Newt's always been about Newt and only Newt. If he can't have the nomination, he'll bring down the entire Republican party with him.

1/17/2012 9:24:06 AM

i know he wont drop out until post-Florida, but at least perry hammered his death nail home last night.

goddamn what an idiot.

1/17/2012 11:11:32 AM

Nominate Perry, so that we can go BACK to IRAQ!

It's got a nice ring to it. And I agree, we've got unfinished business over there. We should go back to Vietnam, too. Fuck tha America haterz.

1/17/2012 11:46:45 AM

The GOP pundits have been very successful with framing the debate on foreign policy. Leaving Iraq is "defeat". Leaving Afghanistan would be "defeat". Literally any reduction in military spending or military activity is "defeat".

Guys like Hannity and Limbaugh have effectively tapped into the jingoist, herd mentality that is so strong in the United States. Everything is about "teams". "We" lose, "they" win. The talking heads pit one group against another, and it's an extremely potent strategy because it appeals to our most basic, tribal instincts.

What the mainstream Republican fails to realize, and what many on this message board fail to realize, is that "we" are not the ones profiting from our foreign policy. We are not safer. We are not richer. We are worse off in nearly every respect, and the nation as a whole is getting poorer. Even the people that work hard and have an entrepreneurial spirit are going to have a harder time getting wealthy.

The hawks rarely focus on economic policy, and I mean more than platitudes about creating jobs. I think it's a mix of ignorance and cognitive dissonance. It's about the Fed, it's about where our money is being diverted, it's about the lost productivity that comes from maintaining and frequently using a powerful military. It's possible to have the most powerful military in the world without all this adventurist bullshit. That's the difference between national defense and military spending.

We have a very advantageous position, surrounding by oceans on both sides. We share a continent with nations that pose absolutely no threat to us. What's killing us is the leviathan state, failed drug policies, and wasteful military spending. It would be a fucking shame if we pissed away 99% of our prosperity in a foolish attempt to save face on the foreign policy front. The gig's up, let's bring the money back home where it belongs.

[Edited on January 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM. Reason : ]

1/17/2012 12:16:37 PM

destroyer, i completely agree. i think you hit the nail on the head. nice work.

1/17/2012 1:40:41 PM

^^nice work

1/17/2012 1:43:51 PM

agreed, but I'm really starting to believe that it's going to take a collapse to the point that the government is literally unable to continue runaway defense spending to change anything....And they'll bleed everything else dry before any real cuts to the military.

The irony will be that we spent so much money on "defense spending", it'll cripple our ability to actually defend.

1/17/2012 1:48:22 PM

im with you d3stroy3r. except substitute republican with democrat as well

both sides have the 'team' mentality big-time. you're as brainwashed as the sheep you attack if you think otherwise

1/17/2012 2:25:38 PM

^it's the baby-boomers man...they suck

1/17/2012 2:37:41 PM

the fact is we (all humans) all have about 98% in common. it's the 2% that the media harps on constantly to generate ad revenue.

because humans love drama. we love abortion and dramatic and tebow stories and more drama. and we click on the links and turn on our tvs to watch. and read the article and post comments. and every page refresh generates 5 cents to some schmuck propagating the lies and bullshit

eventually the people start believing it and begin to be polarized against each other. OMG THIS WILL BE THE END OF THE UNITED STATES IF WE DONT FIGURE IT OUT NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW.

so now we've bought the hype and sold each other out to pretend to support each others 'teams'

it's all a bullshit fascade.

and republictards as well as demotards are to blame. they've all been sold out by other personal interests and even if they do represent their segment of the population its horrible b/c that piece of the pie they represent has already bought into the 'team mentality' that democrats and republicans never agree and can never get anything done.

1/17/2012 3:43:29 PM

Quote :

"The irony will be that we spent so much money on "defense spending", it'll cripple our ability to actually defend."

It would be ironic, but not all that surprising. The U.S. is not the first nation to embark upon the strategy of economic might through military might. It works for a while, no doubt. Other nations can be strong armed into creating favorable trade conditions for us.

The U.S. has used this military advantage in significant ways. It could be argued that the end of the Bretton Woods system, and the resulting creation of a fiat world reserve currency, was only possible because the U.S. had a strong military that it had demonstrated willingness to use. I can't think of any other reason that nations of the world would willingly accept U.S. dollars rather than the gold that they had been promised.

I've said it before, but it becomes more obvious by the day: the U.S. is a modern day Roman Empire. Perpetual war, combined with politicians that buy influence with promises of "bread and circuses", is guaranteed to bring down even the strongest of empires. Productivity dwindles as the need for hard work becomes irrelevant, and gaming (or become a cog within) the system is much more likely to yield a comfortable lifestyle than actual work. The big difference is that the Roman Empire debased their coinage. We have computers, so "coins" have become "credit", which can be created even more easily. Currently we're trapped in a cycle where one asset bubble is inflated after another - the boom/bust cycle, or the Austrian business cycle.

Quote :

"im with you d3stroy3r. except substitute republican with democrat as well both sides have the 'team' mentality big-time. you're as brainwashed as the sheep you attack if you think otherwise"

I don't think it's limited to one political party or even politics in general. "Team mentality" (i.e. tribalism) is, as I said, part of human nature. We are hardwired to root for what we perceive as "our team". In the thousands of years before human civilization, this meant higher survival rates. We seem to get "high" from oneness with the team. When you go to an NCSU game and you're cheering with everyone else in the stands, you feel amazing.

Key to progression of the human race is a widespread understanding that, no, "our side" is not "the right side". I believe that the power brokers in this country understand that, and they don't care. What they do understand is that people are easily manipulated. At least, people are easily manipulated until they're armed with the knowledge that there are no clear cut sides, just those that take and those that are taken from. That is why the establishment fears Ron Paul more than death.

Quote :

"that piece of the pie they represent has already bought into the 'team mentality' that democrats and republicans never agree and can never get anything done."

Yes. What's scary are the parts that Republicans and Democrats do agree on.

[Edited on January 17, 2012 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ]

1/17/2012 4:12:26 PM

ironically if it weren't for these 'establishments' we consider so corrupt we'd probably be in a tribal system as well. and if we break what we have without a clear plan for our future we'll probably end up in a kenyan style tribal land as well.

oh well i still have faith we'll get out of this shit. my faith in the common human being is not gone. yet.

1/17/2012 4:34:23 PM

Quote :

"both sides have the 'team' mentality big-time"

Quote :

"it's the baby-boomers man...they suck"

[Edited on January 17, 2012 at 4:47 PM. Reason : seriously though, it's the baby-boomers and their parents generation that ruined America.]

Quote :

"eventually the people start believing it and begin to be polarized against each other"

dude, you are one of the MOST polarized posters on this site. you vilify every person who doesn't lean conservative or questions the status quo of economic equality. take your own advice and stop contributing to the wretched state of political discourse in this country.


[Edited on January 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2012 4:46:43 PM

^hey, enough with the hate. it's time to embrace love.




idk about their parents. they were in survival mode most of their lives.

but i have no problem placing 100% of the blame on the baby boomers.


[Edited on January 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ,]

1/17/2012 4:52:26 PM

i've been embracing the love for years. where have you been?

Quote :

"oh well i still have faith we'll get out of this shit"

i'm not so sure anymore. personally, i'm 50/50 America will implode in the next 10 years. the only advantage i see is technological innovation and higher education (by far two of the biggest contributors to prosperity) are still the best here, and both of those are under attack.

[Edited on January 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2012 4:53:48 PM

[Edited on January 17, 2012 at 4:56 PM. Reason : -]

1/17/2012 4:55:46 PM

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/4212

Quote :

""In obedience to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, most South Carolinans and I have a sane and healthy homophobia, while Mitt Romney has a very bad case of homophilia; the man very clearly endorses dangerous, unhealthy homosexual conduct. Romney actually proclaimed gay youth pride days as governor of Massachusetts." "

WOW

1/18/2012 6:23:06 PM

Why do his people have homophobia? I think the phrase is more 'hatred of homosexuals' more than it is 'fear of homosexuals'

1/18/2012 6:32:17 PM

DRUDGE ALERT! Newt's ex has given an interview to ABC which will "end his career"

1/18/2012 7:10:11 PM

Homosexual sexual activity is more dangerous and unhealthy than other sexual conduct, in general.

I'm not sure why that was put in bold.

1/18/2012 7:25:36 PM

^^^ go watch The Phantom Menace. it explains it all

1/18/2012 7:28:20 PM

Quote :

"SOURCE: ABC TO RELEASE EXCERPT 10 AM... DEVELOPING... "

This should be good

1/19/2012 9:08:45 AM

bttt, Perry is out

Dropping like flies

I'm interested to see where the votes go, but won't be surprised when they all go to Romney or Santorum

1/19/2012 9:24:56 AM

and romney didn't win iowa.

1/19/2012 9:24:57 AM

^those extra 12 votes in iowa should pay off huge for santorum




[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 10:49 AM. Reason : ,]

1/19/2012 10:44:58 AM

1/19/2012 12:13:07 PM

Mitt Romney holds multiple offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands

Quote :

"Romney, whose net worth is estimated at around $250 million, has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 accounts in the Cayman Islands, which is infamous as a tax haven, ABC News said yesterday."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/romney_offshore_tash_dw9ijYyvUHoyzgzN1dxLSJ

1/19/2012 2:23:25 PM

What?...he's just a good businessman, and that's just good business

1/19/2012 2:24:51 PM

^^ so what? It's not like he's using it as tax avoidance. His capital gains and losses, if any, will still show up on his tax return.

Of course most of America is too dumb to realize just becaus you invest in a hedge fund headquartered in the Cayman Islands doesn't mean you're evading taxes..

1/19/2012 4:32:41 PM

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/comfortably-numb-south-carolinians-say-sex-on-tv-and-single-mothers-dull-the-sting-of-newts-past.php?ref=fpblg

Poor Romney. From thinking he had the first three primary states in the bag to ending up having only won one. Now, the GOP would be absolutely insane to make Gingrich their candidate. It's definitely going to be Romney, but this thing is going to drag a lot longer than people thought. Romney is going to find it much harder to convince people he's a moderate after spending 6 months convincing the Tea Party he's actually a ring wing extremist.

1/19/2012 4:45:29 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/18/1056110/-Newt-Gingrich-Promises-Palin-a-Presidential-Appointment-and-Commits-a-Felony?via=siderecent

I like when you get the tl;dr directly in the URI.

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2012 4:45:32 PM

How the fuck, in the greatest country in the world, with our 300,000,000 people, and in a year with a vulnerable incumbent, is THIS circus of clowns and freaks the best field of candidates that the GOP can muster?

1/19/2012 4:52:07 PM

cause Obama was elected as the democrat version of Reagan

1/19/2012 4:54:29 PM

^^Easy. All the things that make Obama weak are positions that these Republicans would agree with or do more of.

Health care? Originally came from the Heritage Foundation, and of course, was used by Mitt Romney.

Patriot Act? Continued

Guantanamo Bay? Still open

Military Imperialism? Iran, coming soon.

Indefinite Detention? You betcha

Fuckin' civil liberties? how do they work?

Bush Tax Cuts? Continued

Gutting of Social Services? Coming either way.

Prosecution of bankers or breaking up of the banks? Neither party wants to do that.


Just face it, Obama is right-of-center. He would have been a moderate Republican in the 90s. The only way for these Republican's to be further to the right than Obama is by being crazy-far to the right. Enter Rick Newton Santorum

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 5:27 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2012 5:02:10 PM

^^^I think assuming Obama's vulnerability is your problem here. It's not like there aren't decent Republican candidates out there. Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and even Pawlenty would have made stronger candidates than most of the bunch we have now. I'm sure they did their own research and internal polling, and decided that they didn't want to get beaten like a rented mule McCain style.

So instead we got a bunch of also-rans, long shots, and wackos with nothing to lose. The only exception is Huntsman, who was probably just looking to get his name out there for a serious run in 2016. Romney had no choice but to run since he also went all in 4 years ago, and would have no shot against a stronger field.

^http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

Articulates why you are off base way better than I could.

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 5:10 PM. Reason : :]

1/19/2012 5:04:01 PM

Already read it. It's a shitty article


Look, if you, like Sullivan were upset with the Bush Wars, tax policies, and assault on civil liberties, then there's really nothing to discuss here, as Obama has continued all of those.

So unless you want to admit that the goalposts have moved and you are now OKAY with the shift, and are ready to convince yourself that your criticism of Bush no longer matters to our current president, then you don't really have a leg to stand on.

I really think Democrats who continue to support Obama are deluding themselves into thinking that he's going to put on his cape and turn into a progressive super-hero in his second term. I'm not holding out hope, as his record in the past three years proves that he's going to "compromise" with the right time and time again (mostly because we on the left don't hold him accountable). The problem with that strategy, of course, is that Republicans keep becoming more radical and moving further to the right, so his compromises are really just the positions that republicans of yesterday initially held. And that's on the real, son. Buh-lee-dat


I'll see your Sullivan piece and raise you a Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/democratic_party_priorities/singleton/


[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 5:29 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2012 5:11:11 PM

^^Okay, you've got a point, but let's be clear. Our country is completely fucked because of people like you. You slavishly defend Obama as he kills innocents with drone attacks and shills for the banks. He's able to get away with that shit because his supporters don't hold his feet to the fire. If you and your ilk weren't such brain dead and spineless pussies, maybe Obama actually would be a progressive President.

1/19/2012 5:16:30 PM

Newt/Palin '12...a ticket so bad, Obama wouldn't even have to campaign.

1/19/2012 5:31:11 PM

Quote :

"I really think Democrats who continue to support Obama are deluding themselves into thinking that he's going to put on his cape and turn into a progressive super-hero in his second term. I'm not holding out hope, as his record in the past three years proves that he's going to "compromise" with the right time and time again (mostly because we on the left don't hold him accountable)."

No, the problem is that's what people thought they were getting in 2009. Instead they got a pragmatic leader who's actually accomplished quite a lot in the 3 short years. You're really missing just how much this country has been sliding to the right for the past 30 years. Obama put the breaks on that, while simultaneously pulling universal healthcare out of his sack. The choice between Obama and Romney (or whoever wins) couldn't be any clearer to me. Hell, just look at the bills that come out of the 112th Congress and ask yourself where we'd be if President Romney was in the WH.

^^Yes, our country is fucked because of people like me. However, the people who support Romney/Gingrich/Santorum (roughly half the country), the ones who are actually coming out and saying they will attack Iran and shred all financial regulations, aren't culpable at all. Give me a fucking break.

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 5:41 PM. Reason : +1]

1/19/2012 5:36:14 PM

umm....homie, I've been shouting pretty loudly how far we've gone to the right for the past 30 years. The fact that Obama is further to the right than Ronald Reagan should be evidence of that.

Problem is, we're still moving to the right. Just at a slower pace. And you know what? That's not gonna change until progressives stop giving the president a fucking pass every time he takes a soft position and then bargains with the right. That's just shitty politics.

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 5:46 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2012 5:43:54 PM

No, shitty politics would have been allowing unemployment benefits for 3 million Americans to end. Shitty politics would have been not passing any health reform at all because you don't have the votes for a public option. It's really easy to peg one side as being soft when you ignore the other side's utter lack of empathy.

And I really don't see how anyone can criticize Obama's foreign policy unless you're a Ron Paul-esque isolationist nut job, or a neocon warhawk. Iraq is over. Al-Qaeda is crippled. Libya couldn't have been handled better. We're not going to war with Iran. The only way that happens is if Iran does something suicidal, like blockading the Strait of Hormuz or attacking Israel. Neither is likely and in either case, we'd have no choice. This is nothing like Bush's neocon buddies beating the drums of war against Iraq from day one.

1/19/2012 6:16:48 PM

Quote :

"The book is Fighting For Our Health, by Richard Kirsch, who directed the advocacy group Health Care for America Now during the push for reform. HCAN is a well financed umbrella group backed by scores of liberal groups, unions, and other reformers — making Kirsch a close witness to the entire saga. He confirms that the White House treated the public option like a bargaining chip with powerful industry players, and believes that when his group became most critical of the bill mid-way through the fight, that top White House aides sought to have him canned. “The White House had negotiated a number of deals with the health industry, designed to win their support for reform, including agreeing to oppose a robust public option, which would have the greatest clout to control how much providers got paid,” writes Kirsch, largely confirming what has become an open secret in Washington. "

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/key-reform-ally-dishes-on-weak-kneed-white-house-health-care-pushes-on-weak-kneed-reform.php

Obama never wanted the public option. It was never about the votes. That's been known for a while now.


And why can't I criticize a foreign policy that executes American citizens without trial? Increased drone strikes in sovereign nations? An all-out assault on civil liberties? This is the goal-post moving that drives me nuts. The left would have been enraged if Bush had killed American citizens without trial. But when Obama does it, they stand down. The left absolutely HATED Guantanamo. But now it's less of a priority.

And we just moved thousands of troops into Kuwait. Iranian scientists are dropping like fucking flies (probably Israel, but that doesn't help things any). Sure, we're not on the ground, but things could very well escalate.

Quote :

"American troops in the Persian Gulf region do not require any build-up for a possible military conflict with Iran, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Wednesday. "We are not making any special steps at this point in order to deal with the situation. Why? Because, frankly, we are fully prepared to deal with that situation now," Panetta explained."

http://rt.com/news/iran-conflict-us-ready-179/

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/iran_and_the_terrorism_game/singleton/

And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Israel decided to preemptively attack Iran just for shits in giggles during the middle of our election (which would, without question, drag us into a war). And the only real reason why we should be applauding Libya (or Egypt) is if we abandon the pretense that we actually give a shit about spreading democracy as opposed to installing puppet governments that will serve Israeli and American business interests.

And my oh my, what a world we live in when people on the American left are viewing Ron Paul's non-intervionist policy as "crazy" while implicitly supporting not-so-covert military action on a sovereign nation that poses ZERO threat to American citizens.

He gets credit for Bin Laden.





[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2012 6:38:38 PM

Newt's middle name is 'Leroy'? Oh hell no! We all know what happened the last time a Leroy was followed... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkCNJRfSZBU

1/19/2012 8:09:35 PM

oh god newt is pissed

1/19/2012 8:10:58 PM

Rawr says Newt!

1/19/2012 8:14:34 PM

mitt was derpin it up there for a second

1/19/2012 9:02:12 PM

SOPA Question:

Leroy +1
Willard +1
Ron Paul +1
Butt Lube +0 for indirectly crying about his treatment on the internets

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 9:17 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2012 9:16:23 PM

Quote :

"Butt Lube"

i lol'd

1/19/2012 9:24:09 PM

I think they completely forgot Ron Paul was even in the building

1/19/2012 9:45:42 PM

the crowd totally called them out on it

it was awesome

1/19/2012 9:56:09 PM