Newt Gingrich gives esoteric civics lesson

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adeimantus
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
34 replies · 6K views
on Phys.org
Newt is a pompus bozo (and that comes from me!). This video is disturbing because at one time this guy was speaker of the house!
 
Adeimantus said:
Have you always wanted to know what your first job as an American is? Your high school civics class may not have covered this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0FholycKUk&feature=player_embedded

Is this a new role for Newt?

Looks like the same old Newt to me. Praying for votes? He was in the right venue anyway.

Though these days he needs to ask for people to overlook his baggage train trailing from behind him. For someone that has himself lived http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich" perhaps if he had embraced what he is so eager to now lecture on - ethics - he could be taken more seriously?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we could only separate him from his religion (frankly, I don't remember him being that overt about it when he was Speaker) and ego, he'd be regarded as one of the best House speakers we've ever had and a high-end conservative strategist/theorist. Unfortunately, these things make him harder to stomach.
 
He is a right-wing nut who went right over a cliff with Limbaugh et al in calling Sotomayor a racist - that is called "bearing false witness" in religious circles, which also makes him a hypocrite. The only reason he recanted his statement is that even the Republicans objected! He was forced to resign his position as Speaker due to "unethical practices". He also stands as a great example of why the Republicans have failed miserably.

The best speaker of the House in recent years was Tip O'Neill. Why? Because he was truly bipartisan and worked closely with Reagan. He was more interested in helping the country than being a mouthpiece for ideologues.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
The best speaker of the House in recent years was Tip O'Neill. Why? Because he was truly bipartisan and worked closely with Reagan.
Not from everything I've heard about him (O'Neill), but then, my 'everything' isn't a whole lot.
 
Gokul43201 said:
Not from everything I've heard about him (O'Neill), but then, my 'everything' isn't a whole lot.

At that time I was a die-hard Reagan fan. So while I probably disagreed with Tip about many or most things - no doubt he ticked me off frequently - it was also the last time we saw "civil" politics in this country. I remember that even then I held him in high regard. Back then, being on different sides of the political arena did not autmatically make THEM the bad guys [or racists].

He and Reagan were close friends.

From my point of view, Gingrich was the first of the neo-cons to come into power. Everything went to hell from there.
 
Why is there so much bias against republicans here? I'm just trying to understand it. Now I haven't even looked at the vid because I know I'd probably agree with what is said about Newt.

But I just think it can get a bit dangerous to allow such strong opinions to color everything one sees in politics - it means that the politicians one agrees with can often get away with shady you know what...

EDIT:
I want to give an example. I often watch the Rachel Maddow show on MS/NBC. A couple of days ago, she was talking about how Newt had "changed his mind" about the strong comment he made about Sotomayor. Well she gave it a negative slant. She quoted something he said (ironically I had cut and paste the same quote in a previous thread here...). Only she ended up doing THE SAME THING the republicans did with Sotomayor's speech - take it out of context. I knew from having read the CNN story (once again someone here had posted it...thanks again) that what she had quoted was taken out of context.

I turned to my mother who I had been watching the story with at the time and said, "DID YOU SEE THAT?! That was totally a FOX NEWS MOVE!" (NB:yes I am biased against Fox).

The point is, this sort of thing happens all the time. It's easy to let false/misinformation slip by when one is very attached emotionally to a certain perspective. Of course I am one to talk because I often blow my top. But still - isn't that the standard that those of us who really, truly value the objectivity that science strives for...want to reach?

Of course we aren't vulcans but you get my point...

sorry if this is a bit off topic...
 
Last edited:
swat4life said:
Why is there so much bias against republicans here?

See the last eight years.

Are you kidding? I used to be a Republican and even I can't stand them any more. They allowed a President to run amok and they have betrayed every core American value. If you really have to ask the question, then I have to wonder what planet you've been on. Many of us would like to see Bush and his pals prosecuted for war crimes.

That they would put up Sarah Palin as VP shows that they have hit the bottom of the barrel. The fact that we see a struggle for power between moderate Republicans, and the nuts, shows that even respectable Republicans like Powell have a problem with Republicans.

I am now an Independent.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
He is a right-wing nut who went right over a cliff with Limbaugh et al in calling Sotomayor a racist
Didn't she brag publicly about being a racist?
Back then, being on different sides of the political arena did not autmatically make THEM the bad guys [or racists].
Back then we had less people on internet forums spewing hatred with nonsensical unsubstantiated claims, using absurdities as givens in every statement.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
See the last eight years.

Are you kidding? I used to be a Republican and even I can't stand them any more. They allowed a President to run amok and they have betrayed every core American value. If you really have to ask the question, then I have to wonder what planet you've been on. Many of us would like to see Bush and his pals prosecuted for war crimes.

I am now an Independent.

Um, the last time I checked - I was on the 3rd rock. But that's just me. For your information, I was a democrat for the last THREE elections.

However, when last I checked, this was no dictatorial democracy. There were plenty of democrats that went along with Bush and THAT IS WHY I AM AN INDEPENDENT NOW.

I don't think my point should be obfuscated. It's easy to attach labels and get emotionally involved with things then lose sight of what's really going on.

The fact of the matter is that there were democrats who sided with Bush (or helped to vote him into office) and they are just as much "to blame" as the Republicans. Failure to critically assess or question them is just as dangerous as what happened under the previous administration.

Perhaps I am idealistic in taking to heart as much the scientists' code "question everything" - because this means both the things we agree with and DON'T agree with...
 
Al68 said:
Didn't she brag publicly about being a racist?Back then we had less people on internet forums spewing hatred with nonsensical unsubstantiated claims, using absurdities as givens in every statement.

You're being silly here - really...
 
swat4life said:
The point is, this sort of thing happens all the time. It's easy to let false/misinformation slip by when one is very attached emotionally to a certain perspective.
This is a good point. People obviously don't notice bias in their favor. There are many that don't notice any bias in ABC, CBS, NBC, etc, just because the bias is in the underlying assumptions, assumptions that they take for granted, and look over the fact that the biased assumptions are made despite the fact that they are not only in dispute, but provably false.
 
Al68 said:
Didn't she brag publicly about being a racist?

Besides the fact that you are seriously nullifying the point I was trying to make to Ivan about being open-minded towards the "other side" being proven naive by this sordid comment that's the quintessence of an unsubstantiated statement as of late...
 
swat4life said:
Um, the last time I checked - I was on the 3rd rock. But that's just me. For your information, I was a democrat for the last THREE elections.

However, when last I checked, this was no dictatorial democracy. There were plenty of democrats that went along with Bush and THAT IS WHY I AM AN INDEPENDENT NOW.

I don't think my point should be obfuscated. It's easy to attach labels and get emotionally involved with things then lose sight of what's really going on.

The fact of the matter is that there were democrats who sided with Bush (or helped to vote him into office) and they are just as much "to blame" as the Republicans. Failure to critically assess or question them is just as dangerous as what happened under the previous administration.

Perhaps I am idealistic in taking to heart as much the scientists' code "question everything" - because this means both the things we agree with and DON'T agree with...

I think the Democrats who turned Constitutional yellow should be tossed out on their cans as well. But the fact is that the Republicans were the ones who held power, and there was nothing the Democrats could do to stop them. What I have seen over the last eight years has not been politics. It has been a travesty that I will NEVER forget. We have engaged in the very sort of activities that once defined the enemy.

Not to mention that the core Republican economic philosophy - more deregulation is better - is what nearly destroyed the global economy.

It is time for a respectable conservative party to replace the Republicans.
 
swat4life said:
Besides the fact that you are seriously nullifying the point I was trying to make to Ivan about being open-minded towards the "other side" being proven naive by this sordid comment that's the quintessence of an unsubstantiated statement as of late...
That wasn't a statement at all. That was a question. I heard that she said people of one race would be better judges than people of another, but it may not be true. Looks like I will do a little research now.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I think the Democrats who turned Constitutional yellow should be tossed out on their cans as well. But the fact is that the Republicans were the ones who held power, and there was nothing the Democrats could do to stop them. What I have seen over the last eight years has not been politics. It has been a travesty that I will NEVER forget. We have engaged in the very sort of activities that once defined the enemy.

Not to mention that the core Republican economic philosophy - more deregulation is better - is what nearly destroyed the global economy.

It is time for a respectable conservative party to replace the Republicans.
OK - well, that's settles that!

Just make sure the democrats don't end up doing what the Republicans did...
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Not to mention that the core Republican economic philosophy - more deregulation is better - is what nearly destroyed the global economy.
I keep hearing this claim despite the fact that the biggest factors were caused by government regulation, not the lack of it. This problem could never happen in a free market.

Of course one could argue that we need more regulation to fix the problems caused by existing regulation, then more regulation to fix those newer problems, etc. Oh, yeah, that is what is being argued.
 
Al68 said:
This problem could never happen in a free market.
How do you figure the recession would have been worse without the deregulation which proceeded it?
 
kyleb said:
How do you figure the recession would have been worse without the deregulation which proceeded it?
Deducing a causal relationship from a temporal one is faulty logic.

I'm saying it would never have happened had there been no artificial market for bad mortgages, for example, which was created by regulation. There would be no market for "bad" mortgages in a free market. The demand for them was created by regulation.

Blaming the problem on a lack of regulation to counter the bad effect of other regulation is like blaming a lack of red paint for the fact that a car is blue instead of blaming the blue paint. While it's true that the car would not be blue if red paint had been applied over the blue, the logically sound reason it's blue is the blue paint, not the lack of a red overcoat.
 
Al68 said:
I'm saying it would never have happened had there been no artificial market for bad mortgages, for example, which was created by regulation. There would be no market for "bad" mortgages in a free market. The demand for them was created by regulation.
And I am asking; how you substantiate this claim?

Please note that I'm not attempting to argue with you here, I have never spent much time studying economics myself and am simply interested in understanding your position.
 
Just watch the video, folks. This thread is not about Republicans = bad, Dems = good. It's about Newt Gingrich and the rather extreme group he's associating with now. To ease your minds, I doubt the video takes anything out of context because it is, except for the introduction by the Reverend Lou Engle and the ending where Newt receives some special powers, mostly just Newt telling it like it is.

As Russ pointed out earlier, Newt is a brilliant guy. He would not shake someone's hand without first making a political calculation. So there is no claiming that he didn't know what he was associating himself with when he went to Lou Engle's church to give this sermon.


So you don't have to go back to the beginning of the thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0FholycKUk&feature=player_embedded

and while you're at it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkKEBsr1Yho&feature=related 1:30 "Say, Martyr me!" and 2:51

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEFLshNX1Us&feature=related
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
Al68 said:
I'm saying it would never have happened had there been no artificial market for bad mortgages, for example, which was created by regulation. There would be no market for "bad" mortgages in a free market. The demand for them was created by regulation.
And I am asking; how you substantiate this claim?

Please note that I'm not attempting to argue with you here, I have never spent much time studying economics myself and am simply interested in understanding your position.
In a free market there is simply no reason for a bank to make loans that they expect to lose money. It was no secret that the "toxic" mortgages were not worth what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae wanted to buy them for. The only reason anyone ever paid more for the notes than they were actually worth was because they could sell them to Fannie and Freddie for more than they paid.

Simple logic says that if Fannie and Freddie didn't exist, or didn't create artificial demand for bad mortgages, the bad mortgages would have never existed.

They didn't exist before Fannie and Freddie started demanding them, and nobody wanted them when Fannie and Freddie went bust. That's why they were called "toxic", because there was no free market demand for them.
 
Perhaps I am simply out of my league here, but I still don't follow your argument. Surely the loans were toxic because the borrowers were unable to keep up with their payments, and I've been under the impression that situation was created by the relaxing of regulations put in place to avoid such issues http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html" ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kyleb said:
Perhaps I am simply out of my league here, but I still don't follow your argument. Surely the loans were toxic because the borrowers were unable to keep up with their payments, and I've been under the impression that situation was created by the relaxing of regulations put in place to avoid such issues http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html" ?
Most of the toxic loans would never have been made in the first place without government involvement. The banks that made the loans knew they were too risky compared to the low interest rates. They were given incentives to make the bad loans anyway by government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Al68 said:
Most of the toxic loans would never have been made in the first place without government involvement. The banks that made the loans knew they were too risky compared to the low interest rates. They were given incentives to make the bad loans anyway by government.
To some extent one can blame anything under the sun on government intervention, since there has never been such a thing as a true free market in the US. And to argue that bad loans are only made when banks are under government pressure is also ridiculous. You only have to go back to the S&L crisis to see this is not true. But you could probably go a whole lot further back in history to come up with examples of lenders finding themselves vastly over-leveraged because they had hedged on one risk dilution tactic or another.
 
Al68 said:
Most of the toxic loans would never have been made in the first place without government involvement. The banks that made the loans knew they were too risky compared to the low interest rates. They were given incentives to make the bad loans anyway by government.
Please provide evidence to support one's claims.

Countrywide originated many bad/subprime mortgages. The government did not force anyone to make fraudulent mortgages, which are in fact illegal - but government regulation.

It is precisely the lack of regulation and law enforcement that permitted a bad situation from getting worse.

It was also lack of self-regulation or due diligence that problematic mortgages were securitized and sold off at high rates to unsuspecting investors.
 
Adeimantus said:
Just watch the video, folks. This thread is not about Republicans = bad, Dems = good. It's about Newt Gingrich and the rather extreme group he's associating with now.

Lou Engle is Newt Gingrich's Reverend Wright.

But unlike Obama, Newt has no real following. Hence his appearance with Lou Engle, seeking support from whatever dark corner that he can. Cement his radical right ties, embrace the socially conservative, maybe even give this apparently deranged Roeder a wet kiss, if it would cement their endorsement. After all you have Sarah Palin plagiarizing his work, so maybe he can parlay that with these people, since he has intellectual abilities she will never have, and maybe hope the rest of the country will have forgotten about his "lapses" by the time 2012 rolls around and choose him over her. Would that there be enough perfume for him, or even lipstick for Palin, I think is the hope we see playing out with these people jockeying for the pole position in 2012.

Newt's nod to these kinds of people looks like a politics as usual kind of thing. After all there is little accounting for what those seeking power may do.
 
Astronuc said:
Please provide evidence to support one's claims.
I agree, your comments convey my understanding, and I'm still at a loss at to where Al68 is coming from here. Granted, I have heard the arguments before, but I've yet to see anything to substantiate them.
 
Gokul43201 said:
And to argue that bad loans are only made when banks are under government pressure is also ridiculous.
I never said that. I said banks wouldn't do it on purpose knowing they would lose money. The bad loans made would be accidental, not made on purpose.

In the case of Fannie and Freddie, bad loans were made on purpose because Fannie and Freddie wanted to buy them for political reasons.
 

Similar threads

News Newt Gingrich Calls for Repeal of Child Labor Laws in Impoverished Areas
  • Char. Limit
  • · Replies 64 ·
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
64
Views
14K
News Will Newt Gingrich's 2012 Presidential Candidacy Achieve a Lunar Base?
  • Astronuc
  • · Replies 109 ·
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
109
Views
17K
News Newt Gingrich declares: This is WWIII
  • Ivan Seeking
  • · Replies 58 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
58
Views
8K