about 20 years ago with Bill Clinton, and a majority of Americans have seemed to accept that. If Newt Gingrich is able to parlay that acceptance to his own political advantage, it will not signify anything "dumb" or "unprincipled" about the American people that they haven't signified many time before already.

Newt had 84 ethics charges filed against him, was fined $300K...was the first speaker in US history to be censured by the House...and was forced to resign. This is the guy we now choose to lead? Damn.

Honestly...His adultery bothers me less than his resume.

and 15 years later (to the day!) he wins the SC primary.

(01-22-2012 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 05:40 PM)Max Power Wrote:  He didn't need large majorities behind him to do all of those things. He could have vetoed the Bush tax cuts extension and it may or may not have been overridden, but that's something anyone who could reasonably be called a radical would do. He could have taken the troops home from overseas faster without Congress. He betrayed his base by offering SS and Medicare cuts in the Grand Bargain. While he'd need much more support in Congress to push for marriage equality at the national level, he could at least express support for the idea to encourage individual states to pass it. Sure you can point to health care reform but presidents have been aiming for universal health care for decades, including Nixon. Bush supported Keynesian stimulus and I don't think anyone would call him far left. He could have proceeded with civilian terrorism trials without Congress. The Patriot Act extension? He didn't have to sign it.

He didn't need large majorities to do some of those things, but he did need majorities. Socialist and communist countries are routinely very militaristic and routinely trample human rights, so I wouldn't interpret not bringing the troops home sooner or not vetoing the patRIOT act as indicative that he is not socialist or communist. I would certainly call Shrub's support of Keynesian stimulus leftist; outside of social conservatism, he was certainly no conservative. Obama was pretty much forced by congress to give up civilian terrorism trials; but sort of like the patRIOT act and continuing the wars, I would tend to think that giving up civilian trials is more socialistic/communistic, not less. I am not aware of any socialist/communist country that is at the forefront on gay rights, so I fail to see the relevance of that. As for health care, many have been pushing for health care reform, just different versions. The republican vision of health care reform, at least the version put forth until recently, was very much like the Dutch system, which is the best in the world. The version of health care reform represented by Obamacare goes in a different direction, and comes as close to socialism as the democrats could muster 218 votes to go. As for the Bush tax cuts, it seemed to be the consensus that the cuts for lower incomes needed to be retained for the sake of the economy, and continuing the cuts for higher incomes too was the bargain needed to get majorities in both houses of congress. As for the SS and Medicare cuts, the numbers force the inescapable truths that cuts had to be made, and that the cuts made fall far short of what's needed. So for all the issues you cite, either his hand was forced or the position you are describing as non-socialist/communist simply isn't.

Quote:He voted present a lot of the time in the Illinois senate and hardly had a radical left voting record.

Compared to you, Karl Marx wouldn't have had a radical left voting record. You have made it clear from other opinions that you are so far left that it would be hard to find someone sufficiently further left than you for you to find him/her radical. I don't know the full Springfield voting record, but what anecdotes I have heard, including those offered with intent to support the notion that he somehow wasn't radical, look pretty radical to me. And I notice that you didn't take exception to my characterization of his Washington voting record.

Quote:I think his association with Ayers and Wright is more indicative of an ambitious young politician who knows where he needs to build contacts, than a man who sought them out because he agreed with them point by point.

Maybe, maybe not. But these issues didn't get vetted thoroughly enough for you or me to know the answer to this, did they? But we were told how thoroughly the media had vetted them, weren't we? You can make your guess. I would make a different one. I note that here again you didn't take exception to the other influences I cited. And I didn't even mention the people like Valerie Jarrett and Cass Sunstein and Van Jones with whom he has surrounded himself in Washington

Quote:It's also widely rumored he wasn't born in America, and we saw how that turned out.

Nice disingenuous attempt to marginalize a post about legitimate concerns by trying to smear it by association with stupid claims which I have myself routinely and repeatedly denied since day one. You are trying to make an association that does not work. I have never asserted that he was a Kenyan or a Muslim. His religion actually appears to be liberation theology Christianity, which is basically the communist party at prayer.

Well we're heading off on a different tangent if you want to argue some of these positions aren't leftist. Unfortunately the Stalinist approach to socialism, which dominated most communist countries in the 20th century, was tough on human rights, undemocratic, authoritarian and militaristic. Many socialists don't share those values. But even then I think some of your claims are specious. Have communist countries started more wars than capitalist ones? What wars has communist China started? I doubt the communist countries of the world over the last century have started more wars than capitalists. The problem inherent with capitalism especially here in the US is the military-industrial complex -- a privately-owned industry whose profit margins are dependent on conflict. When the state owns the means of production, as in socialist states, that incentive to profit from war disappears.

Anyway, despite Stalin's perversion of socialism I think those positions I laid out are generally progressive positions that the far left shares in America (pro-civil liberties, pro-peace, pro-due process, pro-gay marriage).

Nixon's universal health care proposal was very much like Obamacare. The biggest difference is the individual mandate, which of course was a Romney policy.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/25/opinion/al...index.html

Quote:In actuality, both plans draw extensively from legislation offered by President Nixon in January 1974. In a book just published, "Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care," David Shactman and I explain how Romney and Obama used the same approach as Nixon to lower the number of uninsured.

All three built their system on private, employer-sponsored insurance in which all but the smallest employers had to provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty. All utilized Medicare to insure the elderly and an expanded Medicaid-type program to insure the poor. All provided subsidies to low-income individuals and small employers. The Romney and Obama plans created state-based private insurance exchanges to make insurance more accessible and affordable to small business and individuals

I disagree that Obama had to include extension of tax cuts for the rich in order to get it through Congress. Dems still controlled both chambers and if he wanted he could have passed an extension for the lower and middle class. Instead he ran to the center.

He didn't have his hand forced to offer cuts to Medicare/SS any more than Bush would have.

Karl Marx is far to the left of me. I don't advocate for state control of the means of production. Private ownership/capitalism is fine with me so long as it's sufficiently regulated.

Obama's Washington voting record is sparse because he was only there for a year until he began his presidential campaign. But his sole legislative achievement was a law restricting lobbying, hardly a far left position and arguably not ideological at all even. His voting record was liberal (one study rated it tied for 10th most liberal with Biden) but what votes suggest to you that Obama is a socialist/communist? Providing more children with health insurance? Expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? Maintaining a federal minimum wage? Sorry, I don't see it. Maybe you're right and it's my left wing bias, but those votes don't seem radical to me.

I don't know that they could have "vetted" the Wright and Ayers stories much more. Let's not forget either that ABC (specifically Brian Ross, the same guy who interviewed Newt's ex-wife) broke the Jeremiah Wright story.

Re: The other influences you cited. Were his parents and grandparents socialists? I don't even know if this is true, but if it is, so what? People break ideologically with their parents all the time. Reagan's son and daughter are Democrats. I don't believe Obama's relationship with Van Jones was very deep, and he resigned quickly. What's so terrible about Sunstein and Jarrett?

My final point was simply that "widespread rumors" and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee. I'm not giving the "Ayers wrote his autobiography" rumor any credibility until I see something substantive.

Max, I started to write a long and detailed response, but there's really no use. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. Mine could be changed by certain factual occurrences, but I don't see much chance of those happening. I've heard all your arguments before, none of them do I find compelling. I could counter with the reasons why they aren't and you would then counter with reasons to counter mine, and we'd really never get there.

I think the difference is that you are far enough to the left of me that things that seem perfectly normal to you are way out in left field for me. There are others on here that are far enough to the right of me that things which are perfectly normal to them seem way out in right field to me. Whether I'm in the center and you're left and they're right, or you're in the center and I'm right and they're far right, or they're in the center and I'm left and you're far left, who knows in the grand scheme of things.

We differ, but at least your posts show some intelligent thought, as do mine and those of some others on here. That makes them worth reading. That's a good thing.