Just saw this, from last summer apparently so apologies if it's been hashed over before.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/08/gingrich/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Newt's parting thought is the one that prompted me to post here. He sums up why civil libertarians (regardless of party labels) should be more active against the terrorists / extremists / label of your choice.

Thoughts? Would appreciate constructive discourse... thanks.

Well I can hear the "whacko" rants coming. I mean you can't believe anyone here has a positive thing to say about Newt, do you?

Hey Knees, they don't belive they are in any danger, so why would they consider anything at the end of the speach. I'm willing to bet once they realized what it was, they clicked the X. Never saw the end. Constructive discourse? LOL!!!

we know it
werecognize we have danger coming at us from both sides
terrorists trying to destroy us from the outside
idiots like Newt and W trying todestroy us from within

no amount of 'pretend security'is worth signing away our civil libs

As I heard it, "if you know what's good for you you'll give up a little now cuz if there's a "real" attack it's gonna be martial law and you can kiss your sweet little civil liberties goodbye."

I don't want to minimize 911. Horrific it truly was. Devastating. And, apparently sucessful. When we get scared of the terrorists, they win. The goal is to influence behavior through fear. The natural reaction is to malitia up and go get 'em. But what threat do they really pose? 3000 +/- deaths is symbolically very significant, but by no means a threat to our economy or our way of life (unless the fear that it causes makes us change our behavior).

Terrorism and fear of it is akin to a parent's fear of stranger abduction. The news and authorities make us extremely paranoid that chester molester lurks around every corner, when in reality the chances of your kid getting run over and killed as the result of a bicycle accident is astronomically higher. But we choose to worry about that stranger, and not so much about the more mundane stuff like always wearing a helmet and knowing some basic safety procedures.

Each of us probably has a better chance of winning the lottery than being the victim of a terrorist attack.

I see nothing worth discussing in his speech. I didn't listen to the whole thing and didn't feel the need to after I'd heard the first few sentences.

There may a fine line between fear-mongering and constructively discussing what we face in terms terror in the future, but it's a line that Newt crapped on after the dramatic pause at the start.

Well I can hear the "whacko" rants coming. I mean you can't believe anyone here has a positive thing to say about Newt, do you?

Hey Knees, they don't belive they are in any danger, so why would they consider anything at the end of the speach. I'm willing to bet once they realized what it was, they clicked the X. Never saw the end. Constructive discourse? LOL!!!

She turned me into a Newt! Well...I got better.

Agree totally with shawndoggy. we're much more likely to die at the hands of a drunk driver on the way to bike than by terrorist action, so I'm not particularly worried. Doesn't mean don't take sensible precautions, simply don't panic and let idiots take our liberties or spend us into the poor house so that the terrorists win.

back to having his mistress give him a bj in the car outside a school

I see nothing worth discussing in his speech. I didn't listen to the whole thing and didn't feel the need to after I'd heard the first few sentences.

There may a fine line between fear-mongering and constructively discussing what we face in terms terror in the future, but it's a line that Newt crapped on after the dramatic pause at the start.


Nice. That's the attitude we need in this country to get back to some sort of reasoned discourse.

So here's a summary of what I heard and why I posted:
- Newt's worried (no surprised there, lots of supporting statements we've all heard before)
- he thinks it's gonna take another major event before we wake up again (ibid)
- "if you're complaining about civil liberties now, just wait till they nuke a city" is the crux of it. "So either constructively engage, or get ready to hunker down"

That's why I posted, asking, why would you abandon the debate if you acknowldedge the risk?

Because I think the debate has shifted away from "the danger we're in and how to address it" to arguing over the civil liberties and related issues.

The CL impacts- wiretapping, Gitmo, etc are a direct result of the continued perceived danger of terrorism. If you address the risk of terrorism, the risk to the Constitution goes away. This is what I believe Bush has been trying to tell everyone (not very effectively obviously).

Now. maybe President Obama has a better solution. We'll see, that's why we have elections.

The CL impacts- wiretapping, Gitmo, etc are a direct result of the continued perceived danger of terrorism. If you address the risk of terrorism, the risk to the Constitution goes away. This is what I believe Bush has been trying to tell everyone (not very effectively obviously).

What's the net American death toll from terrorism over the past 30 years? We can include attacks where Americans were killed on foreign soil (Beirut, Achile Lauro (sp?), pan am bombing, Munich night club), in addition to home brewed terrorists (Rudolph and McVeigh), and 911. By my reckoning from memory only, we'd be at less than 5,000.

On the other hand, drunk driving related fatalities appear to have averaged around 20,000 per year during that period (600,000 total). Accidental handgun deaths (from what I can garner from a quick google search) are somewhere around 200 per year, or 6,000 total during the same period.

That's why I posted, asking, why would you abandon the debate if you acknowldedge the risk?

So it's a legitimate policy question to ask whether the perceived danger of terrorism is overblown. Or stated another way, if we aren't willing to give up civil liberties to battle drunk driving or accidental handgun deaths, why should we give them up to combat terrorism?

"Give up the fight," "Cut and run," "surrender to the terrorists" (got an awesome Huckabee push poll here in Nevada asking whether I would support Obama if I knew that he supported Harry Reid's plan to surrender to the terrorists), etc -- it's all language of escalation that implies that a reasoned debate is impossible. There's our way, or there's the wrong way. There's the right way, or surrender.

It's time for a return to debate over important issues of policy.

IMHO, the threat of terrorism is real, and needs to be a continuing priority. But I'd put our dependence on nonrenewable foreign sourced energy at a much higher place on the list of threats to national security.

Nice. That's the attitude we need in this country to get back to some sort of reasoned discourse.

So here's a summary of what I heard and why I posted:
- Newt's worried (no surprised there, lots of supporting statements we've all heard before)
- he thinks it's gonna take another major event before we wake up again (ibid)
- "if you're complaining about civil liberties now, just wait till they nuke a city" is the crux of it. "So either constructively engage, or get ready to hunker down"

That's why I posted, asking, why would you abandon the debate if you acknowldedge the risk?

Because I think the debate has shifted away from "the danger we're in and how to address it" to arguing over the civil liberties and related issues.

The CL impacts- wiretapping, Gitmo, etc are a direct result of the continued perceived danger of terrorism. If you address the risk of terrorism, the risk to the Constitution goes away. This is what I believe Bush has been trying to tell everyone (not very effectively obviously).

Now. maybe President Obama has a better solution. We'll see, that's why we have elections.

What did you expect, knees?

To blame the type of comments that were posted in response to a video of Newt Gingrich laying the foundation for his next presidential bid, you need to ignore that this was one of the most partisan men in politics.

I guess if it were anybody but Newt, I might not have had to swallow down a mouthful if bile that I gurgled up and been better able to hear his message.

If you want honest discourse, it's probably a good idea to start off on the right foot.

What's the net American death toll from terrorism over the past 30 years? We can include attacks where Americans were killed on foreign soil (Beirut, Achile Lauro (sp?), pan am bombing, Munich night club), in addition to home brewed terrorists (Rudolph and McVeigh), and 911. By my reckoning from memory only, we'd be at less than 5,000.

On the other hand, drunk driving related fatalities appear to have averaged around 20,000 per year during that period (600,000 total). Accidental handgun deaths (from what I can garner from a quick google search) are somewhere around 200 per year, or 6,000 total during the same period.

So it's a legitimate policy question to ask whether the perceived danger of terrorism is overblown. Or stated another way, if we aren't willing to give up civil liberties to battle drunk driving or accidental handgun deaths, why should we give them up to combat terrorism?

"Give up the fight," "Cut and run," "surrender to the terrorists" (got an awesome Huckabee push poll here in Nevada asking whether I would support Obama if I knew that he supported Harry Reid's plan to surrender to the terrorists), etc -- it's all language of escalation that implies that a reasoned debate is impossible. There's our way, or there's the wrong way. There's the right way, or surrender.

It's time for a return to debate over important issues of policy.

IMHO, the threat of terrorism is real, and needs to be a continuing priority. But I'd put our dependence on nonrenewable foreign sourced energy at a much higher place on the list of threats to national security.

BRAVO! Now that's the kind of stuff we need.

Well stated and I can't find anything to nit about. Basically where I was before all this Iraq stuff sidetracked everybody.

What did you expect, knees?

To blame the type of comments that were posted in response to a video of Newt Gingrich laying the foundation for his next presidential bid, you need to ignore that this was one of the most partisan men in politics.

I guess if it were anybody but Newt, I might not have had to swallow down a mouthful if bile that I gurgled up and been better able to hear his message.

If you want honest discourse, it's probably a good idea to start off on the right foot.

This, I totally disagree with. If Hillary or Obama or Carville or any other Dem lightning rod wants to have a reasonable discussion, I'm willing to listen. And in fact, I do.