Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Newt Gingrich

  1. #1
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Newt Gingrich



    Type?

  2. #2
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    SLE-Ti

  3. #3
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    SLE-Ti maybe 6w5? He can't beat Obama, too many legit skeletons. Ron Paul has the best chance.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  4. #4
    Erk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What? Neither one have a chance of beating Obamba.

  5. #5
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erk View Post
    What? Neither one have a chance of beating Obamba.
    Romney won't get the nomination. He's too liberal. Gingrich has too many skeletons. The choice is obvious.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  6. #6
    boom boom boom blackburry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    ESI-Se 6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,269
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Ti-ESTp, maybe 7w8.

    Gingrich and Ron Paul have the best chance of beating Obama, so everyone should vote for one of them in the primaries.
    RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

  7. #7
    Cat Lady aixelsyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    488
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackburry View Post
    RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
    x over 9000
    Last edited by aixelsyd; 01-29-2012 at 08:16 PM.
    Life's a bitch and she's got me pussy whipped.

  8. #8
    boom boom boom blackburry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    ESI-Se 6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,269
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wookie View Post
    x over 9000
    whoop whoop! I like his views.

  9. #9
    Sam Rockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Your veins.
    TIM
    INFp, e5
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gary Johnson, muthafuckas!

    On a sidenote, Newt Gingrich is one baby-faced SLI.
    Last edited by Sam Rockwell; 12-31-2011 at 08:17 AM. Reason: Did not contribute.

  10. #10
    JRiddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indian Territory
    TIM
    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
    Posts
    838
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Rockwell View Post
    Gary Johnson, muthafuckas!

    On a sidenote, Newt Gingrich is one baby-faced SLI.




    Nah, he's just one of those fat-faced Ti-ESTps like Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt, Hugo Chavez, or Rosie O'Donnell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I thought that too, but it looks like there's a pretty significant chance he'll get it. At which point you can be sure we'll get 4 more years of Obama, because nobody is going to win an election running as a moderate Obama-lite, yet Republicans are stupid enough to think this is a good idea.

    Hence why Gingrich or Paul are winning alternatives, because they can actually present a decisive contrast between themselves and Obama's views.
    I don't think Gingrich is much better than Romney, but I agree that he stands a better chance against Obama because Gingrich could and would make the President look silly in debates and on the campaign trail. And while I think Gingrich might be marginally better than Obama, primarily because he would likely be able to push a lot of shit through Congress, he's still a staunch federalist, and he appeals to philosophical positions on government only out of occasional necessity.

    http://www.newt.org/contract/day-one-plan

    On the page linked to above, he lists executive orders he would like to make. Number One talks about how the President does not have the authority to appoint these czars, but 2, 3, and 6 all appear to be out of the scope of Presidential power themselves. I understand that exactly what the President should have power to do is a matter up for debate, but I feel like you have to express some philosophy or idea behind why you think an executive can do this thing but not the other. And this is the quintessence of the problem for nearly all Republicans today: they do not genuinely believe in limited government, and as such, provide little real alternative to Democrats.

    Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are really the only candidates that seem substantially different from the rest, and are the only ones willing to drastically reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Only Paul has any chance now, and I still feel that it's pretty slim, given how unfavorably he is perceived by a majority of Republicans.

    JRiddy
    —————King of Socionics—————

    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so

  11. #11
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,001
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln05_psychogenic.html

    ‎'It is not difficult to see politicians switch back and forth between their central selves and their social alters, often using the royal "We" when speaking of themselves when in their social alters. For instance, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich stood on the floor of Congress in 1996 and spoke with passionate intensity about the need for cutting all kinds of government aid for children (cut nutrition assistance for 14 million children, cut Social Security for 750,000 disabled children, cut Medicaid for 4 million children, plus slash aid to 9 million children benefiting from Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Head Start, education grants, child health care, aid to homeless children, etc.) Few helpless children in America would avoid the sacrificial ax. Then, in a blink of an eye, Gingrich switched from his persecutory social alter back to his real self and called for tax credits for poor children to buy laptop computers so they could access the Internet!

    What had happened was this: Gingrich had been inaugurated as Speaker of the House, becoming world famous and appearing on the covers of the newsweeklies, and had received a book contract for $4.5 million. All this personal success made his hidden self, needy-baby Newt, son of a severely manic-depressive teenage mother and a battering father, feel jealous and cry out "ME TOO! I NEED SOME LOVE!" His conscious self was threatened with being overwhelmed with the memories of deprivation, despair and dependency that he had so long repressed. The same process was happening to millions of other newly wealthy Americans who favored cutting welfare and child aid. Rather than Gingrich feeling his neediness, he dumped it into scapegoats, millions of needy American children, letting them feel his despair for him, saying they had to cut off their aid because it was making children "too dependent." What poor children had done wrong was to be dependent and helpless. Gingrich's social alter had the task of protecting him against the repetition of his early traumas by punishing stand-ins for himself for their dependency. He felt that his own helplessness was to blame for his being neglected by his mother; therefore helpless, dependent children, symbols of himself, had to be punished. Children must not be dependent, he declared; their neediness makes them bad. That he particularly singled out stopping aid to children of teenage mothers gave away the inner sources of his crusade, being himself a child of a teenage mother. And while Gingrich's individual traumatic history as a child of a teenage mother wasn't shared by the other Congressmen who voted the cuts in welfare into law nor by the President who signed the legislation, they and those Americans who supported them shared traumas of equal severity to collude in using the children as scapegoats.

    Because so much of America at that time had become so prosperous--the highest gross domestic product per person of any nation in history--most of the nation colluded in considering Gingrich's delusional actions "social," not "personal." No one asked if his persecution of children of teenage mothers had anything to do with his being a child of an unwed teenage mother; obviously it wasn't a measure designed to reduce teenage pregnancies, the majority of which are the result of seduction or outright rape by men much older than the teenagers. In fact, only 8 percent of welfare mothers were unwed teenagers; welfare actually reduces teenage pregnancies. And two-thirds of teenage babies were made by fathers who were over 21, essentially raping the teen mother. But these facts didn't deter the nation's convictions. No one asked why during a period of unparalleled prosperity the nation's most important agenda suddenly became to pass federal legislation that punished children, including one provision specifically prohibiting states from making any payments for baby diapers.

    Nor was Gingrich alone in this group-fantasy of "bad children." Congressmen began calling children on welfare "bloodsuckers" and "alligators" and "wolves" who were preying on taxpayers.'

    ‎'The scapegoating of children to silence the hurt child inside oneself is extremely effective in reducing intrapsychic anxiety. Even chimpanzees scapegoat infants when tense, seizing them from their mothers and flailing them against the ground, often killing them in "aggression-displays." In 1996, America too was displaying aggression toward children, internal scapegoats in order to make us feel better. Millions of Americans [who] watched Newt Gingrich on TV or read about his speeches the next day in the paper had to deny that two very different Gingriches had spoken as he cut out welfare for children and in the next moment proposed giving them laptop computers. Some columnists acknowledged that providing laptop computers for ghetto kids while cutting off their food money was a "crazy" idea. One, whose column was headed "Newt to Poor: Let Them Eat Laptops," pointed out that ghetto children don't have much use for tax credits since they usually don't pay taxes, but even he wasn't curious about how Gingrich could simultaneously champion both starvation and free computers for poor children. Like early observers of multiple personalities, he merely labeled the idea as "crazy," but never asked how and why and when Gingrich moved in and out of his "crazy" alternate personality.

    RESTAGING EARLY TRAUMAS IN THE SOCIAL TRANCE
    The childhood sources for Gingrich's political program are so overt they should be obvious to all, yet because we are in a social trance when we hear him we collude to deny them. The media widely reported, for instance, that Gingrich was a child of a teenage mother, but carefully didn't connect it with his speeches on how teenage mothers should be punished for having children. The traumatic events of his infancy had to be restaged and millions of children made to feel his despair because in his social alter the child feels responsible for his or her own abuse and neglect, and so a scapegoat for the child self must be punished. As always in politics, the social alter's primary identification is with the abuser.

    That cutting out welfare for children was a reaction to prosperity, not really a way to save money, was admitted by many politicians. Senator Pat Moynihan pointed out even President Clinton bore responsibility for the success of Gingrich's campaign to "dump the children on the streets," since Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it." "It is almost beyond imagining that we will do this," Moynihan said. "In the middle of the Great Depression, we provided a Federal guarantee of some provision for children, dependent children. In the middle of the roaring 90's, we're taking it away." But the seeming contradiction is in fact the point: it is because the 90s were roaring we had to punish children, scapegoats for the "bad, needy" child alter in our heads. The Congressman who told the media, "It's time to tighten the belt on the bloated stomach of the Federal government" himself had a very large stomach, but no one mentioned this as he voted to cut the lunch money for skinny little kids.

    When the 61-year-old federal welfare program, the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program, the benefits for disabled children and the food stamps guarantees were finally repealed with the backing of both parties and of the President, the sacrifice of America's children was complete. Many commentators and politicians said this would "prevent children from being dependent." It was useless to point out to people who are dissociated and in a social trance that children or other poison containers were helpless human beings who were the victims of their actions. Nor could one have made any impression pointing out that appearing to save a few billion dollars by depriving today's children would cost hundreds of billions in tomorrow's crimes. The children were full of our projections; they weren't real to us.'
    Last edited by HERO; 01-02-2012 at 07:30 AM.

  12. #12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •