| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: GINGRICH LAID IT ON THE LINE IN 2007: DID ANY DEMS LISTEN? |
 |
|
In September of last year Newt Gingrich was asked to respond to a question about the danger posed by rising militant Islam at the National Press Club in Washington. He as articulate, forceful, and concise as always, unlike most other foreign policy wanks and professors. And it wasn't even intended or delivered as a speech. Here's the CNN video clip link:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/08/07/sot.newt.gingrich.cnn?iref=mpvideosview
Was anybody in the Democratic Party listening, other than Joe Lieberman?
The eventual nominee in 2008 will have us believe that the Republicans are just using this as a scare tactic. While the crisis certainly works in McCain's favor, it is not a manufactured crisis.
The question is not IF we should confront Islamic militancy on all fronts but IF we can muster the resolve to do so.
I not a Gingrich cheerleader, and I'm an Independent voter who leans to the Right, but I think what he says--echoing much of what Tony Blair maintains even after he stepped down as Prime Minister, must be heeded.
At dawn we slept. At tomorrow's dawn, we sleep again--at our own greater peril. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I not a Gingrich cheerleader, |
NO, YOU NOT A CHEERLEADER. YOU A MASCOT.
| Quote: |
and I'm an Independent voter who leans to the Right,
|
YUP. AN INDEPENDENT DANCING AROUND IN AN ELEPHANT COSTUME WHILE HE WATCHES NEWT GINGRICH VIDEOS.
| Quote: |
| I'm an Independent voter who leans to the Right |
OR SHALL WE SAY "BENDS" (OVER)
FOR
| Quote: |
The question is not IF we should confront Islamic militancy on all fronts but IF we can muster the resolve to do so.
|
HEY! I KNOW. LET'S GIVE THE GOP ANOTHER CHANCE TO DO JUST THIS!
NEXT, CAN YOU PLAY US SOME JESSE HELMS VIDEOS? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newt Gingrich has never been right about anything, ever, from a foreign policy standpoint. Sorry, I'm not going to start listening to him now.
He's one of those crazies who thinks that Islamic terrorism poses an "existential" threat to the United States. In other words, he's one of those people who doesn't know the meaning of the word "existential" and can't be bothered to look it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The only thing Newt can do is bellow out neo-con philosophy and cheat on his wives. He should not be listened to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think Newt made some strong points. America must irradicate terrorism in all it's forms. It poses a grave threat to America. Now, once that is done, they must irradicate drugs, which are destroying the American values. Next, they must irradicate pornography from the internet. Finally, they must irradicate special interests from the political system, which is ruining the democratic ethos. Before these vital issues to America's national security are met though, there must be a plan put in place to figure out logistically how to drop bottled water to the Superdome in case there is another big hurricane in New Orleans. Let's not put the cart before the horse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
Newt Gingrich has never been right about anything, ever, from a foreign policy standpoint. Sorry, I'm not going to start listening to him now.
He's one of those crazies who thinks that Islamic terrorism poses an "existential" threat to the United States. In other words, he's one of those people who doesn't know the meaning of the word "existential" and can't be bothered to look it up. |
If the US is under threat then it can not function |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| The only thing Newt can do is bellow out neo-con philosophy and cheat on his wives. He should not be listened to. |
It is good to know you don't have a vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think my views have changed significantly in the two weeks since this was last posted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
Newt Gingrich has never been right about anything, ever, from a foreign policy standpoint. Sorry, I'm not going to start listening to him now.
He's one of those crazies who thinks that Islamic terrorism poses an "existential" threat to the United States. In other words, he's one of those people who doesn't know the meaning of the word "existential" and can't be bothered to look it up. |
If the US is under threat then it can not function |
It always has been under threat, always will be under threat, and has managed to function much better under threat than it currently is. Mostly because a certain political party would rather say "Be afraid! Be very afraid!" than "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frankly Mr Shankly
Joined: 13 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
Newt Gingrich has never been right about anything, ever, from a foreign policy standpoint. Sorry, I'm not going to start listening to him now.
He's one of those crazies who thinks that Islamic terrorism poses an "existential" threat to the United States. In other words, he's one of those people who doesn't know the meaning of the word "existential" and can't be bothered to look it up. |
If the US is under threat then it can not function |
And if it isn't we can damn well create one or hype a perceived existing one to the point of hysteria. Go buy a dozen rolls of duct tape and repeat your mantra, "Al Qaeda fights for the caliphate, fanargle blarp poont". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| The only thing Newt can do is bellow out neo-con philosophy and cheat on his wives. He should not be listened to. |
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Newt Gingrich has never been right about anything, ever, from a foreign policy standpoint. Sorry, I'm not going to start listening to him now. |
ad hominem
| stillnotking wrote: |
| He's one of those crazies who thinks that Islamic terrorism poses an "existential" threat to the United States. In other words, he's one of those people who doesn't know the meaning of the word "existential" and can't be bothered to look it up. |
It would appear you haven't bothered to look it up either. 
"existential threat" isn't the way I would've put it because of the potential confusion with existentialism, but its use is defensible here.
1. existential is an adjective dealing with, pertaining to existence
2. Islamic terrorism, says Newt (correctly of course), poses a threat to the existence of the US
3. Ergo, Islamic terrorism if you accept Newt's point is an existential threat a priori |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
2. Islamic terrorism, says Newt (correctly of course), poses a threat to the existence of the US
|
Of course?
Look, I know overheated rhetoric is fun, but come on. The British Army was an existential threat. The Third Reich was an existential threat. The Soviet Union was an existential threat. Compared to them, Al Qaeda barely qualifies as a nuisance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
2. Islamic terrorism, says Newt (correctly of course), poses a threat to the existence of the US
|
Of course?
Look, I know overheated rhetoric is fun, but come on. The British Army was an existential threat. The Third Reich was an existential threat. The Soviet Union was an existential threat. Compared to them, Al Qaeda barely qualifies as a nuisance. |
Al Qaeda hit the US mainland far worse than the Soviets ever did.
The Soviets were deter able not Al Qaeda.
Terror can certainly severely disrupt the US economy and its way of life and they can certainly kill US citizens.
Anyway why ought the US to just allow Bathsts, Khomeini followers and Al Qaedists to conduct a low level war against the US? Why ought they be allowed to get away with it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
2. Islamic terrorism, says Newt (correctly of course), poses a threat to the existence of the US
|
Of course?
Look, I know overheated rhetoric is fun, but come on. The British Army was an existential threat. The Third Reich was an existential threat. The Soviet Union was an existential threat. Compared to them, Al Qaeda barely qualifies as a nuisance. |
I'm a big fan of your posts usually, stillnotking, but occasionally you make giant errors and here certainly qualifies.
Whether Islamic terrorism is an existential threat to the US is a factual state of affairs that can be debated. Your original assertion however criticized Newt for using existential incorrectly. He didn't, since if Islamic terror is a threat to the US's existence, it poses an existential threat a priori and Newt's use of 'existential' wasn't wrong and he needn't consult a dictionary after all.
Regarding the factual situation of whether Islamic terror is an existential threat, I agree with Newt. A powerful, excellent speech to be taken somewhat seriously. We're in deep s h i t if you ask me. In the years to come, I predict massive Muslim immigration into England which will see the city of Nottingham become minority white. I predict suicide bombings in US cities, since Saudi Arabian wahabbism is demonstrably being spewed in US mosques. I predict difficulties with the Iranian regime, since I'm less than satisfied that it's gonna not bother trying to get a nuke. I accept Newt's assertion that Mahmood Alibaba's writings are deeply disturbing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| twg wrote: |
| The only thing Newt can do is bellow out neo-con philosophy and cheat on his wives. He should not be listened to. |
It is good to know you don't have a vote. |
Yes, I guess it IS good for you guys because I would have been in line at voting booth the last few elections attempting to keep your nonfunctional neo-con worldview from gaining control of the world's most powerful and influential nation.
As I said, Newt is one step above Limbaugh on the list of "Bellicose neo-con morons that should be isolated and studied for a cure" and anyone who looks up to him is rightly derided |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
