Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Newt is a typical smart, self-serving politician! Don't vote Newt!
I don't get to take part in the primary voting but I will certainly vote for Newt if he wins that one. I am not going to vote for Obama no matter who he is running against.
Frankly, I'd be happy if Newt were asked about his vote for NAFTA and if he regrets it now.
Surely someone from the left will do just that. I guess that makes me think that the Dems are getting help from the right. In case you missed it, I don't want Paul to win the nomination. I would have to hold my nose tighter than I did for McCain but I won't vote for Obama.
I have said that I think a couple of our people here get their orders from somewhere very left leaning and they do these things from those instructions.
Remember after 9/11 the right started claiming that Clinton should have had the same emphasis on fighting terrorism as Bush did after 9/11? (yeah, AFTER 3,000 people were killed) Well Newt was the Speaker of the House back then, why hasn't anybody asked him why if fighting terrorism was so damn important back then then why was his top priority impeaching President Clinton? Also why did the Republicans totally oppose all efforts Clinton made to fight terrorism? Clinton got zero support from the Republicans while Bush got 100% support from both parties, and he wasn't being impeached either
Newt was probably pissed because Obama... I mean Osama Bin Laden had already declared war on us, Clinton had Obama.... I mean Osama with drone missiles and refused to kill him.
That in essence gave us 3000+ Americans dead with 9-11 and probably the whole eventual Iraq war.
Maybe you need to go give Clinton and the family some hell before you bother Newt because Newt seemed to get that right.
This is 2011. Why do both parties want to keep bringing up ancient history? Clinton, whom I was no fan of, was in office way back in the late 1990s-2001. The question shouldn't be who did what way back then, but who has done what in the last few more recent years.
I am so tired of hearing about Clinton. Get off it already!
Without Congress the ability of the President to fight terrorism, or to do just about anything, is severely limited.
This is because many of the ways to fight terrorism involves laws, such as the Patriot Act
Laws need to pass through Congress. Without Congress that law ain't going anywhere.
It doesn't matter if the President is the Commander in Chief or that he has the CIA or any of those other executive departments, without Congress that law ain't going anywhere
Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House
The House is a branch of Congress
Exactly my point.
Nancy and Harry did nothing to help fight terrorism on their watch and caused us to have the most attacks on US soil in history.
See how that works?
I will type sloooower. If it was Newt responsibility to do this then is sure the hell was Nancy's. But she felt the HC bill was more important.
Yeah, stop actions, that's what they did as much as they could to Clinton's efforts to fight terrorism.
You do know that the President can do very little all by himself don't you? Are you even aware that many of the things Bush did he needed Congress?
Care to be introduced to the czars of O? Perhaps a youtube showing O's own words regarding his perceived uselessness of Congress? Or perhaps his famous diatribe of what the Constitution is?
I have said that I think a couple of our people here get their orders from somewhere very left leaning and they do these things from those instructions.
Yep ... people are actually paid to post pro liberal responses on internet forums. I'm very sure City-Data has several.
Remember after 9/11 the right started claiming that Clinton should have had the same emphasis on fighting terrorism as Bush did after 9/11? (yeah, AFTER 3,000 people were killed) Well Newt was the Speaker of the House back then, why hasn't anybody asked him why if fighting terrorism was so damn important back then then why was his top priority impeaching President Clinton? Also why did the Republicans totally oppose all efforts Clinton made to fight terrorism? Clinton got zero support from the Republicans while Bush got 100% support from both parties, and he wasn't being impeached either
How about digging up some data to support your arguments there. This site is City Data, not City Opinion.
Yeah, stop actions, that's what they did as much as they could to Clinton's efforts to fight terrorism.
Stop babbling nonsense. What did they do to stop Clintons efforts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv
You do know that the President can do very little all by himself don't you? Are you even aware that many of the things Bush did he needed Congress?
The Commander in Chief is given so many days to seek Congressional approval AFTER they take action.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
