Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

runawayjim

gingrich wants first amendment abolished

22 posts in this topic

at an event honoring those who stand up for first amendment rights, newt basically said that the first amendment protects terrorists and should be limited.

why not just take the constitution and burn it? who needs that anyways?

union leader article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ah, sounds like a wonderful idea from our friend, Newt. Really, Newt just needs go back to Cobb County and relax. I wish he would have outlined some specifics in that article so I could see where he was going though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as people are at least "half-awake" in this country, this will never happen. I pity the political career of anyone who champions an idea like this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People like Newt Gingrich scare me. In that initiative, they have succeeded. Unfortunately, in their view, I'm scared of the wrong people.

Neo-Conservatives like Newt believe that we should simply sink to the level of terrorists and become pseudo-terrorists ourselves in order to "defend" our "values" all while wrapping ourselves in a flag and shoving several Bibles right up our a$$es.

We'll probably have lost a city within the next decade to urban decay wrought by budget cuts and further racism and white flight. Besides.. a terrorist attack won't affect Sally Soccer Mom and Joe Nascar Dad 75 miles out in their exurban McMansion fortress. They will simply carry on as usual, driving to their McJob, eat at their McRestaurants, and going to church at their McChurches... they'll just put a few more "support the troops" and "God Bless America" magnetic stickers on their Ford Excursions. And they'll proudly vote for the likes of Newt Gingrich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People like Newt Gingrich scare me. In that initiative, they have succeeded. Unfortunately, in their view, I'm scared of the wrong people.

Neo-Conservatives like Newt believe that we should simply sink to the level of terrorists and become pseudo-terrorists ourselves in order to "defend" our "values" all while wrapping ourselves in a flag and shoving several Bibles right up our a$$es.

We'll probably have lost a city within the next decade to urban decay wrought by budget cuts and further racism and white flight. Besides.. a terrorist attack won't affect Sally Soccer Mom and Joe Nascar Dad 75 miles out in their exurban McMansion fortress. They will simply carry on as usual, driving to their McJob, eat at their McRestaurants, and going to church at their McChurches... they'll just put a few more "support the troops" and "God Bless America" magnetic stickers on their Ford Excursions. And they'll proudly vote for the likes of Newt Gingrich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, damn those people. I'm sure you're right. They would not care if there was a terrorist attack.

Why do you care if that's how people decide to live their lives? Some may go out on a limb and say that is a good life. They are not hurting anyone else. I don't see the point of your criticizing suburban live. I hate to tell you but it is better than raising children in a city. If you want to live in the city, take public transportation, recycle and hate church goers, I think that is totally your choice. That's just my opinion though. BTW I would not vote for anyone who would want to limit your narrow minded views. You already do that yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we've already lost an entire City. It's name is New Orleans and the terrorist that destroyed that place is the GOP Neo-cons that controled our government at the time for not doing somthing to help it recover from Hurricane Katrina. May no any political party ever attain the kind of power the GOP had!

Anyway so Newt wants to limit our freedom of speech. eh? Excuse Me. But isn't that what the terrorist were trying to do when they slammed airplane in our skyscrappers and killed a bumch of people? The whole objective of terrorism is to scare the living stuffings out of people so badly that they would remain muted as they would fear for their very lives if they had thoughts and opinions that differed from the status quo as the terrorists see it.. The limiting of our freedom of speech would be seen as a monumental victory for the terrorist.

People like Newt Gingrich scare me. In that initiative, they have succeeded. Unfortunately, in their view, I'm scared of the wrong people.

Neo-Conservatives like Newt believe that we should simply sink to the level of terrorists and become pseudo-terrorists ourselves in order to "defend" our "values" all while wrapping ourselves in a flag and shoving several Bibles right up our a$$es.

We'll probably have lost a city within the next decade to urban decay wrought by budget cuts and further racism and white flight. Besides.. a terrorist attack won't affect Sally Soccer Mom and Joe Nascar Dad 75 miles out in their exurban McMansion fortress. They will simply carry on as usual, driving to their McJob, eat at their McRestaurants, and going to church at their McChurches... they'll just put a few more "support the troops" and "God Bless America" magnetic stickers on their Ford Excursions. And they'll proudly vote for the likes of Newt Gingrich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


why is suburbia better than raising children in the city where they're surrounded by culture, diversity, other people, etc?

i used to think the city was not a place for children... until i lived in one. now i have no plans on leaving, even when i decide it's time to have kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're saying you can only get these things living in a city? I said suburban life, not rural life. There is a difference. I didn't say hey move out to a 50 acre farm, it will be better for your kids. There is diversity and "other people" in suburbia. I didn't say never take them to a museum, or an art gallery or to a theatre. I said, IMO, it is better if they didn't live in a city. BTW, if you don't have children how do you know a city is better for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because the city is a BAD and SCARY ,DARK place!

It sucked being a kid in the suburbs because i could never go to the park or anything like that because it was too far away. I always had to ask my dad to take me there, and he wasnt always able to take me. I always liked going to visit my friends who lived in town, we could walk to the park and to the ice cream store from their houses.

BTW, jcasey, just because he lives in the city doesnt mean he hates church goers. Actually the most beautiful churches are usually in the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i know lots of people who were either raised in a city or are currently raising their kids in a city.

by the way, i grew up in super suburbia. there was absolutely no diversity. i'm really curious why you think suburbs are better for kids than cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because the city is a BAD and SCARY ,DARK place!

It sucked being a kid in the suburbs because i could never go to the park or anything like that because it was too far away. I always had to ask my dad to take me there, and he wasnt always able to take me. I always liked going to visit my friends who lived in town, we could walk to the park and to the ice cream store from their houses.

BTW, jcasey, just because he lives in the city doesnt mean he hates church goers. Actually the most beautiful churches are usually in the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to have some respect for Gingrich, but lately he seems to have completely lost his mind. Maybe he has been drinking too much bad Koolaid up there in Cobb county. (that is in suburban Atlanta :alc: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yeah, damn those people. I'm sure you're right. They would not care if there was a terrorist attack.

Why do you care if that's how people decide to live their lives? Some may go out on a limb and say that is a good life. They are not hurting anyone else. I don't see the point of your criticizing suburban live. I hate to tell you but it is better than raising children in a city. If you want to live in the city, take public transportation, recycle and hate church goers, I think that is totally your choice. That's just my opinion though. BTW I would not vote for anyone who would want to limit your narrow minded views. You already do that yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to have some respect for Gingrich, but lately he seems to have completely lost his mind. Maybe he has been drinking too much bad Koolaid up there in Cobb county. (that is in suburban Atlanta :alc: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with the sweeping statments about "the city" and "the suburbs?" Can't we all agree that there's a great variety in the types of cities and towns in this world?

Snowguy lives in Minnesota. The idea of a city to him may very well be St. Paul or Minneapolis, which I don't believe are known for their crime.

SBC-Metroguy may very well be thinking of Shreveport or Dallas or Texarkana when he thinks of "the city," which may or may not be known for their crime (I honestly don't know - I've never been to the area.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's with the sweeping statments about "the city" and "the suburbs?" Can't we all agree that there's a great variety in the types of cities and towns in this world?

Snowguy lives in Minnesota. The idea of a city to him may very well be St. Paul or Minneapolis, which I don't believe are known for their crime.

SBC-Metroguy may very well be thinking of Shreveport or Dallas or Texarkana when he thinks of "the city," which may or may not be known for their crime (I honestly don't know - I've never been to the area.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I'm sensing a great debate between pro city and pro suberban folks. Maybe discussing that issue justifies the need for its own thread.

EDIT:

Ahh! I found just the right thread to continue the pro city vs. pro suburb debate. :D

Poll: City vs. Suburb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in between Jcasey and Snowguy. I honestly don't know. I live in the city and it's very pretty. Everything is close and I feel safe. Given a choice, I think everyone would choose to live intown (or in the sticks which is always fun). If I had kids though, they're going to the Catholic school down the street, not the public ones. But what if I can't afford the $$$ that it costs to own a home intown and send my kids to a private school? I guess I'd have to look at the suburbs. I went to school in a poor part of Augusta on the southside of town. I had fun and my best friends are from there. But I want something better for my kids, you know? And I sympathize with parents who have to make that choice (and I've known many who have).

And plus the idea of a white-dominated conservative surburb is a thing of the past. Sure you have Cary and Peachtree City and places like that, but in many cities (like Atlanta) the suburbs are just as diverse as the city itself in many cases. And in Augusta the place with the largest Hispanic population is Columbia County, a very affluent suburb of Augusta.

Oh sorry, I just saw Tamias' suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.