Ron Paul should be asked this question If someone attacked or declared war on the USA

Interesting that when you are searching for some sort of authority on an issue you would use the Washington Post as a source(link)...a newspaper you regularly attack as one sided. In that regard it reminds me of good old Newt: One day he is emphatically for Obama's approach with regard to attacking Libya....16 days later he is emphatically against it.

Could the guy have a multiple personality disorder??

But since you used the Post for a source on the Newt...was reprimanded by Congress story...lets go to the history...and pull up another article from the Post describing how the [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm] House Reprimanded and Penalized Good Old Newt[/url]

from the article:

Ah Newt....admitted he broke the rules...and embarrassed...in fact acted in a way that would question the judgement of all Republicans.

That is quite damming.

Maybe you didn't want anyone else to read that, huh, O_Nation???

If you could spell it right, I could consider voting that way...and have of course voted for Republicans in the past. But Newt....can't trust him.

Seriously, you should stop putting words in my mouth or mischaracterize what I said: Its the Republicans who read how the public reacted via this quoted line:

yeah...that is interesting in terms of guys who like Newt. Two birds of a feather. I bet we can find a line somewhere where John Edwards also praises Newt. Nice source for trust.

Putting words in my mouth again??? This seems to be a repetitive habit of yours. I never said I wrote that off.

O_Nation: The endless stuff that comes out of the mouths of GOP fan boys is startling. All that stuff you just wrote about in worshipful terms...occurred while a Democrat was in the White House. If it was up to you and the rest of the GOP fan boys...you would have us believing the GOP arranged for G-d to create the world in 6 days.....and all despite the fact that there were some democrats around screwing everything up.

Put some balance into your comments and accusations. Come on.

No. Are you?

 

Wonderful topic switch! I always provide liberal rag reporting to liberals. Apparently they don't believe news coming from Fox. Glad to see your confirmation that the information I provided was credible[to you]. I'll take that as you conceding the point that Gingrich's ethics charges were dropped (as the article says).

I suppose. When I compare it with the recent Charlie Rangle debacle, I notice three striking differences

1) Newt admitted he made a mistake

2) Newt's mistake wasn't for personal gain

3) Newt stepped down from office


I suppose one could use that as a case study in the differences between Republicans and Democrats

Read this post and start considering.... dammit!

How cleverly you equated unpopularity of an action to unpopularity of a person, with this quote:
Even though the public didn't know what was going on with the duplicitous Newt...they just didn't like him

Had you been honest, you would have said the Clinton impeachment over sexual impropriaty was unpopular, and Newt bore the brunt of that. Instead, you tried to cast Newt as someone who is quite simply unpopular, like Ed Shultz.

And yet, most people would love to have him back. Next you'll be trying to sell me how unpopular Clinton is over distrust.

You are starting to concern me Earl. Notice the quote you are responding to specifically points out the Democrat in the white House:

I made mention of it because that is how leadership in a democratic society works. It involves concensus building with those who disagree with you ideologically. Since we are on the subject, we should take the time to point out this is an area where Boner and Obama have utterly failed. Hopefully both will be replaced with new Republicans in 2012, though I personally put more of the blame on Obongo for intransigence and politicizing everything. It was a rare day to see Clinton get up on the bully pulpit and wage a war of words on congress.

Now THAT is the funniest thing I've read in a long while. Nearly as funny as this:
[video]http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:405874[/video]

 

Dr Paul would defend the nation from any threats, but would not go to war with a country that poses no threat.

The amount of money America is spending on useless wars will only bankrupt it as it did to the Soviet Union.

Vote Ron Paul 2012

 

@O_nation:

I did find a single point of agreement: spelling of the name of the current Speaker of the House: Boner

 

Now there is a surprise.

Oh, thought you were talking about the spelling of Republican.

Boner. The way they all go on, you'd think it was spelled Bainer. Not sure how you get Bainer from Boehner. I simply spelled it the way it ought to be properly pronounced.

 

That's most likely why he withdrew...And he was right. It's time to keep the money inside the country and not for other to enjoy...

 

You mean quit bombing? He quit bombing when the regime was defeated. I'm not sure I'd call that a withdrawal.

He was right to stop bombing, or right to have bombed in the first place without congressional permission.

Now here I agree with you. Here is a brief description of the people enjoying the benefits of the money we spend on our military.

Not sure why the mainstream media hasn't picked up these atrocities committed by the saintly troops of Obama's personal war. I'm sure that, if the NTC actually did investigations, it would be enough to call for another regime change.

Anyway, since you seem so concerned about Gingrich, I'm wondering how you feel about Obama?

 

What you are saying is Obama persuade the same regime change policies that Bush had to benefit the American oil companies profit, what a surprise, NOT. Did anyone expected that the policies of government will change because you changed the letter (R) to (D) in front of President name? Americans are even more naive than expected.

 

Actually, I was pointing out the yeoman like conduct with which the American military conducts itself. Over 10 years, you have a few corpses urinated on, and an investigation and punishment that follow. In 6 months, Obama's "Freedom fighters" manage to form death squads.

 

Bush freedom fighters (convicted embezzler) in Iraq that were imported in to the country by American helicopters were not much better and neither the ones in Afghanistan. Just to have the records straight.

 

I'm perfectly fine being out of popular opinion. I believe what I believe and stand for what I stand for. . . . But I'm wondering who's popular opinion to which you are speaking; public opinion, dig.point opinion, or you and others that agree with you? I'm just curious, it's an honest question, not attacking.

 

And just when I thought that you and I would disagree with everything, you come out with something brilliant. Points for you. I agree.

 

This poll is a year old, but I doubt Clinton performs worse today.

 

It's a good thing that we have different candidates going forward then. I can see why they think that though. It's because he was elected for 8 years where there was actually a surplus and people attribute that to him in addition to finding that more important to the country than what he did in private. Also, Bush Sr. and Jr. are linked to war and Jr. is linked to the sad state of our economy.

 

See, that is interesting. The four years of balanced budget under Clinton couldn't have been completed in a bi-partisan manner without support from the speaker of the republican controlled house, namely, Newt Gingrich. The 100$ question is, how many of us care more about that fact than about what he did in private. More importantly, what good does it do to have people try and focus us on the later.

 

Its so interesting how you love to give Newt credit, while he is probably the most hated politician in Washington from those that actually know him and have worked with him. Its a unique distinction.

Meanwhile, when it comes to a budget surplus...again I'm so happy to see you give Newtie so much credit. A budget surplus is like a profit and loss statement for a business. Its made up of two parts: income and expenses.

In the case of the US government that basically means tax revenues make up the income side and government expenses make up the expense side. Its really incredibly simple.

If one side goes up a lot it changes everything.

There were a couple of reasons for the budget surplus in the latter 1990's in strictly business terms and not related to the politics of the situation wherein you'd make Newt out to be a golden boy...while he was carrying on an affair, trying to get Clinton impeached, and running around the country preaching family values:

Income was going up up up. The economy of the 1990's soared. Government tax revenues increased dramatically because of it. Also Bush the elder increased taxes somewhat and so did Clinton early on. Between the soaring economy and tax increases government revenues soared.

On the expense side government cut expenses in several areas. It cut on social welfare and it cut on military spending (or reduced the level of military expenses.

So what occurred was that we had government surpluses. Ahhhh...we do like to go on and on how wonderful they were and how we'd like them again....don't we.

Then in the decade of the 2000's...the Republicans reduced tax rates...the economy actually didn't soar...but coasted and government expenses rose like crazy. In fact all that occurred during the first 6 years of the Bush II period with a majority GOP congress. It pushed everything into reverse. Once again we had government deficits and they were growing rapidly. And frankly the economy grew but didn't soar in the 2000's like it did in the 1990's. So the government revenue side didn't grow (despite what GOP tax cutting philosophers keep yammering about...cutting taxes didn't send the economy into overdrive!!!).

Then the recession which was caused by a real estate/financial bubble from about 2002/2003-2006 exploded and ruined the economy.

That of course killed the tax revenue side and really moved the deficit into overdrive. Now its really bad. A simplistic way to reverse it would be to go back to the 1990's....push taxes up and cut government expenses. It worked before. O_Nation wants to give good old trustworthy Newt full credit for it...even though the period of the late 1990's was the recipient of the good economic fortunes that had occurred in the earlier part of the 1990's. In fact some of it occurred....and here's the irony...when we get to good old trustworthy Newt...the most hated politician, by all those that know him; some of it occurred b/c of tax increases by the elder George Bush the first....

When Old George made that deal on tax increases he thought he had full agreement from all members of the GOP House leadership on that very tough political deal. But Newt, who was already in the House Leadership, walked out on the Republicans when they were going before the Press to announce the agreement.

Newt submarined the President, and everyone he was working with to go maverick on them and denounce the tax increase deal.

O_Nation: Its quite ironic you give Newt credit for a balanced budget. His fundamental earliest actions were to screw one of its foundation pieces...and in doing that he also established a pattern as to why more people who have worked with him hate him and distrust Newt more than other politician in DC. To promote his own agenda he'll screw anyone in the back.

I'm glad you like Newt so much, O_Nation. have a nice weekend.

 

Apparently S. Carolina like's Newt too!

 

I'm sure KY and TN will like Newt as well...

 

I'm pretty certain in a Newt vs Obama debate, we would see Californians liking Newt too. Seriously, if Newt by chance gets the nomination, I'm guessing you will see Obama provide every excuse known to man as to why he won't debate him.

 

Not sure. Californians are smarter. For me Newt is too soft. I like the real America, the one with a true freedom of speech, with liberty and justice for all...Maybe one day we'll get that...