Why does Gingrich hate the Constitution?

[JC]

Don't sell yourself short Geronimo Mallcop, you ARE the comic relief.

[johnhp]

Still refuse to address the actual question, eh?

I am glad I came back here. I needed the comic relief.   

Asked and answered.  When you figure out what the word no means come back.

[Observer]

You are obviously afraid to try to answer the question.

Did your Daddy Vel tell you to avoid the issue by engaging in weasel speak, or did you think that up all by yourself.

[Observer]

What part of "no law" don't you understand?


You stupid shit.

This is getting boring. It is obvious you do not understand the issue, OR the Free Exercise Clause.

Let me end this by asking you a simple question in a form you might understand...

What part of "Congress" don't you understand?

You stupid shit.   

[johnhp]

You are obviously afraid to try to answer the question.

Did your Daddy Vel tell you to avoid the issue by engaging in weasel speak, or did you think that up all by yourself.

You really keep mentioning this daddy thing.  Says a lot about you.  Was your dad distant or did you not know him?  Not, of course, that i expect you to answer truthfully.  You do not know what the truth is.

[johnhp]

This is getting boring. It is obvious you do not understand the issue, OR the Free Exercise Clause.

Let me end this by asking you a simple question in a form you might understand...

What part of "Congress" don't you understand?

You stupid shit.  

Mr Gingrich is suggesting that we pass laws to promote his agenda.  

[Observer]

You really keep mentioning this daddy thing.  Says a lot about you.  Was your dad distant or did you not know him?  Not, of course, that i expect you to answer truthfully.  You do not know what the truth is.

My parentage is not in question.

You run to Vel for protection that way a small child runs to his father, and Vel protects you as a father does a young child. You could not run your mouth with impunity the way you do without his protection.

You are a weak, petty, insecure little man who needs someone to protect you from those who are stronger and smarter, which of course, is just about everybody. You are a typical little punk who stalks a lot of trash when your posse is around, but could never hold your own without them.

I dismissed you as any kind of intellectual challenge a long time ago.

[Observer]

Mr Gingrich is suggesting that we pass laws to promote his agenda.  

Here is the statement by Gingrich you cited.

Throughout its nearly 100 year history, the cause of religious tolerance has had no better friend than the Anti-Defamation League.  The organization’s stand today in opposition to the proposed 13-story Islamic Center near Ground Zero is entirely in keeping with that tradition.  They recognize the provocative nature of the proposal, that its construction will only result in more pain for the families of 9/11 victims and fan the flames of inter-religious strife.  Abe Foxman and the leaders of the Anti-Defamation League deserve praise for taking such a careful look at this issue and arriving at the right conclusion. 

Funny, no mention of laws there.

Now, here is a short piece on the ADL's position.

The nation's leading Jewish civil rights group has come out against the planned mosque and Islamic community center near ground zero, saying more information is needed about funding for the project and the location is "counterproductive to the healing process."

The Anti-Defamation League said it rejects any opposition to the center based on bigotry and acknowledged that the group behind the plan, the Cordoba Initiative, has the legal right to build at the site. But the ADL said "some legitimate questions have been raised" about funding and possible ties with "groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values."

"Ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right," the ADL said in a statement. "In our judgment, building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain -- unnecessarily -- and that is not right."
LINK

It appears the ADL acknowledges and supports the right to build. They merely believe it is not the right thing to do. Again, there is no mention of paasing a law to prevent the free exercise of religious practices.

So, now that brings us to the obvious question... Were you ignorant of these facts, or were you lying when you tried to present this as a First Amendment issue?

Was Velleity just going along with you to win your favor or is he as stupid and uninformed as you are?

[johnhp]

My parentage is not in question.

Really?  You going to step up and prove that like you proved your alleged military service?  Like you proved your assertion about lexicography; don't think so.  You really ought to put your alleged "detective" skills to use and find out what the word no means.

You run to Vel for protection that way a small child runs to his father, and Vel protects you as a father does a young child. You could not run your mouth with impunity the way you do without his protection.

i would not be here if i had broken rules.  The fact is you overstepped.  You need to learn to take responsibility for your behavior.

You are a weak, petty, insecure little man who needs someone to protect you from those who are stronger and smarter, which of course, is just about everybody. You are a typical little punk who stalks a lot of trash when your posse is around, but could never hold your own without them.

You don't know the first thing about me.  But i really hit the nail on the head with the father remark.  You must despise him.  And, of course, yourself.

I dismissed you as any kind of intellectual challenge a long time ago.

You've demonstrated the ability not to judge anyone in that department.

[Observer]

Really?  You going to step up and prove that like you proved your alleged military service?  Like you proved your assertion about lexicography; don't think so.  You really ought to put your alleged "detective" skills to use and find out what the word no means.

As I said, feel free to disprove any assertion I make on here, or anywhere else you happen to lurk.

On this particular subject, you are way out of your depth.

i would not be here if i had broken rules.  

No, if you didn't receive preferential treatment and the rules were enforced, you would not be here.

You don't know the first thing about me.

I know much more about you than you think.   If I were truly interested, I would know more about you than you even know there is to know. 

 

[johnhp]

Here is the statement by Gingrich you cited.

Throughout its nearly 100 year history, the cause of religious tolerance has had no better friend than the Anti-Defamation League.  The organization’s stand today in opposition to the proposed 13-story Islamic Center near Ground Zero is entirely in keeping with that tradition.  They recognize the provocative nature of the proposal, that its construction will only result in more pain for the families of 9/11 victims and fan the flames of inter-religious strife.  Abe Foxman and the leaders of the Anti-Defamation League deserve praise for taking such a careful look at this issue and arriving at the right conclusion. 

Funny, no mention of laws there.

That is absolutely NOT the statement i cited.  Here is the statement i cited.  See the FIRST post in this thread.  It is in the little box in the first thread under "Quote":

"There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."

When Mr. Gingrich caught shit for the statement, he replaced the mosque remark that i specifically quoted with this statement about the ADL.

Here is the statement:

http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/newt-gingrich-statement-proposed-%E2%80%9Ccordoba-house%E2%80%9D-mosque-near-ground-zero

It appears the ADL acknowledges and supports the right to build. They merely believe it is not the right thing to do. Again, there is no mention of paasing a law to prevent the free exercise of religious practices.

Maybe you should have looked for the statement i actually cited.

So, now that brings us to the obvious question... Were you ignorant of these facts, or were you lying when you tried to present this as a First Amendment issue?

So, you never bothered to read the actual quote i cited?  Were you stupid?  Do you not know the difference between Mr. Gingrich and the ADL?

Was Velleity just going along with you to win your favor or is he as stupid and uninformed as you are?

He probably was familiar with the actual statement.  Too bad you weren't.

[johnhp]

As I said, feel free to disprove any assertion I make on here, or anywhere else you happen to lurk.

Already called you on it.  You were unable or unwilling to prove your claims.  Either way, the guy who can't make the call loses.

On this particular subject, you are way out of your depth.

Tell it walking.

No, if you didn't receive preferential treatment and the rules were enforced, you would not be here.

If i broke the rules i would be gone.  i did not.  You, on the other hand overstepped your authority and, rather than suffer the shame of being tossed out on your ass, popped your own balloon.

I know much more about you than you think.   If I were truly interested, I would know more about you than you even know there is to know. 

You don't know a thing.  But feel free to prove it: post my real first name here.  If you knew anything about me you would know that.  Publish the first three subject headings for my 1st book in the University of Chicago library (https://libcat.uchicago.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?profile=ucpublic).  How about this: in what year was my 1st book as author published?  1st as editor (editor of the book, not the book series).  Name the university that publishes the American series of which i am the editor.

You have been called again.

[/quote]

[Observer]

That is absolutely NOT the statement i cited.  Here is the statement i cited.  See the FIRST post in this thread.  It is in the little box in the first thread under "Quote":


When Mr. Gingrich caught shit for the statement, he replaced the mosque remark that i specifically quoted with this statement about the ADL.

Here is the statement:

http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/newt-gingrich-statement-proposed-%E2%80%9Ccordoba-house%E2%80%9D-mosque-near-ground-zero

I quoted your link.

You provided nothing to support your allegation that Gingrich actually said the words you attributed to him. Taking into consideration the fact that you are known liar, I have no reason to give your allegation any credibility without third party verification.

Even if he DID say what you claim he said, there is nothing in that statment that suggests changing the law or violating the First Amendment in any way.

So again, you are either lying about what Gingrich is saying, or you are just too stupid to understand it.

[Observer]

You don't know a thing.  But feel free to prove it: post my real first name here.  If you knew anything about me you would know that.  Publish the first three subject headings for my 1st book in the University of Chicago library (https://libcat.uchicago.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?profile=ucpublic).  How about this: in what year was my 1st book as author published?  1st as editor (editor of the book, not the book series).  Name the university that publishes the American series of which i am the editor.

That would be a violatuion of the forum rules.

Bwesides... it is fun watching you squirm, wondering about what I have dug into and what I haven't.   

[johnhp]

I quoted your link.

But not the words i quoted.

You provided nothing to support your allegation that Gingrich actually said the words you attributed to him. Taking into consideration the fact that you are known liar, I have no reason to give your allegation any credibility without third party verification.

Can't help it if Gingrich can't stand up for his statements and has to move them.  But i did provide the new link.

Even if he DID say what you claim he said, there is nothing in that statment that suggests changing the law or violating the First Amendment in any way.

Amazing detective you are.  You have a quote and cannot find out if it is accurate; shit you don't even know that the building in question is not a mosque.  Actually you know it is accurate or you would have been all over it like a duck on a proverbial june bug.

And how would we as a nation prevent the building of a mosque without law?  Are you claiming Mr. Gingrich is calling for terrorism?

So again, you are either lying about what Gingrich is saying, or you are just too stupid to understand it.

So you think Gingrich is calling for terrorism rather than legislative action?  Even i do not think that little of him.