Thread: Newt Gingrich

Sex and Government.
The more Time they spend Lusting; the less Time they have to Steal from us.
Pick your sin.....

I think it safe to say the real issue folks have to ask each other is why do they hate each other so much and refuse to accept any doubt as to the absolute truth of their views? As long as that is the case the current situation will not change. Posts in this thread show this very clearly. Newton Leroy is just a symptom of what is going on. Folks need to wake up and realize who is behind the scenes pulling all the strings and why they are doing it.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

...why do they hate each other so much and refuse to accept any doubt as to the absolute truth of their views?

Well, for those that call themselves Classical Liberals (Libertarians today), we do not in any way believe in the absolute truth of our views...and here's the important part...or anyone else's views. While Conservatives and Progressives battle over which form of government intervention is best for others, we suggest that nobody really knows what's best for someone else. Libertarians don't claim to know what's best for others but we do understand that the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. We really don't care what you say or believe but what you actually do. Libertarians suggest you can believe whatever you want but stop trying to impose your views on others. That is pretty much the antithesis of "not accepting any doubt as to the absolute truth of one's views". We're also bottom line kind of people. Bottom line, if we're to check in on how the current system of "my side is right" has wrought:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time,

we see that if you are a federal income tax payer (about half of US citizens), you're portion of the debt is just under $134,000. Now how will you be paying? Cash or check? Hurry, because that number is skyrocketing every day...unless of course you plan to simply stick the next generation with your largess???

It wasn't one party that brought us to the brink like this, it was meddling central planners from both parties. Time to stop thinking the central planners have the answer. They don't have any magic beans in their pockets either. Time to stop government intervention into our lives beyond the confines of the law of the land and to start living within our means. Unless of course you really do know what's better for other people...whose got the magic beans?

It would help if your parties would try to work with each other instead of against each other. Sadly, that will not happen soon, and the system is not set up to enable it. Both parties are guilty.

Originally Posted by Bruno

It would help if your parties would try to work with each other instead of against each other. Sadly, that will not happen soon, and the system is not set up to enable it. Both parties are guilty.

I've seen this type of statement a lot lately from Europeans. I mean this with not one shred of sarcasm: Do your parties and/or politicians work with each other? My thinking is that if they did, why delineate themselves at all?

Originally Posted by Bruno

It would help if your parties would try to work with each other instead of against each other. Sadly, that will not happen soon, and the system is not set up to enable it. Both parties are guilty.

One could argue both parties HAVE been working with each other for at least the last 40 years. In their ACTIONS, there is very little difference between the two main parties, just a slightly different idea of where to spend money we don't have. When both parties are addicted to power and other people's money, it does not help taxpayers when they work together, it only costs us, and children yet to be born, more.

Originally Posted by Bruno

It would help if your parties would try to work with each other instead of against each other. Sadly, that will not happen soon, and the system is not set up to enable it. Both parties are guilty.

The liberals want to give the money to the poor people. The conservatives want to give it to business because they never got a paycheck from a poor person. Liberals tend to think that society should take care of all of the have nots by taking from the people that have. Conservatives feel that people that have, by and large, worked hard for what they have and therefore should not be expected to finance programs for people who either were less fortunate or didn't work as hard.

Liberals tend to want to allow mixed gender marriage equating the sexual preferences of homosexuals and lesbians with the plight of black people in the USA in the last century when there is no true comparison. The left wants to continue abortion as a right while , with 4 million abortions in the USA since Roe vs Wade, the conservatives want to severely restrict access. Liberals want to take away the right to keep and bear arms while conservatives want to maintain the 2nd amendment as recently interpreted by the supreme court;. The right wants to keep the death penalty while the left would abolish capital punishment. The left wants to open immigration to any and all while the right wants to substantially limit it.

These are tough issues that underlie the gridlock that we , here in the USA, are experiencing. Forty or fifty years ago some of these issues didn't exist in the sense that the majority of Americans agreed on them. Now it is something like a fifty - fifty split. So the specific issue that the republicans and democrats are debating on a given day may have nothing to do with those mentioned above but those issues are heartfelt by both sides and always in the background.

Originally Posted by Jimbo7

I've seen this type of statement a lot lately from Europeans. I mean this with not one shred of sarcasm: Do you parties and/or politicians work with each other? My thinking is that if they did, why delineate themselves at all?

Our system works differently than yours. As there are several parties (more than 10 in my country), no party alone could ever reach majority of votes. Getting a 25% is a huge blood chilling victory. There is also no clear left-right partition, but you can divide parties in several ways, ending into different conclusion.
Government is formed of parties whose votes together reach +50% of votes. To form a government, parties need to negotiate and make several agreements on various political & social etc issues. They have to consider not only to work for those who voted for them but also for those who didn't. That is why it is not so unusual that in the government there are members from opposite parties.
Shortly: those who are incapable of negotiating got no change to get into position of making important decisions. That looks like cheating the people who voted for them. Everyone gets some. The parties who did good job at the elections usually gain more but even those who didn't will have their voice heard.

Of course every system has it flaws and here it's sometimes slowness in making decisions, (or to form a government in case of Belgium).
Generally speaking, people here seem to think that two party where other party gets all (majority) and the other gets nothing (out of government) is basically the same as one party system. And we Europeans (as well as many other countries) surely have bad memories from what that could mean. No offense here, just a honest opinion. You have many other things that are great but your political system (not country or people) looks little different that what it could be as it's best.

Let's not forget that gridlock, in many ways, is exactly what our founders intended. Perhaps nowadays we feel decisions are made too slow, or with too much contention and ire, but it's an easy pill to swallow compared to brutal tyranny of the majority, or worse yet, the whims of a monarch.

This makes sense, thanks for the info!

I was with you until here:

Originally Posted by Sailor

Generally speaking, people here seem to think that two party where other party gets all (majority) and the other gets nothing (out of government) is basically the same as one party system. And we Europeans (as well as many other countries) surely have bad memories from what that could mean. No offense here, just a honest opinion. You have many other things that are great but your political system (not country or people) looks little different that what it could be as it's best.

We have a presidency, a house and senate, and a judiciary. It is extremely difficult to control all three. I guess that was my point earlier with the gridlock comment. Though the presidency is important, he or she is only a piece of a puzzle. Thus the balance of power and--i daresay--intentional gridlock.