“I first talked about [saving civilization] In August Of 1958.”

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

Hilarious—and somewhat terrifying—roundup of grandiose Newt Gingrich quotes from Mitt Romney’s oppo-research people.

When did you first talk about saving civilization?

 

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

40 Responses to ““I first talked about [saving civilization] In August Of 1958.””

  1. #1 |  David | 

    Last Thursday. It was a slow afternoon.

  2. #2 |  Roho | 

    After I found I had a good source of copper, but was sharing the continent with the Aztecs. It’s a dicey situation, and you want a good save point.

  3. #3 |  Dave Krueger | 

    I talk about saving civilization all the time. Unfortunately, I don’t have the powers necessary to implement my plan. You can rectify that shortcoming by electing me president.

  4. #4 |  EH | 

    I’m saving the world RIGHT NOW, if you know what I mean.

  5. #5 |  picachu | 

    “I Have An Enormous Personal Ambition. I Want To Shift The Entire Planet. And I’m Doing It. … I Represent Real Power.“

    “I Am The Longest Serving Teacher In The Senior Military, 23 Years Teaching One And Two-Star Generals And Admirals The Art Of War.”

    Holy cow! He’s Kim Jong Il!

  6. #6 |  picachu | 

    …or possibly the most interesting man in the world.

  7. #7 |  Lori Heine | 

    Mother said that my first words were “I wanna save civilization. Gimme my binky!”

  8. #8 |  Medicine Man | 

    I dunno, when did Civilization I come out?

  9. #9 |  el coronado | 

    Oh, I dunno. Yeah, it’s laughably pompous gasbaggery, but then….the guy’s a politician. That kind of stuff is what they *DO*.

    If I have to choose between Pompous Newtie and Godlike Barry – who, you’ll recall, said of his primary win in 2008 – “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.” Imagine that! The whole PLANET was rejoicing that our Savior had at last arrived!

    If I have to choose between a laughably inflated sense of self-importance with Newt, or a laughably unjustified Messianic complex with Barry….I’ll take the least assholish of the 2. It’s close, sure, but….Newt wins that contest every time.

  10. #10 |  JSL | 

    #7, 1991 or 92 I believe.

    Sid Meier for Prez!

  11. #11 |  Elliot | 

    @el coronado (#8) : You don’t have to choose anyone. “The only winning move is not to play.”

    But I agree. Gun to the head, pick one or the other, I pick any of the GOP candidates over Obama. He’s a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine and the worst of the socialist side of the Democrat party. I’ve never heard him utter one sentence about individual rights. He’s not just hostile to private enterprise, he shows an astounding lack of awareness of life outside of government programs. To top it off, on matters of civil liberties and foreign affairs, where he stood the most chance of showing an improvement over Republicans, he’s been for the status quo or worse, e.g., Libya.

    In highlighting Newt’s grandiose statements as something noteworthy, I think Radley shows he has an unsettling deafness for the grandiosity of Barack Obama and his supporters. Well, maybe not deafness, but difficulty in hearing. As bad a narcissist Newt can be, Obama is still worse. It’s just that the “mainstream” political pundits and media gave and still give Obama a huge pass on most things, while all GOP candidates are put under the microscope. All of them should be put under the microscope, ridiculed, and dismissed.

  12. #12 |  Elliot | 

    Instead of the lame hypercritical stories about every stupid thing each GOP candidate has done, I think any advocate of personal liberty should be more concerned about this sort of thing. That’s of far worse consequence to far more Americans than any stupid idea from Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, et al..

  13. #13 |  DoubleU | 

    You made us go to the Romney site for Newt quotes… I feel so dirty, so used.

  14. #14 |  nigmalg | 

    Elliot,

    The very valid point you bring up, is that both big government party’s are feverishly crazy.

    But honestly does it matter if the country comes crashing down under the debt created by populists in the left, or warmongering statists in the right? As a matter of fact, we probably have the same amount of time left no matter what we choose.

  15. #15 |  Dante | 

    Off Topic, I apologize:

    Do any of you old farts (I am one) remember a funny commercial years ago about “The Big Fig Newton”? There was a guy in a fig costume singing and dancing and I love it. Beware! The song will be stuck in your head. You can view it on You Tube.

    Oh, how I wish Jib Jab or somebody more competant than me would play with the language in the song and photo-shop Newt’s face on it. It could be iconic.

  16. #16 |  StrongStyleFiction | 

    I am the one true savior of Civilization! All I require to do so is for everyone in the country to send me $14.95 plus tax.

  17. #17 |  omar | 

    I saved Civilization in case my war didn’t go so well and I wanted to reload.

  18. #18 |  Mattocracy | 

    A sign of a sociopath is someone who thinks very highly of themselves far and beyond what they are in reality.

  19. #19 |  Anthony | 

    @16
    Yeah, every time before a big turn or risky attack. Gotta love auto save.

  20. #20 |  Elliot | 

    nigmalg (#13):But honestly does it matter if the country comes crashing down under the debt created by populists in the left, or warmongering statists in the right? As a matter of fact, we probably have the same amount of time left no matter what we choose.

    I think you’re grossly mischaracterizing the alternatives. The Democrats are not just “populists”, but downright hostile to certain business, to the point of economic suicide. And, to portray the Republican statists as the “warmongering” ones, implying that Democrats are not warmongering, ignores how the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize expanded the war in Afghanistan, stepped up drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, went to war in Libya, and maintained the status quo in Iraq (until they kicked out the US military) and Gitmo.

    Unfortunately, Republicans don’t practice what they preach when it comes to shrinking government, leaving the free market alone, and protecting individual freedom. As another commenter put it, they are janitorial socialists, speaking out against Democrats to win elections, but then keeping the big government machine running without any major reforms. They are wimps, cowards, backstabbers of the first order, and with the exception of Ron Paul, the current candidates are generally on the wrong side of most issues, like the other losers, McCain and Dole.

    You may be right about having the same amount of time, but I know for certain that continuing to allow the likes of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid the power to kneecap our economy means collapse in a matter of years, rather than decades. The Republicans who have a chance of winning elections won’t stop the collapse, but may delay it a bit.

  21. #21 |  Elliot | 

    Mattocracy (#17):A sign of a sociopath is someone who thinks very highly of themselves far and beyond what they are in reality.”

    That describes any politician on the national level.

    Now, what psychological diagnosis describes masses of people worshiping a candidate/leader far beyond what he’s ever accomplished?

  22. #22 |  Bob | 

    The “Senior Military”? Is that like the “Kentucky Colonels”? Or is it some shit he made up?

  23. #23 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    That describes any politician on the national level.

    Politicians, cops, and murderers are the highest % of sociopaths. Just made that stat up, but I’m going with it…because I’m so great there is no way that I’m wrong.

    Now, what psychological diagnosis describes masses of people worshiping a candidate/leader far beyond what he’s ever accomplished?

    Desperate rubes.

  24. #24 |  Stormy Dragon | 

    That’s of far worse consequence to far more Americans than any stupid idea from Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, et al..

    Only if you’re one of those dreary souls who can conceive of no freedom beyond dollar signs.

  25. #25 |  (B)oscoH | 

    I think I know what you mean EH #4. I’m going to save civilization just as soon as I drop the kids off at the pool.

  26. #26 |  Mattocracy | 

    What really sets Gingrich apart is that doesn’t feign humbleness at all. Other politicians at least try to show some humility, even it’s just to appeal to voters. Newt doesn’t even do that.

  27. #27 |  Pablo | 

    #11 re: gun to the head and pick Newt or Obama:

    I think I would try to get within reach of the gun and go for a disarm. The possibility of getting shot is something I would accept.

    They are both high-functioning sociopaths, like so many other politicians. (John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and Richard Nixon come immediately to mind.) They exhibit all the common symptoms of sociopathy–lust for power, inflated sense of self importance, no remorse for those they harm, no hesitation about lying, willingness to cut legal and ethical corners, lack of empathy for others, etc.

  28. #28 |  Les | 

    but I know for certain that continuing to allow the likes of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid the power to kneecap our economy means collapse in a matter of years, rather than decades. The Republicans who have a chance of winning elections won’t stop the collapse, but may delay it a bit.

    Guys, seriously, people have been predicting the “collapse” of the U.S. since we signed the declaration of independence. I know it’s exciting and dramatic to imagine that you’re living during the collapse of a world power, but the U.S. has survived much harder times than these.

  29. #29 |  picachu | 

    Les “I know it’s exciting and dramatic to imagine that you’re living during the collapse of a world power, but the U.S. has survived much harder times than these.”

    Maybe. I don’t know though. We seem to be entering completely uncharted waters when we get to 15 tr. in debt. No one has ever seen anything in all of history like that.

  30. #30 |  Elliot | 
    [Elliot:]That’s of far worse consequence to far more Americans than any stupid idea from Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, et al..

    Stormy Dragon (#24):Only if you’re one of those dreary souls who can conceive of no freedom beyond dollar signs.

    You’ve made a common error by detaching symbols from their concrete referents.

    A dollar sign doesn’t simply represent a grubby piece of paper or a number on a bank computer. It represents your ability to exchange a part of your life—time dedicated to a job or other profitable occupation—into values which you need for survival or to improve your life. A world in which you had to barter for food, shelter, medicine, and the like sounds even more dreary than one with those “icky” dollar signs.

    When someone takes money from you, they’re not simply depriving you of little pieces of paper. They’re taking away hours of your finite, one and only life, which you can never replace. If, when you were toiling away at your job, you knew that on particular days or during certain hours, nothing you accomplished would benefit yourself, but would be plundered by some greedy politician or bureaucrat with the audacity to decide that he or she knew better how to direct your productive efforts, wouldn’t your life be so much better if you just took those hours and days off to spend with your loved ones, hiking in a park, or reading a nice book?

    When you see money as a place marker for a part of your life, you realize that “freedom beyond dollar signs” makes little sense. If I have the power to deprive you of dollars, I have the power to take away the time you spend with loved ones or doing other things which make you happy. It may be in fashion to consider oneself enlightened to be above measuring value by the squiggly letter with a vertical line, to buy the ridiculous lie that “money is the root of all evil“, but that’s completely wrong and decidedly unenlightened.

  31. #31 |  Personanongrata | 

    Megalomaniac

  32. #32 |  Elliot | 

    Les (#28):Guys, seriously, people have been predicting the “collapse” of the U.S. since we signed the declaration of independence. I know it’s exciting and dramatic to imagine that you’re living during the collapse of a world power, but the U.S. has survived much harder times than these.

    The prediction of collapse is not a matter of “hard times”, which suggests random, uncontrollable events like market fluctuations, natural disasters, foreign powers starting wars, etc..

    The prediction is based upon mathematics. As Margaret Thatcher put it, “eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Demographic trends alone make Social Security and Medicare numerically impossible to maintain. All trends of spending growth, number of people paying taxes, number of people depending upon government checks, the real numbers behind all bipartisan compromises to “lower the debt” likewise show the inevitability of unsustainable red ink. No matter how much hope people have, no matter how much they rally to put their noses to the grindstone to lift us out of “hard times”, you can’t change the rules of mathematics to avoid the consequences.

    Short of a majority of voters suddenly becoming enlightened enough to elect Ron Paul and legislators of similar principles, enough to radically transform the government through draconian amputations, the collapse will happen.

  33. #33 |  shecky | 

    In highlighting Newt’s grandiose statements as something noteworthy, I think Radley shows he has an unsettling deafness for the grandiosity of Barack Obama and his supporters.

    Uh oh… someone’s feelings were hurt…

  34. #34 |  Bob | 

    Elliot:

    Short of a majority of voters suddenly becoming enlightened enough to elect Ron Paul and legislators of similar principles, enough to radically transform the government through draconian amputations, the collapse will happen.

    Heh. That will happen right after the collapse of the dollar. There is no preventing the collapse itself. The only question is when it will occur.

  35. #35 |  Jeremy | 

    Uh oh… someone’s feelings were hurt…

    LOL.
    As soon I saw “socialist” in his comment, I didn’t read it any further.

  36. #36 |  Jeremy | 

    Elliot, you are aware that trashing Team Red doesn’t always automatically mean one is for Team Blue, right?

    And if you’re so against “socialism”, then how come you’re not denouncing Gingrich for indulging in more class warfare than your average Occupy protester to attack Romney?

  37. #37 |  Bob | 

    Jeremy:

    Elliot, you are aware that trashing Team Red doesn’t always automatically mean one is for Team Blue, right?

    And if you’re so against “socialism”, then how come you’re not denouncing Gingrich for indulging in more class warfare than your average Occupy protester to attack Romney?

    I don’t think which pill you take (Red or Blue) matters here. Personally, I choose to take neither of them, as neither are the voice of reason.

    Elliot’s point is that the dollar WILL fail.

    And he’s probably right that Team Blue (Democrats) will bring on the collapse of the dollar FASTER than Team Red (Republicans) will. But both are equally incompetent and the collapse is indeed not avoidable.

    The way I look at is like pulling off a bandaid. Just do it. Get it over with as quickly as possible. If the collapse of the dollar cannot be avoided then just force the collapse and segue into the recovery afterwards.

    This is not going to be pretty. I hope you are all preparing for this.

  38. #38 |  Elliot | 

    Jeremy (#35):As soon I saw “socialist” in his comment, I didn’t read it any further.

    Let me guess, you’re also one of those who shouts “Godwin’s Law” the minute Adolf is mentioned, no matter how appropriate and factual the reference may be. What a childish way to handle uncomfortable facts.

    The US government has been increasingly socialist since at least FDR. The Obama administration accelerated the decades-long decline. They are downright hostile to private business and the future of affordable energy.

    Jeremy (#36):And if you’re so against “socialism”, then how come you’re not denouncing Gingrich…

    I’m not against “socialism”. I’m against socialism. No scare quotes necessary.

    You’re about 15 years too late to be the one to talk me into denouncing Gingrich. Like I said above, he’s just another loser like McCain and Dole, who manages to side with the GOP establishment when they’re on the wrong side of an issue, but bucks the system (McCain’s “maverick” schtick) when his fellow Republicans happen to have stumbled onto the right side.

    Elliot, you are aware that trashing Team Red doesn’t always automatically mean one is for Team Blue, right?

    I prefer Warren Meyer’s analogy of Coke vs. Pepsi. I don’t back either one and I encourage people to stop voting entirely, out of respect for their neighbors’ rights.

    I’ve been reading Radley Balko for many years, so this isn’t about one or two anti-Gingrich articles. It’s about someone who advocates liberty, denounces corruption, and mocks arrogant stupidity missing far too many opportunities to mock and denounce Obama and his ridiculous fans, but never missed a beat on repeating every minor story about stupidity from McCain/Palin or one of the current GOP contenders. It’s just disappointing to see someone miss the forest for the trees like that.

    But hey, it’s a damned good thing McCain lost, so we could see the government shut down Gitmo, stop prosecuting medical marijuana cases, reduce the troops in Afghanistan, halt the predator drone strikes in other countries, not start any new wars in Muslim countries (*cough* *cough* Libya! *cough*), have transparency in government, and reduce the mistreatment of travelers by TSA agents. It was worth the suicidal economic policies and being saddled with the ObamaPeolosiCare monstrosity to avoid all those bad things the Republicans would have done.

  39. #39 |  JOR | 

    “I think you’re grossly mischaracterizing the alternatives.”

    Indeed. The alternatives are not “the populist left” and “the warmongering right”, but “the pseudo-populist, warmongering, state-capitalist center-left” versus “the pseudo-populist, warmongering, state-capitalist center-right”.

    The Republicans sometimes talk about protecting individual freedom and free markets. It’s not so much that they fail to live up to their libertarian rhetoric, though – it’s that they define individual freedom and free markets differently than libertarians do.

    As for small government, well, if you grant the legitimacy of government in the first place, then you have no business telling it whether to be small or big or criticizing whatever it wants to do. If you don’t, then there’s no reason at all to prefer the Republican/Libertoid notion of “small” government to whatever you want to define as “big” government. A small, efficient government could oppress just as much as a big, bloated government (by oppressing more efficiently, and by crowdsourcing much of the apparatus of enforcement). When Republicans talk about limiting government, what they mean is that it must never, ever do anything good.

    Since the American economy is essentially a network of aristocratic privilege built on a system of national debt and international slavery, its collapse is probably for the best, as unfortunate as it would be for us.

  40. #40 |  Elliot | 

    JOR (#39):The Republicans sometimes talk about protecting individual freedom and free markets. It’s not so much that they fail to live up to their libertarian rhetoric, though – it’s that they define individual freedom and free markets differently than libertarians do.

    They don’t follow those principles to their logical conclusion, nor apply them in all matters. Look at how they treat Ron Paul, as a crazy nut, because he applies such principles far more than they do, and in more situations, like drug prohibition and foreign affairs.

    Take a particular issue on which there is a sharp divide between parties, and many Republican politicians and pundits can wax eloquently to the point that an incautious listener might forget the other ways in which they fail to stand up for individual rights. Newt is a perfect example of this, as his individualist principles are only applied in selective cases, while he runs the opposite way on others.

    As for small government, well, if you grant the legitimacy of government in the first place, then you have no business telling it whether to be small or big or criticizing whatever it wants to do. If you don’t, then there’s no reason at all to prefer the Republican/Libertoid notion of “small” government to whatever you want to define as “big” government.

    Government is the use of aggressive force, rather than reason, so once you endorse the use of force, making a rational argument for limitations does pose the problem of consistency. And, Republican ideas of small government generally ignore major expenses like a massive military and the War on Drugs (the huge prison population alone costs a fortune to maintain and takes people out of the work force, spending idle time in a cage). However, I disagree that “there’s no reason at all to prefer” a measurable shrinkage in the size and power of government. The key is not to fall for the sleight of hand trick.

    Since the American economy is essentially a network of aristocratic privilege built on a system of national debt and international slavery, its collapse is probably for the best, as unfortunate as it would be for us.

    What “international slavery”? Please tell me you don’t buy the lie that “slavery” includes paying people in India or Vietnam wages which, while alarmingly tiny in the US, are more than they would make if they stayed on the farm.

    And, “the best” FOR WHOM? It’s certainly not the best for the average American private sector worker, or the honest small business owner.

    I’d prefer putting the whole lot of politicians and rent seekers in a cell next to Madoff to just throwing up our hands and saying, “What can we do?”

Leave a Reply