Relationships
Mabel the Loser.
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Can one of our GOP supporters explain to me the Gingrich love?
I just don't get it. He has two failed marriages related to infidelity, has had various ethics violations. Do you just chalk it up to him being a politician and they are all cads? I mean, look at Bill Clinton, right? I guess my hang up with Newt is his super right wing moral stances that seem almost hypocritical when one looks at how he's conducted his own life.
Mabel the Loser.
Re: Can one of our GOP supporters explain to me the Gingrich love?
Co-signed,
Moo
Husbands should be like Kleenex: Soft, strong, and disposable.
republicans appreciate a nice silver hair helmet?
i don't know. he's been creeping me out since i was a kid, being forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh while i worked for my dad in his saw sharpening shop.
I don't think there is a lot of Newt love out there. All the Republicans I know really, really dislike him (including myself). The general discussion was something like "Well, that's a total joke" when he first decided to run, and then now it is like "How in the heck is he still in there?" So I am as confused as the Dems on this one.
ETA: Also, my dislike has very little to do with his infidelity. Mostly, I just think he is an @ss.
I bet her FUPA's name is Shane, like the gunslinger/drifter of literature.--HappyTummy
My cube-mate at work is a big fan. He thinks he's the only person with the experience and know how to balance a budget.
I don't think morals or integrity are on this guy's radar though.
Not a Newt fanfor an elected official, but having heard him several times (before he decided to run) I can see a bit of it.
I liken him to a college professor that talks about big ideas and gets people thinking about something. In fact (though I dislike him even more), Santorum points about Newt's grandiose ideas and no plan was right on point. His 2 failed marriages and the fact that he is trying to dismiss them cracks me up. Some of my pro-Newt friends in town are saying "that's so 10 plus years ago", but he wasn't running to be our POTUS then, he was a disgraced ex-Speaker...big difference.
I believe he did ask his 2nd wife to just play along and let him have Callista in DC, there are others who have done the same. I don't think its right for him. He's happy with Callista now (goody), but I still don't want him as our nominee. He should just go back to writing revisionist historical fiction and be done with it.
I don't know if I read this so much as Newt love as it is Romney hate, or maybe not hate but deep ambivalence.
I really don't care much about candidate's personal lives. However, you don't get to lead an impeachment against a sitting president for an affair with a staffer while you are doing the same thing*. You don't get to stand in a debate and lecture about the "sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman" when you have repeatedly failed to live up to your own vows to keep your own marriage between one man and one woman in the meanest ways imaginable. And you really don't get to pretend outrage at a moderator for daring to ask a question on the subject when you've put the issue of marriage and morals front and center throughout your career to make political hay.
*(I really didn't oppose impeachment. I thought it was a major waste of time, but, hey, Clinton perjured himself. However, it seemed clear what the Republicans were pushing at was not the unsexy issue of perjury but the scandal of a BJ in the White House.)
Can someone tell me WTF Romney cannot figure out an answer to the tax return question? We know you are the superrich. We know you legally pay a shamefully low tax rate. We know you have legally placed money in the Caymans. Unless the return lists a major contribution to Abortions for All, why not release them? You make the story bigger and bigger with the odd non-refusal refusal.
If people thought through his grandiose ideas (say, bringing "activist" judges before Congress to justify their decisions) , the ideas crumble in the face of any logic.
If people believe he's not cheating or going to cheat on wife3, I have a terrific bridge for sale.
Fallin, it has been said by some friends who know wife3, that she said that all his wives have about 20 years of his life and she was getting him for the 20 when no one was paying attention. This was before he decided he was running again, so now who knows.
His big ideas as "Campaigning Newt" are for the most part out there and i disagree with him. His early campaign stance on immigration though, was a comprehensive look at it at a realistic approach (from what I remember).
As for Romney, he does need to get his message figured out on the tax stuff and just own it. He is the pretty, white, rich guy. But he may be a good candidate, once he owns up to the fact he has succeeded at being a capitalist and embraces it. The GOP extols the virtues of capitalism every day, they should embrace the Mitt.
I debated answering this because I think talking politics on boards like this can be dangerous. I've tried in the past and it wasn't pleasant, but I'll give it another shot.
For the record, I'm not necessarily a Newt supporter, nor am I really right wing. I consider myself a social liberal but a fiscal conservative (particularly these days) so I'm kinda on the fence at this point in time.
That said, I think that what appeals to some GOP supporters about Newt is the idea that he's a redeemed (kinda) man. He's made mistakes, paid for them and (hopefully) isn't making them again. He's also very smart, blunt and honest (now, we hope). He's in favor of smaller government, doesn't want the country to continue being a Welfare Country, is in favor of a hand up, not a handout, and wants people to ultimately become the best versions of themselves that they can.
I listen to a radio talk show/podcast that's very much middle of the road (Armstrong and Getty - they'll criticize both parties and all candidates and pull no punches) the other day and a caller called in sharing how she started working as a cleaner at a young age (harkening to the topic of Newt suggesting that in NYC, custodians are paid ridiculous amounts of money due to the unions, and for that sum, they could get 60 of the students to pitch in and do the custodial work), and that she now owns a cleaning company. What made me stop and almost do a double take was her point was that her taxes that she pays go to support the people for whom the work she does is beneath them. She cleans, pays her taxes, and the people who get those taxes aren't willing to do her job - to clean - in order to not be on the public dole. That really hit home for me.
I think we've raised an irresponsible, entitled society and I think that is what's going to put all of us down the crapper, much like what happened in Greece. This clearly can't continue. I like Newt's honesty and bluntness on this matter because he sees it like it is, and says it like it is. He's not trying to be nice in order to not risk offending people. He knows people will be offended and he doesn't care. It's not about not offending others, it's about fixing the problems, and if a few people get offended along the way....oh well.
I'm annoyed with how big of a deal the Romney tax return thing is. It vaguely reminds me of the whole Obama birth certificate thing. I just don't get why people are clamoring to see it when they already know what it's going to look like. Let's try to focus on something that's actually important instead.
"That chick wins at Penises, for sure." -- Fenton
Great points JoEsther.
Last night on the CBS national news they ran a segment on a new law in SC that requires everyone on unemployment benefits to take any job that comes to them, equal to a least 90% of their previous earnings. After 5 months, said person on unemployment is required to take any job that is open, even if it is minimum wage. They had a lady on there who had been on unemployment benefits for a year (a whole freakin year!) who had previously earned $47k. She was b!tching that she would not take a minimum wage job because that would "get in the way of her job search for employment in her expertise". Really lady? Because you're job search has gone so swimmingly? You've been on unemployment for a whole MFing year and you think you are too good to work a minimum wage job? Get off your high horse!
I hope by "unpleasant," you don't just mean "people disagree with me" because here goes:
I consider myself a pretty cynical person, but, for the life of me, I'm perplexed by the Republican belief that poor people choose to be poor because they are lazy and entitled and like being "on the dole." Shockingly, even some Republicans "on the dole" espouse this view. I presume it allows the espouser to feel above the poors and feel like they earned their place. That, to me, seems incredibly arrogant in that it largely discounts the ingrained social inequities that people have little to no control over. If your school is underfunded; your neighborhood is dangerous; your parents uninvolved; your family unable to pay for college; you start of with a big ol' detriment that is extremely difficult to overcome. Until we fix those things, let's stop blaming the poor for being poor.
This thinking seems especially wrong-headed in an economy with 8-9% unemployment. Hard working people have had the rug pulled out from under them. And let's be clear. It's not because the workers are irresponsible and entitled. It's because big banks and big brokerage houses and big insurers were irresponsible and choose to make big bucks while screwing over the economy. Yet, do you think Newt supports regulating the hell out of corporations the taxpayer was forced to bail out? Um, no.
Let's talk about these custodians. First, janitors are easy too pick on because for some reason we've decided that the folks who clean up our shiit (literally and figuratively) should make peanuts. But in any case, let's just say we fire all the custodians to hire the pr children to work with industrial chemicals, heavy equipment, electrical lines, etc. at minimum wage (and they should be glad for it!). What happens to all the custodians with families to support and mortgages to pay in an economy with 9% unemployment? Now they become the irresponsible entitleds "on the dole." Awesome.
But if this is the thing that keeps society from going in the crapper and if this is about teaching kids responsibility and how to work hard and take pride in that, let's put Newt's and Mitt's grandkids to work cleaning the toilets in their elite private schools too because most of the irresponsible, entitled kids and younf adults I've encountered aren't from poor families, kwim?
Yes, because in a state with unemployment hovering at 10-12%, there are tons of people just turning down jobs wily nily, even minimum wage jobs.
Instead of passing legislation to punish people collecting unemployment benefits that they paid into to support while employed, how about fixing the state's economy, Nikki Haley?
I never said that we are blaming poor people for being poor. I actually believe that a lot of them have talents and skills and abilities that aren't being used or utilized simply because there's no motivation to do so. If you know you're going to be taken care of for however long you need it, why on earth would you have any motivation to go out and try something else? A new job, a new city, a new housing arrangement? You're getting it handed to you, why on earth would you want to mess with that and potentially muck it up? But if you know that your public assistance has an expiration date, maybe that'll motivate you to try harder, to try something different, to take a risk and maybe reap the benefits. That's all I'm saying. Hey, if you need legitimate help, that's fine - get help. Apply, get authorized, but know that it'll expire on Day X and that by then, you better be back on your feet, taking care of yourself.
I agree with you about the issue of social inequalities, but I also believe that life can't be "fixed" by the government. That isn't the government's job or their responsibility. It's problems like this that lead to huge governments and ultimately, ridiculous taxes and the continued downward spiral. The more we "fix" the more we, as citizens, are going to have to pay to continue to get things fixed. Unfortunately, life isn't fair - some people are going to have crummy circumstances and fewer good options in life, others will have better life options and choices. It isn't the government's job to equal everyone out. It isn't a national game of Keeping Up With The Jones, government funded. That's not how it goes.
The problems didn't begin with the housing crisis. It might have brought the situation into sharper relief and made it more obvious to everyone involved, but it was the belief that everyone "deserves" to have a beautiful house in a wonderful neighborhood that created the crisis to begin with - that way of thinking was around long before the housing crisis began. And it's still here. The sad part, to me, is that you'd think we'd have learned something about entitlement and the "I deserve it" attitude due to the crisis, but it seems we didn't. We still think we deserve it. Have you seen the Angel Adams video? Watch it. I'd love your thoughts on it. I don't believe an attitude like that developes in a bubble.
As to the janitors issue, I think Newt's point was that due to the unions, we overpay janitors (and likely other employees as well) when that money could be going to other causes, and hopefully making a difference. I don't think he meant that we should literally be firing them (I don't think we could anyway - unions), but his point is that they're overpaid and that if we want a good workforce for the sum paid, maybe we could hire children to do the work. Double benefit - teach the kids (the next generation) the value of a good day's work, and get more work done for the money.
And frankly, I think that it's the kids of the very rich who should(!!) (along with everyone else) be working at young ages, instead of relying on their trust funds and gifts from mommy and daddy. If we're about teaching a strong work ethic to the next generation, now is the time to start.
I keep deleting and retyping stuff but I can't put together something coherent without banging my head against the keyboard.
Husbands should be like Kleenex: Soft, strong, and disposable.
That's awfully condescending for someone who just wants to hear others' opinions.
I think, though please correct me if I'm wrong, Moo, that what she means is your logic is too circular and conclusions too disconnected. But, we can play condescending b1tch, if you want.
Yes, exactly. I keep trying to find threads to put together and come up with nothing.
I think this "logic, not emotion" approach is what's making you unable to empathize or understand why someone would remain "on the dole" for reasons other than laziness.
Husbands should be like Kleenex: Soft, strong, and disposable.
Rather I look at the country as a whole, and I firmly believe that unless we fix government now, in a certain number of years, we won't be able to afford to help anyone at all, not even for short term.
It's about helping everyone for everything now, and not being able to do it for long, or about limiting that help and making it last longer. I'd rather it be able to last longer, while additionally creating a sense of self-reliance and self-sufficiency that ultimately leads to better self-esteem, less mental health challenges, and a better, stronger overall country.
I think this would have been a crackerjack idea, say, 8-10 years ago. Now, though, there are just way too many reasons for people to be out of work and we need to focus on getting them back to work, not holding them back further by punishing them for not taking the first job that comes along, regardless of whether or not it meets their needs.
Husbands should be like Kleenex: Soft, strong, and disposable.
"That chick wins at Penises, for sure." -- Fenton
I will agree that there are people who are ignorant, lazy, have no social skills, etc., that have no intention of doing anything besides staying home and collecting a check. But how did they get there? Just because they could? I have the same option in front of me, but I don't choose it. All of the friends I know who went to college prep high schools and then went onto college don't do it. Why? Because of the MTV??? Because we're better people with better morals? Do you think chronic welfare abusers would be able to successfully hold down a job if some stern politician gave them a good kick in the pants?
The root of the problem is education. You aren't going to get people motivated enough to work for a living by taking away welfare. This is one area in which I break from the Democrats. We have to reform the teachers' union and the education system at large. But I also completely disagree with the Republican solution of school vouchers and abandoning kids whose parents are too ignorant or uninvolved to worry about what school their kids go to.
And the abusers are a tiny portion of the people who are on welfare anyway. The average time someone spends receiving welfare is two years. That weekly check and the food stamps you get are barely enough to get by -- it's not a life most people capable of working are going to choose.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
The who in the what now? Poor people cause mental health challenges? I had no idea accepting unemployment was a risk factor for mental illness!
Also, do you really think that government aid is an unlimited resource for people "on the dole"? That's not an unlimited resource anywhere. You may think the time limit is too long, but it's not indefinite. What should it be? What is a true realistic amount of time that everyone should be able to find a job or accept minimum wage? It took six months for my current job to be lined up and start work after the application process started. Is that too long? If i had been out of a iob at the time, shouldi have given up on this and just taken a job for 1/6th of the pay? I know I couldn't pay my bills on minim wage, could you?
Finally, I always see these conversations about welfare/unemployment in terms of federal funding and policies, but I thought that was typically state funded rather than