Perhaps the best moment yet of the entire GOP campaign…
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Comments
Heliotropesays
I was never clear what constituted a s***-eating grin. Having watched this clip, I now know. The questioner was wetting himself over his obvious delight in his condescending superiority.
I wish the camera had stayed on his mug as Newt did a full root canal on him without anesthesia.
Peter Hughessays
Scott Pelley, like the rest of the MSM, has this inbred desire to attack conservatives.
Time to give them a taste of their own medicine.
Regards,
Peter H.
Richard Bellsays
No wonder everything conservatives say creates a crisis, these media people don’t know anything.
Levisays
The best moment was when Gingrich says someone was found guilty of something that they weren’t, gets caught in his lie, and lashes out to cover for himself? Does Gingrich know what the word ‘guilty’ means? And however much Gingrich and the collective conservative lizard brain would like to believe that an American citizen ‘engaging in an act of war’ automatically revokes all of their civil liberties, that’s not the case by any stretch of the imagination. And how does one individual ‘engage in an act of war’ anyway? Don’t you need, like, an army or a country for that? By Newt’s definition, couldn’t every murder suspect in the country be accused of engaging in ‘an act of war’ and summarily killed just because a panel said they were guilty?
Here we are again, some of the stupidest comments ever caught on film make the Republicans giddier than ever. And let’s remember – they’re talking about an action that Obama took. How do you people reconcile all this garbage?
Gingrich knows that to bigots like yourself, every conservative is guilty and every liberal is innocent. And he calls you and Pelley out on it.
Furthermore, Levi, since you aren’t pissing and screaming and shitting yourself saying that Obama violated the Constitution and should be impeached, clearly you AGREE with Gingrich’s statements.
That’s what you don’t realize, Levi. Newt just made it clear on national TV that you and your Obama are lying, amoral hypocrites who meant nothing with your bleating about trials for terrorists and were just trying to exploit a matter of national security for partisan advantage.
Now go back to raping OWS women, liar.
Heliotropesays
Levi,
Let me try to help you out. You can, of course, show everyone here where The Constitution of the United States of America provides legal protections for those American citizens who would kill in order to overthrow the Constitution of the United States of America.
In other words, Levi, show us the provision in the Constitution that prevents the United States from protecting itself.
You will recall that orders were given to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it did not divert and as a last resort. (There is even a hive of truthers who insist UA flight 93 was, in fact, shot down.) So, apparently, you can point out the place in the Constitution where all those innocent American civilian lives on UA flight 93 had to stand by and let events play out without government intervention.
This will be really interesting, provided you don’t run away.
Kevinsays
I’m no fan of Newt – and have no desire to support him for anything, but THAT ROCKED! Finally, someone explaining to the idoits in media that civil rights don’t apply to the enemy. (Actually they shouldn’t apply to non citizens at all, but heck, one step at a time).
And that grin on the ass’s face should be used as evidence of what the media thinks of us.
And DNT, don’t waste your time. Levi, like all his ilk, doesn’t care about the truth. He wants the Constitution to become a death pact so he and his fellow OWS-ers destroy Amerika.
The_Livewiresays
Levi’s still upset at Abraham Lincoln for not arresting and Mirandaizing every Confederate soldier on the field.
Levisays
Levi,
Let me try to help you out. You can, of course, show everyone here where The Constitution of the United States of America provides legal protections for those American citizens who would kill in order to overthrow the Constitution of the United States of America.
In other words, Levi, show us the provision in the Constitution that prevents the United States from protecting itself.
You’re asking for something objective (show me where in the Constitution!) to prove something subjective (the idea that the United States need to protect itself from Anwar Al-Awali). I don’t buy that premise. There was nothing so dangerous about Al-Awali that his rights as a citizen needed to be voided, which objectively isn’t a power that anyone is granted in the Constitution anyway. If anything, you need to be showing me where in the Constitution it says that the Bill of Rights can be unilaterally superseded. Americans call for the overthrow of the government and the dissolution of the Constitution all the time, and some have even killed to that end. What makes Al-Alawi any different than Timothy McVeigh? Should we have not held a trial for him? Should we have just dropped a bomb on his house instead?
If you think that somewhere in the Constitution it states that the country can do whatever it wants to protect itself, you’re mistaken. The point of the Bill of Rights is to demarcate what the country can’t do, which was pretty well violated by Obama’s decision to just murder Al-Alawi with a drone attack. And that’s the problem – if we’re just going to give the President some kind of blank check authority to ignore the Constitution and to circumvent the justice system because he solely determines that he needs to protect the country, what couldn’t be justified? I mean was Al-Alawi some kind of existential threat to the survival of the Republic? Of course not. Who gets to make these determinations?
You, the wizened old Libertarian, are essentially advocating for the President to be able to kill whoever he wants with no accountability and no justification. All he has to do is say that he’s a bad person that doesn’t like the US government, and he can drop a bomb on them. And you’re saying that the Constitution allows him to do this.
Huh.
You will recall that orders were given to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it did not divert and as a last resort. (There is even a hive of truthers who insist UA flight 93 was, in fact, shot down.) So, apparently, you can point out the place in the Constitution where all those innocent American civilian lives on UA flight 93 had to stand by and let events play out without government intervention.
This will be really interesting, provided you don’t run away.
I don’t really know what that has to do with anything. A one-in-a-billion, time sensitive scenario during a period of confusion and disarray doesn’t really speak to, you know, trying for months to drop a bomb on somebody’s head a half a world away. What to do with Flight 93 was one of those moral quandaries that no legal system or founding document could ever hope to anticipate, and for what it’s worth I would have been ready to shoot it down, too. These aren’t the same situations in any way, shape, or form.
There was nothing so dangerous about Al-Awali that his rights as a citizen needed to be voided, which objectively isn’t a power that anyone is granted in the Constitution anyway. If anything, you need to be showing me where in the Constitution it says that the Bill of Rights can be unilaterally superseded.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
And Amendment 5 (emphasis mine):
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
So we’ve demonstrated that Levi is completely ignorant on the text of the Constitution.
Now let’s turn to the little rapist’s attempted defense:
What makes Al-Alawi any different than Timothy McVeigh? Should we have not held a trial for him? Should we have just dropped a bomb on his house instead?
McVeigh was in custody, so there was no need. Al-Alawi had fled the country and was continuing to wage war against it, so there was.
Moreover, the entertaining part is that the rapist Levi has called for surveillance, arrest, and punishment of Christians and veterans on the grounds that they COULD be plotting against the government. Levi even called for the arrest of Sarah Palin as a danger to the country for attempted murder of Gabrielle Giffords based on a crosshairs map. Yet someone who openly and blatantly is plotting against and has already attacked the United States and its citizens is, according to Levi, not a danger to the country.
And this was beyond hilarious.
You, the wizened old Libertarian, are essentially advocating for the President to be able to kill whoever he wants with no accountability and no justification. All he has to do is say that he’s a bad person that doesn’t like the US government, and he can drop a bomb on them. And you’re saying that the Constitution allows him to do this.
Wrong. The Constitution lays out very specific circumstances under which this can be done.
Furthermore, Levi, you’re deflecting your ass off. You aren’t demanding that Obama be impeached for doing this. You aren’t saying that Obama’s actions are unconstitutional. You’re sitting here spinning and bleating and pissing your pants and trying to blame Heliotrope because you’re too much of a coward to call out your Obama.
Man up, Levi. State that Obama has acted unconstitutionally. Better yet, do exactly as you and your fellow pissing leftists did all the way through both of Bush’s terms and demand that he be impeached for acting unconstitutionally.
You can’t and you won’t. and that shows what a complete and total lying hypocrite you are, boy.
I was never clear what constituted a s***-eating grin. Having watched this clip, I now know. The questioner was wetting himself over his obvious delight in his condescending superiority.
I wish the camera had stayed on his mug as Newt did a full root canal on him without anesthesia.
Scott Pelley, like the rest of the MSM, has this inbred desire to attack conservatives.
Time to give them a taste of their own medicine.
Regards,
Peter H.
No wonder everything conservatives say creates a crisis, these media people don’t know anything.
The best moment was when Gingrich says someone was found guilty of something that they weren’t, gets caught in his lie, and lashes out to cover for himself? Does Gingrich know what the word ‘guilty’ means? And however much Gingrich and the collective conservative lizard brain would like to believe that an American citizen ‘engaging in an act of war’ automatically revokes all of their civil liberties, that’s not the case by any stretch of the imagination. And how does one individual ‘engage in an act of war’ anyway? Don’t you need, like, an army or a country for that? By Newt’s definition, couldn’t every murder suspect in the country be accused of engaging in ‘an act of war’ and summarily killed just because a panel said they were guilty?
Here we are again, some of the stupidest comments ever caught on film make the Republicans giddier than ever. And let’s remember – they’re talking about an action that Obama took. How do you people reconcile all this garbage?
Yes, Levi.
Gingrich knows that to bigots like yourself, every conservative is guilty and every liberal is innocent. And he calls you and Pelley out on it.
Furthermore, Levi, since you aren’t pissing and screaming and shitting yourself saying that Obama violated the Constitution and should be impeached, clearly you AGREE with Gingrich’s statements.
That’s what you don’t realize, Levi. Newt just made it clear on national TV that you and your Obama are lying, amoral hypocrites who meant nothing with your bleating about trials for terrorists and were just trying to exploit a matter of national security for partisan advantage.
Now go back to raping OWS women, liar.
Levi,
Let me try to help you out. You can, of course, show everyone here where The Constitution of the United States of America provides legal protections for those American citizens who would kill in order to overthrow the Constitution of the United States of America.
In other words, Levi, show us the provision in the Constitution that prevents the United States from protecting itself.
You will recall that orders were given to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it did not divert and as a last resort. (There is even a hive of truthers who insist UA flight 93 was, in fact, shot down.) So, apparently, you can point out the place in the Constitution where all those innocent American civilian lives on UA flight 93 had to stand by and let events play out without government intervention.
This will be really interesting, provided you don’t run away.
I’m no fan of Newt – and have no desire to support him for anything, but THAT ROCKED! Finally, someone explaining to the idoits in media that civil rights don’t apply to the enemy. (Actually they shouldn’t apply to non citizens at all, but heck, one step at a time).
And that grin on the ass’s face should be used as evidence of what the media thinks of us.
And DNT, don’t waste your time. Levi, like all his ilk, doesn’t care about the truth. He wants the Constitution to become a death pact so he and his fellow OWS-ers destroy Amerika.
Levi’s still upset at Abraham Lincoln for not arresting and Mirandaizing every Confederate soldier on the field.
You’re asking for something objective (show me where in the Constitution!) to prove something subjective (the idea that the United States need to protect itself from Anwar Al-Awali). I don’t buy that premise. There was nothing so dangerous about Al-Awali that his rights as a citizen needed to be voided, which objectively isn’t a power that anyone is granted in the Constitution anyway. If anything, you need to be showing me where in the Constitution it says that the Bill of Rights can be unilaterally superseded. Americans call for the overthrow of the government and the dissolution of the Constitution all the time, and some have even killed to that end. What makes Al-Alawi any different than Timothy McVeigh? Should we have not held a trial for him? Should we have just dropped a bomb on his house instead?
If you think that somewhere in the Constitution it states that the country can do whatever it wants to protect itself, you’re mistaken. The point of the Bill of Rights is to demarcate what the country can’t do, which was pretty well violated by Obama’s decision to just murder Al-Alawi with a drone attack. And that’s the problem – if we’re just going to give the President some kind of blank check authority to ignore the Constitution and to circumvent the justice system because he solely determines that he needs to protect the country, what couldn’t be justified? I mean was Al-Alawi some kind of existential threat to the survival of the Republic? Of course not. Who gets to make these determinations?
You, the wizened old Libertarian, are essentially advocating for the President to be able to kill whoever he wants with no accountability and no justification. All he has to do is say that he’s a bad person that doesn’t like the US government, and he can drop a bomb on them. And you’re saying that the Constitution allows him to do this.
Huh.
I don’t really know what that has to do with anything. A one-in-a-billion, time sensitive scenario during a period of confusion and disarray doesn’t really speak to, you know, trying for months to drop a bomb on somebody’s head a half a world away. What to do with Flight 93 was one of those moral quandaries that no legal system or founding document could ever hope to anticipate, and for what it’s worth I would have been ready to shoot it down, too. These aren’t the same situations in any way, shape, or form.
There was nothing so dangerous about Al-Awali that his rights as a citizen needed to be voided, which objectively isn’t a power that anyone is granted in the Constitution anyway. If anything, you need to be showing me where in the Constitution it says that the Bill of Rights can be unilaterally superseded.
Actually, that’s easy.
Section 9 (emphasis mine):
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
And Amendment 5 (emphasis mine):
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
So we’ve demonstrated that Levi is completely ignorant on the text of the Constitution.
Now let’s turn to the little rapist’s attempted defense:
What makes Al-Alawi any different than Timothy McVeigh? Should we have not held a trial for him? Should we have just dropped a bomb on his house instead?
McVeigh was in custody, so there was no need. Al-Alawi had fled the country and was continuing to wage war against it, so there was.
Moreover, the entertaining part is that the rapist Levi has called for surveillance, arrest, and punishment of Christians and veterans on the grounds that they COULD be plotting against the government. Levi even called for the arrest of Sarah Palin as a danger to the country for attempted murder of Gabrielle Giffords based on a crosshairs map. Yet someone who openly and blatantly is plotting against and has already attacked the United States and its citizens is, according to Levi, not a danger to the country.
And this was beyond hilarious.
You, the wizened old Libertarian, are essentially advocating for the President to be able to kill whoever he wants with no accountability and no justification. All he has to do is say that he’s a bad person that doesn’t like the US government, and he can drop a bomb on them. And you’re saying that the Constitution allows him to do this.
Wrong. The Constitution lays out very specific circumstances under which this can be done.
Furthermore, Levi, you’re deflecting your ass off. You aren’t demanding that Obama be impeached for doing this. You aren’t saying that Obama’s actions are unconstitutional. You’re sitting here spinning and bleating and pissing your pants and trying to blame Heliotrope because you’re too much of a coward to call out your Obama.
Man up, Levi. State that Obama has acted unconstitutionally. Better yet, do exactly as you and your fellow pissing leftists did all the way through both of Bush’s terms and demand that he be impeached for acting unconstitutionally.
You can’t and you won’t. and that shows what a complete and total lying hypocrite you are, boy.