Posted on 11/03/2007 9:21:39 PM PDT by Signalman
God I hate the word “DEEPLY”
That’s BS, Rudy was running his sanctuary city and I am hard pressed to understand how you do that and get it on terror. Wasn’t Newt one of the guys who went along with Clinton in closing bases, because after all, we would never have to fight another war, right? Now the complaints are that there aren’t enough troops?
Duncan Hunter has forgotten more about our military, war, and national security than either of them will ever know. We for sure know when America is in a fight, Hunter will go to the fight. For you to blame “social conservatives” because Newt and Rudy have no character is beyond absurd. Your whole comment is ridiculous and demeaning to a vital part of the conservative movement. Rudy, OTHO, has no part in the conservative movement because quite obviously he isn’t a conservative. I think Gingrich, himself claims to be socially conservative, so I am not sure what that has to do with anything.
I am not one for name-calling or personal attacks, but I don’t really see anyway to debate the tripe you are posting. You’re an idiot, what a hateful and dishonest thing for you to say. If you had any character at all you would beg the mod to remove that nonsense you just posted.
I’d be worried too if I didn’t read the only must read book on the planet, the Bible, and completely ignore God’s plan for man in these last days. In other words, man’s complete redemption through Christ’s blood atonement from his sinful, corrupt nature, back into God’s image and likeness (which Adam and Eve lost in the garden), will straighten out everything that is wrong with this world. And He devised this plan before he created one star or planet. The question is who are you going to believe, the Washington elite, N.Y. Times, Bill O’Reilly, or Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh?
Then they harped incessantly with their perverse and imaginary ideas about Newt’s personal marital issues.
Then they sang long and hard about “too much baggage”, haven “proven” the point with those prior fictitious constructs.
But knowing “Values Voters”, they’ll probably cheer when one of our cities finally is attacked by the Islamists.
Are you saying the story wasn’t true?; That would be the first I’ve heard of that. I’m not a “values voter” but I won’t support a hypocrite who was doing the same thing Bill Clinton did while chastisizng him.
And all don’t forget he jumped on Hillary’s free healthcare bandwagon.
Unelectable is right.
The DNC Opposition Research docudrama called “Newt Served Divorce Papers To His Wife In The Cancer Ward” is “an enhanced version of reality”.
I suppose your cliche would be accurate if it is "jumping on the bandwagon" to assert that 1 page in 10 of a proposal is worth considering.
The manner by which Newt's clear statements in the English language are so wildly distorted is continuously astonishing. And the worst and most twisted distortions come from alleged "conservatives".
There in lies the problem we have against comrade hillary if she is nominated. Putting off the idea of the inevitable first female US president is a fool's game.
And I will happily do that the very second those dozens of self-professed Values Voters and Social Conservatives ask that all of their hundreds of ugly, slanderous, and fictitious posts about Newt be purged from FR.
Take a look at any Newt thread going back nine months, and if you can characterize the swarm of dismissive and insulting comments as in any way fair or thoughtful then it is you who are being dishonest.
As a single example, there are multiple references to the DNC Opposisition Research story "Newt Served Divorce Papers In The Cancer Ward" in just about every Newt thread of the last year.
And even in this very thread we have dozens of thoughtless anti-Newt scribblings from posters who clearly do not understand his positions beyond the cheap insults and sound bites picked up elsewhere on FR.
Thought? Fairness? Serious self-education? Willingness to actually READ his statements and positions?
Don't get too haughty Wildcat. I would happily challenge you sift through the thousands of ugly posts of anti-Newt threads here on FR and to honestly assert that the posters (a) understand his policy positions and (b) have given him anything like a fair shake on his personal marital problems. As a subtask you might want to identify just who are the most ardent posters of the lies and fabrications about Newt. You will find that they are also the self-professed Values Voters and Social Conservatives.
My comments on this matter are indeed hateful, you are correct. Because I despise and do hate the lies that have been dumped, cultivated, and propagated here on FR by alleged "conservatives"; have destroyed perhaps the most brilliant and effective conservative thinker of our time; and in so doing have smoothed the way ahead for the twin threats of socialism and Islamism in America.
Pitting Newt's personal marital choices against the array of monumental and serious threats to American security and to America's liberties will be seen in time as one of the most pathetic, ill-informed, and sickeningly insane comparative benchmarks ever employed by conservative voters.
I suppose our only real hope is that such people will eventually make good on Dr. Dobson's threats and leave the Republican Party. That would be a good start in bringing the Party back to it's true conservative roots.
Newt hopes to be Hitlery's VP selection?
That's a good one. Thanks for the morning chuckle.
I agree about the constant attacks on Newt here, but I don’t think it is solely, or even primarily, social conservatives who attack him.
I think it’s the “electability” types who really despise Newt, because he’s conservative.
I'm sure I would have been equally as angered if I had seen these posts before you. Newt is squarely a Conservatives conservative now despite his past. He gets the WOT. He's past sins are in the past and between him and God. That said, with his reputation obviously smeared...maybe he can be our next Rove. In any case, I'm glad he is on our side! LOL!
The English language is such a subtle beast, and sometimes we must go to the authoritative source:
The Oxford English Dictionary
"The definitive record of the English language"
concede, v.
[a. F. concéde-r (16th c. in Littré), or ad. L. conc{emac}d-{ebreve}re to withdraw, give way, yield, grant, etc., f. con- altogether + c{emac}d{ebreve}re to go away, give way, yield: see CEDE.]
1. a. trans. To admit, allow, grant (a proposition), to acknowledge the truth, justice, or propriety of (a statement, claim, etc.); sometimes in weaker sense, To allow formally for the sake of argument.
Rudy was running his sanctuary city and I am hard pressed to understand how you do that and get it on terror.
There wasn't a terror problem when he did that. And the illegal alien problem was much smaller at that time (it has grown geometrically under George Bush). My area is a haven for illegals, but I didn't know just how bad it was until GWB started his Amnesty talks with Vincente Fox just before 9/11. And I am one of the most ardent anti-illegals people I know.
Wasn’t Newt one of the guys who went along with Clinton in closing bases
This is exactly the kind of demonizing of Newt that we've had on FR for the last year. Yes, Newt approved of it along with the SecDef, the Joint Chiefs, the Republican Congress, and many others for reasons having no connection whatsoever with Bill Clinton. Your tawdry attempt to associate Newt's ideology with Clinton's is a bit weak. But it's very common of FR. And shameful.
For you to blame “social conservatives” because Newt and Rudy have no character is beyond absurd.
Uh huh. You take the inarguable and remarkable accomplishments of these two men and then dismiss them as having "no character". That's exactly the kind of insane comment and utter lunacy that we've seen for the last year from alleged "social conservatives" on FR.
Your whole comment is ridiculous and demeaning to a vital part of the conservative movement.
Is this the "vital part of the conservative movement" that stayed home in 2006, and crows about that right here on FR? Or the is it that "vital part of the conservative movement" that threatens with Dr. Dobson to form a third-party because us "normal conservatives" are (I suppose) not up to their moral standards? Or is it the "vital part of the conservative movement" that stood for GWB mainly and often exclusively on the basis of his "born again" posture. That's worked out pretty well. And now the Values Voters are going for the Nanny Stater Huckster, a Baptist minister of all things.
If my comments are demeaning, I mean them to be. This "vital part of the conservative movement" is a destructive, immature, and whimsical force. I wish they *would* form their own party.
I think Gingrich, himself claims to be socially conservative....
Well so am I, but in no way shape or form am I "a Social Conservative" or "a Values Voter".
The former is a core principle of conservatism. The latter two are labels designed to distinguish oneself from a "normal conservative" or a "voter who has values".
I've asked dozens and dozens of times here on FR "What specifically distinguishes you the Values Voter and Social Conservative, from I who am socially conservative and vote on my values? What is the is the difference, and why do you use that label."
I've never gotten an answer, but the question has elicited about 100 percent flames, insults, and evasions.
Absolutely right. Thanks for your comment.
They love to dismiss Newt, but he wrote the Contract With America, got 80 percent of it through both houses of Congress, and 50 percent of that past Clinton's veto pen.
That alone is a monumental and historic accomplishment.
In the meantime we must live on this earth, and attempt and even fight to make this world a better place.
Seems to me Jesus Christ did quite a great deal of that when he was down here with us sinners.
Exactly correct. Newt is a great leader and teacher and communicator.
Hard to say but there is probably some truth to that.
Hunter who is also a true conservative has a hard time getting visibility.
Giuliani who isn't a conservative (but who is an effective politician nontheless) gets huge visibility.
And Newt is at the pinnacle of conservatism yet is slandered by everyone from the MSM to DNC Opposition Research to gullible FReepers.
It's hard to discern a pattern here.
See post #36
“I’m genuinely afraid this political system will not react until we lose a city. And nobody in this country has thought about the threat to our civil liberties the morning after we decide it’s that dangerous and how rapidly we will impose ruthlessness on ourselves in that kind of a world.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.