The Real Newt Gingrich

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]John S. wrote:

Well, a lot of their claims against newt have been proven so far, so I would say there credibility on this issue is just fine. Attacking the messenger and not the messege is not a credible way to debate. [/quote]

I am not attacking the messenger - they are likely absolutely right about Gingrich, and I couldn’t care less. I am not defending Gingrich, and we aren’t debating the issue.

I am sure there are many issues that I would disagree with them on, seems to me they are cut from the same cloth as Alex Jones, probably not a group I would assosicate myself with but their are some issues I would agree with them on.

Then kiss your precious “movement” for limited government goodbye. When you let quackbats to the table as legitimate voices making legitimate points in the debate, folks don’t pay attention to the legitimate points you are trying to make because they don’t trust or like the quackbats. Credibility matters.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]John S. wrote:

What this really comes down to is that the christian “conservatives” go to guy next election was Newt and I(and I soon expect many others) are exposing him and that makes TB angry.[/quote]

Er no, I have never supported Gingrich, never been a fan. What “makes me angry” are the morons who are trying to carry the banner of “limited government”, but the only place they are headed is the ditch.

[ZEB]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wow, eye opening stuff. What do we do if its Newt vs Barry in 2012?[/quote]

It won’t be Gingrich facing off against Obama. In fact, if things keep slipping into oblivion it may be Hillary carrying the democratic banner. That would be the worst case scenario for the republicans. Better Obama running on his dismal record than a fresh Hillary with no record to run on.

Given the probable scenario that Obama will be the democrats choice in 2012, Republicans know that they need someone who has not been ripped to shreds and dragged through the mud by the press. People like Gingrich and Palin can only help by raising money and maybe acting as pit bulls going after Obama.

If we are going to remove that filthy blight from the white house we need someone strong enough to take on, not only Obama and the democrats, but the press as well. As the press will surely not do their job just as they didn’t do their job in 08’. The majority of the mainstream liberal media worked virtually shoulder to shoulder with the democratic party in electing this Obama character.

The press actually hid a good deal of information that would have destroyed the Obama candidacy. They will continue in this mode, as there is no longer a neutral press,

That means that we need a fresh face. A person who is able to appeal directly to the people, so when the press bigins the attempted tarnishing of the new republican candidate there will be a backlash from the people.

It’s easy to say we need another Ronald Reagan, but that is exactly what we do need. Or, at lest someone close. A really good communicator who is exceptionally likeable. I fear Romney will not be strong enough to pull it off. A new face is needed. Perhaps a youngish republican governor?

As for the Ron Paul sycophants, they are to be enjoyed as they live in a world that does not, and never did exist. Ron Paul never had a snow balls chance in hell of becoming President. If they like his ideas they would better serve their cause by finding a candidate who represents those ideals that can actually be elected. Since there is no one on the horizon (that I know of) who is like that they’d best hang on for yet one more disappointing Presidential year.

I must say that watching their frustration has become enjoyable. I know, I know that sounds mean spirited, but I find the shear stupidity of their plight to be amusing. When you add to that their shock and dismay when Paul can’t seem to win even one primary, well I just can’t help myself I begin to laugh out loud.

[katzenjammer]

He’s way young, but what do y’all think of Paul Ryan? I visited his office in DC - got to speak to him briefly. He seems to have a lot going for him.

[Dustin]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

What this really comes down to is that the christian “conservatives” go to guy next election was Newt and I(and I soon expect many others) are exposing him and that makes TB angry.[/quote]

Er no, I have never supported Gingrich, never been a fan. What “makes me angry” are the morons who are trying to carry the banner of “limited government”, but the only place they are headed is the ditch.
[/quote]

Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dustin wrote:

Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?[/quote]

We learn as we go, it is a process of elimination of who can’t, including, but not limited to, Ron Paul and his legions of idiots and the John Birch Society.

As for who? Good question. It will take someone who can convince people who are otherwise not terribly committed to the idea to give it a second look and commit to it. For the GOP, maybe Paul Ryan. For the Dems, Walt Minnick and other serious Blue Dogs. As for independents, too early to tell.

[ZEB]

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

What this really comes down to is that the christian “conservatives” go to guy next election was Newt and I(and I soon expect many others) are exposing him and that makes TB angry.[/quote]

Er no, I have never supported Gingrich, never been a fan. What “makes me angry” are the morons who are trying to carry the banner of “limited government”, but the only place they are headed is the ditch.
[/quote]

Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?[/quote]

Any good conservative republican who actually has the will of the people behind him may be able to make a dent (a dent is a good start) in this gigantic machine that has been created. As a side note, I fully understand that many of you live your lives thinking that most Americans think like you do. Here is a shocker for you, we live in the most divisive political climate in the history of our country. For every person who wants limited government there is another person who thinks government should be doing more. I know, I know, as Bill Clinton once said, I feel your pain.

This means that the next President, like virtually every one who has run prior to 2012, will be decided by the campaign. Usually on the following criteria:

1-Good communicator-That means that when you speak people believe you, and they like what you say because they believe you. Follow?

2-Attractive candidate-literally (have you ever noticed that the best looking guy usually wins, I know, I know, but it’s true)

3-Big war chest- Money changes minds one more reason why Ron Paul has no chance and never did.

4-The proper political electorate-Electoral votes win Presidential elections, ask Al Gore.

5-Able to be so likeable that he/she can do an end run around a hostile media.

There you have it.

Who is that person? I have no idea at this time, but I pray that he, or she will emerge soon.

[Mufasa]

(C’mon, Zeb! John Boehner has been working pretty damn hard on his tan!)

Seriously, though…I’m readin’ you.

As its stands, it seems as though Palin and Paul have become sort of the “standard bearers” for Conservatism (at least on the National Level).

Also…the attempt was made to put forth some “fresh faces” in McDonnell (Gov. of Virginia) and Jindal (Gov. of Lousiana) on the National stage, and both didn’t fair very well at all.

IS there anyone “out there” for the Republicans?

Mufasa

[Dabba]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
He’s way young, but what do y’all think of Paul Ryan? I visited his office in DC - got to speak to him briefly. He seems to have a lot going for him. [/quote]

Wolf in sheep’s clothing. He voted for TARP and the bailouts. Glenn Beck on Paul Ryan: - YouTube

[John_S1]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

As for the Ron Paul sycophants, they are to be enjoyed as they live in a world that does not, and never did exist. Ron Paul never had a snow balls chance in hell of becoming President. If they like his ideas they would better serve their cause by finding a candidate who represents those ideals that can actually be elected. Since there is no one on the horizon (that I know of) who is like that they’d best hang on for yet one more disappointing Presidential year.

I must say that watching their frustration has become enjoyable. I know, I know that sounds mean spirited, but I find the shear stupidity of their plight to be amusing. When you add to that their shock and dismay when Paul can’t seem to win even one primary, well I just can’t help myself I begin to laugh out loud.

[/quote]

So the Rassmussen Poll earlier this year that had Obama at 42% and Ron at 41% doesn’t exist? The fact that he won CPAC and came within 1 vote of beating Romney at SRLC. You know Reagan got crushed his first time as well.

But you want to know the best part is, if it isn’t Ron Paul many of us will pull the lever on Obama’s side just to punish the Republican party.

[Dabba]

I don’t mean to sidetrack the thread, but, John S., what do you think Ron Paul could even achieve of any real significance if he became president?

[John_S1]

[quote]Dabba wrote:
I don’t mean to sidetrack the thread, but, John S., what do you think Ron Paul could even achieve of any real significance if he became president?[/quote]

First thing we would get is a complete audit of the federal reserve system. We would get a competing currency bill passed that would allow Gold and Silver to come back into the economy as money, and Gold/Silver would take over the dollar here in America as currency, since our national debt is to be paid for in Federal reserve notes that would take a huge burden off the American people.

Next thing you would get is the ending of the wars and troops all around the world being brought home. Think of the money this would save.

Ending the war on drugs, again the money that would be saved would be amazing.

He would also cut Social security and Medicare to make them solvent(Ron Paul has said that while he does support getting rid of those programs right now too many people are dependent on them to just cut, but to gradually fade out is something that must be done)

No more tarp bailouts, no more raising of the national debt. Elimination of the income tax.

That is what Ron Paul would bring. He would put our financial house in order.

[John_S1]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?[/quote]

We learn as we go, it is a process of elimination of who can’t, including, but not limited to, Ron Paul and his legions of idiots and the John Birch Society.

[/quote]

Why can’t Ron Paul? Democrats like him, independents like him, and Republican’s like him. you keep saying he can’t win and his supporters are idiots, yet you never explain why.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]John S. wrote:

First thing we would get is a complete audit of the federal reserve system.[/quote]

Without legislation?

We would get a competing currency bill passed that would allow Gold and Silver to come back into the economy as money, and Gold/Silver would take over the dollar here in America as currency, since our national debt is to be paid for in Federal reserve notes that would take a huge burden off the American people.

No, you wouldn’t - Congress wouldn’t pass a bill that did that.

Ending the war on drugs, again the money that would be saved would be amazing.

Yeah, he can’t do that alone via the executive branch.

He would also cut Social security and Medicare to make them solvent(Ron Paul has said that while he does support getting rid of those programs right now too many people are dependent on them to just cut, but to gradually fade out is something that must be done)

No, he couldn’t “cut” those unilaterally from the executive branch.

No more tarp bailouts, no more raising of the national debt. Elimination of the income tax.

The purse strings are controlled (basically) by the House.

That is what Ron Paul would bring. He would put our financial house in order.

You really, really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

The only way these “libertarian” initiatives get enacted is through Congress, and a President Paul signs the bill. You see, John S., we have a republic with three distinct government branches. A President Paul couldn’t advance these “libertarian” initiatives unless he had a “libertarian” majority in the House and a “libertarian” super-majority in the Senate. And even if Ron Paul somehow, by way of natural catastrophe, won the presidency, he would never, ever have a Congress “libertarian” enough to do any of that.

Good Lord. I am trying to remain civil, but your comments were breathtakingly dumb.

[Dabba]

[quote]John S. wrote:
First thing we would get is a complete audit of the federal reserve system. We would get a competing currency bill passed that would allow Gold and Silver to come back into the economy as money, and Gold/Silver would take over the dollar here in America as currency, since our national debt is to be paid for in Federal reserve notes that would take a huge burden off the American people.

Next thing you would get is the ending of the wars and troops all around the world being brought home. Think of the money this would save.

Ending the war on drugs, again the money that would be saved would be amazing.

He would also cut Social security and Medicare to make them solvent(Ron Paul has said that while he does support getting rid of those programs right now too many people are dependent on them to just cut, but to gradually fade out is something that must be done)

No more tarp bailouts, no more raising of the national debt. Elimination of the income tax.

That is what Ron Paul would bring. He would put our financial house in order.[/quote]

No no, I wasn’t asking what you would LIKE him to do. I was asking what he could do…in reality. You assume we would get an audit of the Fed. You do realize this institution has been around for a hundred years and has seriously entrenched interests inside and outside of Congress right? Why would politicians drop their support of the banking class? Or their ability to finance any debt they owe and spend like mad men (without directly taxing)?

You then assume he would end all of the wars, and while I agree he could do more here, again there are entrenched interests that would stop this from happening to the extreme you imagine.

I doubt he could even dent the war on drugs, especially with all of the other things he has on his plate. Then he’s going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Yikes. There goes his support from the elderly and the overly-compassionate progressives. Elimination of the income tax? It’s a fantasy, man. This stuff will not happen like you say.

Look, John, the US got into this mess through a hundred years (even more actually) of mismanagement. One man is not going to be able to change this. If the limited government conservatives can’t even get their ideal form of government nowadays, what makes you think a minarchist libertarian can?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]John S. wrote:

Why can’t Ron Paul? Democrats like him,[/quote]

No, they don’t.

…independents like him,

Er, no, they don’t.

…and Republican’s like him.

A shrinking slice of Republicans do, and they aren’t the ones whose minds need to be changed.

…you keep saying. . .his supporters are idiots, yet you never explain why.

Trust me, I don’t have to explain why. Reading their posts is evidence enough.

[Dabba]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A President Paul couldn’t advance these “libertarian” initiatives unless he had a “libertarian” majority in the House and a “libertarian” super-majority in the Senate.[/quote]

He couldn’t even do it then. There are too many institutions and people (unions, corporations, poor people, old people, minorities etc.) who are too dependent on the government at this point to get anywhere near these brazen initiatives that John S. has laid out.

[John_S1]

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
First thing we would get is a complete audit of the federal reserve system. We would get a competing currency bill passed that would allow Gold and Silver to come back into the economy as money, and Gold/Silver would take over the dollar here in America as currency, since our national debt is to be paid for in Federal reserve notes that would take a huge burden off the American people.

Next thing you would get is the ending of the wars and troops all around the world being brought home. Think of the money this would save.

Ending the war on drugs, again the money that would be saved would be amazing.

He would also cut Social security and Medicare to make them solvent(Ron Paul has said that while he does support getting rid of those programs right now too many people are dependent on them to just cut, but to gradually fade out is something that must be done)

No more tarp bailouts, no more raising of the national debt. Elimination of the income tax.

That is what Ron Paul would bring. He would put our financial house in order.[/quote]

No no, I wasn’t asking what you would LIKE him to do. I was asking what he could do…in reality. You assume we would get an audit of the Fed. You do realize this institution has been around for a hundred years and has seriously entrenched interests inside and outside of Congress right? Why would politicians drop their support of the banking class? Or their ability to finance any debt they owe and spend like mad men (without directly taxing)?

You then assume he would end all of the wars, and while I agree he could do more here, again there are entrenched interests that would stop this from happening to the extreme you imagine.

I doubt he could even dent the war on drugs, especially with all of the other things he has on his plate. Then he’s going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Yikes. There goes his support from the elderly and the overly-compassionate progressives. Elimination of the income tax? It’s a fantasy, man. This stuff will not happen like you say.

Look, John, the US got into this mess through a hundred years (even more actually) of mismanagement. One man is not going to be able to change this. If the limited government conservatives can’t even get their ideal form of government nowadays, what makes you think a minarchist libertarian can?
[/quote]

Every single republican on the house floor supported and voted for auditing the federal reserve. Under his leadership and this being one of his main goals we would get that passed.

All Ron Paul has to do is Veto every bill that comes forward to fund the wars, even if they make it past his veto for 2 years the fact that the American people want and end to the wars will cause them to elect people who will run on saying I am going to help Ron Paul end the wars.

Now we get to the income tax, again like I said, if the President of the united states come out over and over railing aginst this, it will gain popular opinion(and really how hard would it be to sell getting rid of the income tax) while it may take 2 years people will run for congress saying I am going to help Ron Paul out, and they may not even agree with him, but the fact that popular opinion will be with him will make them do it out of need to either stay in power, or get in power.

[John_S1]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

First thing we would get is a complete audit of the federal reserve system.[/quote]

Without legislation?

We would get a competing currency bill passed that would allow Gold and Silver to come back into the economy as money, and Gold/Silver would take over the dollar here in America as currency, since our national debt is to be paid for in Federal reserve notes that would take a huge burden off the American people.

No, you wouldn’t - Congress wouldn’t pass a bill that did that.

Ending the war on drugs, again the money that would be saved would be amazing.

Yeah, he can’t do that alone via the executive branch.

He would also cut Social security and Medicare to make them solvent(Ron Paul has said that while he does support getting rid of those programs right now too many people are dependent on them to just cut, but to gradually fade out is something that must be done)

No, he couldn’t “cut” those unilaterally from the executive branch.

No more tarp bailouts, no more raising of the national debt. Elimination of the income tax.

The purse strings are controlled (basically) by the House.

That is what Ron Paul would bring. He would put our financial house in order.

You really, really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

The only way these “libertarian” initiatives get enacted is through Congress, and a President Paul signs the bill. You see, John S., we have a republic with three distinct government branches. A President Paul couldn’t advance these “libertarian” initiatives unless he had a “libertarian” majority in the House and a “libertarian” super-majority in the Senate. And even if Ron Paul somehow, by way of natural catastrophe, won the presidency, he would never, ever have a Congress “libertarian” enough to do any of that.

Good Lord. I am trying to remain civil, but your comments were breathtakingly dumb.[/quote]

Ron Pauls views and beliefs are pretty well known, if he gets elected that means the people would have to agree with most of what he is saying, meaning we would also get a congress maybe not in his first 2 years, that would also support a majority of what he will try and do.

Sometimes you got to take a look at the whole picture.

And I could really give a fuck less if some dumbass christian “conservative” remains civil with me or not.

You came into my thread about Newt and took it off track because I brought information that destroyed on of your own. Under your logic it doesn’t matter what president we have because they do nothing, so fuck it lets vote Obama because he isn’t doing a god damn thing.

The fucking hypocrisy of the Religious right is truly breathtaking.

And you want to know who runs off the independents and the “conservative” democrats, its not the NWO types, its the fucking christian conservatives who use their version of big government to oppress civil liberties.

Take a while and let that sink in.

[Dabba]

[quote]John S. wrote:
Every single republican on the house floor supported and voted for auditing the federal reserve. Under his leadership and this being one of his main goals we would get that passed.[/quote]

If it’s the bill I’m thinking of, wasn’t it extremely watered down to the point where it wouldn’t have done much at all by the time they actually voted on it?

All Ron Paul has to do is Veto every bill that comes forward to fund the wars, even if they make it past his veto for 2 years the fact that the American people want and end to the wars will cause them to elect people who will run on saying I am going to help Ron Paul end the wars.

There is definitely more backing from the public to end the wars than on other issues.

Now we get to the income tax, again like I said, if the President of the united states come out over and over railing aginst this, it will gain popular opinion(and really how hard would it be to sell getting rid of the income tax)

Why? People constantly hate decisions that presidents make. Why would this be any different? It will simply gain popular opinion because Ron Paul, the president, supports it? You can’t be serious.

while it may take 2 years people will run for congress saying I am going to help Ron Paul out, and they may not even agree with him, but the fact that popular opinion will be with him will make them do it out of need to either stay in power, or get in power.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself? You’re simply assuming that he can do all of these things and that the public will back him. And, this is assuming he gets a libertarian majority in Congress, which, in itself, is extremely unlikely.