• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Oh....the irony

R

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
And to think....a lot of people on the far right side of the spectrum are saying that this terrorist of freedom should run for president. I guess it shouldn't be too surprising, after all, they elected Bush twice even after he stated the same thing.

Full story

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.

Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
 
He should run, the results will show him and his supporters just out of touch with the American Mainstream that he and they are.
 
When I think about the fact that people think Gingrich will or should run for president, I'm utterly confused. We got rid of him once. What makes anybody think we want him back in an even higher position?
 
I just found another exerpt from Newt's speech.....he is calling for censorship of the web also:

?This is a serious, long-term war,? Gingrich added, ?and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country. It will lead us to learn how to close down every Web site that is dangerous.?
Click to expand...

First Frist voluntarily steps down....next Newt voluntarily makes himself unable to be electable. At this rate, it will be McCain standing alone at the trough of candidates waiting to suck up to Falwell and Dobson.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
When I think about the fact that people think Gingrich will or should run for president, I'm utterly confused. We got rid of him once. What makes anybody think we want him back in an even higher position?
Click to expand...

Well, John Ashcroft was voted out of office (lost to a dead guy), so Bush made him Attorney General .. Never could figure that one out either.
 
You might be surprised by how many idiots will go for this. I like this guy's take on it:


As regular readers of HuffPo no doubt have seen today, former Speaker and presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich recently made the interesting assertion that we 'need to re-examine freedom of speech' in this post 9/11 world.

Well, listen up, Newt: Freedom of speech is non-negotiable. It is a core American value. It is a core value of free societies in every time and place. It's bad enough that expression in the US and A has been recently restricted to 'free speech zones' (I had previously been under the impression that in the Land of the Free, the whole place from Sea to Shining Sea was one big honkin' free speech zone).

To suggest that terrorism somehow changes this core value is a horrendous, unspeakable insult to those who gave their lives to protect this very freedom in America. By even causing us to consider abridging our freedoms voluntarily, the terrorists have won a profound spiritual victory. They made us doubt who we are. Or at least some of us paunchy politicians, anyway. Newt, I would even submit that by suggesting such a thing, you are guilty of aiding our enemies. You, sir, are not with Amercia: you are with the terrorists.

I thought we were fighting a war against those who 'hate freedom'? How is it that we fight them by helping them achieve their aims of destroying our freedoms?

No sir, Newt, I believe what needs re-examining is your head. Your suggestion in New Hampshire today was nothing short of outrageous. I'm FROM New Hampshire. Did you notice the license plates while you were there?

They say, "LIVE FREE OR DIE."

They do not say, "LIVE FREE - UNTIL WE, LIKE, GET SCARED BY TERRORISTS AND START CURBING THOSE FREEDOMS TO LIKE, OXYMORONICALLY, PROTECT AGAINST TERRORISM."

Personally, I'd prefer a President or a Speaker of the House who gets that difference.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top