• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ann's view of newt

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Fellow right-wingers: Is our objective to taunt Obama by accusing him of "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior," of being "authentically dishonest" and a "wonderful con" – and then lose the election – or is it to defeat Obama, repeal Obamacare, secure the borders, enforce e-Verify, reform entitlement programs, reduce the size of government and save the country?

If all you want is to lob rhetorical bombs at Obama and then lose, Newt Gingrich – like recent favorite Donald Trump – is your candidate. But if you want to save the country, Newt's not your guy.
Gingrich makes plenty of bombastic statements, but these never seem to translate into actual policy changes.

After becoming the first Republican speaker of the House in nearly half a century, for example, Newt promptly proposed orphanages and janitorial jobs for children on welfare.


It was true that welfare had destroyed generations of families shorn of the work ethic and led to soaring illegitimacy rates, child abuse and neglect. Maybe orphanages and child labor would have been better.

But we didn't get any orphanages. We didn't get jobs for children in families where no one works.

What we got was the cartoonish image of Republicans as hard-hearted brutes who hated poor kids.

Ronald Reagan was also accused of waging a war on the poor. But that was on account of his implementing historic tax cuts that produced not only record revenues for the government, but decades of prosperity for the entire nation.

With Newt, you get all the heat, blowback and acrimony, but you don't get the policy changes.
To the contrary, his pointless bloviating about orphanages and child janitors harmed the chances for welfare reform, despite the fact that the American people, the Republican Congress and the Democratic president (publicly, at least) supported it.

Indeed, when it came time to make vital changes to welfare policy, such as work requirements and anti-illegitimacy provisions, Gingrich tried to scuttle them. He denounced such provisions – the very heart of welfare reform – as, yes, "social engineering of the right" (Republican Governors Conference, Williamsburg, Va., Nov. 22, 1994).

The guy who wanted orphanages for children on welfare suddenly called work requirements for adults on welfare right-wing "social engineering."

Gingrich went on to lose almost every negotiation with Bill Clinton – and that was with solid Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. His repeated capitulation to Clinton led former Vice President Dan Quayle to remark that the Republican "Contract With America" had become the "Contract With Clinton" (Not to be confused with Newt's book, "Contract With the Earth").

Perfectly good policies are constantly being undermined by Newt's crazy statements – such as his explanation that women couldn't be in combat because they get infections, whereas men "are basically little piglets," who are "biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."

Hunt giraffes?

With Gingrich we get the worse of all worlds. He talks abrasively – offending moderates and galvanizing liberals – but then carries a teeny, tiny stick.

We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes. Even when Gingrich doesn't completely back off conservative positions, his nutty rhetoric undermines the ability of Republicans to get anything done.

By the time of the 1996 Republican National Convention, Gingrich was so widely reviled that the Democrats' main campaign strategy against all Republican candidates for office was to link them with Gingrich.

Gingrich was forced into a minor speaking role at the convention, which he used to promote ... beach volleyball.

That's right, Republicans were trying to defeat Clinton and Newt was talking about beach volleyball, which is apparently the essence of freedom – as well as evidence of Newt's cuddly side!

(During the House ethics investigation of Gingrich, he produced notes in which he reminds himself to "allow expression of warm/smiling/softer side.")

After Gingrich had been speaker for a brief two years, the Republican House voted 395-28 to reprimand him and fine him $300,000 for ethics violations.

(Sen. Bob Dole loaned Gingrich the money in what was called the first instance of an airbag being saved by a person.)

It's true that Newt has had some good ideas – but also boatloads of bad ones, such as his support for experimentation on human embryos, cap-and-trade, policies to combat imaginary manmade global warming, an individual health insurance mandate, Dede Scozzafava (Romney supported the tea-party candidate), amnesty for illegal aliens, Al Gore's bill to establish an "Office of Critical Trends Analysis" to prepare government reports on "alternative futures" (co-sponsored by Gingrich), and thinking he could get away with taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac without anyone noticing.

During the ethics investigation, the committee also found among Newt's personal papers a sketch of himself as a stick figure at the center of the universe.

On one page, Newt called himself: "definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces."

This is not a small-government conservative talking. It is not a conservative at all.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
How would I deal with the threat or the so-called threat of the Iranians, that they are going to disrupt the oil supply?

Well I’d be provoking them a lot less because they’re reacting to the provoking of the West saying “we’re gonna put on sanctions”. We have them surrounded with nuclear weapons and we’re claiming that they’re gonna build a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence for this.

So we’re just looking for trouble. We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.

And it’s the march on. You know it’s Libya and it’s in Egypt and now we’re involved in Syria, now we’re sending troops into Africa. And also, of course we’re still in Iraq, we’re into Pakistan and we’ve been in Afghanistan for a long time.

And people want to go to war against Iran. And I think they’re reacting to the provocations of so many other people saying that “we’re liable to bomb you because you are building a nuclear weapon.” But our CIA doesn’t confirm that nor does the UN confirm that.

So they’re acting actually in a rational manner because they’re saying “they’re gonna attack us and start bombing us”. They have to say “well, we don’t have any nuclear weapons, we can’t really defend ourselves. So we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf”, hoping that we might back off.

I just think we’re treating the whole thing wrong.



WASHINGTON – A United Nations report confirming Iran's nuclear ambitions is the latest sign that Iran is attempting to expand its influence throughout the Middle East, analysts and military officials say.

Iran’s Minister of Intelligence and National Security, Heydar Moslehi, has confirmed reports about the arrest of 12 CIA agents in the Islamic Republic. He told the FARS news agency earlier today that the people in question were engaged in spying in the various fields.
Moslehi feels that efforts to step up espionage against Iran are prompted by the processes that are under way in the region.

The forces of oppression are using all means available to stop the growing regional revolutionary movements, inspired by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian special service chief feels.

A member of Iran’s parliamentary Committee on Foreign Policy and National Security, Parvis Sarouri, said last Thursday that the spy network had been created to damage the country’s military and nuclear potential.

Lonecowboy Ron Paul claims the UN and the CIA have not confirmed the Iranians nuclear program. BUT The UN has confirmed it and 12 CIA were arrested in Iran because that government felt they were in the country to damage their military and NUCLEAR POTENTIAL. Can you trust Ron Pauls NIEVE FOREIGN VIEWS will not result in the Iranians wiping out Israel and then moving on to other US allies?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Iran has been a treat to the world and the US for decades.. between it's taking hostages of US citizens, oil embargoes, outright threats, to supporting terrorist operations in the US they have shown they will go to extreme lengths to further their hatred..

to ignore them is dangerous..
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
TEHRAN | Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:11pm IST

TEHRAN (Reuters) - The creation of a universally-recognised Palestinian state would be just a first step towards wiping out Israel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday.

He spoke weeks ahead of a U.N. General Assembly in New York where the Arab League plans to seek full U.N. membership for a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Aug. 16 that he would deliver the application to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at some point during a gathering of world leaders for the General Assembly starting the week of Sept. 19.

Ahmadinejad, restating a position expressed soon after taking office in 2005 that Israel was a "tumour" to be wiped off the map, urged Palestinians not to settle for a two-state solution that is backed by Abbas but to strive for a complete return of what they consider their land.

"Recognising the Palestinian state is not the last goal. It is only one step forward towards liberating the whole of Palestine," Ahmadinejad told worshippers at Friday prayers on international Qods Day -- an annual show of support for the Palestinian cause.

"The Zionist regime is a centre of microbes, a cancer cell and if it exists in one iota of Palestine it will mobilise again and hurt everyone."

Any move for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations is likely to be vetoed by the United States, but even if it were to pass and Israelis and Palestinians found a way to co-exist, that would still be entirely insufficient, Ahmadinejad said.

"It is not enough for them to have a weak, powerless state in a very small piece of Palestine. They should unite to establish a state but the ultimate goal is the liberation of the whole of Palestine," he said.

"I urge the Palestinians never to forget this ideal. Forgetting this ideal is equal to committing suicide. It would be giving an opportunity to an enemy which is on the verge of collapse and disappearance."

Abbas has said he wants the world to recognize a Palestinian state at the General Assembly and support its admission to the United Nations, while sticking to his goal of two-state co-existence with Israel.

Palestinians want their state to encompass the Israeli-occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, from which Israel withdrew settlers in 2005, with East Jerusalem as their capital. Israel captured all three areas in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Ahmadinejad's frequent anti-Israeli rhetoric has fuelled calls by the Jewish state for global efforts to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons which it fears could be used to wipe out Israel.

The United Nations has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Iran and Israel and Washington both say they do not rule out military action to stop Iran getting the atomic bomb.

Tehran says its atomic programme is for purely peaceful purposes such as power generation and accuses Israel of hypocrisy on the issue as it is widely believed to have the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East.

(Additional reporting by Ramin Mostafavi; Writing by Robin Pomeroy; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

This is the guy Ron Paul believes is acting rationally Lonecowboy. Is Ron Paul going to change his stand on Iran before or after Ahmadinejad wipes Israel off the map with the nukes the UN has confirmed he is working on. Or will he nievely stick to his guns and write it off as "well if we hadn't provoke them they wouldn't have killed those millions of innocent people". :roll:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Tam- I'm not sure why a post about Ann Coulter's view of Newt Gingrich turned into a Ron Paul bash?? Why is that?

If they won't follow our Constitution I will not vote for them-

at least Ron Paul will have Congress declare war as our Constitution demands before invading another country.

and I'm not sure how after all those years in DC you can call Ron Paul "NIEVE"---
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Lonecowboy said:
Tam- I'm not sure why a post about Ann Coulter's view of Newt Gingrich turned into a Ron Paul bash?? Why is that?

If they won't follow our Constitution I will not vote for them-

at least Ron Paul will have Congress declare war as our Constitution demands before invading another country.

and I'm not sure how after all those years in DC you can call Ron Paul "NIEVE"---

more then likely it was because the last thread on Ron Paul turned into a bash on Newt..

Ron Paul has consistently voted no and other then that he has not accomplished anything in all the years in DC, .. and while I agree with him on many issues he lacks traits essential as a president..

but since you brought congress into it.. knowing Ron Pauls consistent no votes against congress.. and his words.. and his presidential duty as Commander in Chief,

if for some reason Congress decided to declare war against Iran.. do you think Ron Paul as president and CNC would actually implement a war strategy let alone deploy forces against Iran.. or just vote NO again?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Steve said:
Lonecowboy said:
Tam- I'm not sure why a post about Ann Coulter's view of Newt Gingrich turned into a Ron Paul bash?? Why is that?

If they won't follow our Constitution I will not vote for them-

at least Ron Paul will have Congress declare war as our Constitution demands before invading another country.

and I'm not sure how after all those years in DC you can call Ron Paul "NIEVE"---

more then likely it was because the last thread on Ron Paul turned into a bash on Newt..

Ron Paul has consistently voted no and other then that he has not accomplished anything in all the years in DC, .. and while I agree with him on many issues he lacks traits essential as a president..

but since you brought congress into it.. knowing Ron Pauls consistent no votes against congress.. and his words.. and his presidential duty as Commander in Chief,

if for some reason Congress decided to declare war against Iran.. do you think Ron Paul as president and CNC would actually implement a war strategy let alone deploy forces against Iran.. or just vote NO again?

I fear Ron Paul would veto anything the Congress did when it comes to US foreign policy against Iran. In his mind Iran is not a threat and never has been. He has made no bones about the fact he thinks the rest of the world is provoking them so much so it would be very hard for him to swallow his pride and admit he is wrong and declare war on them. :roll:

And the reason I brought up Ron Paul, Newt might not be your's or Ann's pick Lonecowboy, but at least Newt is not ignoring the threat that is just looking for a chance to destroy the US and all it's allies.

Until Ron Paul opens his eyes and admits Iran is a threat that needs no reason to attack other than shear hatred towards the West, the Republicans can't afford to take a chance on him. George Bush took hell from the left but at least he did so PROTECTING US from the enemy. To go from him to a candidate that will nievely ignor a KNOWN THREAT that is scarey.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
She won’t even give the man credit for what he has achieved! Taking back the House from 44 years of Democrat monopoly was never thought possible and in doing so he had to defeat the Republican establishment! You can’t even give him that?

No they can’t, because they have a hate-on. They have a hate-on. …

Do you know why I resent this? Because now we have a bunch of bullies running around. And Giuliani was 100% right. They’re trying to turn this guy into a crazy man.

And I resent it and I resist it! He’s not even my guy and I resent it and I resist it!


Mark Levin

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-calls-out-ann-coulter-for-unfairly-trashing-newt-gingrich/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Ann Coulter was totally for Chris Christie to run and get her endorsement..

and while Christie is still getting headlines.. he is not a staunch conservative.. center right.. I would put him in about the same political category as Romney..

so now she is attacking Newt.. so what.. she will attack others and then like most of US hold our nose and support the nominee.

Newt is far from perfect.. and not my first choice.. none of them have even come close to my first choice.. I know who I will not vote for ,.. but as for who I will I am still undecided..

but every one of them is better then Obama
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Soapweed said:
It is disappointing that Mike Huckabee isn't in the running. He was my first choice.


I don't know much about him, but in my opinion the Republican running mate in 2012 will be very important......a Paul Ryan would be ideal
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Lonecowboy said:
Tam- I'm not sure why a post about Ann Coulter's view of Newt Gingrich turned into a Ron Paul bash?? Why is that?

If they won't follow our Constitution I will not vote for them-

at least Ron Paul will have Congress declare war as our Constitution demands before invading another country.

and I'm not sure how after all those years in DC you can call Ron Paul "NIEVE"---

BTW Lonecowboy you were the one that highlighted Ann's statement about

We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes

Since Ann endorsed Ron Paul maybe it is good to know just how unthreatening she likes her candidates. Personally I don't see how Ron Paul has the support he has since Republicans have long been known for their support of the Military and feel the Federal Government's main job is to protect it's citizens and he is looking to cut military spending after it has already been cut by $400 billion by the Dems.

He also supports and defends earmarks something else the Republicans are trying to stop.

That said I would like to know just what you think his successes have been during his time in DC?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tam said:
Lonecowboy said:
Tam- I'm not sure why a post about Ann Coulter's view of Newt Gingrich turned into a Ron Paul bash?? Why is that?

If they won't follow our Constitution I will not vote for them-

at least Ron Paul will have Congress declare war as our Constitution demands before invading another country.

and I'm not sure how after all those years in DC you can call Ron Paul "NIEVE"---

BTW Lonecowboy you were the one that highlighted Ann's statement about

We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes

Since Ann endorsed Ron Paul maybe it is good to know just how unthreatening she likes her candidates. Personally I don't see how Ron Paul has the support he has since Republicans have long been known for their support of the Military and feel the Federal Government's main job is to protect it's citizens and he is looking to cut military spending after it has already been cut by $400 billion by the Dems.

He also supports and defends earmarks something else the Republicans are trying to stop.

That said I would like to know just what you think his successes have been during his time in DC?




wow, I missed this:

"We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes"

NO, what you want at this point is someone that will call it like it is.....it's time for being blunt and to the point. time the scare the heck out of people by telling them the truth, instead of lying and pussy footing around the issues like the present President is doing.

Tough sledding ahead for the US in the next decade, if they are to correct, and the worst thing that can be done is to create an artificial sense of security......(this thing of saying the economy is improving, just to get people spending their savings and relying on their jobs being there is a "false sense of security", only for re-election reasons, that is not helping)



In saying that though, one thing that needs to be controlled are the "preemptive strikes", when it comes to "future" threats, and in that sense, Ron Paul is correct when it comes to Constitutional authority, when it comes to "wars". But at the point that the Country is threatened, the citizens had better be ready for the all out defense of the Country, which may mean the same as how WWII was ended.

Maybe the US has to look at "pulling back" for a bit, when it comes to defending allies or "humanitarian wars", or being the "World Police", until they are under immediate threat.........you can no longer afford it, financially.



Let the Middle East sell you oil, if they choose to. Develop your own resources, so you are not "held hostage" and listen less to those that would hold you hostage.......the environmentalists and the Global Warming "crackpots"
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
well I'm not going to take the time this mornin gfor a full answer Tam, but will take the time for this:

Tam wrote:
He has made no bones about the fact he thinks the rest of the world is provoking them so much so it would be very hard for him to swallow his pride and admit he is wrong and declare war on them

That is precisly the point- under our Constitution only Congress can declare war- NOT a president- no one man should have that power, and no one man has been granted that power- yet! it has been usurped. we need to return to the Constitution- Ron Paul is the best candidate for that right now that is running. IMO Why do I want to vote for someone like newt that is campaiging on inconstitutional promises?

Tam wrote:
Personally I don't see how Ron Paul has the support he has since Republicans have long been known for their support of the Military and feel the Federal Government's main job is to protect it's citizens and he is looking to cut military spending after it has already been cut by $400 billion by the Dems.

Ron Paul is anything but weak and unsupportive of our military- he is often called anisolationist because he wants to secure our borders and protect our country as our Constitution demands. as for budget cuts, if we are not policing the world it will be huge savings to our budjet. we are broke, life is not going to continue as before, but some people are looking at candidates in the same old way that got us into this mess.

read and re-read Hypo's post just before this one- then read it again and meditate upon it. then think about it some more. It's time to pull our horns in and regroup-
which candidate is being realistic and which are just promising more of the same just to get elected? How much good are we going to do the rest of the world if we are totally bankrupt? Do you really think we can continue down the path we are on? is it sustainable? Who is really being "naieve"? Ron Paul knows we are headed for a financial collapse if we continue- how are we to defend ourselves from Iran or whoever if that is allowed to happen?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
hypocritexposer said:
Tam said:
Lonecowboy said:
Tam- I'm not sure why a post about Ann Coulter's view of Newt Gingrich turned into a Ron Paul bash?? Why is that?

If they won't follow our Constitution I will not vote for them-

at least Ron Paul will have Congress declare war as our Constitution demands before invading another country.

and I'm not sure how after all those years in DC you can call Ron Paul "NIEVE"---

BTW Lonecowboy you were the one that highlighted Ann's statement about

We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes

Since Ann endorsed Ron Paul maybe it is good to know just how unthreatening she likes her candidates. Personally I don't see how Ron Paul has the support he has since Republicans have long been known for their support of the Military and feel the Federal Government's main job is to protect it's citizens and he is looking to cut military spending after it has already been cut by $400 billion by the Dems.

He also supports and defends earmarks something else the Republicans are trying to stop.

That said I would like to know just what you think his successes have been during his time in DC?




wow, I missed this:

"We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes"

NO, what you want at this point is someone that will call it like it is.....it's time for being blunt and to the point. time the scare the heck out of people by telling them the truth, instead of lying and p***y footing around the issues like the present President is doing.

Tough sledding ahead for the US in the next decade, if they are to correct, and the worst thing that can be done is to create an artificial sense of security......(this thing of saying the economy is improving, just to get people spending their savings and relying on their jobs being there is a "false sense of security", only for re-election reasons, that is not helping)



In saying that though, one thing that needs to be controlled are the "preemptive strikes", when it comes to "future" threats, and in that sense, Ron Paul is correct when it comes to Constitutional authority, when it comes to "wars". But at the point that the Country is threatened, the citizens had better be ready for the all out defense of the Country, which may mean the same as how WWII was ended.

Maybe the US has to look at "pulling back" for a bit, when it comes to defending allies or "humanitarian wars", or being the "World Police", until they are under immediate threat.........you can no longer afford it, financially.



Let the Middle East sell you oil, if they choose to. Develop your own resources, so you are not "held hostage" and listen less to those that would hold you hostage.......the environmentalists and the Global Warming "crackpots"
Pulling back a bit is one thing, but denying there is a threat or in your words sugar coating the truth while gutting the military is quite another. Ron Paul is either nieve or just plain stupid to think a guy that wants to wipe Israel and the US off the map is not going to use a nuke if he is given the chance. :roll:

As far as the Congress declaring war yes Lonecowboy the Congress is the one with Constitutional power but the Commander and Chief is the one that commands the troops not the Congress and will Ron Paul admit he is wrong about Iran and see to it the war is carried out in a way that protects the US interest or will he cut corners as not to provoke the lunatics while he cuts the military budget. He is an isolationist that scares alot of people as they, like I, fear he will do nothing until the terrorist are on American soil killing American citizens by the thousands like they did on 911.

If the US needs to cut the budget maybe they should start by cutting a few lawyers salaries and stop sueing the states that are just trying to pick up the slack of the Federal Government on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Illegals cost the states hundreds of millions of dollars in social asistance and now the Federal Government and the States are in a legal pissing match over who is going to deal with the problem. :roll:

On the foreign end of the budget, if a Country harbors a terrorist group that attacks the US or an Allie then stop all foreign aid dead in it's tracks until they root out the problem. Chances are the aid is going into a corrupt government officials bank account and is not getting to the country's citizens anyway. If the US has to go in and clean up the problem then there should be no aid to rebuild as it was their problem and they did nothing to protect the world from it. Stop paying to rebuild the nations that refuse to deal with the reason the US has to come in and bomb the crap out of their country.

And no aid to a country's government that treats their citzens worse than most treat their dogs. As again the aid is not likely getting into the right hands anyway. The US has poured millions into places like Haiti and look at the place they live for the next hand out. This might sound harsh but let them figure out a way to provide for themselves like the other side of the island did.

No funds for anyone that treat their citizens like crap and harbors the enemy and that goes for US cities too. American cities that harbor and protect illegals should be cut off until they play by the laws of the country. If they want to allow the law breakers to live in their cities then let their city taxes pay for their needs. As long as you have cities with open arms to illegals they will continue to drain the US through social assistance. And as long as you have government funded organizations like Planned Parenthood willing to assist in setting up illegal prositution rings they will come. :mad:

But Ron Paul's idea of turning the other cheek and denying there is a threat is not what the US needs now or ever.

Getting back to Ann Coulter she was on TV last night talking about how Newt says things and makes the Republicans look bad, just what does she think Ron Paul does when he claims there is no evidence of Iran working on a Nuke and if they get one they will not use it, when all the evidence point to the exact opposite. Face it he is not a Republican and he doesn't even claim to be one, but yet he is running as one WHY? With his foreign policy views I can't see him getting the Republican nomination so If he doesn't will he run as an independent and split the vote so Obama gets another 4 years to screw up the US economy with his Socialist Agenda. I pray he is smart enough to realize if he can't win the primary he is not going to win the general either.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Securing our borders is important. Taking care of things at home should be number 1.

If we got rid of the EPA and restrictions on developing fossil fuels, secured the border/limited waste on alien spending, controlled government spending/waste- we would not be in the financial trouble we are.

Not supporting the overthrow of governments to give the Muslim Brotherhood power, should be done immediately. These actions are not in the interest of our country in the first place. Nor are these places threatening allies. We are creating future threats.

But again, this does not mean that we should not take real threats to our security or close allies as anything less.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Soapweed said:
It is disappointing that Mike Huckabee isn't in the running. He was my first choice.

Mine too. I was sad for several days after his announcement knowing that this is such an important election. He seemed to be intelligent, have integrity from all that was known, speak well and I agreed with most of his views. But you can't argue with his reasoning.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Steve said:
Lonecowboy said:
Tam- I'm not sure why a post about Ann Coulter's view of Newt Gingrich turned into a Ron Paul bash?? Why is that?

If they won't follow our Constitution I will not vote for them-

at least Ron Paul will have Congress declare war as our Constitution demands before invading another country.

and I'm not sure how after all those years in DC you can call Ron Paul "NIEVE"---

more then likely it was because the last thread on Ron Paul turned into a bash on Newt..

Ron Paul has consistently voted no and other then that he has not accomplished anything in all the years in DC, .. and while I agree with him on many issues he lacks traits essential as a president..

but since you brought congress into it.. knowing Ron Pauls consistent no votes against congress.. and his words.. and his presidential duty as Commander in Chief,

if for some reason Congress decided to declare war against Iran.. do you think Ron Paul as president and CNC would actually implement a war strategy let alone deploy forces against Iran.. or just vote NO again?

maybe you didn't have time to answer this question.. or does the answer you came to bother you as much as it bothers most?
 

Latest posts

Top