AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Newt's back
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2498

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2011 9:40 am    Post subject: Newt's back Reply with quote

Just might make 2012 a bit more interesting, and certainly will provide a few more chuckles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kayne



Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 883

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2011 6:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Newt's back Reply with quote

dick wrote:
Just might make 2012 a bit more interesting, and certainly will provide a few more chuckles.


Saw him spoofed in a crown related to a $500,000 Tiffanies bill. He looked like Elton John in the spoof with jewels everywhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So who likes Newt?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4223
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KarenS wrote:
So who likes Newt?

His personal life seems somewhat of a mess, but I enjoy hearing him talk. Does that mean I think he's great presidential material? Not at all. If the vote was tomorrow, he would not be on my list. But, then, he's a Republican and they're never on my list. Very Happy Wait--many years ago here in Michigan, we had a Republican governor, Bill Millikin, who truly transcended party lines and he made me think a couple of times of pulling the lever for him. Didn't, but at least it was in my mind. Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2498

PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think I could be convinced to vote for Newt, but I'm sure wondering who in the hell I CAN be convinced to vote for in 2012. At this point, I'm wishing the Dems would leave tradition behind and run someone besides the incumbent, especially now that he's backing away from vetoing the law that will allow the military to arrest US citizens in the US and hold them without charging them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

See, here's the thing . . . if you look at the field, it's pretty sparse. I watch the debates (I am a Republican and this is the crappy field from which I have to choose at the moment) and chuckle. Newt tends to run intellectual circles around the other candidates - not very hard to do for some of them. Then they slowly circle around his "conservatism" which I view as a veiled reference to his personal failings because he has a consistently conservative fiscal and social record. I simply am curious to see how long it will take for someone to seriously toss out a comment about Newt's questionable personal choices. It would not surprise me if none of the men do so for fear of serious digging into their personal lives. My money is on Bachman to throw that stone because she has been attacking Newt heavily lately, but when she confronts him toe to toe she just gives Newt a bigger opportunity to reveal her vulnerabilities in debate. All in all, Newt is the most equipped to govern and the best politician of the group. He is also the only one who can debate well enough not to be ground into the dust by Obama's charisma when the General rolls around. This is game of electability and not one of policy because like Obama's '08 run, this one is going to be about running against a "failure" of an administration. It will be more about how much the last guy sucked than anything else, and Obama hasn't done much to shore up his own record - which is mediocre at best. So, I am just going to wait this out and do as I have done since I turned 18: pick the lesser of two evils becuase God forbid either party put someone out there who is worth voting for.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tee wrote:
we had a Republican governor, Bill Millikin, who truly transcended party lines and he made me think a couple of times of pulling the lever for him.


Ironically enough, Newt and Clinton did a good job at working together to get things done before both of their personal lives blew up and got Newt cashiered out of leadership and had Clinton crawling back to kowtow to his party. I always find it interesting how some of the least morally upright people seem to govern well.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
monica



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 11
Location: Montreal, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dick wrote:
... the incumbent, especially now that he's backing away from vetoing the law that will allow the military to arrest US citizens in the US and hold them without charging them.



Dick, your statement is FALSE. The NDAA does not allow the indefinite detention of US Citizens without charges.

NDAA conference report section 1021: http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf


(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2498

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@monica: However, doesn't it, a few sentences down state that those who are considered "terrorists," even if US citizens, can thus be treated, which however one looks at it, denies a constitutional right. I think, as voters, we should all be wary of a bill that even suggests such a possibility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
monica



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 11
Location: Montreal, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Section 1021 e) specifically excludes US citizens.

NDAA conference report section 1021: http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.


If you were referring to section 1022 a) 2, regarding FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS, it specifically states:

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021...


Per section 1021, "Persons whose detention is authorized" excludes US citizens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kristie(J)



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1122
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monica, I am appalled that you would defend this bill with its possibe terrifying loss of rights for American citizens. I don't claim to understand too much about it as (Thank God) I don't live in the US! But from what I can understand, it gives carte blanche for the government to arrest anyone on just the slightest pretext.

You can argue semantics all you want with tiny little individual sections, but it won't amount to anything if someone on a power trip wants to have someone arrested.

People in other parts of the world are giving up their lives in order to gain freedom from tyranny whereas American citizens, in the birthplace of freedom from oppression, have lost theirs. They just don't seem to realize it yet.

I find this truly, truly frightening.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a classification process for the term "terrorist" to be applied which includes some evidentiary findings. So long as that process is sufficiently developed (I can't speak to that) and adhered to, there is not serious risk to civilian liberty. The military has very limited authority where citizens are concerned and I don't really see this as going beyond that authority. The bill reads more like a codification of a function the military already carries out.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
monica



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 11
Location: Montreal, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kristie(J) wrote:
Monica, I am appalled that you would defend this bill with its possibe terrifying loss of rights for American citizens. I don't claim to understand too much about it as (Thank God) I don't live in the US! But from what I can understand, it gives carte blanche for the government to arrest anyone on just the slightest pretext.

You can argue semantics all you want with tiny little individual sections, but it won't amount to anything if someone on a power trip wants to have someone arrested.

I find this truly, truly frightening.





“I am appalled that you would defend this bill with its possibe terrifying loss of rights for American citizens.”

I am not defending, simply stating the facts. The fact is that this bill does not take away the rights of American citizens. To claim otherwise is simply incorrect. Although I agree that it would be terrifying if it were true.

“I don't claim to understand too much about it”

A lot of people do not understand or know the facts, which is why I presented those facts, not rumors or conspiracy theories, but facts about what the bill actually says.

“But from what I can understand, it gives carte blanche for the government to arrest anyone on just the slightest”

This is false. The bill specifically states that it does not change existing laws pertaining to the rights of US citizens.


“You can argue semantics all you want with tiny little individual sections, but it won't amount to anything if someone on a power trip wants to have someone arrested.”


Those tiny individual sections define the specifics of the law. You are correct that a person in power may decide to break the law, but the same can be said for any law, not just this one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4223
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, Santorum is appearing to be getting stronger. Do any of you who normally vote Republican have any thoughts about him? He's looking good to me. Seems honest enough. But then he's still a politician and they all play games. It's just in the strategy of how they do it, I guess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tee wrote:
So, Santorum is appearing to be getting stronger. Do any of you who normally vote Republican have any thoughts about him? He's looking good to me. Seems honest enough. But then he's still a politician and they all play games. It's just in the strategy of how they do it, I guess.


I like the way he seems to stand on his convictions. His record is generally one of voting with his conscience. Typically, where his vote did not align with his personal principles he was accomodating the people he represented and what they wanted - I find that admirable to a certain degree. What I like about him the most is his blue-collar approach to economic recovery that focuses on the rehabilitation of American industry an manufacturing instead of hand-holding retailers and financial institutions.

My concerns about him mostly have to do with his social policies. I do not begrudge him his moral or religious principles or his right to take those into account when making decisions. What worries me is the specter of him doing what many "representatives" and executives in government do now: reach into the private lives of citizens and make their decisions for them on things ranging from what we can eat, what to recycle, or with whom we can have a relationship. He sometimes comes off as a morality crusader and I do not trust those on either side of the political aisle, even if their moral principles align with my own.

In addition, I do not have a great deal of faith in his electibility in the General election. His moral-based political style speaks to the Republican base, but not so much to the more moderate-independant group of voters that is steadily increasing and will probably decide the outcome of the election. Also, while he has held his own so far in the million or so debates, he has not really taken heavy fire. He may not fare so well if put on stage next to our current Orator and Chief. I mentioned in another thread that I feel Newt to be the most able to take on Obama in a debate and not be ground into the dust by his charisma.

I kind of look at Santorum as a younger and more pragmatic version of Mike Huckabee. I voted for Huckabee last time (even knowing he hadn't a chance in hell and probably wouldn't be an effective administrator) because I thought throwing a principled man into the viper pit of Washinton seemed like a novel idea and was more apt to inspire the "Hope and Change" I wanted. I live in California, so, as a Republican, my vote in the General Election doesn't really matter anyway.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group