Gingrich: Gov. Should Allow Some Terror Attacks To Remind Us

[Prometheus]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4lLLxbbOf0[/ame]



His suggestions about how to divide up the FBI to more easily and efficiently take down American Citizens without regard for the Constitution, or the Oath he had to take before he was sworn into Congress is just as disturbing.

 

[Fletch]

It is exactly what I would expect from any mainstream Republican candidate.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Gingrich: Gov. Should Allow Some Terror Attacks To Remind Us

Political hyperbole. Surely candidates other than Ron Paul are allowed this, no?

He's right. Remember the Democrats tried to make political hay out of the successes of Bush's counter-terror efforts by saying the War on Terror was a phony war and was "lost" before it began.

His suggestions about how to divide up the FBI to more easily and efficiently take down American Citizens without regard for the Constitution, or the Oath he had to take before he was sworn into Congress is just as disturbing.

That not what he said.

He said he wants an MI5 carved off from the FBI. It would still have to follow American law but President Gingrich would give it more money and resources and not curtail its mission via the Executive Branch.

 

[88GT]

Why not? Doesn't the tree of liberty needed watered every now and then?

 

[rambone]

Create another new Federal terror agency that is "very aggressive" in stomping out our rights and has "extraordinary powers" to evade the constitution. Wow. Just wow.

How does anyone in their right mind believe that this guy remotely respects the constitution? Is this the rhetoric it takes to please modern day conservatives in 2012? He makes no bones about wanting more Federal government, and allowing his minions the legal ability to ignore the constitution. Newt, the neo-conservative hero.

Everytime I think that Newt couldn't get any worse, he does. He is much worse than we can imagine. He makes Obama look appealing.

Unbelievable.

 

[rambone]

Gingrich is the master at peddling fear

An old exposé continues to haunt Newt Gingrich

In his talks with Gingrich's first wife, Jackie, she told Osborne that Gingrich was almost perfectly described in a 1956 book, "The Ninth Wave," by Eugene Burdick, who later cowrote the popular novel "Fail-Safe."
In "The Ninth Wave," Burdick created the character of an up-and-coming political operator named Mike, who, like Gingrich, considered himself an expert on polling. More telling was his philosophy: Mike believed that if you find what people fear, you can control them. "Everybody," Mike says, "is always scared of something."

 

[rambone]

They already made a movie about Gingrich becoming president

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_30-8ZlmQ[/ame]

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You can moan and groan and slap the other candidates all you want. Your guy will never get out of single digits nor achieve relevance, let alone nomination.

 

[rambone]

By his own admission, he helped design the current model for Homeland Security. You can thank cretins like Newt Gingrich for TSA checkpoints in airports, bus stations, metros, highways, etc.

But DHS isn't enough Big Government for him. Mr. neo-conservative wants MORE!

 

[dross]

Wow, how's Gingrich going to get out of this one? There he is on video, advocating that we allow terrorist attacks.

Now some of the mindless Republicans are going to claim that he was just following out the logic of the administration's critics to the absurd in order to make a point, but they're just mindless idiots.

Clearly, obviously, indisputably he was actually advocating that the government let terrorist attacks get through in order to justify security measures.

He can't fool us, though. We're way too smart and fair minded to fall for that.

 

[rambone]

Wow, how's Gingrich going to get out of this one? There he is on video, advocating that we allow terrorist attacks.

Now some of the mindless Republicans are going to claim that he was just following out the logic of the administration's critics to the absurd in order to make a point, but they're just mindless idiots.

Clearly, obviously, indisputably he was actually advocating that the government let terrorist attacks get through in order to justify security measures.

He can't fool us, though. We're way too smart and fair minded to fall for that.

Do you agree with our current model of Homeland Security, designed by Newt? Do you support him wanting another Federal agency with "extraordinary abilities"?

 

[Drail]

How many here truly believe that the Fed. Govt. is even able to "prevent" any "terrorist" attacks? The reason those kind of attacks were invented is because there IS no way to "prevent" or stop them. If we are to live and move around in a free society then so are the bad guys. If we are to allow any citizen to buy an airline ticket then you cannot stop aircraft hijacking. So when the Fed. Govt. tells you that you must give up some of your rights so that you can be "safe" all they are REALLY saying is you must give up some of your rights. The threats to the United States are no less or no greater than before 9/11. All that has changed is that more people are now afraid and most people feel that somebody needs to do something, anything. Even if it's just for show. In the words of Theodore Rossevelt, "What can we appear do to be doing about the problem without really doing anything?" It's been going on for more than a hundred years and it's always about Govt. needing to have more power and more authority to do...nothing. If they had their way the entire Bill of Rights would be repealed so that they could do a better job of "preventing terrorist attacks". And that is what they aiming for.

 

[dross]

Do you agree with our current model of Homeland Security, designed by Newt? Do you support him wanting another Federal agency with "extraordinary abilities"?

I think those issues pale in comparison with his desire for the government to allow terrorist attacks.

 

[rambone]

Huh?

 

[hornadylnl]

Wow, how's Gingrich going to get out of this one? There he is on video, advocating that we allow terrorist attacks.

Now some of the mindless Republicans are going to claim that he was just following out the logic of the administration's critics to the absurd in order to make a point, but they're just mindless idiots.

Clearly, obviously, indisputably he was actually advocating that the government let terrorist attacks get through in order to justify security measures.

He can't fool us, though. We're way too smart and fair minded to fall for that.

I get it. When Paul is taken out of context, it's his fault for not properly packaging his message and therefore is unelectable.

When an elephant is taken out of context it's because the masses are too stupid to grasp their superior intellect.

Ron Paul speaks about 911 and believes America is just as guilty as the hijackers. Gospel truth.

Ron Paul speaks about Israeli welfare and he's an antisemite who oversaw the ovens at Auschwitz.

Newt calls for more attacks so he's just mocking liberal policies.

Go elephants!

 

[hornadylnl]

I also find it amazing that elephants chastise the jackasses for believing the constitution is a living document. But it seems that to the elephants the dead portin of it is the second amendment.

We see all manner of justification for road side vehicle searches... They didn't have cars back then, officer safety, reasonable suspicion, etc.

We see many calls for ending OWS... They don't have the proper permits, sanitation, improper use of public spaces, etc.

 

[Expat]

How many here truly believe that the Fed. Govt. is even able to "prevent" any "terrorist" attacks? The reason those kind of attacks were invented is because there IS no way to "prevent" or stop them..

I have no doubt that the Islamo-Fascists would have attacked us many times again after 9/11 if they could have. But that has not occurred. Why would that be? They changed their feelings about us because of the super kewl President that we now have? That might explain now but not the 6 years of Bush after the WTC attack. So it must be something else.

I don't think we will forever avoid another attack. I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan probably kept the terrorists busy trying to kill our soldiers over there, rather than doing their thing over here. But as the troops come home and the terrorists get organized again, they will be visiting our shores once again.

 

[Phil502]

Wow, how's Gingrich going to get out of this one? There he is on video, advocating that we allow terrorist attacks.

Now some of the mindless Republicans are going to claim that he was just following out the logic of the administration's critics to the absurd in order to make a point, but they're just mindless idiots.

Clearly, obviously, indisputably he was actually advocating that the government let terrorist attacks get through in order to justify security measures.

He can't fool us, though. We're way too smart and fair minded to fall for that.

Yep his use of the words "it's like we should almost" really gives it away.

 

[steveh_131]

I get it. When Paul is taken out of context, it's his fault for not properly packaging his message and therefore is unelectable.

When an elephant is taken out of context it's because the masses are too stupid to grasp their superior intellect.

Ron Paul speaks about 911 and believes America is just as guilty as the hijackers. Gospel truth.

Ron Paul speaks about Israeli welfare and he's an antisemite who oversaw the ovens at Auschwitz.

Newt calls for more attacks so he's just mocking liberal policies.

Go elephants!

Well this is just about spot-on.

 

[Drail]

deleted