Victory or Death....Newt

1whirlwind said:

.

I just received this e-mail and thought this forum would most enjoy or despise it...according to one's political tastes. I loved it!

What a tremendous speaker who tells it as it is.
​

Most that I have spoken with agree that of the candidates, that Newt is the most informed and most intelligent. Some say that he has too much baggage. If we look back at the past presidents of our country every one of them that I can think of from FDR forward has had baggage before and during their time in office. He speaks with clarity and should be given hard felt consideration in our decision for president.


Victory or Death?


If you only check one email, watch this very sobering, frightening video. Folks, we are all in this together. It's worth a listen, the message is sobering but true. This is very short, but a MUST listen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qtjfMjjce2Y















​

​

Click to expand...

I saw... a run of the mill conservative christian republican spewing typical fear mongering nonsense, not really sure what you saw. Well, actually your signature explains everything.

I saw another politician talk about one thing and then switch to something unrelated.

Then chide about totalitarian ideas to turn right around and agree that such measures need to be taken on a branch of the government that he is not happy with.

And finalise his speech with argumentum ad misericordiam.

This is the standard operating procedure of politicians. And if you applaud it. If you agree with it. If you nod your head and mumble that he is right.

Then you have fallen for it again. You have been bamboozled again. You have been hoodwinked again. You have been duped again.

All of them do it. Even Obama. They are NOT on your side. They are on their OWN side. They will gladly throw you to wolves so that while the wolves rend your flesh and are distracted they make good their escape.

1whirlwind said:

.

I just received this e-mail and thought this forum would most enjoy or despise it...according to one's political tastes. I loved it!

Click to expand...

His use of 2 + 2 = 4 is a compelling argument. We really need to be focused on leaders who speak honestly. It's a very short list again this year, LOL. But, Newt is on that list, IMHO. For all his other faults, speaking candidly has been a great strength of his throughout his career.

Below is another great Newt speech:

Newt Gingrich Speech at 2009 CPAC - YouTube

.

After hearing this guy's views on atheists in America, especially at the last debate, it would be nothing short of idiotic for someone like me to even consider voting for him. I admit, though, to agreeing with him for the first minute or so (as I imagine most people would), although I don't believe the American people are the ones to blame for that mentality, nor the left (not sure who he was blaming there). The rest confirmed what I already knew about what he thinks of non-Christians.

And then there was more hijacking of American history in the name of Republican ideals, which they've gotten very good at. There was absolutely nothing politically right or left in that story he told but he presented it in a way that made it seem so, so as to set the stage for his closing comment about George Washington agreeing with him or whatever. He was also good about saying what he meant without actually saying it, i.e. with the "Rotary" comment. He gave up no sound bites that would be easy to use against him. He is indeed a very good speaker.

serenity now said:

He gave up no sound bites that would be easy to use against him.

Click to expand...

LOL ... so that was your focus, Serenity Now? You were looking for sound bites?

Why?

.

NightHawkeye said:

LOL ... so that was your focus, Serenity Now? You were looking for sound bites?

Why?

.

Click to expand...

Nope, just me being my cynical self. I was thinking of how the media would perceive this speech, specifically how any of the left leaning talking heads that I watch (quite regularly I admit) would look at it. They usually have sound bites in their opening montages of some extreme-sounding snippet of speech to whet the appetite of their audience, so all I was doing was trying to think of what part of this speech they would use, and nothing really jumped out at me.

Note that that comment was an afterthought; I didn't watch the speech a second time looking for any; I'm sure more seasoned pundits would have no trouble finding one.

1whirlwind said:

What we see depends upon the eyes with which it is viewed. For instance, I didn't see any fear or nonsense in the video.

What part of my signature is worrisome to you....God who comes first in my life, guns to keep evil little entities at bay, gumbo for good food or the wonderful winning Crimson Tide of Alabama?


.

Click to expand...

One word. Utah.

ROFL Tide!

What I heard (from what I watched)

1) some good old fashion socialist control of markets.

2) Suspected terrorists do not deserve fair representation in court.

3) No good reason for separation between Christian church and state. (NOTE: Obama recently denied a citizen petition to remove "under God" from

4) George Washington is the man

5) I find it weird that he "brings it home" suggesting that people in the audience talk to only successful people and patriots. Weird. Is he suggesting that rich people have to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], grin and bare it, and


Isolate and crush the secular left? Seriously? You think America's problems are due to what, 20% of the population?? Sorry buckaroo, that makes very little sense to me.

He certainly employed more perspecacity but that seems to be the message.

serenity now said:

They usually have sound bites in their opening montages of some extreme-sounding snippet of speech to whet the appetite of their audience ...

Click to expand...

I think I understand ...






You don't mind that I borrowed a snippet from you, do you?

serenity now said:

Note that that comment was an afterthought ...

Click to expand...

Good. Hopefully, your primary focus was on content of the message rather than savaging the messenger.

serenity now said:

I didn't watch the speech a second time looking for any; I'm sure more seasoned pundits would have no trouble finding one.

Click to expand...

LOL ... I'm sure they already have.


.