Newt is a perfect Democrat and RINO.  Ron Paul undressed Newt at the debate calling him on his chicken hawking.  Newt and Dick Cheney are the same...They are willing to advocate that our young men and women go to war to die, but when it was their turn to serve they received deferment after deferment.

Newt is kinda like a certain someone on this board who is always supporting spending and increases in property taxes for things like fire and ambulance and metroplex, but never has a property tax bill mailed to him in his name.  We’ll call him a property tax chicken hawk

NEWT was good at making CUTE COMMENTS with little real substance....and anyway, ethics violations, millions earned at taxpayers expense....yah, he's a good candidate. Can you imagine the laugh that foreign leaders would have if NEWT was our pres......

Ron Paul is disingenuous and quite frankly NEITHER a conservative nor a Republican ---

Proof of his being disingenuous  -->  He votes against spending bills which he knows are going to pass anyway ... but makes sure that pork for his district is included in the bills --- if he actually had any integrity he wouldn't just "talk the talk" .. he would "walk the walk" and would refuse any pork barrel spending for his district.

Ron Paul is a libertarian .. NOT a conservative  .. and quite frankly, I think he and most libertarians are dangerous nuts.    I would NEVER vote for a libertarian for any office .. certainly not for President of the United States.


And if you believe that Newt Gingrich is not a real Republican than there is no hope for having an intelligent discussion with you.

Quoted Text

property tax chicken hawk

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Proof of his being disingenuous  -->  He votes against spending bills which he knows are going to pass anyway ... but makes sure that pork for his district is included in the bills --- if he actually had any integrity he wouldn't just "talk the talk" .. he would "walk the walk" and would refuse any pork barrel spending for his district.

So the only genuine things Paul could have done in your estimate is

A.  Vote YES on spending bills AND go after the money that the federal government collected from his constituents.
B.  Vote NO on spending bills AND let the federal government KEEP the income tax collected from his constituents.

This is where you and most are wrong DVOR.  If the government takes money out of your constituents pockets, it is the responsibility for Ron Paul to return the same money collected from his district back to his district.  Paul couldn't have been clearer.He doesn't believe the federal government has the right to take the money from his constituents in the first place, that's why he votes against the spending that authorizes it.  But since he is one vote of 535 and his ideals do not prevail, so he goes and brings as much money wrongfully collected back to the district.  If EVERYBODY voted like Paul against the spending, nobody would be earmarking.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Ron Paul is a libertarian .. NOT a conservative  .. and quite frankly, I think he and most libertarians are dangerous nuts.    I would NEVER vote for a libertarian for any office .. certainly not for President of the United States.

Dangerous?  The past 10 years thousands of Americans died, and tens of thousands of Iraqi, Afghani, Libyan, and God knows how many other Middle Eastern innocent civilians have died.  For what?  

Talk about dangerous, American now accepts the practice of assassinating U.S. citizens with drone attacks based on the authorization of a secret panel within the executive branch...No due process...No formal charges...No evidence presented to a judge...NOTHING!!  Talk about dangerous, it is you and the rest of the party loyalist that continue to turn a blind eye to the erosion of liberties, just because the person eroding them are members of the same party and it will help you win the next election, and keep you in some appointed position of pseudo authority.  The two party establishment have become so corrupt and despotic, and you my friend are a**hole deep with party loyalty.  You are a dangerous man.

what is DVOR's definition of dangerous?

Quoted from CICERO

So the only genuine things Paul could have done in your estimate is

A.  Vote YES on spending bills AND go after the money that the federal government collected from his constituents.
B.  Vote NO on spending bills AND let the federal government KEEP the income tax collected from his constituents.

This is where you and most are wrong DVOR.  If the government takes money out of your constituents pockets, it is the responsibility for Ron Paul to return the same money collected from his district back to his district.  Paul couldn't have been clearer.He doesn't believe the federal government has the right to take the money from his constituents in the first place, that's why he votes against the spending that authorizes it.  But since he is one vote of 535 and his ideals do not prevail, so he goes and brings as much money wrongfully collected back to the district.  If EVERYBODY voted like Paul against the spending, nobody would be earmarking.

A person of integrity would NOT have asked for the money for his district --- IF he genuinely believed that the federal government doesn't have that right to that money.  

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

A person of integrity would NOT have asked for the money for his district --- IF he genuinely believed that the federal government doesn't have that right to that money.  

I guess I shouldn't file for an income tax return since wanting my money back from the government that took it would make me a big government liberal.  

Your statement is so illogical.  So you believe let the government keep the money that isn't rightfully theirs in order to prove fiscal conservative integrity?  

Quoted from CICERO

I guess I shouldn't file for an income tax return since wanting my money back from the government that took it would make me a big government liberal.  

Your statement is so illogical.  So you believe let the government keep the money that isn't rightfully theirs in order to prove fiscal conservative integrity?  

Ron Paul says that one symptom of what is wrong with the federal government is spending -- and he says he opposes pork barrel spending ... but he is perfectly willing to TAKE the pork for his district.   That shows a lack of integrity and a high level of hypocrisy.

If he believed what he preached - he would refuse all pork barrel money for his district  AND ...  continue to preach his message/beliefs against federal taxes.    But to preach against the federal taxes and still take the money --- is analogous to an Abolitionist preaching against Slavery and owning an interest in a cotton plantation that owns slaves.

BTW -- I believe that government has the right to impose taxes .. that has been a CONSTITUTIONALLY accepted idea for some centuries now.


As for Ron Paul's disgusting attacks on Speaker Gingrich's military service -- Mr. Paul should be placed in stocks and publicly rebuked for such slimy tactics.  

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

BTW -- I believe that government has the right to impose taxes .. that has been a CONSTITUTIONALLY accepted idea for some centuries now.  

Huh!!!  In 1913 the 16th Amendment established the Federal Income Tax. The funny thing is, the 16th Amerndment wasn't ratified by 2/3's of the states.  Prior to that, a federal income tax was imposed during the civil war.  Between the civil war and 1913, the federal inome tax was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.  

You "beleive" the government has the right to impose taxes, just like you "believe" it has been constitutionaly accepted for "CENTURIES".  

Quoted from CICERO

Huh!!!  In 1913 the 16th Amendment established the Federal Income Tax.
The funny thing is, the 16th Amerndment wasn't ratified by 2/3's of the states.  Prior to that,
a federal income tax was imposed during the civil war.  Between the civil war and 1913, the federal inome tax was
declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.  

You "beleive" the government has the right to impose taxes, just like you "believe" it has been constitutionaly
accepted for "CENTURIES".  

Really Cic... open a book!

The 16th amendment:
Passed by Congress: 2 July 1909
Ratified: 3 February 1913

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,
without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The following states ratified the amendment:
Alabama (August 10, 1909)
Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
Illinois (March 1, 1910)
Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
Maryland (April 8, 1910)
Georgia (August 3, 1910)
Texas (August 16, 1910)
Ohio (January 19, 1911)
Idaho (January 20, 1911)
Oregon (January 23, 1911)
Washington (January 26, 1911)
Montana (January 27, 1911)
Indiana (January 30, 1911)
California (January 31, 1911)
Nevada (January 31, 1911)
South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
Colorado (February 15, 1911)
North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
Michigan (February 23, 1911)
Iowa (February 24, 1911)
Kansas (March 2, 1911)
Missouri (March 16, 1911)
Maine (March 31, 1911)
Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
New York (July 12, 1911)
Arizona (April 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
Delaware (February 3, 1913)
Ratification (by the requisite 36 states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by Delaware.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states
to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:
37. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911

It has been disputed, but none the less, it hasn't been CENTURIES that the federal govenrment collected income tax.  It has been 99 YEARS that the federal government has been collecting taxes.  And further more, the Constitution had to be AMENDED to legalize the act of the federal government collecting income tax.  

just because something is legal doesn't make it right
just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong

Quoted from CICERO

It has been disputed, but none the less, it hasn't been CENTURIES that the federal govenrment collected income tax.  It has been 99 YEARS that the federal government has been collecting taxes.  And further more, the Constitution had to be AMENDED to legalize the act of the federal government collecting income tax.  

~ I wonder if Cicero thinks that the Emancipation of Slavery happened "CENTURIES" ago?
Or.
~ Does he know that women voting hasn't been CENTURIES either?
Or.
If if 18 year old Americans voting hasn't been around for CENTURIES?

Since it hasn't been CENTURIES, just like the Federal Govt collecting taxes, I wonder if Cic is also against freeing
the slaves, or women voting or allowing 18 year old Americans to vote?