The Real Newt Gingrich

[RLENT]

funny how that works right? They talk about how wrong the establishment is yet try and use the fact that the establishment does not like NEWT like that is a bad thing.

Who is "they" ?

Kinda like saying paul is the only true Fiscal conservative because he votes no on spending bills yet they ignore the fact Paul is first in line for the money when the bills pass.

Boobie,

Clearly, you have absolutely no frickin' clue about how the process actually works - since your assertion about it immediately above is inverted and the opposite of what actually occurs:

After the President's Budget request is submitted to Congress, Congress passes a budget resolution, and then the authorizing/appropriations process begins. This is where monies are first authorized by an authorizing committee, and then appropriated by the Appropriations Committee of the House (which means they allocated in certain, specific ways) At various points along the way, earmarks inserted and once the spending bill is reconciled, it is voted on and passed (or theoretically, not)

Then it's submitted to the President for his signature to make it law ...... or for veto.

Please, if you are going to talk about something like this - particularly when it involves what someone like Dr. Paul is, or isn't doing - at least make a point to know what the heck you're actually talking about.

BTW, if you want demonstrate your fiscal prowess, answer this one:

Why are earmarks bad ?

 

[Turtle]

BTW, if you want demonstrate your fiscal prowess, answer this one:

Why are earmarks bad ?

Worms. Can. Open.
You can't just go and ask a question like that here!!!
This Soapbox is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Old Testament, real wrath of God type stuff.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

 

[RLENT]

Worms. Can. Open.
You can't just go and ask a question like that here!!!
This Soapbox is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

Heheheh .... stick around, you ain't seen nothing yet ....

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Heheheh .... stick around, you ain't seen nothing yet ....

I'm ready...

 

[tbubster]

Now I could answer that question however I think "THE GOOD DR PAUL"does a better job then I ever can.It sataarts about 3.53,pay close attation to the 603 mark on what he has to say if there were no earmarks.when you think about it.


Video Update: Ron Paul Highlights from Final GOP Debate before Iowa - Sioux City, Thursday 12/15/11 | Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty


See even "THE GOOD DR PAUL" Knows how earmarks really do hurt the country.


Also love how he tells what happens when you vote no on them bills then brags about voteing no on all of them.

"Why bother learning when ignorance is instantaneous?" Talk about people being wowed by smoke and mirrors.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I have no problem how Ron Paul does the earmark thing...

If there were no earmarks, the money wouldn't be taken out of his district. He wants to get rid of them.

Since there are earmarks, money is taken out of his district to be used in other districts. He wants those earmarks to put money back into his district, where it came out of.

Think about it.

 

[RLENT]

Now I could answer that question ....

Boobie,

Yes, you could .... however, I suspect that, as per usual, you won't .....

however I think "THE GOOD DR PAUL"does a better job then I ever can.

Of that, I have absolutely no doubt ....

But the question remains: are you actually capable of forming your own thoughts, then putting them into your own words, and articulating your own argument ?

Or are you just solely confined to only pointing to something someone else said (which doesn't make the case that earmarks are bad at all ..... something that you are apparently failing to understand ....)

It sataarts about 3.53,pay close attation to the 603 mark on what he has to say if there were no earmarks when you think about it. See even "THE GOOD DR PAUL" Knows how earmarks really do hurt the country.

No, that isn't the case that he is making at all - let's have a little fun and see if you can actually discern the finer points that Dr. Paul is making in his statement you refer to .... do you feel up to the task ?

Wow us all with your intellectual prowess (clearly demonstrated recently with your grasp of how the budget process works .... ) - explain either your argument - or the Dr. Paul's (which is actually different than what you believe it to be) in your own words

 

[tbubster]

I have no problem how Ron Paul does the earmark thing...

If there were no earmarks, the money wouldn't be taken out of his district. He wants to get rid of them.

Since there are earmarks, money is taken out of his district to be used in other districts. He wants those earmarks to put money back into his district, where it came out of.

Think about it.

Thought about it all I need to.If earmarks truly are the way the government should be spending its money then the only reason that Paul has never voted for a bill with earmarks is to create an Illusion that he truly is a fiscal conservative.

I dont understand when someone else does something like this "Say one thing" and then "Does the opposite" It is called flip flopping,It is called lieing to the public,It is used by many on here to show why that person is part of the problem.Yet those same people give Paul a pass and say he is the answer to our problems.

Think about this.How is paul doing the earmarks the way he does them any different the Obama and the democrats saying how unfair the bush tax cuts for the rich are,then more of them vote to extend them then republicans do????To millions of people there is no difference.

 

[RLENT]

To millions of people there is no difference.

Well, apparently ... millions of people are .... complete, drooling morons, with IQ's nowhere north of of say, 50 or so .... who "see" things which are actually different, as being the same .....

But then ..... we already knew that, didn't we ?

 

[muttly]

No - not really - count on it to be used as a weapon in the campaign. It will be an issue that is raised and Dr. Paul will, I'm sure have to address it.

How he does that, and how well he acquits himself when doing so, will determine whether it's settled or not.

These newsletters ....they might be a problem.

 

[RLENT]

These newsletters ....they might be a problem.

If one knows the entirety of the story ..... no, not really.

 

[Turtle]

Oh, they will be a problem, I guarantee it. The entirety of the story will not get out, or rather, it will get out, but the majority of people will not be able to understand it, or refuse to even try. I mean, we have people who don't even understand how earmarks work, and why they are used the way they are. They think earmarks = government spending. If they can't understand Congressional Purse Strings 101, how are they going to understand the full context of something they are already prejudiced about?

 

[cheri1122]

I'm ready...

[

Not in that footwear - you're gonna need hip waders, lol.

 

[RLENT]

This guy has more slime coverin' him than than Peter Venkman ever did:

Scrutiny grows on Newt Gingrich after SEC sues former Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae execs

Think about this: What kind of history lesson costs over $1.6 million dollars ?

 

[muttly]

I'm not for Newt and don't like his Fannie and Freddie deal. He has too much material for Obama's campaign henchmen to use rightly or wrong. Just think what they will do with those Ron Paul Newsletters?

 

[RLENT]

I'm not for Newt and don't like his Fannie and Freddie deal. He has too much material for Obama's campaign henchmen to use rightly or wrong.

Well, ok .... but who are you for ?

I'm looking forward to your answer - I think it will be interesting, since it likely will fall (more or less) into one of two possibilities:

1. You either support a specific candidate, or

2. You don't really support any candidate at all, but will support whatever candidate the Party nominates.

Either alternative offers prospects for a very interesting discussion.

Of course, who you support is an entirely personal matter - for you to keep private, or make public as you see fit

Just think what they will do with those Ron Paul Newsletters?

They'll do whatever they do - it has all been done before - and Hannuty (and others) are already trying to do it now ...

Unfortunately, for anyone who does do it, but does so in a manner which substantially misrepresents the case, or the facts relating to it, they risk having that back-fire on their own credibility.

(Kinda like how when Michelle Bachmann repeatedly says things which are outright lies, her credibility goes directly into the toilet )

Of course, for very many, their own personal integrity and credibility matter very little - they are perfectly willing to compromise either, for the sake of what they (mistakenly) believe to be political expediency.

And that's exactly what makes so many who claim to be religious, social conservatives such a complete farce and an utter joke.

 

[muttly]

I want Obama out of office. Prefer to have the most fiscally conservative candidate with the best chance of getting elected. I don't dislike Ron Paul. I also don't dislike Romney,Bachmann or Santorum as well. I generally know the differences that they have with Paul. Pretty much the foreign policy issues. I think all four have integrity. Don't know exactly what you mean about Bachmann lying. I like her fiscally conservative positions and her blunt talk about Obama's disaster of a presidency. Santorum is a solid individual with no baggage,but isn't doing that well in the polls. Romney is the most electable and doesn't have much that Obama can use against him. Like I said I don't dislike Paul. I think Rand is an excellent senator. The best chance for the republicans to win and get Obama out is to have a Romney-Rubio or Romney- Ryan ticket.

 

[RLENT]

Muttly,

Thanks for the candid response.

I want Obama out of office. Prefer to have the most fiscally conservative candidate with the best chance of getting elected. I don't dislike Ron Paul.

Then that comes down to who has the most realistic chance to actually appeal to those voters who previously voted for Obama, right ?

Of course, that then begs the following questions:

Given the circumstances of the moment (at that time in 2007/2008), what do you think that these people (the ones who voted for Obama), were rejecting about the Republican candidate, making them prefer Obama over him ?

What issue (or issues) pushed them over into that camp ?

What was the hope and change that they were seeking ?

It also begs the question: What are the current issues that they are unhappy with Obama over ?

What promises has he failed to deliver on ?

 

[greg334]

See Rlent, you brought up a very good point about the reasoning why they didn't vote for the republican candidate. I think that there is a valid point that the old guard of the republican party wanted McCain who represented them, the party, and it didn't matter what the people wanted.

Muttly, outside of the issue I can't find on Bachmann's website (I only get to the donate page and no further), I don't know what she actually stands for and her slips in history and geography worry me a bit to the point that I can't consider it lying but I consider that she isn't putting much of an effort into the campaign.

As for the idea of a fiscal conservative, I have to ask what is that in all seriousness. I see a need for someone who has one track and is willing to fight for the cuts that are needed. Some so-called fiscal conservatives seem to think that just a balance budget is the only thing that should be done but to many like me, that still risks our country to the same issues as we have had before and with no strong leadership in either congress or the WH with most of those running, we end up with the Bloomberg conservative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal...arks_At_2007_Conservative_Party_Conference-16

 

[muttly]

At that time 2007-2008 McCain was leading in the polls right before the economic calamity. Bush got the blame for that unfairly. McCain got tied to Bush and that's why we have Obama. Some of the electorate wanted a change from Bush because of the Iraq war.
The issues that they have now with Obama are primarily fiscally: The sluggish economy,which he exacerbated by his meteoric spending, the passing of Obamacare,and the joke of a energy policy by thwarting the exploration ofour natural rescources.Other expansions of govt. powers such as the EPA have hurt the economy as well.