Newtie vs. The First Amendment

[Gunny]

Isn't it ironic? Newt Gingrich uses the platform of an award banquet honoring those who defend freedom of speech to attack freedom of speech.

<blockquote>"...we will adopt rules of engagement that we 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..." - Newt Gingrich</blockquote>

Newtie begs the question though of just who will decide what exercises in free-speech and just what web sites will be considered threats. Judging from recent events, it couls be Quakers, Veterans for Peace, or just about any group or individual that had spooken in opposition to Chimpy and Co's policies in general and the disaster in Iraq in particular.

The fact of the matter is that freedom of speech is a great bulwark against extremist ideologies and terrorism we face today. Theses ideals, when examined in the open marketplace of ideas are quickly discredited and revealed for the spiritual, moral and intellectual frauds they truly are. Ridicule is also an effective means of forcing stupid, dangerous ideas to wither on the vine. So if Newtie, and his right wing-nut fellow travelers, wish to restrict free speech, I can only say "Let them try...", they can't keep up with the technology.

In closing, Newt...Your mother was a hamster and your father reeked of elderberries.

The fact is, why are you so willing to accord First Amendment Rights to the US's enemies, but not to citizens of the US who don't agree with your political rhetoric?

Our enemies, of whom the vast majority are NOT US citizens, should not be allowed to take advantage of our rights and use them as a weapon against us. Too simple a concept for you, I guess.

 

[flaja]

I just got a happy tingle thinking about his wiping the debate floor with commandant Hitlery

From what I hear, he'd probably try to bed her first.

 

[Gunny]

Bullseye. If we cannot defeat the terrorists without sinking to their level, we have lost the war against them. Burke said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. A 21st century corollary of this is that evil will triumph when good men cannot identify it when they see it.

Actually, bullSHIT. People like you who haven't the foggiest clue concerning strategy and tactics, and who advocate no morals here at home, suddenly want to have a whole shitload of them when it comes to our enemies.

A 21st century correlation to this BS is that fools who delude themselves into believing they are "good men" will get the real "good men" killed for forcing them to fight an enemy with a blindfold on and one hand tied behind their backs.

 

[flaja]

2)Stop the Terrorists from using the first amendment to destroy American cities.

Just how are terrorists using the 1st Amendment to destroy American cities? What exactly have the terrorists been doing?

Considering the man also orchastrated the Republican takeover of Congress,

While failing to give us term limits, a line item veto or a balanced budget amendment as the Republicans had promised. I guess he was too busy sleeping around.

 

[flaja]

I see that William Joyce’s reputation says he should run for office. Where? Germany 1933?

 

[jillian]

if you dont know that, your just freaking stupid.

Nope... just a neo-nazi piece of garbage.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWjoyceW.htm

 

[Annie]

The fact is, why are you so willing to accord First Amendment Rights to the US's enemies, but not to citizens of the US who don't agree with your political rhetoric?

Our enemies, of whom the vast majority are NOT US citizens, should not be allowed to take advantage of our rights and use them as a weapon against us. Too simple a concept for you, I guess.

Exactly. McCain/Feingold says the political speech that was the core of the original First Amendment protection can be regulated. Are you really telling me that we can stop someone from speaking out on behalf of a candidate for public office but we have to allow jihadists to call for mass murder? I don’t think so.

 

[Gunny]

Exactly. McCain/Feingold says the political speech that was the core of the original First Amendment protection can be regulated. Are you really telling me that we can stop someone from speaking out on behalf of a candidate for public office but we have to allow jihadists to call for mass murder? I don’t think so.

It is ludicrous to allow an enemy to hide behind the very rights they are trying to destroy. You speak your mind in the ME and whover you manage to offend is going to carbomb or snipe you.

But by all means, let's treat them better than we treat our own. "I don't think so" must be the polite way of saying BULLSHIT.

 

[Avatar4321]

And the right-wing nut jobs on this board wonder why I don’t support GWB’s policy of using torture against terror suspects. Like I said in the torture thread, letting the government attack and abuse its enemies without regard to legal due process, and you could easily find yourself classified as an enemy of the government and thus subject to the same government behavior you claim you find acceptable.



Except maybe on certain internet message boards.

Except there is no evidence of torture and the fact that you people keep bringing up something you have no evidence for is another sign of the moral bankrupcy of your position

 

[Avatar4321]

Just how are terrorists using the 1st Amendment to destroy American cities? What exactly have the terrorists been doing?



While failing to give us term limits, a line item veto or a balanced budget amendment as the Republicans had promised. I guess he was too busy sleeping around.

Are you illiterate or do you just refuse to read what is written? Newt was pretty darn clear about the problem with Terrorists using websites to send propaganda and recruit new candidates.

Newt is exactly right. we need to use technology to seek out websites used by terrorists to get out their propaganda and shut them down. If you think targeting an enemies propaganda network is somehow a violation of the First amendment, you have no understanding of military matters or the first amendment.

BTW Newt did give us a line item veto. The Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional. Regardless, you cant deny the fact that Newt is an effective leader and can get things done. Give him a chance and be patient and he will get much more done.

 

[flaja]

Except there is no evidence of torture and the fact that you people keep bringing up something you have no evidence for is another sign of the moral bankrupcy of your position

If there is no evidence that GWB wants to torture people, why is there so much talk that he wants to torture people? And what about the practice of rendition, whereby GWB sends someone to a country where people are tortured?

 

[flaja]

Are you illiterate or do you just refuse to read what is written? Newt was pretty darn clear about the problem with Terrorists using websites to send propaganda and recruit new candidates.

How does that equate to an immediate threat to cities as opposed to a threat to any place else?

And just what authority would the U.S. ever have to shut down websites in countries other than the U.S.?

 

[jillian]

It is ludicrous to allow an enemy to hide behind the very rights they are trying to destroy. You speak your mind in the ME and whover you manage to offend is going to carbomb or snipe you.

But by all means, let's treat them better than we treat our own. "I don't think so" must be the polite way of saying BULLSHIT.

What is ludicris is to destroy the very freedoms we purport to defend. If we make ourselves no better than they are, what is it, exactly, that we're "fighting" for?

 

[dilloduck]

What is ludicris is to destroy the very freedoms we purport to defend. If we make ourselves no better than they are, what is it, exactly, that we're "fighting" for?

Our survival---you libs need to figure this one out, quickly !

 

[flaja]

Our survival---you libs need to figure this one out, quickly !

Living in a fascist state is your idea of what survival is?

 

[dilloduck]

Living in a fascist state is your idea of what survival is?

please---trying to describe America as fascist is ludicrous hallucination.

 

[theHawk]

Tell me, though, while they're looking for all these terrorists, how do they get to them without going thru us? Answer: they don't.


But given how you guys wet yourselves with pleasure over the "patriot" act and the NSA spying on y'all, guess a little first amendment infringement doesn't bother you.... goes with infringing on the 4th amendment, right?

Just so long as they don't touch your 2nd amendment, huh?

How is it spying on 'you' when they only monitor calls incoming from terrorists overseas? How exactly is their listening to terrorists calls infringe on my first amendment rights?
How are my 4th amendment rights violated? When I go to the airport? Don't know about you but I'm willing to let them search me if it reduces my chances of being blown up in an airplane. And if the search bothers you that much, drive.

I've never exercised my 2nd amendment rights, but I don't see how thats relevant here.

 

[flaja]

please---trying to describe America as fascist is ludicrous hallucination.

Torture? Government spying on its own citizens without warrants or any other part of legal due process? A leader that cannot stand to be told he's wrong? Political opposition being silenced (McCain Feingold)?

What is it about fascism you don't understand?

 

[dilloduck]

Torture? Government spying on its own citizens without warrants or any other part of legal due process? A leader that cannot stand to be told he's wrong? Political opposition being silenced (McCain Feingold)?

What is it about fascism you don't understand?

been tortured recently?

 

[theHawk]

Violating First Amendment rights of American citizens, thus undermining the Constitution, in order to capture terrorists is ceding a victory to terrorists they could never have hoped to win by their own efforts.

No, ceding victory to terrorists is allowing them to continue their efforts and succeed in killing us.

And the willingness of so many to sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of national security is little more than a Pavlovian response to the bell ringing of neocons, theocons and others in this country who see the Constitution, not as a guarrantor of the rights of free people, but an impediment to their desire for power.

We're not trying to sacrifice the Constitution, we are trying to preserve it.
You libs tend to forget a little passage in the Declaration of Independence-


We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I know it must irk you liberals to hear such words. You probably want the entire document to be burned because it has the word 'Creator' and is thus the rantings of right-wing theologians. But this is the foundation of which our nation and its laws were founded.

We already had sufficient legal methods of tracking and monitoring terrorist operations at home and abroad in the form of FISA, Title III and other legislation, even before the mis-named USA PATRIOT Act.

So suffient that 9/11 occurred eh? Standards that allowed thousands of people to die at the hands of terrorists allowed to penetrate and operate within the U.S. may be suffient standards for you, but the rest of us beg to differ sir.