the best thing about Newt is that he is unelectable
On Jun 5, 9:52 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the transgressions of Dr.
> Paul
> ---
> can't compare to the lies and deceit of Newt "The Hatchetman"
> Gingrich, who was having an affair while poking his finger at Clinton.
>
> yes ... he's a liar
>
> On Jun 5, 9:22 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Michael cites Moonbats, who, in typical Moonbat fashion, distorts the
> > truth.
>
> > Plain Ol cites a few Romney supporters who literally lied, and somehow this
> > makes Gingrich a liar.....
>
> > I've become bored with this. You both forget the transgressions of Dr.
> > Paul, continuously voting against earmarks that he even submitted for his
> > own district after he was assured that the measure would pass.
>
> > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:00 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > You mean those REPUBLICANS in the House and their spending? :) *Debt
> > > Up $1.59T Under GOP House -- More in 15 Months Than First 97 Congresses
> > > Combined* By Terence P. Jeffrey June 1, 2012
> > >http://cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-159t-under-gop-house-more-15-mon...
> > > guess (without looking) is that spending is an 'upward' curve from the
> > > outset (1789). There may be a blip or two 'downward', but the trend must be
> > > 'upward'.
> > > *Do you have the Mr. Bill versus W numbers?
> > > *Republicans (establishment certainly, but their apparatchiks by default)
> > > demonstrate that they, too, want to spend with impunity ... ONLY the
> > > recipients are slightly different.
>
> > > This is WHY Paul, for instance, has been impugned, cheated, distorted,
> > > smeared, etc. (read the Ron Paul's GOP Battle Reveals Some Truths piece).
>
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
>
> > > The record of the 105th Congress, Republican controlled in both houses, is
> > > an abomination. Spending is up. No major program or agency has been
> > > significantly cut, much less eliminated. The tax code is more complex than
> > > ever, loaded down with new conservative social engineering initiatives. The
> > > balanced-budget agreement is an excuse not to cut taxes and, with the
> > > 'surplus' an excuse to increase spending. The GOP has seemed intent on
> > > federalizing every crime on the books, indifferent to the Constitution's
> > > clear direction that crime is a state and local responsibility….The federal
> > > government is a machine designed to increase its control over the lives of
> > > average Americans. It is constantly probing here, pushing there, and
> > > generally increasing its control. Without a philosophically sound,
> > > constitutionally based political party opposing that process, it is going
> > > to continue to do so with impunity. The philosophical leadership vacuum at
> > > the top of the GOP should be a source of major concern to all
> > > freedom-loving Americans. -- Edward H. Crane
>
> > > At 09:41 AM 6/5/2012, you wrote:
>
> > > And let's compare the alternative:
>
> > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:18 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > At 11:25 PM 6/4/2012, you wrote:
>
> > > As MJ says, the fallacy never ceases with you. Again, we've been here,
> > > gone over this, and you can't name one, purported lie.
>
> > > "The Republican revolution is a failure, a dismal failure. Despite the
> > > Republican rhetoric about the virtues of conservatism, the benefits of the
> > > free market, and the need for less government intervention in the economy
> > > and society, the Republican majority in both houses of Congress did nothing
> > > but further increase the size and scope of government."
>
> > > What Republican Revolution? By Laurence M. Vance November 11, 2006
> > > Since the Democrats took control of the Congress in the recent midterm
> > > elections, we have heard and seen numerous references to the Republican
> > > victory in the 1994 midterm elections as the Republican revolution of 1994.
> > > What Republican revolution?
> > > We can see the results in history of revolutions like the American
> > > Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution, but what
> > > evidence is there of a Republican revolution?
> > > When the 104th Congress began in January of 1995, it was the first time
> > > since the 83rd Congress of 1953-1955 that the Republicans had control of
> > > both the House and Senate. They had never controlled the House during the
> > > forty-year period of Democratic rule, and only briefly controlled the
> > > Senate, during the 97th through 99th Congresses of 1981-1987. After forty
> > > years of being out of power, a revolution was certainly in order. True, the
> > > Republicans did not yet also control the White House as they did during the
> > > 83rd Congress when Dwight Eisenhower was president, but it is Congress that
> > > writes the laws, not the president. And unlike the Congress under
> > > Eisenhower, which reverted to Democratic rule in the next election, the
> > > Republican control of the Congress under Bill Clinton continued unabated
> > > through the end of his second term.
> > > When what looked like a Republican revolution seemed to stagnate under
> > > Clinton, excuses began to be made for the fact that the Republicans were
> > > acting like anything but the conservatives who voted them into office.
> > > Republican control of the White House, we were told, and a larger
> > > Republican majority in Congress, were needed to complete the revolution.
> > > After all, Clinton could veto any bills passed by a Republican Congress,
> > > and the Republicans did not have a veto-proof majority. It turns out that
> > > in eight years Clinton only vetoed seventeen bills, making Republican fears
> > > unfounded.
> > > And then came George W. Bush.
> > > Republicans were ecstatic. A Republican president was once again elected.
> > > This time, however, things were different. When George Bush was inaugurated
> > > in 2001, he had a Republican-controlled Congress. This is something a
> > > Republican president had not had for forty-five years. The millennium was
> > > now here. The Republican revolution was now ready to be completed.
> > > Enter Jim Jeffords.
> > > The Republican controlled 107th Congress (2001-2003) had a weak link: the
> > > Senate. Jeffords was a Republican senator from Vermont. Early in Bush's
> > > first term, Senator Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent,
> > > changing the 50/50 balance of power in the Senate. Although the House
> > > remained in Republican hands, those hands were tied, so we were told,
> > > because the Republicans no longer controlled the Senate. The Republicans
> > > always seem to have an excuse. Big government, intrusive government it is
> > > always the fault of those evil Democrats.
> > > But then, finally, no more excuses. The midterm elections of 2002 gave us
> > > a new Congress (the 108th, 2003-2005) that was once again solidly
> > > Republican. This gave the Republicans an absolute majority for the last two
> > > years of Bush's first term. This scenario was confirmed by Bush's
> > > reelection and the further increase of the Republican majority in the 109th
> > > Congress. Republicans could no longer blame everything on the Democrats
> > > like they did for so long before they gained their absolute majority.
> > > So, now that the Republicans have controlled the House since 1995, now
> > > that the Republicans have controlled the Senate for the same period except
> > > for about a year and a half, now that a Republican president has been
> > > elected and reelected, and now that we have had several years of an
> > > absolute Republican majority, a simple question needs to be asked: What
> > > Republican revolution?
>
> > > Jacob Hornberger<http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger108.html>,
> > > the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation <http://www.fff.org/>,
> > > recently asked some pertinent questions about the Republicans: How many
> > > departments were abolished when Republicans controlled the presidency and
> > > both houses of Congress? How many agencies? How many spending bills were
> > > vetoed? How many pork-barrel projects were jettisoned? How much was
> > > federal spending reduced? The answer to every question is, of course, a
> > > big fat zero. No egregious legislation was repealed, and the
> > > welfare/warfare state is bigger and more intrusive than ever. Some
> > > revolution.
> > > Although many Republicans who claim to believe in a limited government can
> > > talk a good conservatism, especially when it comes time for an election,
> > > one statistic is all it takes to see that there has been no limit to the
> > > growth of government under the Republican Party.
> > > On the eve of the new Republican-controlled Congress in 1995, the national
> > > debt was just under $5 trillion. At the time of Bush's first inauguration
> > > in 2001, the national debt stood at $5,727,776,738,304.64. At the time of
> > > his second inauguration in 2005, the national debt stood at
> > > $7,613,772,338,689.34. On the day of the recent midterm elections, the
> > > national debt was up to $8,592,561,542,263.30.
> > > The Republican revolution is a failure, a dismal failure. Despite the
> > > Republican rhetoric about the virtues of conservatism, the benefits of the
> > > free market, and the need for less government intervention in the economy
> > > and society, the Republican majority in both houses of Congress did nothing
> > > but further increase the size and scope of government.
> > > This, of course, comes as no surprise, since the history of the Republican
> > > Party is not one of real conservatism at all; it is the history of
> > > interventionism, big government, the welfare state, the warfare state,
> > > plunder, compromises, and sellouts, as Clyde Wilson<http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson20.html>and Thomas
> > > DiLorenzo <http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo84.html> have
> > > showed us in great detail.
> > > Those who voted for a third party candidate for Congress in the recent
> > > election are not the ones who wasted their vote. Republicans who voted for
> > > Republican
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment