Newt Comments on Carter and Obama

[Pennville_Bill]

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): (From videotape.) I'm not going to comment on former President Carter. He's a private citizen. You know, it's not my place to discuss who he shouldn't meet with.

MR. CAVUTO: What do you think of that?

MR. GINGRICH: It's just plain and flat wrong. It is Senator Obama, who said he would go anywhere in the world to talk to any dictator with no preconditions. So he sets the stage for bringing back Jimmy Carter who has zero common sense in these issues. Jimmy Carter is a former president of the United States. I believe he still has Secret Service protection. If he visits the leader of a terrorist organization, he provides a worldwide photograph for terrorists of a former president of the United States. And for somebody who wants to be president not to have the nerve to stand up and say, one, Jimmy Carter should not do this nor should any other American citizen. Two, if Jimmy Carter does do this, he will not be welcome to the Democratic National Convention, he will lose his superdelegate status.

I mean, I don't think we can tolerate a former president of the United States meeting with somebody, who is officially described by the State Department as a leading terrorist, at a time when Hamas is killing people.

SOURCE: http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3324/Default.aspx (http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3324/Default.aspx)

[dPrasse]

Obama is Jimmy Cahta the Second ...

I sure do wish the Repubs had a good candidate ... not one that sucks only slightly less than the 2 Dimocraps running ...

[MaximumSam]

I don't really get the whole "don't talk to people" idea. What do we have to gain by ignoring leaders, even if we strongly disagree with them?

[DesertFox]

You have no problem with Carter talking to Hamas? Is that what you mean?

Are you familiar with the Logan Act? Do you believe even former presidents should comply with the law?

[Wyatt_Junker]

I don't really get the whole "don't talk to people" idea. What do we have to gain by ignoring leaders, even if we strongly disagree with them?

Because Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria was used by Assad for propaganda as well as cardigan-wearing Carter's will be ... or already was.

And anyway, it wasn't just 'talk'. It was a ball tickling session replete with peacock feather for extra taint-reaching power.

[Neil Peart]

I don't really get the whole "don't talk to people" idea. What do we have to gain by ignoring leaders, even if we strongly disagree with them?Islamic terrorists cannot be negotiated with. There are only two options: exterminate them or allow them to exterminate us.

[BuckeyeMike]

I don't really get the whole "don't talk to people" idea. What do we have to gain by ignoring leaders, even if we strongly disagree with them?



:banghead: My gawd what an ass!

[Suzie]

I don't really get the whole "don't talk to people" idea. What do we have to gain by ignoring leaders, even if we strongly disagree with them?

Leaders???? By that you must mean terrorists.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I don't really get the whole "don't talk to people" idea. What do we have to gain by ignoring leaders, even if we strongly disagree with them?
Good God, Sam! We are in a war against terrorism and Jimmy Carter is consorting with our enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

If Herbert Hoover had conferred with Hitler and Mussolini in Germany and Italy during World War II, FDR would have thrown him in jail and thrown away the key as soon as he set foot back on American soil. That's what should happen to Jimmy Carter, but, unfortunately, it won't.

[MaximumSam]

Good God, Sam! We are in a war against terrorism and Jimmy Carter is consorting with our enemies, giving them aid and comfort

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Should we stop talking to him, too?

[DesertFox]

Typical liberal, unable to draw common sense distinctions.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist 50 years ago. He hasn't been a terrorist for 45 years. Hamas is in the terror business every single day.

Do you get it now, or are you again just being wilfully contentious?

[Kathy30]

Will a gigantic slap upside the head of the American public help?

The obaminaiton needs to put up billboards, subtlety is lost. The obamination support any form of terrorisim that is anti American. Whether it's Iran, Hamas or William Ayres and J. Wright. If it's anti American, he's for it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Should we stop talking to him, too?
Oh, I get it. You don't think that we should be defending the American people against terrorist attacks. You think that we should surrender to the terrorists in this Global War on Terror - i.e., World War IV - so that the terrorists can kill millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent American men, women, and children, including our children and grandchildren.

[Pennville_Bill]

We've been trying to talk to them ever since Carter recognized the Ayatollah Kohmeni. To date it hasn't really produced very many fruitful results. We need to apply the other half of Teddy Roosevelt's homily and start using "the big stick".

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/Pennville_Bill/Other%20Stuff/middle_finger_flame.jpg

[Lubbock]

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other, what Newt says.

He's teamed up with BellaPelosi on the Global Warming Farce, and that does it for me with Newt.

The only thing that could make it worse if for McVain to put Newt on the ticket.


Talk about sitting out the election. I'll be at the hair dressers on that day.

[Suzie]

Will a gigantic slap upside the head of the American public help?


Since we have already had 9/11 I think the answer would have to be no.

[MaximumSam]

Typical liberal, unable to draw common sense distinctions.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist 50 years ago. He hasn't been a terrorist for 45 years. Hamas is in the terror business every single day.

Do you get it now, or are you again just being wilfully contentious?

So, you are saying it is all right to talk to Mandela now, but it would have been wrong to talk to him 50 years ago?

[MaximumSam]

Oh, I get it. You don't think that we should be defending the American people against terrorist attacks. You think that we should surrender to the terrorists in this Global War on Terror - i.e., World War IV - so that the terrorists can kill millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent American men, women, and children, including our children and grandchildren.

Now that's just silly. I'm all for defending against terrorist attacks. However, to defend against terrorist attacks without figuring out why they are attacking you is pretty stupid, and the best way to start figuring out why they are attacking you is to ask them. I'm more for common sense than anything else.

[DesertFox]

So, you are saying it is all right to talk to Mandela now, but it would have been wrong to talk to him 50 years ago?Depends on what he did 50 years ago -- I'd not say it was okay to talk to him if he had murdered kids and tortured folks; but if he was a "terrorist" as defined by the apartheid govt of those years, I'd want to see the evidence and judge it for myself.

Surely you grasp that circumstances matter? Or do you not think that?

[DesertFox]

the best way to start figuring out why they are attacking you is to ask them. I'm more for common sense than anything else.And then when they tell you it's because you're an infidel, you do what? Quit being an infidel?

I'd think the best way to figure out why they're attacking me is to read their own newspapers and study their society to see what the currents are. It turns out that they're attacking us, not because we're infidels but because they've been taught to hate us in those madrassas because, well, just because.

[MaximumSam]

Surely you grasp that circumstances matter? Or do you not think that?

I'm not sure that circumstances matter on whether to talk to a group or not. If you asked Mandela why he was putting tires around people's heads and lighting them on fire, he would have told you, and you could decide what you thought about it. If you ask Hamas why they do what they do, they'll give you an answer, and then you see where you can go from there.

I'd think the best way to figure out why they're attacking me is to read their own newspapers and study their society to see what the currents are. It turns out that they're attacking us, not because we're infidels but because they've been taught to hate us in those madrassas because, well, just because.

Clearly, that shows we don't understand the situation. People are taught to hate us, just because. Who teaches them? Who taught those people? Do thy hate us, or are religion, or our movies, or what? Generally, I'm of the opinion that more information is better than less information, and I hate, hate, hate it when politicians say figuring out why terrorists attack us is akin to treason and blaming ourselves.

[BuckeyeMike]

I don't give a rat's ass why they are attacking us....the time for that psychoananlyzing bullshit is after we've kicked the living shit out of them and reduced them to whimpering fools. Then you liberal asswipes that really think it makes you look good to give a shit as to the whys and wherefores can talk all you want to those that are left and are able to talk. Then you can write all the books, make all the movies, go on all the teevee talks shows you want and tell those of your ilk how bad and how wrong the United States is/was for picking on these poor misunderstood POS.

[gnome]

Are you saying that a grasp of one's enemies behavior is useless? If nothing else but to be able to predict their responses to our foreign policy it's highly useful to consider their point of view.

Not to give merit, but to possess knowledge that is of assistance when making one's own plans.

[DesertFox]

Yeah, but that knowledge doesn't take the rest of history to acquire. We know all we need know about asshole Izzies and their desire to cut our heads off. They will keep right on desiring that end whether we leave, stay or commit suicide. They will desire that end whether we give them all our money, none of our money or the keys to all our cities. They will want to cut our heads off just because they're vicious bastards who like to watch blood spurt out of a neck hole.

[BuckeyeMike]

Are you saying that a grasp of one's enemies behavior is useless? If nothing else but to be able to predict their responses to our foreign policy it's highly useful to consider their point of view.

I don't care what their responses to OUR foreign policy is...it means nothing to me.......their point of view? Hells bells, we already KNOW what their "point of view" is........why the hell don't you?

Not to give merit, but to possess knowledge that is of assistance when making one's own plans.

Plan A: Kill the all bastards before they kill us.
PLAN B: The is no PLAN B..........PLAN A will negate the need for PLAN B.



For crissake, I am pretty damned sure we all (well, most of us anyway) know where the islamofacists are "coming from"...."where their friggin' head is at", what's "floatin' their damned boat"....they've been pretty clear on that from the git-go....so what is there to talk about?
They want ME dead.....sans head if possible! I don't want to talk to them about it....I'm pretty sure they aren't gonna volunteer any information about how they plan to do it. Talk is done.........kickin' the livin' shit out THEM is all that is left to do.

edit: To be honest with you, reading your responses leaves me with the conclusion that you are talking out your ass....you are, in a sense, "talking just to hear yourself talk"!

[MaximumSam]

For crissake, I am pretty damned sure we all (well, most of us anyway) know where the islamofacists are "coming from"...."where their friggin' head is at", what's "floatin' their damned boat"....they've been pretty clear on that from the git-go....so what is there to talk about?
They want ME dead.....sans head if possible! I don't want to talk to them about it....I'm pretty sure they aren't gonna volunteer any information about how they plan to do it. Talk is done.........kickin' the livin' shit out THEM is all that is left to do.

Why do they want you dead, yet leave Jimmy Carter alive?

[BuckeyeMike]

You are in the same boat with the gnome....talking just to hear yourself talk.....THEY have told YOU and ME....all of us why they want us infidels dead..........do you have comprehension problems? Why is the Peanut Farmer alive? Right now the son of a bitch is a useful idiot to them....also being an ex-president, they know that the wrath of the United States would be horrendous if they were to off his senile old ass. That's the ONLY thing keeping his shriveled old ass alive......otherwise he'd be about 9 or 10 inches shorter that what he was when he arrived over there. Thing is, the old bastard KNOWS he'll get a pass on the beheading schtick just because of this ...that's the only reason he's so "brave".....if he was just a John Q. Public, you can bet the farm he would still be in Georgia...not........."over there".

[DesertFox]

Why do they want you dead, yet leave Jimmy Carter alive? You really don't know? I'm disappointed in you, Sam.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Now that's just silly. I'm all for defending against terrorist attacks. However, to defend against terrorist attacks without figuring out why they are attacking you is pretty stupid, and the best way to start figuring out why they are attacking you is to ask them. I'm more for common sense than anything else.
We already know why they are attacking us. We are infidels who must be destroyed according to the teachings of Mohamed. No amount of talking can change that fact. The War on Terror - World War IV - is a kill-or-be-killed war - a war we MUST win.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Why do they want you dead, yet leave Jimmy Carter alive?
Jimmy Carter may as well be one of them since he has sided with the IslamoFascist terrorists and against the U.S. for more than 30 years.

[DesertFox]

People are taught to hate us, just because. Who teaches them? Who taught those people? Do thy hate us, or are religion, or our movies, or what?Sam, the Nazis taught them. This is a matter of historical record.

[gnome]

We already know why they are attacking us. We are infidels who must be destroyed according to the teachings of Mohamed. No amount of talking can change that fact. The War on Terror - World War IV - is a kill-or-be-killed war - a war we MUST win.

The radical "kill all infidels!" muslims do not have a magical device that turns all children born in the region into killers. The general population, as it were, have to be manipulated to increase the numbers and power of the militants.

We must be prepared to use all the tools at our disposal, including manipulation or influence of our own, and not just military force.

[MaximumSam]

We already know why they are attacking us. We are infidels who must be destroyed according to the teachings of Mohamed. No amount of talking can change that fact. The War on Terror - World War IV - is a kill-or-be-killed war - a war we MUST win.

Did I miss WWIII?

Anyway, as our failure in the war on terror has shown, there isn't a set amount of "evil people" who we must kill before victory is assured. There are ideas and people and which influence other people, and we must fiure out what influences people to think we are the enemy, and determine if we can change it. Bombing people seems unlikely to change it.

[terri]

Did I miss WWIII?

Anyway, as our failure in the war on terror has shown, there isn't a set amount of "evil people" who we must kill before victory is assured. There are ideas and people and which influence other people, and we must fiure out what influences people to think we are the enemy, and determine if we can change it. Bombing people seems unlikely to change it.

I think you are behaving willfully obtuse. I cannot accept that you, a thinking being, actually believe what you wrote in the quote above. (I refuse to argue with you, so please don't come back with my quote and your counter points. Its a waste of time--mine and yours.)



For the rest of ya'll on the board.

President Carter is what, in his 80s. I choose to believe he is senile. It's as charitable as I can be towards the man. Otherwise, I'd say that his paying court to a group of terrorist thugs is beneath contempt and he should not be allowed back in this country unless to face criminal charges.

[dPrasse]

If Carter is senile today ... he must have been senile 30 yrs ago ...

Or , was he just a blithering idiot 30 yrs ago , heading towards senility ?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Did I miss WWIII?
Yeah, as a lefty you probably did. WW III was the Cold War.

Anyway, as our failure in the war on terror has shown, there isn't a set amount of "evil people" who we must kill before victory is assured. There are ideas and people and which influence other people, and we must fiure out what influences people to think we are the enemy, and determine if we can change it. Bombing people seems unlikely to change it.
Our "failure" in the War on Terror - World War IV, is solely due to the traitorous conduct by liberal Democrats and their willing accomplices in the drive-by media - the liberal media. If liberal Democrats and the media had supported the War on Terror - WW IV - in the same way that the Republicans and the media supported WW II, we would have already won the War on Terror - WW IV. As it is/was, liberal Democrats and the liberal media give/gave aid and comfort to our enemy by undermining our war effort in a time of war - the very definition of treason contained in the Constitution.

[Naturalized-Texan]

If Carter is senile today ... he must have been senile 30 yrs ago ...
Yes!

oquote]Or , was he just a blithering idiot 30 yrs ago , heading towards senility ?[/QUOTE]
Yes!

[DeclinetoState]

I don't really get the whole "don't talk to people" idea. What do we have to gain by ignoring leaders, even if we strongly disagree with them?The guy has been labeled (with justification) by our government as a criminal terrorist. That's not just "strongly disagreeing" with him.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Anyway, as our failure in the war on terror has shown, there isn't a set amount of "evil people" who we must kill before victory is assured. There are ideas and people and which influence other people, and we must fiure out what influences people to think we are the enemy, and determine if we can change it. Bombing people seems unlikely to change it.

I dunno. Little boy and fatman did a kickass job at influencing a certain people just to the east of China in the Pacific Ocean to understand that they were full of shit.

So, no, it isn't for us to learn why 'people want to kill us'. Its the complete opposite, namely for us to show them why they are worthy of being killed. And then to simply bring that to them like the perfect gift.

And to find that 'breaking point' where a death toll brings about unconditional surrender and national humiliation. In Japan's case, over 225,000 torched by our fun new toys and another 900,000 prior to that with the incendiaries.

It turned them into a bowl of compliant jello. Now they even listen to hair metal bands and eat fastfood pizza.

Without full contact war, there is no peace.