sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Citizen you got it wrong!
He wouldn't care if she was single. :lol:
He wouldn't care if she was single. :lol:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Newt Gingrich on guns?
- Thread starter TFred
- Start date
Dreamer
Regular Member
Newt Gingrich is an avowed Globalist, and a Neo-Con of the most egregiously sociopathic, self-absorbed type, and would have NO problem furthering the sell-out of the USA to his International Bankster buddies.
While he was a Congressman, he handed out hundreds of copies of "The Third Wave", the Fascistic-Utopian paeon to Post-Industrialism penned by Globalist Alvin Toffler, of whom Newt is a "disciple"...
Newt also has DEEP ties to Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac, and was instrumental in getting Glass Steagal overturned, which allowed the Banksters to create the huge Bubble of the 1990s that they then engineered the collapse of, so they could ransack the middle class of their meager accumulated wealth from the .Com and Housing Booms of the '80s and 90's, and also so they could pillage the retirement funds of the Baby Boomers (who had been paying into them since the 1950s) before they started to retire...
Newt Gingrich is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
No, worse.
He is a Boot-Licker of Tyranny, masquerading as a Patriot...
Luckily for this nation, Newt is unelectable. He has so much political baggage that if he flew from BWI to Dulles for a day-trip meeting, he'd need a separate C-130 just for the skeletons in his closet...
While he was a Congressman, he handed out hundreds of copies of "The Third Wave", the Fascistic-Utopian paeon to Post-Industrialism penned by Globalist Alvin Toffler, of whom Newt is a "disciple"...
Newt also has DEEP ties to Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac, and was instrumental in getting Glass Steagal overturned, which allowed the Banksters to create the huge Bubble of the 1990s that they then engineered the collapse of, so they could ransack the middle class of their meager accumulated wealth from the .Com and Housing Booms of the '80s and 90's, and also so they could pillage the retirement funds of the Baby Boomers (who had been paying into them since the 1950s) before they started to retire...
Newt Gingrich is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
No, worse.
He is a Boot-Licker of Tyranny, masquerading as a Patriot...
Luckily for this nation, Newt is unelectable. He has so much political baggage that if he flew from BWI to Dulles for a day-trip meeting, he'd need a separate C-130 just for the skeletons in his closet...
Last edited:
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
This is one of those rare times that I agree with Dreamer, even though I still don't know WTF a "neo-con" is. I don't think he knows either, since these "neo-cons" are really just "moderate republicans".
I'll never forget Newt sitting on a couch with nanzi pillousy talking about the global warming scam. That was unforgiveable, I'll vote for obozo before I vote for a damm "neo-con" "moderate" or "RINO". I know where I stand with obozo, with turncoat political douchbags you never know what they'll do.
Dreamer
Regular Member
I know exactly what a "neocon" is. It is a modern American Liberal who has "moved to the right" because he believes that Liberalism has fails and no longer knows what it is talking about. First used in the modern sense by Socialist writer Michael Harrington in 1973.
NeoCons are essentially Socialist/Globalist/Corporate Fascists who pose as Conservatives. The believe in the governmental control models of the Left, and the enforced/manipulated moral and market models of the Right.
Their fundamental tenant is that the Market is stupid because it it comprised of stupid plebes, and therefore, although Capitalism is a good idea on paper, it must be guided by the self-anointed Ruling Class from above. The believe that morals and ethics are a tool for controlling the actions of the plebe class, and do not apply to them (at least not the SAME morals and ethics--they have their own, strange, twisted set of rules).
They believe that Might makes Right--in the Market, in Diplomacy, and in personal relations, and see no moral problem with using force to make anyone--a nation, a corporation, or an individual--serve their own whims and desires.
NeoCons are essentially institutionalized socio-political sociopathy, anointed and blessed as a legitimate (and hopefully, in their eyes, THE DOMINANT) political movement.
They believe in no god other than the god of their own desire.
They believe in no nation, other than the nation of their own personal empire.
They believe in no loyalty other than the loyalty to their own self-appointed Ruling Class.
They believe that the entire planet--land, resources, nations, religions, people--exist solely to serve their own ultimate goals--which is to bring about a NeoPlatonic Feudalism where the ruling class is a tiny cadre of pseudo-scientific elites, and everyone else is essentially a serf.
They are, perhaps, the closest thing to a true "Illuminati" that we have in the USA--a loosely affiliated clan of sociopathic perfectibilists who see the bulk of humanity as having already split away on the evolutionary tree from "true human-ness" and therefore are not due the rights afforded to Human Beings. The see themselves, however, as the ultimate expression of the "next step" in mankind's evolution, and therefore, the only ones qualified to lead the way int Man's Future.
They believe it is morally acceptable to tell the plebes any lie, deceit, or falsehood that will placate them, while killing, robbing, and further enslaving them. They will preach "conservative values" while molesting children or hooking up with anonymous gay lovers in airport restrooms because it suits them.
They will tout "fiscal responsibility" while setting up a system where their cronies can rob the working middle class of their wealth. They will crow "Social Justice" while enacting laws to further subjugate the people they claim to be "liberating".
They will claim "Security" while entrapping mentally defective patsies in false-flag terror plots. They will claim "Liberty for the People" while chipping away at freedom, enacting censorship, and controlling every aspect of daily life, from the kind of car you drive, to the ability to grow your own vegetables, to the number of gallons your toilet flushes.
They are psychotic control freaks, sociopathic abusers and murders, and pathological liars.
They are, in a word, wolves in sheep's clothing, except these wolves never stop killing, even when their bellies are full...
NeoCons are essentially Socialist/Globalist/Corporate Fascists who pose as Conservatives. The believe in the governmental control models of the Left, and the enforced/manipulated moral and market models of the Right.
Their fundamental tenant is that the Market is stupid because it it comprised of stupid plebes, and therefore, although Capitalism is a good idea on paper, it must be guided by the self-anointed Ruling Class from above. The believe that morals and ethics are a tool for controlling the actions of the plebe class, and do not apply to them (at least not the SAME morals and ethics--they have their own, strange, twisted set of rules).
They believe that Might makes Right--in the Market, in Diplomacy, and in personal relations, and see no moral problem with using force to make anyone--a nation, a corporation, or an individual--serve their own whims and desires.
NeoCons are essentially institutionalized socio-political sociopathy, anointed and blessed as a legitimate (and hopefully, in their eyes, THE DOMINANT) political movement.
They believe in no god other than the god of their own desire.
They believe in no nation, other than the nation of their own personal empire.
They believe in no loyalty other than the loyalty to their own self-appointed Ruling Class.
They believe that the entire planet--land, resources, nations, religions, people--exist solely to serve their own ultimate goals--which is to bring about a NeoPlatonic Feudalism where the ruling class is a tiny cadre of pseudo-scientific elites, and everyone else is essentially a serf.
They are, perhaps, the closest thing to a true "Illuminati" that we have in the USA--a loosely affiliated clan of sociopathic perfectibilists who see the bulk of humanity as having already split away on the evolutionary tree from "true human-ness" and therefore are not due the rights afforded to Human Beings. The see themselves, however, as the ultimate expression of the "next step" in mankind's evolution, and therefore, the only ones qualified to lead the way int Man's Future.
They believe it is morally acceptable to tell the plebes any lie, deceit, or falsehood that will placate them, while killing, robbing, and further enslaving them. They will preach "conservative values" while molesting children or hooking up with anonymous gay lovers in airport restrooms because it suits them.
They will tout "fiscal responsibility" while setting up a system where their cronies can rob the working middle class of their wealth. They will crow "Social Justice" while enacting laws to further subjugate the people they claim to be "liberating".
They will claim "Security" while entrapping mentally defective patsies in false-flag terror plots. They will claim "Liberty for the People" while chipping away at freedom, enacting censorship, and controlling every aspect of daily life, from the kind of car you drive, to the ability to grow your own vegetables, to the number of gallons your toilet flushes.
They are psychotic control freaks, sociopathic abusers and murders, and pathological liars.
They are, in a word, wolves in sheep's clothing, except these wolves never stop killing, even when their bellies are full...
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
That was probably one of the best definitions of a "neo-con" I have ever read. Though I would argue they have not "moved to the right". I would stand by my assertion they're still leftists. They may have manipulated the religious people to believe in legislating morality, which is relative. The Fascists of the 1920's had their own morality, enforced through law and brutality.
As you point out, they seem to espouse the free market system. Yet in reality they seek to manipulate and regulate it to the point where it more closely reflects a collective. As hard core rightwing as I am, (nearly an anarchist) I have to be rational. Completely unadultered capitalism isn't exactly a panecea either. That said I cannot find anywhere in the Constitution that allows the gov't to get involved in labor relations w/in the private sector. (Thank you FDR, I hope it's warm enough for you next to Adolph and Joseph.)
Neo-Cons by definition ARE NOT even remotely conservative. They may be a little more to the right than Trotsky. Therefore use of the term is misleading. It's a coin phrase of the left, and just like the perception that Mussolini and Hitler were "rightwing", it is used to marginalize actual right wing agendas. The leftist media can slobber all over thelikes of McCain when he's being a "moderate" and then villify the old fool for abandoning "his principles" and promoting moonbat agendas. I think you give these clowns WAY TOO MUCH CREDIT. They say whatever they have to in order to keep poll numbers up. Most of the have no principles.
Then I get deeper into your post and you had to predictably lay out how powerful these idiots are, how they can manipulate everything and everyone. Even though we all know prisons can't control inmates, we're supposed to believe the ultimate objective for the Neo-con-lib NWO elites is to control US, WE THE PEOPLE, when they can't even control their own damm kids.
Sorry dreamer, you fail to convince me these elitist pigs have nearly the control you say they do. Nor do I accept the notion they could achieve such a milestone.
Not that I'm dismissing vigilance either. I can agree with a lot of your points. It's your rhetoric that's the problem. You demonize way too many people, merely because they have wealth and influence. Such has been done before, with tragic consequenses.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Dreamer's definition seems close to my familiarity with the term, although I noticed member "Gunslinger" has referred to himself as a neoconservative, and while we undoubtedly have a few differences in thought, I don't get the impression that he is one of the people Dreamer described (to say the least).
I looked it up on wikipedia, and the definition there seems to fit neither Gunslinger nor Dreamers definition, nor my conception of the word's meaning.
I am inclined to stop using it.
I looked it up on wikipedia, and the definition there seems to fit neither Gunslinger nor Dreamers definition, nor my conception of the word's meaning.
I am inclined to stop using it.
Last edited:
KansasMustang
Regular Member
For once, I think you've got it right. And I agree wholeheartedly. But I do wonder, where ya found it because, just me saying it, this is a well thought out rant. Huzzah!!
since9
Campaign Veteran
The problem with labels...
The more we try and pigeonhole people into a particular label, the more we do a disservice to both them and society. People are not simply "conservatives" or "liberals." While the vast majority of people identify with one group or another, most of them are an amalgem of most groups, and in varying, yet differing proportions.
Take me, for example. I didn't know it at the time, but throughout high school I was a modern liberal. While in college I developed some beliefs along various lines over the years, including Taoism, Hinduism, and conservative Christianity. In college I also became a conservative, although at the time I wasn't aware, until my roommate and I took in a third roommate who was a modern, and very liberal. Then I joined the military, during which my 20 years saw me swing back and forth a bit from conservative to libertarian and back.
These days I identify with some of what I consider the better elements of each system of belief, while chucking the porkbarrelling and other fluff.
Thus, I admire some aspects of them all!
I also hate some aspects of them all.
Much of the middle 2/3rds is semantic fluff.
And this, folks, is why I disdain labels.
What I never left, however, was the sense of right and wrong instilled in me by my parents in childhood.
The more we try and pigeonhole people into a particular label, the more we do a disservice to both them and society. People are not simply "conservatives" or "liberals." While the vast majority of people identify with one group or another, most of them are an amalgem of most groups, and in varying, yet differing proportions.
Take me, for example. I didn't know it at the time, but throughout high school I was a modern liberal. While in college I developed some beliefs along various lines over the years, including Taoism, Hinduism, and conservative Christianity. In college I also became a conservative, although at the time I wasn't aware, until my roommate and I took in a third roommate who was a modern, and very liberal. Then I joined the military, during which my 20 years saw me swing back and forth a bit from conservative to libertarian and back.
These days I identify with some of what I consider the better elements of each system of belief, while chucking the porkbarrelling and other fluff.
Thus, I admire some aspects of them all!
I also hate some aspects of them all.
Much of the middle 2/3rds is semantic fluff.
And this, folks, is why I disdain labels.
What I never left, however, was the sense of right and wrong instilled in me by my parents in childhood.
WCrawford
Regular Member
Please tell me when those RHINOs were ever Democrats. Well except for Bloomberg, he's an Independent idiot.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Again this is the problem with the false belief that there are two parties one on the so called left and one on the so called right. They are both on the same path that leads us away from freedom toward tyranny.
I hear prefix "neo" (new) I think more literal to me "neo-con" means new conservative, meant to convey a new form or a revival of an old one. Seems like a propaganda tool to create the illusion that they are different and better.
I believe some who call themselves neo-con though have mistaken it as a "libertarian" like conservative. Something Gingrich definitely is not.
I hear prefix "neo" (new) I think more literal to me "neo-con" means new conservative, meant to convey a new form or a revival of an old one. Seems like a propaganda tool to create the illusion that they are different and better.
I believe some who call themselves neo-con though have mistaken it as a "libertarian" like conservative. Something Gingrich definitely is not.
Dreamer
Regular Member
Thanks. It's my own original writing. Based partially on the Wiki for "neo-con", but mostly on my own perceptions, and having lived and worked in the DC metro area from 1987-2000...
Dreamer
Regular Member
Actually, of the four you listed, two WERE originally Democrats...
Romney was originally registered as an Independent, and changed affiliation to Republican in 1993.
Bloomberg was a Democrat for most of his life, but changed to Republican in 2001 when he first ran for Mayor. He changed again to Independent in 2007.
Giuliani was raised in a progressive Democratic family, campaigned for Kennedy while a student, and was originally registered as a Democrat. He changed his affiliation in 1975 when he came to DC to become associate deputy attorney general under Republican President Gerald Ford.
McCain is just a whore, who will say or do anything his puppet masters tell him to say or do. McCain would register as a Green if he thought it would get him elected...
One thing these four "Republicans" have in common--they all are turncoats, whores, and flip-floppers who will say, do, or avow ANYTHING if they think it will get them elected.
And that, my friends, is NOT a set of character traits we need in the white house...
Last edited: