The Inconvenient Truth About Newt

View · by **DeanC** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:26 am

The Inconvenient Truth About Newt

In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders.

Gingrich even called the anti-gun measure “reasonable,” and predicted that it would sail through his Republican-controlled House of Representatives with little trouble.

View · by **grousemaster** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:36 am

DeanC wrote:
The Inconvenient Truth About Newt

In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders.

Gingrich even called the anti-gun measure “reasonable,” and predicted that it would sail through his Republican-controlled House of Representatives with little trouble.

find me a recent candidate or even President that hasn't flip flopped on several issues......seems like they all blow with the political winds....

I know I've flip flopped on some of my political positions. If you're not critically thinking about things it's easy to never change your mind. If you're not changing your mind on at least some things from time to time then you aren't thinking.

View · by **Stradawhovious** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:44 am

grousemaster wrote:find me a recent candidate or even President that hasn't flip flopped on several issues......seems like they all blow with the political winds.....

The question is are they changing position because its what they believe, or because there is a higher bidder........

If even half of this is remotely true, there are some serious concerns.

View · by **DeanC** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:18 am

grousemaster wrote:I know I've flip flopped on some of my political positions. If you're not critically thinking about things it's easy to never change your mind. If you're not changing your mind on at least some things from time to time then you aren't thinking.

For this citizen, gun rights are not "some things".

View · by **grousemaster** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:20 am

DeanC wrote:
grousemaster wrote:I know I've flip flopped on some of my political positions. If you're not critically thinking about things it's easy to never change your mind. If you're not changing your mind on at least some things from time to time then you aren't thinking.

For this citizen, gun rights are not "some things".

all the issues are important. We all know Obama is an anti.....yet he hasn't touched our gun rights.

View · by **ijosef** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:42 am

grousemaster wrote:all the issues are important. We all know Obama is an anti.....yet he hasn't touched our gun rights.

That's a good point. Obama is about as anti-2nd Amendment as it gets in mainstream politics, yet he hasn't moved to change gun laws. I believe that would be something on his agenda should he get a second term (think about the failed setup that was The Fast & Furious), but right now he's got bigger stuff to deal with so that's on the backburner. Besides, I think he knew trying to ram through anti-gun laws wouldn't have been palatable to most Americans... although that didn't stop him from signing the Patient Healthcare & Affordability Act.

As far as Newt goes, I'm not a fan. I think he's too "old guard" Republican and has been on the wrong side of issues. I really don't like his hawkish neoconservative foreign policy and I don't trust him to not "go green" once in office.

View · by **nyffman** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:55 am

(think about the failed setup that was The Fast & Furious)

If "failed setup" means that it was discovered and exposed for what it was, I agree. I believe that this was part of his "under the radar" approach to gun control.

View · by **chudrockz** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:09 pm

grousemaster wrote:
DeanC wrote:
The Inconvenient Truth About Newt

In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders.

Gingrich even called the anti-gun measure “reasonable,” and predicted that it would sail through his Republican-controlled House of Representatives with little trouble.

find me a recent candidate or even President that hasn't flip flopped on several issues......seems like they all blow with the political winds....

I know I've flip flopped on some of my political positions. If you're not critically thinking about things it's easy to never change your mind. If you're not changing your mind on at least some things from time to time then you aren't thinking.

Ron Paul hasn't changed his mind in thirty years in Congress. No flip-flopper, he! And as far as that being indicative of lack of thought, well, there's no real REASON to change one's mind if one is correct in the first place.

View · by **nyffman** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:57 pm

chudrockz wrote:
Ron Paul hasn't changed his mind in thirty years in Congress. No flip-flopper, he! And as far as that being indicative of lack of thought, well, there's no real REASON to change one's mind if one is correct in the first place.

That is a world class, epic "if". I like Paul on a lot of issues. But his stance on Iran scares me. When I see that in the light of the way we have fought, and I use the term loosely, the last few wars, I can not support that philosophy. If OTOH, we showed some evidence of drawing a line in the sand, then unleashing the full fury of our military if that line is crossed, no problem. If I was put in the extremely uncomfortable position of checking the box for Obama or Paul, I guess I would have to check "Paul" with the hope that the joint chiefs could pound some sense into his head if need be. Another thing about him. You may believe he is right on the issues, Federal reserve, whatever. But you should also admit that the true believers in the hype and change of Obama have similar feelings that are just as much outside the mainstream on the opposite extreme and just as difficult to implement for the most part.

View · by **chudrockz** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:03 pm

Iran is ZERO threat to the United States. That's right, none. The US, on the other hand, blusters daily about the prospect of sanctions/ bombing of Iran.

The absolute fact of the matter is that there is NO way on earth any country can threaten the United States. Can a lone lunatic, or small group of lunatics? Sure. They can do so now. They can, and WILL, do so if we continue bombing the universe trying to bend it to our will.

And in the meantime, even for those still bloodthirsty enough to actually WANT yet another undeclared war, the FACT of the matter is that we cannot afford it and we are bankrupt.

Soviet Union, anyone?

View · by **illbits** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:07 pm

Obama's under the radar gun-control scheme has been to appoint TWO anti-gun judges to the Supreme Court. Just ONE MORE and you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye for all practical purposes.

View · by **nyffman** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:21 pm

It is naive to think that, simply because as Paul said, "that during the Cold War we still spoke to the Soviet Union, and we should have dialogue with the mullahs too. “This is likely to lead to a sixth war,” said Paul. “Yes they have some militants in Iran, but they are all around the world. Iran can’t reach America, they don’t even have an air force. Iran can’t even make enough gasoline for itself.”

First, we did have common interests with the old Soviet Union. Number one was that we each wanted to survive and prosper. We have nothing in common with the religious leaders of Iran who believe that some great leader will rise up out of a well somewhere if they can bring about worldwide chaos, then initiate universal Islam.
Second, their economic, social and technological shortcomings do not preclude their proliferation of WMD of any form, should it help bring about this dude coming out of the well, in their view.

View · by **Jeff Bergquist** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:32 pm

nyffman wrote:their economic, social and technological shortcomings do not preclude their proliferation of WMD of any form, should it help bring about this dude coming out of the well, in their view.

Gotta disagree here. IMO trying to control the proliferation of WMD by force is a fools errand from the get go, as vain and pointless as any other form of "gun control". (Yes, I went there.) But just like gun control, it makes a great excuse for playing power games.

Secondly, our history of playing puppet master by forcing regime change has not been a blazing triumph, and IMO has contributed to our current standing in the muslim world.

Lastly, IMO the only sensible middle east policy for us right now, especially considering our own issues at home, is to withdraw our forces while making it clear that any future acts of aggression will be smacked down, and attacks against the US will be smacked down with extreme prejudice.

View · by **nyffman** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:38 pm

Jeff Bergquist wrote:Lastly, IMO the only sensible middle east policy for us right now, especially considering our own issues at home, is to withdraw our forces while making it clear that any future acts of aggression will be smacked down, and attacks against the US will be smacked down with extreme prejudice.

Jeff, that's at the heart of the issue. When's the last time we did anything with "extreme prejudice"? We have done nothing but be PC. In a perfect world, you are 100% correct. In the world in which we live, not so much.

View · by **chudrockz** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:07 pm

We've done "nothing but be PC"? Really?!

We've tortured, raped, displaced, and murdered MILLIONS of Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Libyans, and on and on it goes. We have been committing atrocity after atrocity there, probably to the tune of a "September 11th" DAILY for GENERATIONS, and we're suprised when some of them get pissed off enough to do something about it?