Gingrich Versus Paul in the Granite State

MANCHESTER, NH -- Last Wednesday, Newt Gingrich was featured in the inaugural "substance over soundbites" candidate forum at St. Anslem's College. These events would transcend the campaign season's histrionics, explained the moderator; with less than a week until the New Hampshire primary, the time for headline-grabbing gimmicks had long passed.

So Gingrich first addressed the subject of Ron Paul, remarking that he'd find it “virtually impossible” to vote for him against Barack Obama. As justification for this view, Gingrich posited a grim scenario: under a Paul presidency, American cities would be vulnerable to nuclear attack—ultimately leading to "the end of democracy as we know it." He then offered a characterization of Paul's position on the Middle East: "Eh, if Israel disappears, that's not a big problem."

“The guy doesn’t have a clue about the Iranians,” Gingrich told me after the event. "And says publicly he doesn’t care if they get a nuclear weapon.”

On Thursday, at each of Gingrich's four campaign events throughout New Hampshire, he (usually without being prompted) leveled more-or-less the same charge. But at an opera house in Littleton, NH, a man named Jon Anderson, who identified as a retired nuclear physicist with the Department of Defense, pressed Gingrich on the matter. 

"I believe that the idea that Ron Paul has," Gingrich said, "that it doesn't matter if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon, is unbelievably dangerous to the survival of the United States," adding that "most" recent sectarian bombings in Iraq since the U.S.'s withdrawal have been "funded by the Iranians."

Anderson told me afterwards that while he admired Ron Paul in some respects, he ultimately concurred with Gingrich. “Somebody once said the road to hell was paved with good intentions,” he said. “But I think his good intentions in this case could create some serious, serious issues for the American people, including losing an American city. And that scares me.” 

The proliferation of destructive materials in general was a top concern for Anderson. “I even got on the Internet and found all the parts I need to put a small nuclear device together,” he said, noting that he could create a device on his kitchen table that would impact a 20-mile radius. “I wouldn’t live very long, because I’d be radiated.”

Shortly after casually charging that Paul's foreign policy vision could lead to the obliteration of an entire American metro area, Gingrich toured a nearby candy store. He marveled at the variety on display, admitted to having a "sweet tooth," and took particular note of the "Baby Bottle Pops." When a reporter quipped that Mitt Romney is alleged to have flipped-flopped even on his favorite candy flavor, Gingrich said, "The man has a right to change his mind." 

His next stop was a pizza parlor. On the walk over, I asked Gingrich if he believed a Ron Paul presidency would endanger Israel. "Yes," Gingrich said, and kept going. Upon entering the restaurant, he complimented a man on his veal parmesan sandwich. "I have to say, that impresses me." 

When the Newt 2012 bus rolled into Lancaster—just across from the Vermont border, in northern New Hampshire—an assortment of Paul supporters, Occupy the North Country demonstrators, and general anti-Gingrich interlocutors (who said they were leaning Romney) greeted him. “He’s callin’ everybody else a liar, and who’s a bigger liar than him?” one of the general anti-Newt people said. “He cheats on his wives. How can you trust somebody like that? I can’t.” 

As Gingrich emerged from his campaign bus (which is plastered with a massive image of his face) the group chanted “Ron Paul! Occupy! Ron Paul! Occupy!”

After the Lancaster townhall, Gingrich posed for photos as usual. One woman requested he hold up a copy of the Coös County Democrat, a small newspaper serving the North Country. In that very issue, I later learned, the editorial team had endorsed Ron Paul; it was one of only three newspapers in the state to do so.

Gingrich’s last event of the day was a “Tea Party townhall” in Meredith, NH. A man who said he was 22 years old rose to ask “what hope do I have as a young, hard-working individual?" Gingrich suggested that all young people ought to be concerned about the Iranians striking America. "I suggest you look at the impact of a nuclear weapon going off in Boston," he advised.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • drunk||

    Why aren't we invading the guy that claims he could build a nuke with parts ordered off the internet. He sounds like a danger to me.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Of course this does raise the question: If it is so easy to build such a device, and the Iranians/Muslims/People we don't like hate us so much for our freedoms, WHY HAVEN'T WE BEEN ATTACKED WITH SUCH A DEVICE YET? WHY DID AL QAEDA RESORT TO USING PLANES INSTEAD OF BUILDING ONe OF THESE DEVICES?

    Maybe that shit isn't as likely as these pants-wetting babies think.

  • o3||

    warning: plutonium not included

  • robc||

    As someone with a degree in nuclear engineering who hasnt worked in the field in over 17 years, I can state it isnt that fucking easy.

    Even with access to the nuclear materials, you will kill yourself and 15 of your closest friends well before you put a bomb together.

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Oh don't worry, the materials' half-life is really short, so the exposure will be limited."

  • ||

    Radiation. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it.

    Half-baked, goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand 100 chest x-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.

  • Spencer||

    It's those plutonium enemas that I don't understand.

  • ||

    My cells need more neutrinos

  • BakedPenguin||

    Maybe I should drive for a while.

  • J. Frank Parnell||

    Eyes melt, skin explodes, everybody dead...

  • Loki||

    The guy who claimed he could build a nuclear device on his kitchen table is a retired nuclear physicist with the DoD, so I doubt if your average lay-person could pull it off, much less your average cave dwelling terrorist.

  • Ray Pew||

    The guy who claimed he could build a nuclear device on his kitchen table is a retired nuclear physicist with the DoD, so I doubt if your average lay-person could pull it off, much less your average cave dwelling terrorist.

    The problem with this argument is that it assumes that Iran has no nuclear scientists (that haven't been assassinated yet, that is). Since there are, the question still remains: if the process is not that difficult, then why hasn't it happened?

  • Joe R.||

    First we have to invade Newt's titties.

  • Ted S.||

    If you want to be that kinky, go for it!

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Jesus...Christ. This man is insane. Hopefully he doesn't cry when more people prefer Ron Paul to his never-ending parade of bullshit.

  • chris||

    Message received, Gingrich and the two party establish, we shouldn't vote for Paul for the same reason we should defer to your wisdom on invading Iraq.

  • Buzz Fisher||

    Newt Gingrich is too slimy for me.

    Sign up for the 1/12/12 Ron Paul Music Bomb and invite all your friends! It's a money bomb with a twist....we can let freedom sing! Let's help this go viral in time for the big day! http://www.facebook.com/events/259729074095040

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You made me do it.

  • robc||

    Does Gingrich really think the Israeli military cant defeat Iran?

    Did you or anyone ask him that.

  • Bill Kristol||

    Why should they do it when we can spill American boys blood and money to do it. Jewish blood is more valuable.

  • Arcaster||

    Where's that "anonymous" asshole from last week that was spouting this same shit?

  • Hobie Hanson||

    What if Ron Paul's Israeli equivalent takes over as their president? Then we can't expect them to take care of our dirty work for us.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Gringrich loves to compare himself to Reagan, and yet Reagan is famous for saying that government isn't the solution, goverment is the problem. Gingrich has never heard a problem that he doesn't have federal government solution for. Plus he's an egotistical ass.

  • robc||

    Reagan also decided that meddling in the Middle East was insane and pulled the troops out.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Back when the whole Contract with America thing was going on in the 90's I read whatever book he had out at the time. It was pretty clear after reading it that he was just a big government liberal with socon tendencies. Hey, lets give free laptops to everyone, this is the 90's when laptops were not cheap.

  • ||

    rob, email me.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Alternatively, just let me know a store where you can get the Bell's.

  • robc||

    email sent

  • pancakes||

    awwww

  • jj||

    I'm worried about China and North Korea and Pakistan and India and Russia having nuclear weapons. The responsible action would be to invade them too. Or is Gingrich too isolationist to do so?

  • Jerry||

    Why isn't Russia worried about Iran having a nuclear weapon, even when they are selling all this technology to them?

  • wareagle||

    Russia is not worried because it does not figure to be in the Iranian crosshairs, and because it responds to threats with something more than the usual strong memo the US prefers.

    I'm not thrilled about Iran going nuclear because they're the only folks that ever talk about using such weapons offensively, but we've pretty well tapped out the military over the past decade. I would settle for a POTUS who would simply declare that the day after Iran fires a nuke on someone is the day it ceases to exist as a country.

    Obama, of course, has no credibility in making such statements. He's passed up at least two clear opportunities to engage the Iranian leadership, the one above A-jad's head.

  • Mahmoud Ahmedinajad||

    [Iran] are the only folks that ever talk about using such weapons offensively

    Link, please.

  • PIRS||

    The United States is the only country that ever actually used such a weapon in a war.

    By the way, I saw Fail-Safe recently. It oddly enough came out the same year as Dr. Strangelove and deals with the same subject but is absolutely NOT, I repeat, NOT a comedy. It is VERY well directed and written. I highly recommend it.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Russia isn't worried necessarily, but they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon either.

    The only reason why Russia entertain's Iran's needs at the UN is to put pressure on the US into giving up more political influence/control on former Soviet controlled countries, like Georgia. Poland is being played in this game as well.

    So Russia "helps", but are not really pushing to help them get nukes.

    & honestly, Russia has the same fear America has, which is very little. Even if Iran had nukes in the next 5 years, deploying them in a great enough number at distance to hurt either Russia or the US is still decades away. And between now and then, we get better at defending against a possible attack...

    But for now Iran is still 5 to 10 years away from bomb one, with Stuxnet slowing down that progress.

  • cavalier973||

    The terrorists haven't built a bomb and detonated it in an American city because they can't. We're over there, and that means they are distracted. If we pull our troops back, they'll stop being distracted, get off their keasters, and build a bomb, and by george detonate it! Because Iran is the same as a terrorist group. That guy Ahmedinejad is one crazy guy, and every single one of the Iranians are crazy religionists who don't care if they are all vaporized by a retaliatory nuclear strike: they think they'll all go to heaven and enjoy 72 virgins; they care nothing about this life, which is why outside observers see Iranians walk in front of buses, stick their fingers in electrical sockets, and drink alcohol mixed with pharmaceuticals on a daily basis. THEY'RE CRAZY, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?!?!
    So, we need to kill them before they kill us first.

  • ||

    So Gingrich first addressed the subject of Ron Paul, remarking that he'd find it “virtually impossible” to vote for him against Barack Obama. As justification for this view, Gingrich posited a grim scenario: under a Paul presidency, American cities would be vulnerable to nuclear attack—ultimately leading to "the end of democracy as we know it."

    So, Gingrich is basically like a chat room troll, and he's trolling New Hampshire like it's a chat room.

    Don't feed the troll.

  • ||

    Vote for me or we'll get nuked. Ah, it's like the good old days of the Cold War all over again!

  • Sting||

    What might save us, me and you,
    Is that the Iranians love their children too.

  • Brett L||

    Here. Although, I think the voiceover needs an update.

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • Spencer||

    I could never vote for Newt because his name is newt. Well, that and his horrible and retarded policies.

  • ||

    Concerned Gingrich troll is concerned

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A man who said he was 22 years old rose to ask “what hope do I have as a young, hard-working individual?" Gingrich suggested that all young people ought to be concerned about the Iranians striking America. "I suggest you look at the impact of a nuclear weapon going off in Boston," he advised.

    Isn't Gingrich one of the ones complaining they weren't getting enough questions about the economy in the debates?

  • Spencer||

    "How to learn to stop worrying and FEAR the bomb."

  • ||

    Gingrich suggested that all young people ought to be concerned about the Iranians striking America. "I suggest you look at the impact of a nuclear weapon going off in Boston," he advised.

    Don't get my hopes up, Newt.

  • ||

    Your lack of concern for America's Chowdah Supply is disconcerting.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    What did I ever do to you?

  • ||

    The Kennedys.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That was before my time!

  • ||

  • Transcript||

    Man: What hope do I have?

    Newt: I suggest you look at the impact of a nuclear weapon going off in Boston.

    Man: Do you like kittens?

    Newt: I would, if the Iranians weren't intent on nuking them.

    Man: What is your favorite food?

    Newt: Nothing microwaved. It just reminds me of how we're all gonna die.

  • Ted S.||

    Dead Massholes?

    Can it go off while Tim Tebow is in the state?

  • peachy||

    You fool - that will only make him more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

  • Dekedin||

    “I even got on the Internet and found all the parts I need to put a small nuclear device together,”

    This guy sounds like a terrorist, when is Obama going to use his powers to indefinitely detain him?

    But seriously, I'm glad stuff like that is on the internet, and the Anarchist Cookbook, drug manuals, etc. Since when does the government get to restrict information simply because it might lead to dangerous actions? Speech/press are different than an actual terrorist action. I'm much more worried for the day when you can no longer find instructions for a nuclear bomb online, then we know we're screwed.

  • Arcaster||

    Agreed, but I don't think that day is too far off.

  • Loki||

    begin sarcasm

    Dammit man, don't you understand? 9/11 changed everything! We can't be concerned about petty freedoms, we've got a country to defend!

    end sarcasm

  • Ben||

    There are several problematic issues when you make vague claims about Iran's intentions: first, most choose to ignore our history with Iran; a history involving our destruction of their democratically elected government in the 1953 coup, our blatant pandering to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war (including the Iran-Contra affair), as well as our support of Israel, its nuclear weapons, and its constant invasions of Iran to kill of its scientists and generally terrorize them. Ron Paul's policies are consistently validated by CIA intelligence analysts and echoed in speeches made by those in real power in Iran. All the opposition - read: neoconservatives - can fall back on is their fear-mongering, propaganda-fed scare tactics, and superstitions built on misinformation. And it's turning into a second Iraq war in a time when our budget is crippled, our resources are stretched to breaking point, and the American people suffer.

  • Spencer||

    Fearmonger is mongering fear.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Fear mongrel more like it.

  • Just a question||

    Something I have not heard mentioned so far - the Free State Project supporters who moved to New Hampshire. If they show up at the polls it could have a huge impact. What are your thoughts?

  • Spencer||

    Stoned people can't get up off the couch to vote.

  • Just a question||

    I was asking about Free State Project supporters, not New College students.

  • cavalier973||

    If you listen to the Free Talk Live radio show, the subject of choice is getting arrested for smoking marijuana.

    But, yes, I have also wondered what the impact the "Free State Project" would have on the vote totals. I hope that it is positive, but when you have a group of people willing to alienate their neighbors by flouting social conventions in the name of "living free" (i.e. smoking pot in public, women going around bare-breasted in public) then a vocal support of Ron Paul by the "Free State Project" community might be a detriment.

    I'd be happy to be wrong about that.

  • Apatheist||

    Why shouldn't you be able to smoke pot or go topless in public? Or drink for that matter.

  • PIRS||

    "women going around bare-breasted in public"

    Who would that alienate but prudes who would probably vote for Santorum?

  • Loki||

    Where are these bare breasted women you speak of, and are any of them the kind of women you'd want to see bare breasted?

  • ||

    I thought there were, like, 200 Free Staters up there.

  • Jeff||

    The actual number is probably closer to 2.

  • ||

    Actually I think they are close to breaking the 1000 'already moved' mark.

  • ||

    If we bomb Iran and kill a bunch of their people just because they have or might develop nukes, I am sure they will be friendly and reasonable towards us afterwards.

    /snark

  • ||

    Oh crap they're madder and crazier now. We need to bomb more. Oh shit we killed some people from another country that is crazy mad at us now. Now well have to bomb them. Ack they aren't embracing our freedoms.

    Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  • Spencer||

    We won't need to nuke them when we develop the Hammer of Dawn under the COG. Then we can take those lambits terrorists out!

  • wareagle||

    for a second, I thought this was The Onion. Boston being hit by a nuke? Really?

  • Just a question||

    Life immitating art. Just remember, before the TSA the current ACTUAL air port "security" procedures were the stuff of comedic parody - not reality.

  • Spencer||

    Boston's gotta be way down there on the list of likely options. NYC, LA, Houston (if they're smart, but they're not, because of the economic dammage to the country this would cause)- then maybe boston? Anyone got arguments with this list?

  • ||

    Houston

    Dammit Spencer. Stop helping them. Next you'll tell them about our Kansas city nuclear arsenal.

  • Spencer||

    *facepalm*

  • ||

    I'm from Cleveland and I went to Florida State University. Thus, they should nuke Pittsburgh and Gainesville first.

  • Brett L||

    AnthonyD for president. Don't forget Miamuh.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Whatever the terrorists do, I sure hope they don't bomb Detroit. Because that would be awful. Hear that, terrorists? Please, please, please don't detonate a nuclear bomb in Detroit. That would just be awful. Do anything else you want, but not that!

  • ||

    Oh, heavens, no, not the green one, anything but the green one...

  • ||

    But there's a bunch of Muslims in/near Detroit - maybe they'll get a pass for that reason.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Hush your mouth

  • ||

    The problem with using what happened with the Iraq war as a way of suggesting we tread lightly with regard to Iran is that the neocons consider Iraq a resounding success.

    Tough to argue with pure delusion.

  • Hugo Longbone||

    Newt Gingrich: doing the work of Iran one dollar of debt at a time. Hey Newt, if we keep tolerating this shit sandwich of militarism, corporatism, and totalitarianism, we can have all American cities go up in riot flames. You fat fucking jerk-off!

  • OWS-VPS||

    You might have heard the news: we're at the end of growth. Growth of the economy, of consumption, of wealth. That this would happen isn’t news to those who’ve followed the writings of Meadows, Heinberg, and many others. What’s different now is that the end of growth may have ACTUALLY ARRIVED.

    On Friday we learned that after only two years of expansion (mid 2009 - mid 2011), the U.S. economy is re-entering recession:

    Early last week, ECRI notified clients that the U.S. economy is indeed tipping into a new recession. And there’s nothing that policy makers can do to head it off.

    ECRI’s recession call isn’t based on just one or two leading indexes, but on dozens of specialized leading indexes, including the U.S. Long Leading Index, which was the first to turn down – before the Arab Spring and Japanese earthquake – to be followed by downturns in the Weekly Leading Index and other shorter-leading indexes. In fact, the most reliable forward-looking indicators are now collectively behaving as they did on the cusp of full-blown recessions, not "soft landings."

    Why is this happening so soon? What's the bigger context here?

    We're not just entering a new recession - we're at the end of growth as we've known it.

    We have passed or are near many of the peaks in natural resources, both by drawing down non-renewable resources and by hyperexploiting renewable ones.

    For example, here are some points we've passed and haven't looked back (approximate dates):

    1979: Peak per-capita gross energy production

    1986: Peak grain per capita

    1989-1995: Peak wild fish catch

    1990: Peak net energy production

    2000: Peak fresh water availability

    2005: Peak conventional oil production

    2011-14: Peak all-liquids (conventional+unconventional oil) production

    It's possible to overshoot a resource base - civilizations have done it time and again - but only temporarily. The list above is a small subset of what we've depleted or are depleting, and many of the critical ones - oil, for instance - have no real substitutes. Even if there were substitutes, we would have to have started a crash program 20 years ago to transition without economic impacts. But it's too late for that.

    What's the consequence of these constraints?

    There's a simple cycle that everyone should step back and observe, because we're going to be stuck in it for at least the rest of this decade if not the next one as well:

    A recession occurs (2007-2008)

    Demand falls due to the recession (2008-2009)

    Oil/gasoline prices fall (2008-2009)

    A recovery begins (2009)

    The recovery self-sustains for a short period of time (2009-2010)

    Oil prices rise due to increased demand (2010-2011)

    The recovery falters due to increased oil costs (2010-2011)

    A new recession begins (2011)

    When oil prices hit $90/barrel last December, those watching oil prices were worried this would cause a new recession. In a diary in May I predicted we'd see a recession within 12 months due to the persistent high oil prices we'd seen from December through May. (My prediction was nothing special - many others who were tracking oil prices came to a similar conclusion.)

    How does this lead to the end of economic growth?

    As the foundation of oil upon which we've built our industrial system crumbles, we will face direct economic impacts. Hirsch, whose 2005 study for the Department of Energy on the peaking of world oil production is still the gold standard, conducted further studies to try to understand how oil connects to GDP. He concluded that there's a 1-to-1 relationship: for every 1% oil production declines, world GDP declines 1%.

    How much does he expect world oil production to decline? Here's what he says:

    Best Case Scenario: Maximum world oil production is followed by a period of relatively flat production (a plateau) before the onset of a decline rate of 2–5% per year.

    This indicates that in the best case scenario we should expect a yearly 2-5% decline in world GDP, which is roughly equivalent to having a recession nearly yearly (though it's unlikely to be that steady).

    The trend break happened in 2005, when global oil production stopped increasing. We've been on a plateau of sorts since then. While the graph above is technically about oil, it maps directly to the economy: we've been on an economic plateau since then.

    This recently revised chart from Calculated Risk shows that the latest GDP numbers indicate that we're still below 2007-level economic activity once you adjust for inflation:


    Now that we're entering a new recession, that GDP is going to head down again before we even made it past the previous peak GDP. That is, we've hit the end of economic growth in quantitative terms.

    Going forward, as I mentioned in previous diaries, it's unlikely that this will result in a constant, smooth decline. Now that oil production is flat and soon to be declining, what happens? We hit our head on the oil ceiling, a recession ensues, and as we begin to recover, we quickly find ourselves hitting our heads on the oil ceiling because production is declining. This has two consequences:

    After a recession, the recovery that ensues will only be a partial recovery - that is, the economy won't recover to a better state than it was in before the recession
    Recessions are likely to be more frequent (maybe on the order of every 3 years)
    The right priorities and the wrong priorities.

    A good rule of thumb is that when there is consensus on an issue in Washington (or Wall Street), it's probably wrong. And there is consensus among the mainstream left and the right, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives that growth is good and should be our objective. What all of the above is indicating is that growth isn't possible any more. Doesn't matter if it's "smart growth" or "dumb growth" or growth for the benefit of corporations or growth for the benefit of the 99%. We've reached the long-forecasted Limits to Growth.

    What can be done?

    To be honest, I don't expect that much can be done top-down or bottom-up. The institutions we have, and the forms of activism we have, don't work well to address problems like this. The best approach may be individuals and communities first coming to grips with this situation, and then taking action to become more resilient.

    I'm not going to suggest a rescue remedy that will solve the problems above, because there isn't one.

    Rather, the point is that this isn't the end of the world and we can live fulfilling lives with less - something we all know, but sometimes forget to implement.

    Here are some things (far from comprehensive) that each of us can do to prepare for this new, harder era both by reducing our costs and by reducing our community's dependence upon the oil economy:

    Pick up a copy of The Complete Tightwad Gazette (and similar books) from your local library and start cutting costs.
    Weatherize your home or apartment.
    Stop purchasing consumables and disposables.
    Eat only organic, local produce.
    Stop eating meat/eggs/dairy not from farms that are local, grassfed, and organic.
    Use public transportation and travel by train.
    Grow, prepare, and preserve and can your own food.
    Use only truly renewable energy sources.
    Withdraw from the money economy as much as possible.
    Few people have taken all of these steps today - I sure haven't - but I'm working on them slowly and think that there's the possibility of a simpler and fulfilling life ahead if we're willing to adapt to our new circumstances.

  • Spencer||

    Could you use a smaller font or spacing so that your insane rants don't take up so much room?

    Thanks.

  • Jeff||

    This. Unless shutting the fuck up altogether isn't too much to ask.

  • hazeeran||

    tl;dr

  • ||

    this is fantastic info. thanks!

    I already have my chicken. Now, how do I make the eggs brown?

  • cavalier973||

    lol

  • ||

    Great stuff. I particlarly enjoyed the advice to do both this:

    Use public transportation and travel by train.

    And this:

    Grow, prepare, and preserve and can your own food.

    You can pretty much do one or the other. If you live anywhere that has pubtrans services that might allow you go about your daily routine, then I can just about guarantee you don't have enough room to grow a year's supply of vegetables. And don't get me started on how much room you need to grow your own grain and raise your own livestock.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Actually, urban farming is a new and powerful movement. And in the no-growth steady-state economy, more and more people will be FORCED to become vegetarians/vegans.

  • ||

    You missed the point, which is that it is unlikely that mass transit and urban farming (to the degree that the farming produces more than a novelty sum of food) cannot both be economically viable in the same area. Think about it.

  • ||

    I'll definitely grow my own barley. When the apocalypse comes, I'll be the only man in the Thunderdome who can make his own single malt.

  • Spencer||

    I hear 2034 will be a good year for moonshine.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I don't want to live with less. And don't call me Rather.

  • ||

    DOOM!

    DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

    Where's Warren?

  • ||

    The institutions we have, and the forms of activism we have, don't work well to address problems like this.

    When did "institutions" and "activism" ever work well at generating economic growth?

  • KDN||

    We've seen this exact same copy/paste rant before. I wish these trolls would invest in new material.

  • Loki||

    That would require them to have an original thought in their tiny pucile brains.

  • Id||

    Newt Gingrich is a very smart man.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Actually, urban farming is a new and powerful movement. And in the no-growth steady-state economy, more and more people will be FORCED to become vegetarians/vegans.

  • ||

    now, hold on there a second. are you telling me that, in this no-growth dystopia, not only willI have to barter my barley for my daily Starbucks after money is outlawed, but I will have to be a vegan as well?

    Shoot me now.

  • Id||

    FORCED, FORCED!

    I for one welcome our new hummus-breathed overlords.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    And obese people with insulin resistance will be FORCED to eat the diets that are killing them. Awesome!

  • The Boz||

    The proliferation of destructive materials in general was a top concern for Anderson. “I even got on the Internet and found all the parts I need to put a small nuclear device together,” he said, noting that he could create a device on his kitchen table that would impact a 20-mile radius. “I wouldn’t live very long, because I’d be radiated.”

    This guy is bullshitting. First of all it's "irradiated" which makes me doubt his claimed profession. Second, if it really is that easy to make a nuke, wouldn't we have to bomb the entire world to stop the crazies from getting a hold of one?

  • Arcaster||

    This was already mentioned earlier, and yeah, you're right.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/01.....nt_2749075

  • Colonel_Angus||

    NEWTCULAR BITCHTITS.

  • ||

    I'm still waiting for one of these tuff gais to explain to me just what they're going to do to stop Iran from getting a nuke if Iran has the means to get one.

    No explanation will be forthcoming, I suspect, because then they would have to admit that they couldn't do jack shit about it.

  • cavalier973||

    If we invaded Iran, the threat of terrorism wouldn't go away, its source would merely shift to another country (preferably one that is already at third-world status, and that therefore can't really do anything to stop our invasion plans).

  • ||

    A man who said he was 22 years old rose to ask “what hope do I have as a young, hard-working individual?" Gingrich suggested that all young people ought to be concerned about the Iranians striking America. "I suggest you look at the impact of a nuclear weapon going off in Boston," he advised.

    Is it me or does that read as encouragement for young people to set off nukes in Boston?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Guess it's more interesting than "plastics."

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That doesn't seem very lucrative. Perhaps he is suggesting holding the city hostage, supervillian style?

  • Spencer||

    Don't need no super when you got da nuke.

  • Chris||

    Hey everybody, lets write an article that mischaracterizes Newts position on Iran and defense spending so we can have a libertarian happy dance on it. Thanks....I saw on Cspan the guy that brought up Iran attacking America, he was a Paul supporter and brought the whole topic up out of the blue to start with, it was not what Newt was talking about at that town hall.

  • Newt||

    don't believe the lies! I believe in a variety of things. For instance, I care about infrastructure. What a Paul presidency would do to the infrastructure of Boston if Iran has the bomb.

  • Nipplemancer||

    After watching the exchange over the nuking of Boston, it seems to me that Newcular Titties is running almost exclusively on the War with Iran platform.
    It reminds me of this.

  • Chris||

    If you've been following them on Cspan you would know that is not tops on Newts agenda. Sorry to burst your bubble there buddy, he's talking economics and entitlement spending, which should be right up a libertarians alley but what do I know?

  • Nipplemancer||

    There's nothing libertarian about Newcular Titties. Being a warmongering dick only adds to the pile of shit that he is.

  • Chris||

    thanks for playing, but wrong...it would be a stretch to describe Newts policies as "warmongering", but if you don't want to pay attention to what they're saying that's fine by me.

  • wareagle||

    but it would not be a stretch to call Newt a statist. He loves govt and has a govt-based proposal for everything. In today's duopoly, he represents the Police State more than the Nanny State. One gave us the war on drugs, the other the war on poverty; neither worked. Imagine that.

    I don't hear Newt talking about reducing the deficit or cutting spending which is curious considering how many things he claims to have done as Speaker and even before that. It's like he was Art Laffer's brain and Ronald Reagan's soul.

  • tarran||

    Newt Gingrich is a Herbert Hoover throwback. Not the older, wiser Hoover of the FDR years, but the one who prompted Calvin Coolidge to say:

    "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad."

    Gingrich has all of Romney's negatives - the lack of principles, courage, etc - but none of his positives. At least Romney knows how to make money setting up businesses that sell to uncoerced customers.

  • AlmightyJb||

    Santorum is definately running on war with Iran. I wouldnt vote for either.

  • ||

    "I suggest you look at the impact of a nuclear weapon going off in Boston," he advised.

    So... Architecture major, right?

  • affenkopf||

    adding that "most" recent sectarian bombings in Iraq since the U.S.'s withdrawal have been "funded by the Iranians."

    The attacks that targeted Shias and sought to destabilize the Iranian friendly government? Absolute bullshit.

  • NeonCat||

    Why doesn't Newt just go ahead and claim that Ron Paul's first act as President would be to nuke Israel for his Iranian masters?

  • Spencer||

    I thought that's actually what he just said!

  • Loki||

    The real question is: How easy would it be to make a snuke.

  • AlmightyJb||

    Notice they never ask us to imagine a nuke going off in DC. I'm sure they don't want to hear the applause.

  • ||

    I would venture to say that Gingrich could be certifiably insane. Indeed, with his temperament and his finger on the button, I hate to see what this country might experience. Not to mention that he will promote every globalist plan for depopulation of America that he can pull off. He is a very frightening prospect for America.

  • ||

    Mr Gingrich,

    Please sir, exactly what missle system currently in the possesion of Iran, can reach Boston? (Yes, I am being sarcastic)

  • Geotpf||

    When Republicans say things like "We can't let Iran get nukes", the next question should be "How are we going to stop them?" Are we going to bomb them? Invade them? Nuke them first?

    The Soviet Union was as much our enemy when they first got nukes as Iran is our enemy today. So why didn't we bomb/invade/nuke the USSR when they got nukes in the late 1940's? For the same reason we won't invade Iran if/when they get nukes-because it was/is an amazingly stupid idea.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement