Newt Gingrich on the issues

[KG1]

He's right. Rambone gets a lot of hate around here. He goes against the grain and challenges a lot of preconceptions and that's going to **** people off.

I don't remember seeing these high standards of proof applied to that picture of Ron Paul shaking hands with a white supremacist.

Now personally, I like having my assumptions challenged at times. Dross made me think a little more deeply than I would have otherwise.

I think the thing is and the point you made about rambone "going against the grain" can also be interpreted as "rubbing people the wrong way" with all bombast and miss-representations and the mountain of information he dumps on the table that people are expected to sift thru and the incredible lengths that he will go to to try and make a point. For some people that's a turn off and they might end up tuning him out and unfortunatly at times his message gets lost in the muck.

 

[Zoub]

He's right. Rambone gets a lot of hate around here. He goes against the grain and challenges a lot of preconceptions and that's going to **** people off.

I don't remember seeing these high standards of proof applied to that picture of Ron Paul shaking hands with a white supremacist.

Now personally, I like having my assumptions challenged at times. Dross made me think a little more deeply than I would have otherwise.

The issue with Rambone is simple. Who authored this thread? He did and like so many of his threads, they can be shredded.

It is not hate he is getting, he is being challenged on his lack of critical thinking, inability to asses facts without bias and unwillingness to respond when asked about it, just spews more crap. That affects credibility.

A few times where I have pointed out one or two simple, easy to understand if you read with a critical eye, issues with his facts AND his intrepretations of them, he did not even respond. That tells me even more.

When you start a soley negative thread about an opponent of your chosen candidate with a stupid smiley face what does that tell you? The author is GLAD the SHTF for that person. Then when you examine a lot of his facts he missed it completley. At this point do we expect credibilility and no bias from Rambone? No.

It is called a rush to judgement. You do that and then tell me you are a defender of justice? No my friend, people who do that are merely part of a blood thirsty mob. Rambone runs lynchings, not dialogue. I might add, to the detriment of the Paul campaign.

But then again maybe it fits Paul? I am certainly not ruling that out. The more I look, the more I don't like Paul.

 

[steveh_131]

And my point is that this same stuff happens all over the place on this board, but Rambone gets the brunt of the hate for it.

 

[KG1]

And my point is that this same stuff happens all over the place on this board, but Rambone gets the brunt of the hate for it.

Rambone's threads and the way he conducts business sometimes is like a BIG neon sign that says "Come scrutinize me" and it seems to me that Zoub's post brings up alot of good point's that point out why rambone takes the brunt of the flame that you seemed to just gloss over.

 

[rambone]

 

[Zoub]

And my point is that this same stuff happens all over the place on this board, but Rambone gets the brunt of the hate for it.

In the threads he starts, he gets it. I don't follow him around and frankly this is the only forum I see him participating in. But if he gets smacked a lot it is likely due to a pattern of behavior.

Show me in here where he has EARNED credibility as unbiased and a critical thinker. Not just a regurgitator of others words and writtings? Then there is his own sloppy interpretation of things like law and legal positions. He sees what he wants to see.

When you continue to do it, even after others point it out, it is intentional. Intent points to a desired outcome. Now what could Rambones intent be?

Yesterday at work at the end of a conversation I had to remind a young man "Who started this conversation?" He admitted he did. Who told me all this stuff about you? He admitted he just did. I didn't know any of it until he told me. All of this based on one question I asked a third party.

Don't open that can of worms if you don't want the light to shine on you. I would argue Rambone wants that light. I would also be willing to bet he persuades very few people with his tactics.

All of this is based on his patterns of behavior. Instead of just defending him ask yourself WHY he gets the responses he does. Then wonder how much of that stink transfers to you if you continue to defend him. Is he worth it?

On the internet, who cares, in real life proceed with caution.

 

[rambone]

Everybody should post the scariest thing about Newt that they read in this thread.

I'll go first. Newton's views on Free Speech.


Gingrich: Free Speech Should Be Curtailed To Fight Terrorism - November 29, 2006

"We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're unfortunate," Mr. Gingrich said Monday night during a speech in New Hampshire. "We now 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 the threat."
Speaking at an award dinner billed as a tribute to crusaders for the First Amendment, Mr. Gingrich, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008, painted an ominous picture of the dangers facing America.
"This is a serious, long-term war," the former speaker said, according an audio excerpt of his remarks made available yesterday by his office. "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."
Mr. Gingrich acknowledged that these proposals would trigger "a serious debate about the First Amendment." He also said international law must be revised to address the exigencies posed by international terrorists.
"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," he said.

 

[steveh_131]

Show me in here where he has EARNED credibility as unbiased and a critical thinker. Not just a regurgitator of others words and writtings? Then there is his own sloppy interpretation of things like law and legal positions. He sees what he wants to see.

Check out that TB thread if you want to talk about bias, critical thinking, research and credibility.

Oh wait, you already did.

(BTW, not a jab towards 88GT. She didn't say anything misleading in that thread)

 

[KG1]

Rambone's right with this subtle or maybe not so subtle reminder that this thread is supposed to be about Newt Gingrich and not him. The issue with rambone was'nt started by me but I participated in the discussion after the fact and since I have nothing to offer at this point about the OP then i'm out. If I have any further revelations about Newt then i'll rejoin.

 

[Expat]

He's right. Rambone gets a lot of hate around here. He goes against the grain and challenges a lot of preconceptions and that's going to **** people off.

Sorry, that has nothing to do with it. He posts stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with what he says it does. That is being disingenuous. That is what pisses people off. When he is challenged on it, his replies typically go somewhere else entirely, like he doesn't understand what the people said to him or to complain he is being attacked.

I don't remember seeing these high standards of proof applied to that picture of Ron Paul shaking hands with a white supremacist.

What was the topic at hand when those pictures were posted? As I recall, he was questioning one of the other candidates because of some similar connection.

I don't think most of us care if people post opinions we may disagree with. Like you said, it can turn into a good debate and some people may even find out something they didn't know before. I still recall finding out I was wrong on one topic that I was really sure about. I felt foolish at the time but admitted I was wrong. But at least I won't walk around quite as ignorant as I used to be on that subject.

 

[Zoub]

Check out that TB thread if you want to talk about bias, critical thinking, research and credibility.

Oh wait, you already did.

(BTW, not a jab towards 88GT. She didn't say anything misleading in that thread)

Don't think to deep or take your blinders off when you read. My point is don't wish something upon one group you don't want to see on your own. Disease spreads among all people. As a Father of a child with a compromised immune system, yeah it is not funny.

Read up on the spread of airborne disease. I would venture I know 10 times more than you do. Hence the reason my entire house can stand up to it if need be. Wait you don't have kids or anyone to worry about, make that 100 times more.

Now applying good science to your hoemless friends we also KNOW who is not innocculated in this country. Care to argue that point too? I guess my time on Indian Reservations does not equate to your selfless defense of the homeless.

Since you also don't read history much compare LA to San Francisco in the last epidemic. One did much better than the other, find out why then go back to why camping out near a site with TB is a bad idea. But then again you know sleeping on the streets is not healthy.

Grow up.

 

[steveh_131]

Back to the topic at hand, I'd like to discuss this $30B crime bill from 1994.

One take on it: Newt Gingrich: The Establishment

Later Clinton publicly thanked Gingrich for his support of the President’s pet projects in areas such as welfare, education, labor, the environment, and foreign affairs. He made special mention of Gingrich’s support of the $30 billion Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that shackled gun owners with new restrictions, federalized a number of crimes, and handed the feds police powers that the Constitution reserves to the states.

and Devvy Kidd -- Who is the Real Newt Gingrich? Part 2

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]On October 22, 1991, Gingrich voted for an amendment to the federal crime bill offered by Rep. David McCurdy (D-OK) to establish a National Police Corps. Although he didn't vote for the $30-billion Clinton crime bill of 1994, he resurrected it and helped make passage possible. As Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY), one of Newt's cheerleaders, explained to Michael Kinsley on CNN's Crossfire, "If it wasn't for Newt Gingrich, you wouldn't have a crime bill." [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Indeed. The Gingrich-led opposition "threw" the game, failing to challenge the bill's fundamental flaw - that the federal government has no constitutional authority to take over state and local crime fighting duties - and focused instead on "pork" in the bill. "That crime bill stank to high heaven," charged Pat Buchanan. "It federalizes crimes such as spousal [/FONT]​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]abuse, giving the feds police power the Constitution reserves to the states." And the crime package in Newt's "Contract With America" would speed us further down the road toward a national police state.[/FONT]​

​

 

[steveh_131]

Don't think to deep or take your blinders off when you read. My point is don't wish something upon one group you don't want to see on your own. Disease spreads among all people. As a Father of a child with a compromised immune system, yeah it is not funny.

Read up on the spread of airborne disease. I would venture I know 10 times more than you do. Hence the reason my entire house can stand up to it if need be. Wait you don't have kids or anyone to worry about, make that 100 times more.

Now applying good science to your hoemless friends we also KNOW who is not innocculated in this country. Care to argue that point too? I guess my time on Indian Reservations does not equate to your selfless defense of the homeless.

Since you also don't read history much compare LA to San Francisco in the last epidemic. One did much better than the other, find out why then go back to why camping out near a site with TB is a bad idea. But then again you know sleeping on the streets is not healthy.

Grow up.

Is there an actual point in here somewhere, besides several false assumptions about my personal life?

 

[rambone]

and Devvy Kidd -- Who is the Real Newt Gingrich? Part 2

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]...And the crime package in Newt's "Contract With America" would speed us further down the road toward a national police state.[/FONT]​

That's a contract I don't want on America's head. No thanks Newt.

 

[KG1]

That's a contract I don't want on America's head. No thanks Newt.

You do realize all this took place over 17 years ago and no police state ever evolved because of it. I'm no big fan of Gingrich. I just wanted to broaden the picture.

 

[24Carat]

Everybody should post the scariest thing about Newt that they read in this thread.

I'll go first. Newton's views on Free Speech.


Gingrich: Free Speech Should Be Curtailed To Fight Terrorism - November 29, 2006

Again rambone, what has been stated previously about your Modus operandi and your lack of critical thinking is blatant here. Newt's conclusion you fail to recognize is that these positions will bring about much critical debate. Throwing ideas out for debate establishes a persons convictions on a subject? With out the insertion and inclusion of ideas nothing of value can be obtained. It's called "Playing the Devils Advocate". You sir are so one sided and narrow minded with a limited view of the world that I question your intellect.

 

[steveh_131]

You do realize all this took place over 17 years ago and no police state ever evolved because of it. I'm no big fan of Gingrich. I just wanted to broaden the picture.

No police state?



Good one.

 

[rambone]

You do realize all this took place over 17 years ago and no police state ever evolved because of it. I'm no big fan of Gingrich. I just wanted to broaden the picture.

It is still a big red mark on his record. Whether he got his way or not isn't relevant. The fact that he sees nothing wrong with these measures scares me. I don't want him near the White House.

No Police State? That's debatable.

 

[KG1]

No police state?



Good one.

Police state yes. We've got even more problems now with a Police State since 9-11 than anything that took place back then. I'm dealing with the here and now. Give me examples of his recent stated positions and i'm all for you're position.

 

[steveh_131]

Again rambone, what has been stated previously about your Modus operandi and your lack of critical thinking is blatant here. Newt's conclusion you fail to recognize is that these positions will bring about much critical debate. Throwing ideas out for debate establishes a persons convictions on a subject? With out the insertion and inclusion of ideas nothing of value can be obtained. It's called "Playing the Devils Advocate". You sir are so one sided and narrow minded with a limited view of the world that I question your intellect.

Devil's advocate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Study up.

Gingrich was definitely not playing the devil's advocate with his remarks.