Gingrich Lies To Assault Free Speech Again [Archive]

SDW2001

12-05-2006, 09:12 PM

This is a very interesting article about Newt Gingrich's ideas on changing free speech in America.
And the scary part is this asshole is thinking about running for president in 2008.
Anyone that thinks this is ok needs to rethink what the Constitution is all about.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/051206gingrichlies.htm

The reluctant redneck tells it like it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdX3cJGxdGw

I read the article and have the following response.

Your post isn't worthy of being printed to wipe my ass. Nowhere in the sources linked do we see what Gingrich has actually said...at least not beyond truncated and out of context statements. What we do have is unsubstantiated crap from a site that calls itself "prison planet," calls Gingrich and by implication, the Bush Administration "Neo Fascists" and likens the political climate in the US today to Nazi Germany.
Then, you take the title of the article and essentially post it verbatim as the thread title.

I must tell you that my first thought upon reading the "article" was "does ronaldo actually READ this site?"

If you want to have a serious discussion about Newt Gingrich's views and policy proposals, that's fine. I doubt you do, however. Your just interested in calling the man a Nazi. How about you show us some credible quotes showing Gingrich wants to do away with true political dissent? Oh, I know why....because you can't, No one wants to do away with anyone's right to disagree with policy. No one.

:no:

ronaldo

12-05-2006, 09:49 PM

I read the article and have the following response.

Your post isn't worthy of being printed to wipe my ass. Nowhere in the sources linked do we see what Gingrich has actually said...at least not beyond truncated and out of context statements. What we do have is unsubstantiated crap from a site that calls itself "prison planet," calls Gingrich and by implication, the Bush Administration "Neo Fascists" and likens the political climate in the US today to Nazi Germany.
Then, you take the title of the article and essentially post it verbatim as the thread title.

I must tell you that my first thought upon reading the "article" was "does ronaldo actually READ this site?"

If you want to have a serious discussion about Newt Gingrich's views and policy proposals, that's fine. I doubt you do, however. Your just interested in calling the man a Nazi. How about you show us some credible quotes showing Gingrich wants to do away with true political dissent? Oh, I know why....because you can't, No one wants to do away with anyone's right to disagree with policy. No one.

:no:
Gingrich was already run out of Washington once. and we don't need the S.O.B. back again.
I don't recall calling him a Nazi. Unless thats what asshole stands for.

SDW2001

12-05-2006, 09:55 PM

Gingrich was already run out of Washington once. and we don't need the S.O.B. back again.
I don't recall calling him a Nazi. Unless thats what asshole stands for.

You didn't...the article basically did. Oh, and I notice how you totally ignored my request for substantiation. You're too busy being blinded by your irrational hatred of the man.

Fellowship

12-05-2006, 11:10 PM

I read the article and have the following response.

Your post isn't worthy of being printed to wipe my ass. Nowhere in the sources linked do we see what Gingrich has actually said...at least not beyond truncated and out of context statements. What we do have is unsubstantiated crap from a site that calls itself "prison planet," calls Gingrich and by implication, the Bush Administration "Neo Fascists" and likens the political climate in the US today to Nazi Germany.
Then, you take the title of the article and essentially post it verbatim as the thread title.

I must tell you that my first thought upon reading the "article" was "does ronaldo actually READ this site?"

If you want to have a serious discussion about Newt Gingrich's views and policy proposals, that's fine. I doubt you do, however. Your just interested in calling the man a Nazi. How about you show us some credible quotes showing Gingrich wants to do away with true political dissent? Oh, I know why....because you can't, No one wants to do away with anyone's right to disagree with policy. No one.

:no:

I read that site and find it worthy to include mention of Alex Jones in my signature.

I saw the video posted also and I agree with both.

If you can not address the erosion of the freedoms that is being attempted by some fine but do not insult others here who care about this country.

Fellows

Fellowship

12-05-2006, 11:20 PM

addabox

12-05-2006, 11:53 PM

I read the article and have the following response.

Your post isn't worthy of being printed to wipe my ass. Nowhere in the sources linked do we see what Gingrich has actually said...at least not beyond truncated and out of context statements. What we do have is unsubstantiated crap from a site that calls itself "prison planet," calls Gingrich and by implication, the Bush Administration "Neo Fascists" and likens the political climate in the US today to Nazi Germany.
Then, you take the title of the article and essentially post it verbatim as the thread title.

I must tell you that my first thought upon reading the "article" was "does ronaldo actually READ this site?"

If you want to have a serious discussion about Newt Gingrich's views and policy proposals, that's fine. I doubt you do, however. Your just interested in calling the man a Nazi. How about you show us some credible quotes showing Gingrich wants to do away with true political dissent? Oh, I know why....because you can't, No one wants to do away with anyone's right to disagree with policy. No one.

:no:

Huh. So calling the administration "neo-fasicists" is so beyond the pale it makes the source not worth paying attention to and a post drawing from same "isn't worthy to wipe your ass with".

And you have an active thread you entitled "Liberal Fascism"........

Gosh, I just don't know what to think.

MacRR

12-06-2006, 12:53 AM

And you aren't blinded?

You didn't...the article basically did. Oh, and I notice how you totally ignored my request for substantiation. You're too busy being blinded by your irrational hatred of the man.

midwinter

12-06-2006, 01:48 AM

If you want to have a serious discussion about Newt Gingrich's views and policy proposals, that's fine.

"My Prediction to you is that either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology that we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us."

"I want to suggest to you right now that we should empanelling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it were not for the scale of this threat. This is a serious long term war and it will lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, it will lead to us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous."
“We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.”

I hope Andrew Hamilton rises from his grave and punches Gingrich in the face.

ronaldo

12-06-2006, 05:05 AM

I read that site and find it worthy to include mention of Alex Jones in my signature.

I saw the video posted also and I agree with both.

If you can not address the erosion of the freedoms that is being attempted by some fine but do not insult others here who care about this country.

Fellows

Thankyou.

ronaldo

12-06-2006, 05:41 AM

You didn't...the article basically did. Oh, and I notice how you totally ignored my request for substantiation. You're too busy being blinded by your irrational hatred of the man.

Actually I don't hate the man. I hate his neo con views. He ought to stick to writing books. His fictional books on the Civil War a very good.
I just hope the American people are smart enough to keep this guy out of political office.

Again, my signature says it all.
Don't give up our freedom to fight terrorism. If we do, then the Constittution is like Dubya says: "It's just a goddamn piece of paper".

MajorMatt

12-06-2006, 08:28 AM

Newt scares me. Let me qoute him:

"It's not an insult to compare Bush administration critics to those who enabled Hitler" - Newt

That qoute potently tells us his stance on objecting views. He has no place for people disagreeing with the adminstration. I'm sure he's all for free speech, as long as people are agreeing with him.

SDW keeps talking about responsibility. I do not trust a man who insist we're helping people like Hitler by being a critic.

Well, Im sure SDW can spin this. Go ahead!

SDW2001

12-06-2006, 08:31 AM

SDW2001

12-06-2006, 08:35 AM

I hope Andrew Hamilton rises from his grave and punches Gingrich in the face.

So from this you conclude that Gingrich wants to limit free speech across the country? That statement could have meant anything. I swear...you guys are worse than my elementary kids. You see one term or phrase that appears to fit your ridiculous view of conservatives and conservatism and you circle the answer like some snot nosed 4th grader.

By the way, here is the kind of thing Gingrich is concerned about.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/06/061206101357.8mjamnal.html

If you guys wern't so busy screaming "FASCIST!!!! NEOCON PIG!" all the time, maybe you'd see who the real threat to the Western World is.

MajorMatt

12-06-2006, 08:37 AM

Come on SDW, I'm waiting for you to address Newt's qoute :(

SDW2001

12-06-2006, 08:53 AM

Come on SDW, I'm waiting for you to address Newt's qoute :(

Uh..I just did. It's clear he's talking about terrorists, not Americans or America in general. I really don't know how his idea would work, but that's another subject.

You know, there's more to this: Do you people actually believe that Newt Gingrich wants to take away your freedom of speech? I mean really...you really believe that? It just seems that you're willing to jump on anything a conservative says that could even possibly be construed to mean what you want it to mean. I'd really like an answer to that question.

midwinter

12-06-2006, 08:54 AM

I'd like to see a duel, personally.

That'd be a Alexander Hamilton, not Andrew.

midwinter

12-06-2006, 09:02 AM

Uh..I just did. It's clear he's talking about terrorists, not Americans or America in general.

You're right. Not Americans. Just terrorists. (http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html) Unless they're rich white kids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh). Then they're citizens who get a trial. But if they're not? Naval brig for 18 months without charge or access to a lawyer.

Do you people actually believe that Newt Gingrich wants to take away your freedom of speech? I mean really...you really believe that? It just seems that you're willing to jump on anything a conservative says that could even possibly be construed to mean what you want it to mean. I'd really like an answer to that question.

Isn't that what Gingrich said?

My Prediction to you is that either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology that we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us."

But maybe you're right, SDW. Maybe we need to lock up more US citizens in naval brigs for years on end without trial or access to counsel. Maybe we need more secret prisons. Maybe we need more torture centers. Maybe we need more of all this because we dirty hippies just don't get it. And maybe if we lock up and tortue more people we dirty hippies will get it at some point!

MajorMatt

12-06-2006, 09:03 AM

You were quite willing to use a Kerry botched joke to make an entire post on the subject.

Notice what Newt said in that qoute, "critic." He distinctly said critic and what is a critic? Someone that disagrees with another person. We do not have a War on Criticism, do we?

Let me say again, he said CRITIC. I hope you know what a critic is.

I sincerly hope Newt doesnt believe in ridding us free speech, but what am I to believe when he called critics (a person who expresses unfavorable opinion of something) akin to nazi sympathizers?

Fellowship

12-06-2006, 10:46 AM

Uh..I just did. It's clear he's talking about terrorists, not Americans or America in general. I really don't know how his idea would work, but that's another subject.

You know, there's more to this: Do you people actually believe that Newt Gingrich wants to take away your freedom of speech? I mean really...you really believe that? It just seems that you're willing to jump on anything a conservative says that could even possibly be construed to mean what you want it to mean. I'd really like an answer to that question.

Ok where you say: It just seems that you're willing to jump on anything a conservative says that could even possibly be construed to mean what you want it to mean.

I would say that this is not (at least myself anyway) jumping on anything a CONSERVATIVE says. Even the redneck video made it clear that if the democrats even try to pull this kind of stunt they will be voted out.

Last time I checked democrats are not conservative.

You see I believe we have to watch all of our leaders and would be leaders.

What is the old saying about absolute power?

This is not about left / right

This is not about if we can trust a conservative or trust a liberal.

This is about our love of country over party and politician.

Fellowship

tonton

12-06-2006, 11:03 AM

Do you people actually believe that Newt Gingrich wants to take away your freedom of speech?
Yes, if someone in the right place has a suspicion that we might be involved in terrorism or the funding of terrorism, he absolutely does. No warrant, proof or other legal avenue required. HE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS BASED ON SUSPICION AND SUSPICION ALONE.

If you think "This doesn't happen to law abiding Americans so law abiding Americans have nothing to worry about" then you are really smoking the Bush crackpipe.

MacRR

12-06-2006, 11:07 AM

A democratic truth... :D

This is about our love of country over party and politician.

Fellowship

trumptman

12-06-2006, 11:42 AM

First I would say kudos to Midwinter for posting the actual quote instead of a third party analysis of it.

That said, from what I read on it, it appears Gingrich is addressing the type of issues that have been raised with regard to having transactions from abroad reported or monitoring phone calls from abroad.

I know a big stink has been raised about those issues, but I don't consider them sacrificing free speech.

Additionally we have had raised, repeatedly the rights of U.S. citizens and if they are applied as universal human rights to those abroad or those engaged in war with us. Again the arguments go back and forth, but my view on it is that our Constitution declares these available for U.S. citizens.

As for Fellowship's reply, can you please add something besides platitudes Fellowship? Imploring people with platitudes sounds nice, but isn't convincing at all. I'm sure everyone all wishes we could all just "get along" or "just love one another" but that doesn't really prove or disprove the claim about Gingrich.

Speaking to those platitudes though, I don't see where you are going with the whole left/right absolute power thing. Gingrich is not in power. He is speaking about efforts that have been made and those who have been critical of them or perhaps even undermined those efforts. He did not call for any removal of rights for those critics but simply noted what sort of event might wake them up to the need for the efforts.

For someone to take those words and instead attempt to use them for fear-mongering and political gain is exactly the sort of sentiment your platitudes appear to avoid. Yet you admonish us and deliver us into those hands of those who are the worst examples.

Nick

Fellowship

12-06-2006, 11:51 AM

For someone to take those words and instead attempt to use them for fear-mongering and political gain is exactly the sort of sentiment your platitudes appear to avoid. Yet you admonish us and deliver us into those hands of those who are the worst examples.

Nick

could you please explain what you mean here ?

Fellowship

12-06-2006, 11:57 AM

I'm sure everyone all wishes we could all just "get along" or "just love one another"

Nick

I think you are completely wrong here.

That is very naive thinking and wrong I would argue.

Remember there is power to be had, politics to shape and money and fortune to be stolen.

Fellows

Fellowship

12-06-2006, 12:02 PM

As for Fellowship's reply, can you please add something besides platitudes Fellowship? Imploring people with platitudes sounds nice, but isn't convincing at all.

Nick

I align myself more so with the framers of the constitution than our current leaders.

This said I I speak sometimes the way I do and it is my style.

If you don't care for it than move along and skip over it.

Toughen up.

Fellowship

MacRR

12-06-2006, 12:23 PM

Hell- unless you join the military, public service, or ACTIVELY do anything besides post your opinion here- it's all platitudes. No one is reinventing the wheel here, and certainly no one here is making a difference by debating on the internet in a anonymous forum. To think anything other than that is taking yourself way too seriously :).

But it sure is a nice distraction when one is bored to tears @ work.

trumptman

12-06-2006, 12:40 PM

could you please explain what you mean here ?

Let me say first that I'm not saying that to try to discredit you, but to make you more effective in your discussions.

I don't recall which fallacy it is but in my brain I've labeled it an endorsement fallacy. I'm sure it has a better or more proper name than that. It is what you are using when you toss out platitudes that people are likely to agree with, but that really have no bearing on the discussion.

You see I believe we have to watch all of our leaders and would be leaders.

Everyone can agree with that statement. However agreement with it has no bearing on whether Gingrich was endorsing the removal of freedom of speech.

Again look at these statements...

This is not about left / right

This is not about if we can trust a conservative or trust a liberal.

This is about our love of country over party and politician.

These are not sentiments anyone is going to disagree with and they have no determination on what Gingrich said.

Suppose we were discussing Global Warming and I said..

The summer sun on a lover's face is a sight to behold.

or...

My days spent swimming and fishing were days to remember.

They are statements that everyone can agree with, but they have no basis in the discussion.

Say it were homosexual marriage instead...

Everyone wants to be loved.

I can agree that everyone wants to be loved, but that doesn't have anything to do with homosexual marriage being legal or illegal. Children want to be loved and so do pets.

Anyway Fellows, again I do not say these things to discredit you. I consider you an intelligent man and desire your point be put forward effectively whether I agree or disagree with your opinion. I want you to be effectively persuasive regardless of my agreement or concurrence with your views.

Nick

Fellowship

12-06-2006, 12:56 PM

Let me say first...
Nick

Thank you Nick for a great job explaining per my request.

I see to some degree what you are trying to say here and your point is taken.

I would say however that where you say : "They are statements that everyone can agree with, but they have no basis in the discussion."

I disagree because in a few posts above I am in reply to #17 by poster SDW2001 where he says "It just seems that you're willing to jump on anything a conservative says that could even possibly be construed to mean what you want it to mean."

That is the reason I use the language: "This is not about left / right

This is not about if we can trust a conservative or trust a liberal.

This is about our love of country over party and politician."

So I would have to respectfully disagree with your contention that and I quote: "They are statements that everyone can agree with, but they have no basis in the discussion."

Again to some degree I receive your point. But in return I hope you can see why I used my reasoning.

Now nick I do realize it is hard for anyone to disagree with my reasoning ;) ;)

Just messin :p

Fellows

Gilsch

12-06-2006, 02:23 PM

You're too busy being blinded by your irrational hatred of the man. :lol: SDW pulls off the same crap everytime one of his heroes is even mildly criticized. Bush, Rumsfeld, Gingrich....etc...etc.

The reluctantredneck sums it up pretty well.

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Thomas Jefferson.

midwinter

12-06-2006, 04:21 PM

First I would say kudos to Midwinter for posting the actual quote instead of a third party analysis of it.

You're welcome. ;)

Additionally we have had raised, repeatedly the rights of U.S. citizens and if they are applied as universal human rights to those abroad or those engaged in war with us. Again the arguments go back and forth, but my view on it is that our Constitution declares these available for U.S. citizens.

Whether the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution apply to non-citizens detained in US custody is a complex matter and is one that is largely moot so far as I'm concerned with this discussion. For me, the issue is whether or not the constitutional rights guaranteed in the Constitution are being infringed upon in the attempt to ferret out terrorists.

What bothers me, as I have said on numerous occasions, is the inconsistency with which suspects are being dealt with: McVeigh gets a trial. The '93 WTC bombers get a trial. Lindh gets a trial. Padilla does NOT.

Padilla is thrown in a hole for 18 months before he's even allowed access to counsel. I'm bothered by the extraordinary rendition (not, of course, exclusive to the Bush admin; I was against it when I first heard about it under Clinton). I'm bothered by secret prisons. I'm bothered by torture. I'm bothered by made-up categories like "enemy combatant."

Whether Gingrich was describing wiretaps on international calls from "hot" countries or whether he was talking about limiting the free speech of US citizens within our borders is unclear.

I think he's right that there need to be clear guidelines for the treatment of prisoners in this new generation of warfare, but I would only hope that snatching up some poor Canadian schlub and hauling him off to be tortured (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/courtwatch/main674973.shtml) isn't on the list of things to do.

shetline

12-06-2006, 04:50 PM

Can you imagine if some well-known Democrat or liberal had made a speech talking about the economic and political dangers of highly concentrated wealth in the hands of a very small portion of our society, including a line in that speech saying that the threat of this imbalanced distribution required us to engage in "a serious debate about free markets and capitalism"?

I'm sure the foaming at the mouth from our right-wing friends would be kept to an absolute minimum until they'd uncovered specific, clear threats being made against the economic system we all know and love, and that they'd happily give this person utter and complete benefit of the doubt until then. :D

SDW2001

12-06-2006, 07:39 PM

You're right. Not Americans. Just terrorists. (http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html) Unless they're rich white kids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh). Then they're citizens who get a trial. But if they're not? Naval brig for 18 months without charge or access to a lawyer.

Isn't that what Gingrich said?

But maybe you're right, SDW. Maybe we need to lock up more US citizens in naval brigs for years on end without trial or access to counsel. Maybe we need more secret prisons. Maybe we need more torture centers. Maybe we need more of all this because we dirty hippies just don't get it. And maybe if we lock up and tortue more people we dirty hippies will get it at some point!

Key words: "THEIR ability to use the internet, free speech...."

Clearly he's talking about how terrorists are able to use our freedoms against us. He wants to stop that. Now how we do that is beyond me, but isn't that clear enough for you?

I have already gone on record saying that US citizens should not be held without charges, so we agree there. I do think we should hold those captured outside the United States and that they shouldn't have access to the US civilian court system.

My point is simply that if Gingrich's statement was mae by a liberal, you'd be fine with it. But the left perceives him as a fascist, therefore everything he says is filtered in that fashion.

SDW2001

12-06-2006, 07:41 PM

SDW2001

12-06-2006, 07:43 PM

Yes, if someone in the right place has a suspicion that we might be involved in terrorism or the funding of terrorism, he absolutely does. No warrant, proof or other legal avenue required. HE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS BASED ON SUSPICION AND SUSPICION ALONE.

If you think "This doesn't happen to law abiding Americans so law abiding Americans have nothing to worry about" then you are really smoking the Bush crackpipe.

It has happened in isolated cases and I don't approve of it. I think your statement about what Gingrich wants is unfounded.

Aurora

12-06-2006, 07:55 PM

Newt helped turn Congress into nothing more then a political fund raising machine, screw him and his pathetic party who would like to remove all the libertys and freedoms the Constitution gives us.

ronaldo

12-06-2006, 08:14 PM

My point is simply that if Gingrich's statement was mae by a liberal, you'd be fine with it. But the left perceives him as a fascist, therefore everything he says is filtered in that fashion.[/QUOTE]

I would have made the same thread if a liberal was trying mess with the first amendment.:p

shetline

12-06-2006, 08:29 PM

Bad comparison. Given such a statement though, it would be hard to pin down what exactly that person means. Such a statement in the context you painted it would at least concern me.
And it's easy to pin down what Gingrich meant? He made it absolutely, crystal clear that the restrictions of free speech and invasions of privacy he had in mind we carefully limited and subject to the utmost of checks and balances to prevent abuse?

Freedom of speech and the expectation of due process before the government invades our privacy are among our most important liberties. Anyone, especially a prominent politician, who says anything which could in anyway be construed as placing any limitations on those rights had better expect a big fight. Our country is broken and failing it that kind of thing doesn't generate an immediate and angry response.

In the court of public opinion this is a case where guilty until proven innocent isn't just fair, it's vital. I'm not talking about a "verdict" that puts anyone in jail or limits anyone's free speech. This is an obligation of vigilant citizenship to consider, to react to, any such proposals as if they are ill-conceived and dangerous until proven otherwise.

If you even hint at threatening my freedoms you'll get no benefit of the doubt from me.

If Gingrich didn't want the kind of reaction he's getting from (the far too few) people who are on their toes about these things, he should have spent more time during that speech of his, and his follow-ups since, making what he was proposing might need to be done completely clear, painstakingly justifying each and every limitation of freedom and invasion of privacy, and addressing concerns about the risks of abuse of power.

Gingrich hasn't done this. He's hyped up fear. He's talked about "losing a city". He's done little more to address his critics other than to dismiss them as people who "don't understand the dangers we face" (paraphrased, but close). So far, he's acting just like the kind of demagogue members of a free society always need to be careful of.

sammi jo

12-06-2006, 09:18 PM

Uh..I just did. It's clear he's talking about terrorists, not Americans or America in general. I really don't know how his idea would work, but that's another subject.

Which terrorists, in your opinion, is he talking about? And in which locations?

midwinter

12-06-2006, 09:20 PM

Which terrorists, in your opinion, is he talking about? And in which locations?

Clearly, the ones who speak disapprovingly of the President!

SDW2001

12-07-2006, 07:07 PM

Newt helped turn Congress into nothing more then a political fund raising machine, screw him and his pathetic party who would like to remove all the libertys and freedoms the Constitution gives us.

You're just....ridiculous. Absolutely, 100% Grade-A ridiculous.

SDW2001

12-07-2006, 07:11 PM

And it's easy to pin down what Gingrich meant? He made it absolutely, crystal clear that the restrictions of free speech and invasions of privacy he had in mind we carefully limited and subject to the utmost of checks and balances to prevent abuse?

Freedom of speech and the expectation of due process before the government invades our privacy are among our most important liberties. Anyone, especially a prominent politician, who says anything which could in anyway be construed as placing any limitations on those rights had better expect a big fight. Our country is broken and failing it that kind of thing doesn't generate an immediate and angry response.

In the court of public opinion this is a case where guilty until proven innocent isn't just fair, it's vital. I'm not talking about a "verdict" that puts anyone in jail or limits anyone's free speech. This is an obligation of vigilant citizenship to consider, to react to, any such proposals as if they are ill-conceived and dangerous until proven otherwise.

If you even hint at threatening my freedoms you'll get no benefit of the doubt from me.

If Gingrich didn't want the kind of reaction he's getting from (the far too few) people who are on their toes about these things, he should have spent more time during that speech of his, and his follow-ups since, making what he was proposing might need to be done completely clear, painstakingly justifying each and every limitation of freedom and invasion of privacy, and addressing concerns about the risks of abuse of power.

Gingrich hasn't done this. He's hyped up fear. He's talked about "losing a city". He's done little more to address his critics other than to dismiss them as people who "don't understand the dangers we face" (paraphrased, but close). So far, he's acting just like the kind of demagogue members of a free society always need to be careful of.

But my point is that you see Gingrich in a certain way, therefore when he says something like the statement that has ben quoted in this thread, you refuse to give him any benefit of the doubt.

And as for "hyping fear," don't you think it's possible that he actually believes what he's saying? I for one think he's right in that many people simpy do not understand the nature of the threat we face from islamic extremism.

SDW2001

12-07-2006, 07:15 PM

Which terrorists, in your opinion, is he talking about? And in which locations?

That's a red herring and you know it.

ronaldo

12-07-2006, 07:27 PM

sammi jo

12-07-2006, 10:59 PM

That's a red herring and you know it.

Why do you think that this is a red herring? Terrorists are terrorists are terrorists, no matter what their color, creed, nationality or whatever. Just because the Bush Administration want Americans to buy into the ridiculous notion that 'all terrorists are muslim, and all muslims are potential terrorists', it doesnt mean that a non-muslim committing acts of terrorism should be regarded merely as a "criminal". And you know it!

shetline

12-08-2006, 10:02 AM

But my point is that you see Gingrich in a certain way, therefore when he says something like the statement that has ben quoted in this thread, you refuse to give him any benefit of the doubt.

And as for "hyping fear," don't you think it's possible that he actually believes what he's saying? I for one think he's right in that many people simpy do not understand the nature of the threat we face from islamic extremism.
I'm might be less inclined to give Gingrich the benefit of the doubt than I might some other person, but as far as I'm concerned anyone who even hints at curtailing my rights doesn't get any benefit of the doubt from me. One of my biggest gripes with Gore when he was VP was his support for mandating that all encryption technology have a government back door. I've soured a bit on Wesley Clark as a Democratic presidential candidate because he has spoken in support of a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

As for his fears, I don't doubt Gingrich believes there's reason for fear. I'm actually surprised and consider it amazing good luck that a terrorist (foreign or domestic, outside of our government or inside of it) hasn't nuked an American city yet. Being a true believer in reasons for fear doesn't, however, stop you from overreacting at best, or worse, demagoguing the issue to pander to fear.

Why is "fighting and dying to protect freedom" considered to be so noble so often by the very same people who cajole us into giving up our freedoms to protect ourselves from harm? Part of the bargain of freedom has to be bravely enduring the risks that freedom can sometimes leave people open to.

Besides, it's not like we get absolute safety by giving up our freedoms anyway. How much freedom is worth giving up to reduce the odds of a city being nuked in the next decade by 1%? By 2%? By 5%? Do the proposed curtailed freedoms effectively reduce our risks at all? The idiocy of Bush's war is that he's most likely increased the threat of terrorism rather than decreased it, at a stunningly high cost in dollars and lives in addition to the beating our freedoms have received at his hands. (The freedoms of Gitmo inmates, Jose Padilla, and all the people and names we don't know because they've been kept secret, are our freedoms too.)

What other risks of death are we ignoring -- natural disaster preparedness, cancer, heart disease, traffic fatalities, pollution -- which, by addressing them with the same kind of urgency, we might save more lives at a lower cost in both money and freedom than we do with the very questionably effective "war on terror"?

midwinter

12-08-2006, 10:10 AM

I'm ready for the War on Car Wrecks.

MacRR

12-08-2006, 10:24 AM

That statement is pure truth. It's funny people want freedom, but won't actually put their neck on the lines for it.

As long as their starbucks (as I sip on a venti french roast- black) is hot and fresh, their SUVs get filled with affordable gas (mine's outside!), and they can watch their favorite show on their HD LCD TV (I have the second season of Arrested Development recently delivered from NetFlix on my coffee table)- it's all good. I don't want any terrorist fucking with that. That terrorist will have to get through all the protections afforded to me by Bush who made sure I can keep all those luxuries- and more importantly keep buying them for the short term so long as I give up my rights that all those poor ideological saps before me gave their lives to protect. Let's see a terrorist fuck with that! It's been five years and there hasn't been an attack like 9/11 so it was definitely worth it.

Every time Bush gives a speech and says freedom my girlfriend strips naked Demi Moore style, and I forget all the lies, waste, death- and get all riled up. I am never sure why I get riled up- but it sure sounds fucking good! It makes me feel like a real American!

to sum it up- W00t!

Why is "fighting and dying to protect freedom" considered to be so noble so often by the very same people who cajole us into giving up our freedoms to protect ourselves from harm? Part of the bargain of freedom has to be bravely enduring the risks that freedom can sometimes leave people open to.

jimmac

12-10-2006, 12:26 PM

Well this seemed a good place to put this.

A good article about the end of republican rule.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16115775/

SDW2001

12-10-2006, 08:23 PM

I think he is wrong. It is nothing but fear mongering.
He gets no benifit of the doubt from me, or anyone else who knows you can't mess with the first amendment, no matter what the danger.

Well I have news for you....the first amendment wasn't intended to guarantee unlimited freedom of speech. But that's a different issue. The point of that matter is that Gingrich was clearly speaking in the context of stopping terrorism. I didn't see any specific proposal to curtail freedoms of, well, anyone.

SDW2001

12-10-2006, 08:31 PM

Why do you think that this is a red herring? Terrorists are terrorists are terrorists, no matter what their color, creed, nationality or whatever. Just because the Bush Administration want Americans to buy into the ridiculous notion that 'all terrorists are muslim, and all muslims are potential terrorists', it doesnt mean that a non-muslim committing acts of terrorism should be regarded merely as a "criminal". And you know it!

Because you're deviating from the discussion by asking for specifics that aren't necessary. That said, I'll play along...

Clearly, terrorism by muslims is the biggest terror-related threat the Western world faces. Do you agree with that? Secondly, while "other" terrorists may plot to kill and destroy, they likely don't follow a twisted ideology that is bent on destroying the Western world itself. Do you agree with that as well?

ronaldo

12-10-2006, 09:38 PM

Well I have news for you....the first amendment wasn't intended to guarantee unlimited freedom of speech. But that's a different issue. The point of that matter is that Gingrich was clearly speaking in the context of stopping terrorism. I didn't see any specific proposal to curtail freedoms of, well, anyone.

Freedom of speech of didn't cause terrorism.
I know that the first amendment doesn't guarantee unlimited free speech. But curtailing free speeh isn't going to do a thing to stop terrorism. It will more than likely cause more.
Newt should go back in his little hole and stay there.