Newt Gingrich

[stonebreakerwasgod]

not exactly the whole truth...

The President submits a budget, he fights for it, Congress proposes their own...the President SHOULD work with both the Senate and the Congress on tweaking it. If the President does not like it, he can veto it.

Congress controls the purse strings, we all know that. The process of how it gets done is irrelevant. Vetos are rarely used, as we both know. I'm in favor of line item vetos, then we can cut all the crap coming out of congress. Attaching riders to bills is rediculous, hiding large spending in even larger budgets is what politicians do best.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

It seems trivial to try and suggest that Reagan and his policies should not be given credit. The US went from having crappy morale, a crappy ( i love that word) economy with high interest rates, a stagnant economy (remember stagflation), and high unemployment to a properous economy rivaling that of the 50's.

He did a VERY GOOD job (as I agreed before) in restoring confidence in the people of the US. He played his part well in the Cold War.

To say things rivaled the 50's though, that's stretching it. Not even Clinton pulled that off. But the 50's were a unique time since we were truly the ONE big global producer since Japan and Europe were in shambles.

Partisan politics aside, Reagan got the country back on track. I call that leadership, standing up strong for policies that made a difference.

I agree that he really helped to focus debate and get things moving forward even with mixed results in some cases...but he was a leader...and that was sorely needed.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Congress controls the purse strings, we all know that. The process of how it gets done is irrelevant. Vetos are rarely used, as we both know. I'm in favor of line item vetos, then we can cut all the crap coming out of congress. Attaching riders to bills is rediculous, hiding large spending in even larger budgets is what politicians do best.

The process of how it gets done is CRITICAL... Congress simply does not issue a budget and that's that. Reagan did NOT get his defense increases because Congress just felt like it... He was very good at coordinating with the Congress and the Senate to get things he cared about done.

Getting a good budget requires skilled a determined leadership from the President.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I am representing conservatives...they are representing neo-conservatives...

I don't think so.. I don't like labels, but I don't think any true conservative on here would call you that. Attacking things that conservatives hold to be basic principes hardly makes you easily recongnizable as such. But whatever makes u happy. Those on the right do not call themselves neo-cons, that seems to be an attempt to apply a negative label to cons, because liberals hate being called liberals. LOL

I am a traditionalist and conservative. Not a religous right extremist, not a neo-con, nor any other label. A definition i looked up on neoconservative is a "movement to promote conservative values in opposition to the perceived (actually real) liberalism of the 60's. Does that mean that liberals who oppose Bush are going to be called neo-liberals. How silly are labels anyway!!

Keep it simple, if you favor less government, low taxes, strong military, low tax rates, personal responsibility, the death penalty, locking up felons and not "rehabilitation', don't support removing ALL things religious from public view, are pro-business and anti union, want the UN to be disbanded, understand that evil men must be engaged: you might be conservative.

If you oppose any of the above, you may not be conservative. These are core values of what cons stand for, it really is as simple as that.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

The process of how it gets done is CRITICAL... Congress simply does not issue a budget and that's that. Reagan did NOT get his defense increases because Congress just felt like it... He was very good at coordinating with the Congress and the Senate to get things he cared about done.

Getting a good budget requires skilled a determined leadership from the President.

Of course negotiation and begging takes place, along with 'favors, promises, and the scratching of backs'. But the bottom line is that congress passes the budget and the president signs it, vetos it, or let's it sit for 10 days and becomes law by default. The American people (foolishly) depend on congress to actually represent us and make the tough choices with MY money. They are the ones responsible, as any president wants to grow his administration and his policies. It is up to the congress to make monies available, unfortunately, it is being attempted now in a time of war. WRONG TIME TO GROW STINGY PEOPLE!

How sad... I voted for the war before i voted against it. I support our troops but bash them in the media for the horrors at prison camps and firefights. I support the troops but I criticize the mission, commander, our allies. I support the troops but I want to cut funding. I support the troops, but I want them to leave, withdraw, and redeploy regardless of where we stand with the war. WITH SUPPORT LIKE THAT, I DO CONSIDER LIBERALS TO BE HURTING AMERICA.
If you agree with any of the things said by politicans in the above paragraph, you ain't no conservative. LOL

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I don't think so.. I don't like labels, but I don't think any true conservative on here would call you that. Attacking things that conservatives hold to be basic principes hardly makes you easily recongnizable as such.

What did I attack that conservatives hold dear?

I advocate LESSER spending and BALANCED budgets. I do advocate tax cuts ONCE THE DEBT IS PAID DOWN and the budget can remain in balance.

That is as conservative as the day is long.

Those on the right do not call themselves neo-cons, that seems to be an attempt to apply a negative label to cons, because liberals hate being called liberals.

Neo-con does NOT apply to everyone on the right...it is a small section of those on the right. It is the portion of the right that believes:
1) in an aggressive foreign/military policy, which includes nation building (not "active" but "agressive")
2) balanced budgets do not matter and government spending is not bad
3) tax cuts without spending cuts is good
4) a strong and active central government

Conservatives believe more along these lines:
1) foreign/military policy should be in the interests of national defense/security, as opposed to nation building
2) balanced budgets are a key goal and government spending should decrease
3) tax cuts should include spending cuts
4) central government should defer as much as possible to localities

Keep it simple, if you favor less government, low taxes, strong military, low tax rates, personal responsibility, the death penalty, locking up felons and not "rehabilitation', don't support removing ALL things religious from public view, are pro-business and anti union, want the UN to be disbanded, understand that evil men must be engaged: you might be conservative.

If you oppose any of the above, you may not be conservative. These are core values of what cons stand for, it really is as simple as that.

All but your last couple points. Conservatives have supported the UN as it lowers US involvement abroad militarily. The Neo-conservative movement has eschewed dipliomacy far more than conservatives.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I support our troops but bash them in the media for the horrors at prison camps and firefights. I support the troops but I criticize the mission, commander, our allies. I support the troops but I want to cut funding. I support the troops, but I want them to leave, withdraw, and redeploy regardless of where we stand with the war. WITH SUPPORT LIKE THAT, I DO CONSIDER LIBERALS TO BE HURTING AMERICA.
If you agree with any of the things said by politicans in the above paragraph, you ain't no conservative. LOL

Actually those statements are neither liberal or conservative. In fact, they are not even mutually exclusive.

I know plenty of active duty military officers right now in Iraq who feel the only way to support the troops is to bring them home. I know many who actively critize their mission, commander, and allies. I also know they wanted to see people at Abu G do plenty of hard time...

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Actually those statements are neither liberal or conservative. In fact, they are not even mutually exclusive.

I know plenty of active duty military officers right now in Iraq who feel the only way to support the troops is to bring them home. I know many who actively critize their mission, commander, and allies. I also know they wanted to see people at Abu G do plenty of hard time...

That was just a rant that got started after thinking about the defunding of the war. Troops are not only entitled to bitch about the mission, one expects it from them. They are the ones being put out to serve and take enemy fire. God bless them, and I respect any honest thoughts they put forth. I think that politicians who said those things are disgusting, and make it easier for our enemies to win. Debate is one thing, but to go beyond that is unforgivable.

I don't think neocon is a good label, it is too narrowly defined. Most agree on the broad principles I laid out, how they are applied depends on the situation, which is always different with respect to foreign and domestic policy. Things change, and responses need to also. As far as forgoing diplomacy, I believe any American prefers to go that route, including die hard 'lets kill the f....rs! What have we seen as a result of diplomacy? Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, have been given years of attempted diplomatic efforts to persuade them to act in a responsible manner. I don't see a lack of diplomatic effort in any situation. How many years and resolutions did we go through just in Iraq?? The main difference between cons and libs is that..at some point...you have to be ready to take real action if it is needed. That is not lack of diplomacy, it is the unwanted result that takes place if it is warranted. Not having war on the table, and enemies know when we are just giving it lip service, makes diplomacy an exercise in futility. Providing fruitless agreements that will never hold up. I call THAT a failure in diplomacy.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

What did I attack that conservatives hold dear?





All but your last couple points. Conservatives have supported the UN as it lowers US involvement abroad militarily. The Neo-conservative movement has eschewed dipliomacy far more than conservatives.

There are no conservatives I know that support the UN. They don't prevent wars, they make it harder to enter one at an advantageous time. Gee, do u think Iraq and the terrorists knew we were coming after all those years?, and people wonder why it is difficult to secure the peace.

How does one negotiate with Iran, when they are led by religious extremists who hate us and the Israelis? They are now engaged in the killing of Americans in Iraq. To me, it sounds like they already declared war on us. Diplomacy is fine if everyone acts in good faith, and wants to reach an equitable agreement. I fail to see Iran or N. Korea act in such a manner. You can give in only so many times before it starts biting you on the butt, Germany is a great example. Once you start giving in to evil, all the see is weakness and a lack of resolve. What a huge mistake to equate diplomacy with getting desired results in those cases. Has history taught us nothing?

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I should be getting paid for my thoughts in ways other than vbucks. Genius should not come cheap! You too of course. LOL

BTW- my last posts should keep u up for another half hour or so.

I do think that you have many conservative ideals. Especially when it comes to tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. I wish that others in gov. had that as well. The problem is that it is difficult to stimulate economy with tax cuts while both cutting the budget enough to make a difference. What exactly do we cut? Defense spending: hell no. social spending: maybe, but alot of it goes to social security and medicare. There is very little of the budget that is truly discretionary. The hope is that tax cuts causes more economic activity therein resulting in higher tax revenues, offsetting the lack of cuts. In most cases, it appears to work. (if you subscribe to that model)

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

There are no conservatives I know that support the UN.

George Bush Sr
Ronald Reagan (RIP)
Gerald Ford (RIP)
Colin Powell
George Shultz
Brent Scowcroft
Bob Dole
Henry Kissinger

All fully supported the UN and a few of these men used it to the US advantage many times.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

George Bush Sr
Ronald Reagan (RIP)
Gerald Ford (RIP)
Colin Powell
George Shultz
Brent Scowcroft
Bob Dole
Henry Kissinger

All fully supported the UN and a few of these men used it to the US advantage many times.

I don't know them, i'm talking about real (everyday) Americans. Let me ask you this, when in history has a great power ever given it up to a bunch of small nations who have no power, no wealth, and act in opposition to the powers interests? That is what we are doing, why should we give other coutries veto power over what we should do. Leaders lead, they don't take votes. All this does is put a bunch of no name countries on a slightly less plateau than us. We're the ones that have trooops around the globe, we're the ones that hand out the most money, I don't think that we should subjugate ourselves (like that one) at all. Only liberals would dare even think of doing so. People think that they don't hate America, but they do, always trying to make us weaker. Since when in history did a country have to build consensus to act in its own interest. WHAT A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS!
Now if the UN actually got things done, one could argue that it might be a good idea. That is not the case, it is corrupt and a talkshop where evil men get to grandstand. How is that for 7:00am in the morning.

 

[notredomer23]

The UN is a peace of crap that should be destroyed. Lets go back to the league of nations or alliances.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

If the UN actually functioned, was not overrun with corruption, and had teeth behind its resolutions, it might serve a good purpose. If the US, being the only superpower,, did not have to be vetoed by other countries with competing interests, I might be for it.

IF, IF, IF!

 

[IRISHDODGER]

George Bush Sr
Ronald Reagan (RIP)
Gerald Ford (RIP)
Colin Powell
George Shultz
Brent Scowcroft
Bob Dole
Henry Kissinger

All fully supported the UN and a few of these men used it to the US advantage many times.

I consider Ford & Powell as moderates, not conservatives (but that's my opinion). Kissinger gets criticized for supporting anything that supports Israel. Sometimes that's advantageous to the U.S., sometimes it's not.

When I think of consevatives, I think of Reagan, Goldwater, William Buckley, George Will, Thomas Sowell & Winston Churchill. Granted 3 of those are commentators, but I tend to side w/ their agruments both fiscally & socially.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

If the UN actually functioned, was not overrun with corruption, and had teeth behind its resolutions, it might serve a good purpose. If the US, being the only superpower,, did not have to be vetoed by other countries with competing interests, I might be for it.

IF, IF, IF!

How many of those failing countries have be bailed out monetarily, yet when the U.S. is behind on its debt, we get chastized. See, you try to help somebody & you're taken advantage of. Regarding the UN, the U.S. can't win for losing. It's all about handouts & international welfare until we need support on something.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I consider Ford & Powell as moderates, not conservatives (but that's my opinion). Kissinger gets criticized for supporting anything that supports Israel. Sometimes that's advantageous to the U.S., sometimes it's not.

When I think of consevatives, I think of Reagan, Goldwater, William Buckley, George Will, Thomas Sowell & Winston Churchill. Granted 3 of those are commentators, but I tend to side w/ their agruments both fiscally & socially.

That's an interesting list given all the contradictions in beliefs between those men. I would say they were all on the Right, but I would not be crazy enough to say they were all conservatives in the same vein.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I don't know them, i'm talking about real (everyday) Americans.

Everyday Americans do not have to pursue policies to ensure National Security.

Those people who do that for a living like the President or the SecState, etc...they all see value in the UN.

So frankly, I don't really care what the average American thinks about it, because most people are blissfully ignorant of how the world really works. Those who do know how it works find value in the UN.

That is what we are doing, why should we give other coutries veto power over what we should do.

Yet it worked for 50 years, why all of a sudden does it not work? (in your opinion)

Now if the UN actually got things done, one could argue that it might be a good idea. That is not the case, it is corrupt and a talkshop where evil men get to grandstand.

The UN does get things done, there are dozens of peacekeeping missions right now. Missions that are keeping a lid on small fires burning around the world. They are actively working to keep a lid on Islamic extremism in many cases...or general religious strife.

 

[marv81s]

Newt In 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[notredomer23]

marv81s i agree 100% with what you just said lol and your avatar is awsome

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

hey now

hey now

Everyday Americans do not have to pursue policies to ensure National Security.

Those people who do that for a living like the President or the SecState, etc...they all see value in the UN.

So frankly, I don't really care what the average American thinks about it, because most people are blissfully ignorant of how the world really works. Those who do know how it works find value in the UN.



Yet it worked for 50 years, why all of a sudden does it not work? (in your opinion)

Everyday Americans don't HAVE to pay lip service to the UN like leaders do. So they can speak honestly about their views. How many true conservatives do u think actually want the UN to exist, much less stay in our country? Not many.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Newt In 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, while he was a boogeyman/easy-target for the left back in the mid-90's...his speeches in recent years are thought provoking.

I don't know if I would want him as President (I mean literally "do not know" since I have not seen him too much yet)...BUT I think his presence in the race would be a BIG benefit. He is not trying to gague the polls, or pander to a specific group...he really has tried to add value to the general debate. I sincerely hope he runs.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Everyday Americans don't HAVE to pay lip service to the UN like leaders do. So they can speak honestly about their views. How many true conservatives do u think actually want the UN to exist, much less stay in our country? Not many.

It's not lip service. The US uses the UN as a tool of it's foreign policy...we always have. They allow us to project power into regions where we might not be able to.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Everyday Americans do not have to pursue policies to ensure National Security.

Those people who do that for a living like the President or the SecState, etc...they all see value in the UN.

works find value in the UN.



Yet it worked for 50 years, why all of a sudden does it not work? (in your opinion)


The UN does get things done, there are dozens of peacekeeping missions right now. Missions that are keeping a lid on small fires burning around the world. They are actively working to keep a lid on Islamic extremism in many cases...or general religious strife.

It doesn't work at all because the only voting member who supports what we do (mostly) is England. Everyone else wants to see the US get knocked down to strenghten their own country's power. Do we see the same things on tv, do u not follow the UN and what backstabbing f...rs they are.
The large assumption would have to be that they have accomplished anything of merit relating to peacekeeping. If the UN had any balls, they would be in N. Korea's face, and up Irans ass. Need I say more? TALK, TALK, TALK, No action. Perhaps Madeline Albright, the great lover of the UN and negotiation, can solve the two issues, or perhaps Carter can. Of course, as soon as their flights left, the countries would break the agreement forthwith.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

It's not lip service. The US uses the UN as a tool of it's foreign policy...we always have. They allow us to project power into regions where we might not be able to.

We all have differing views. The US does not need the help of countries (who don't really want to help us) project power. What tends to work better is to have tight coalitions based on what the current situation is. Those who want to forfeit control over our destiny to countries who wish us harm are generally called....liberals. I would not assume that because we act in a diplomatic manner by giving lip service to the UN, that those on the right give two craps about them.

IF YOU NOTICE, ALL THE CONSERVATIVES ON HERE GENERALLY BADMOUTH THEM...and for good reason. Oil for food ring a bell, they went deliberately behind our backs, allowing Saddam to bring in money for himself and weapons (very little food im sure). It sure is nice to deal with those countries who act in good faith, and support us trying to keep a madman under control (NOT!). France and Russia would not support the Iraq action because they were getting rich while we were getting shot at.. AND YOU THINK THEY WON'T DO IT AGAIN? Must be nice to have such a rosy view of the world today.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

We all have differing views. The US does not need the help of countries (who don't really want to help us) project power.

Sorry, but you could not be more wrong here. The US relies on other countries to effectively project power in almost all of our missions. Iraq and Afghanistan were made possible this way.

You don't think all those sorties are coming from the aircraft carriers do you?

You do realize we did not just drop tanks into Iraq to fight right?

What tends to work better is to have tight coalitions based on what the current situation is.

Collaborations exist because of the relationships we develop in the UN.

Those who want to forfeit control over our destiny to countries who wish us harm are generally called....liberals.

I would love to see an example of this. It's a lovely strawman, but it's got no substance.

IF YOU NOTICE, ALL THE CONSERVATIVES ON HERE GENERALLY BADMOUTH THEM...and for good reason. Oil for food ring a bell, they went deliberately behind our backs, allowing Saddam to bring in money for himself and weapons (very little food im sure). It sure is nice to deal with those countries who act in good faith, and support us trying to keep a madman under control (NOT!). France and Russia would not support the Iraq action because they were getting rich while we were getting shot at.. AND YOU THINK THEY WON'T DO IT AGAIN? Must be nice to have such a rosy view of the world today.

I never said they were perfect. They have big issues. But we would not have been able to fight the Cold War without the UN. We would not have been able to invade Iraq nearly as easily the first time without them.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

It doesn't work at all because the only voting member who supports what we do (mostly) is England.

If you believe this to be true, you clearly have a memory that only spans about 5 years. Even then this is simply not the truth. Go back and look at the voting before Iraq 2. Go back and look at Iraq 1... If you do, you will find your statement above is simply not true...not even close.

 

[lattedatte]

Irishdodger and stoney are you guys actually Sean Hannity? I listen to your show nearly everyday! Here I thought it was Marv the whole time

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Collaborations exist because of the relationships we develop in the UN.QUOTE]


Collaberations exist because we bribe other countries, or strongarm them, into helping us. It is tit for tat in the world, just as the intelligence sharing between countries takes place. Have the view that the UN is a panacea if you choose, but don't be suprised when they get bypassed by realists. Honestly, how can you take it seriously when you have such awful countries on the human rights commission. What a joke! So typical....let everyone feel good about things that never get done.

How can my opinion be wrong? It is what it is. Just as the UN is a corrupt talkshop.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

If you believe this to be true, you clearly have a memory that only spans about 5 years. Even then this is simply not the truth. Go back and look at the voting before Iraq 2. Go back and look at Iraq 1... If you do, you will find your statement above is simply not true...not even close.

If I'm an idiot, then let's clear out more space for you. I'm talking about the body of work, not just one incident that was an easy call. I'm sure the wonderful UN is going to do a wonderful job with solving all the crisis in Somalia, Iran, Africa, N. Korea, Israel, and Iraq. When they do, start a thread about that! We acted on UN resolutions in Iraq, where are all the other countries helping OUR great cause??
Oh yea, because like I said, it's all bulls..t!