I want to personally welcome Newt Gingrich to the Democratic Party....
 

I was amazed by the debate last night, when Newtie essentially endorsed Barack Obama's position on illegal immigration. Man, is he ever off the RWNJ reservation.

While I'm not a fan of Newt in general, I applaud his stance on immigration.

I don't believe it's a "Dem or "Rep" issue...it is a humanity issue, and the hardline stance taken by the Conservatives is over the top IMHO.

Oops Jolly, you're slipping dude! It's not illigal immigration it's "undocumented". Careful or the LWNJ's will throw you off the res themselves...

- Peter.

Clever. He figures he'll get the latino vote. Pssh

Last I checked the left did not have some talk radio contingent enforcing what can and cannot be said, we encourage freedom of speech and say pretty much whatever we want, you should try it.

He just doesn't have Romney's sense of flip-flop timing, I figured Newt would hold this until the general election if he gets in, which is when Romney will flip flop on it after he's done taking the nut jobs for suckers. Official RWNJ Talk Radio Rules state that you must have a fanatical hatred of illegals and demand they be put in railroad box cars and shipped to Mexico at once, and Newtie just crossed them.

What is RWNJ?

Right Wing Nut Job.

Nut Jobs? I thought it stood for New Jerseyites.

Here's one in action:

Alaska Rep. Suffers Brain Aneurysm (?) When Treehugger Speaks To Him

edited by Moderator.

- Peter.

Seems like all these Rep. candidates have a 12 gauge aimed at their foot and are just itching to pull the trigger right when their numbers start to go up. So far this has been one of the most entertaining opposition campaigns ever, from either side.

Feel free to say anything you want, *****.

edited by Moderator.

I think he will fit in very well indeed.

Newt stopped short of saying they should become citizens; just that there should be a way for them to stay. i.e. not voting.

In other words, amnesty. Or would the term slavery be a better description? How exactly do you maintain a class of people who have no rights in a democracy? Should we make them wear little yellow stars so we know how to treat them? And the children they have brought with them who were born in Mexico and then raised here, perhaps we could auction them off to the real citizens, or we could make them live in little camps? It's going to be fun to a have a class of people we can legally discriminate against after all these years, isn't it? Wow, we get to deny them the right to vote, just like in the good old days! Let's give them separate drinking fountains too!

Can we go go Thomas Jefferson also?

Glad you asked, Jim... I had no idea what all those letters meant!!

I was thinking it stood for RaWay, NJ.

Of what importance is "citizenship". If you want to give all the perks to everyone, what purpose is served?
How about you ask the millions of people who have EARNED their citizenship through the legal channels provided for that very purpose. Do you so easily insult them as you disrespect their achievement?

Good point: It was the entire generation that got us here, much to our collective shame.

To the shame of the current generation nobody is doing anything to retire that burden. Instead they are following the conservative mantra -- if it was good enough for Maw and Paw it's good enough for me. More debt.

If that is the "conservative" approach, then make me as a "radical".
"The way we've always done it" will not cut it.

It's the definitional thing, I guess. How many days, years or generations must a philosophy or a law be in place before it becomes establishmentarian. I'll give an example of the conundrum -- Social Seurity.

We are into the 3rd generation of people with social security. It is an established program that every taxpayer is aware of. The majority of people in this country wish to preserve the safety net because they expect that government service to be there for them after having paid into it for any number of years.

Therefore, to wish to change social security is NOT a conservative position. It is a progessive position if we view progress as dependent on change. To keep social security as it is and has been for 3 generations is the pinnacle of conservatism.

Bot,

You're going to make heads explode.

I almost agree. I would say that protecting social security so that it continues as it has for more than 70 years is the conservative position.

Careful,Gents
 

The ONLY reason most of us are here now is because the Indians had NO
Immigration Policies.

Honus,

Conservatives would Eliminate S.S. altogether.'Cause it's too much like Socialism.
(In THEIR heads)

___________________________________________________________________

The Only differences between NG and MR are:

NG doesn't have any "Magic Underwear".
NOR does he really bother to conceal that he thinks 99% of Americans are Idiots.
NG couldn't possibly AFFORD to ever reside @ 1600.
(Makes TOO MUCH with his election scams)

MR is losing patience with the Untermenschen who Populate America.
(He doesn't have a clue that he's not a chance in Hell of Being elected)

We've got 11 more months of the "R"s trying to Nominate ANYBODY except
MR .
[It's almost a "Game Show" Type "Smoke and Mirrors" Extravaganza,the Kochs
playing all the "R"s, Until Nobody's left BUT MR ]

That's deep.

Why don't you ask Newtie that question?

I was under the impression that what "got us here" was the manipulation of the banking system, not problems in any of the social programs. Is that what happened in the alternate universe you inhabit?

Social Security hasn't added one penny to the national debt. It's all funded by revenue.
Unlike the wars in Iraq and Af'stan and the the prescription drug act.

Soc sec is a social contract between the governement and the people who have paid into it. To change or eleminate it now would be to break the contract. Keeping one's word in a contract hardly seems like a partisian thing. Don't R's value honesty as much as D's?

A asked you because you want to give everything connected with citizenship away. I value it more highly than that.

Clever.

The total price tag of government exceeds our ability to pay for it, right?

If we were to cut all expenditures across the board by the percent difference between receipts and disbursements without cutting receipts we could pay down the debt and balance the budget.

The pinheaded peabrains in DC and their blockhead supporters argue over nibbling about the edges or porpose cutting programs they hate while not cutting programs the love. F'em all. Cut all expenditures across the board.

ALL.

You can balance the budget and eliminate the deficit. You cannot pay down the debt with the aforementioned scenario.

True, if you consider just Social Security on it's own.

However, there's the small matter of Congress having borrowed a trillion or so dollars from the SS trust fund over the past 50 years for their own pet projects, and writing some hefty IOU's to same.

When those IOU's come due, they'll have to be repaid out of the general fund - which given present circumstances, means more borrowing and more debt.

That's congress fault. It's not a basic fault of SS, and SS can be kept solvent with a few tweeks.
There's a number posters here that keep going on as though SS currently contributes to the national debt, when it doesn't.

I think that the Repubs giving Newt to the Demo's is probably the smartest and the most strategic plan the repubs ever came up with. :D

True, if there is no economic growth.

No growth is a poor assumption over the long term. With economic growth receipts will increase. Excess receipts over disbursements will result in paying down the debt.

Of course it is Congress' fault. Every federal law in government is the fault of Congress.

Expecting a different outcome while continuing with the same policies seems like a demonstrably unproductive avenue.

So will you stop with anti SS retoric?

Huh?

Now you confuse me with "will you stop beating your wife" question. I'll not answer a question posed like that, counselor.

I am FOR balancing the budget and paying-down the national debt.

I think any federal law on the books for 80 years should be a target for modernization. The world of the 1930's is dead as a dinosaur. Time for a review -- are we getting the max bang for the tax dollars expended? Are there ways of looking at it, 70 years later, that might improve it? I can't think of any law that wouldn't benefit from periodic program review every decade or so.

Huh?
How does SS figure into balancing the budget. SS is funded by its own taxes.
It's ironic that those thinking SS should be reviewed also approve of spending money we don't have to invade countries that pose no threat to us. Now that is concept that does need review.

To me, all expenditure should be on the books. Period.

All government laws and programs should be periodically reviewed for efficacy and value to the taxpayer and with an eye toward improvement where needed.

I hope that clears it up for you?

.............not sure if I heard that right............can you kindly repeat it???

Quote Bot's Response:
True, if there is no economic growth.

No growth is a poor assumption over the long term. With economic growth receipts will increase. Excess receipts over disbursements will result in paying down the debt.

Close quote.

Repeated in it's entirety, context being important.

You missed the innuendo.

Context was not important.

I guess you're just too subtle for me. Sorry.

Read your quote in post #44 and see if you believe it.