Good advice from Mr Gingrich

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 3:03 PM GMT
    It seems that Mr Gingrich advises Gay Republicans to vote for Obama in 2012.

    Could it be that Mr Gingrich is onto something here?



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 3:13 PM GMT
    He's disgusting but that won't stop some on here from supporting him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 3:36 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidYeah, this is totally vile:

    “I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University.”

    Because what liberal / Democrat / college professor (that says it all!) was asking for is to be viewed - and treated - as a special subset of the American citizenry, which is a perversion of our historical melting pot theme here in America.


    The mentally impaired professor went on to say:

    “When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest,” Arnold said.

    This is a direct contradiction to what Arnold actually seeks, which is for the government to cater to "everyone's special interest."



    That makes absolutely no sense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 3:41 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidYeah, this is totally vile:

    “I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University.”

    Because what liberal / Democrat / college professor (that says it all!) was asking for is to be viewed - and treated - as a special subset of the American citizenry, which is a perversion of our historical melting pot theme here in America.


    The mentally impaired professor went on to say:

    “When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest,” Arnold said.

    This is a direct contradiction to what Arnold actually seeks, which is for the government to cater to "everyone's special interest."



    That makes absolutely no sense....



    .... to a liberal. I know. I know.


    Not a liberal. And no one in the article was asking to be given special treatment. You're really grasping and it's pathetic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 4:30 PM GMT
    lol, Christian, SB doesn't get that gay Americans have less equality than their straight counterparts. He thinks that to treat them as equals with equal rights is 'special treatment'.

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 4:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidYeah, this is totally vile:

    “I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University.”

    Because what liberal / Democrat / college professor (that says it all!) was asking for is to be viewed - and treated - as a special subset of the American citizenry, which is a perversion of our historical melting pot theme here in America.


    The mentally impaired professor went on to say:

    “When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest,” Arnold said.

    This is a direct contradiction to what Arnold actually seeks, which is for the government to cater to "everyone's special interest."



    That makes absolutely no sense....



    .... to a liberal. I know. I know.


    Not a liberal. And no one in the article was asking to be given special treatment. You're really grasping and it's pathetic.



    Of course he was - for starters he wanted special treatment in the way Gingrich would "reach out to gay Americans."

    “I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans."

    Again, I understand, the liberal mind has "difficulties" dealing with such concepts.


    Pathetic. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Dec 21, 2011 4:39 PM GMT
    I get the point that SB is trying to make. Regardless, Newt Gingrich handled the question showing absolutely no compassion or sense of tact. In fact, it was a shockingly stupid way to respond which enforces in my mind what I have already felt and that is that, while Newt Gingrich is a very bright man with a breadth of knowledge and experience, he simply does not possess the values and qualities fitting of a President who will be a President for ALL -- not just some. He could have at least said Vote for Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson. Sheeesh!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 4:46 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said Newt Gingrich handled the question showing absolutely no compassion or sense of tact. In fact, it was a shockingly stupid way to respond which enforces in my mind what I have already felt and that is that, while Newt Gingrich is a very bright man with a breadth of knowledge and experience, he simply does not possess the values and qualities fitting of a President who will be a President for ALL -- not just some. He could have at least said Vote for Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson. Sheeesh!
    Agreed.. but thats why he aint gonna make it..

    Voters saw his crap before and will throw him out the door AGAIN.......
    He IS a persistent little fat fuck isnt he?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 4:51 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI get the point that SB is trying to make. Regardless, Newt Gingrich handled the question showing absolutely no compassion or sense of tact. In fact, it was a shockingly stupid way to respond which enforces in my mind what I have already felt and that is that, while Newt Gingrich is a very bright man with a breadth of knowledge and experience, he simply does not possess the values and qualities fitting of a President who will be a President for ALL -- not just some. He could have at least said Vote for Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson. Sheeesh!


    So you think that a gay man asking a Republican candidate how he intends to engage with our community is asking for "special" treatment?

    Would you say the same of African Americans, women, hedge fund managers, etc?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Dec 21, 2011 5:01 PM GMT
    Christian73 said

    So you think that a gay man asking a Republican candidate how he intends to engage with our community is asking for "special" treatment?

    Would you say the same of African Americans, women, hedge fund managers, etc?



    I didn't say anything of the kind. Read my post. I think I spelled it out pretty clearly as to how I felt about Mr. Gingrich's response. I do not trust him, I think he lacks compassion, and I find him hypocritical. Having said all that, I am not blinded to the very real qualifications he does have, and he certainly brings a certain element and breadth of knowledge to the campaign as an elder statesman that I think has been very important. I just don't want him as a President, and I suspect neither do most Americans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 5:13 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said

    So you think that a gay man asking a Republican candidate how he intends to engage with our community is asking for "special" treatment?

    Would you say the same of African Americans, women, hedge fund managers, etc?



    I didn't say anything of the kind. Read my post. I think I spelled it out pretty clearly as to how I felt about Mr. Gingrich's response. I do not trust him, I think he lacks compassion, and I find him hypocritical. Having said all that, I am not blinded to the very real qualifications he does have, and he certainly brings a certain element and breadth of knowledge to the campaign as an elder statesman that I think has been very important. I just don't want him as a President, and I suspect neither do most Americans.


    You said you understood the point SB was trying to make. That's what I was asking you about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 5:38 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidHe's disgusting but that won't stop some on here from supporting him.


    I support him.

    With the reservations I've stated many times. That being said, I’d still prefer Huntsman.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 5:38 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    blah blah blah


    That makes absolutely no sense.


    My conclusion is that southbeach must have got chucked out of college at some point—nothing else explains his vitriol towards higher education.

    In any case, Mr Gingrich was a college professor too at some point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 5:39 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    CuriousJockAZ said Newt Gingrich handled the question showing absolutely no compassion or sense of tact. In fact, it was a shockingly stupid way to respond which enforces in my mind what I have already felt and that is that, while Newt Gingrich is a very bright man with a breadth of knowledge and experience, he simply does not possess the values and qualities fitting of a President who will be a President for ALL -- not just some. He could have at least said Vote for Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson. Sheeesh!
    Agreed.. but thats why he aint gonna make it..

    Voters saw his crap before and will throw him out the door AGAIN.......
    He IS a persistent little fat fuck isnt he?


    Maybe too fat to fuck, and at age 68, maybe not interested anymore.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 5:39 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidYeah, this is totally vile:

    “I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University.”

    Because what liberal / Democrat / college professor (that says it all!) was asking for is to be viewed - and treated - as a special subset of the American citizenry, which is a perversion of our historical melting pot theme here in America.


    The mentally impaired professor went on to say:

    “When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest,” Arnold said.

    This is a direct contradiction to what Arnold actually seeks, which is for the government to cater to "everyone's special interest."



    That makes absolutely no sense....



    .... to a liberal. I know. I know.


    Not a liberal. And no one in the article was asking to be given special treatment. You're really grasping and it's pathetic.



    Of course he was - for starters he wanted special treatment in the way Gingrich would "reach out to gay Americans."

    “I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans."

    Again, I understand, the liberal mind has "difficulties" dealing with such concepts.


    Okay, I have to disagree with you here. He wasn't asking if Gingrich would give special treatment to gays, he wanted Gingrich to give him an idea of what kind of treatment in general he should expect. If Gingrich was a nice person he would have said that he expects to treat him just like everyone else (with no special rights)-- but he didn't, he said to vote for Obama. That is sending a clear and vindictive message.

    He sent a clear message that, if gay people are looking to be included into Gingrich's society as individuals that are relevant that they can look somewhere else because he isn't going to "engage" them in any way shape or form.

    There are many, many times where liberals blow certain comments out of proportion or twist them but in my opinion this is not one of those times.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 5:40 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    blah blah blah


    That makes absolutely no sense.


    My conclusion is that southbeach must have got chucked out of college at some point—nothing else explains his vitriol towards higher education.

    In any case, Mr Gingrich was a college professor too at some point.


    And a very good one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 5:44 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidYeah, this is totally vile:

    “I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University.”

    Because what liberal / Democrat / college professor (that says it all!) was asking for is to be viewed - and treated - as a special subset of the American citizenry, which is a perversion of our historical melting pot theme here in America.


    The mentally impaired professor went on to say:

    “When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest,” Arnold said.

    This is a direct contradiction to what Arnold actually seeks, which is for the government to cater to "everyone's special interest."



    That makes absolutely no sense....



    .... to a liberal. I know. I know.


    Not a liberal. And no one in the article was asking to be given special treatment. You're really grasping and it's pathetic.



    Of course he was - for starters he wanted special treatment in the way Gingrich would "reach out to gay Americans."

    “I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans."

    Again, I understand, the liberal mind has "difficulties" dealing with such concepts.


    Okay, I have to disagree with you here. He wasn't asking if Gingrich would give special treatment to gays, he wanted Gingrich to give him an idea of what kind of treatment in general he should expect. If Gingrich was a nice person he would have said that he expects to treat him just like everyone else (with no special rights)-- but he didn't, he said to vote for Obama. That is sending a clear and vindictive message.

    He sent a clear message that, if gay people are looking to be included into Gingrich's society as individuals that are relevant that they can look somewhere else because he isn't going to "engage" them in any way shape or form.

    There are many, many times where liberals take certain comments too far or twist them but in my opinion this is not one of those times.


    Thanks, MT!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Dec 21, 2011 5:50 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidHe wasn't asking if Gingrich would give special treatment to gays, he wanted Gingrich to give him an idea of what kind of treatment in general he should expect. If Gingrich was a nice person he would have said that he expects to treat him just like everyone else (with no special rights)-- but he didn't, he said to vote for Obama. That is sending a clear and vindictive message.



    ^^^^^ THIS ^^^^ His answer was dismissive, not to mention to suggest they vote for Obama was also just not smart. There are a hundred ways in which Gingrich could have appropriately handled that question respectfully -- he did not choose that route.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 5:55 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    mocktwinkie saidOkay, I have to disagree with you here. He wasn't asking if Gingrich would give special treatment to gays,.


    In asking how Gingrich would "engage gay Americans" he is asking for special treatment in the form of outreach. To illustrate how preposterous this idea is, imagine this scenario:

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage African Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage Cuban Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage Iranian Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage mentally retarded Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage mobility restricted Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage younger Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage middle aged Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage older Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage Americans on kidney dialysis?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage poor Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage rich Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage unemployed Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage employed Americans?






    You may want to ask him how he plans to engage with assholes.

    And you wonder why Art thinks you're a Republican plant. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 5:58 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    You may want to ask him how he plans to engage with assholes.

    And you wonder why Art thinks you're a Republican plant. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Vegetative, certainly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:02 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    mocktwinkie saidOkay, I have to disagree with you here. He wasn't asking if Gingrich would give special treatment to gays,.


    In asking how Gingrich would "engage gay Americans" he is asking for special treatment in the form of outreach. To illustrate how preposterous this idea is, imagine this scenario:

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage African Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage Cuban Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage Iranian Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage mentally retarded Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage mobility restricted Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage younger Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage middle aged Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage older Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage Americans on kidney dialysis?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage poor Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage rich Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage unemployed Americans?

    Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan to engage employed Americans?






    And the response could have been the same for every single one. Here's an example of something he could have said:

    "I expect to treat you like everyone else, with no special treatments. There are people of all backgrounds who can see that our economic message is best for America and all Americans, including you".

    Why couldn't he have said something like that? That kind of response would work for any of those categories you listed.

    He went out of his way to let him know in no uncertain terms that his American experience will only be better under Obama. Do you seriously think that his response was the best he could have given? Even you can admit that it was incredibly abrasive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:06 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie saidHe wasn't asking if Gingrich would give special treatment to gays, he wanted Gingrich to give him an idea of what kind of treatment in general he should expect. If Gingrich was a nice person he would have said that he expects to treat him just like everyone else (with no special rights)-- but he didn't, he said to vote for Obama. That is sending a clear and vindictive message.



    ^^^^^ THIS ^^^^ His answer was dismissive, not to mention to suggest they vote for Obama was also just not smart. There are a hundred ways in which Gingrich could have appropriately handled that question respectfully -- he did not choose that route.


    I really wonder what he really said? If true, given the vitriol coming his way, maybe not smart, but I don't blame him a bit
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:09 PM GMT
    If this is correct, it does supply context. I think he should have pointed out Obama's support for traditional marriage, but what Gingrich says is not much different than what is said here on RJ.

    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/21/gingrich-tells-gay-marriage-supporter-not-vote-him?test=latestnews

    If gay marriage is a voter's primary issue in the 2012 election, then Newt Gingrich says it's perfectly okay not to vote for him in a would-be battle against President Obama.

    Speaking in Oskaloosa, Iowa, Tuesday afternoon, Gingrich was confronted by a man who asked the former House speaker how he planned to engage with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender who agree with him on other issues, but not on Gingrich's opposition to same-sex marriage.

    In a cordial exchange, Gingrich said on that issue, there's little room for engagement. The two then agreed to disagree.

    Here's how the conversation went down:Gingrich: "I think those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won't get their support. I accept that as reality. On the other hand, for those to whom it's not the central issue in their life, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I'll get their support."

    Q: So what if it is the biggest issue?

    Gingrich: Then I won't get their support.

    Q: How do we engage if you're elected. Then what, what does that mean?

    Gingrich: Well then you engage in every topic except that.

    Q: Except it's most important (some crosstalk).

    Gingrich: Well, if that's most important to you then you should be for Obama.

    Q: I am, thank you (The two men shake hands).

    Gingrich: It's perfectly legitimate. I think it's perfectly legitimate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:16 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidIf this is correct, it does supply context. I think he should have pointed out Obama's support for traditional marriage, but what Gingrich says is not much different than what is said here on RJ.

    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/21/gingrich-tells-gay-marriage-supporter-not-vote-him?test=latestnews

    If gay marriage is a voter's primary issue in the 2012 election, then Newt Gingrich says it's perfectly okay not to vote for him in a would-be battle against President Obama.

    Speaking in Oskaloosa, Iowa, Tuesday afternoon, Gingrich was confronted by a man who asked the former House speaker how he planned to engage with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender who agree with him on other issues, but not on Gingrich's opposition to same-sex marriage.

    In a cordial exchange, Gingrich said on that issue, there's little room for engagement. The two then agreed to disagree.

    Here's how the conversation went down:Gingrich: "I think those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won't get their support. I accept that as reality. On the other hand, for those to whom it's not the central issue in their life, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I'll get their support."

    Q: So what if it is the biggest issue?

    Gingrich: Then I won't get their support.

    Q: How do we engage if you're elected. Then what, what does that mean?

    Gingrich: Well then you engage in every topic except that.

    Q: Except it's most important (some crosstalk).

    Gingrich: Well, if that's most important to you then you should be for Obama.

    Q: I am, thank you (The two men shake hands).

    Gingrich: It's perfectly legitimate. I think it's perfectly legitimate.


    IF??

    If that's what he said, and it does sound like something Gingrich would say, I don't have a problem with it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2011 6:36 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Christian73 said
    You may want to ask him how he plans to engage with assholes.

    And you wonder why Art thinks you're a Republican plant. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Vegetative, certainly.
    FTW!