... there is some talk up here in Canada that Mittens was born in Ontario, I believe it because all the witnesses are insane and constantly hammered.

Has Newt laid claim to Iran-Contra yet?

Ideology,

Don't forget his Mexican side of the family!

Mitt a liberal? That's just down right insulting. No Newt, Mitt is definitely one of you ilk.

Anyways, nice to watch the GOP eat their own.

Obama 2012!!!

Mexicanada ... Mexicanadians are a great people. Their motto is 'What's a Border?'

Must be tired. All I can think of in response is "I don't know, what's a border with you" (Drat that hubby and his 3 Stooges habit)

Well Phine, at least you have three names to call him.

Rather be a liberal then a damn fool..

But, I can't call him those names in polite society, Ideology! :)

Blingrich desperation time!

Phine, I am sure there is a lot of impolite society in Fl. Try a mall parking lot.

Well, there certainly has been some impolite folks here for the last couple of weeks! (And with Speed Weeks coming up, it's not going to improve much) LOL

Okay, now this is the beginning of an implosion. Look for Santorum to move into the challenge position as Newt sinks.

So, he's a Mexicanadian? Well, it's cold in MI, MA, and Canada, so I get the name Mittens. But why is a MexiCanadian named Willard? Guillardo (Mex) or Guillard (French-Canadian) I can see. Either way, he's going to be the nominee.

I forgot, Newt Gingrich may have been born outside the current US borders. Possibly on the MOON, he's obviously a Lunatic.

“We will go all the way to the convention,” Gingrich said , adding that the convention might be a broken one.

“We have no evidence yet that Romney anywhere is coming close to getting a majority and I think when you take all the non-Romney votes, it's very likely that at the convention there will be a non-Romney majority and maybe a very substantial one,” he said.

Brokered convention anyone or at the very least 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination? No Newt endorsement of Romney at the convention?

RedDevPS,

Yes, a true meltdown, implosion is not a pretty sight.

Ideology,

Iran-Contra! Newton will certainly take the Reagan gift for that too. After Newt's statement at the debate that he would support covert activity in Cuba, he will take claim for the economic turn around in Nicaragua. The modern highway that Ollie built to run guns from Liberia, Costa Rica to the heartland of Nicaragua was vital to their economy. Newt, the historian ,will certainly gives us a new revisionist history .

LOLZ....HHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.........They are arguing over who is a bigger right wing nut....LOLZ

In one swift but stupid kick, this guy insults all liberals, all centrists, and the entire state of Massachusetts. Do these brain trusts realize that if you must have SOMEONE left to vote for you after you're done insulting people?

You can claim to be conservative and remain on solid ground and retain your respect... but voting for any of these clowns would be downright dumb.

Yes, a true meltdown, implosion is not a pretty sight.

I wouldn't count Newt out yet. After the Florida primary there isn't much activity for a month and most of the states Newt could potentially perform well in are during March. I highly doubt Newt will win the nomination, but as long as Adelson keeps writing him checks, I don't see Newt stopping. The GOP establishment has slighted him. His use of liberal to describe Romney, shows how Newt has been backed into a corner. He most likely feels embarrassed by what has happened over the last 4 days. If the past is any indicator of the future, I think the vengeful Newt that showed up in South Carolina, will be campaigning across the south in March trying to deny Romney the nomination.

Newt says "liberal" like it is something to be ashamed of. Here is the dictionary definition of "liberal" and any Christian Teabag out there can tell me what's so awful about these attributes:

lib·er·al

   [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA

adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religiousaffairs.

2.
( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a politicalparty advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximumindividual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by lawand secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially withrespect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberalpolicy toward dissident artists and writers.

So... Liberals are open to reform and want to extend individual freedom. What's bad about that?

Roses are red,

Violets are blue.

I'm a Schizophrenic,

And so am I.

phancy and ideo - you aren't saying Mitt is a Mexadian or a Canadacan.... are you?

This from a guy that as an example of his idea of small government and his idea of what to do to reduce our crushing debt, proposes that we build a permanent space colony on the moon. The old school non-establishment establishment Republican.

Mike - did someone teach you the twist, or did you learn it on your own. I don't mind legitimate put downs, but how about researching how he plans on paying for it, eh? It's pretty innovative. You don't have a clue as to what he said about it, do you? You just have to get in your form of negativity because you are philosophically against him.

The only way he can pay for it is with enormous federal funds. The idea that private industry would fund this even to 80% or 90% is a pipe dream. If this were a lucrative endeavor, private industry would have been in the business a long time ago. There are so many real issues to address, this is just, wel space cadet stuff.

Newt... Mitt.... combined to make nitwits. And this is what the Republicans are hanging thier hats on? hahahahahahahahah

Brian, the definition is perfectly right. The problem is so much ridiculousness being spewed, it is impossible for the most tolerant liberal or anyone else to maintain any sort of decorum. When faced with the outrageous comments of people like Newt and Santorum, it would take more than a saint to to be tolerant. And I really haven't seen any STFU comments here.

BrianB - You don't have to pass a test to call yourself a liberal any more than you do to call yourself a conservative. So probably self-described "liberals" here on the forum who don't behave sensibly are misinformed on what it means to be "liberal".

The 2012 election has already been decided. President Obama will win re-election by a landslide. Do the Republicans really think Americans will vote for any of their candidates, all of whom are more extreme than the next, who support this agenda?

1) Persecute gays.

2) Force everyone to become christians.

3) Give all power, economic and political, to the 1%.

4) Impoverish and enslave the 99% to the 1%.

bmer bob - The government has been in charge of the space program since the early 60's and they haven't supported private enterprises to go into space. Now there's a different attitude about it for private sector space exploration. There are a couple of companies that are working on it right now. There are many more that would join in, if they had support. If the government can launch satellites, so can private enterprise. If pe wants to make a space shuttle, they can... but working in concert with the government, it can happen. You just don't want to make it possible in any way shape or form, because if it is successful, you'd have to change YOUR philosophy.

evan - what you say makes sense. I personally believe most of the nasty posts come from children. They use their personal computer to cause as much havoc as possible... That's why I ignore most of the stupid comments. And then you have Jerry. He just read what he wrote here from someplace else and is trying it out to see if he gets a reaction. Hey Jerry - my reaction: Yawn.

Some people are way behind the curve...

Gingrich can't win either. He isn't on the ballots of at least 7 states... neither is Santorum.

It's between Romney and Paul. Go Paul.

BB

I am still stuck on Romney being Mexicanadian. :)

Great Newt ..... the reincarnation of Rnld Regan....just what the country needs someone to further squeeze the tap on that trickle down faucet. Newt's feet are so full of self inflicted holes he's starting to sink fast. Let's shoot him to the moon to start the colony.

and to boot Herman Cain has now endorsed Newt and his moral principals.....they can go cruise for chicks together.

Gingrich is a vengeful soul. Since the republican establishment kicked him out over ethics charges, this thorn in the side of Romney plans to dig a little deeper in the ribs.

Think about it, Romney's PAC posted negative content on Gingrich, he blows up at a debate and vengefully attacks Romney.

If Newt was prez, Iran would be the first to go.

Well said jerry

when people only vote for them because of religious purposes theres a problem...

Ut oh... another birther scene coming up phancy. Has he produced his birth certificate yet? LOL!

or collapse their posts because they don't agree with what the poster says?

and none of you do that? Give me a break.

If liberals are so caught up in these concepts, they would just toke on their dubie and move along.

Stereotype much? Btw, it's "doobie" Hope you aren't planning a career as a comedian.

BB

Why not another birther scene? Gives the press something to write about (I am tired of all the articles about polls. I want a poll about folks who are tired of polls). LOL

"“Rick's going to get a decent vote … on Tuesday. I have no doubt the two of us are going to collectively outscore Romney,” Gingrich said. “And at that point it might be a pretty good conversation” to have with Santorum about trying to consolidate all the conservatives behind one candidate, he added."

Let me interpret what Gingrich said here. What he means is that he is going to sit down with Santorum and then try and convince him to drop out. There is no way Gingrich would step aside to let Santorum win, he's too selfish.

So, according to Newt, the GOP is going to nominate a "liberal" to run. And we know that Newt considers Obama to be a flaming "liberal" ... so the two major parties will both select "liberals". Maybe that means that Newt and his radical right philosophy is out of step with most of America. Maybe Newt should examine his positions and try to find a moderate perspective that at least appeals to a majority of the more conservative GOP. Maybe Newt (if he believes in government of, by and for the people) should find a way to incorporate some of the "liberal" thinking that apparently appeals to a significant majority of the population - even in the GOP.

Interestingly, what Newt realizes is that most of the population do embrace liberal policies, even those in the GOP who actually fear the word "liberal". Rather than try to win on the basis of policies, where he is destined to lose, Newt tries to play on fear of a particular word. "Maybe", he thinks, "If I convince them that Mitt is 'liberal' I can win, even though the mainstream GOP likes his policies better than they like mine."

It's worth a try, Newt, since you are wedded to being a member of the Radical Right.

Don't be surprised to see mittens crying about that mean old newt calling him despicable names. How low can they go!

Mittens Rob-us-blind Flip Flop,is not a liberal or a conservative the 1%'er CORPERTE RAIDER and one time governor of Liberal Mass but now arch conservative is a wishy-washy, flip flopping spineless politician without any core convictions, principals or believes a man who will say or do anything to get elected telling one crowd one thing and another crowd another. You simply can’t trust this guy to tell you the truth.

In today's world, Newt's moon colony idea and how he pays for it is extremely centrist (can centrist be extreme?). He conceives, manages, and coordinates through government but let's private money finance and drive it... kinda like... what Obama is doing with the green industry... what Obama did to get the auto industry back on it's feet... no?

Yet the left will be against the moon idea and the right will... I don't have a clue what the right will do.

Being "liberal" does not mean being tolerant of any and every point of view or philosophy and I don't know any "liberals" who claim that it does.

It's quite entertaining to watch, really. It's like making a person stand on a hot plate to make them dance.

John Doe 2241225; How much do you think Newt will offer Richie Santorum, to pull out right now? Wow, everyday its all becoming a little clearer. So this is what Rich Santorum was waiting on the whole time. He knows he dosen't have a chance of pulling it off and being the candidate, so he rides it out til he's made an offer he can't refuse and then he says its time for me to support one and thats going to be Mitt because he was in his corner the last time McCain won. How this will help Newt, I really don't know and like you I really doubt Newt will step down for Santorum. It would be the sensible thing to do for Rich, just pay Newt off, but its just to hard to buy that right now. As the candidacy turns.

Jerry,

There is not evidence of point 1 or 2

as for 3 & 4 - go ahead, just take all the wealth away from the wealthy and give it to the poor. when you do there will be no more to give to the poor, because no one will have jobs - and the poor don't know how to run squat.

You don't understand who the enemy!

These cheap, lying, pandering politicians insult voters of all stripes by assuming that the voters will be swayed by the mere mention of the simplistic terms "conservative" or "liberal".

The issues we as a country face today are far too complex to be solved by being either "conservative" or "liberal".....whatever those terms may mean.

Joe, you are correct to a degree. Because Newt has a greater percentage of voters, normally that would be the correct thing to do. This time it is the wrong thing to do. If Newt doesn't stop his over playing of the hand he is going to continue to drop and the votes will go to Romney and Santorum. Already Newts drop in Florida appears to be going almost solely to Santorum. If Santorum appears to pass Newt and show to be sustainable, then Newt just might drop his bid then, and only then.

If Santorum drops and Newt further self destructs Romney is the winner. None of these three have the whole support of the party. To get it they must earn it and all three have an up hill battle to do so.

I'm thinking if Newt drops out for Santorum, then Santorum will have to give him about $25 million if not more, because Newt would be giving Santorum a lot of votes if his supporters go over to Rick. Now if its the other way and Santorum drops out for Newt, which also dosen't make any sense because Rick was on Mitts campagne the last time he lost to McCain, so I don't see the voters switching over from Santorum to Newt, but that route may not be as expensive. I'd have to think that Newt would give maybe half of that, lets say about $15 million along with his endorsement. I'm surprised that Newt even would mention something like this right now, I'd think something like this would be done behind closed doors.

Joobyfoo

Incorrect! I fact checked - you took an errored source at their word.

Gingerich is not on the Ballots in Missouri and Virginia. In several other states he will not be on SOME ballots. Realistically, only Virginia is the only state he and Santorum are totally out in the cold. Virginia is the only state that that does not allow the voter to write in a candidate.

Because Gingrich is not on the ballot in Missouri and all the ballots in the other states, his possible take is greatly reduced.

The reason Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum are not on some ballots is the degree of difficulty a underfunded / understaffed campaign or late decision to run has in this process.

Virginia is really discriminatory

1. require that all signatures are collect only by residents of the congressional district
2. require the candidate have a minimum of 400 per district to be on the state wide ballot.
3. Do not permit write in votes for the primary. That is really backwards - this is the correct time to write a candidate in.

Isn't it funny, if you remember how the right would leave comments in here about how President Obama is dividing the country and now look. Heres Newt just coming straight out in public and calling Mitt a liberal. Now whos dividing the country? Don't look good for Newt after that remark. Thats just my opinion right now and I have to agree with D B Akron. Newt is self distructing right now. So maybe we will see Newt dropping out and Rick giving Newt a few million for his endorsment.

Ooops. I should of said that Newts even dividing his party now. Thats an interesting remark to make this late into the campagne. Its going to be interesting to see who's going to endorse who now, because I can see Rick Santorum running again, if he dosen't get this nomination and if he endorses Newt, then that could hurt him a little right off the bat when he runs agains Hillary in 2016.

Joe - look at the polls from Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida. Some of the Conservative vote has been switching between Rick and Newt.

In Iowa when Gingrich got hit by the Romney negative adds - the conservative vote moved mostly from Gingrich to Santorum.

In New Hampshire Santorum squeaked past Gingrich.

In South Carolina 2 weeks before the election polls were showing Santorum with 24%. Newt put in two strong debates and 7 points shifted over to Newt along with the undecideds.

In Florida, Santorum was pushing 20+ when Newt had the good SC debates. Newt surged forward and Santorum fell back. Now that Newt has had two bad debates, Santorum is lurching forward again.

Keep in mind - Santorum won in Iowa with 24% and the latest poll showed him to have 18%. Add that much difference to Santorum and he is pushing Gingrich for Second Place.

Since the hard right wingnuts had success with demonizing the word liberal in the minds of their base. They determine anyone who is anywhere left of wingnut is a liberal now a days. So if you don't vote for hate and supremacy you'll never be as rich,smart and as cool as them. Sounds like a gang mentality and strategy or something straight from Hitlers playbook.

Yes, thats how its been going this time and the funny thing about it, usually in the past the person that won S.C. got the green light for them. This time Mitts had that steady 20 some % almost the whole time and then Newt and Rick would have strong debates, just like you just got done saying and its all pretty much in the air right now. Like right from the beginning, I would think that Mitt will finally get the green light, but they sure tried like heck that he didn't. Then again, thats just me thinking that Mitt just might get the nod, Ron Paul's not done yet either. Whew what a campagne this has been.

G Bud, your right too. I think its the wingnuts that might of screwed this whole campagne up right from the get go and nothings been on a steady even run for none of them. Its like they are going to rough it up some now, not much time left. I'm thinking thats why Newt come right out and said what he did. He's going for broke with his efforts right now.

I wish that "liberals" would not have backed down to the pretty effective effort to turn it into a dirty word. I love seeing good historical arguments in favor of liberalism.

Brianb, actually the phrase - 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend,' is an Arabian proverb.

"So... Liberals are open to reform and want to extend individual freedom. What's bad about that?"

What's bad about that is that your "individual freedom" is only for your selfish selves, and your "re"-form typically takes the form of a falsely self-proclaimed advocacy of the rights of the weak and disadvantaged which is truthfully only a shallow and cynical scam to ingratiate yourselves that you might seize the power to line your own pockets with other people's money. All the while you ignore the cries of the weakest of human beings whose blood you callously shed with not a trace of remorse: you trample on the Constitution's explicitly stated purpose to "preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" by murdering babies not yet born, you make excuses for the abomination of homosexuality and the willful destruction of marriage, being insensitive to a child's rightful need for the advantage of being raised in a natural family by its own mother and father, you promote these bizarre and vile behaviors to the youngest students in the public schools, forcing these abhorrent ideas upon those who, knowing them to be truly demonic, grieve therefore, and yet you demonize those who rightfully honor the Son of God simply for doing so. Those among your number who fancy themselves to also be Christians in some way or another are silently complicit with these murders and perversions and mockeries and show no evidence that they see any evil in these horrid things--being, at best, "sleeping dogs that cannot bark," or worse, birds of a feather with the anti-Christian monsters with whom they travel.

Now that I've told you what the disease is, let me now also tell you what is the medicine for it.

"Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly. The vile person shall be no more called liberal, not the churl said to be bountiful. For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. The instruments also of the churl are evil: he devises wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaks right. But the liberal devises liberal things an by liberal things shall he stand." Isaiah 32:1-8

I tell you the truth: These words are true now, today, at this moment, even as you read them from my hand, in which there is "the pen of a ready writer." And these words are themselves the very shelter from the raging storm that is so urgently needed today--the very real kind of blessing that will never be found to come forth from anyone that you political animals would call a "liberal."

Christian, wake up from your deep slumber. It is time for the great apostasy to pass away. Forget this factional, divisive political nonsense which cannot save you. It is time for you to return to the path that is always in the light.

But you false-liberal churls are so hell-bent on banishing God from the public discourse that you are willfully and irrationally blind to the truth that a "blessing" is a meaningless impossibility in an atheistic universe.

Thus, by explicitly rejecting God and His blessings (or cowardly remaining silent as you walk arm-in-arm with those who do this), you make yourselves a curse to all mankind.

All these evils I have named are what's "bad" about that.

Good is any blessing, especially one that shines a light on the true path henceforth.

Newt must love the taste of his foot because he constantly stick it in his mouth

When I was in school, I learned the definition of "conservative politics" was sticking as close as possible to our original documents (bill of rights, constitution, etc) and the principles and theories of our founding fathers.

It is clear that most self-labeled "conservatives" do not fit this definition. Whatever they are, they are free to do what they think is best for this country and their constituents, but to label themselves as conservative is factually wrong at best and dishonest at worst.

There is only one of four candidates in this Republican field that is truly conservative by definition, and that candidate is Ron Paul. Whether you support him or not, this is a fact.

Why do I think that most of the Founding Fathers would say today that the

"original documents (bill of rights, constitution, etc) and the principles and theories of our founding fathers"

are just a guideline originally suitable for their time but meant to be changed over time as times change. They'd probably argue that this is just common sense since they weren't the incarnation of god.....

Maybe Newt should examine his positions and try to find a moderate perspective that at least appeals to a majority of the more conservative GOP.

Actually, Newt's position is that the rest of the country's out of step with him.

...and why should I care who calls who what names?

Greg in New York - "Brokered convention anyone..."

So is brokered convention the way to vote "None of the above".

Kyle -

There is only one of four candidates in this Republican field that is truly conservative by definition, and that candidate is Ron Paul. Whether you support him or not, this is a fact.

I agree. However I do not vote based on who has what label. I vote based on the person, their record and their effectiveness.

Wow, John! So given your summary of a liberal, the poor are really screwed! They either get false representation from the Democrats (per your post) or callous and blatant disregard and blame from the Republicans... but, somehow, the Republicans are REALLY in their corner because rich individuals and huge corporations will "trickle down" all the sustenance and opportunity they need.

Is THAT what you claim?

In reality, I'm sure there are some Democrats who are "in it for them selves", but I'm not and none that I know are. By your notion, any and all that speak for the poor are on the take... and you are just flat wrong.

BrianB,

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible,

favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially withrespect to matters of personal belief or expression

If liberals are favorable with both individual freedom and favoring or permitting freedom of action, how come so many liberals on these boards tell others to STFU, or collapse their posts because they don't agree with what the poster says? Happens all the time. If liberals are so caught up in these concepts, they would just toke on their dubie and move along.

You're confusing tolerance and passivity. I can be tolerant of you without being passive in the face of a viewpoint I disagree with. Apply the "but for" test. But for a concept or opinion that I feel is contrary to individual freedom, I have nothing to say to you.

For example... Many conservatives have issues with gay marriage, because of their religion. They use that religion to squelch the individual freedom of people, afterall who people marry or what they do in the bedroom has no consequence in anyone's life, except for the people in the relationship. But for, the expression of their belief that gay people are abominations, I have no problem with those conservatives. However, there is no "but for" for those conservatives having a problem with gay people. They would have those issues regardless, based on nothing but the sexuality of someone, which plays zero role in their life.

MLK was tolerant of all beliefs, he however wasn't passive in the face of beliefs that negatively effected citizens. Get it?

It's common knowledge that bigotry isn't acceptable in this country, however bigotry is still an important defense mechanism for some people. Therefore, the only way to maintain that mechanism while simultaneously maintaining societal acceptance is to make the very act of calling someone else out on their bigotry even more unpalatable than actually being the bigot. We've begun to demonize honesty, in order to maintain defense mechanisms.

THE October SURPRISE will be when the GOP Convention convenes and the Floor Delegates all REJECT

the Primary winners and UNANIMOUSLY VOTE FOR SARAH PALIN for POTUS .

...at that point Liberals everywhere will rejoice in the knowledge that THE GOP has killed itself once & for all.

The Goofy Odd People party is in the toilet & waiting to be flushed .

So Sarah, why do you feel the need to bring up gay marriage and MLK when Brian B mentioned neither in this thread. Brian is an individual just as you are an individual. The only collapse post I found of Brian B on this thread was one that questioned someone's definition of liberal. I believe arguing over definitions of liberal and conservative is silly, but is freedom of speech.

• Conservatives in congress tout they are for reduced spending then pass the largest defense spending bill ever.
• Liberals in congress tout they are for the freedom of expression and then join a bipartisan coalition to make links on the internet illegal.

See silly argument. Who cares.

Taking,

It's called illustrating a point. Ever hear of it??? Why are you nit picking how I chose to address Brian's issue, instead of debating/discussing the substantive point in my post??? Maybe it went over your head?

Let me break it down... My point is, Conservatives are intolerant of people, liberals are intolerant of intolerance.

My bringing MLK and gay marriage up, was to show Brian how that is so. So can you actually discuss that, or are you limited to nit picking? Or maybe, you're doing exactly what I talked about in the post and demonizing honesty?

I believe arguing over definitions of liberal and conservative is silly, but is freedom of speech.

And, for the last time, having a post collapsed is NOT a violation of free speech. You have the freedom and right to say it, but you're not guarenteed an audience for it.

It's called illustrating a point. Ever hear of it???

Yes, but you illustrated Brian's not yours.

Why are you nit picking how I chose to address Brian's issue, instead of debating/discussing the substantive point in my post???

When I read your post I thought Brian B said something really ridiculous so I was about to reply myself. Then I opened up his comment which is the only comment on the thread which was collapsed. Who knows who collapsed it (Could have been Brian himself trying to make a point). However, when I read, I found the same old silly liberal vs conservative debate with no other post collapsed.

My point is that I would not have given Brian's post any thought until I read yours. So I thought it would be polite to warn you that you did not make your point. In fact you advertised Brian's.

As far as the other topics go, I like MLK. MLK never picked an allegiance to either political party but remained party neutral. According to Wikipedia he made the following comment

I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both—not the servant or master of either.

I agree.

Both parties use gay marriage (for/against) and pro (life/choice) to rally the troops, but neither is a main concern of the average citizen in the US today. They are both a distraction tactics used to veer conversation off the real issues (How do we budget? Do we need to be everywhere in the world? How do we fairly bring in enough revenue to pay for the things we want? What do we want? What can we live without? Can I afford to pay for my child's college education? Does it cost more to work than it does to stay home? Will I have a job tomorrow? How do we add more jobs in the US? ...). So Sarah I picked on you again because you we the only one on this thread to start in on the political party hot topic button.

Elise,

Good to see you my dear friend!

Hope you are feeling better!

{{{hugs}}}

Reagan was a good president but had alzheimers. This new one has other brain problems, but a good memory.

Reagan was the only president who couldn't remember his own name.

.

Oh yeah John, Reagan was a good president. Just look at how he dealt with Osamma bin laden and Sadam Hussain, by using US taxpayer dollars to help them. Look at how that turned out.

Reagan was far too moderate for a Chisto-taliban/TP dominated Republican Party. He wouldn't stand a chance in today's political climate.

Alverant - how old are you? The reason I ask is because at the time, there was a political philosophy that went - The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm not saying it is correct, but that was the philosophy leaders used in the 60s through the 80s. Since they went by this philosophy (they all did it) now, 40 years later you use that rationale as an excuse to bash Reagan? I guess you don't history much, do you?

Aren't too many people who like what reagan did except the 1%. So let him continue to make a damn fool out of himself with that line. Trickle down economics...need I say more.What I believe is Newt got in to sell books and was content to just spew his hatred so the followers of people like him and Coulter and those idiot on Faux would make him richer. Two things happened that altered his plan to go so far then get out. One was Mitt slapped him with negative ads when he had made the mistake of spouting off on not going negative. (primarily because he did not have the money to do so) Then along came the guy from Vegas with the deep pockets. Newt has had the lead in three of the four races and lost them. His message is fools gold. he never was much of a politician and got to be speaker not because of his brilliance but because he led the fight to regain the house with his contract on America which in retrospect was all lies.Now he is trapped and has already pushed the destuct button and has p offed his own party with his rhetoric. Where does he go from here? Away we hope.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" was not used in that time and I grew up then that phrase is what Arabs use look it up. Geez and you profess to be mr know it all...Reagan like these two was an idiot. Nice old feeble guy but dumb as a brick.

Well Regan did use Astrology to decide who would be on his appointment calendar and Newt wants to have a permanent colony on the moon IN EIGHT YEARS so I suppose in that regard, astrology, they are akin but Regan raised taxes on the wealthy because he saw it as not only a great source of steady revenue but as the correct moral position to take. That is where Newt and Ron part. Newt is Amoral and the only revenue that he is concerned with is Corporate profits and Welfare To Israel.

President Reagan along with Thomas Jefferson had high IQ's. Both could have made people like you look like you knew nothing. You like those who make promises they don't intend to keep, then reuse them when it is time to run again. Some people just like to slam good Americans. And really only know what they see others posts. The people who rob the people of this county are those who try to ruin others. You have some of the biggest crooks in Washington and I said some. The good ones hate what is going on now just as much as the good republicans do. Don't knock one party without telling the truth about the other party. But I think some comment just to be out right rude.And don't know much of anything.

You know guys, I've said this before and I'll say it again, Newt is claiming Reagan's legacy only because he happened to be in the government when Reagan was president, and he rose to Speaker so he thinks that the legacy is his by right of political succession.

I was standing in the room when Reagan asked one of his aides if there was any way to throw Gingrich out of the party or get him unelected. Reagan thought that the Grinch was an egotistical idiot that wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the azz and wanted nothing to do with him nor his "Ideas".

If there is anyone on the stage today campaigning for president that could claim Reagan's legacy it would be Dr Paul, whom Reagan liked VERY much. They had a meeting during the '84 campaign that was supposed to last two hours, it ran to almost five hours and when they came out of the room the were handshaking and backslapping and joking around with each other, Reagan gave Dr Paul his wishes for all the success that god could bring him, he didn't say such thing to just anyone.

Dr Paul has too much integrity to use such friendship for political gain, the grinch is using it because Reagan isn't here to set the record straight.

The Grinch is a con man, a liar and doesn't have a clue to what the truth actually is. I say that mitts shouldn't be elected to anything more that a dog turd remover, the grinch shouldn't be elected to anything more than his assistant.

breadex - there's a saying that you can't fix stupid... my version is, you can't fix ignorant. You know nothing about that philosophy, and I doubt you were even around then. Your post smacks of someone in their teens.

Egilman,

While I disagree with Dr. Paul on a lot of issues, the one thing he isn't is a hypocrite. Maybe some of the GOP field could learn a few things from the good doctor.

Dr. Paul has been running for president for a few elections now. He has some very loyal followers but some of those in the spotlight have dulled his chance for becoming president. I know he can't control those that choose to endorse him, but that's the unfortunate stigma around his neck. He always seems to come up short when it comes to the debates... what I mean is, they don't give him as much time to speak as they do the others... the same with Santorum. Both of them are seen as just people on the stage without gathering much attention. Santorum has some pretty good things to say but he's always given second rate attention... Dr Paul is the quiet one. Makes his points and steps back. I hope all 4 of them get to the convention. I don't see Ron Paul pulling out, but Santorum has money issues... Unless he gets a big time donor and they have a PAC, he won't be able to make it. l

BB

What is odd (remembering I lean left of center - not far, but some) is that Santorum and Paul on the GOP side get working Americans. Maybe it was the way they were brought up, I don't know. But when either gets to speak at debates, you feel like they get the "blue collar worker" in a way Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich do not.

Brainb,

Paul will have enough delegates votes to get a decent time slot to speak at the convention. that will be it.

Paul will get some delegates from caucus states. He has a good ground game to get his folks out.

Santorum is a non factor in the delegate count now and going forward.

Good evening Northstar

This is off topic, and I can't remember if I asked, but did you happen to see the northern light show because of the solar storm?

Phine,

How are you doing ?

No, I did not see the Northern Lights. I live in a big city , too many lights. I have only seen them once. We were way up North along the shore of Lake Superior. It was spectacular.

Brianb-999431

Alverant - how old are you? The reason I ask is because at the time, there was a political philosophy that went - The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm not saying it is correct, but that was the philosophy leaders used in the 60s through the 80s. Since they went by this philosophy (they all did it) now, 40 years later you use that rationale as an excuse to bash Reagan? I guess you don't history much, do you?

Regardless of philosophy - are you saying that the gipper did not use tax payer dollars to fund bin Laden to fend of the Russians? A simple yes or no answer. He also enjoyed trading guns for human lives. Are you saying he had no involvement in the contra's?

People speak of Reagan like he was this wonderful president - I cant understand, for the life of me, why every conservative compares themselves to him. He fiscally tripled our national debt - funded terrorists from the around the world. Is that a good thing?

Amen Milke 416. I have frequently wondered why every Rightwing imp running for President compares himself to Reagan. Unless they were and are liars`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````, and phony. He was the beginning of the downfall of this Country. Gingrich tried his best to make the power play of all power plays when he tried to get Clinton impeached. It backfired on him. His own Party kicked him to the curb. Calling Romney a Liberal is a great promotion above being called a Teabagger. Obama for four more. Vot Progressive.

That was to be Vote Progressive. Good Morning Feisty Red.

Good Morning Feisty Red.

Hiya Bob!

Nice to see you out & about this morning!

Normally I try not to be uber-partisan or hateful in my rhetoric, but talk about an unholy alliance that kind of makes me vomit in my mouth a little bit.

Really, the only adjective that comes to mind when I link these two in my head, is disgusting. Disgusting and hypocritical. Disgusting, hypocritical, and evil. Disgusting, hypocritical, evil, and bigotted. Disgusting, hypocritical... Okay, so it isn't just one.

Santorum has some pretty good things to say but he's always given second rate attention...

Santorum makes the Spanish Inquisition look like a book club. The more he talks, the scarier he is.

BrianB##### and BreadX, the phrase no matter where it originated has been around for a long time. It was used professionally by the lobbyists for the Military Industrial Complex during the Post Viet Nam era to get the Government to fund the manufacture and purchase of new weapons and weapons system (remember the Star Wars Missile Umbrella) while the old stock pile of weapons was being filtered off to Iran, Iraq, OBL, the Sandanistas, the Philippine Army, and so on.

This was the M.I.C at its best, they were taking all the cream off the boom with the mere rumor of war ....which is why there was nothing left to trickle down and why the deficit blew out when in fact the government coffers should have been full and over all taxes should have decreased rather than just taxes on the wealthy.

Now watch out folks it's all being set up again, with Afghanistan and Iraq winding down they have to create a new enemy.....Iran your up.

"Of all the things about conservatives I will never understand it is how Ronald Reagan became their God.

The guy was pro-immigration, bloated the federal government and increased the national debt by 275%.

He was a co-star to a monkey and God knows how the conservatives feel about evolution..."

I'm pretty sure you answered your own question :D

And they all have selective memories. Their Saint Ronnie was the face of the first anmesty for illegals.

GCooper ....that is the funniest thing I have ever read on these blog........Yes, I agree....He had an amnesty for illegal immigrants......85% became US citizens paying their taxes.....Reagan wasn't a hardliner about anything but the Russians......He lowered the taxes significantly on the rich and that is what the Republicans at the time liked about him.....I'm not that old and I remember it. These monkeys have nothing in commen with Reagen as far as I can tell. Obama will win.....Espescially if Gingrich wins the nomination.....But Obama will push his reforms next term, as most presidents have done throughout history......The second termers have always done better with pushing their legislature through. I think he is doing an alright job....Don't like how he markets himself....people still think the man is muslim..and is not a natural born citizen of the US.which is crazy btw. But, I think overall good with what he had to work with.....He ran on healthcare reform......So I really dont understand all the crying over it. He did what he said he was going to do and to me that is a thing of great value. It should be about fair share of taxes...agree totally.....We should fight for fairness.....That's not redistribution of wealth....that is fair...

You guys are something else. Is that ALL you remember about Reagan? One thing out of thousands he did. The one focus point of young liberals that weren't even in diapers at the time. Do you know what he said about it a year later? Do you even realize that Reagan brought down the communist party in USSR... wait, you don't even know what the USSR was. You have no memory of the missiles pointed at us from their country and their leaders with itchy trigger fingers. Do yourselves a favor... open up a history book... and not one written by a liberal. Study up on what Reagan did. Since you question why people of my generation have so much respect for the man. Educate yourselves and get off the dam X-box.

Brian B. A little economics lesson, old timer. The corrupt Soviet economic system was far more responsible for the Soviet downfall than anything Reagan could have done or even imagined. Imagine a world without an "evil empire" to distract us from all the cronyism that plagues this societal/economic system. These are hard concepts for people who need to simplify everything to black and white. Your politicians love our new "dumbed-down" electorate. I'm guessing that reading and thinking were not encouraged in the USSR either. It truly is "our turn" now.

There was a movie where in the actor said " and actor as president?" what were they thinking. Thats all he was. Anybody who can nod off in a national security briefing....wellllll

Does anyone know why conservatives seem so obsessed with Reagan??? I mean, you can't go one debate without a conservative extolling their "Reagan conservative" values and how they are the "true heir to the Reagan throne." Reagan was a liberal compared to the current set of clowns. He doubled our debt and cut domestic spending. I am so sick of this Reagan crap. And I have to agree with Robert. I mean, Reagan was tough with the USSR, and he did help them collapse. But the corrupt Soviet system probably did more to the fall of Communism, especially due to the lack of investment in non-defense sectors.

Plus anyone who is a liberal is open to my vote. We liberals and centrists are a proud people; why are people like me demonized and referred to as socialists??? I am not a socialist. In fact, I will bet that I know more about socialism than the next guy who will call me one. And FWI: socialism is not 100% evil. It has some good sides, like affordable healthcare and public education. Capitalism is way better, but we need socialism to soften out capitalism's rough edges.

"Do you even realize that Reagan brought down the communist party in USSR.." You dont either because he was just President at the time they got a leader that realized his people could no longer afford the cold war. That statement is as stupid as it gets. You bought the farm on that nonsense because Thatcher had to tell Reagan they could deal with Gorby. When he met with him he almost wet himself and Gorby had to tell him to slow down. You are telling people they are stupid when it is you that does not know history from right wing hype

BB

Just a side note here. Some of the credit to the fall of the USSR can be given to Pope John Paul II. Even Gorbachev said so.

sure thing brian - ray-gun brought down SoyuzSovietski - but HOW? OUTSPENDING THEM. Dumping obscene amount of $$$ into the military industrial complex. Soviets couldn't compete so they collapsed.

Actually, canary, lot's of things factored into the fall of the USSR. Economic factors were one thing but not the only thing.

Robert Juenemann

Brian B. A little economics lesson, old timer. The corrupt Soviet economic system was far more responsible for the Soviet downfall than anything Reagan could have done or even imagined. Imagine a world without an "evil empire" to distract us from all the cronyism that plagues this societal/economic system. These are hard concepts for people who need to simplify everything to black and white. Your politicians love our new "dumbed-down" electorate. I'm guessing that reading and thinking were not encouraged in the USSR either. It truly is "our turn" now.

That's right, Robert. Exorbitant Soviet military spending helped to crater their economy, which is exactly what could happen to the U.S. and why it is so important to cut the fat out of the American military budget.

Obama's foreign policy successes have demonstrated that our military can both spend less and be more effective at the same time.

Yes it is Alzhiemers... theirs and not his...

Ronald Reagan was the most overrated president in history.

With his voodoo economics a term that was coined by President Bush Sr., the ridicules trickle down economic theory which we know doesn’t work and has even been rejected by Reagan’s economic architect David Stockman as a failure.

I don’t even think Regain even know what day it was. The country was being run by Bush Sr., Ollie North and Nancy Regain’s Astrologer

@BrainB

The comment I find most puzzling in your testimony to Reagan is the "missiles pointed at our country and their leaders with itchy trigger fingers" one.

Um,what history book can YOU point us to that tells of the incident wherein the Soviet Union ever nuked anyone?

Because any history book I ever read here in Reality World shows that the we,the USA,alone have the distinction of ever having nuked anybody. So how,exactly,does one who has NEVER pulled the trigger earn the honorific of having "an itchy trigger finger" from one as steeped in historical wisdom and knowledge as yourself?

Afghanistan had far more to do with the destruction of the USSR than anything American. By the time they left that country, they could barely afford the fuel to get their tanks home (the ones that they took home).

Reagan came into office at a time where public moral was low, became a 'cheerleader' by cutting taxes, spent more on military, gutted government and social programs. In doing so, made America feel better about itself. The bad side, which there always is, was that the countless Administrative 'hits' with scandals, i.e. Iran-Contra, his center policies which went against both GOP AND Democratic alike, refurbishing the military and the build-up of nuclear arsenals, and the obvious 'trickle-down' theory, that never worked since it's inception.

Do you even realize that Reagan brought down the communist party in USSR... wait, you don't even know what the USSR was. You have no memory of the missiles pointed at us from their country and their leaders with itchy trigger fingers.

The US outspent the Soviet Union in defense funding. For 30 years we played "a game economic chicken" with the Soviets until they finally folded during Reagan's administration.

And yes, I'm old enough to remember that entire era. I remember civil defense drills in 3rd grade that involved huddling under our desks and putting our heads between our knees. Not a good time for young impressionable children.

EVERYBODY is a liberal compared to Newty Fruity.

As for Reagan, he didn't bring down the Soviet Union. It fell because it was a crappy system. Reagan was in the early stages of Alzheimers, and barely knew what his handlers were having him do. The person who said he is the most overrated President in history is right. The U.S. economy was actually on the rise when he took over, and he promptly plunged it back into a double dip recession because he was an even worse political leader than an actor (hard to believe if you saw any of his movies). Trickle down did not work, never worked, and never will. Education is the only thing that will enable people to make sound judgements about showboats like Reagan. Similar to Bush, he was all hat and no cattle.

In the 80's the Soviets developed their own space shuttle called the Buran to maintain "technological parity" with the US. It flew exactly once in 1988, never in space, and just about bankrupted their space agency. This is a microcosm of what was going on between the US and the USSR during the 80's. We spent 'em into the ground, plain and simple.

As for supply side economics, it ain't worked for the last 30 years. Why does anybody believe it can still work?

Technically, trickle-down economics MIGHT work, but not in the way that most people think. Sure, keeping taxes on investments at a low rate can insure investment, but those investments are only possible if the demand is there. Technically, I would say that the capital gains tax should be still at 15%, or maybe move it up to maybe 20% if it won't hurt the economy too much, but at the very least the carried interest should be taxed as INCOME. That would have investors pay higher tax rates. And to be realistic, trickle-down economics does not work if the tax cuts are focused on the wealthy. They should be focused on the real sources of demand in our economy: the middle class. For some reason, the Bush tax cuts didn't work (most likely because taxes were low to begin with). So we should just throw out the idea of MORE tax cuts and actually start spurring growth by investing money in education reform and infrastructure projects; we should also repeal the bulk of the Bush tax cuts but keep some reductions for the middle class (whose demand sends money both up to corporate executives and shareholders at the top and down to low-income households who are benefited by increased demand).

Newtron Bomb, Newty but (Not) Nice, Newt the Coot, Newty as a Fruitcake... is a Grumpy Old Man. I'd rather not listen to his angry retorts and distortions for the next nine months, let alone the next five years.

Nonetheless, I'll tolerate ol' Chock Full o' Newts for a little longer as he continues to jab and spar and keep that robotic Richie Rich Romney off balance.

Are you insane?

Does anyone recall the fact that Newt Gingrich was fined $300,000.00 for ethics violation then in 1997 was forced to resign as Speaker of the House or is it just me?

hotpockets44

Are you insane?

Does anyone recall the fact that Newt Gingrich was fined $300,000.00 for ethics violation then in 1997 was forced to resign as Speaker of the House or is it just me?

If your comment is aimed at Joe Speranzi, I'm pretty sure he was just being facetious.

Don't forget Moonman.

Yes, hotpockets, a lot of us remember he was fined over $300,000 dollars and ran out of town by his Republican collegues. Bob Dole also remembers, and to his credit, he stood up and said so.

Progressive,

Read your post twice, and it still makes no sense. Are you on cocaine??

I think that "Progressive=Foward11" must be Gingrich's Newsvine alias.

Political naivete is the mark of an inexperienced idealist. Radically change the status quo and you'll only piss voters and non-voters off by their having to reap the negative consequences of your radical, regressive candidate establishing another status quo that only a few recognize.

Be careful what you wish for.

I think they're pointedly avoiding Ron Paul! lol

Don't see how the "new" status quo can be much worse! Then again, I'll have my backup plan to flee to Mexico if this becomes the USSR.

Don't be Naive' Domingo, even Paul has an agenda. You don't get to the executives office without a few "I.O.U"'s..

Are you really that naive? Do you really believe for one nanosecond that if Ron Paul were to be elected the Legislative Branch (you know, Congress) would suddenly march in lockstep and say "Oh yes, Mr. President, whatever you want". My God the naivete of so many posters.

rradiko

'Political naivete is the mark of an inexperienced idealist. "

i would add another axiom for the Paul supporters:

" gradient is the elixir of youth". it is all uphill.

There is no such candidate at this time. Obama just may be the least of the evils.

If you are talking about the crazy old doctor I will ditto what Mike 076 has to say.

I suggest the paul supporters go read up on Ayn Rand the person his idiot son is named for.

He is not named after Ayn Rand... why don't you get a clue, his name is RANDY, shortened to Rand as a nickname that was eventually legalized, this name crap was debunked during Rand's run for the Senate years ago... Get a clue...

my choice of destinations is Thailand. EVERYONE KNOWS that the POLITICIANS are inherently CORRUPT there. They don't even bother hiding it

At least Ron Paul is honest. He posed for a picture with Don Black, former Nazi and current KKK sympathizer. He just didn't think people would put two and two together.

If he wins, I sure hope I am white enough to get an account on stormfront.org.

No Mitt is a chameleon, He is always trying to blend in, but really doesn't fit anywhere, with the majority of americans.

Mitt said he was a progressive who was left of Kennedy...now he says he is a conservative. Are we to trust a man who does not know what he really believes about himself. I can understand a rightist, a leftist, a centrist, even a right of centrist or a left of centrist, but an all-over-the-place-ist is a dangerous man.

Newt reminds me more of the snake oil sales in the Wizard of Oz. Maybe we are in trouble, he was the wizard after all.

Chicken Little to the nth degree. Doom and gloom. If they took the word liberal out of the dictionary he would be mute.

Hmmm, oil from Red, and chicken from Breadex. Hey! Are we going to have some fried chicken!

Is it liberal to ensure police, schools, hospitals and infrastructure be maintained?

those issues are not the responsibility of the Federal Govt. This is a constant strawman argument by liberals.

Conservatives have never abandoned diplomacy-another strawman

Most so-called civil rights today are nothing but unconstitutional infringements.

OMG Larry, are you serious?

Infrastructure is not the responsibility of the Federal Government? Are you really serious? What about the Interstate Highway System,intrastate waterways ? And, civil rights are an unconstitutional infringement? By chance are you a member of the KKK?

To quote Ron White; "You can't fix stupid."

Sorry, interstate not intrastate. What about Hoover Dam, Boulder Dam? Not the responsibility of the FED?

Some infrastructure is Federal and should be taken care of via the Federal Fuel Excise Tax and other Highway taxes paid by Trucking. Not a dime should be coming out of General Funds.

No I'm not KKK. I have 3 black stepsons, 2 black daughter-in-laws, and a black grandson; My wife is black/Latina mix. that is a strawman argument. Civil rights have intruded into private business where there should be no authority and into areas that have nothing to do with civil rights (ie homosexual behavior).

There was no Constitutional authority for building Hoover Dam.

Wm... Liberal to them means anyone to the left of their extremism. That would include right leaning conservatives (not kooky enough) moderates , Centrists right leaners right leaning moderates and all the rest usually called liberals but are more progressives. You know the people we back in other country's when they rise up against repressive governments.

Or he could be referring to some one who is very anti gun rights and instituted a state health care system. Both of those seem to be in the current liberal mindset. Although I hate the term Liberal because it is just an attempt at branding a movement positively. Just look at the Federalists and the Federalists papers, Label your self positively and your opponents negatively i.e. Anti-federalists or reggressives and the uneducated masses will usually follow along on the basis of semantics alone.

traylor-

Gingrich is being polite instead of using the more accurate term marxist which is what most "liberals" are.

Larry, Taylor's point was clear without your illustration.

How is it that so many on the 'right' side of politics relish demonizing those that don't blindly follow in their footsteps. I'm a proud Massachusetts CPL (commie, pinko, liberal) and Mitt Romney's ideals are far to the right of mine. That said, at least he isn't a lemming.

Larry, the more you post the more ignorant you appear! I'm a Liberal, and I'm as far from a Marxist as can be. I believe in free enterprise. I believe in self sufficiency, etc.. But, as opposed to you, I believe in extending a helping hand to those less fortunate than me.

Just for the record; I served proudly in the military, did you? I am a successful small business owner who has hired several great employees that had a previous felony conviction, because I believe in giving people a second chance. And, I'm a damn proud Liberal, you clown.

Larry, what a crock. When and who changed the definitions?

He is just a grenade launcher. They always use that family thing to make their well you know what.

MikeO76

Larry, the more you post the more ignorant you appear! I'm a Liberal, and I'm as far from a Marxist as can be. I believe in free enterprise. I believe in self sufficiency, etc.. But, as opposed to you, I believe in extending a helping hand to those less fortunate than me.

Just for the record; I served proudly in the military, did you? I am a successful small business owner who has hired several great employees that had a previous felony conviction, because I believe in giving people a second chance. And, I'm a damn proud Liberal, you clown.

1st, I'm also a proud Disabled Vet who enlisted in 1966. I am also a business owner and a pastor

As to your marxism, most liberals don't even realize that the Democratic Party has stood for the Communist Manifesto for over 100 years

All of these are from the Communist Manifesto and are core liberal Democrat policies and beliefs

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (eminent domain)

Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (estate tax)

Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Federal Reserve)

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state. (FCC & Dept Of Transportation)

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (AIG, GM, Dept of Agriculture, OSHA, EPA)

Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (unionism)

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (urbanization)

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc (John Dewey a communist and founder of American Public Schools -Dewey considered "the great task of the school" to be "to counteract and transform those domestic and neighborhood tendencies" which he specifically and accurately identified as "the influence of home and Church." In order for Dewey's "progressive" agenda to advance, the moral authority of "home and Church" would have to be undermined and replaced with the authority of the state.)

“The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. (homosexual marriage, feminism)

All of the following Progressive Democrats (2004 list) are also members of the Democratic Socialists USA party. They used to proudly post this on the Progressive Caucus website until people like myself began reposting it

The Democratic Socialists of America, Progressive Caucus members lists the following elected Representatives in the US House of Representatives as members (as of 2004):

OFFICERS Dennis Kucinich (CO-CHAIR, OHIO-10) Barbara Lee (CO-CHAIR, CALIFORNIA-09) Lynn Woolsey (VICE-CHAIR, CALIFORNIA-06) Peter DeFazio (OFFICER, OREGON-04) Jesse Jackson, Jr (OFFICER, ILLINOIS-02) Major Owens (OFFICER, NEW YORK-11) Bernie Sanders (OFFICER, VERMONT) Hilda Solis (OFFICER, CALIFORNIA-31)

MEMBERS Neil Abercrombie (HI-01), Tammy Baldwin (WI-02), Xavier Becerra (CA-30), David Bonior (MI-10), Corrine Brown (FL-03), Sherrod Brown (OH-13), Michael Capuano (MA-08), Julia Carson (IN-10), William Clay (MO-01), John Conyers (MI-14), Danny Davis (IL-07), Peter DeFazio (OR-04), Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), Lane Evans (IL-17), Eni Faleomavaega (American Samoa), Sam Farr (CA-17), Chaka Fattah (PA-02), Bob Filner (CA-50), Barney Frank (MA-04), Luis Gutierrez (IL-04), Earl Hilliard (AL-07), Maurice Hinchey (NY-26), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18), Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11), Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Tom Lantos (CA-12), John Lewis (GA-05), Jim McDermott (WA-07), James P. McGovern (MA-03), Carrie Meek (FL-17), George Miller (CA-07), Patsy Mink (HI-02), Jerry Nadler (NY-08), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), John Oliver (MA-01), Ed Pastor (AZ-02), Donald Payne (NJ-10)., Nancy Pelosi (CA-08), Jan Schakowski (IL-09), Jose Serrany (NY-16), Hilds Solis (CA-31), Pete Stark (CA-13), Bennie Thompson (MS-02), John Tierney (MA-06), Tom Udall (NM-03), Nydia Velazquez (NY-12), Maxine Waters (CA-35), Mel Watt (NC-12), Henry Waxman (CA-29), Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Barack Obama himself ran as a member of the Socialist New Party when he was elected to the Illinois State Senate. the New Party was formed by the Democratic Socialists

Here is the New Party link noting Obama as a New Party candidate for the Illinois State Senate seat that he won

http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932

Larry, it's all well and good to qoute Jefferson, but you have to take the whole overview of the man based in the period of time that he lived. He, like Washington and others could not or would not think of abolishing slavery. While they eventually voted to allow Caucasion land owners the right to vote, they turned around and invented the Electoral College to be the ultimate determiners of our elections because they thought that most white landowners were ignorant and suceptable to popular opinion as opposed to hand picked elite body of more knowledgable people looking out for us, while we pretended to practice democracy..

States rights are fine, but we all voted these for these social programs and keep voting for them by voting for candidates that swear to defend them. The only people who want to curtail them don't need them....like Romney.

Calling all Democrats!! I believe Obama will be re-elected, however, let's not be so sure of it. It's his election to lose for sure and, it appears that all we have to do is sit back, let Newt and Romney duke it out, then watch the GOP become their own worst enemy. So, please, the last thing we should do is to become complacent. Let's work as hard as we did, and then some, in 2008, get out the vote, and make sure that every eligible democrat, turn out in droves, to vote Obama back into office. That's when I'll be even prouder of our country than I was on that night in November, 2008!!

Gingrich is being polite instead of using the more accurate term marxist which is what most "liberals" are.

As to your marxism, most liberals don't even realize that the Democratic Party has stood for the Communist Manifesto for over 100 years

Lary, ypou're about ready to be fitted with a tinfoil hat. What's next, the Illuminati and the Freemasons?

Larry,

You are full of it. The estate tax is as old as 1797. There weren't no democrats then! But maybe you're right. Let's abolish the public education system and send our children back to work in the factories. Like Communist China does! That's how to be less communist! GREAT IDEA!

Pragmatic-

Wrong- the Estate tax was implemented in 1916

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f7c34848582a114133f90711b50b9a3a.pdf

I am against public education, but not against education. Private schooling and home schooling are far more efficient and cost effective.

Your comments about China reveals that like most people who cannot argue on the substance of an issue, resort to strawman and red herring arguments.

That is probably true. But he is vehemently denying his support for the individual mandate and other things he supported by simply lying about it, just as his outright lie that he balanced the budget and reduced the debt for 4 years when he wasn't even in the House for two of them.

Clinton submitted 4 balanced budgets which were all rejected by the house. They never had one they did not have to amend. He is full of it

I love your passion against people who disagree with you. Please show me where the federal government gets the authority to spend federal money in order to "help people," then further could you please explain how the Fed has helped people in the past?

I personally am going to stick to the teach a man to fish principle instead of the welfare state that this country is moving toward.

Tex:

Did it ever occur to you that a person who is out of work can be thusly so without fault? I don't understand a mentality so narrowly construed as to blame everything on the poor; including being poor. Do you know what every poor person is going to leave for their children? The same NOTHING that they themselves inherited. Your thoughts are foolishness. No one sets out to be poor; no one chooses to have low or little aspiration. You won't help! You don't want a gov't that helps and you think you are righteous although I am certain you had help along the way. You should thank whatever god you believe in that the poor are here, in this world; because as long as their are poor folk; you get to stick your chest out and point at them as the world's only problem. You CAN teach a man to fish...but if he is restricted to fishing in a mud puddle what will he catch?

It surely will not be anything edible!

Running a government is far different than running a business. Some folks think it is the same but clearly it is quite different.

Thank you for pointing that out. Most people seem to think that governments and businesses are run the same way: when the top guy says jump, everyone else says "how high". But, in the case of the presidency, that only applies to the military and, to a less extent, foreign policy. Domestically, the most powerful man on the planet is reduced (mostly) to persuasion. They look at some of the actions that Obama has taken unilaterally and think that he's somehow taking over the government. But, if they're examined carefully, it is quite clear that the President's actions were quite narrowly focused because they had to be taken within the limits of the law, as defined by Congress.

People think Obama is a communist without even knowing anything about communist, that as much said it all. I live in communist country for 15 years and What Obama did are far from it

Another point is socialist, again people have no clue what it means. You do know that almost half of the US programs are based on socialist idea and guess what? In socialist country like Sweden, Norway, the government create jobs which many of you guys are asking for.

If people really understand what socialist means, I bet most people would rather live in one in today economic because everyone can get a jobs and affordable healthcare.

CuongDNguyen

You do know that almost half of the US programs are based on socialist idea and guess what? In socialist country like Sweden, Norway, the government create jobs which many of you guys are asking for.

Of course we know it, that's what we are fighting against. The Socialist Democrats and the Socialist Light Republicans have been in a coup against the Constitution for nearly 100 years with incremental marxism.

BTW, Marx called socialism the transition from capitalism to communism

Marx sees the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as the socialist transition to full communism. From Critique of the Gotha Programme

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)

When government seizes the fruit of the labor of it's citizens, we have surrendered our liberties

When government determines how much of your income you are allowed to keep, we have surrendered our liberties

When government states that it is the arbiter of when and where you should grow (Wickard v Filburn), we have surrendered our liberties

When government states it determines the wage agreements between employer and employee, we have surrendered our liberties

When government determines how and where we educate our children, we surrender our liberties

When government determines that we must purchase health insurance with a threat of tax penalties whether we use health care services or not-we have surrendered our liberties

When government forces us to participate in a retirement ponzi scheme-we have surrendered our liberties

When government forces us to participate in old age government run health care-we have surrendered our liberties

When doctors are forced by the Government to provide free services, we have surrendered our liberties

When government tries to control the environment, we have surrendered our liberties

When government forces us to participate in a marxist redistribution of wealth-we have surrendered our liberties

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

— Thomas Jefferson

The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation.

Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788

James Madison stated in Federalist #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.

James Madison 1792 Essay on Property

Keep it up Larry, I enjoy your posts.

@ Larry Robinson-1323081

You do know that socialism and capitalist are economic state, right? You can't go from capitalist to communist since they are economic and government type, totally different.

You are also aware that there are capitalist communist (Hello, China) and socialist democracy (Norway, Sweden), right?

From your post to answer my post, you are just clueless what socialist and communist really mean and couldn't even tell them apart. Furthermore, you do know that GOP propose more communist bills in the past 3 years. SOPA is a prime example here, you can think of it as Great Wall of FireWall in China, but for US.

Again, you are clueless just like many others about what socialist and communist really mean.

I agree with Cuong ... Larry is clueless...in fact his post is a tribute to the lack of education these far right paranoids have....but give him credit..he actually tells us he wants to abolish social security and medicare ..

but to call income tax a Marxist redistribution of wealth...well its just sad some could be so ignorant and just looking at society and the division between the rich and poor and you know nothing like that has happened..

But remember, according to Rick Santorum education is a plot to indoctrinate people into liberalism. Education makes people more liberal. Therefore it must logically follow that lack of education is a requirement for conservativism.

Just sayin', Larry...

C,

Actually what Larry is saying is that a tax of any form means we have surrendered our liberties. Taxes are required for the functioning of any government of any size and type. Ergo, Larry is an anarchist.

Pragmatic-3918582

C,

Actually what Larry is saying is that a tax of any form means we have surrendered our liberties. Taxes are required for the functioning of any government of any size and type. Ergo, Larry is an anarchist.

typical ignorance of a leftist. I did not call for no form of taxation. I'm against the income tax, corporate income taxes, Estate Taxes and taxes on Capital Gains which are all property taxes. Consumption taxes and tariffs are NOT taxes on property

The Founders were adamant against any Federal taxation of property which by definition of Madison, Locke, Jefferson, and Samuel Adams to name a few included income from your labor.

It's truly shameful that liberals are so ignorant of the principles of liberty

Really? Liberal are ignorant of principles of liberty?

You mean like the rights against abortion, which a big intrusion into someone's else life and to do that, they need big government.

Since when Liberal is a bad words and ignorant? You do know that there are all kinds of liberal, there are the lefties liberal like you said, there is also the independent liberal and conservative liberal. Furthermore, lots of study show that liberal are those generally with higher education who value lives.

Again, you are clueless of what you are saying.

A little more information for you, the extreme left = communist (which I live in for 15 years), the extreme right = Nazi. Now I know about communist, but Nazi is something everyone hate and I guess that is where all the righties head to.

I don't consider murdering innocent children to be a form of liberty

explain how an "independent liberal" is different from a "leftist liberal"? then show me any political scientist that uses those terms

And "conservative liberal"? that is called an oxymoron

Both Nazis and Communists believe in centralization of power- just like the US Democrats and in opposition to the principles of liberty espoused by our Founders and the philosophers who inspired them

[W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821

One of the central differences between the US and other nations is our Constitution unites a Republic of Sovereign States

But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32, January 3, 1788

First of all, you do know what liberal mean, right? Because from what you said so far, it seems you have no clue what liberal mean.

Independent liberal is different from left or right because they don't associate their party with theirs own view.

Furthermore, you call Liberal conservative = oxymoron, this as much demonstrate that you have no clue what liberal really mean.

In a sense, you can think of forefather as liberal as well or did Republican change the meaning of liberal in the last 3 years as something bad?

As for abortion case, you are telling me that the biggest intrusion into someone's life is a big liberty to you? It seems to be the case and don't tell me about murdering children. Republican only care about fetus, not children. Many presidents candidate or conservatives seems to think fetus has more rights than children. Look it up, you can find their policy all over the place about it.

I didn't say anything about political party. There are liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats. I was very specific about ideology

As to not understanding, I have a degree in history and 50 plus years of involvement in politics. I will put my understanding up against your badly misinformed conclusions.

As to murdering the innocent, I stand by what I said. When you deprive someone else of their right to live, that is the ultimate denial of liberty. That's why murderers have to surrender their liberty.

As to Republicans, I wouldn't know. I'm an independent libertarian. I've never though heard ANY conservative candidate state that they wanted to deny any child their constitutional rights.

50 years of politic and a degree in history? Yet you can't even tell the different between economic state and government type. You are even a bigger liar than I though.

Unless I am mistaken, a fetus =/= human since it can't think, doesn't feel pain. But that is not the point, the point there are many people who don't want a child because they are not ready or doesn't want to. However, since you are so pro-fetus, you would FORCE people to be in the state they don't want to be in. You would subject them into a life they don't want and ultimately will affect the children that will be born.

You know before, when it is illegal to have an abortion, many women die due to illegal procedure, so you care about a fetus than the RIGHTS TO CHOOSE and those life? If you are so pro-fetus like many conservative, go adopt a child since there are plenty around. That's more productive than FORCING SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING THEY DON'T EVEN WANT TO DO.

PS: It's also funny to blame young women who have children that they are parasite to the society because they don't have enough money to feed theirs children. I guess people stop caring about a fetus as soon as it takes shape to become a baby.

j coop,

• If you think it is fine to make millions, while you shut down workers
• If you think it is fine to trash European Socialism, while you hide 23 bank accounts there
• If you think it is fine to trash Obama for "outsourcing" jobs, while you "outsource" your millions
• If you think it is fine to trash Freddie and Fannie, while you make millions from them
• If you think it is fine to denounce "blind trusts," while you use "blind trusts" in a debate to feign your ignorance of the sources of your millions
• If you think it is fine to trash Obamacare, while you gave birth to it
• If you call yourself a "job creator working in the private sector," while you haven't had a job in ten years
• If you think it is fine to add on a 12 million dollar addition to your 6 million dollar home, while you pretend you are from "the street"
• If you want a candidate that is what the polls dictate him to be
• If you want a candidate that basically has no scrupples....
• Then Romney is your man

*j coop*

Romney is a political pick-pocketer. He has government money in his offshore accounts. He too have taken money from the gov't to support his business ventures. It's called greed...

Since you loony moonbats and Obama poodles dont like Romney, he looks better to me.

Thanks for helping make up my mind.

*bob-1887910*

wow, you mean I am actually going to influence your vote?

sorry bob - Obama will win 60:40. None of the 4 remaining DOPEY DWARFS can challenge him. NONE OF THEM!

its not Romneys wealth that is the problem...its the way he earned it and the fact that he seeks to give himself another tax break at the expense of the middle class..in that regard all Republicans are really just different degrees of the same thing..their fundamental idea is a failed economic philosophy that thinks the best way to grow the economy is to put more money in the hands of the richest few..