http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/n...story.html

Quote:Asked whether this approach would result in an expansion of government bureaucracy, Gingrich has a two-part answer.

“Yeah, but a very minor one,” he said. .... “It’s essentially a privatized management structure, and you then have a very small federal overview board.”

Last time I checked, there is no such thing as a minor or temporary growth in government bureaucracy.

(12-02-2011 09:23 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/n...story.html

Quote:Asked whether this approach would result in an expansion of government bureaucracy, Gingrich has a two-part answer.

“Yeah, but a very minor one,” he said. .... “It’s essentially a privatized management structure, and you then have a very small federal overview board.”

We could all vote for RP and eliminate government, all laws, and end all foreign aid while encouraging rogue states to develop nukes...oh and use whatever we want as currency.

I don't like Newts response to this though...

All bureaucracies start out small, then continue to grow in size, scope, and cost.

(12-02-2011 09:26 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  We could all vote for RP and eliminate government, all laws, and end all foreign aid while encouraging rogue states to develop nukes...oh and use whatever we want as currency.

Or we could vote for a neo-con like you want and bomb every country on earth, give another fofillion dollars to banks, and make all substances other than corn and water illegal so people can't be addicted to anything.

Hyperbole is fun.

(12-02-2011 09:26 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(12-02-2011 09:23 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/n...story.html

Quote:Asked whether this approach would result in an expansion of government bureaucracy, Gingrich has a two-part answer.

“Yeah, but a very minor one,” he said. .... “It’s essentially a privatized management structure, and you then have a very small federal overview board.”

We could all vote for RP and eliminate government, all laws, and end all foreign aid while encouraging rogue states to develop nukes...oh and use whatever we want as currency.

I don't like Newts response to this though...

We could use some common sense and adopt some of RP's ideas in a systematic way to reduce the size of government over the next decade or so. I think even he would agree that this mess can not fixed all at once. Start with elimination of redundancies in governmental functions and reduce our foreign entanglements where no danger exists to US interests. Certainly there are plenty of places to cut without compromising security. How about starting in Europe and Japan?

The thing is...We MUST reduce spending. It has to be started and it has to continue until we pay off this foolish debt we now have incurred. Then see to it that we NEVER get into a war again that involves borrowing money to wage.

(12-02-2011 09:45 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-02-2011 09:26 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(12-02-2011 09:23 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/n...story.html

Quote:Asked whether this approach would result in an expansion of government bureaucracy, Gingrich has a two-part answer.

“Yeah, but a very minor one,” he said. .... “It’s essentially a privatized management structure, and you then have a very small federal overview board.”

We could all vote for RP and eliminate government, all laws, and end all foreign aid while encouraging rogue states to develop nukes...oh and use whatever we want as currency.

I don't like Newts response to this though...

We could use some common sense and adopt some of RP's ideas in a systematic way to reduce the size of government over the next decade or so. I think even he would agree that this mess can not fixed all at once. Start with elimination of redundancies in governmental functions and reduce our foreign entanglements where no danger exists to US interests. Certainly there are plenty of places to cut without compromising security. How about starting in Europe and Japan?

The thing is...We MUST reduce spending. It has to be started and it has to continue until we pay off this foolish debt we now have incurred. Then see to it that we NEVER get into a war again that involves borrowing money to wage.

I agree with this. I doubt there will ever be a war that we don't have to borrow for though...

(12-02-2011 09:44 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  All bureaucracies start out small, then continue to grow in size, scope, and cost.

(12-02-2011 09:26 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  We could all vote for RP and eliminate government, all laws, and end all foreign aid while encouraging rogue states to develop nukes...oh and use whatever we want as currency.

Or we could vote for a neo-con like you want and bomb every country on earth, give another fofillion dollars to banks, and make all substances other than corn and water illegal so people can't be addicted to anything.

Hyperbole is fun.

It really is fun...do you really want people addicted to drugs? It seems that way.

Another question...what are you addicted to? You seem to be all about legalizing drugs.

(12-02-2011 09:55 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Another question...what are you addicted to? You seem to be all about legalizing drugs.

I am addicted to freedom.

(12-02-2011 09:56 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-02-2011 09:55 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Another question...what are you addicted to? You seem to be all about legalizing drugs.

I am addicted to freedom.

Freedom and crack are two different things...

(12-02-2011 09:56 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-02-2011 09:55 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Another question...what are you addicted to? You seem to be all about legalizing drugs.

I am addicted to freedom.

+1

And caffeine.

(12-02-2011 10:13 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(12-02-2011 09:56 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-02-2011 09:55 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Another question...what are you addicted to? You seem to be all about legalizing drugs.

I am addicted to freedom.

Freedom and crack are two different things...

I agree that Crack is an addictive and dangerous substance that ruins lives. I would doubt that you would disagree that alcohol is a addictive and dangerous substance that ruins lives also. Freedom evidently likes to have a cocktail.

I don't advocate legalization of cocaine at this point. I just find it interesting that we zero in arbitrarily on one substance and ignore others that are equally or even more dangerous and allow them to be "freely" used.

Personally...I could care less what anyone does as long as they do not cause harm (theft,fraud,violence or damage to property) while engaged in their activities. I live by this principle of non aggression and consider it the hallmark of liberty.

See this post..

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=53...pid7235678

(12-02-2011 10:18 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(12-02-2011 09:56 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-02-2011 09:55 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Another question...what are you addicted to? You seem to be all about legalizing drugs.

I am addicted to freedom.

+1

And caffeine.

What ever poison one chooses is fine with me as long as they practice the principle of non aggression in doing so...

(12-02-2011 10:54 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  See this post..

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=53...pid7235678

I agree that our society is not anywhere ready for any substance but cannabis at this point to be legalized.

As a few others have mentioned here, I don't trust Gingrich at all. His instincts often seem to move in statist directions. His need for attention may be what turns so many of us off to him. He has an enormous ego and needs/wants to be seen as this great ideas guy that will save the world. The only person in politics in his ego neighborhood is BO himself but even Barack has enough discipline to try to keep it restrained. Not Newt, who wanders off on flights of fancy with ideas that are often very BIG but totally impractical and often play right into what the other side is trying to do.

Gingrich is the ultimate Washington D.C. insider and his instincts are sympathetic to those who love big, bigger and ever growing bigger government. His instincts are not those of one who would begin working to downsize the size and influence of government over our lives but just the opposite. He'd protect big government.