Is Newt Gingrich teh GOP Bill Clinton??

[Anonymous]

When anonymous starts posting about "stupid people" and "smart people" it's a good bet that they fall into the latter group, but don't know it.

A big difference is that Gingrich can't fake sincerity like Clinton can, so he has to rely on honesty more often. Clinton was willing to lie under oath, not many would stoop so low.

[Anonymous]

Many women consider Bill Clinton hot, I doubt Newt's wife (1,2or3) thinks Newt is hot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many women consider Bill Clinton hot, I doubt Newt's wife (1,2or3) thinks Newt is hot.

You are right...wife #3 just thinks he is rich

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gingrich would be awesome in a debate against Obama. I think he would tear Obama down.

I don't get why people are so against lowering taxes across the board or making it the same for each level of income. Why is it the Government's job to take money from higher earners and give it to lower earners?

Here is a perfect example, I pay my nanny 650 a week gross. 120 of that a week goes to FICA, State Tax Unemployment. At the end of the year my nanny pays ZERO taxes but gets a check for $8k due to her children. Essentially I am paying money to the government to give to her. Why can't I just give it to her?

well, it's quaint that you think that, but -- quite frankly -- as has been said elsewhere, Newt is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.

As to the rest of your post, it's beyond the scope of time & space here to explain the social compact to you but if you don't like it, perhaps you might like to move to Russia, or Myanmar, or ...

Gingrich is brilliant but undisciplined.

As for the social compact, such a smart person as yourself should be able to explain it succinctly for the rest us. And please enlighten us. Who are the smart people? Obama? Teddy Kennedy? Al Gore? Joe Biden? Nancy Pelosi? People who ascribe to your world view? How self serving.

The point was that we live in a welfare state with trillions in benefits and a tax system where the top 20 percent pay 90% of the taxes. Also, many who don't pay get an "Earned Income Tax Credit" or welfare check. In other words, by and large liberals have won all the economic redistribution arguments over the last 70 years and still say we don't have a just society. That happens when you import poor people (many illegally) and export jobs in manufacturing. It isn't because we aren't redistributing income enough.

[Anonymous]

Gingrich is not brilliant. He's been around a lot and he has a lot of opinions which he willingly shares. He can sound smart by quoting a bit of American history. But he's not a great thinker, which is why he sounds like a Bill Bennett era retread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gingrich is not brilliant. He's been around a lot and he has a lot of opinions which he willingly shares. He can sound smart by quoting a bit of American history. But he's not a great thinker, which is why he sounds like a Bill Bennett era retread.

Since you purport to be a judge of brillance - who, among politicians, is brillant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gingrich is not brilliant. He's been around a lot and he has a lot of opinions which he willingly shares. He can sound smart by quoting a bit of American history. But he's not a great thinker, which is why he sounds like a Bill Bennett era retread.

Since you purport to be a judge of brillance - who, among politicians, is brillant?

Politics does not attract brilliance. Is this news to you or are your standards for brilliance just really low?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gingrich is not brilliant. He's been around a lot and he has a lot of opinions which he willingly shares. He can sound smart by quoting a bit of American history. But he's not a great thinker, which is why he sounds like a Bill Bennett era retread.

Since you purport to be a judge of brillance - who, among politicians, is brillant?

Politics does not attract brilliance. Is this news to you or are your standards for brilliance just really low?

That helps put your view in context -- you don't think any politicians are brillant. Enough said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gingrich is not brilliant. He's been around a lot and he has a lot of opinions which he willingly shares. He can sound smart by quoting a bit of American history. But he's not a great thinker, which is why he sounds like a Bill Bennett era retread.

Since you purport to be a judge of brillance - who, among politicians, is brillant?

Politics does not attract brilliance. Is this news to you or are your standards for brilliance just really low?

That helps put your view in context -- you don't think any politicians are brillant. Enough said.

Who exactly do you consider to be brilliant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gingrich is not brilliant. He's been around a lot and he has a lot of opinions which he willingly shares. He can sound smart by quoting a bit of American history. But he's not a great thinker, which is why he sounds like a Bill Bennett era retread.

Since you purport to be a judge of brillance - who, among politicians, is brillant?

Politics does not attract brilliance. Is this news to you or are your standards for brilliance just really low?

That helps put your view in context -- you don't think any politicians are brillant. Enough said.

Who exactly do you consider to be brilliant?

It’s rare that you encounter anyone online who is not tall, slim, attractive, brilliant and witty. Yet taking into account that this message board is DC oriented and based on 30+ years of life in DC, I assume that the odds are overwhelmingly against most posters being any of the above. But let’s continue the fantasy. We are all brillant, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brilliant, lecherous, great debater, chubby, helped fix the economy in the 1990’s, drives political opponents insane, became a corporate shill after leaving office.

Newt is a prime example of a "middle-mind" pseudo intellectual. He's what dumb people think a smart person acts like. I agree Clinton is brilliant, though.

The epochs of Newt Gingrich's public life are defined by the books that have revolutionized him -- generally of the type that sell well at airports. There is Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy, Alvin Toffler's "The Third Wave," Napoleon Hill's "Think and Grow Rich," Steven Covey's "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" and various foundational texts of Total Quality Management and Lean Six Sigma.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelgerson/2011/12/13/something

Now I suppose this impresses a lot of middle-managers out there that don't read much, and don't have time to educate themselves outside of these sort of quasi-intellectual pamphlets that are the men's equivalent of bodice-rippers. But, no, Newt's not brilliant. Even the "sane" voices on the Right don't think so. That's why they're scared as Hell he'll win the nomination.

[Anonymous]

Gingrich is brilliant but undisciplined.

We have yet to see any evidence of this, other than Newt's frequent claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gingrich is not brilliant. He's been around a lot and he has a lot of opinions which he willingly shares. He can sound smart by quoting a bit of American history. But he's not a great thinker, which is why he sounds like a Bill Bennett era retread.

Since you purport to be a judge of brillance - who, among politicians, is brillant?

Politics does not attract brilliance. Is this news to you or are your standards for brilliance just really low?

That helps put your view in context -- you don't think any politicians are brillant. Enough said.

Who exactly do you consider to be brilliant?

It’s rare that you encounter anyone online who is not tall, slim, attractive, brilliant and witty. Yet taking into account that this message board is DC oriented and based on 30+ years of life in DC, I assume that the odds are overwhelmingly against most posters being any of the above. But let’s continue the fantasy. We are all brillant, of course.

No we are not and neither is Newt. He's just a guy. If you know actual scholars, he does not stack up. And that's the reason people call him brilliant. He's not brilliant as a political strategist. He's not brilliant on foreign affairs. And his comments on history, his own field, are rather pedantic. Sorry, but he looks like a professor to non-professors and that's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gingrich is not brilliant. He's been around a lot and he has a lot of opinions which he willingly shares. He can sound smart by quoting a bit of American history. But he's not a great thinker, which is why he sounds like a Bill Bennett era retread.

Since you purport to be a judge of brillance - who, among politicians, is brillant?

Politics does not attract brilliance. Is this news to you or are your standards for brilliance just really low?

That helps put your view in context -- you don't think any politicians are brillant. Enough said.

Who exactly do you consider to be brilliant?

It’s rare that you encounter anyone online who is not tall, slim, attractive, brilliant and witty. Yet taking into account that this message board is DC oriented and based on 30+ years of life in DC, I assume that the odds are overwhelmingly against most posters being any of the above. But let’s continue the fantasy. We are all brillant, of course.

No we are not and neither is Newt. He's just a guy. If you know actual scholars, he does not stack up. And that's the reason people call him brilliant. He's not brilliant as a political strategist. He's not brilliant on foreign affairs. And his comments on history, his own field, are rather pedantic. Sorry, but he looks like a professor to non-professors and that's it.

Who exactly do you consider to be brilliant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gingrich is not brilliant. He's been around a lot and he has a lot of opinions which he willingly shares. He can sound smart by quoting a bit of American history. But he's not a great thinker, which is why he sounds like a Bill Bennett era retread.

Since you purport to be a judge of brillance - who, among politicians, is brillant?

Politics does not attract brilliance. Is this news to you or are your standards for brilliance just really low?

That helps put your view in context -- you don't think any politicians are brillant. Enough said.

Who exactly do you consider to be brilliant?

It’s rare that you encounter anyone online who is not tall, slim, attractive, brilliant and witty. Yet taking into account that this message board is DC oriented and based on 30+ years of life in DC, I assume that the odds are overwhelmingly against most posters being any of the above. But let’s continue the fantasy. We are all brillant, of course.

No we are not and neither is Newt. He's just a guy. If you know actual scholars, he does not stack up. And that's the reason people call him brilliant. He's not brilliant as a political strategist. He's not brilliant on foreign affairs. And his comments on history, his own field, are rather pedantic. Sorry, but he looks like a professor to non-professors and that's it.

Who exactly do you consider to be brilliant?

Am I really obligated to respond since you blew off my question?