JTF.ORG Forum
Save Western Civilization => Save America => Topic started by: MasterWolf1 on May 21, 2007, 08:45:23 PM
-
Newt been attacking the GOP sell out pigs for this new Amnesty bill that the whores in Washington wants to bring forth of having more illegal alien insects in America.
-
You were listening to Michael Savage too?
-
No way I would never listen to Savage, I was watching Michelle Malkin interveiwing Newt on this matter he is slamming his own party sell outs
-
i don't like newt. never have.
I am not a huge fan of him but anyone that is voicing out about this suicidal bill our whores in Washington is trying to pull for illegals sure does get an applaud
-
I have always found Newt Gingrich to be among the lesser of the evils in Washington. Chaim pointed out some things to me when I asked him about Newt on one of the first questions shows that caused me to look at Newt in a slightly less favorable light. This said I still find him to be a very interesting politician and quite knowledgeable. Would I want to see him as president possibly depending on what would be the alternative. At this point considering what the front runners are Newt might be a welcomed alternative.
-
Newt been attacking the GOP sell out pigs for this new Amnesty bill that the whores in Washington wants to bring forth of having more illegal alien insects in America.
As recently as a couple weeks ago, McCain was leading in the polls in Iowa, NH and SC. Many conservatives have been annoyed with him for years so I found that to be surprising. Now, Mitt Romney is leading in Iowa and NH. However, Romney was for last year's McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill before he realized conservatives clearly opposed it. Now, Romney jumped at the opportunity to make ads condemning the new proposed amnesty bill. You don't know if he's actually against or if he's just trying to appeal to conservatives.
Back to Newt...Do you know if he was always opposed to amnesty or did he support last year's McCain-Kennedy bill?
See this other thread and respond with what you think about what Newt said yesterday.
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=4872.0
-
Newt is an impressive historian.
-
Newt is an impressive historian.
Yes he is and he also seems very reasoned in his policy.
-
Newt is an impressive historian.
Yes he is and he also seems very reasoned in his policy.
Did you hear him debate Christopher Dodd on "Meet the Press" yesterday?
-
newt, by far is a better conservative than Guliani...but still my alliegance is with Guliani...not unless Newt outlasts him.
-
newt, by far is a better conservative than Guliani...but still my alliegance is with Guliani...not unless Newt outlasts him.
Guliani would be a no choice vote for me. I would prefer Newt or Romney.
-
Newt is washed up. He has no chance. He's even more yesterday's news than Al Gore.
-
Newt is washed up. He has no chance. He's even more yesterday's news than Al Gore.
I agree he may win the primaries however he could never make the general election. In Guliani's case it the opposite.
-
Newt been attacking the GOP sell out pigs for this new Amnesty bill that the whores in Washington wants to bring forth of having more illegal alien insects in America.
As recently as a couple weeks ago, McCain was leading in the polls in Iowa, NH and SC. Many conservatives have been annoyed with him for years so I found that to be surprising. Now, Mitt Romney is leading in Iowa and NH. However, Romney was for last year's McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill before he realized conservatives clearly opposed it. Now, Romney jumped at the opportunity to make ads condemning the new proposed amnesty bill. You don't know if he's actually against or if he's just trying to appeal to conservatives.
Back to Newt...Do you know if he was always opposed to amnesty or did he support last year's McCain-Kennedy bill?
See this other thread and respond with what you think about what Newt said yesterday.
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=4872.0
I am not sure however I always pay attention when I see Newt speak on the news and have never heard him favor this garbage Kennedy and McCain are developing. If he does favor it he keeps it to himself.
-
Newt is washed up. He has no chance. He's even more yesterday's news than Al Gore.
They say Newt shut down the Congress in 1995 after Clinton pissed him off. How is that any different than when Pelosi does similar stuff?
Newt shouldn't have portrayed himself as a cry baby and instead challenged Clinton for the 1996 presidency. It's possible to run for multiple positions--Lieberman did it in 2000. So if Newt would have lost that election, he still would have been able to be the Speaker. He would have beat Dole for the nomination and he would have nailed Clinton in debates.
There are lots of Democrats who want Gore to run because they believe in his Global Warming preaching.
-
Newt is washed up. He has no chance. He's even more yesterday's news than Al Gore.
I agree he may win the primaries however he could never make the general election. In Guliani's case it the opposite.
Agreed. Since Giuliani is pro-choice, he thinks he would have a decent chance in a some liberal states during a general election. However, many conservatives won't consider him in the primaries because of abortion.
-
newt, by far is a better conservative than Guliani...but still my alliegance is with Guliani...not unless Newt outlasts him.
Guliani would be a no choice vote for me. I would prefer Newt or Romney.
Romney keeps getting smeared for being Mormon. He needs to start fighting back if he would want any chance in a general election.
He'll also be perceived as the John Kerry of 08 (flip flopping on many issues)--a much more intelligent version though. Another difference being Kerry's traitorous military career compared with Romney's great business career--he's credited with saving the 2002 Winter Olympics.
-
Newt been attacking the GOP sell out pigs for this new Amnesty bill that the whores in Washington wants to bring forth of having more illegal alien insects in America.
As recently as a couple weeks ago, McCain was leading in the polls in Iowa, NH and SC. Many conservatives have been annoyed with him for years so I found that to be surprising. Now, Mitt Romney is leading in Iowa and NH. However, Romney was for last year's McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill before he realized conservatives clearly opposed it. Now, Romney jumped at the opportunity to make ads condemning the new proposed amnesty bill. You don't know if he's actually against or if he's just trying to appeal to conservatives.
Back to Newt...Do you know if he was always opposed to amnesty or did he support last year's McCain-Kennedy bill?
See this other thread and respond with what you think about what Newt said yesterday.
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=4872.0
I am not sure however I always pay attention when I see Newt speak on the news and have never heard him favor this garbage Kennedy and McCain are developing. If he does favor it he keeps it to himself.
If you're able to load the debate, you should listen to Newt vs. Dodd:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
-
I don't remember what exactly the dynamics were that caused Newt to put aside public office. I believe he was voted out of his office and then decided to go into the private sector saying he needed to make more money. Newt is different than Pelosi in the fact that Pelosi in my opinion has done some very anti American stunts since she took office Re. her little trip a month or so back.
-
Newt is on the O'Reilly Factor tonight (Michelle Makin is guest hosting).
-
Newt calls it a "recklessly, destructive bill".
-
Newt says over 30,000 illegal aliens belong to gangs.
-
On this particuliar issue, Newt is better than the other major candidates. If we can believe what we says.
On the issue of energy independence, I think Giuliani would be the lesser of the evils. He has said that nothing is more important in the next few years than starting an Apollo-type crash program to make America energy independent. And we know from when he was Mayor of New York that when he puts his mind to doing something, Giuliani can be a very effective leader.
But on immigration, abortion, homosexual "rights" and gun control, Giuliani is awful.
Romney is such an obvious phony, I just can't believe anything he says.
And Fred Thompson is the worst, in my opinion. "Conservatives" want him to run without knowing anything about him. He is like his evil leftwing mentor Howard Baker, the Senate majority leader from Tennessee, who supported the amnesty for illegal aliens in the 1980s, opposed Ronald Reagan for being "too rightwing", and was adored by the Bolshevik news media for being a "moderate" (leftist). Thompson worked for Baker and supported him for president. Thompson's best friend in the Senate was John McCain.
The choices all stink. We will be stuck with supporting a "lesser of the evils" once again.
-
What was disturbing there were Republican senators from the South ya know where the Good Ol Boys come from one is from South Carolina, that favors the new bill from Senator Burbon Kennedy to flow more in. One Senator in the GOP is also completely against any amnesty to Illegals, Senator Saxby from Georgia.
-
Newt Gingrich has committed adultery.
-
On this particuliar issue, Newt is better than the other major candidates. If we can believe what we says.
On the issue of energy independence, I think Giuliani would be the lesser of the evils. He has said that nothing is more important in the next few years than starting an Apollo-type crash program to make America energy independent. And we know from when he was Mayor of New York that when he puts his mind to doing something, Giuliani can be a very effective leader.
But on immigration, abortion, homosexual "rights" and gun control, Giuliani is awful.
Romney is such an obvious phony, I just can't believe anything he says.
And Fred Thompson is the worst, in my opinion. "Conservatives" want him to run without knowing anything about him. He is like his evil leftwing mentor Howard Baker, the Senate majority leader from Tennessee, who supported the amnesty for illegal aliens in the 1980s, opposed Ronald Reagan for being "too rightwing", and was adored by the Bolshevik news media for being a "moderate" (leftist). Thompson worked for Baker and supported him for president. Thompson's best friend in the Senate was John McCain.
The choices all stink. We will be stuck with supporting a "lesser of the evils" once again.
Not if intelligent conservatives are able to promote Duncan Hunter and convince other conservatives that he is the best candidate for the most vital issues.
Also, I think all of McCain's support in Congress comes from RINOs.
-
What was disturbing there were Republican senators from the South ya know where the Good Ol Boys come from one is from South Carolina, that favors the new bill from Senator Burbon Kennedy to flow more in. One Senator in the GOP is also completely against any amnesty to Illegals, Senator Saxby from Georgia.
Lindsay Graham of SC is a traitor. Like the usual open-border rhetoric, he calls people who oppose amnesty, bigots. In response, conservatives booed him when he made a return trip to SC.
The other Senator, James DeMint is much better.
-
A freeper has the correct analysis:
" Way back at the beginning, before anyone said anything about him, I was wishing Fred Thompson would get in the race. He doesn't seem to me to be someone who has been lusting for power since his earliest years. That's a principal fault of Clinton, Kerry, and Gore. The Presidency defines their being. It was all about them.
I want someone who takes on the mantle reluctantly but who also will be able to make clear for people what the United States was supposed to be about: a land of liberty where the federal government protects the people from foreign enemies and the Constitution protects the people from the federal government, leaving everything else up to the ingenuity, hard work, and voluntary associations of the citizenry.
We have now reached a place where a major party claims there really is no foreign enemy that is not of our own making and that the federal government has to protect the individual from himself. They appear to believe that people will truly be free when the federal government has defined in law the specifics of how every aspect of everyone's life should be and has constructed an enforcement apparatus to make it happen.
The thought that there could be hundreds of millions living whose future rests completely upon their own shoulders and how they choose to provide for themselves and their families either scares or outrages them, depending on whether they believe those people to be either misguided or arrogant. Therefore, they believe that the federal government, with themselves in the driver's seat, should help plan for the fools who can't do it themselves or put in their places the reckless ones who think they can. They also appear to believe that anyone who opposes them, therefore, are the enemies of the people, and, because they have cast themselves as the voice of the people, enemies of themselves. You're either with them or you're an evil to be extirpated.
How in the world is this any different from the totalist politics of the Nazis or communists?
When I was in high school I read Jefferson's suggestion that a bloody rebellion every so often would be a good thing for the nation. My idea then was that he was saying, "Hey, if this whole Constitutional government idea we came up with doesn't work out, just toss it aside and try something else." I realize now, and I wish that more people did, that he meant, "If a system of government grows up that violates this Constitution and Declaration of Independence and starts to eat up the people's substance and to oppress the people, get rid of it, even if you have to use bloody force the same way we did against King George. You'll be doing it for the same reason. The federal government is not the United States. It's a means to an end and that end is liberty in peace. If the existing one can no longer serve as that means, scrap it and reconstitutionalize."
I'm hoping that Fred will be able to restore a little clarity to the historical perspective. For all those people in the past who yearned to be free, there are even more now, especially since the degree of oppression in the modern world far exceeds anything during the centuries that led to the American Revolution."
However, the mistake is thinking Fred Thompson should be the candidate to support.