I just heard Newt Gingrich speaking to the US supreme court, and it turns out that Newt Gingrich is in agreement with the justices on the dangers of giving up liberties during a time of war. He said that he fears a strong executive branch, and that it will be a quick move from hunting down a terrorist, to an overly zealous judiciary hunting down american citizens. Is he a liberal or a traitor? And what do you think he has to hide? (since all of us who are against illegal surveillance have something to hide)
2006-09-29 02:13:58 · 11 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
oooooooo..must have hit a sore spot with stinky! hahaha
2006-09-29 02:19:52 · update #1
WOW! Stinky? It's going to be OK. Just calm down. I won't make you answer the question...
2006-09-29 02:43:56 · update #2
MELT, Liberals have never criticized using LEGAL wiretapping...only that Bush felt a need to do it ILLEGALLY. And no, republicans have NEVER said they don't want it, they say they DO want it, and anybody against it has something to hide. Sorry, but my memory is too good to try and fool it...
2006-09-29 02:47:15 · update #3
clk, although I agree with you on the CLinton thing, this is not a question regarding Clinton. It was a plea for those who believe that ILLEGAL wiretapping is OK to either support or deny Newt's claim. I will not be voting for Newt (is he running?) unless he is running on the libertarian ticket. I am not a democrat or a republican.
2006-09-29 03:20:16 · update #4
Maybe he heard about this thing called the constitution.
2006-09-29 02:18:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
I think everyone agrees there is always a danger in giving up Civil Liberties. That is not a liberal statement. Republicans are against giving up Civil Liberties to American Citizens who are not calling Terrorists in foreign countries. The laws regarding foreign intelligence surveillance have always allowed the government to listen to international phone calls, until the Diggs decision interpreting FISA. Clinton and Carter did the searches (the same as under the Patriot Act) and they were within the law, as FISA did not cover searches. The thing is this is an old debate. Everyone really wants to protect Civil Liberties, but everyone standing in the WTC on 9/11 wished maybe they'd listen to some more international phone calls.
I would NEVER call Gingrich a liberal. He's not a traitor. Therefore, he almost has to be a Republican.
Edit:
I wasn't speaking in the first half of my two paragraphs lumped together specifically about wire tapping. I was discussin Civil Liberites in general as was Newt. Just because Republicans believe that tapping International phone calls for foreign intelligence purposes only is OK (and LEGAL until the Diggs decision in Detroit), does not lead to the conclusion that they are against Civil Liberties in general. They believe they cannot tap a phone call between me and my friend across town for instance.
2006-09-29 02:24:44 · answer #2 · answered by MEL T 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
"Liberals have never criticized using LEGAL wiretapping...only that Bush felt a need to do it ILLEGALLY."
And Conservatives have never criticized anyone from getting a b### J## on company time at tax payers expense. Conservatives criticized a former president for perjuring himself time and again. Had he just said, "yes I did have an inappropriate relationship with that woman, ML. It is a personal matter between me and my family" he wouldn't have wasted our time, money and government resources.
Newt is a very smart man. He is definitely NOT a liberal and not a traitor. He is a patriot with nothing to hide. So, if you like his stance, will you be voting for him in 08?
2006-09-29 03:10:19 · answer #3 · answered by Cherie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i imagine i'm fairly properly-versed on historic previous myself and that i'm also a particularly good observer of politics and politicians. i'm also really older than Mr. Gingrich. both activities traditionally have had liberal and conservative wings and there has been fairly some overlapping between them. i imagine what Newt develop into maximum likely attempting to do develop into to unify Republicans and Democrats. college segregation develop into ended lower than the Eisenhower administration. The Civil Rights law develop into surpassed about a decade later lower than the Johnson administration. lots of the most useful supporters of persisted segregation were Democrats. lots of those who fought toughest for integration were Republicans. even as I disagree with lots of Roosevelt's regulations, i do no longer fault him for lack of administration skills. He develop into between the perfect leaders ever to occupy the White homestead. in the present day's Republicans come from many states except the Deep South. We have a tendency extra to come back from rural u.s. than city. we favor freedom from authorities more suitable than we favor a nanny state and we favor decrease taxes and larger autonomy at decrease tiers of authorities. States rights is not in simple terms the favor of the Confederacy, that's a section and parcel of what's in the structure. All that suggested, i visit vote for Gingrich if he's nominated through the GOP next twelve months. He would not be my first determination, yet i visit help him over Obama.
2016-12-06 09:06:34 · answer #4 · answered by mayne 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Newt Gingrich... the last sane republican...
you know... I'm not the biggest newt fan... but the guy did do a big part in getting the spending down... got to give him credit for that...
2006-09-29 02:18:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
As much as I dislike Newt, this is profound. He actually must have a consious, something the current administration lacks. He is neither a liberal or a traitor, he is simply an American with concerns about the current administration.
2006-09-29 02:18:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I think he is positioning himself as the Grand Champion of America again
2006-09-29 02:21:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
gingrich is a fool, last summer during the isreal invasion of lebannon, he went on fox news everyday saying this is the beginning of world war 3. he is a war monger and he has nerve to talk about clintons personal life, this a man who was married three times and left his first wife while she was in the hospital. he is just another hypocrite on the right wing.
2006-09-29 02:18:07 · answer #8 · answered by david c 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋
Didn't hear him speak. Wouldn't assume anything posted on this site is true, therefore can't say which he is.
2006-09-29 02:31:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
is Joe Lieberman Why can't God hating America hating liberals post anything with relevance or resources instead of pure hate
Lmao truth hurts you little girl found your weak spot how many babies have you killed this week
2006-09-29 02:17:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋