Newt can go eff himself. He was part of the problem in the weak "Republican Revolution" which double crossed the public on its entire platform.

And if I hear his analogy that illegals should be tracked like Fedex and UPS track packages one more effing time, I'm going to vomit. That implies, btw, that you can magically implant all the illegals with a tracking device. Or -- better still -- implant all legals with a tracking device. No tracking device means you're illegal! And of course the government wouldn't abuse that sort of power noooooooo nooooooo of course not.

Sanford in 2012. This is non-negotiable.

You don't think we're being tracked? I moved 2 years ago and I received an absentee ballot without changing my address. The 3 credit reporting companies track the living crap out of us. How many mailing and emailing lists are we on? Sex offenders are tracked even though they've already paid their debt to society. Do you know that in certain cable tv markets they can track what you watch and how long you watch it for? Eventually they'll stream advertising based upon what you view (but it will also create the most accurate data base for TV ratings) Commit a crime and you'll be tracked during your probabtion. being here illegally is a crime and tracking offenders is not unreasonable. Haven't heard anything about a tracking device and a quick search of Sanford didn't turn up anything. If this were to happen the ACLU would have collective strokes.

Zero illegals, zero problems. Solved.

He's got my vote.

(06-10-2009 05:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Newt can go eff himself. He was part of the problem in the weak "Republican Revolution" which double crossed the public on its entire platform.

I think you have identified the republicans' problem.
Not necessarily Newt personally, but he was certainly part of it.
The republicans retook congress in 1994 based on the Contract.
They had in the white house the most centrist, pragmatic democrat is at least a generation, someone they could have worked with.
They proceeded to become overly involved in the Washington power games that they had campaigned against, and got very little done.
They deserved the wrath of the American people.
Unfortunately, the alternative became what we have now.

(06-10-2009 05:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Newt can go eff himself. He was part of the problem in the weak "Republican Revolution" which double crossed the public on its entire platform.

And if I hear his analogy that illegals should be tracked like Fedex and UPS track packages one more effing time, I'm going to vomit. That implies, btw, that you can magically implant all the illegals with a tracking device. Or -- better still -- implant all legals with a tracking device. No tracking device means you're illegal! And of course the government wouldn't abuse that sort of power noooooooo nooooooo of course not.

Sanford in 2012. This is non-negotiable.

He would be great sometime in the future, GTS, you know, when the American people actually grow wiser and move out of this idol-worship, "what's hip" generation. Sanford is a statesman. He's not a politician. He's not about flash, he's not up there to make grand speeches, he's there to do a job and govern for the people. The people are just not wise enough to accept someone like him at this point in time. Hell, Thomas Jefferson would get beat by Justin Timberlake in this day and age.

The new day for common sense, I'm afraid, has yet to arrive.

(06-11-2009 07:55 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-10-2009 05:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Newt can go eff himself. He was part of the problem in the weak "Republican Revolution" which double crossed the public on its entire platform.

And if I hear his analogy that illegals should be tracked like Fedex and UPS track packages one more effing time, I'm going to vomit. That implies, btw, that you can magically implant all the illegals with a tracking device. Or -- better still -- implant all legals with a tracking device. No tracking device means you're illegal! And of course the government wouldn't abuse that sort of power noooooooo nooooooo of course not.

Sanford in 2012. This is non-negotiable.

He would be great sometime in the future, GTS, you know, when the American people actually grow wiser and move out of this idol-worship, "what's hip" generation. Sanford is a statesman. He's not a politician. He's not about flash, he's not up there to make grand speeches, he's there to do a job and govern for the people. The people are just not wise enough to accept someone like him at this point in time. Hell, Thomas Jefferson would get beat by Justin Timberlake in this day and age.

The new day for common sense, I'm afraid, has yet to arrive.

I'm afraid it's only going to get worse. With the way liberals continue to dumb down the education system, we're only a couple of generations away from Idiocracy.

(06-11-2009 07:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-10-2009 05:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Newt can go eff himself. He was part of the problem in the weak "Republican Revolution" which double crossed the public on its entire platform.

I think you have identified the republicans' problem.
Not necessarily Newt personally, but he was certainly part of it.
The republicans retook congress in 1994 based on the Contract.
They had in the white house the most centrist, pragmatic democrat is at least a generation, someone they could have worked with.
They proceeded to become overly involved in the Washington power games that they had campaigned against, and got very little done.
They deserved the wrath of the American people.
Unfortunately, the alternative became what we have now.

Just a touch of revisionist history there. I wouldn't call welfare reform and cutting taxes very little. Welfare reform alone was huge.

I do agree they screwed up what could have been a chance to get a great deal accomplished.

(06-11-2009 08:42 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  I'm afraid it's only going to get worse. With the way liberals continue to dumb down the education system, we're only a couple of generations away from Idiocracy.

BlazerFan11:

I don't believe that the idiocy of America is a partisan issue. Both parties can take equal blame for the game show that politics have become.

As Owl 69/70/75 astutely points out, the Republicans had probably the best opportunity in a generation to take the lead in making government actually work. Instead, they devolved into playing The Game and the wheels just popped off.

The Newt issue is a thorny one. While he brings some swagger to the party, he strikes me as an awfully polarizing figure at a time when the GOP needs to look at balancing its ideology.

And, on a side note, I think both parties need to get serious about determining what, exactly, they stand for. Because the only thing that's clear about their stances right now is that they don't want the other party elected. That's not exactly a platform aimed at effective governance.

BGSU, I agree completely that both sides are to blame for the political mess and that Republicans blew their chance, but liberals are almost exclusively to blame for dumbing down education due to their need for political correctness and not wanting any kid to ever have their feelings hurt or not feel as smart as the next kid in class.

Hey BGSU, I keep hearing about how this person and that person is "polarizing". Maybe someone can define the term to better fit their argument, but how is Obama not polarizing? Did he or did he not have about 50 million people voting against him?

(06-11-2009 09:05 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Hey BGSU, I keep hearing about how this person and that person is "polarizing". Maybe someone can define the term to better fit their argument, but how is Obama not polarizing? Did he or did he not have about 50 million people voting against him?

Well most of the people who voted against him still like him.
Only the radicals hate him.

(06-11-2009 09:19 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(06-11-2009 09:05 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Hey BGSU, I keep hearing about how this person and that person is "polarizing". Maybe someone can define the term to better fit their argument, but how is Obama not polarizing? Did he or did he not have about 50 million people voting against him?

Well most of the people who voted against him still like him.
Only the radicals hate him.

Really? Who? Poll numbers, if you believe or not....I do not, contradict what you say.

(06-11-2009 09:19 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(06-11-2009 09:05 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Hey BGSU, I keep hearing about how this person and that person is "polarizing". Maybe someone can define the term to better fit their argument, but how is Obama not polarizing? Did he or did he not have about 50 million people voting against him?

Well most of the people who voted against him still like him.
Only the radicals hate him.

Now I Know that YOU know better than that .....

In this particular election, you either voted your "Fantasy Boyfriend into Office (be you male or female these days), your Messiah, or the Dude Whut Wus Gonna Pay ALL Yo Bills for Ya". And you LOVE HIM.

If YOU were smart enough and didn't Vote for this Clown, you surely DO NOT LIKE HIM and YOU know he IS NOT a likable person.

He is an Elitist Ass that loves the Spotlight especially when it shows him in the likeness of Jesus ....

A Muslim Jesus ..... I wonder what Abraham and Moses would think about that one ???

But I caught your little friend at the end of your post (" ").

I got cha numba CB ....

.

(06-11-2009 09:19 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(06-11-2009 09:05 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Hey BGSU, I keep hearing about how this person and that person is "polarizing". Maybe someone can define the term to better fit their argument, but how is Obama not polarizing? Did he or did he not have about 50 million people voting against him?

Well most of the people who voted against him still like him.
Only the radicals hate him.

What the polls actually say is that most people still like him personally, but most people don't agree with most of the policies that he is implementing.
It will take a while for those two trends to catch up with each other.
Either the policies will work and people will accept the policies because they like the man, or the policies won't work and people will turn against him because of his policies.
I am about 99% certain that it will be the latter, since I just do not see how the policies can possibly work.
But either way, it will take time for the two to become reconciled.

(06-11-2009 08:45 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-11-2009 07:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-10-2009 05:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Newt can go eff himself. He was part of the problem in the weak "Republican Revolution" which double crossed the public on its entire platform.

I think you have identified the republicans' problem.
Not necessarily Newt personally, but he was certainly part of it.
The republicans retook congress in 1994 based on the Contract.
They had in the white house the most centrist, pragmatic democrat is at least a generation, someone they could have worked with.
They proceeded to become overly involved in the Washington power games that they had campaigned against, and got very little done.
They deserved the wrath of the American people.
Unfortunately, the alternative became what we have now.

Just a touch of revisionist history there. I wouldn't call welfare reform and cutting taxes very little. Welfare reform alone was huge.

I do agree they screwed up what could have been a chance to get a great deal accomplished.

I don't mean to minimize welfare reform.
That certainly was huge.
But it was only one plank in the Contract and the rest of them did not, for the most part, get done.
That was the context in which I meant it, that only a small part of the Contract actually got done.
Sorry if I implied something different from that.
I am not enamored of the Bush tax cuts.
They did not occur in places that would stimulate growth, and they were not matched with spending cuts to keep the budget in balance.
For that matter, I wouldn't overplay welfare reform, either; there's a lot more that needed to be done on that front that didn't get done.
But I will agree that credit should be given for what welfare reform did take place.

(06-11-2009 09:05 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Hey BGSU, I keep hearing about how this person and that person is "polarizing". Maybe someone can define the term to better fit their argument, but how is Obama not polarizing? Did he or did he not have about 50 million people voting against him?

When I say polarizing, I mean that the person tends to make people stake out more extreme positions.

I would submit that, prior to actually getting elected, sworn in and printing money like crazy, Obama was not nearly as polarizing as, say, Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi.

I think Newt and, to a stronger degree, Buchanon (mentioned elsewhere) also fall into the more polarizing category.

IMO, while they did accomplish some things, political pressures kept many other things from happening. Its not as simple as talking about doing things, and the Libs are much smarter with their incrementalism and following Saul Alinsky's teachings(modern era Machiavelli probably, unfortunately).


I would submit, that there is a defacto 4th branch of Government: The partisian, Lap-dog Media that frame debates and national dialogue, pick and choose what gets reported and how its reported, pick and choose which conservatives they have on "Meet the Press" and so forth. These people play a huge role in the Political pressures put on the politicians in Washington. There's a reason all Dictators control the Press, apparently we have a voluntary state run major media for all practical purposes. Make the media and pop-culture conservative, and "Real Change" as Newt calls it would be much more possible, it would shift the political pressures to their side.

There is also a heavy dose of anti-americanism that has gradually been manifesting itself throughout the world and inside America. There are the obvious usual suspects, but I'd even include some crap the Glenn becks of the world will sometimes delve into. Too much misinformation and america-loathing in general going on.

Sanford stock is rising. Not many people know much about him. He could tap into a states rights vs powerfull federal government debate that the country is geering up for. Can he articulate the conservative position in a debate. McCain did a terrible job at this and so did W as president. Newt does this very well, but is a bit radical. Newt also is older which the country might not be looking for. He also has some personal baggage as well which might be a disadvantage vs the Obama family portrait that the media has presented. Republican need to put forth an intelligent, qualified canidate of high moral charater who can go toe to toe with Obama in debates and not have the campaign become a sideshow.

He can articulate it, OU, but he's boring. People don't want statesmen these days, they want rock stars. ....and you see where that has gotten us.

you'll know he could get elected, when the media starts destroying him in unfair and evil ways(see Sarah Palin)

until then, they are probably hoping we nominate him like McCain