What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
103 Comments
- ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -7/+68Is there anybody here on digg prepared to defend Gingrich?
Anybody think selectively limiting freedom of speech is an effective, smart way to go?
I think Olbermann has got this one right. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+46@flashboy131:
This is coming from the country whose president said in his weekly radio address that we should be thankful that elections are even allowed during a time of war.
Just the fact that someone in politics said that is upsetting, but the fact that the PRESIDENT said something like that is terrifying. Damnit, I really hope our country doesn't go the way it's been headed for several years, now. - shadus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41I'd hope no one agrees with NG... that's insane at least on this issue.
As a general rule, I'm not a fan of KO, but in this one I have to agree with him... giving up free speech is a bad bad idea.
The thought of NG as president is truly scary. - flashboy131, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34I can't believe this is even being discussed. this is and should be a given for America.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29This is good stuff. Olbermann doesnt necessarily say the most original things as many, if not most of us, think it as well. What makes him good is simply the fact that he has a medium to reach the masses (politicians included) and isnt afraid to use it, regardless of the consequences.
- WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Can someone here - ANYONE - link me to ANY terrorist recruiting website, forum, or IRC channel? I'm FAIRLY CERTIAN the internet is NOT their primary recruitment medium. The terrorists are islamic fundamentalists, and, just like the christian fundamentalists here- they are ritch, powerful, hold political sway, and are totally technologically ignorant.
*****, 10 bucks says osama himself probobly uses AOL if anything. 5 more says he uses it unncessarily over his broadband connection. - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19kidhero, you know why you are being dugg down? Because you are a stupid idiot.
- bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I'll be perfectly honest; that's the first I've ever heard or read that. Would you mind providing a link?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Newt Gingrich's remarks aren't controversial. They are stupid.
It's embarassing to hear someone say what amounts to "We must destroy our freedoms to save our freedoms!" - alphacorvus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"Nobody has lost any rights."
lol what - repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The Government has a long record of trying to selectively limit your constitutional rights in these so called "Wars on [insert bad thing here]" . The second amendment has been gutted with "gun control" legislation in the "War on Violence" and the forth amendment by "no knock searches" and property confiscation laws in the name of the "War on Drugs". What makes you think that the "War on Terror" is not going to effect some other rights?
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10They're not stupid. They're terrifying and show just how little of grasp the people running our government have on reality.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Unfortunately, Gingrich suggested that we should limit speech. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. When a fundamental right is limited, one loses at least part of that right. In this particular case, limiting speech means losing the right to free speech.
- nightsweat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Jose Padilla might disagree-a
- originaladam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"The hypocrisy of Keith Olbermann has never been so apparent, he does not get this lathered up over assaults on the second amendment or the forth...."
Remember that time NG called for Clinton to be impeached for fooling around with his intern, only to find out a couple months later that NG was doing his intern? Hows that for hypocrisy? And the second Amendment? Do you really think America has a gun shortage? Have you ever known a non-felon (or a felon for that matter) to have trouble getting a gun? Does the second amendment really need that much help? You already have Chaz Heston. And for the Fourth amendment, shutting down websites based on the language contained within amounts to illegal seizure, so Im pretty sure KO is a fan of that one too. All hes saying is that playing peoples fear for political gain is both stale and not cool. And who gets to define the word "terrorist"? What happens when dissent becomes synonymous with terror? What if you become a terrorist for wanting to posess a gun? Taking away liberties of any sort is a super slippery slope. - sremick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8News to me too. References, please.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@Popdmd: "As we agreed, Gingrich isn't a political heavyweight"
I didn't say that. I said that he won't ever win the Presidency. In some corners, his words can and do carry weight. The Right was weakened by this last election and most of the hard-line conservatives thought to have Presidential leanings took a beating. Pretty much the day after the midterm, talk started up about how Gingrich's stock was up again simply due to the fact that he was Speaker when the Republicans took over the House, and had no part in this past disaster of a Congress. Like it or not, he's a player again. Depending on what happens between now and '08, he has a chance at the nomination. And even if Gingrich doesn't run, he'll have a voice in shaping the debate for the right this election. And, that's kinda a scary thought. - freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Popdmd
You are spot on with your first point. Gingrich has a greater chance of becoming Ms. Nebraska than he does of becoming President of the United States. Unfortunately, due to how poorly the Republicans preformed this past election cycle, there is an opening for him to get the Republican nomination by appealing to the hard-liners in the right's electorate base. Gingrich is exploring that opening right now, and at the very least he's looking to re-associate himself with national policy issues.
Your second point it WAY off. Comments like these are exactly what I want to know about from the people who aspire to lead. The gist of Newt's ideas is that you (read: he) must destroy the foundation that America was built on in order to save it. His idea of how we should dismantle free speech directly assault the Constitution that he swore to protect and uphold when he was a member of Congress. I am very grateful that someone is commenting on this speech of Gingrich's. Good job Mr. Murro....err....Olbermann. - IrishJoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Keith hits another one out of the park. Years from now transcripts of these editorials will be published in a book and students all across America will be required to read and digest the words our leaders of today failed and continue to fail to heed.
- deadprez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@WarpFox
I think you are a bit confused. The left (in America) doesn't believe we should become a communist dictatorship in response to terrorism. On the other hand, the right certainly has both hinted at and made overt statements in favor of fascist, dictatorial policies. Pay close attention, but these are stark contrasts.
Also, I apologize if I wasn't clear about the standards for terrorists winning. Next time I'll use quotes to highlight my sarcasm. - bfdhud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Watching the O'reilly Factor tonight?
- deadprez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Your right. Both liberals and conservatives at times cling to the founders and at other times believe we need to be more flexible as a nation.
Here are the facts:
1. The Constitution was written before we knew how the West would be won or even the shape of the continent.
2. We believed the Atlantic would keep us safe from foreign enemies.
3. It was common belief there were unlimited resources in the world.
4. Telecommunications and modern transportation have linked the nation together far more than ever imaginable in the 18th century.
Knowing these facts, otherwise known as our collective ignorance at the inception of the country, which side seems to make more sense when they talk of making changes to the Constitution?
--The side that wants to find privacy in the Constitution or the side who wants to limit/remove liberties so the terrorists don't win?
--The side that wants the electoral college, and really electoral politics to be reworked, or the side of the Solid South that imposes the will of a political minority over the majority.
--The side that believes money != speech and the side that believes the more money you got, the more freedom you have.
--The side that believes global issues require fundamental action at the local and national level or the side that doesn't believe in science, let alone regulation enforcement. - hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin said it all with this quote.
- asancho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ Musicmantrs
"I do not believe that terrorists (American born or not) should be considered citizens of America, they want to kill us, they want to rape our women"
So my question to you is, what do you define as a terrorist? If you are talking about actual violent acts (like bombings and such) i completley and whole heartedly agree. If however, you are talking about the suppression of an idea and speech, then i disagree. More importantly, when it comes to idea and speech suppression, what do you think the Government will define as a terrorist? At what point will your belief in a certain idea label YOU be the terrorist? Maybe you should really think about questions like this before you spout retarded ass remarks such as the one above.
"Liberals don't want to offend anyone because they think submission to terror is the way to win this war."
Ok...what war are we talking about? The "war on terrorism"? You guys make it sound like before Bush we didnt pursue terrorists abroad. Oh, maybe your talking about Iraq, you know, that country we invaded with all the people who talk that funny language and wear towels on thier head. You know. The one with the nukes.
Oh wait there were no nukes. Hmm. But Condi said there were nukes. So did Rumy. Even Bush said....no? None? Not even one? Interesting because i could have swore that they PROMISED there were nukes, because there is no reason they would send thousands and thousands of american citizens off to a far away country to systematically said country if there werent nukes, unless is were to give a couple of greedy companies no-bid government contracts.
But that couldnt happen, not in America.....
*sigh*
What happened to this great country of ours, i say we get rid of the bi-partisan system and start over again. - trer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8A little insight into Mr. Gingrich's "high morals and family values," From Newt Gingrich's Wikipedia article:
"Gingrich has been married three times. He married his first wife, Jackie Battley, in 1962, and divorced her in 1981. Gingrich married his second wife, Marianne Ginther, in the fall of 1981.[2] They divorced in 1999, after revealing that he had been having an affair with a House aide, Callista Bisek.[3] Gingrich and Bisek were married the following year."
And From Vanity Fair 1989
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/boyernewt3.html
"Not long, as it turned out. Jackie Gingrich went to Washington with her newly elected husband, but she did not return for his second term. She says that Gingrich walked out on her in the spring of 1980. That fall, while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer, he appeared at her bedside with a yellow legal pad outlining the details for their divorce. The next year, he married his current wife, Marianne Ginther, a small-town Ohio woman fifteen years younger than Jackie, who was then a personnel clerk with the Secret Service. "
Mr. Gingrich has a history of leaving his ex-wives for younger women. Particularly heinous when he made his first wife sign divorce paper as she was laying in a hospital bed recovering from uterine cancer.
So much for those family values eh? - asancho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5OK, originally i thought we were going to have a debate on free spech, since thats the article were commenting on, but i guess were going to talk about the war in Iraq and
Bush's policies. Ok, ill play along, and while im at it, maybe one of us will walk away from this a little more enlightened.
"By terrorist I mean someone that wants to kill me, my family, or my countrymen... People that can and are willing to act on this given the chance."
Already agreed with you on this point in my inital reply.
"Clinton had Osama in his sights and did not kill him even though he was aware that he was behind the 93 bombing and had suspicions (if not confimartion) that he was behind the bombing of the USS Cole, he did not take it."
Uhh, are you joking me?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9026120716999978732&q=clinton&hl=en
"In response to the 1998 United States embassy bombings following the fatwa, President Bill Clinton ordered a freeze on assets that could be linked to bin Laden. Clinton also signed an executive order, authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. launched an attack using cruise missiles."
Source:"Taliban bargained over bin Laden, documents show", CNN.com, 2005-08-19. Retrieved on 2006-09-06.
Your right, he didnt kill him, but what the hell did the Bush presidentcy do to find Osama before 9/11?
"As for the WMD issue, if you can prove Bush went to war knowing full well that they did not have WMDs (not nukes, a WMD can be biological as well as nuclear) then I believe a few house commitees might want to see this evidence in the spring"
Hmm interesting, i was under the impression that Bush's cabinet was swaying CIA evidence to make an argument for invading Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081.html
And no matter how you define it, nothing was found
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
Dont you think, just before you DECLARE WAR on a country, that you should have a solid case? i mean seriously, cmon, even you can agree with this. Hes the president of the FREAKIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! He has so many shoulders to tap, world leaders to question, a central intelligence agency at his disposal, gahh...cmon!
"You have allegations that he knew the CIA and several other intelligence agencies around the world were manipulated by Bush for the gains of Haliburton and "big oil" but you have no facts, no basis for this opinion other than the fact that you wish it were reality."
Listen, i really dont think halliburton influenced the Iraq war, but it is not only irresponsible to give a company a no-bid contract, especially when said company used to be headed by the vice president, but its just plain stupid. Cmon, that a clear conflict of interest, and it just shows how money grubbing, greedy, and corprate influenced this administration is. Dont be ignorant. - geekwithsoul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days." FDR's 'Nothing to Fear, but Fear Itself" address
This is how a real President should have addressed the so-called 'War on Terror.' Gingrich is no FDR, and sadly neither is Bush. Olberman is dead on -- less freedom in response to terror is, to coin a phrase, a 'cut and run' approach. Bush has been, in my opinion, criminally incompetent and negligent in his War on Terror, and Gingrich is singing the same tune -- as are most of the GOP prospects for President. On the Dems side, it's not much better, but I'm at least willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until a little ways into an actual Democratically controlled House and Senate.
If none of the draconian infringements on our rights as Americans are rolled back, then I say put them all up against the wall when the revolution comes :) - DolphinGL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Nobody has lost any rights"
Haha, good one. - Palmetto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I liked Newt in the mid 90's.. I really thought he was a good fellow. A Paleocon. Not anymore. He has jumped on the neocon bandwagon with both feet.
So long Newt.. you have joined the looneys. - xman00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7>>This is just another example of a REALLY dumb politician.
Newt is a complete ass hat, but I think he is positioning himself as the "true conservative" for the Republican primary. When the Reps lost the mid-term, most of them figured out that the pragmatic Middle will beat the Far Right in voter turn-out for a general election. However, the Republican primaries tend to be more dominated by the Far Right (e.g. McCain losing to Bush). I think Newt is gunning for the primaries and then will play Mr. Moderate if he wins those. Bush did the same and it worked for him. - tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Is in really news that Newt Gingrich is a total nazi?
- AmishRefugee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6people always talk about writing to congressmen, but does a letter to a congressmen come anywhere near the usual pressure to follow party lines or their own desire to keep their opinion where it is?
- ZenBones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I may not agree with what you are saying but as an American I'm willing to die by your side to preserve your right to say it.
I feel we have strayed from this foundation philosophy, and because of that one nation under god is doomed. I'm gonna sing the doom song... Doom, doom doom, DOOM! DOOM!... doomy doom doom... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9People don't seem to understand that he (for the most part) just reads a teleprompter. He's neither a hypocrite or a "great American hero". Leave labels like that to his producers and writers.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I am not seeing where the "No true Scotsman" fallacy applies in Olbermann's remarks. It might apply to the write up above and at crooksandliars.com, but I don't see any thing in the actual remarks of Olbermann.
- WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Lol. Just re-read my post. Yeah, I meant the right was the one with the "they're trying to kill us".
Oops :D - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, they have an excellent grasp on reality - theirs. Their reality will be complete dominance over a subservient class of people who are so accustomed to holding out their tin cup for whatever trinkets the government will hand out, that they will trade whatever remains of their liberties to continue receiving said trinkets and do so willingly.
We are becoming our own worst enemy. We are playing into their hands like lemmings. - FyberOptic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5In the words of Jimbo from South Park, "we have to kill animals, or else they’ll die".
Except it's less funny that Newt is serious about it. - mitchellk, on 10/12/2007, -16/+19One person who does agree with Gingrich is Howard Dean, who said after 9/11 that we needed to "rethink our civil liberties" and that criticism of the President should not be allowed during the war on terror (of course, that was back when he thought he was going to be President).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You say "Bush is no FDR". Me, I'm glad Bush is no FDR, for if FDR had been president on 9/11, then he would have put every Muslim in the continental United States in a Concentration Camp like he did the Japanese after Pearl Harbor - men, women, children - all of them.
I guess FDR forgot about that "The only thing we have to fear..." BS he was spouting. - DolphinGL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I see you're obviously so much more intelligent and articulate than Olbermann is. Where is YOUR TV show sir?
- SElain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I like Olbermann, although I do think he thinks he's more important than he really is. The man thinks he's the reincarnation of Ed Murrow.
- WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I was talking about the right wanting the dictatorship.
- bfdhud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The context should not matter, since what was said in the quotes was pretty clear.
- Photoblog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Absolutely fantastic speech... the best i have heard in AGES!
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@kid
"stupid idiot?" it seems your handle is appropriate. - Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ freff
I guess I'm not seeing the merit of repeating general knowledge and passing it off as something unique. There is no consequence for him attacking and calling out Gingrich, because of two reasons:
1) Typically, none of Gingrich's constituents watch Olbermann's show. It isnt costing him viewers.
2) As we agreed, Gingrich isnt a political heavyweight. He's not newsworthy for anything other than personal or domestic scandal. It's like attacking the angry homeless drunk on the side of the road and feeling proud that you disproved his theory on why pancakes and rum truly is the best way to start your morning. Common sense should immediately trigger your "no *****? really?" instinct here. - superpixel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Ah, we hairless apes are a predictable lot. Freedom was fun ride while it lasted. Please see the Cycle of Democracy:
http://www.wrisley.com/cycle.htm - infopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So how do you feel about Glenn Beck, an ex-drive-time DJ?
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2this is from the EU, in the United States rules against "hate speech" are usually evident on University campuses and other places like that. In the United States "Hate Speech" laws have been shot down on constitutional grounds. But, we keep hearing about "bans on Flag burning" and that sort of thing.
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56294,00.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is