Say Anything Blog

rbb:  um… I have heard Gingrich speak on this very issue before and I suspect that the Star-Ledger’s Leslie Khow [probably not a Pulitzer Prize winner yet] either misunderstood or misquoted the former Speaker of the House.

I have heard him say that people will usually agree to temporarily suspend some privacy rights if the level of threat is high enough.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Yeah, I think a little context is in order here.

pparets: Misquoting people and taking quotes out of context is the dishonest troll’s stock and trade.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

What happened to your argument that when people cry for a little context it is usually a sign that they are in trouble for saying something stupid?

It was not only but a few days ago you were pretending context didnt matter when applied to Obama.

This is just precious.  Nice work RBB!!

pparets: Misquoting people and taking quotes out of context is the dishonest troll’s stock and trade.

I just checked the link, he did not misquote Gingrich.  According to that story, that is exactly what Newt said.

What is wrong with you Proof????

either misunderstood or misquoted the former Speaker of the House.

Or she got it right.

If she got it right, do you have a new understanding of the Newtster?

Excuse me, you were saying?

Or she got it right.

Well we sure won’t know that by reading your post will we Rbb?

Well HG, I guess you could read the link.

Excuse me, you were saying?

Hannitized:  “According to that story, that is exactly what Leslie Khow says Newt said.”

I’m not sure what you are referring to above, but as I said, Gingrich’s position on this subject is well known. He has written about it, spoken about it and been questioned about it.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Well HG, I guess you could read the link.

I did.  No context there either.

All the hits I checked link back to the Star Ledger story.

If we don’t see a denial in a day or two, he probably said it.

Nice to know just where Newtie stands on freedom, liberty and junk like that, huh.

Excuse me, you were saying?

Gingrich’s position on this subject is well known. He has written about it, spoken about it and been questioned about it.

So what is his position then?  If you know, I would like to hear it.

Is he saying people will, as in should?  Or is he saying people will, as in...they are dopes?

Maybe context is needed here?  Glad to see that conservatives all of a sudden understand the importance of it.

I’m pretty sure he is a flip flopper.

Just ask his wife.
Or his other wife.
Or his other wife.

Excuse me, you were saying?

Rbb, if Newt has taken a position on an issue that is contrary to freedom, he’ll get no defense from me.  I’m sure you’ll take care of that.

He’s your dog.

Excuse me, you were saying?

I suspect that this is what Ms. Khow garbled.

Gingrich added: “Those of you who care about civil liberties had better be thinking about how we win this war before the casualties get so great that the American people voluntarily give up a lot of those liberties.”

Gingrich has been consistent for many years that fear will cause Americans to surrender their liberties, an idea he does not relish.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2007-08-09-raasch_N.htm

---

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Newt says

“People will give up all their liberties to avoid that level of threat.”

Franklin said

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety…

It seems reasonable to me that Newt and Franklin were speaking of the same people.

I don’t see anything in that context to suggest that he is lauding those people. You could paraphrase Newt and Franklin to say:

People will give up all their liberties to avoid that level of threat. They deserve neither Liberty or safety.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

But that’s not what she quoted him as saying that night.

Let me know if Newtie disavows his comments.

Excuse me, you were saying?

You guys really are pathetic if you think that dog will hunt!

But feel free to take anything he says out of context. It could hardly make you look more foolish than you already do!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

But that’s not what she quoted him as saying that night.

You really ARE a moron, bob! In that story, how many lines did she quote? How many hours did he speak? You want to build your whole case on what this reporter left out of her story?

I have a bridge I’d like to sell you! Really!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

rbb:  Oh… come on. Now you’re just being tedious.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Proof, is that a personal attack?

Excuse me, you were saying?

If there is a threat, people will give up their liberties. Even if we acknowledge this as evil, pointing out the failings of man means nothing.

“Men will rape” is not an endorcement of rape.

Yawn.

Both RBB and Hannitizied are fools.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Proof, is that a personal attack?

No, I was pointing out an ass. You only thought it was a hole in the ground!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Such unhinged screeching!

It is so very sad to see goppers as they swirl, down, down, down.

Whither thou goest, O once proud gop?

Only 6 more till 8,000. Go proof go!

Excuse me, you were saying?

Such unhinged screeching!

It is so very sad to see goppers as they swirl, down, down, down.

Whither thou goest, O once proud gop?

Only 6 more till 8,000. Go proof go!

Excuse me, you were saying?

sorry about the double posts

my internets this morning are acting all gopish

Excuse me, you were saying?

First, he talks to himself. Then, he comments on his own posts when no one else will. Now, he’s his own echo chamber!

BTW, you might want to do something about that “tin ear”, boob! Nothing even close to screeching around here. (Except maybe from you! )

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Both RBB and Hannitizied are fools.

Kenny,

Stating the obvious is for the benefit of those to blind to see it.  How very generous of you.

He’s your dog.

He may be a republican, but if he, as you presume to know based on a quote without context, is a threat to freedom, he’s your ideological brother.

Kenny,

Stating the obvious is for the benefit of those to blind to see it.  How very generous of you.

Oh gee.  Personal insults from people who claim to be better than them.  Why am I so surprised by this?

HG, If it wasn’t for the fact that you really can’t make a valid counter argument to the many challenges I have posted.  Your personal insults merely suggest that it is you who is more deserving of your own insult.

What you seem to want is not an open discussion or debate, but rather a bunch of like-minded “folks” sitting around agreeing with each other.

Why are you so afraid to debate your challenger?

Personal insults from people who claim to be better than them. (sic)

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

“Those of you who care about civil liberties had better be thinking about how we win this war before the casualties get so great that the American people voluntarily give up a lot of those liberties.”

This puts things in context alright. 

Who are the people who have been willing to give up their liberties?  Republicans or Democrats?

Is Gingrich a person who would attack a Republican or Democrat?  There is no negative attribute associated to people who do such, as Bob pointed out, because he won’t chastise or belittle those on his side.

If it were the Democrats who were so willing to give up their liberties and turn their back on the Founding Fathers, we would hear nothing but rampant, consistent screeching from our brethren, our countrymen who are oh so willing to turn their back on liberty that our forefathers fought so dearly for.

Proof, can insults be a they?

What is the context?

That’s probably too much of a question for the smug “reality based” ones.

Continue assuming bob.

Why are you so afraid to debate your challenger?

Oh, I’m sorry, you consider yourself a challenge, that is your first mistake.  Second, I have debated with you an a few occasions so wouldn’t that mean I’m not afraid to debate since you qualify yourself as a “challenger”?  Third, you have the gall to lecture me on personal attacks?  Instruct, yes.  Lecture, no.  Fourth, fire a way boy.

Oh.....I see you assumed I was talking about you and not the personal insult.  You know, the personal insult that you think you are better than.

Perhaps I expected too much from a post that begins “Thus Spoketh” (sic) anything!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Who are the people who have been willing to give up their liberties?  Republicans or Democrats

Democrats demand we all give up our healthcare choices for a nationalized system.  Democrats demand we give up our choices in education for public education and the school of gov’ts choice.  Democrats demand my contribution to society through my labor is not enough and therefore enslave me to a system that requires the fruits of that labor be given to those who contribute to neither.  Democrats demand I pay into a retirement plan that earns less interest than a bank account.  Democrats demand many more freedoms be given up every time they open thier mouths.

Oh, I’m sorry, you consider yourself a challenge, that is your first mistake.

Such smug arrogance thrown at another who is not insulting in return.  Why so you act so bitter HG?  My god man...it’s early in the AM.  Don’t you have “something” to be happy about?

Second, I have debated with you an a few occasions so wouldn’t that mean I’m not afraid to debate since you qualify yourself as a “challenger”? 

Why would you debate with a fool?  I personally don’t debate with 2Hotel.  It’s pretty clear that is it pointless.  So were you insulting out of honesty or out of convenience?

Third, you have the gall to lecture me on personal attacks?  Instruct, yes.  Lecture, no.

Yes.

I have accepted the challenge.  Why have you not?  Proof has not, intentionally because he clings to personal insult.  Probably because he is bitter and it’s a way to express his frustrations.

Fourth, fire a way boy.

The arrogance is thick smoke screen that is clouding your vision.  I suggest you scroll up and get to the task of explaining away four questions.

1) Of the people in this country who are fighting to remain to keep our liberties in tact, are they largely Republican or Democrats politicians?

2) Who do you think Newt is refferring to?  (those who are willing to give up all of their liberties)

3) Why is he not associating any negative attribute to those who are so willing to give up all of their liberties, for a little safety, as Ben Franklin had?

Sorry for the horrible grammar...im rushing out the door.  South swell hit and my friends are calling me out. 

Its 6ft (Hawaiian) south shore swell RBB.  Im outta here.

Why have you not?

Why are you speeking as though I have?

I’ve decided not to.  That is my free choice, not something you can command.

1) Of the people in this country who are fighting to remain to keep our liberties in tact, are they largely Republican or Democrats politicians?

See answer above.

2) Who do you think Newt is refferring to?  (those who are willing to give up all of their liberties)

Americans.

3) Why is he not associating any negative attribute to those who are so willing to give up all of their liberties, for a little safety, as Ben Franklin had?

I have yet to see the context.  I’m wondering why it matters to you so much.

I’m wondering why it matters to you so much.

Subterfuge. It might be different if Newt were, oh, I don’t know...running for President or something! It’s all a distraction from the self-immolating candidates “Bitter” Barack and “Sniper Fire” Hillary.
Dishonest trolls would rather have you looking any other direction than at them!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Where should we look when Flipper John is finally in the spotlight?

To his recipe plagiarizing druggie elite heiress 2nd wife?

Or to McCain/Feingold or to his immigration proposal or to his countless other flips and flops or to the not so distant past when nutt….sorry….our good friends on the other side of the aisle called him a liberal and begged that old actor guy to save the cons from McSame?

Oh well, it’s really too soon for all this. The good stuff starts in September.

Why is your special friend against the GI bill?

Excuse me, you were saying?

We will always have Paris

Excuse me, you were saying?

his recipe plagiarizing druggie elite heiress 2nd wife

Who was it talking about “screeching” earlier? Heh!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

I’m sorry! Unhinged screeching! Heh. Heh.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Why are you speeking as though I have?

I’ve decided not to.  That is my free choice, not something you can command.

Hmm.  I often wonder if my friends on the right are actually reading what they write, after they write it.

Who is speaking as though you have?  I asked you why you have not accepted the challenge.  Further, I said that I have “accepted” the “challenge”. 

No one is “commanding” you to do anything.  That is why you either have a choice to “accept” or decline.  To ask you “why have you not accepted” is a question, not a statement or indictment.  I assume you know this?

Now, the fact that you have chosen to keep your option to personally insult someone instead of debate them shows two things.  1) You don’t really want to debate without insulting.  2) The only reason you complain about others insulting you, is so you can dismiss them and avoid their arguments.

Democrats demand we all give up our healthcare choices for a nationalized system.  Democrats demand we give up our choices in education for public education and the school of gov’ts choice.  Democrats demand my contribution to society through my labor is not enough....blah, blah, blah.

So then, you think that is what Newtie was talking about when he said:

“Those of you who care about civil liberties had better be thinking about how we win this war before the casualties get so great that the American people voluntarily give up a lot of those liberties.”

So with your logic applied, Newt was saying that we better think about winning this war or people are going to be willing to give up their right to have a charter school, or to have no option to pick their own investment funds?  Really?

...............Really?

You see, this is what I would refer to as intellectual dishonesty.  Instead of answering the question, honestly, it is spun in a way that helps you avoid answering the question.  Because to answer the question honestly would certainly condemn Newt to the criticisms leveled against him.  And you are going to avoid that at all costs.  Cost, such as personal honesty, that you are willing to sacrifice for the sake of argument.

Nice.

Because to answer the question honestly would certainly condemn Newt to the criticisms leveled against him.

Like leftists like you comdemn Carter and Clinton for all the shit that flows from their mouths?  You lefties think you are clever but the only ones you’re fooling is yourselves.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

H,

You gotta be kiddin’.  The only dishonest debating going on is when you purposefully ignore my answers and pretend I haven’t answered. 

When the context of these statements is clear, Newt’s position will be also.  Until then hang tight.  I’ll be swift to refute Newt should his position in any way threaten individual liberty.  Just like I am with you and Rbb.

I’m going to assume for the purpose of the debate that Newt’s quote is perfectly in context.  It seems to me as though he’s arguing that people will give up their liberties.  He isn’t aruging that people should give them up.  BUT, if he’s using the argument that people will give up their liberties to convince people that they should give up their liberties, then he is in fact the anti-founder.

brenarlo:  Your first premis is the right one. Former Speaker Gingrich has warned for years that a fearful population is more willing to give up their rights.  He has not argued that they should do so.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan