The article does need expansion, because it's somewhat short considering how prominent the subject is. Therefore, it is a stub. Also, why was the quote reverted? We have quotes on other pages, and I thought it was a good way to illustrate the article's subject. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- AFAIK, "stub" is an absolute, not a relative measure of article length. And this is definitely not a stub.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's well beyond what stubbot would see as a stub (by a character count). Of course, taking into account a few things like images, quotes and headers for ELs and footnotes, I think we could raise that limit happily enough. It's not stub size but it's stub quality. bomination 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It's based on several books.
What's based on several books? This page? Our sources of information should be anything we can get in the news or elsewhere that tells the truth about this person. And trust me, there's plenty out there. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not "Fu-Gingrich" then? pathetic 20:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Gingrich: best example of modern Conservative debate?
This quote made me giggle:
“ I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American. ”
So, I got to thinking. Is it just me or is this pretty much the general template for conservative fearmongering speeches? Doesn't matter what you're actually saying, just throw out 'snarl words' and tell everyone how the Islamic homosexual liberal critical thinking atheist bisexual pagan polyamorous elitist immigrants want to take your guns away. Polite Timesplitter talk to me sugar, but best keep it on thedown-low 20:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Love all the high handed moralizing about Gingrich and the women in his life (at least one of whom others acknowledged was a gold digging battle axe) when progressives were creaming over (no pun intended) John Edwards, who defiled a harlot while his wife was dying of cancer, and not semi conscious much of the time. I'm sure the schoolboy haircut touting John Grisham cardboard cut out really deserved to get off (Oopps! There I go again) on those six felony charges too. Poor baby was hurting. And who could stay mad at that face? Liberal America's eternal younger brother (wretches as projectile vomit erupts from deep within). Guess there really are two Americas. One in which it's wrong to do that, and one where it isn't. In any case, Gingrich emphasized that the president lied under oath, which was the point. It was actually one of the least screwed up things Clinton did, if you can believe that. And I love all the outrage over his changes concerning legislation and procedural matters within the house, as if people were carefully perusing over and revising legislation with philosophical nuance beforehand. Think Conyers and Pelosi. I mean after all, government appointed analysts would never just serve the purposes of elected officials. No, only outside researchers from (BOOGLY! BOOGLY!) the private sector would do that. And just remember, Clinton couldn't lose with the Gingrich economy. Oh, no, I stand corrected. Newt can't take all the credit. Bubba did come up with that great idea to use state pressure to get in bed with (and coerce) people to lend to risky borrowers. That worked out really well... Burkean (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)