Newt Gingrich

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Look, the man who took down the mob, cleaned up NYC, and was resolute after 9-11 going to run. I'll gladly vote for him over ANYONE. It is actually not about prolife views, and we understand the weakness of man (its why we go to confession). He is a great leader, unlike most of the other running mates. No slam on Hilary, Kerry, Edwards, but what have they ever run?? Or even, what great legislation have they led to passage?
People, even dems, still respect Rudy (gotta luv that!) in new york.

I think the Dems will love this most about him (should he be elected):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALDfwXIYUX0

He supports public funding of abortions.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Ok, so how do we win in Iraq?? All I hear from the left is how awful things are, how to lose, retreat, or redeploy. At least Biden had some semblance of an idea to split Iraq into 3 parts. That was at least something to consider and helpful in the debate.

It strikes me as funny how those on the left try to tell every conservative what our beliefs are ( I heard it AGAIN on tv tonite), and how we are hypocrites when someone fails to adhere to such outlined expectations. I guess it would be easier not to have core values at all, thus creating no expectation for acting in any moral fashion.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

So what if he does? It is his choice to support anything he wants. The president can't do a dang thing about it, other than choose justices. Most Americans on either side of that debate aren't clamoring for it to be done away with anyway (shocking to some liberals i'm sure). Conservatives do not fit in nice, neat little boxes. I don't know any far-right wing people, nor anyone associated with the so-called religious right. Which is just a name drummed up to disparage those who have a belief, as it is often used in a negative connotation.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Ok, so how do we win in Iraq?? All I hear from the left is how awful things are, how to lose, retreat, or redeploy. At least Biden had some semblance of an idea to split Iraq into 3 parts. That was at least something to consider and helpful in the debate.

The General in charge of Iraq just said it can't be won. I trust him. So we need to develop a good exit plan that prevents the country from falling apart completely.

I think we will be there another couple of years at least.

Leaving anytime this year would most likely have horrific consequences.

It strikes me as funny how those on the left try to tell every conservative what our beliefs are ( I heard it AGAIN on tv tonite), and how we are hypocrites when someone fails to adhere to such outlined expectations. I guess it would be easier not to have core values at all, thus creating no expectation for acting in any moral fashion.

When a group of people say "I stand for this" but do exactly the opposite...well, the opposition has every right to point it out. Heck, it's their obligation to do so.

Neo-Conservative Republicans have stuck to the Pro-Life agenda...so they do get to keep that feather in their cap.

On other issues...not so much.

"deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Look, mistakes have been made, fine. Show me a war without a bunch of them, and I would fall over and die from shock. Most of the troops support the administration, that's about all the proof I need to have: most things are being done the right way. Some of the blame actually does fall on the Iraqis. If they don't get their stuff together soon, no matter what we do there will not matter. I prefer to focus on what needs to be done, not rehash decisions that are in the past, not helpful to the current situation.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

So what if he does? It is his choice to support anything he wants. The president can't do a dang thing about it, other than choose justices. Most Americans on either side of that debate aren't clamoring for it to be done away with anyway (shocking to some liberals i'm sure). Conservatives do not fit in nice, neat little boxes. I don't know any far-right wing people, nor anyone associated with the so-called religious right. Which is just a name drummed up to disparage those who have a belief, as it is often used in a negative connotation.

Actually, the President can do lots of things...like funding public abortions, etc. He cannot ban them outright, but he can affect how they are funded, etc.

I agree that conservatives don't fit into nice boxes, but for those of us who care about certain issues like a strong defense and balanced budgets, the abandonment of those by the Republican party is pretty disheartening and disturbing.

Remember that moderates like myself fit into no box at all.

My key issues to date:
1) Balanced Budget
2) Reduce the Debt (not eliminate but vastly reduce)
3) Strong Defense
4) Strong Intelligence Community (this is most important in fighting terrorism)
5) Pro-Choice
6) K-12 Eductation must be made stronger than ever (to ensure we are competitive in the global market in years to come)
7) Simplify the tax code
8) Contain China and Russia

Neither party really speaks to a majority of those...the Dems are closer than the Republicans AT THIS MOMENT. 30 years ago it was wholly different.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

The General in charge of Iraq just said it can't be won. I trust him. So we need to develop a good exit plan that prevents the country from falling apart completely.

I think we will be there another couple of years at least.

Leaving anytime this year would most likely have horrific consequences.



When a group of people say "I stand for this" but do exactly the opposite...well, the opposition has every right to point it out. Heck, it's their obligation to do so.

Neo-Conservative Republicans have stuck to the Pro-Life agenda...so they do get to keep that feather in their cap.

On other issues...not so much.

"deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

Who is a group of people, there are many different types of voters in only 2 (real) parties. You can't lump EVERYONE into a neat package, except they try to.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Actually, the President can do lots of things...like funding public abortions, etc. He cannot ban them outright, but he can affect how they are funded, etc.

I agree that conservatives don't fit into nice boxes, but for those of us who care about certain issues like a strong defense and balanced budgets, the abandonment of those by the Republican party is pretty disheartening and disturbing.

Remember that moderates like myself fit into no box at all.

My key issues to date:
1) Balanced Budget
2) Reduce the Debt (not eliminate but vastly reduce)
3) Strong Defense
4) Strong Intelligence Community (this is most important in fighting terrorism)
5) Pro-Choice
6) K-12 Eductation must be made stronger than ever (to ensure we are competitive in the global market in years to come)
7) Simplify the tax code
8) Contain China and Russia

Neither party really speaks to a majority of those...the Dems are closer than the Republicans AT THIS MOMENT. 30 years ago it was wholly different.

Ok. I like 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 Pro-choice is a tough one to debate and I will never do so, ain't gonna change any minds anyway.

Why the heck should the federal government be involved in the public funding of abortions???? IMO, many people who don't care if someone does get one, would not support that at all. What the hell is our gov. for anyway??? People lose sight of what their responsibility is, and try to design it to be what they want it to do. Which is why we have the deficits and debt.
I swore you were gonna ask me if I was done with my rant!! LOL

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Look, mistakes have been made, fine. Show me a war without a bunch of them, and I would fall over and die from shock. Most of the troops support the administration, that's about all the proof I need to have: most things are being done the right way.

It's not a few mistakes, it's a constant stream. I just thank god that Rumsfeld is out and Gates is in...

Some of the blame actually does fall on the Iraqis. If they don't get their stuff together soon, no matter what we do there will not matter.

That is the god's own truth.

I prefer to focus on what needs to be done, not rehash decisions that are in the past, not helpful to the current situation.

it's not about rehashing decisions...it's about finding competent leadership.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I think our leadership did a darn good job winning the war so quickly, it is keeping the peace that is really the job of the Iraqis. Also, we might not be in the situation we are in if the Iranians didn't provide arms and personnel to instigate the problem. It may be a no-win situation there, but it is not because of every decision coming out of D.C.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Ok. I like 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 Pro-choice is a tough one to debate and I will never do so, ain't gonna change any minds anyway.
I swore you were gonna ask me if I was done with my rant!! LOL

I never try to convince others on Pro-Choice/Pro-Life...it's a debate that is endless and feelings/beliefs run deep...and those who argue cannot even agree on the baseline for the argument.

That being said, you can see why my frustration level has been high these past 6 years. I expected Clinton's first 6 years of spending (small increases) to return. I blamed Clinton his last two years for letting Congress spend like drunken sailors.

I mistakenly assume that with Republicans in control of all 3 branches that we MIGHT see some fiscal sanity. I was oh so very wrong. They were worse than what they accused liberals of wanting to do!!!

Balanced budget, lower spending, strengthened dollar, lower interest rates... Just like 1993-1998. Life was good then.

Ever since the budget of 99 (Clinton's second to last budget) we have been on a spending binge of epic proportions.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I think our leadership did a darn good job winning the war so quickly, it is keeping the peace that is really the job of the Iraqis. Also, we might not be in the situation we are in if the Iranians didn't provide arms and personnel to instigate the problem. It may be a no-win situation there, but it is not because of every decision coming out of D.C.

Here is where you are getting off track. I am NOT condemning the whole war, etc. I am condemning the way Washington has run it and removed it from the hands of the Generals who were asked to run it.

We won the war quickly...that was EASY. Saddam had no military to speak of.

HOWEVER, the biggest mistake which we are paying for today...and was dictated from Washington AGAINST MILITARY WISHES...the de-Baathification of the government.

Patton himself used old Nazi's to keep things running smoothly until democracy could be installed. Patton took a lot of heat for it, but he was right. If only we had remembered the lessons he taught us (I am a huge Patton fan, so I am very biased on this).

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Me too, as I quote him at..um times. I totally agree, we should not have disbanded the Iraqi army and kept some of the cretins in power. Not to mention, we should have taken Sadr down immediately, IMO. BUT, it is easy to armchair general. I'm sure the state dept had alot of say in what happened politically, so it is not entirely on the president's or rumsfeld's shoulder.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Me too, as I quote him at..um times. I totally agree, we should not have disbanded the Iraqi army and kept some of the cretins in power. Not to mention, we should have taken Sadr down immediately, IMO. BUT, it is easy to armchair general. I'm sure the state dept had alot of say in what happened politically, so it is not entirely on the president's or rumsfeld's shoulder.

The President DIRECTS the State Department...

Sadr...ugh...what a tough issue. Kill him, he's a martyr. Leave him, he's a pain. Jail him...almost to hard to make happen.

 

[lattedatte]

Sure there is limited budget...but let's talk about Budget for a moment shall we?

Remember that infamous $87 Billion supplemental war bill???

I would like to know why $55Million of it was allocated BY CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA) for an AMAZON RAIN FOREST BIO-DOME in Iowa.

That is only ONE of the many DOZENS of allocations that REPUBLICANS made using that bill. All were for use in the US for NON-military purposes. $10 Million for a fish hatchery in Tennessee. No problem...done.

All of this came from the SUPPLEMENTAL WAR BILL.

These were not Democrats messing with money allocated for the military...

This is what chaps me more than any other thing about the R's right now. They say they are for small gov's and fiscally responsible, which I think is super important, but the gov't is bigger now than ever, sure some of it is due to 911, but as I said in post 8 of this thread earmarks are out of control.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

How about driving up the Deficit and Debt to unheard of levels???

The decline of the dollar can be traced directly to the horrendous fiscal policies of the last 6 years. Now, rewind to the 80's...same deal.

That's your opinion & can be debated until the cows come home. Consider the promises that Reagan made when he campaigned for office. He promised to reduce the inflation rate, and it came down. He promised to cut taxes, and he did. He said the tax cuts would lead to an economic recovery, and they did. He said he would reduce unemployment, & it happened He said he would lower interest rates, and they declined. And his detractors would rather kill their firstborn than admit he hastened the end of the Cold War, but if he didn't, I guess he was a psychic...b/c he knew it was coming.

Immediately after his inaugural address, he signed an executive order eliminating the price controls on oil & gasoline that had been in place for a decade. The next day, Reagan abolished the Council on Wage & Price Stability. Although the price controls were promoted as a response to the energy crisis, they had in fact exacerbated it by distorting the market forces of supply & demand. Critics of Reagan's actions warned that gas prices would rise $2/gallon. Reagan predicted that oil & gas prices would fall dramatically, & he proved to be right. Not many people knew it at the time, but w/ 2 strokes of his pen, Reagan had ended the energy crisis.

The most pressing problem of the late '70s was stagflation. This posed a serious problem from the mainstream school of Keynesian econ., b/c stagnant growth & inflation occurring at the same time were not supposed to happen. According to the historic 1981 tax legislation, taxes would be reduced by 25% across the board, w/ a 5% reduction the 1st yr. & 10% for ea. of the 2 subsequent yrs. The top marginal rate would fall from 70% to 50%. This was the 1st tax cut. Then starting in 1985, taxes would be indexed to inflation, ending the phenomenon of bracket creep. The tax tables would be adjusted ea. year taking inflation into acct., so it would no longer push people into higher brackets & force them to pay higher rates w/o a corresponding increase in their purchasing power. There were also reductions in estate & business taxes, while individual retirement accts were expanded (you're welcome), allowing more people to make tax-deductible contributions toward retirement.

Here's where you Reagan critics love to cry foul: The deficit was around $50 billion when Reagan became president. Deficits during the Reagan yrs surged above $200 billion during the mid-80s. The U.S. was $1.5 trillion deeper in debt when Reagan left office than when he arrived. Reagan said in 1982, "I did not come here to balance the budget - not at the expense of my tax cutting program & my defense program" (which had dropped from 50% of the budget in 1960 to around 25% in the Carter erea). First the liberals cried about his budget cuts & then they cried about the budget deficits. Can't have it both ways. One mistake Reagan made was he made a deal w/ the devil, er Tip O'Neill. For every dollar Reagan would approve in tax increases, Congress would approve $3 in spending cuts. Reagan relented on the tax hike on the condition that only business & excise taxes be increased & the individual income tax cuts approved the prevous year be unchanged. Congress approved the tax increase & Reagan signed it. As Ed Meese said, "The country is still waiting for the spending reductions.".

Reagan's trust of the liberals ironically blew up in the Dems faces. They spent all the tax dollars allotted to them like a pack of hyenas, but they soon realized they faced a dilemma: they would be hard-pressed to generate new spending schemes, since they would have to specify how to fay for them, thru either new taxes or add'l deficit spending. This led to Gramm-Rudman which placed strict limits on deficit spending & sought to balance the budget by the end of the decade. As a result of economic growth & spending restraint, the deficit in the late '80s began to decline in both absolute terms & as a proportion of the economy. The deficit, which consumed 6.3% of the GDP in '83, shrank to around 3% during 1987-89, WHICH IS JUST WHERE IT WAS WHEN REAGAN 1ST TOOK OFFICE. During the 1990s, largely due to a continuation of the Reagan economic boom as well as huge defense savings from the end of the cold war, the deficit had fallen so dramatically that, as some economists predicted, it would soon balance itself. It did and your boy Clinton takes credit. Reagan prefers to give the credit to us taxpayers as he stated, "Oh no ,it wasn't me. The American people did it. They deserve the credit (for America's resurgence)."

As far as lumping GW Bush economic policies & outcomes as the same as Reagan's is irresponsible & not easily thrown in the same category by the mere fact that both were Republican Presidents. Remember GW Bush is G HW Bush's son, not Ronald Reagan's son.

Remember Reagan wasn't taking over the equivalent of the 1988 Fighting Irish squad, it was more like the 2003 Irish squad. People in every peiod of history must contend w/ the legacy of those who came before them. Did Reagan make mistakes along the way? You bet. Was America in a better condition than he found it when he left? Absolutely.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

But to cheat on your wife who has cancer is pretty low. If thats how he treats his own wife, what is he doing behind the backs of his constituents?

The same thing the rest of 'em do. F**kin us

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Nope...but I would not sell Stinger missiles to sworn enemies of the United States. I am funny that way.

what about selling nuclear secrets to the ChiComs?

 

[IRISHDODGER]

"Declare war" is a fuzzy thing. Bin Laden was NOT a nation, thus he cannot declare war. Firing bombs and missiles into other countries is NOT something anyone should take lightly.

Thus, Clinton fired over 60 Tomahawk missiles to kill just one man... So, he never took him lightly. And that is precisely why Clinton sent the CIA into Afghanistan and stationed subs in the Arabian Sea...

Invading Afghanistan was not a clear or viable option at the time. Clinton did his best to find him and kill him. It's true he did not get him, but then George Bush sent in THOUSANDS of troops and still failed to get him these past 4 years...it's much easier said than done.

How do you know Clinton did his BEST to find him & kill him. surely you're not taking his word on it? Does that mean other President's (REPs & DEMs) didn't do their best when failing to accomplish something that they feel is important for us?

 

[IRISHDODGER]

This is what chaps me more than any other thing about the R's right now. They say they are for small gov's and fiscally responsible, which I think is super important, but the gov't is bigger now than ever, sure some of it is due to 911, but as I said in post 8 of this thread earmarks are out of control.

You're 100% correct. Most of you assume a conservative is a Republican & a liberal is a Democrat. They're not all one in the same. I'm a conservative & am sickened by the powertrips the Reps. have been on since they controlled the White House & the Congress. Neither side can resist the power of pork! The Reps have their greedy actions to thank for losing control of Congress & when the Dems end up doing the same thing...they'll get the hook, too. It's like putting a crack addict in a crack factory.

 

[lattedatte]

You're 100% correct. Most of you assume a conservative is a Republican & a liberal is a Democrat. They're not all one in the same. I'm a conservative & am sickened by the powertrips the Reps. have been on since they controlled the White House & the Congress. Neither side can resist the power of pork! The Reps have their greedy actions to thank for losing control of Congress & when the Dems end up doing the same thing...they'll get the hook, too. It's like putting a crack addict in a crack factory.

Exacltly. Good analogy by the way.

I'm a conservative democrat with a strong lean to liberaterian but have some liberal principles. Take that all you people that make their mind up about an issue before they hear the issue!!!

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Sometimes, if it sounds like something, it is. But it is always a good idea not to pigeonhole ANYBODY into a particular category. I'm still trying to find everyday people who are extreme members of the "religious right".

 

[lattedatte]

Sometimes, if it sounds like something, it is. But it is always a good idea not to pigeonhole ANYBODY into a particular category. I'm still trying to find everyday people who are extreme members of the "religious right".

check the "Megan's law" database.. Ouch, cheap shot.

I live in PA and I know only about three people that are the religious right so we are likely in the same boat.

My in-laws live in Southern WV and about half of them are relious right.

some of my cousing live in Atlanta and 80 people they know are.

I think geography is the reason we don't know many.

 

[Akron Irish]

Bush In 2008

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

check the "Megan's law" database.. Ouch, cheap shot.

I live in PA and I know only about three people that are the religious right so we are likely in the same boat.

My in-laws live in Southern WV and about half of them are relious right.

some of my cousing live in Atlanta and 80 people they know are.

I think geography is the reason we don't know many.

You bastard! So far we were being fairly cordial. LOL You could be right. I'm sure the Bible Belt has more of its share of religious types. I would not put much weight with them, when was the last time W did anything resembling conservative anyway? Again, it seems to me convenient for those in the media to apply a negative label to those they disagree with.
BTW- I'm with the simplify the tax code lobby, via a flat tax on everybody!! (this would also mean if you don't pay taxes, you DONT get a "refund") We're not very influential, but it's easy to understand our agenda.

 

[lattedatte]

You bastard! So far we were being fairly cordial. LOL You could be right. I'm sure the Bible Belt has more of its share of religious types. I would not put much weight with them, when was the last time W did anything resembling conservative anyway? Again, it seems to me convenient for those in the media to apply a negative label to those they disagree with.
BTW- I'm with the simplify the tax code lobby, via a flat tax on everybody!! (this would also mean if you don't pay taxes, you DONT get a "refund") We're not very influential, but it's easy to understand our agenda.

LOL... It was a chep shot, I probably should have said just watch "Dateline: How to Catch a Sexual Predator"(title??). Hey I'm catholic, so I'm definitely living in a glass house. I think the religious right is most influencial in the right's agenda, so we differ there, stem cell, abortion, Howard Stern, etc.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Clinton passed the biggest welfare reform bill, well, basically ever. No hard left person would ever have touched that, he only got this passed when Newt and his boys took over. And regardless if was his heart or his head(through looking at polls) that got it passed who cares? He got it passed. Stubborness should not be held as badge of honor in the oval office. You must change your position as circumstances change.

And this statement is exactly what is wrong with America:

"I'd respect him more if he'd pick a side, right or left, instead of being ruled by polls."

What's wrong w/ having principles & sticking to them. Reagan pissed all his opponents off by sticking by his mandates through thick & thin: lower taxes, incr. military, rabid anti commie. Remember how bad he pisssed off the air traffic controllers when they went on strike. It was a PR disaster to fire them like he did, but he did it & it stopped them dead in their tracks. I respect men/women w/ the balls to fight for what they believe (on philosophical levels) whether I agree w/ it or not is another story. Americans mistakenly hang their hats on the U.S. being a democracy whereas, in actuality it's a representative republic. In other words, just b/c a poll says the people feel one way, it doesn't mean the leaders have to change their beliefs systems to react in accordance w/ the polls. Reagan's poll numbers were in the mid-30s early in his term but he urged Americans to "stay the course". The recession turned around & America enjoyed the prosperity they were promised.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

LOL... It was a chep shot, I probably should have said just watch "Dateline: How to Catch a Sexual Predator"(title??). Hey I'm catholic, so I'm definitely living in a glass house. I think the religious right is most influencial in the right's agenda, so we differ there, stem cell, abortion, Howard Stern, etc.

I like Howard Stern. My buddy and I are both conservatives, but we aren't religious zealots, we just like lower taxes, more traditional values, and good porn. No hypocrisy here.

 

[TexasDomer]

we just like lower taxes, more traditional values, and good porn. No hypocrisy here.

Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I knew you'd like that! Like I said in earlier posts, it is impossible to lump everyone into a neat, little box. Just as southern dems (isn't it bluedogs??) are different than the moveon.org crowd. Not all republicans stand from the rafters screaming "repent!", most of us are just more traditional. IT REALLY IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

(Just because we don't mind 2 chicks making out, doesn't mean we are hypocrites if we don't approve of gay marriage. They are not mutually connected, plus, it's just a dumb thing to nitpick anyway. It's not cool to attack other people for their beliefs. Just because something is put up as a standard, doesn't mean that people don't err, or are human.
Less vitriole and more tolerance is needed from everyone, getting personal about someone else's belief system is not helpful. (It's ok to have morals, it's even better to apply them!)