Download A Book Get Arrested, Call For Terror Attacks - No Problem!

Anyone with even the remotest semblance of intelligence can see that Gingrich was not "publicly lamenting" that more Americans have not been killed.

He was making a specific rhetorical point about the successes of the current policies that seem to make things safer than they might be.

This reminds me of part of what's wrong with public discourse ... Most people have no common sense. They are stupid when it comes to rhetoric and conversation. And they are such because they are politically blinded. Prisonplanet is a great example of such stupidity. And compounding it is that people do not know how to think enough to see through it.

 

"remotest semblance of intelligence"

In here, surely you jest! :thumbs:

 

As Randolph Bourne stated, poncho: "War is the health of the state."

 

I wasn't overlooking anyone or anything. I was commenting on the use of rhetoric in communication, something you apparently are unfamiliar with.

It is true that had there been more violent deaths, the war on terror would have a much greater viability. But saying that doesn't mean one wishes that more deaths had occurred. It is simply an argumentative/rhetorical device for communication.

I need to keep up? How is citing a memo from 2005 "keeping up"?

But to the point, I don't need to keep up on the topic. I am not that interested in it. I was simply making a statement about communication and the use of rhetoric, not about conspiracy theories.

I have not dignified anyone with either excuses or unlearned rationalization. I would appreciate an apology and a more guarded use of your posting privileges.

I haven't sided with criminals. You are able to read, Poncho. You are of reasonable intelligence. Don't make these dumb mistakes attributing something to me I never said. If you don't understand the point (which you apparently didn't), feel free to ask and I will attempt to explain it again. But don't make false accusations against me.

 

One of life's great tragedies is that there isn't more of them.

 

So, if you asked Gingrich if you were rightly representing his comments, what do you think he would say?

 

It's a shame, Ivon, that Newt would make such comment. He is smarter than that and knows better than that.

 

Up until today I had the upmost respect for Newt. As of 24 hours ago he was one of my favorite Republicans. In fact, here I wished McCain would chose him as a running mate noting that Gingrich would pull people like me back into the GOP.

As of today, Gingrich is either obligated to provide context for his words (and what context could justify such sentiments is a gold medal placement in verbal gymnastics) or should do his country and his party great service by refraining from such loose dialogue.

 

So if you asked Gingrich if you were rightly representing his words, what would he say?

 

Perhaps your unwillingness to answer the question (now asked twice) is evidence that you are believe you are misrepresenting Gingrich's words, but you do not want to own up to it publicly.

 

The amazing thing is, poncho, that to quote (verbatim, no less) such evidence isn't as convincing to neocons as erecting hypothetical quotes via biased speculation in their defense. To ardent defenders of the Iraq War (of which I used to be) tangible, empirical evidence of national disrespect (i.e. Gingrich's comments here, Bush's press corps joke about the nonexistent WMD's 4,000 soldiers dies looking for) will be forever dismissed, explained away, or shrugged at instead of shouted from the rooftops. As to what evidence exists explaining the natural intentions of a quote are antithetical to verbatim renderings we'll never know. Good stuff, poncho. Thx for the info!

 

Again you are avoiding the issue. Why? Are you ashamed?

Have you no understanding of communication and rhetoric? Irony in defense of the obvious?

It always amazes me that honesty is so wanting on a supposedly Christian forum.

 

Perhaps my suspicion is being confirmed that there are no depths to which some will not stoop in their defense of the unimaginable.

 

And still no response??

Not one of you who are making these accusations are willing to stand up and say you think you are rightly representing Gingrich's comments?

 

Emphasis mine

I have read some really tinfoil-hat ideas from the conspiricy nuts, but to read what is posted above (emphasized) makes the "C" theories mild in comparison.

If this is an example of reading comprehension, it's no wonder this country is in trouble.

All one has to do is read the complete article to see precisely what Newt IS REALLY saying and to make the above claim is, <personal attack deleted - LE>!!!!!:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead: