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?
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.