The Real Newt Gingrich

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[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?

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

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.

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.
[/quote]

H.R. 1207 was voted on as a separate thing, every republican voted on it, most of the democrats backed away from it.

If their is one person who’s views will be made well known on the campaign trail it is Ron Paul. The very fact that he gets elected will mean the majority of the voters will know ahead of time what he is about. Thus meaning they support most of what he says. Which means Popular opinion will be great for most of his plans.

You say he needs a Libertarian majority when he does not, all he needs is public opinion. Public opinion will force the politicians to vote yes on these issues. We are about to see first hand in November what happens when politicians ignore the people. That will remain in the memories of people for a long time.

62

[quote]John S. wrote:
H.R. 1207 was voted on as a separate thing, every republican voted on it, most of the democrats backed away from it.

If their is one person who’s views will be made well known on the campaign trail it is Ron Paul. The very fact that he gets elected will mean the majority of the voters will know ahead of time what he is about. Thus meaning they support most of what he says. Which means Popular opinion will be great for most of his plans.

You say he needs a Libertarian majority when he does not, all he needs is public opinion. Public opinion will force the politicians to vote yes on these issues. We are about to see first hand in November what happens when politicians ignore the people. That will remain in the memories of people for a long time.[/quote]

Obama was also widely supported when he was elected and look at him now. He did get healthcare passed, but it was a somewhat watered down version and now public support, I believe, is at an all-time low for him. There is a reason why politicians who make big promises tend to lose support when in office. It’s because they can’t possibly keep their promises. It’s much harder to repeal an existing, entrenched law than to pass a new one anyways, so that’s two things working against Paul.

63

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
H.R. 1207 was voted on as a separate thing, every republican voted on it, most of the democrats backed away from it.

If their is one person who’s views will be made well known on the campaign trail it is Ron Paul. The very fact that he gets elected will mean the majority of the voters will know ahead of time what he is about. Thus meaning they support most of what he says. Which means Popular opinion will be great for most of his plans.

You say he needs a Libertarian majority when he does not, all he needs is public opinion. Public opinion will force the politicians to vote yes on these issues. We are about to see first hand in November what happens when politicians ignore the people. That will remain in the memories of people for a long time.[/quote]

Obama was also widely supported when he was elected and look at him now. He did get healthcare passed, but it was a somewhat watered down version and now public support, I believe, is at an all-time low for him. There is a reason why politicians who make big promises tend to lose support when in office. It’s because they can’t possibly keep their promises. It’s much harder to repeal an existing, entrenched law than to pass a new one anyways, so that’s two things working against Paul.[/quote]

No, Obama lied his way to the president, his health bill that was initially offered was a complete 180 from what he ran on.

Obama ran as a Centrist, but he governs from the left.

Never said it would be easy, but if it was easy it would already have been done. But what I am saying is his idea’s are the best way for getting the country back on track, and unlike Obama he says exactly what he means.

Is there a chance he can’t do it? absolutely. But if you are going to let the chance of failure make you give up entirely then you where never really serious to begin with. If Ron Paul can’t bring the government under control who can? Who else can the GOP offer with a track record of never voting against the constitution? Never voting for an unbalanced budget? Never voting for a tax increase? Who has warned us since 2003 of this collapse? Who else is liked by Democrats, independents, and republicans?

64

[quote]John S. wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I do not think he would get all that done , but I would be happy with bringing all the troops home and ending the war on drugs , I bet that in it’s self would balance the budget

Hey I got a copy of the third wave in paper back 1980 addition , the only one they had I will let you know

65

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I do not think he would get all that done , but I would be happy with bringing all the troops home and ending the war on drugs , I bet that in it’s self would balance the budget

Hey I got a copy of the third wave in paper back 1980 addition , the only one they had I will let you know

[/quote]

Medicare social secuurity and medicade cost more then all the revenue we take in, those have to be cut to balance the budget.

And let me know about the book, I will have to put that on my reading list to get a full view on what Newt supports.

66

[quote]John S. wrote:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd450.htm

Alvin Toffler’s book, Creating A New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, is a bizarre, revolutionary view and blueprint for the 2lst century. Gingrich WROTE the forward for this book - it’s frightening and you should read both editions. These books became best sellers in Communist China because they mirror Mao.

On page 433 of Toffler’s bilge, we read: “The founding fathers as the architects of the political system which served so well, this system of government you (founding fathers) fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly OBSOLETE and hence increasingly if inadvertently, OPPRESSIVE and DANGEROUS to our welfare. It must be RADICALLY changed and a NEW SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT INVENTED - a democracy for the 2lst Century.”

This one even gives the page number. 433[/quote]

Page 433 discusses politics and the economy , being paper back the info may not jive exactly I will read through it

67

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd450.htm

Alvin Toffler’s book, Creating A New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, is a bizarre, revolutionary view and blueprint for the 2lst century. Gingrich WROTE the forward for this book - it’s frightening and you should read both editions. These books became best sellers in Communist China because they mirror Mao.

On page 433 of Toffler’s bilge, we read: “The founding fathers as the architects of the political system which served so well, this system of government you (founding fathers) fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly OBSOLETE and hence increasingly if inadvertently, OPPRESSIVE and DANGEROUS to our welfare. It must be RADICALLY changed and a NEW SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT INVENTED - a democracy for the 2lst Century.”

This one even gives the page number. 433[/quote]

Page 433 discusses politics and the economy , being paper back the info may not jive exactly I will read through it
[/quote]

They are probably talking about hard back. ill see if I can’t find a page conversion for hte book.

68

[quote]John S. wrote:
Is there a chance he can’t do it? absolutely. But if you are going to let the chance of failure make you give up entirely then you where never really serious to begin with. If Ron Paul can’t bring the government under control who can? Who else can the GOP offer with a track record of never voting against the constitution? Never voting for an unbalanced budget? Never voting for a tax increase? Who has warned us since 2003 of this collapse? Who else is liked by Democrats, independents, and republicans? [/quote]

It’s not so much a fear of failure, as it is an acknowledgment of a systemic failure of the system. I think you’re putting too much faith in one man.

69

"I come with no easy blue print for tomorrow’s constitution . I mistrust those who think they already have the answers when we are still trying to formulate the questions .But the time has come for us to imagine completely novel alternative to discus debate and design from the ground up the democratic architecture

Not in the spirit of anger or dogma , not in sudden impulsive spasm , but through the widest consultation and and peaceful public participation , we need to join together to reconstitute America.

Some men look at the constitution with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant , yoo sacred to touch ." ALVIN TOFFLER

This is the general theme on the section of politics . I do not see any radical assertions on Tofflers part. I do how ever think the speaker from the birch Society is trying to do a hatchet job on Gingrich by his claims of Toffler being a radical .

By the way I never thought I would defend Gingrich :slight_smile:

70

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
"I come with no easy blue print for tomorrow’s constitution . I mistrust those who think they already have the answers when we are still trying to formulate the questions .But the time has come for us to imagine completely novel alternative to discus debate and design from the ground up the democratic architecture

Not in the spirit of anger or dogma , not in sudden impulsive spasm , but through the widest consultation and and peaceful public participation , we need to join together to reconstitute America.

Some men look at the constitution with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant , yoo sacred to touch ." ALVIN TOFFLER

This is the general theme on the section of politics . I do not see any radical assertions on Tofflers part. I do how ever think the speaker from the birch Society is trying to do a hatchet job on Gingrich by his claims of Toffler being a radical .

By the way I never thought I would defend Gingrich :)[/quote]

He is talking about remaking the constitution, that is radical.

71

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
Is there a chance he can’t do it? absolutely. But if you are going to let the chance of failure make you give up entirely then you where never really serious to begin with. If Ron Paul can’t bring the government under control who can? Who else can the GOP offer with a track record of never voting against the constitution? Never voting for an unbalanced budget? Never voting for a tax increase? Who has warned us since 2003 of this collapse? Who else is liked by Democrats, independents, and republicans? [/quote]

It’s not so much a fear of failure, as it is an acknowledgment of a systemic failure of the system. I think you’re putting too much faith in one man.[/quote]

Show me someone else so I don’t have to put my faith in this one man?

72

[quote]John S. wrote:
Show me someone else so I don’t have to put my faith in this one man?[/quote]

Look in the mirror? Stop putting your faith in politicians.

73

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
Show me someone else so I don’t have to put my faith in this one man?[/quote]

Look in the mirror? Stop putting your faith in politicians.
[/quote]

Not much I can do against a government with their hands in everything. To do what I need to do I first have to have someone get the government off my back.

74

[quote]John S. wrote:

[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.[/quote]

You are confused between the frequency of such polls and their actual seriousness. Virtually anyone could have beaten Obama in any recent poll and they have. I’ve read several such polls that have McCain, Romney, Palin and a host of others, beating Obama. There is a ton of voter remorse out there. The ones who swallowed the “Change” nonsense are kicking themselves daily. The fact that Paul could only comes close tells a better tale.

As to CPAC, a bunch of conservatives got together and decided that one candidate is better than another. What exactly does that mean relative to a lengthy Presidential campaign? Where none other than your main constituency have a say. Don’t fret about it, I’ll clue you in right here and now, it means nothing. It’s tantamount to your family saying you’re a good guy. Now you have to go convince the rest of the world that you are the best choice. I mean really, please stop the Paul nonsense (wait you won’t why do I ask?). Yes, he’s a popular little old man with many right wing folks, but that will never get him elected President. Take my advice and get your little group together and figure out who shares Paul’s political beliefs that could actually win? Is there anyone? If not then get ready to vote for Obama to punish everyone, right? You do that kind of thing don’t you?

And Nero played the fiddle as Rome burned, I understand, I understand.

75

[quote]John S. wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I have explained why, read my post regarding how a republican can get elected. Paul has none of those things. Everyone seems to understand this except the Paulies. Why? I think it has something to do with falling in love with his message. I think much of what he has to say resonates with you and others like you. But make no mistake about it, he does not resonate with nearly enough people to come even close to getting the nomination, much less capture the white house.

76

[quote]John S. wrote:

Not much I can do against a government with their hands in everything. To do what I need to do I first have to have someone get the government off my back.[/quote]

Please explain how the government is on your back. Not your neighbors back, but your specific back. Keep in mind I am not claiming government should not be smaller, it should, but I’d like to hear your personal story, since you made such a declaration.

77

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

Not much I can do against a government with their hands in everything. To do what I need to do I first have to have someone get the government off my back.[/quote]

Please explain how the government is on your back. Not your neighbors back, but your specific back. Keep in mind I am not claiming government should not be smaller, it should, but I’d like to hear your personal story, since you made such a declaration.
[/quote]

First thing, they have exploded the cost of college which is going to cause me to go deep into debt, the taxes they are taking out of my paycheck even tho they may seem small to some do restrict a lot of what I can do. When I look to the future I see all the taxes that will be taken out of my future earnings, when I start up my business later on in life I will have to deal with many regulations and taxes.

Its just not about present oppression but future oppression.

78

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I have explained why, read my post regarding how a republican can get elected. Paul has none of those things. Everyone seems to understand this except the Paulies. Why? I think it has something to do with falling in love with his message. I think much of what he has to say resonates with you and others like you. But make no mistake about it, he does not resonate with nearly enough people to come even close to getting the nomination, much less capture the white house.
[/quote]

Poll after Poll shows Ron would do very well if he decides to run. Be it Rassmussen, or straw polls. The only people who seem to have a problem with his messege are the ones that want to always be at war.

79

[quote]John S. wrote:

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.[/quote]

Well, he wouldn’t in any event, because there is too much regional differential to get his unalloyed “libertarian” agenda through - that’s even if we indulge your fiction. But more to he point - your “explanation” is all the proof we need to learn he’ll never even sniff the presidency, or even his party’s nomination: people don’t agree with what he is saying.

Uh, ok.

Are you referring to me? I’ll need to know before I address this.

Who is “on[e] of my own”? Gingrich? You mean the same guy that I just explained that I didn’t care for and I never was a fan of his?

You didn’t destroy anyone, and you certainly didn’t destroy “one of my own”.

On a separate note, I am thinking of starting a PSA and program on trying to improve libertarian reading comprehension. The level of PWI libertarian illiteracy is at an alarming rate.

Incorrect. But presidents don’t wave a wand and initiate the kinds of policy changes you suggested Mr. Paul can.

This line is out of place, and I am not sure who it is addressed to. If me, then you are confused. But, I think we have established that you are confused.

You seem really, really mad at “christian conservatives” - yet earlier, you were chastising Gingrich for endorsing a “futurist” vision that included the disintegration of marriage and the family, easy abortions, etc. Odd combo.

You didn’t write anything interesting or compelling enough to take a while to sink in.

80

[quote]John S. wrote:

Anyone who thinks Newt is the guy to be president better get ready for Obama 2012 because I will do everything I can to turn as many people as possible against this man.

Should also mention that I learned that the cock sucker campaigned against Ron Paul.[/quote]

Really, John?

I’d like you to step back (if you can) and read your posts. If your goal is to sway people toward ron paul, you are failing miserably. You are doing your “cause” and your credibility harm.

How? Your posting makes you look fanatical. For instance, Newt had the temerity to campaign against ron paul? Therefore, he must be destroyed?

Really? Can you see how that makes you look?

As I’ve indicated in the past, ron paul has 0% chance of becoming President (or even holding a cabinet position). There is no possibility under any circumstance. None.

Now, you can continue to deny that fact. You can continue to be vengeful.

OR, you could advocate for positions that you believe in. Instead of attacking people who don’t see your “truth/ron paul,” you could try to convince us of your righteousness.

That seems like a much better position.

JeffR