Newtie Lies again ...

[rubato]

Actually I think Newtie really is too smart to believe the shit he says; he just has so much contempt for the average person (or Republican Voters anyway) he thinks lying is the right thing to do:


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/ ... ution.html
"...
November 21, 2011

Gingrich Calls the CBO a "Reactionary Socialist Institution"
Newt Gingrich had some tough words for the Congressional Budget Office, CNN reports.

Said Gingrich: "The CBO is a reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that it has not internally generated."

Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican, called the allegation "ludicrous."

Said Holtz-Eakin: "I think if you parse that phrase carefully, he got one out of three right. I do agree it is an institution. If you're playing baseball, that's a decent batting average." ... "

[dgs49]

Let's see...

(1) An out-of-context quote expressing an opinion, and rube calls it a "lie." I wonder if he understands the difference between a statement of opinion and a purported statement of fact. I wonder if he understands the concept of context. I wonder if he has ever heard of hyperbole.

(2) Newt Gingrich, the former SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, a PhD History professor, a successful published writer and speaker, expresses an opinion.

rube disagrees. Who ya gonna believe?

What an asshole.

[Scooter]

So tell us Dave, what about the CBO qualifies it as a "reactionary socialist institution"?

[quaddriver]

So tell us Dave, what about the CBO qualifies it as a "reactionary socialist institution"?

currently run by democrats?

[dgs49]

Answer: I have no idea.

But when someone with the background knowledge and historical insights of New Gingrich makes such a provocative statement, the real story is HIS explanation, not mine. To take the quote out of context is meaningless.

The news report quoted by rube is not an attempt to provide information to the readers (the theoretical purpose of news reporting), but to extract a sentence or two from what was probably a rather detailed discourse for the sole purpose of putting Gingrich in a bad light.

This is part of the Democrat campaign (carried out by the MSM) of "Whack-a-Mole." Each republican candidate who emerges as a frontrunner is pounded down with real and imaginary stories, in the hope that the eventual candidate will be Mitt Romney, whom they feel Barry can defeat.

I honestly don't know whether rubato considers himself a Democrat operative or he is just an idiot. I would ignore him, but things are slow at work today and I need something to keep my fingers busy (since I can't play Pocket Pool).

[Andrew D]

Of course, Gingrich demanded CBO (legislative branch) scoring, rather than GAO (executive branch) scoring when it suited his purposes. But what's new?

"Exercise a no-fly zone this evening ... Provide help to the rebels to replace [Qaddafi] ... All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes." — March 7, 2011

"I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi ... I would not have used American and European forces." — March 23, 2011

Just the usual Newt ....

[rubato]

The CBO is universally respected for its accuracy and non-ideological presentation of economic facts.

Newtie's problem is that his economic predictions are always 180 degrees wrong so hes blaming the data in order not to abandon a failed theory. A tactic used by Homeopathy, people who believe cell phones or smart meters cause cancer, Tarot card readers, anti-global warming quacks &c.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

I'm surprised the Reps are even considering the multiple-affairs, wife abandoning, philanderer.

[BoSoxGal]

He wants to fire school janitors and put poor kids to work in their stead, because the poor kids need to learn a work ethic.

Sounds like he's the embodiment of Republican values. INCLUDING the infidelities and multiple marriages.

[Grim Reaper]

But when someone with the background knowledge and historical insights of New Gingrich makes such a provocative statement, the real story is HIS explanation, not mine. To take the quote out of context is meaningless.

And of course the quote from the person previously in charge of the CBO doesn't count at all. He apparently knows nothing at all about the job he used to hold. It's more important for you to put down rubato than to admit that Net Gingrich might just be trying to appeal to the masses with nonsensical talking points.

[dgs49]

The quoted statement by Gingrich appeals to no one. It would not even get him a favorable nod, let alone a vote. His explanation for saying what he said is the STORY.

If some politician says, "Obama is an idiot," that is not the story. It is an inflammatory teaser, and the story is the justification that the speaker might offer for his statement. Can s/he justify the statement?

As for the rubato person, my point in this thread is that a statement of opinion is not a "lie." It cannot ever be a lie. It may be proven false but that doesn't make it a lie. And in most cases, it can never be proven false or true because it is not quantitative. If some OWS protester says that John Boehner is a Fascist, it is not a lie, it is the expression of an opinion. Either the person can back it up with supporting information or not.

A contrary opinion by a former head of the CBO does not prove Gingrich wrong, does it? What do you expect him to say, that Newt was right?

It would be interesting to see why Mr. Newt said what he said, but the writer and rube have no interest in the underlying story, do they?

[Gob]

New Republican presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich has risked his recent poll gains with a moderate stance on immigration in the latest TV debate.

The former House of Representatives Speaker said he favoured allowing illegal immigrants who have lived in the US for many years to stay.

"If you've been here 25 years and you've got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out," Mr Gingrich said.

"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families which have been here a quarter-century.

"And I'm prepared to take the heat for saying let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so they are not separated from their families."

His rivals seized on the remark.

Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann said: "He wants to legalise 11 million illegal aliens in the United States."

Mr Romney said that any type of pathway to legal status would be a "magnet" for more unlawful crossings from Mexico.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15859377

WTF??????

[Scooter]

I think he is pointing at one way among many in which ilegal immigrants may have carved out a respectable life for themselves. I don't think he is suggesting that church attendance be a requirement for any sort of regularization of their status.

[Gob]

Bloody hope not. But a telling thing to include. Nothing about saving money in a bank and keeping it in the US, nothing about contributing to society, nothing about adopting the mores and customs of the country, but the bloody church gets a mention, nudge nudge wink wink...

[Lord Jim]

At the end of the day, there is only one candidate who is gong to go mano-a mano with Barack Obama...

His name is Mitt Romney....

[Andrew D]

I think he is pointing at one way among many in which ilegal immigrants may have carved out a respectable life for themselves. I don't think he is suggesting that church attendance be a requirement for any sort of regularization of their status.

I am not so sure. Gingrich apparently does believe -- assuming that he believes anything at all -- that religiosity is a requirement for being allowed to become an American. The Fourteenth Amendment, of course, is an obstacle to that provision, but illegal aliens are obviously not made citizens by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. And that leaves them subject to Gingrich's view of the "boundary on what we mean" -- i.e., what he and a bunch of other right-wingers mean -- "by America":

Now, I happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others in the way in which they approach God. And I think that all of us up here I believe would agree. But I think all of us would also agree that there's a very central part of your faith in how you approach public life. And I, frankly, would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments, because then I'd wonder, where's your judgment—how can you have judgment if you have no faith? And how can I trust you with power if you don't pray? Who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to God is between you and God. But the notion that you're endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary on what we mean by America.

If religiosity "sets a certain boundary on what we mean by America," maybe it also "sets a certain boundary on" who should be granted legal status in America.

[rubato]

At the end of the day, there is only one candidate who is gong to go mano-a mano with Barack Obama...

His name is Mitt Romney....

Which Romney will it be?

McCain liars poker redux.

yrs,
rubato