(Nags Head Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Nags Head Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Cain and Gingrich
|
|
Date:
|
11/29/2011 7:27:50 PM
|
First the similarity....they are both from Georgia. The major difference is that Gingrich married the woman that he had an affair with. Opps, Gingrich married the women as he had one with during his first marriage and one during his second. At least Romney has been faithful to his wife. But, the right only talks morality....they don't have to live it. Frank should change parties and would be a winning candidate in his new district.
|
| Name: |
Mack
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Cain and Gingrich
|
|
Date:
|
11/29/2011 7:56:51 PM
|
Go away, please. Your dangling participles, your typos and your sentence structure tend to discredit anything you have to say. In addition, it is hard to read.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Cain and Gingrich
|
|
Date:
|
11/29/2011 8:26:09 PM
|
Mack you are just angry cause you support Cain. I suspect he will be gone by the weekend. It is truly sad cause he has an interesting message and a race between he and Obama would finally end the race issue in the country.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Cain and Gingrich
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 6:11:32 AM
|
Do you know Newt personally and exactly what happened? Or just what you read in the media. Do you believe if a marriage does not work for whatever reason people should stay together? What percent of marriages fail? Attacking that dog will not work for dems.
Rather than attacking GOP candidates ... how about you state why we should support Oblamer. How about listing all his policies that have worked so well for the country and why you continue to support him, so we are all enlightened and can get on board with you.
There must be something you are proud of that you want to see continue for another four years that is really moving the country in the right direction, helping with unemployment and reducing deficits.
Lets hear them. Or is it that you have NOTHING so your only hope is to try and attack others so it tries to make Oblamer look like less of a disaster he is.
Frankly, I don;t care if Newt was married 10 times, if Cain had an affair at some time .... that has nothing to do with their ability to govern. It is obvious the dems did not care about Clinton or all the others ....
So why don't you grow up and talk about who can move the country in the right direction and state why you feel Oblamer is that person.
Try to regain some respect and stop being a loser and coward.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Dems and GOP
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 8:41:39 AM
|
If Newt or Cain were a Dem all this would be a resume enhancer. And besides, I thought all through the Clinton years we were told this was a private matter between two adults........I know Dems haven't suddenly developed principals so it must be they fear Cain running against the teleprompter in chief. It will take away their one of the largest weapons that they plan to use......cries of racism every time the candidate skewers Oblamer for his incompetence. Unfortunately it won't work.
However, Cain's implosion has as much to do with his inability to articulate a clear message on foreign affairs as it does with these accusations. This has been my concern about him from the outset and he has done little to help alleviate these concerns. Having said all that, I would still take Cain over the Messiah any day.....even if had an affair.....and even if he told some woman she was the same height as his wife....and even if..... That's what you libtards don't get. There are millions of conservative Americans (maybe more) that will be extremely active in 2012 that previously never sent a dime or spent a minute on politics beyond voting. They recognize the Messiah for the disaster he is and this energized citizenry will also send Republicans to the House in Senate in droves. No wonder the Massachusetts rump ranger and 17 other Democrat congressman have so far bailed on running in 2012. Why spend good money after bad?
|
Just act like an adult and discuss the issues facing this country and what you agree or do not agree with the candidates and the blamer in chief.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Cain and Gingrich
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 10:11:12 AM
|
I don't really care if Cain had an affair -- that is between him and his wife. But, what I find disturbing seems to be a pattern of involvement with women in difficult circumstances. I'm not saying that I think the women are blameless, but I have to question someone that keeps finding himself in situations involving women seeking favors. That just doesn't seem really smart to me.
Every time I hear him denying these situations, it reminds me of the "Wizard of OZ" -- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I am the Great Oz.
Newt's personal life doesn't really bother me either, other than I wonder about his ability to manage his own finances. My problem with Newt is that he has been kicking around Washington for a long time in and out of government, but always involved with the government. I wonder how much of grasp he has on reality. He's always been an "ideas" man -- a strategic thinker, but the problem with strategic thinkers is that their ideas cannot always be implemented. They are "in love" with their ideas at the time they are spinning them, but ideas in and of themselves may not be realistic for implementation. Newt reminds me of Les Aspin, when Aspin was made SecDef. He wasted a lot of time discussing ideas, not so much making decisions. It was terribly frustrating and wasted a lot of time.
I always find it interesting that people who venture into the public arena in a serious way seem to feel that they will not be held accountable for their past behavior. I don't know if they are deluded into thinking that they can explain it away or that it won't be a factor. I think I have more respect for someone that would stand up and say, "yes, I'm human and I've made mistakes". I think most people can understand that. It's human.
|
| Name: |
lakngulf
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Cain and Gingrich
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 10:53:32 AM
|
Cain is shot, finished for a number of reasons, which you have listed. All along, my favorite has been Newt, although he, like every one else, has baggage. And your assessment of him as an "ideas' person is right to some extent. He has been "ideas" man for the last few years because he has been out of office. While in office he was the force behind the Contract with America. And if he could have signed his book deals correctly would have already been President.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Cain and Gingrich
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 11:32:14 AM
|
I don't really like Gingrich for a variety of reasons. It has nothing to do with his personal life. I think Gingrich has a tendency to put his finger in the wind and see which way the wind is blowing with regard to his beliefs, although I will give him credit for taking a risk with his immigration position. He really has been in Washington too long. He reminds me of Obama in the way that he is basically a policy wonk at heart. Now you can argue with me that Obama isn't a policy wonk, but my observation is that's exactly his problem. He believes that if you just put a policy in place, everything will work out okay without have to sell it or get his hands dirty.
The one I really like right now is Huntsman. He is trying to build a grass roots base. Not sure it will work -- it doesn't seem to be helping him much in the polls.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Cain and Gingrich
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 2:57:17 PM
|
Hound, I would generally agree with your assessment of Gingrich and his fascination with ideas and policy. That tendency and a very big intellect makes him a very strong debater which we have all seen. How that will translate into governing is unclear to me but it is something to consider. Interesting vignette I saw about Newt by Byron York. Newt was at some conservative gathering in DC and rather than glad handing with potential voters he was holed up in a conference room with a couple of scientists talking at length about cognitive brain illnesses and treatments.
With regard to your observation that Obama has the same policy wonk tendency I have to say that assessment surprises me. When I think of a policy wonk it is someone that loves to get into the nitty gritty detail about everything under the sun, talk it to death, over-analyze, have access to oodles of generally useless facts, etc. Obama strikes me as someone that is exactly the opposite. He seems more interested in the big ideas (bad big ideas from my viewpoint) but when it comes to the nuts and bolts he has little interest or patience. He leaves all the sausage making to others.
Maybe we have a different definition of what a policy wonk is which could explain my confusion.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Cain and Gingrich
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 3:10:27 PM
|
From Wictionary:
A person who studies or develops strategies and policies, especially one who has a keen interest in and aptitude for technical details.
Decide for yourself.....
PolicyWonks are kinda hard to explain. However, you know one when you hear one. Above all else, PolicyWonks are smart…really smart. And they like to talk and listen, but mostly to debate. They’re the ones who seem to enjoy pontificating endlessly on subjects that most people are more than happy to know that someone else cares about. PolicyWonks often ruin a perfectly good party or football game with a discussion of the trade deficit, agricultural subsidies, or welfare reform. And once they get going, they have an annoying habit of throwing around arguments, statistics and examples that leave the uninitiated feeling, well…dumbPolicyWonks are kinda hard to explain. However, you know one when you hear one. Above all else, PolicyWonks are smart…really smart. And they like to talk and listen, but mostly to debate. They’re the ones who seem to enjoy pontificating endlessly on subjects that most people are more than happy to know that someone else cares about. PolicyWonks often ruin a perfectly good party or football game with a discussion of the trade deficit, agricultural subsidies, or welfare reform. And once they get going, they have an annoying habit of throwing around arguments, statistics and examples that leave the uninitiated feeling, well…duPolicyWonks are kinda hard to explain. However, you know one when you hear one. Above all else, PolicyWonks are smart…really smart. And they like to talk and listen, but mostly to debate. They’re the ones who seem to enjoy pontificating endlessly on subjects that most people are more than happy to know that someone else cares about. PolicyWonks often ruin a perfectly good party or football game with a discussion of the trade deficit, agricultural subsidies, or welfare reform. And once they get going, they have an annoying habit of throwing around arguments, statistics and examples that leave the uninitiated feeling, well…dumb.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Cain and Gingrich
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 3:27:56 PM
|
Yep, that's Newt but I just don't see it with Obama.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The real deal is...
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 5:08:15 PM
|
When the pressure builds and a tough decision has to be made will the person pick moral principles over their preferences. Now we are not all perfect but if there is a pattern then that tells you something about how they will make any decision.
I think this muckety stuff is fair game for evaluating if a person is going to follow moral principles or take the preferred path for less discomfort or personal gain. When it starts to stink there's probably .........
I actually think Obama sticks to his socio-Marxist principles very well. Problem is those kind of principles are actually amoral when it comes to what he says as long as it accomplishes the goals. So you get this rhetoric that is logical and pleasing and often opposite actions that follow the radical ideological dogma.
Conclusion? Don't listen to anything he says but watch what he does.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The real deal is...
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 5:58:14 PM
|
Well, I think it is always a good policy when dealing with people of any stripe to listen less to their words and watch more their actions. Some of the most "Christian" people I've ever known rarely talked about their beliefs, never had to because their actions and how they treated other people showed what they believed.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Difference Between Cain and Gingrich
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 6:10:04 PM
|
I guess I wasn't thinking about any kind of official definition of a policy wonk -- I was more thinking of the belief that a well written policy framework was more important than an actual solution to a problem.
I agree that Obama is in love with ideas, but doesn't want to be bogged down in detail or have to get his hands dirty. You know, to get anything meaningful done, you have to be willing to get in there and slug it out.
Both Newt and Obama rather remind me of what I hated about Washington. Too much talk, not enough getting things done. Never time to do it right, but always time to do it over. Creating problems to be solved, just to be able to get the credit for solving them (and patting oneself on the back), yet never taking on the real issue.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The real deal is...
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 10:35:26 PM
|
Yes, but I didn't mean Christianity, although this nation got a long way on Judeo-Christian principles.
There are folks that claim to be Christians that don't live by Christian principles. There are churches - and people - that claim to be Christian but tolerate principles that are contrary to the Bible's instructions.
It's like the old joke you can't be a little bit pregnant. You are or you are not. Of course Christians all sin and have to repent but you can't be self-affirming in violating Christian principles and call yourself a Christian.
Now apply that to a discerment on a politician. It takes a clear head to discern the politician that has principles that are moral.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
And ...
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 10:38:49 PM
|
I forgot to mention that all our economic problems don't stem from any political or regulatory shortcomings but rather moral shortcomings....
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
[Message deleted by author]
|
|
Date:
|
11/30/2011 10:43:40 PM (updated 12/1/2011 2:27:21 AM)
|
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
And ...
|
|
Date:
|
12/1/2011 8:13:51 AM
|
The moral problem I see in this country is greed. People wanting to live about their means and wanting to finance their future to buy stuff they didn't need. And then when their overpriced mini-mansions went down in value, they didn't want to honor their debt, but decided to just walk away. Because they don't value their stuff - it came to easily to them, unlike their parents generation who valued their stuff that they worked hard and saved for.
Don't finger point the poor and their expectations. We created those expectations. But, we would be a morally bankrupt nation to abandon them, so the rest of us could just have more stuff.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here's a quote that captures it exactly
|
|
Date:
|
12/2/2011 9:01:38 AM
|
Hound, I read this today and it fits what you describe about Washington to a tee. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H. L. Mencken
|
| Name: |
Barneget
-
|
|
| Subject: |
So, what you're saying is .....
|
|
Date:
|
12/2/2011 7:38:11 PM
|
that we are obligated to provide for the unwilling, provide for those that choose to ignore the advantages of education, for those that disrupt the educational environment, provide for those that do not avail themselves to work and for those that breed freely? Provide more, indiscriminately? I am sure your thoughts about good works through government are warm, and possibly satisfying, but, by any and every measure, prolonged government involvement in improving the lot of "the poor" has been an obvious, and pronounced epic failure. Work, hunt, fish, or starve. That's it. Host a bus load for an afternoon and let them fish off YOUR DOCK. Imagine the impact you will have on their lives. Food, entertainment, literally experiencing, if only for a few moments, the lifestyle of a true social, fiscal, and political independent. Let me know how it turns out for you.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
So, what you're saying is .....
|
|
Date:
|
12/2/2011 9:00:39 PM
|
Not everyone who is poor is unwilling to work or uneducated. Sometimes life circumstances put people in situations that they would prefer not to be in, but nonetheless they are reliant on social programs.
But, what I was responding to in Ric's post was that it was "us" the citizen of the US who created social welfare programs. We, the citizens, allowed them to evolve in the way that they have -- through our elected representatives, both at the national and state and local levels. So who is to blame? We are.
And you'll have to forgive me. On my personal journey, I have evolved to the point that having more "stuff" is meaningless to me. So to see the poor given a chance to eat and keep a roof over their head is okay with me. And by the way, I was just told the other day that there are 22 families in Coosa County that are unable to buy anything for their children for Christmas. Like others with a sense of social responsibility, I'm not willing to see the children suffer.
But, by your post, I guess you are.
|
| Name: |
Barneget
-
|
|
| Subject: |
So, what you're saying is .....
|
|
Date:
|
12/2/2011 10:33:33 PM
|
by providing Christmas gifts for some number of the 22 Coosa families unable to afford gifts, you are or are not perpetuating the expectation that someone else will provide for them? The unwilling were once children themselves, as were their parents, and grandparents. We are living gen IV, in some cases gen V, of the Great Society. Let's keep doing, at the national and state level, exactly what hasn't worked in the last 45 years. Hound, you have a good heart. Don't listen to it for a moment, and answer with your head. Are we doing these folks any favor with long term provision of non essentials?
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
So, what you're saying is .....
|
|
Date:
|
12/3/2011 7:49:03 AM
|
You want children to get nothing for Christmas so they can experience "reality". I'd rather have them not learn that particular lesson so early in life. I'd rather have them continue to believe in Santa or at least in the kindness of strangers.
Look, I know there are people out there that bleed the system dry. And that ticks me off as much as anyone. I've got a distant cousin who hasn't worked since he was in his 20's because he has been collecting SS disability and a small VA pension for agent orange exposure. And there isn't a thing that would keep him from getting a job. That ticks me off, and if it was in my personal power, I would cut him off in a heartbeat.
And those welfare women who pop out children with no regard as to how they are going to support them? I would personally enjoy being the one to tell them the gravy train has stopped.
But, I know a woman and her husband who ended up in a downward spiral when he lost his arm in a workplace accident. Then he lost his job, and couldn't find another one. They ended up on public assistance. Eventually, he got another job. And they got back on their feet.
|
| Name: |
Barneget
-
|
|
| Subject: |
So, what you're saying is .....
|
|
Date:
|
12/3/2011 1:05:50 PM
|
I don't know what the answer is. If anything, participation, as you do, in a variety of community support programs has for me created a great deal of inner conflict. Unable, yes, help as many in as many ways as possible. Emergencies, like the tornadoes or fires, Ditto. The unwilling however cast a giant shadow over sincere efforts to do the right thing for all the right reasons. I know it's for the kids. I feel it's the right thing to make sure they have a gift in their stocking. Without a doubt, I struggle with the long term implications.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
North Carolina Coast
»
Nags Head
Login
|
Home
