Would you vote for Newt?
- Thread starter 1BadF350
- Start date
Marko Kloos
New member
And get another **** like the 1994 "Republican Revolution"?
No, thank you.
No, thank you.
Gingrich would fit right in with the current crop of GOP frontrunners.
http://www.nysun.com/article/44302
Gingrich: Free Speech Should Be Curtailed To Fight Terrorism
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 29, 2006
A former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, is causing a stir by proposing that free speech may have to be curtailed in order to fight terrorism.
"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," Mr. Gingrich said Monday night during a speech in New Hampshire. "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."
Speaking at an award dinner billed as a tribute to crusaders for the First Amendment, Mr. Gingrich, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008, painted an ominous picture of the dangers facing America.
"This is a serious, long-term war," the former speaker said, according an audio excerpt of his remarks made available yesterday by his office. "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 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 from recruiting people."
Mr. Gingrich acknowledged that these proposals would trigger "a serious debate about the First Amendment." He also said international law must be revised to address the exigencies posed by international terrorists.
"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," he said.
The former speaker also pointed approvingly to England, where suspects in terrorism cases can be detained for several weeks without charge. Some of Mr. Gingrich's remarks about balancing freedom and terrorism were reported by the Associated Press on Monday and the Union Leader of Manchester yesterday.
In the same speech Monday, the former speaker expressed a more expansive view of First Amendment rights in the American political arena. Mr. Gingrich picked a fight of sorts with a potential rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator McCain of Arizona, by branding as a failure the campaign finance restrictions known as McCain-Feingold. The former speaker said the limitations have not stemmed the flow of money into politics and failed to curtail negative political advertising.
Mr. Gingrich has been traveling to politically important states, like New Hampshire, but said Monday he would not decide on a White House bid until September 2007.
Also:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951435/
badbob
http://www.nysun.com/article/44302
Gingrich: Free Speech Should Be Curtailed To Fight Terrorism
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 29, 2006
A former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, is causing a stir by proposing that free speech may have to be curtailed in order to fight terrorism.
"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," Mr. Gingrich said Monday night during a speech in New Hampshire. "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."
Speaking at an award dinner billed as a tribute to crusaders for the First Amendment, Mr. Gingrich, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008, painted an ominous picture of the dangers facing America.
"This is a serious, long-term war," the former speaker said, according an audio excerpt of his remarks made available yesterday by his office. "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 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 from recruiting people."
Mr. Gingrich acknowledged that these proposals would trigger "a serious debate about the First Amendment." He also said international law must be revised to address the exigencies posed by international terrorists.
"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," he said.
The former speaker also pointed approvingly to England, where suspects in terrorism cases can be detained for several weeks without charge. Some of Mr. Gingrich's remarks about balancing freedom and terrorism were reported by the Associated Press on Monday and the Union Leader of Manchester yesterday.
In the same speech Monday, the former speaker expressed a more expansive view of First Amendment rights in the American political arena. Mr. Gingrich picked a fight of sorts with a potential rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator McCain of Arizona, by branding as a failure the campaign finance restrictions known as McCain-Feingold. The former speaker said the limitations have not stemmed the flow of money into politics and failed to curtail negative political advertising.
Mr. Gingrich has been traveling to politically important states, like New Hampshire, but said Monday he would not decide on a White House bid until September 2007.
Also:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951435/
badbob
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Not a chance. The man's personal character is to low even for a politician.
Camp David
New member
Of all the candidates running today (Democrats and Republicans) Newt has the most experience... he debated Cuomo last week and I was struck by how intelligent on politics the man really is and how he handled himself in discussion.
Newt gets my vote!
Newt gets my vote!
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Yeah, or a guy that left his first wife for his mistress while she was in her hospital bed suffering from cancer, and who used slam ads against an opponent for seeing a marriage counselor while he was having an affair with his speech writer, and who left his second wife via a phone call to run off with a younger woman on mother's day, and who left his third wife for his much younger mistress after he found she had multipe scerosis, or who used his influence and connectuons to avoid paying child support while his two daughters were living at near poverty levels even though he was making 4million a year. That is the kind of guy we need. Those things don't begin to compare to a fling.
BTW, if perjury is your beef, then you should have said that instead of setting up a straw man that was easily blown away.
How about we get back on topic..
Would you vote for Newt? Does he satisfy your need for character and moral convictions? Or are you just wasting our time by spouting off hate speak?
Harry Callahan
New member
He is more conservative than any of the others and has dealt with Congress and knows alot of the characters it contains. He may have a few warts but at this stage of the game who doesn't?