1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

O/T...Gingrich....right or wrong?????????

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by bgf, Jun 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bgf

    bgf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,589
    Location:
    Prescott Valley, Arizona
    Can we afford for him to be right??

    Gingrich Speech in New Hampshire. Apparently it is causing a firestorm.


    NEWT GINGRICH: The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of threat.

    Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.

    Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I've simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.

    But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.

    And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain, speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.

    This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.

    And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

    This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

    And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

    This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.

    This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we are faced with We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to take over our land, but to KILL us.


    Bernie
     
  2. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    "If we legislate laws that impinge on constitutional rights of those who aren't planning to engage in terrorism, the terrorists have already won."

    Exactly right, wireguy. Newt the Fruit would trample our Constitution to serve his own twisted ideology.
     
  3. Bullheaded on SKB

    Bullheaded on SKB TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    46
    Our Nebraska Motto is "Vote Straight Democrat."

    Tom
     
  4. Finprof

    Finprof TS Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    167
    Bill Cosby used to do a routine about the revolutionary war where the British lost the coin toss and had to wear red coats and march in a straight line while the Continental army could shoot from behind rocks and trees.

    It looks like in this war the US lost the coin toss. The US has to fight by the civilized rules of the Geneva convention whereas the opposing force does not.

    According to my father's recollection of WWII, combatants who were not in uniform could summarily be executed as spies and saboteurs. He passed away, so I can't ask him whether spies and saboteurs were provided with legal counsel.
     
  5. revsublime

    revsublime TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Amen Wireguy! Glad to see some trapshooters still remember and honor the Constitution and what it is for.

    The rest just scare me. Far more than any islamic terrorist.
     
  6. revsublime

    revsublime TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Supershot...you say, "Individual rights were, and are, important, but never at the expense of national security." and once again i point you to Benjamin Franklin...who said, "Those that would give up individual liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither."

    and God does NOT belong in government...it is exactly why we left England in the first place. THey found that state supported religion does nothing but evil. I ask you to show me one instance where a state supported religion has succeeded and not ended up like the CofE that we ran from, or the Iranian state, or with the Catholic Inquisition.

    When a state dictates to a nation a religion...we have lost one of our "god given rights", that of being able to choose for ourself, whether we want one religion over another, or any religion at all.
     
  7. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    Mr. Supershot...history professor??? Then surely you remember this -

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    That's a good summation of the First Amendment. Go back and read the Constitution.

    Newt?...ah, yes, he's the jizzmonkey who was screaching "Impeach Clinton", while he, married at the time, was humping an aide.

    Ally yourself with Newt the Fruit if you like. We'll know you by the company you keep.

    Say, just what sort of school would actually let you teach young people? Bob Jones? Liberty U? KKK Kollege?
     
  8. revsublime

    revsublime TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    ia government that recognizes the value of religion will practice lassaiez faire...hands off. Im sorry I dont see secular humanism as a religion. I dont think hate-speech should be censored tho. Though you CAN legislate morality. The separation of church and state says nothing about legislating morality. It is immoral to murder, legislated. It is immoral to steal, legislated. etc etc etc.

    I see secular humanism as nothing more than "doing right by your neighbors". And by definition it is promoting human values separate and apart from religions values. And yes..there are fanatics in all movements. But so far there is no constitutional amendment saying "you cannot teach science in school", "you cannot, as a society, protect the weak from the strong", etc.

    I also believe that ALL traces of xtianity SHOULD be removed from government. It is called "separation". You want to teach it in school? Fine...open a private school. You want to teach pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design? Open a private school. You dont want your children taught about the reality of sexuality? Open a private school. You want to display the koran in the courthouse? Move to a country that has a state supported Islamic religion. Same goes with the 10 commandments.
     
  9. hubcap

    hubcap TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    417
    In Nebraska the motto is "Vote straight Democrat"?

    Gimme a break.............And you're a shooter? You won't be for long.

    hubcap
     
  10. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    wireguy, you said -

    "The leftists seek to eliminate all traces of "religion'', that is, any vestige of Christianity, from our government and in our culture."

    No. that's not correct. What we leftists, I am one, want is simply for everyone to obey the intent behind the Constitution. Here's how that works -

    You, and I, can hold any religious/moral/superstitious beliefs we want. We can practice those beliefs in our homes, our private organisations, in public, on any street corner. We can organize our own groups, clubs, meeting places, churches, even our own schools to promote our beliefs. We can vote for or against candidates who agree or disagree with our beliefs.

    What we cannot do, and what OUR government...the government of all of us cannot do, is to take sides; to pass laws which favor one religion, or one cult, or one belief...whatever names you want to call them.

    Thus our country, in our laws and courts must be blind to religion. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Shinto, Buddhist, Agnostic, Deist, Atheist, must all receive equal treatment under the laws and courts.

    That's not to say our laws and courts must deny religion, rather it's to say that they must accept all religions, but not just your religion, or mine. All religions.

    I believe you'd like to say that Christians are a majority, therefore they have the right to impose their beliefs and superstitions on all.

    That's seditious. It's unamerican and it's offensive, and it's dangerous as Hell. That's they way they do it in Iran.
     
  11. Jim101

    Jim101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,942
    Location:
    Knob Noster, Mo
    jnoemanh, A leftist, Who would of guessed? I thought you were just another lunitic wacko. Your understanding of the U S constitution is seriously lacking, As is a large number of legislators.








    Jim
     
  12. W.P.T.

    W.P.T. TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,371
    The facts as I see them are the 3rd world and middle east are one of the same and it didn't take "Newt the Fruit" to point that out ... The only rules of war, should be there are not rules of war and only the strong survive ... This is a war not a dance and anything goes or should for our side also just as it does for them Rag heads ... They have no rules or Honor and they should treated the sameway under the same conditions, for the same reasons and be done with it ... Take the Media out of there and let the troops do what has to be done and be done with it for once and for all ... If they start up again slap their ass's back to the ground and bury the rest of them ... Its not hate, it's war and its nothing personal ... WPT ... (YAC) ...
     
  13. grammie

    grammie TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    658
    I won't comment on many of the things I dis-agree with written above,,,just the original thread....

    The man is F*&^%*N CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Do you want to destroy your own country to save it!!!!!! Thats what you would be doing!!!!

    You would plunge the entire world into a "depression"!!!! "Oil" alone can do that at 100 dollars per barrel,,,,and that is where it would be overnight!!!

    The only reason we don't demand that the Saudi's hold open elections,,,,is because once the Royal Family was thrown out on their pompous asses,,,A "Hamas" type government would be elected,,overnight!!!! And when they clamp a trade embargo on the U.S along with the other states of "Islam",,,We are in deep trouble,,,,Okay you say,,,,We just take it (oil)!!!! Is that right I say???? Because at that point the SOVIETS would enter the picture!!!! And China,,,,do you think China is going to stand by and watch as their country is economically destroyed???? And now???? You are two minutes away from a "NUCLEAR EXCHANGE"!!!!!!!!!!!

    And just WHO in ISLAM are we to strike????? Which country??? Certainly not our allies!!! So just who does that leave to hit in ISLAM that isn't connected to the Soviets or Chinese???? This man is talking about starting WW3 on a "pre-emtive basis",,,,He's crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If we actually enforced our own immigration laws,,,,and since its war,,its okay to "CLOSE" the border,,,,the we wouldn't have to hear George Bush say,,,"If we leave now,,they will follow"!!! Come'on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Follow with what???? It certainly won't be an army!!!! So it will be groups or individuals!!!! They can't get into the country unless we let them!!!! Unless we turn our backs,,like we do with illegals!!!!!!

    AKA Grammie...........
     
  14. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    " Your understanding of the U S constitution is seriously lacking,"

    How's that Jim 101? Want to show me where? No???...I thought not.
     
  15. Jim101

    Jim101 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,942
    Location:
    Knob Noster, Mo
    jnoemanh, You thought not, That's the problem.







    Jim
     
  16. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    "You thought not, That's the problem. "

    Name calling, that's all you've got? Where's your superior Constitutional expertise?
     
  17. esoxhunter

    esoxhunter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,064
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    jnoemanh: You ignorance amazes me. (Keep in mind being ignorant is not shameful, but staying ignorant is). Just to comment on one of your comments. ( "Ally yourself with Newt the fruit if you like. We will know you by the company you keep".) Unquote. Well you and your fellow liberal respondents have some real neat "company" that are alive and well on the liberal side of "your street". Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, John Conyers, Hillary Clinton, (I'll even leave out Bill), Dick Durbin, Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, Jane Fonda, Howard Dean, and on and on and on. If you believe these type of people are serving this country in a constructive and meaningful way and are capable of leading us in the right direction; I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. So, stand on your side of the street with all your liberal friends and I'll stand on the opposite side with Newt. However, to try and reason with a liberal is a fruitless task to say the least. But, I'm sure when Hillary becomes president our problems will all come to an end. So there is "light at the end of the tunnel". Ed
     
  18. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,649
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    Some pinheads claim the Guantanamo detainees have constitutional rights. I would hope these rights are the exclusive property of bona fide U.S. citizens.

    Passing more laws is simplistic, moronic, and a non performing cure.

    We have 12 million non citizens here who don't give a damn about this country. Get rid of them.

    We have 40 million people here who think the country is all wrong, and only they know what to do. They should have the opportunity to colonize Antartica.

    WW2 was not won by passing new laws. We have enough laws, enforce them. Enemies of America should be imprisoned and/or executed. Period.

    HM
     
  19. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    <<Some pinheads claim the Guantanamo detainees have constitutional rights.>>

    Those pinheads are Supreme Court Justices.
     
  20. smartass

    smartass TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,099
    sammie, you haven't gotten any smarter now that you've become jnoemanh. You socialists are the ones who have subverted the constitution with all your imaginary "rights".
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.