Gingrich stated:
"My Prediction to you is that 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 that 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 recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us."
"I want to suggest to you right now that we should empanelling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it were not for the scale of this threat. This is a serious long term war and it will lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, it will lead to us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous."
2006-12-07 07:09:14 · 11 answers · asked by sscam2001 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
John McCain agrees - read the McCain-Feingold law.
2006-12-07 07:10:58 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. And the only thing Gingrich's quote offers is life in fear. No thanks.
No amount of "supervision" will stop terrorists bent on our destruction. But too much supervision could degrade, and possibly destroy, this country from within. And there's no check or balance against abuse of power should our government be empowered to violate any semblance of privacy rights.
For those of you who think "Monitor me: I have nothing to hide", you only think you have nothing to hide. All the information that could be gathered about you could be misused in countless ways to your detriment, even if you're an Eagle Scout: "Sorry, we don't hire people with depression"; "Sorry, we only give promotions to those who tithe to our religion of preference"; "Sorry, but we're not allowed to sell firearms to those whose parents had a history of violence"; "Sorry, but only people who have never voted for a Democrat can buy a house in this neighborhood"; etc. etc. etc. All it takes is lots of data and an imagination. History has shown time and again how seemingly innocuous information can be utilized by those in power to harm people.
Do you want the government to have all that information, knowing that the next president might be a Democrat/Republican with whom you may not see eye-to-eye?
2006-12-07 07:21:48 · answer #2 · answered by Dave of the Hill People 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Newt Gingrich is a man of ideas, a visionary if you will. Great men of towering intellect such as Newt must be given certain license when discussing ideas, because they are nuanced and therefore not easily understood without full context.
2006-12-07 07:20:02 · answer #3 · answered by robertbdiver 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Newt Grinrich is a dangerous fool and that has been proven by his ramblings.
In addition, he had an affair with a person young enough to be his granddaughter, later left his wife and married her. What kind of a person is this. Sounds like one whose thoughts are dictated by his basic instincts food and sex.
2006-12-07 07:16:17 · answer #4 · answered by Lou 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
those are the component that freedom of speech covers... in case you in simple terms get to assert what different persons prefer to pay attention how are then you definitely loose... i individually do not prefer to pay attention right-wing, racist or sexist techniques yet you have the suitable to utter them. I then have the suitable to utter (stupid A$$) and we are able to stroll away loose human beings in a super united states!
2016-12-13 04:40:14 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but only for horrible writing like his novel. Bleah, that was icky! Seriously, there need to be laws against hate speech, but nothing else.
2006-12-07 07:17:14 · answer #6 · answered by Kacky 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Seig hail mein Furor!
2006-12-07 07:13:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, Gringich should love free speech otherwise he couldn't be able to say the crap he talks about.
2006-12-08 13:14:52 · answer #8 · answered by cynical 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We no longer have Freedom we only have the Illusion of Freedom.
2006-12-07 07:26:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
2006-12-07 07:33:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋