obama for president?
what's your take on it?
His speeches are great, but when you break it down and really look at what he is saying, he isn't saying anything at all. It's all ideas and hope and whatever - there's nothing concrete. For example, what exactly does he mean when he says "universal healthcare", how exactly is he going to achieve it, and how exactly is he going to pay for it?
Exactly. This is a huge problem in Washington and in American politics in general. The only politicians who I can think of that really don't fit this mold are, in order:
(1) Newt Gingrich
(2) Tom Tacredo
(3) Ron Paul
Im not sure what mold you are talking about, but Newt Gingrich in the oval office is quite possibly the worst thing that could happen to this country. I wouldn't figure you to be a Ron Paul Republican, so I'm not sure what to make of this list you have.
The mold I'm talking about is actually having ideas with the means to actually achieve them. That is, instead of using fluffy, general, inane language like "we need to reconnect with our allies, secure Iraq, turn it over to the Iraqis, and fight the terrorists" they actually have ideas of how to do this. Just look at Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America." That's the mold I'm talking about -- concrete, solid action, none of this "non-binding resolutions" bull****, and most importantly, he focuses on the details -- not the broad sweeping language that kills politics today. No one has better ideas than Newt. I would certainly vote for him above just about any other person in Washington, but I don't see him being elected by the general population (for reasons I don't understand). At any rate, I hope he becomes Secretary of State or some other similar position. No one is smarter than Newt, nor does anyone have the ideas for solutions in the 21st century.
My guess is that you don't like Newt because you don't read anything he writes, don't listen to his speeches. You merely dismiss him because of what you remember of him in 1994.
Check out his recent civilized debate with NY Governor Cuomo: http://www.americansolutions.com/media/video.aspx
Or browse around Newt.org and you'll get a picture of what I'm talking about. Just look at his recent Congressional testimony regarding Iraq: http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4029
You can't get much more specific and detailed than that.
"We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're unfortunate. We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the threat."
Mr. Gingrich acknowledged that these proposals would trigger "a serious debate about the First Amendment."
It amazes me that Republicans will debate Free Speech and civil liberties but try and take away their guns and all of the sudden they are consitutionalists.
Don't be so sure about what I read. Unlike you, i read ALL sides of the political spectrum. Armed with all ideas i can come to a conclusion/opinion that is of my own mind. Not talking points and rhetoric that fit a "party".
The 1st Amendment wasn't meant to be a suicide pact, and the Founding Fathers acknowledged this. History has shown dating back to the 18th century, that in times of war, civil liberties were not meant to interfere with the national security and defense of its people. Newt is best historian in Washington -- he knows what he's talking about.
Because the 2nd Amendment never interfered with our national security. In fact, that Americans generally owned guns and knew how to use them (from fighting with the Indians and hunting) during the Revolutionary War is actually one reason why we won -- the British Army knew they couldn't occupy and substantial portion of the colonies.
The only political news website I go to is www.realclearpolitics.com
It is the most balanced site on for politics on the web. When searching for the news I go to both Fox and CNN to get a balanced view, so I don't know where you're pulling this stuff out of but it's completely wrong.
Suggesting that the 1st amendment is a suicide pact is a stretch.
If national security is protecting american lives than talk to me when terrorists kill as many americans as american gun owners.
You are either a constitutionalist or you are not.
You can't favor curtailing the 1st amendment (it was 1st for a reason) in the name of security. But then be unwilling to discuss the 2nd amendment under the same circumstances.
Just like Liberals can't have it both ways and cry for protection of the civil liberties yet rewrite the 2nd amendment.
Fox and CNN does not represent a balanced view.
I'm not unwilling to discuss the 2nd -- it just has absolutely nothing to do with national security, other than it being a tool for preventing foreign occupation (like in the American Revolution). And I'm not in favor of permanantly curtailing the 1st Amendment -- I, like nearly all other wartime presidents, just think that it needs to be re-examined to best serve American interests during a period of conflict. I'm not saying we pass an Alien and Sedition Act like John Adams, or suspend habeas corpus and round up all dissenters and send them to Canada like Abraham Lincoln, or pass a Sedition and Espionage Act like Woodrow Wilson, or create interment camps like FDR -- I merely believe that the 1st Amendment shouldn't be extended to terrorists and their sympathizers who use the internet as a vehicle for recruiting future jihadists.
I also feel that it is not only appropriate, but responsible, for our government to listen in to phone calls of people found in al Zawhiri's rolodex -- regardless of whether or not they're within the borders of the United States. This is what I'm talking about.
Thank you for making my point. Playing founding father with the 1st ammendment leads to the examples above.
If guns don't kill americans, then americans kill americans. maybe every murderer should lose his rights to habeus corpus, be detained indifinitely, and tortured? I mean that is if its all about "protecting americans".