Posted on 01/05/2012 8:50:47 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
01:06:40 NONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE FOR WEAK GOVERNMENT.
01:06:42 THEY WERE FOR LEAN GOVERNMENT THAT SPENT AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE AND THAT FOCUSED ITS POWER ON GETTING KEY THINGS DONE, BUT THEY WERE ALSO VERY PRAGMATIC AND THEY WERE FOR WHAT WORKED, AND I THINK THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY HAVE TO HAVE THAT DEBATE BUT INONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE FOR WEAK GOVERNMENT.
01:06:42 THEY WERE FOR LEAN GOVERNMENT THAT SPENT AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE AND THAT FOCUSED ITS POWER ON GETTING KEY THINGS DONE, BUT THEY WERE ALSO VERY PRAGMATIC AND THEY WERE FOR WHAT WORKED, AND I THINK THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY HAVE TO HAVE THAT DEBATE BUT I WOULD SEE NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY LOOKING AT THE MUNICIPAL CASES AROUND THE COUNTRY, LOOKING AT THE CURRENT SITUATION, AND I WANT TO REPEAT WHAT I SAID EARLIER BECAUSE I THINK IT'S CENTRAL TO THIS.
01:07:07 IF THE PEOPLE WHO GAVE THEMSELVES A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS WHILE DEFRAUDING THEIR EMPLOYEES DID SO IN A KNOWING WAY, THEN FRANKLY, WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON IN THIS CITY, BUT AS A GENERAL PROVISION, THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING WHICH LEADS TO PROSECUTION, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HAVE -- YOU CANNOT DEFEND CAPITALISM IF IT IS THE ABILITY OF THE RICH AND POWERFUL TO EXPLOIT, LIE TO, AND RIP OFF EVERYBODY WHO WORKS FOR THEM OR INVESTS IN THEM.
01:07:34 THERE HAS TO BE A BASIC RULE OF HONESTY FOR CAPITALISM TO FUNCTION. WOULD SEE NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY LOOKING AT THE MUNICIPAL CASES AROUND THE COUNTRY, LOOKING AT THE CURRENT SITUATION, AND I WANT TO REPEAT WHAT I SAID EARLIER BECAUSE I THINK IT'S CENTRAL TO THIS.
01:07:07 IF THE PEOPLE WHO GAVE THEMSELVES A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS WHILE DEFRAUDING THEIR EMPLOYEES DID SO IN A KNOWING WAY, THEN FRANKLY, WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON IN THIS CITY, BUT AS A GENERAL PROVISION, THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING WHICH LEADS TO PROSECUTION, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HAVE -- YOU CANNOT DEFEND CAPITALISM IF IT IS THE ABILITY OF THE RICH AND POWERFUL TO EXPLOIT, LIE TO, AND RIP OFF EVERYBODY WHO WORKS FOR THEM OR INVESTS IN THEM.
01:07:34 THERE HAS TO BE A BASIC RULE OF HONESTY FOR CAPITALISM TO FUNCTION.
Newt ping, debate with Ralph Nader
Let me shift your focus:
Obama is KILLING THIS COUNTRY, and Newt is the ONLY candidate willing to punch him in the mouth!
Let’s focus on Rev. Santorhummmm
In 2004, while serving as a United States Senator, Rick Santorum claimed his legal address was a house in the Pittsburgh suburb of Penn Hills, which was immediately next door to the home of his wife’s parents. During the spring and summer of that year — in the leadup to the presidential election — Pittsburgh news crews started investigating whether or not Santorum really lived in the house he claimed as his Pennsylvania residence. Several of these “investigative reports” showed the Penn Hills “Santorum House” as abandoned, with an unkempt lawn, peeling paint, and junk mail piled up near the front door – as if no one had visited the house in many months. When the cameras peeked inside the house, viewers saw room after room empty of any furnishings; it was clear that the Santorum family did not live at that residence at all.
* The Pittsburgh media made a great stink over this, which quickly spread to average men and women on the street who became upset that Santorum didn’t really live at his “official residence”. The reason this really hit home with Pennsylvanians was because Santorum had railed against Congressman Doug Walgren for moving out of his own district and not maintaining a real residence there. Pennsylvanians hate hypocrisy — and that’s just what Rick Santorum was…a hypocrite…for haranguing Walgren for not living in his district when Santorum himself didn’t even live in the state of Pennsylvania anymore.
* Records ultimately showed that Santorum lived exclusively in a $600,000+ near-mansion in Virginia. This is another thing you need to understand about Pennsylvanians to appreciate just how damaging this was to Santorum. On paper, Santorum claimed his residence was a $90,000 modest house in a suburb of Pittsburgh, when in reality that house was abandoned and Santorum was REALLY living in a house six times as expensive in another state. Here in Chicago, $600,000 can’t buy you a big house, but in Pittsburgh it would land you a palace…so the people who heard about Santorum’s residency scam were enraged that he “abandoned the state” and “lied to his constituents” by living in what they perceived to be a mansion instead of the Penn Hills residence he claimed.
* After the 2004 election was over, Santorum very quietly tried to eliminate the appearance that his Penn Hills home was abandoned by renting it out to unnamed individuals. This didn’t solve the problem, but only made things worse, because the renters registered to vote using Santorum’s Penn Hills address. It’s a similar situation to what Rahm Emanuel found himself in when he rented out his Chicago home when he moved to Washington, only to later try to claim he still lived there — technically — when he wanted to run for Mayor of Chicago. Just like with Emanuel, Santorum was able to survive the residency challenge because he paid $2,000 worth of property taxes a year on his Penn Hills home and still held its deed…even though he hadn’t lived there in many years and had no intention of moving back there (at least not until the lease expired with the people he rented it to).
* The net effect of all this was an ingrained sense amongst Pennsylvanians that Rick Santorum couldn’t be trusted, was a slippery snake, and that the things he did “just weren’t right, even if they were legal”.
* The other shoe to drop in all of this was the question of where, exactly, Santorum’s children were living and who was paying for their education — the people of Pennsylvania or the people of Virginia. Even though Santorum’s family was clearly living in Virginia, Santorum was billing the state of Pennsylvania — and the Penn Hills School District in particular — around $40,000 per child to educate each of his five children in the “Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School”. After the Pittsburgh local news stations started showing viewers the tours of Santorum’s empty and abandoned Penn Hills home, irate citizens started demanding an investigation into the legality of Santorum charging the Penn Hills school district for the expensive education of five children who didn’t really live there, and instead were living in Virginia.
* Things got incredibly ugly as this was all hashed out in both the media and in the court of public opinion. Ultimately, Santorum yanked his kids out of the “Cyber Charter School” program and had his wife Karen start homeschooling them instead — but he refused to reimburse the state for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were spent “cyber-schooling” the Santorum children while they lived in the state of Virginia. When confronted about any of this, Santorum became incredibly brittle on camera, lashing out at those who questioned him, and earning a solid reputation as an insufferable and impersonable jackass
Here is an actual Rick Santorum quote: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
These comments were not dug up from some bygone moment of ideological purity, before dreams of a presidential campaign. He said it in October, to a blogger at CaffeinatedThoughts.com (they met at Des Moines’ Baby Boomers Cafe).
It’s pretty basic: Rick Santorum is coming for your contraception. Any and all of it. And while he may not be alone in his opposition to non-procreative sex, he is certainly the most honest about it — as he himself acknowledged in the interview
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/rick_santorum_is_coming_for_your_birth_control/
Might wanna reserve that for Santorum threads.
Just sayin’.
This deserves it’s own thread, or a couple of threads. As a relpy it will probably just get glanced at by most. I read it and find it very compelling.
Things must be looking good for Newt in SC & FL, there are no recent polls published.
Yes, the founders were not for weak government. That is, they were FOR something stronger than the Articles of Confederation. But, they were NOT FOR an imperial King-George-Like National government, like we have today. They WERE for a limited federal government, where the only things they were allowed to do, was put on paper - written in stone. All the other things that a government could possible do otherwise was reserved to the people and their state governments.
The founding fathers were for a weak centralized government...
The Founders were not for weak government.
They were, however, for limited government.
Big difference, and the two can co-exist. Whatever the fed government is supposed to do (see enumerated powers), it should do well.
But the big difference is that there are only (literally) a FEW things that the federal government was supposed to do.
My may how confused we are today. Today, the fed government is supposed to do everything, but everything in a sloppy, piss poor, inefficient, corrupt way.
Precisely the opposite of what the Founders envisioned.
Santorum owned a couple of houses and may have lived in the nice one while legally identifying the other as his residence?
Yeah, that’s just as bad as Romneycare and changing your position on abortion four times.
To be fair, I just saw that you’re not just in the tank for Romney, but supporting a good conservative.
I’m a Newt fan too. I would probably support him if he didn’t flip on the health care mandate
Really? As I recall, Newt squandered a lead in the polls debating how to rearrange the Judiciary for a couple weeks instead of "punching him in the mouth".
[ The Founders were not for weak government.
They were, however, for limited government. ]
They wanted something stronger than the “Articles of Confederation” so they took a small step towards that with the constitution and the setup of the separation of powers.
If Newty boy was right about the founders wanting Strong government they would have swung the pendulum to the other side rather than just taking a few steps toward the center from anarchy.
nobody wants a weak government, just a smaller, more effective (at what it’s constitionally suppose to do and nothing else), less intrusive one.
Newt is right on this. Limited and weak are two different things.
A weak government cannot enforce a rule of law, field a military, or collect taxes. Weak governments lead to anarchy.
Limited governments need not be weak.
Think of a large powerful man who doesn’t push people around.
Boy, Newt sounds just like Bari doesn't he!
[ The founding fathers were for a weak centralized government... ]
Weak in what it could dictate to the states and citizenry, but strong on protecting the states as a whole from foreign powers.
I like the term “Limited” rather than “Weak” because limited is what it cannot do. Wheras weak implies it cannot do or enforce anythign or even protect itself.
What’s your problem with that part of his statement?
Ahhhhh, no.
The sort of "capitalism" he is talking about that is "indefensible" is CRONY capitalism. Get it?
[ YOU CANNOT DEFEND CAPITALISM IF IT IS THE ABILITY OF THE RICH AND POWERFUL TO EXPLOIT, LIE TO, AND RIP OFF EVERYBODY WHO WORKS FOR THEM OR INVESTS IN THEM ]
Crony Capitalism only works when the government can pick winners and losers via Regulations and Taxes that are applied unequally... Ie. the situation we have today.
G.E. can afford to hire enough lawyers to fit the whole company through the head of a needle sized loophole. But a small to medium sized business cannot economically afford to do that to avoid the same laws that are supposed to “punish rich companies like G.E.”. So the laws that are meant and sold to the public to “Punish the evil big guys like G.E.” and actually USED by G.E. to keep down any upstarts that could challenge them fairly if we actually lived in a free market.
The same goes for any of the Giant Multinationals like Monsanto, G.M., G.E. etc etc.... The Laws that are sold to the public as a way to “punish” them end up being used to squash competition.
“Yes, the founders were not for weak government. That is, they were FOR something stronger than the Articles of Confederation. But, they were NOT FOR an imperial King-George-Like National government, like we have today.”
Thanks God for some sanity on here.
Gingrich was exactly correct on his comment about the Founders vis a vis The Articles of Confederation.
Or, as Rush said yesterday....
bttt
Wouldn’t it be more effective to tell us why we should support your candidate rather than spreading Romney intel?
Pray for America
“If Newty boy was right about the founders wanting Strong government”
Gingrich didn’t say what you just said...he said, “The founders were not for weak government”
He is exactly correct.
Yes, “Really”!
Please, tell us, who else has stepped up to punch Obama in the Mouth?
Newt was back at it last night!
Mittwits trying to slam Newt....with this?
Romneybots should get a brain.
Beck is using this for his soundbites to nuke Newt this morning on his radio show.
Just like when Chase, Wells Fargo, BofA & Citi, all exploited, lied to and rip off all those sub-prime customers.
Good thing government sponsored Freddy & Fannie where there to ensure Capitalism was not corrupted in any way or fashion.
Newt is not exactly correct. The first government was weak. Way to weak to survive.
The Founders prior to the constitution were running a new government that was much to weak to get anything done. They could not even muster enough power to pay the veterans of the Revolution who were themselves talking about an armed revolution against the new government if wrongs done them weren’t righted. George Washington himself said the government formed was too weak and would collapse if not given more power.
Granted – even the biggest supporter of a more powerful government in the 1780s was not envisioning anything close to the government we have today.
But regardless, I am more concerned with quotes from Newt like this one, “The Progressive movement soundly changed America for the better”. Newt
There is a huge difference between holding people to the rule of law and Obama’s (and Rino) socialist, croney capitalist ideology.
It illegal to for corporate representatives to lie, scam and steal from investors in order to enrich themselves and thier pals and that is what the banks did when they knowingly gave out bad loans and then turned around and sold those loans as an investment to others.
Theft is what the politicans did when they cooked up the real estate scam with the banksters. They should all be prosecuted for corruption, misrepresenting and stealing.
You can not have free markets if politicans and business leaders are not held to the rule of law like everyone else. Part of business is honesty - you can’t lie about the value and financial condition of your business to investors in order to scam them.
Currently we have penalities for failure and theft apply to everyone but the elite with connections. The scammers get bailouts for their bad faith and are not being prosecuted for crimes. The politicians who cooked up the scam get protection from the corporate media and the money they need to be reelected.
I just don’t understand the man crush on Newt all of a sudden by those on FR and from those in the TEA party. You could not get a kind word from a Freeper about Newt when Cain and Perry were on top and Newt was in the single digits. It’s one thing to have to support the guy because no one else has caught fire. But it’s quite another to get amnesia about all the reasons you did not like Newt a few months ago. And now with Santorum the latest non-Romney candidate to catch fire, you are starting to see how truly loyal the new Newt followers really were. They are storming over to the Santorum camp.
They were for LIMITED government, not WEAK government.
“Newt is not exactly correct.”
Actually, he was exactly correct. The Articles failed and it was obvious that it failed due to being too weak to function properly.
So, stating that the Founders weren’t for weak government is accurate. The Founders envisioned a divided and limited government, not a weak one.
He (Gingrich) lost his lead because of millions of $$$$ in negative ads by Romney and Paul and lies from Bachmann, while Santorum was ignored.
I guess you haven't been listening to Santorums stump speeches.
To me that is an excuse. It may explain his slump in IA, but it doesn’t cover his decline nationally. The smartest man in the room should have known to stay on topic and keep hitting Obummer. He instead headed into obscure histrionics of the 9th circuit and the judiciary when this is a straight up economy election. It made no sense to people out of work or in trouble in this bad economy. Newt has problems staying on message.
Nice word play to allow for misinterpretation. Weak as opposed to strong? Or weak as opposed to large?
People are looking for a conservative who can beat Obama. They know none of the guys are perfect and many here have had problems with Gingrich and felt Santorum could not win so when he won Iowa, many felt maybe there was a chance. As for those who post all of Newts sins and the problems they have with him over and over, they think nobody has seen any of this before because some people are for Newt. The reality is..people are willing to overlook what they see if they have a candidate to beat Obama. Many felt Newt would take Obama on and although he has warts, he is not the anti-christ as some would have you believe.
Context needed.
Is he referring here to the Progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, or to the present one using the same name?
If he was referring to the first one, I think most Americans would agree. The original Progressive Movement was a very diverse movement. Much of what it did we would today consider positive.
Other aspects of it were eugenic, proto-fascist and anti-constitutional.
IOW, mixed, like most things.
But I think it is difficult to argue that the Progressive movement did NOT change America for the better. Whether it would have done so, on a net basis, had it ever gained unchallenged power is an entirely different question. But it didn't gain such power, and so its primary function was to push the country in directions that were on a net basis positive.
To me that is an excuse. It may explain his slump in IA, but it doesn’t cover his decline nationally. The smartest man in the room should have known to stay on topic and keep hitting Obummer.
_________________________________________________________
You missed where Fox News who are in the tank for Romney and almost every ‘elite/establishment’ ‘conservative’ pundit in the country trashed him for the past 6 weeks.....
He should have responded to the smears earlier.
Santorum has gotten a free pass because he isn’t a threat to Romney nationally.
limited does sound a lot better than weak.. but compared to what centralized government does today, it is neither limited or weak..one thing it is responsible for are protecting the borders which it does nothing about....getting tired of hearing about what they are doing next...
Love Rick!
But he’s no fighter in the Big Leagues.
Show us a Santorum sound bite that’s received any media attention, attacking Obama....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.