He is a consultant...I know he has been out of office. I was talking about the GOP consulting firm he's working with.

Originally posted by tsloan
He is a consultant...I know he has been out of office. I was talking about the GOP consulting firm he's working with.

Sorry about that

This is unreal if its true. The war on terrorism can never be won using the current tactics.

What these fools dont understand is everytime we as americans have some freedom or right taken away in the fight against terrorism the terroist win.

They have to be over in their cave laughing their arse off at this.

He wants to run for President so his ideas are worth taking note of. Fortunately he has about as much baggage as Hillary Clinton does...unfortunately he is still liked about a lot of Republicans. If it came down to it, the only way I would vote for Clinton, would be if she were running against him. He is the type of Republican that have given them such a bad name over the years....not that they haven't done a good job of earning it on their own as well.

Newt Gingrich WANT TO STRIKE FREE SPEECH

This guy wants to strike the 1st amendment and bind the freedom of the press in the name 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.

WOW!!!!

Now that is in line with the stretch of the democrats accusing Bush of planting bombs in New Orleans...

Where exactly in his speach did you read Strike the First Amendment???
Where did he say Bind the freedom of the Press??

Is there a part of the speech that was not printed here that we are missing?

Or is this just more ridiculous assumptions..

Here is a COMPLETE quote from one of Newt's articles. Just so you get the TOTAL picture instead of OUT OF CONTEXT.

The Bush Administration should reach out to moderate Democrats and forge a bipartisan agenda for victory and, by March 2007, pass a bipartisan resolution for victory in Iraq and for stopping Iranian efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will set the basis for appropriations to continue the effort. The passage of a solid bipartisan bill in March would send a signal to the world that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of defeating terrorism and defending America. That will dramatically lower the morale and confidence of our enemies.

Semper

Thank you DTOM for seeing somewhat the same thing I saw. Semp...you have Fox news goggles on and Rush and Hannity hearing aids in they only way you would see between the words or see the undertext meaning is if ole Newt pulled a bull horn out and screamed " I want to re word the 1st Amendment and make it so the press couldn't publish anything the White house types. The reason this was leaked is the adsministration wanted it leaked so they would look like they are up set with the Iraq leadership. And make a statement for the meeting this past weekend. Newt is falling in line with the White house and Bush's war on American freedoms cause the FREE PRESS is whats keeping his war waging tactics in check.
Open your eye's my friend and see what the government is feeding you on a daily basis.

You know, this guy,once upon a time, made a little bit of sense. Now he wants to eliminate the first amendment? I guess it really shouldn't surprise me since he is one of the elite, but....

I would assume that we will be hearing this cry more and more from the powers that be as the walls begin to close in around them. They don't want people talking about how corrupt the government has become. They certainly don't want people to find out the truth about their schemes.

Originally posted by semperfortis

Newt Gingrich WANT TO STRIKE FREE SPEECH

This guy wants to strike the 1st amendment and bind the freedom of the press in the name 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.

WOW!!!!

Now that is in line with the stretch of the democrats accusing Bush of planting bombs in New Orleans...

Where exactly in his speach did you read Strike the First Amendment???
Where did he say Bind the freedom of the Press??

Is there a part of the speech that was not printed here that we are missing?

Or is this just more ridiculous assumptions..

Here is a COMPLETE quote from one of Newt's articles. Just so you get the TOTAL picture instead of OUT OF CONTEXT.

Semper

Actually, it has nothing to do, context example, or otherwise to a claim about bombs in New Orleans. To be this dismissive about a republican eluding to abolishing some of our basic rights as free americans is pretty bad. I'm curious as to where you would draw the line - do you like the freedoms our constitution grants us, or is you're opinion about the comment actually blinded by bias that much by your interests in the success of your party. Because if I recall in a previous thread, you don't like talk by our government about taking away our freedoms.

I am not a smart man, but this comment doesn't have to be stretched that far if at all to see the intent.

Semp...you have Fox news goggles on and Rush and Hannity hearing aids in they only way you would see between the words or see the undertext meaning is if ole Newt pulled a bull horn out and screamed " I want to re word the 1st Amendment and make it so the press couldn't publish anything the White house types.

See now that is the problem,

You get all excited because I wont "SEE Something Into Something Else???"
Because I read the words and take them for what they are...
Because I don't "STRETCH" anything anyone says...

So let me try and completely understand this....

I'm wrong because I take his words at their face value and don't try to interpret them..

You are correct because of your interpretation...

WOW, How could I have been so blind!!!!!

I am not a smart man, but this comment doesn't have to be stretched that far if at all to see the intent.

And yet you admit to stretching it?????

Typical.... Make it out to fit into what ever current Government Conspiracy is your Conspiracy of the day. Instead of just reading his words, his other speeches and understanding what he was ACTUALLY saying...

Stretch away my friends, and please don't forget.....

Those were YOUR words


Semper

How about I'm not going to be played like a flute, or follow in line like a worker ant. Yes the implilcations of slowly giving up rights are detrimental, and you should be pissed off as all hell about it.


My point is this: How easy is it going to be to get the rights back we are giving up, when it finally all comes together for us that we have lost them.

I for one don't need it spelled out. I may not be a smart man, but I am surely not the ___.. that one needs to be to not see what is happening.

And besides, why should I believe Newt has my best interest at heart? And why would limiting the internet in any way have anything to do with what goes on on networks outside the country?

sounds like another excuse to peel away layers of freedoms. I'm sorry I don't buy it.

[edit on 4-12-2006 by tha stillz]

BTW, I thought the republicans are all about limiting government, keeping it as small as possible. I'm not sure I understand how that train of thought lead to all of these constitutional revisions. It just seems rather contradictory to me.

We ARE all about Limited Government...

But more importantly, we are about the Truth,,,

About NOT making something UP...

About NOT fabricating a story to fit an agenda...

The Truth...

Remember?

I'm not defending what you have MADE UP about what he MAY or MAY NOT mean....
I'm simply defending the TRUTH... That he DID not say anything NEAR what you have interpreted his statements to mean...

I am only defending what HE SAID
Not what you THOUGHT he SAID..

Semper

[edit on 12/5/2006 by semperfortis]

"...use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech..."

Not sure how else this can be interpreted. Sounds pretty cut and dry, polititians using the terrorism excuse to scare me into giving up my rights...

Terrorism isnt enough of a threat for me to start putting my civil liberties on the line. If terrorism is a threat, then find other ways to fix the problem, and do the best you can.

By the way, havent we already started to give up our rights? Maybe I am wrong, but weren't there some bills passed over the last 2-3 months??

It is my opinion that terrorism is a fabricated threat to manipulate the populace to buy into the idea of war. Yes 3000 people died at the hands of someone on 9-11-01, but people of the earth die of other things every day, all the time. Like break dust particulates, or cancers resulting from styrenes.... or lightning, or falling in the bathtub, or American missles hitting villages. OR PEOPLE IN SUDAN! Why our government doesn't give a sh about these people is beyond me...........

I don't buy it, because I can see the agendas woven into these so called "protective measures". Nope I don't buy it.

You can go ahead and buy into it, but I am not. I would like to continue conversations like these in the future (on the internets).