Up for Debate: Gingrich announces staff layoffs, new manager

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 12:11am

Newt Gingrich announced Tuesday that he was laying off one-third of his staff, including his campaign manager. A CNN/ORC poll Tuesday also showed that the "majority of Republicans would like to see Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul drop their bids" for the Republican nomination. Do you agree with the poll results? Should Gingrich and Paul call off their bids?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

90 Comments on this post:

By: slacker on 3/28/12 at 7:25

hugger, you can draft him, but the only counties he would carry is Davidson & Shelby.

By: Captain Nemo on 3/28/12 at 7:28

slacker-

house does not come by here anymore, tired of the BS coming from yogi. That is what he and Blanket told me. I thought that you had left for the same reason, since you stop about the same time.

By: Loner on 3/28/12 at 7:33

Slack...I honestly LOL'd on the image of Newt, with that perfect hair, sitting on the dunking seat at a fund-raiser dunking booth...taunting the ball-throwers as liberal pussies etc....very funny....I'd pay $100/ball...the one-percenters could afford the 10K balls...not me....right about now, Sheldon Adelson might pay for a dozen of those balls...Newt failed him....Mr. Adelson does not like looking like a stupid loser....if Newt has lost favor with the tycoon, his life could get hellish in a hurry....the Newt ought to clam up and pack....he's a big-time loser.

By: Loner on 3/28/12 at 7:35

As for House...he no longer posts here, Slacker. Dover tries to limit the time he spends here...he's a working man....but I am genuinely glad to see that you are back...you always have a witty remark to interject at the right time....that's class, IMO.

By: slacker on 3/28/12 at 7:40

Nemo, I'm sorry to hear that. The best thing to do is skip over his posts, and soldier on.
The City Paper should be commended for this open forum. I see the other daily has gone censorship. ''If you wanna play you must give the identity away.''
That cuts out us witness protection souls.

By: Loner on 3/28/12 at 7:42

I don't know about anyone else's screen, but on mine, on the left margin is an ad for Snorg Tees...a sunglasses-wearing young hottie in white panties and black socks is wearing a tee-shirt with "meh" on it...complete with "camel toe"....how does Google know what the Lone One likes? This is quite the new age we have entered, folks...tailored ads using IP sweet lists?

Capitalism has its appeal...in this case, it's sex appeal.

Anyone else getting the Snorg Tees ad?

By: Captain Nemo on 3/28/12 at 7:43

I am glade that you are back, slacker. I have missed your sense of humor.

By: Captain Nemo on 3/28/12 at 7:47

Loner, I have sorted peeves, but no Snorg Tees. ;-)

By: Captain Nemo on 3/28/12 at 7:48

I've got to go to work now, but it is good to see you are back, slacker.

By: slacker on 3/28/12 at 7:48

Loner, its on my screen also. Those damn porn sites snitched us out.

By: Captain Nemo on 3/28/12 at 7:51

You can come out now yogi. I know that you did not want to answer my questions, but I like to give your diaper wedgies.

By: Loner on 3/28/12 at 7:55

Well, I ranted on the subject of the day...and more...I have an agenda this morning too...gotta shop for supplies...do a little banking.....get a beard trim....and jam with my buds in Brockport.

I'm getting pretty good with the tin whistle...slacking off on the sax...the whistle is a lot more portable and infinitely simpler as a mechanism...no moving parts...yet it can cut through the background music bed of acoustic guitars without an amp...and its timbre is unique...it is not a flute...and it can be very plaintiff in its voice...and sweet. Not many people are playing the tin whistle these days, or so it seems, demand for good players is high in Celtic bands....I use the whistle for rock and the blues, primarily...but I can do "Oh Danny Boy", if need be.

See ya!

By: yogiman on 3/28/12 at 8:31

Ask me a sensible question, nimrod, and I'll give you a sensible answer. Regrettably, you don't seem to have that capability.

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 9:07

I'll ask a sensible question yogi. Other than the health care law, has there been any legislation that Obama has signed into law that the Supreme Court did not review?

By: yogiman on 3/28/12 at 9:29

None that I know of. Was there?

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 9:31

Alright. Now, how many bills has Obama signed into law?

By: yogiman on 3/28/12 at 9:46

Again, I don't know. It isn't "broadcasted" every day. How many?

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 9:53

Would you agree to say, since he's been in office, over 100?

By: yogiman on 3/28/12 at 10:17

As I said, I don't know. But if you're right, that means over 100 illegal bills signed by a usurper, which is going to put this nation into one hell of a problem when he is ousted.

That is, if congress ever gets off it's ass and proceeds by the Constitution; which I'm beginning to doubt if they ever will again. Communism may have taken over with Obama.

If he succeeds in his goal, I feel sorry for the children of today.

gdiafante, racism has been the whole scheme with Obama getting in that office. I haven't heard one person say they voted for him for anything other than he being the first black president of this nation. It's a shame he's a usurper because this has put the good black Americans on the [back of the bus] again as far as such a political success.

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 10:28

Wrong yogi, and you show your complete lack of Constitutional knowledge. Congress writes the legislation, the President signs it into law (or he can veto, where Congress can override the veto with 2/3 majority or he does nothing and after 10 days it becomes law anyway) and then judicial review, if necessary, determines their constitutionality if there is a dispute. Basic civics.

Now, would you agree that the Supreme Court is reviewing the health care law due to the constitutionality of the insurance mandate, not the legitimacy of Obama's legal capacity to implement a law?

And if that is the case, isn't the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land and final authority on the Constitutionality of all legal issues, tacitly declaring Obama as legally holding the office of the President of the United States?

By: brrrrk on 3/28/12 at 10:29

Captain Nemo said

"Famous Military quotes running yogi's head

Damn the Skittles, full steam ahead.
Thirty Skittles over Tokyo
Skittles! Teddy Roosevelt leading the charge up San Juan Hill
Lafayette we are Skittles General John J Pershing"

He's also likely a big supporter of the Skittle Industrial Complex.....

By: yogiman on 3/28/12 at 10:47

You're right on the point the legislature makes the law and the president only signs it into legislation. And you're right they can override a veto, which is rare.

That wasn't the way I interpreted your question. The president has the authority to issue executive orders which is basically considered a law and congress rarely overrides it.

So how many executive orders has Obama put out?

The Obamacare bill was given to congress by Obama for their approval, which they passed without bothering to read it.

If the Supreme Court allows that bill to take place, that gives the government one more step in their "master of the house" role.

By: dargent7 on 3/28/12 at 10:54

"Magic Johnson" & Co. bought the LA Dogers for $2. billion.
Jerry Jones spent $800. million of his own money to build Cowboy Stadium.
Just a week in Iraq or Afghanistan.

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 11:00

You're sidestepping the question, yogi. The Supreme Court isn't taking issue with Obama's legality to implement laws, correct?

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 11:06

Regarding executive orders, yogi, the President is authorized to do that pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Again, further evidence that the Supreme Court has tacitly declared Obama's legitimacy.

By: yogiman on 3/28/12 at 11:31

No, gdiafante, they haven't tacitly declared Obama's eligibility, they've just stayed out of the picture.

If you are such a Obama fan I'm sure you'll like that HR347 bill that was passed and he signed quietly last week.

Congress is in the middle of this, gdiafante. As I've said before, if you're in favor of a communist government, hand in there, it won't be much longer.

I'm wondering if we will even have a vote this year.

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 12:08

No, gdiafante, they haven't tacitly declared Obama's eligibility, they've just stayed out of the picture.

LOL!

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 12:29

If they've "stayed out of the picture", it could only mean one thing...they're involved in the conspiracy. If they're involved in the conspiracy, they should have no reason to invalidate the individual mandate portion of the health care law. No?

By: dargent7 on 3/28/12 at 12:31

Why is anyone arguing with "yogi"?
This old fool is a complete waste of time.
I'd rather read bed time stories to Dick Cheney while he recuperates in the hospital.

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 12:32

Because I'm bored...and I like to see him squirm. It's not like the board is being lit up with conversation...

By: yogiman on 3/28/12 at 12:58

gdiafante,

I wish I was as intelligent as you think you are. Damn! I'd have it made. But I'll admit, the way the SC has refused cases offered on Obama should make you wonder; are they in it with him?

When you have 2 new judges appointed by Barry, and one was in the writing of the Obamacare bill and refuses to step down on the issue, doesn't that tell you something?

Tell me, if Obama's autobiography is a true story, how could he be legally eligible for the office when he was adopted into Indonesian citizenship? If he was a natural born citizen, he would have lost that privilege and could not get it back.

Also, with common human nature, he became his father's son. Which means he was born as a British subject. Dual citizenship at best. But again, if he was born in Kenya, his mother could not pass her citizenship down to him.

Try reading qualifications of President .

Go to www.legistorm.com/score_crs/show/id/82388.html

Whadda ya think?

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 1:05

I wish you were as intelligent as you think you are too. Then maybe you'd understand that if the entire Federal government is colluding to plant a Communist President illegally, why would they then have a problem establishing Communist legislation?

Now, I'll play devil's advocate here, but maybe, just maybe, the Supreme Court hasn't taken on the "birther" cases because they're baseless.

Yogi, I'm quite familiar with qualifications for President. In fact, I've cited the Constitution, U.S. Code and various legal interpretations (pre-dating the U.S. Constitution and based on English Common Law) to try and educate you.

But you can't teach old dogs new tricks...they still just like to lie there and lick their balls.

By: yogiman on 3/28/12 at 1:37

You don't seem to know them too well, gdiafante. Apparently you aren't aware of the millions of people bringing the issue up. Are they all wrong?

Too many people smarter than you, or me, are raising so much hell on it now. Why are so many big named lawyers in the picture?

I've go news for you, young man, you should be concerned why congress let Nancy Pelosi pull her stunt off.

Can you explain why the affidavit to Hawaii's Sec. of State showing Obama as the Democrat nominee was different than the one sent to the other 49 Secretaries of State?

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 1:54

Yes, they're all wrong. Again, I cite the Constitution, U.S. Code, and legal precedent.

I also cite the fact that the birther court procedings have gone nowhere. You petitioned the Supreme Court, they said no thanks. You're a very vocal minority. Just because you're loud doesn't mean you're right.

This has been an issue for three years...your side has zero .

Oh wait, you got that one guy in Chicago that remembers seeing a black foreign exchange student one day that he thought may have been Obama...but couldn't say for sure.

What a joke.

By: yogiman on 3/28/12 at 2:11

To go a little deeper into the matter, gdiafante, have you ever wondered why Obama was "allowed on the ticket" without any question of his legal eligibility knowing he was born with a Kenyan father?

They questioned John McCain who they knew had American parents and was born in Panama, yet they didn't question Barack Obama? Who brought the issue up? Barack Obama.

They knew by facts McCain was born in Panama, but they didn't factually know where Obama was born and he refused to "identify" himself.

They questioned McCain who willingly answered them, but Obama refused to be questioned. Why? Why did the Senate not require him to answer the same questions asked to McCain?

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 2:15

To go a little deeper into the matter, gdiafante, have you ever wondered why Obama was "allowed on the ticket" without any question of his legal eligibility knowing he was born with a Kenyan father?

Because it's not an issue. The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term natural born citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth or at birth, either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship at birth.

He wasn't asked because he wasn't necessary to ask.

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 2:18

They knew by facts McCain was born in Panama, but they didn't factually know where Obama was born and he refused to "identify" himself.

They knew exactly where he was born. He was born in Hawaii. Even you have conceded this fact.

You need to make up your mind. One day you say he was born in Kenya, the next he's from Hawaii but is ineligible because of his father. Pick one or the other. Either way, you're wrong.

By: yogiman on 3/28/12 at 2:23

You're arguing so strong on the issue it makes me wonder, gdiafante: What's in this guy's mind that he's so willing to accept someone as president of the USA when he doesn't even know his legal name and who refuses to identify himself?

Help him, Lord, for he know not.

By: gdiafante on 3/28/12 at 2:26

I'm not arguing very strong. I'm repeating the same thing over and over, it's just that your argument is so weak and completely flawed that it just seems that way.

That's what happens when truth is on my side and an irrational fear of...something...is on yours.

By: yogiman on 3/28/12 at 3:11

I don't believe my fear is irrational, gdiafante. I just believe your ignorance overrides what you should fear; and that's a criminal in the White House.

I'll word it a little differently, if he's in that office legally, why is he so secretive on his identity?

It's so obvious the time he showed that "birth certificate" after over 3 years he had kept repeating he couldn't show it because the Hawaiian government would not allow him to have a copy of it... it's so obviously a fake it should wake people up.