I'm reading your name as "LarryBible".

It makes no difference what party he says he's in, he will not be elected. By going as a card carrying R, he gets a much larger podium. Or microphone, or something. But it's much larger, of that I'm certain. :wacko:

Comment edited out for attacking the individual, not the idea.

Back to trashing Newt.....

Newt says the left is the biggest threat to traditional religion.

From what I have seen the right wingers are the biggest threat to traditional religion. I have been to traditional churches, such as the Episcopal church, and many of the people I have met there have been open minded people willing to consider different points of view. Past members of the Episcopal church have been people like George Washington and Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Twenty-five percent of all US Presidents have been members of this church as have fifty percent of all Supreme Court members. The Vanderbilts, Thomas Jefferson, Nat King Cole......

I have been to some of the Mega Churches, too. They are far more to the right and much more closed minded than any 'traditional' church I have ever attended. They also seem to be concerned with showmanship and slogan as opposed to teaching and community outreach. Some are proud to proclaim that there is nothing traditional about them.

So.... Is Newt correct? I understand that Newt has spent the better part of his life abusing almost anyone and everyone who has ever come near him and this religion thing is still sort of new to him, but dose he have a point?

Or is he just trying to sell more books?

Newt is a very smart man, he just can't stop talking, which means his mouth overloads his ... ability to engage. I would guess that Newt carefully defines what he means by traditional religion. Given the numerous schisms in the mainline protestant denominations over the past 50 years, he can probably support his argument.

Baptists have been around for 400 years or so. Are they 'traditional'? How about Roman Catholics?

Take for example, the Episcopal Church. I think it has maybe 3M communicants. The Baptists probably have that many parishioners in Georgia.

Hey Larry, That was me that edited the sticky you created. I did NOT remove it, I just merged it with the Rules/information sticky your entire post is in there, and credited!
AFAIK, every thread you posted to still exists. no hard feelings I hope!

Some churches have changed with the times, some have not.

Newt has charged that 'The Left' threatens 'traditional' churches like a lot of people grew up in but then gives no evidence to back it up.

But I think folks should cut Newt some slack on this comment since he has not seen the inside of a church until recently, when he decided to run for office again, so it is probably safe to say Newt has no concept of what he is blathering on about.

Scarrrrrrryyyyyyy.... The Left is Sacarrrryyyyy.............

An example of the attitude that it matters not whether it is true or not just whether he likes the sound of it and people will want to believe it.

A concept embraced by RR.

You're right, by golly!! Where have I heard that before?

Hope and change! Yes we can!

That's not the same at all. Those are campaign slogans, not statements about the state of traditional religion or any other issue of the day. You've made an apples-and-oranges comparison.

Newt is constantly saying things that sound smart, but often aren't. That's why he goes through such contortions to explain so many of his smug pronouncements.

For example: Newt Gingrich’s Libya Shift, Issue by Issue | TPMDC

And of course, we have what may be the most amazing attempt to justify a flip-flop ever attempted by an American politician:That might be his masterpiece. Not even Mitt, the Babe Ruth of flip-floppers, can really hope to match it.

I don't know how smart Newt is. He's got an active mind and he certainly knows how to accumulate money and power, but he seems like more of a showman, not a great thinker.

It's the same: Give the gullible supporters mindless platitudes and watch the shiny-eyed goofs drool at the magnificence!

Newt has been divorced before, has there been a president that took office that has been divorced before? :confused::D

Besides Ronald Reagan? I'm not sure.

If Newt were any slimier he'd be named "Loogie".

He reminds me of a pasty faced Captain Kangaroo. :D

Newt says child labor laws are stupid. He thinks it would be a good thing if they were done away with.

But how would this work in the 21 Century? Probably about as good as it does today in Mexico, where you will see signs in English that say, "Don't hire our children to watch your car. They belong in school."

Go, Newt! Put those poor kids in the workhouses!

Of course, there is also the Oklahoma model of education. Up until about twenty years ago it was considered wasteful here to educated boys past the 8th grade and girls past the 6th. That started to change when companies started fleeing the state since they could not find enough people here who could understand technical issues.

But who needs an education when you have Newt to lead you!

I think child labor laws need some flexibility. I'd like for unions to be able to apprentice high school students who are not college-bound (for example).

I'm not sure he was saying that we should get rid of child labor laws. He was saying the ones we have are stupid. They probably are. It's funny to hear Newt talk about he talks to successful people and they all started working when they were 9 years old with a paper route or something. While there is probably a lot of truth in that, I'm not sure Newt is the best one to carry the message. Working for the government and then hiring himself out for others wanting to do business with the government made Newt a rich man.

By tomorrow, Newt will have some smug response to all the liberals who overreact to his child labor law comment. Rush Limbaugh does that all the time. He will say something that seems offensive, wait for people to get outraged, and then ridicule their overreaction. It's the sort of device Newt and Rush use in lieu of actual original thought.

Rush Limbaugh does that like a conductor plays an orchestra. He devises a bait scenario knowing that some hotheaded zealot will over-react. It whips up his name usage to a crescendo of outrage if he can lure the president or some other notable to use his name so that it enters the media echo chamber. Over the next 24 hrs he will use the strategic response he had devised BEFORE the imbroglio started. It amazes me that people fall for it like Charlie Brown for Lucy's football. Limbaugh laughs on his way to the bank. Every freaking time.

I totally agree. Rush is a puke.;)

I'm afraid that there is no single politician that holds the copyright to this. This is done by ALL politicians of ALL parties. I'm surprised that you of all people, fall for it.

Well let's see... Ronald Reagan and I can't think of any others from my lifetime.

I have yet to figure out how ppl can stand to listen to his trash (Rush) but I feel that way about all the televised news/political talk shows.

He did indeed say that the laws we have now are stupid. He did not say that we should get rid of them. Leave it to the biased media to misreport this to cover their Messiah B.O.

I was making that post quickly on my IPhone. I will repeat so it is VERY clear.

I have NEVER been Larry Bible. Then as now, it has always been LarryBible.

I did NOT edit ANY attacks of any kind. I initially wrote in the post that none of my posts had been deleted. After submitting the thread I went to the Diesel Discussion and saw that one of my threads no longer showed up, so I thought that they were all gone. At that point I went back and INDICATED edition and posted what I thought at the time to be true.

Again, there were NEVER any attacks!

No hard feelings at all toward you or ANY moderator on this site. When I was writing that it was about time for me to log off and I didn't have time to investigate what Mike Murrell was incorrectly implying. That was a thread that I knew that I could go check in a hurry. When I didn't quickly find it, I incorrectly assumed that Mike Murrell was correct in that my threads were gone.

Had they been gone due to moderator decisions, it would not have bothered me, except for the loss of other people's technical posts within the threads. I have been so discredited on this forum in the last year or so, that my past posts now carry zero credibility anyway.

So it's okay not to live up to campaign promises if they were just slogans?

I think it's safe to say that Rush disagrees with you, so from what you said in another thread that automatically makes him irrational.

Maybee time to let this thread die a slow quiet death Larry.

Of course not. I was just pointing out that slogans are different from statements about public policy. It makes no sense to compare Obama's, "Yes We Can," to Newt's argument that the left is against traditional religion. The slogan is meaningless. One would hope, probably in vain, that a candidate's arguments about religion are not.

No, don't kill it yet. I hear that Newt is going to give a speech today about his proposal to change Social Security. I guarantee the speech will be idiotic.

Of course it will be "idiotic." If it doesn't agree with YOUR particular beliefs then it is "idiotic." If a REAL idiot makes a speech that DOES happen to agree with YOUR beliefs, then it will be a stroke of genius.

You make yourself quite transparent with such statements.

I guess I should have said that I predict the speech will be idiotic. I can't guarantee it. Let's wait to hear what he says, shall we? I am confident about my prediction.

By your definition I'm quite SURE that it will be idiotic. The reason is that it will most likely not fall in line with YOUR particular political ideologies. Of course we've had three years of your particular ideologies that have buried us deeper in the hole, but that's fine, anyone disagreeing with your ideologies is an idiot.

It's so nice to hear from you again.

The uncompromising GOP has nothing to do with our problems, right? They're giving priority to big corporations and multi-millionaires. They bail out the big corporations, but when it comes to the average person, they've done very little. When it comes to balancing the budget, they refuse to take on any kind of sacrifice that would be required if that sacrifice is required by the very rich. They have created a government that does not work for anyone, and you blame Obama? What we've really had is TEN YEARS of your ideology, the ideology that the rich should get a free ride, and its done nothing but get worse for average people since it started, and the GOP fails to see it because they don't want to see it, since they are the party of the very rich.

WHO bails out the big corporations? Have you forgotten about B.O. giving G.M. and Chrysler a big bunch of our tax money?

You apparently have selective memory, much like the pup I've been trying to train.

I thought that was the tax code? My bad.

So you wanted millions of people to lose their jobs? And it was a pittance compared to the trillions passed out by Hank Paulson and George Bush to the big banks, something you seemed to have forgotten yourself.

First of all I'm trying to understand how millions could have lost their jobs if GM had gone broke. Does GM REALLY employ MILLIONS? I don't think so.

Havn't forgotten TARP at all. I was NOT in favor of TARP then and I'm not in favor of TARP now. I'm not in favor of squandering taxpayer dollars on things like Solyndra either.

To make myself quite clear, I'm not in favor of giving money to ANY private business!!!!!!!! That means no subsidies to the farmers, to the solar companies, to the car companies to the banks, or for healthcare for that matter.

There is NO political party who is not guilty of this kind of trash. The government should be providing defense, infrastructure and law enforcement. THAT'S IT! They should not be giving money to the poor, to business, to famers, or to ANYBODY!!!!!!!!! They had no business ever even starting Social Security which is one thing that Perry had right, it's turned out to be a Ponzi Scheme.

If the government staid out of all these things we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now. When it was TARP time they should have let the banks fail. We would already be climbing out of it by now instead of letting the LWNJ's that are now in charge making it even worse.

When you take into account all the suppliers and the folks they deal all around the world and then go down the food chain I think it is very possible to get into at least 1 million people.

THANKS!

Do you REALLY believe that GM would have filed bankruptcy had they not gotten a chunk of our tax money?

Probably, if they weren't bought by a Chinese or Indian company first. I have to suppot David such a high figure of job loss, they had thousands of subcontracted parts, it would have been a massive economic implosion.

The demand for automobiles would not have significantly changed. This means that the demand for car parts would not have significantly changed, thus the loss of anciliary jobs would have changed very little.

That's all beside the point. The point is that the government has no business picking and chosing private businesses to fund.

In Honolulu, the carpenters union has stepped in where funding for traditional "shop classes" have been cut. Students get instruction in practical hands on techniques, but also get lessons in math, geometry and related traditional subjects that integrate with construction.

Well hey, I was just answering your question

Btw I have a funny feeling if he let them go bankrupt, the GOP would be calling him "un-American". Go figure.

There is no way to confirm or deny this statement. The thing is, NIETHER party should be funnelling money to private business. Let them rise and fall on their own merit.

Of course, related to your point is the fact that the lobbyist game has gotten to proportions of massive corruption.