Newt Gingrich Despicability Watch

|

Wrong finger

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives and current Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich infamously managed to deflect questions about his alleged request that his second wife agree to an "open marriage" so that he could continue to sleep with the younger woman who now happens to be his third wife. In the South Carolina debate Gingrich ginned up fake outrage to bluster at the debate moderator: 

"To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine." 

It may not be as despicable as cheating on your second wife while lecturing the rest of us on "family values," but this nugget of Gingrichian claptrap from yesterday's Florida debate qualifies: 

Governor Romney owns share — has an investment in Goldman Sachs, which is today foreclosing on Floridians. So maybe Governor Romney in the spirit of openness should tell us how much money he's made off of how many households that have been foreclosed by his investments? And let's be clear about that."

Newt. Really? 

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.

214 responses to “Newt Gingrich Despicability Watch

  1. Somehow the “real conservative” fails to see the need to enforce contracts, debt obligations, and the rule of law. Ferchrissakes, that is like conservatism 101 and the one thing that libertarians would generally agree with a GOPer on.

    Fuck this guy, fuck this guy in his ass with Barney Frank’s dick.

    1. Real real conservatives believe first and foremost in getting and maintaining power for themselves. Anything else is negotiable. I found this out the hard way in my misspent youth as a College Republican.

      1. That applies to politicians in general.

        If you were trying to come up with a system for identifying the most morally loathsome people in our society, you could do a lot worse than our system of selecting officeholders.

      2. real real Dems are not much different. Had you been a college Dem, you would have learned that every problem is caused by private industry and can be fixed by govt. Explains why so many Dems have never held a real job.

        Interesting, but the only two GOP candidates who actually have made money BEFORE politics are Paul and Romney. We can debate their relative stances but neither made a living from cashing in on prior elected office.

    2. Don’t you dare. I’m a married man.

      1. I saw your last photo without a suit and jacket…with those tits you’re the “wife” in that marriage!

    3. Wait – is Barney a top?

    4. What is the difference between Newt making a duplicitous reference to Mitt’s owning Fannie Mae bonds and GS equity and Reason making a duplicitous reference to Ron Paul’s oft-disavowed newsletters?

  2. Alt-alt-text: “Don’t smell this finger for the rest of the day.”

    1. better alt-alt-text “Smell my finger”

      1. “I killed a tiger with this finger and no one in the so-called mainstream media will believe me. Journalists should be taxed at three times the rate they are now and made to work in the moon mines I plan on building with treasure from lost pirate ships that my presidency will re-task NSA satellite to find. People say I can’t do these things I am promising. I will not promise you that they are wrong, but I will promise you that they are not right!”

        1. You missed the genetically engineered Olympic atheletes.

  3. Nobody makes money of of foreclosures. A foreclosure means that the loan has failed and the bank is going to lose money. The foreclosure stanches the bleeding.

    1. Hey, man, let’s not stop Newt from self-destructing, ok? Let him dig his own grave.

      1. Even Scotty in his prime couldn’t keep Newt from self-destructing.

        1. “I would’na waste my time with such a garbagescowl.”

          -Scotty, from beyond the grave.

    2. Not necessarily true. In some cases, banks will buy a portfolio of MBS at pennies on the dollar and then foreclose on the properties and sell of the foreclosure for slightly more than they purchased the MBS off of another bank or financial institution for. The bank or financial institution that sold them the portfolio of underwater loans for slightly less than the market amount does so for liquidity needs and to spare themselves the timely process of foreclosing and selling the properties.

      I think GS is one of those financial institutions that right now buys up the MBS cheap and makes a few bucks on each one.

      1. There exists a discount market for every type of asset.

        If it weren’t possible to profit from distressed assets, there would be no bailiffs.

        And no loans.

    3. Sorry, but I process foreclosures, and we make money off of them all the time.

      Sure it’s not nearly as common as losing money, but it’s not like some rare thing. Many people lost their jobs and are defaulting with $10k, $15k, $20k left on the entire note, and being foreclosed on. Those, and homes that go into foreclosure due to tax liens, are generally resold quite profitably.

      1. So you’re making money off of other people’s misfortune. Nice.

        1. Doctors also make money off of other people’s misfortune… what’s your [or Newt’s if you are just channeling him] point?

          1. Presumably they make money off of ameliorating other people’s misfortune.

            Processing a foreclosure doesn’t help the person being foreclosed upon.

            1. Processing a foreclosure doesn’t help the person being foreclosed upon.

              And not foreclosing on a delinquent loan doesn’t help the lender stay in business to lend money to other people looking to buy homes.

            2. Processing a foreclosure doesn’t help the person being foreclosed upon.

              No, but it helps a lot of other people. The next homebuyer, the bank, the investors in whatever bond pool the mortgage was in, and that’s just the first-order beneficiaries.

        2. What does that even mean? Secured loans mean the banks or subsequent note-holders have a security interest in the home. I’m trying to remember when the lenders or downstreamers were declared to be charities.

          If we aren’t going to allow foreclosures, then banks are going to contract mortgage lending considerably. To the point that many homeowners won’t be.

          Borrowers are almost as guilty as any player in the housing bubble bust. They leveraged too much, got more debt than they could afford, overstated their incomes, etc. Whatever the government and the lenders did to help create the problem–and they did plenty–the fact remains that many people got into loans they knew they couldn’t really afford.

          1. I’m not saying anything should be illegal, just that it seems awful to profit from foreclosure.

            Plus, I like feeling superior to people.

            1. Suppose someone bought a stock at it’s peak and now wants to get rid of it. They’ll lose money but I can buy their shares at a good price and, perhaps, make money selling them later.

              Is this “awful” too? It’s not that I jump for joy when some loses money but I don’t have a problem making a profit off of their misfortune. That’s part of capitalism.

              Similarly, I feel bad for business owners who go under, but I’m not averse to picking up some bargains at their “going out of business” sale.

              If someone can make a profit by picking up foreclosed homes and getting them sold, more power to them. I’d rather see those home sold and occupied than sitting empty for months on end while they fall apart and bring down all the neighbor’s property values.

          2. I’m trying to remember when the lenders or downstreamers were declared to be charities.

            January 2009.

            1. I stand corrected.

        3. So you’re making money off of other people’s misfortune.
          —————————
          give me a break. I bought a property on the Gulf Coast for a third of its original asking price. I didn’t cause property values to drop; doesn’t mean I can’t take advantage of it.

      2. Jim, I award thee today’s golden monocle award. Now go enjoy some aborted fetus popsickles.

      3. So you’re making money off of other people’s misfortune. Nice.

        Yep. It’s called capitalism. I know as a Romney supporter you dislike/distrust it, but it’s a fact of life that not everything is always going to be rainbows and buttercups, so somebody has to profitably dispose of such situations.

        Jim, I award thee today’s golden monocle award. Now go enjoy some aborted fetus popsickles.

        Thanks, I’m already eating one right now!

        1. Funeral homes are part of capitalism too. Doesn’t mean I have to hide my disgust towards morticians.

          1. You’re a weird guy, Ace. Why do you hate morticians? People want them to make the corpses presentable for a final viewing. They prefer it to, oh, I don’t know, unhindered rotting.

            1. I want to be left out for the birds, personally, rather than being made “presentable” by the grisly methods morticians use.

              1. Then say so in your will, though I’m guessing the government won’t let that happen. In fairness to you, the morticians likely lobbied very hard for their rent seeking. That is the problem with morticians, not their business itself.

                1. Morticians and nanny state types.

                  “Oh no, we can’t allow children to see a naked fat guy decomposing on his front lawn! They’ll be scarred for life.”

              2. What do you have against vultures?

              3. Taxidermy is not grisly, you’re already dead. Don’t be so disgusted by biology.

                For practical reasons, though, I do prefer alternative methods such as rotting, sea burial, cremation, or some combination (viking funeral). Parting out for reuse or science is also acceptable but only if some financial compensation can be provided to parties specified in my estate.

                I am opposed to burial because it is a waste of land, and ignored graves are depressing as hell.

            2. I’ve told my wife that, in the event of my untimely death, I’m to be cremated, but my head is to be preserved and placed on the mantle to serve as a warning to other men who might come around.

              1. Interesting. I think I prefer the open air for my head, though. Staked over the gate, for me. You know, with the other heads, only maybe a little higher.

              2. . . . my head is to be preserved and placed on the mantle to serve as a warning to other men who might come around.

                I’ve specified in my will that I am not to be enbalmed, and that my body is to lie in state in the sun for one week, after which I am to be given an open-casket funeral.

                1. Im to be either buried in the ground or cremated. No mauseleums. They are creepy.

                  1. Interesting architecture, though.

      4. I don’t understand. How would you make money in that situation? If you foreclose on a house that only has $10k on the note, and then resell for say, $100k, then you get to keep $10k plus your expenses. You have to pay the balance to the previous owner. So where’s your profit? In inflated fees?

        1. You have to pay the balance to the previous owner.

          Um no, most of the time I don’t. That’s only some states. The law varies state-to-state, but that’s not very common. And the states that do request that usually also have deficiency laws which allow me to pursue people to the grave for their other assets to make up the debt. A lot of times it’s more trouble than it’s worth because they’re already wiped out, but it is an option.

          1. And the states that do request that usually also have deficiency laws which allow me to pursue people to the grave for their other assets to make up the debt.

            Aren’t those debts dischargeable through bankruptcy? Failing that, don’t they become time-barred under statute-of-limitations laws after a few years

            1. Bky yes, statute of limitations is a joke. All you do is hound them to make even a small payment, and even if they give you $50, that resets it. It takes a lot of committment to ignoring constant harrassment for years to get it to drop off.

              1. All you do is hound them to make even a small payment, and even if they give you $50, that resets it.

                True. I thought for a moment you were saying there was an exception carved out of the SOL laws for this sort of thing.

                Most people don’t realize that when a debt becomes time-barred and after the 7-year reporting limit has expired, they’re pretty much free and clear. Junk-debt buyers make billions every year off people’s ignorance of SOL laws.

      5. If they only have $10k left why are they defaulting? They should just sell the place and pocket the remainder.

        1. Somebody has to be willing to buy. In a lot of places, no such luck, even at low prices (Detroit, Phoenix, condoes in northern Florida, etc.)

          1. Then they prices aren’t low enough.

          2. those Fla condos are a potential gold mine. One thing that no amount of human ingenuity can create more of is gulf front property.

            1. Boston’s Back Bay begs to differ. Though if someone can’t sell their Florida condo for $10k, I’ll take it.

            2. A-rabs thought you could.

              1. They don’t get many hurricanes in the Persian Gulf.

    4. Oh, and HOA foreclosures. Did you know that in most states, your HOA can foreclose on you for just a few hundred dollars in late dues? I’ve processed title on foreclosures over as little as $900. You think they made a mint reselling that house?

      1. Why would anyone buy a house where that was the deal?

        1. Most people don’t read the fine print of their HOA covenants. Most HOAs can do this actually. Condos are the worst about it, and every single condo complex has that power. Yet plenty of people still live in condos.

          The HOA foreclosure path is actually faster than the bank one, because by not paying dues the borrower is deemed to be harming the common area and so causing damages to others, and not simply to himself/the bank (there’s some lingering distrust of banks/capitalism there…hurting your neighbors is considered much worse than being a nonperforming asset for a bank).

          Millions of people live in that situation without even really knowing it until the time comes. I had one bitch-ass HOA send me a bill for the expenses they incurred holding the planning meeting to decide to foreclose on a property. They wanted reimbursement for cookies, drinks, the whole nine yards.

          They had “oreos” specified on the reimbursement forms. I denied them, and said I’d only pay for off-brand hydrox.

          1. A friend of mine had a black and white cat named Hydrox rather than the more common Oreo.

            1. Your friend is now my hero.

            2. Hydrox were so much better than Oreos, until they changed the recipe and made them more like Oreos.

      2. Doesn’t the former homeowner get the excess proceeds after the lienholders are paid off? The HOA doesn’t keep the excess proceeds, that’s for sure.

        1. Varies by state. Sometimes they do get to keep it. Every state has individual laws.

          Besides, I’m talking about the legal/processing side, so I make a mint on those because they’re easy. In response to the OP claiming nobody makes money on foreclosures. I do.

          1. You arent making money off a foreclosure, you are making money processing paperwork.

            There is a difference.

            1. Well without the foreclosure, I wouldn’t be processing the paperwork. That’s like saying KFC doesn’t make money on chicken, they make money off of the service of taking chicken out of the back and putting it on a tray accessable to customers. Distinction without a difference.

              And as Scott points out below, I do make money on the back end when the property gets resold.

              1. Actually, its like saying KFC doesnt make money off slaughtering chickens. And that is true.

                They make money off selling dead chickens, but the slaughtering is a cost, not a profit making item.

        2. That’s just at the foreclosure auction. If the lender is the highest bidder at the foreclosure auction, and they bid their lien amount, they now own the house with clear title. Now if they go re-market the property they will be able to keep any gain they may get.

          1. If at the foreclosure auction the winning bid is higher than all the lien claims and the fees and expenses, the excess will go to the owner who was being foreclosed on. SO a few thousand dollars of liens and a $250,000 auction price, the previous owner would get something, but generally the lienholders have late charges, default interest penalties, legal fees, that eat away at any excess there might be.

            1. ^^I forgot about this, but Scott is completely correct. Even in the states where I have to return auction proceeds, the borrower has no claim on monies made reselling the property.

              That’s why I like places like Connecticut. They don’t even have a sale unless there’s equity in the property; otherwise their “foreclosure” action just consists of the title transferring back to us automatically at midnight on the day of the foreclosure. Don’t have to deal with pesky borrowers at all.

              1. Foreclosures are a part of business and are not a bad thing. But I find your dealings with homeowners associations to be unethical.

                1. But I find your dealings with homeowners associations to be unethical.

                  Why, may I ask? Nobody put a gun to anyone’s head and forced them to a buy a property in an HOA. In fact, knowing what we do, my wife and I specifically excluded any HOA areas when we purchased our home.

                  1. I wish I could have responded but I’m not sure if you are going to read this. Here’s why:
                    Fuck HOAs.
                    That’s why.
                    I hold them so low that I consider them to be in the wrong independent of their pretend “voluntariness”.

              2. But reselling the property isnt making money on foreclosure.

                If you bid the lien amount at auction, then you made $0 on foreclosure. You later made money thru savvy real estate investment if you sell if for more.

                1. But REO is considered part of the foreclosure process (default servicing from beginning to end is collections through REO).

                  Like I said up above, the actual “sale” is only one small part of the foreclosure process. Sure nobody makes money on that exact step, but foreclosure is not an auction on a specific date, it’s a process on a timeline continuum.

                  1. My point is that the owner of the lien doesnt make a profit off of any of those steps. The paperwork processors might, and the savvy real estate people who buy the property cheap at the auction might (and, yes, I realize that latter may be the same people), but the point is banks dont make money by making failed loans.

                    Maybe its more of a macro broken-window fallacy POV.

                    1. The holder of the lien does profit. After the sale, the bank holds the lien. We’re the ones who sell it, using subcontracted real estate agents.

                  2. Also, there is an assumption that the auction price is the FMV. Because if it wasnt, someone would bid $1 more.

                    Thus, even the the “industry” may consider after that to be part of the foreclosure process, it really isnt, its a matter of real estate investment. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Is 3 owners later also “profiting off of foreclosure”? I would say no. Same for any owner post auction.

                    1. You’re ignorning the fact that many states have post-sale redemption periods, which happens for up to a year after the sale, but is still part of the foreclosure process.

                      You’re essentially just declaring that you wish to use the sale as being the only step in “foreclosure” when in fact that is a process consisting of many steps, of which the sale is only one. You’re certainly free to invent your own terms and conditions to frame the debate, but you can’t expect people who actually work in that business to agree with it or follow you.

                      You don’t have to go three owners out, you can very reasonably say only the foreclosing entity has profited if it sells the property it foreclosed on. That’s no different than saying you profit off of selling something on craigslist, without saying that all subsequent resales are also profiting.

                      And no, the bid at auction is very rarely FMV. Again, you have no idea how varied state laws are. Some states we start or end the bidding at FMV. Most states we start & end the bid at total debt. Some states have a mandatory min. starting bid, such as Florida, where all bids start at $100. Some states don’t use sales at all, like CT, which vests title automatically to the bank at midnight on a specified day.

                      I’m not trying to be a dick, but it sounds like you just don’t know how this really works. There is zero consistency between states in how foreclosures work and who profits and when.

                    2. And no, the bid at auction is very rarely FMV.

                      By definition, an auction sells at FMV.

                    3. By definition, an auction sells at FMV.

                      Um no, it doesn’t, if the bidding starts low. FMV is determined through a variety of factors, but the lack of bidders at a specific auction is not an indicator of that. We buy properties all the time for $100 and then sell them for $100,000.

                      In fact, FMV is used in the bidding process generally only when MI is involved. The matrix we use to create bids has a shit-ton of, “if this, then that” contengencies; it takes up two full pages, front and back.

                      So you can have one property that goes at auction for either $100, or $100,000, based solely on if there is a mortgage insurance company involved and what their specifications are. The property could revert to the bank for either amount; both of them cannot simultaneously be FMV.

                      And no, the cost of redemption is not built into the bid, or taken into account in the bidding process in any way. Bids are processed based on the investor, state law (see Florida), and the MI if there is any. A property in Texas would have the same bid as a property in Michigan if those other factors are the same, regardless of the fact that Michigan is a redemption state and Texas is not.

                    4. There is zero consistency between states in how foreclosures work and who profits and when.

                      Im aware of that, Im saying the profit isnt coming from foreclosure.

                      Its like saying a business makes a profit off of human resources.

                      If you are an HR outsourcing company, sure. But no company makes profit off their human resource department, it is a cost (a cost that is necessary to making the rest of the company run efficiently, but still a cost).

                      And in your case, it isnt the foreclosure that is generating the profit, it is the real estate portfolio (that was acquired at low cost via foreclosure).

                      But, some hypothetical someone could show up at the auctions and bid $1 more and get all the same properties without the foreclosure overhead (excepting CT and redemption states — but the cost of redemption is built into the bid price, so its a wash). An as you said about CT, that is only when their isnt equity.

                2. To give you an example robc, nobody “in the industry” refers to the sale as a foreclosure. Legally a home is in foreclosure from the moment the borrowers are send an acceleration letter until after the sale.

                  It can take only a few months or up to several years, but that entire time they are in foreclosure. We refer to the actual auction event as the sale, and divide our foreclosures into pre- and post-sale. In states with a right of redemption, the post-sale period may extend up to a year before we can even market the property in REO, but the property is still in “foreclosure”.

                  1. Legally a home is in foreclosure from the moment the borrowers are send an acceleration letter until after the sale.

                    Like so many other things you have stated, it depends on the state. I work at a law firm that attempts to modify loans and help clients in foreclosure defense. In Florida, borrowers are not legally in a foreclosure until they have been served the foreclosure lawsuit, although often times the lender will call it as a foreclosure just because they have referred the loan to an attorney’s office in order to process the foreclosure suit. Technicality, but an important one.

    5. Just posting the same thing. Im waaaaaay late.

    6. Laywers always make money regardless of how much damage the litigants suffer.

  4. Chris Christie nailed it: Newt is an embarrassment.

    Not only to the GOP, but to the entire human race. I would feel better about my species if it turned out he was a Zakdorn all along.

    1. He has Eloi written all over him. Sexual deviant, frail, and self-entitled.

      1. No way am I eating that.

        1. Too fatty!

    2. I heard Chris Christie once ate a whole rack of ribs between questions at a press conference.

      1. I heard it was a bag of dicks, but your story is more family friendly.

      2. Impressive. Christie is fat. Newt is fat. Fat is not the reason why Newt is disgusting (though in his case it makes him even more repulsive).

  5. It is remarkable that doing what’s necessary to get the economy moving again, apparently, is considered more despicable than trying to bully your wife into an open marriage.

    And for those of you who haven’t caught on yet, getting the deadbeats out of the banks’ homes–and those dead assets off the banks’ balance sheets–really is ultimately what’s holding our economy back.

    That Gingrich is willing to make a campaign issue out of railing against the ultimate solution to the biggest economic problem we’re still facing–four year later–proves that he’s too irresponsible to be president.

    Gingrich may be more competent than Obama, but wouldn’t it be great if we got to choose between more than just the frying pan or the fire?

    1. True, but Romney is more of a slow cooker than a significant upgrade over either.

      Still, as sad as it makes me, I’m reaching the conclusion that Romney is the least bad actual potential candidate. FML.

      1. You don’t have to apologize, really.

      2. I think Romney might have been the better choice although RomneyCare vs. Obama doesn’t make me feel good about Romney either.

        I couldn’t hold my nose tight enough to pull the lever for any of them.

        1. If my choice were Romney or Newt, I’d find a way to close my nostrils and pull for Romney.

          If it’s Newt or Obama however, I’m going to commit suicide.

          1. I hadn’t yet seen your response when I furnished my own.

            Apparently there will be mass suicides if Newt gets the nomination.

        2. Oh, by no means am I voting for the guy. Ron Paul in the primary and then Gary Johnson in the general will be the beneficiary of my dutiful exercise in civic masturbation. But I’ll at least hope that Romney beats Newt and that he also beats Obama. If it comes down to Newt and Obama, I may very well just hang myself.

          1. You’ve basically described my voting strategy as well. I may actually vote Obama in the case of Newt v. Obama, just for that miniscule bit of insurance.

            All the criticisms of Romney in the popular press are for the wrong things. Bain Capital? Hell yes, that is capitalism! I love the photo of Romney and the other rich white dudes standing around with piles of cash. That photo alone gets put into the “Pro” column for Romney. The MA healthcare thing – “Con”.

      3. Still, as sad as it makes me, I’m reaching the conclusion that Romney is the least bad actual potential candidate. FML.

        You forgot a few words there: “… the least bad actual potential candidate if you pretend that Ron Paul and the entire list of Libertarian Party candidates don’t exist.”

        1. You forgot a few words there: “… the least bad actual potential candidate if you pretend that Ron Paul and the entire list of Libertarian Party candidates don’t exist.”

          I’ll be voting for Ron Paul and then Gary Johnson in the general. But we all know Ron Paul’s chances at the nomination are slim at this junction, and GJ’s are nonexistent. I’ll vote my conscious, but I’ll secretly hope that Mitt beats Newt in the primary.

          1. “I’ll vote my conscious…”

            We do prefer voters that are at least aware of their surroundings.

            1. conscience. my bad. Although the implication of voting my conscious is a sort of roundabout way of saying I actually have the wherewithal to recognize the only real alternative (albeit the slip was Freudian).

        2. s/don’t exist/aren’t actual potential candidates/

      4. Realized that a long time ago. Maybe it’s better to have an ideologically flexible non-libertarian candidate versus an ideologue with downright anti-libertarian principles.

        Since we know Romney is spineless and will say or do anything to win, it’s possible Paul’s faction can influence him in a preferable direction, since he needs most of them on board in order to win in November.

        1. And I don’t care how much Romney caters, I’m still voting Johnson in the general.

          1. Johnson doesn’t even have the LP nom yet.

            1. I am actually souring on Johnson a bit because he’s soooo boring.

              I know that sounds superficial, but if we had a libertarian Chris Christie, I would wet myself with glee.

              1. You dont consider boring to be a positive trait in a politician?

                Huh. Weird.

                1. Yeah, was going to say the same thing. He’s not charismatic. That’s exactly how I want my politicians. He’s like the anti-Hitler.

  6. Was that before or after ROMNIAC PWN’D him with the answer about how ROMNIAC’s money is in a blind trust, and NT’s mutual funds also hold Fannie and Freddie trash?

  7. Rick Santorum is concerned that gay marriage will lead to group marriage. Newt Gingrich hopes it will.

  8. If you are sticking to your principles: Ron Paul
    If you want to have a chance to beat Omaba, but have nothing really change: Romney
    If you are just in it for the lulz: Gingrich

    Vote Newt Gingrich! Expose the farce that is politics!

    Foreclose on the moon base! Divorce Iran! Give cancer an AVN award!

    Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt!

    1. No, if you are sticking to your principles, you don’t vote at all.

      And I’m awaiting all the “libertarians” who will eventually be oh-so-surprisingly telling us that they have to vote for ROMNIAC because even though nothing will change, Obama must be defeated.

      No one will vote for Newt.

      1. No, if you are sticking to your principles, you don’t vote at all.

        So you discourage people with your principles from voting in elections, then piss and moan about those elected not giving a shit about your principles.

        Sounds like the b/ tards who sit at their computer all day and whine about how they can never find someone to go out with.

        1. Well, I suspect that an anarchist opposes the whole system of government. People opting out advances that goal.

          1. I’d think a vote for Obama would advance the goal of collapsing society.

            1. We anarchists don’t want to collapse society. To the contrary we are trying to rid it of a parasite that is a great threat to society’s stability and health.

              1. Don’t bother, dude. To those who immediately go “anarchism = chaos”, there’s no helping them, because they don’t even know what the fuck anarchism is in the first place.

                1. Epi, you think the US govt will just quietly dismantle itself? Or perhaps you think that anarchists can defeat it by force in some sort of organized fashion?

                  1. Governments collapse when people stop obeying them. Look at the Soviet Union. Look at East Germany. Look at Somalia.

                    No violence is needed. Persuasion is all that is needed. Of course, governments that are collapsing are associated with very high levels of violence; people strike out at government agents, and of course governments use violence as their primary tool. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

                    1. The USSR and GDR both announced the date they would cease to exist. It wasn’t a matter of “people stopping obeying them”. Popular demonstrations of the sort seen at that time had in former decades been put down by governments that were willing to do so. It was just that this time, whether due to weakness or a desire to be a part of the subsequent govt, the govts didn’t want to put them down.

                      As for Somalia… I thought we weren’t supposed to use that as an example of anarchy. And that was DEFINITELY a violent collapse.

                    2. The violent civil war in Somalia was preceeded by people being less willing to obey the central government. The civil war was the product of factions fighting to impose a new government after the central government had lost authority. And even the factions eventually ran out of steam and settled for the kritarchy that supplanted the state.

                    3. The violent civil war in Somalia was preceeded by people being less willing to obey the central government. The civil war was the product of factions fighting to impose a new government after the central government had lost authority. And even the factions eventually ran out of steam and settled for the kritarchy that supplanted the state.

                      Tribes fighting to determine who will be “king of the hill” is the exact criticism of where anarchism will lead.

                      Hells bells, we live in an anarchist world. If you don’t like your “force provider”, you can move.

                    4. Tribes fighting to determine who will be “king of the hill” is the exact criticism of where anarchism will lead.

                      I guess you must have missed the part where they gave up.

                    5. I guess you must have missed the part where they gave up.

                      So anarchism is predicated on perpetual war?

                    6. I guess you must have missed the part where they gave up.

                      So anarchism is predicated on perpetual war?

                      Sigh Nope. Perpetual war is what you get when you have governments.

                      In Somalia the various clans and proto-state factions ran out of money and energy for fighting and started to focus on economic rather than political activities because there was more money in it.

                    7. In Somalia the various clans and proto-state factions ran out of money and energy for fighting and started to focus on economic rather than political activities because there was more money in it

                      So…Somalia really is a model for anarchy?

                      Just because the fighting stopped temporarily doesn’t mean there aren’t those out there who are just waiting to “pluck ripe fruit”.

                    8. So, they’re resting until they’ve made some scratch?

                    9. Somalia isnt anarchy. They have 1000s of governments.

                    10. Somalia isnt anarchy. They have 1000s of governments.

                      That’s the same thing, guy.

                    11. That’s the same thing, guy.

                      No it isnt. Anarchy means ZERO archies. Somalia is multiarchy.

                      Many != 0.

                    12. No it isnt. Anarchy means ZERO archies. Somalia is multiarchy.

                      Many != 0.

                      Maybe if I repeat myself you will finally get it. Multiarchies are what will emerge in a temporary anarchic state. Human beings abhor power vacuums.

                    13. Technically, Somalia was a kritarchy for much of the 1990’s.

                      The system the judges administer, called Xeer, arose in pretty much the way Common Law arose in England.

                      The violence in Somalia is greatly magnified by the conduct of the United States, Al Queda, and other parties in the UN seeking to impose a state for a variety of misguided reasons.

                      The Somali piracy, on the other hand, is more the product of foreign fishing fleets which have denuded the fishing grounds that the Somalis had homesteaded long before.

                      Somali motivations into taking up piracy are quite complex. Essentially they are the product of the unwillingness of surrounding nation states to accept the existence of a stateless inhabited portion of the world. Somali piracy started out as a response to the loss of access to the rich fishing grounds off the Somali coast. Korean, European and Yemeni fishing vessels would haul in rich catches in Somali territorial waters, effectively denying the Somali fishermen who had homesteaded those fisheries from access to their property. Deprived of their livelihood, they turned to opportunistic piracy, using the same system as that of the Barbary Pirates (with the exception that they treat their captives well). Unfortunately, what started out as an act of desperation has mutated into an institution: piracy rings have turned into big business. Pirates supply wealth and weapons to various factions fighting the U.S. backed state. Members of the U.S. backed state are also on the pirate rings’ payroll. The invasion has disrupted the traditional economy, making people even more dependent on piracy.

                      Had surrounding governments left the Somalis alone, the improvements in standards of living and reduced violence would probably have continued. Like Democrats blaming the sliver of remaining market forces for problems in the medical sector that were caused by government intervention, the critics of anarchism that cite Somalia as an example of the failure of anarchism are pointing to violence and chaos that is the product of state intervention.

                    14. The blockquote was from my 2009 essay on Somali piracy – thank you, squirrels, for limiting me to two links per post. >-(

                    15. The Somali piracy, on the other hand, is more the product of foreign fishing fleets which have denuded the fishing grounds that the Somalis had homesteaded long before.

                      So, even if the world was anarchist, Somali piracy would still be there.

                    16. Had surrounding governments left the Somalis alone, the improvements in standards of living and reduced violence would probably have continued.

                      If everyone would just play nice, anarcho-capitalism would be a swell system. I agree.

                      Trouble is, everyone doesn’t play nice. I mean seriously, encroaching on fishing rights is not some unnatural creation of the eeeeevil government, it’s human nature. If your system can’t handle such occurrences it’s not a feasible system.

                2. To those who immediately go “anarchism = chaos”, there’s no helping them, because they don’t even know what the fuck anarchism is in the first place.

                  I don’t immediately say that, but after pondering the subject for a couple of years, I do eventually say that, yes.

                  What kills me is that this is a known split amongst people who agree about everything else, but you’re acting like anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid or a troll or both.

                3. To those who immediately go “anarchism = chaos”, there’s no helping them, because they don’t even know what the fuck anarchism is in the first place.

                  Never said anarchism is chaos; I went through an an-cap phase some years ago myself and studied it extensively. The problem isn’t that the system as conceived would be unpleasant; the problem is that the system as conceived has zero staying power. It’s all well and good to theorize about “justice corporations” taking on the traditional role of police and private arbitrators taking the role of courts, but I’ve seen no anarchist tackle the problem of what happens when the strongest justice corporation (or perhaps a coalition of them) realizes it can make far more money by initiating coercion rather than serving customers in the free market. Claiming that will never happen because everyone in the society is a good little anarchist is just begging the question.

              2. You think an existing powerful govt will be gotten rid of without complete societal collapse? I don’t see how that scenario is at all likely.

                You really need a complete collapse to even open up the possibility of an-capism… and even then I have my doubts about whether it is even feasible.

          2. You’d need a gigantic majority of people opting out to advance anarchism, and it would have to be clear that they were doing so to question legitimacy of govt rather than out of apathy (as most people who don’t vote today do).

            1. Tulpa, people who opt out due to apathy are opting out. That’s what anarchism is! A guy who eschews the violence of politics is behaving anarchically. Whether his motivation is sloth, disinterest, a philosophical choice, or simply because he’s too busy is irrelevant.

              1. Apathetic non-voters don’t intend for the govt to cease to exist. They intend for someone else to make the decisions for them, trusting that the govt will continue to function as before.

                1. Apathetic non-voters don’t intend for the govt to cease to exist.

                  So what? Apathetic people don’t shoot people they don’t like either. I doubt you would group them as passive supporters of homicides.

                  By definition, a person who doesn’t care is not imposing a system of governance on anyone – which is an anarchic act.

        2. I piss and moan about the elected not giving a shit about my anarchist principles? Are you retarded? Wait, don’t answer that, since it’s rhetorical.

          1. You said “you”, meaning me. And I’m not an anarchist.

            1. Episiarch, I think this post of Tulpa’s is Quid Erat Demonstrandum of your argument.

        3. I mean I’ve voted mainly to help keep the LP on the ballot. However, unless the polls indicate anything close to a statistical tie, the likelihood of your vote actually being the one vote that puts your candidate over the top is infinitesmally small. Considering the candidates I usually vote for don’t usually get out of the 5% range, so yes, technically, it’s pretty pointless to view voting as the ideal and most efficient means for change.

          1. Your own vote probably means little. The combined votes of like-thinking people who you encourage to vote mean somewhat more.

            1. There are no such thing as like-thinking people.

            2. One way to encourage more voting is to split the electoral college votes for every state. It would also more accurately reflect the popular sentiment while giving smaller states more say (the whole purpose of the EC in the first place).

              As the EC is all about delegates, voting for a fringe candidate in one state is not a “spoiler” that will radically shift the balance of the election.

              1. True. Unfortunately, splitting the electoral votes for a state just means that state will be ignored by the candidates as there’s less bang for the buck of winning it.

      2. Epi ~ Why not vote for the libbertarian candidate…?

        1. I will not participate in a system that is 1) a joke; 2) tyranny of the majority; and 3) putting a stamp of approval on a system (government itself) that I oppose.

          1. B-b-but that means OBAMA ZOMG KENYAN SEEKRET MUSLIM might win! If you don’t vote for ROMNIAC, you’re voting for Obama!

            I want to run on an anarchist ticket and campaign on a platform of “everyone stay the fuck home and don’t vote; not for me, not for anybody”.

            1. The Brewster’s Millions candidacy.

          2. I had friends who were part of anarchist scene and the Profane Existence crew — real righteous cats.

          3. I think American Idol fits all three of those characteristics, but the difference is you didn’t see my complaining about the results.

            1. The contestants of American Idol don’t try to impose themselves at gunpoint on innocent peopel.

              Unlike people like Mitt Romney who get your active support. And they are, I’m sure, quite grateful that you support of their desire to have the government ration medical care.

    2. Newt promises real life Jurassic Parks, Moonbases, and space mirrors to replace streetlights. As far as corrupt big government statist assholes go, he seems pretty good.

    3. You’ve sold me. I’m voting Newt too.

      When people ask me why I support Newt, I’m just going to get really serious and go,

      “Two words: MOON BASE”

      1. You could also look them dead in the eye, and with as much solemnness as you can muster say:

        “Clown shoes. That’s why.”

  9. So, Gingrich is the 99%, now?

    1. Yes, in the sense that he ate 99% of the buffet.

    2. No, but he is a GIGANTIC douche bag.

    3. 99% bodyfat, yes.

      “I warsh myself with a rag on a stick.”

  10. Give him suspensors and he could be the Baron!

    1. Harkonnen > Spineless cowardly Spacing Guild douchebag

      1. I’d like to see you navigate Heighliner through fold space.

        1. I’d like to see you navigate your penis through a fold in… no I wouldn’t. Nevermind.

          1. you want to see zeb fuck newt in his fat folds?
            sick!

            ..and, me too

      2. Harkonnen > Spineless cowardly Spacing Guild douchebag

        How you figure? The Guild calls all the shots. Being tough/evil doesn’t mean a whole lot if you’re contained planet-side.

        1. And don’t forget, the Guild backing Atreides is what crushed the Harkonnens.

          1. Either that was in one of the (dispicable) sequels, or you read a different version than I did.

            The Guild backed House Corrino in the person of Shaddam IV, only giving up when Paul Atreides threatened to destroy the spice.

            1. Them “giving up” was when they backed Atreides.

              1. At that point, the only Harkonnen still around was Feyd-Rautha (disounting the unborn daughter of Margot Fenring), who was not yet even Baron.

                And the Guild did not really care about the Atreides-Harkonnen kanly as long as the spice kept flowing. If Feyd-Rautha had won the duel, the Guild would have been perfectly happy to back him.

                And that ignores Paul Atreides’ own Harkonnen ancestry, which the Guild – made up of prescient adepts – could well have been aware of.

                1. I didn’t say they backed Paul because they believed in him as a leader or anything. But once they accepted his blackmail it was over.

        2. The Guild does, yes, but not any one individual of the Guild. Taken one at a time they are just flopping cowards dependent on graft and being inaccesible pesonalities. Very weak, if you catch them out of their shell.

          Now the question is: who is Baron Gingrich’s Feyd Rathua?

          1. Ann Coulter.

  11. Newt Gingrich is a horrible person. I’m not sure what else to say. I can’t believe he’s in serious competition for the nomination.

    1. !!~~GINGRICH/SANTORUM2012~~!!

      -BECAUSE YOU FUCKERS DESERVE IT-

      1. That would truly, truly suck. Luckily(?) most Americans would agree with me. The devil you know and all.

    2. Welcome to the modern republican party.

  12. Newt is an asshole, but he knows how to play politics, and hopefully this will play well with Floridans. Destroying Shittens Flopney is Newkular’s patriotic duty.

  13. The phrasing suggests that Gingrich is analogically questioning (the rationality or honesty of) other Republicans’ claims that Romney “creates jobs” by investing in…whatever. No one bothers to check what he actually invests in before saying he “creates jobs.” If it’s given that Mitt “creates jobs” via his distant proxy participation in businesses that hire people, he also “forclos[es] on Floridians” via proxy participation in Goldman Sachs.

    I think the analogy got cut short in its tailoring to fit the FL audience, and NOOT kind of fucked up by being so specific, mentioning only GS…maybe in hope that it will be noted somewhere that they’re the biggest single “investor” in Romney’s campaign, and people will have a “OMG Romney is Obama” moment about that.

    Or something like that.

    He does have a point, down in there somewhere. Probably.

    1. Bain Capital (which Romney OWNED, not merely invested in) had a far greater hand in the restructuring of troubled companies than a random GS investor has in foreclosures.

    2. The phrasing suggests that Gingrich is analogically

      Interesting side note, Newt divorced his first wife because she opposed his position on analogic questioning.

    3. Nope, sorry.

      There are no other circumstances – none – under which Gingrich would ever have previously played this kind of foreclosure card.

      If two years ago, Gingrich had been in a debate with Bernie Sanders, and Sanders said EXACTLY WHAT GINGRICH SAID HERE, Gingrich would have gone nuts denouncing Sanders as a rotten commie.

      Newt’s only point here is, “I am going to try to make Floridians not like Romney by using class warfare rhetoric I would denounce any other time if it came from a Democrat”. That’s it.

      This proves conclusively, by the way, that every other time Newt pretended to hate class warfare from Democrats, it was all just a lie. As soon as it’s convenient for Newt, he uses the same exact rhetoric.

    4. No one bothers to check what he actually invests in before saying he “creates jobs.”

      Actually, they have. Bain was involved in restructuring at least two national retailers (I forget which) that have been quite successful.

    5. The reason Florida real estate is fucked with a glut of foreclosed homes is because we have an army of fools down here who thought getting a $300,000 adjustable rate mortgage on a 1,400 square foot home with NO down payment while they were making $36,000 a year was a great idea. It’s fine to feel sorry of people who make bad decisions, but to blame anyone else for their choices will to doom us all to repeat this shit again later down the road.

      1. i recall CNBC interviewing florida real estate “expert” who claimed that you “could not lose” in FLA real estate.

        they also interviewed vegas strippers turned real estate speculators who were doing well.

        this was the ULTIMATE sign of a frothy market top

        kind of like the fabled story of JP Morgan in an elevator and hearing the elevator operator brag about what a killing he was making in the stock market

        this was immediately before the 1929 crash

  14. Newt is inviting talk about his role in Freddie Mac. (Or was it Fannie?)

    He should be taken up on it.

    Making money off of a government sponsored enterprise whose mission is to get people into mortgages while simutaneously pumping up housing prices vs. selling off said houses after said morgate holders default. Hmmmmmmmm……..

  15. So maybe Governor Romney in the spirit of openness should tell us how much money he’s made off of how many households that have been foreclosed by his investments? And let’s be clear about that.”

    Yes, well, it doesn’t sound even half as dishonest and disingenuous as saying “Ron Paul is the better candidate when it comes to economic opoortunities for African Americans and minorities and the war on drugs – BUT IF YOU LOOK AT HIS GODAWFUL NESLETTERS!!! OMG!”

    1. ?Oooold Trooooollxican!
      Fighting Cosmotarians where he goes!
      Oooold Trollxican!
      Picking fights to satisfy his ego!?

      1. s/b where e’er

        1. kettle:

          Picking fights to satisfy his ego

  16. Again:

    Why didn’t Mittens just turn and ask, “Newt, do you even understand what capitalism is, or how it works?”

    1. You are presuming that Mitney understands capitalism.

  17. Newts douchebaggery almost makes me want to hold my nose and vote for Mittens out of spite… almost.

  18. Foreclosures earn the lender ass tons of money. Also, up is down.

  19. Romney is supposed to be the candidate in this race with no principles who will say anything to get elected.

    But now we have to stop and ask: Is there anything NEWT won’t say to get elected?

    Does anyone really think that two years ago Newt would have given a speech denouncing lenders for foreclosing on delinquent debtors? Or denouncing venture capitalists or private equity companies for “stealing from workers”?

    Because I don’t. I think these are positions Newt would have denounced any other time, but has embraced now solely on the basis of the identity of his opponent.

    That means that every OTHER thing Newt has ever said, or not said, is up for negotiation, too, based on political circumstance. If he can wake up one morning and hate foreclosure and private equity, if he can wake up one morning and hate free speech (determined previously), he might wake up one morning and want to gas all Mexicans. Or abort all babies everywhere. Who the fuck knows what he’ll want?

    1. I could believe that Romney is justly highly attuned to and susceptible to social pressure, and that manifests as a sincerely held set of beliefs that are constantly in flux.

      Newt’s just a sociopath. He has all the classic signs:
      * Glibness and Superficial Charm
      * Manipulative and Deceitful. Pathological (and convincing) liar.
      * Grandiose sense of self/narcissism (by his own admission)
      * Lack of remorse, shame, or guilt.
      * Shallow/feigned emotions
      * Need for stimulation
      * Callousness/Lack of empathy (e.g., failure to understand how some statements could be taken as very offensive to others)
      * Impulsiveness (e.g., looking for a momentary advantage in a debate even if it hurts you in the long run).
      * Promiscuity/infidelity (I think this is obvious)
      * Easily frustrated, aggressive. (This can be a political advantage if the crowd dislikes the target of your frustrated aggression.)
      * Irresponsible/Unreliable (The Romney campaign has stressed this. You just never know when he’s going to suddenly implode.)
      * Parasitic lifestyle (Public sector lifer. Yep.)
      * Criminal Versatility (e.g., the easy switch from Congressman to lobbyist)
      * Blames others for behavior (e.g. I only cheated because I loved America too much.)

  20. The really sad part of this is all of those voters out there who will buy into this fake victim bullshit.

    1. Well, since Team Blue has been running on Fake Victim Bullshit since the 1930s, why shouldn’t Team Red get in on the act.

  21. He could have answered that easily: ZERO.

    You dont make money foreclosing. Its almost a guaranteed loser. It just limits the loss.

    1. Did you read any of this thread at all?

      1. After I posted, Yes.

        As you would know if you had read the thread.

        1. I see a circular reference failure developing here.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.