Posted on 03/28/2007 4:13:14 PM PDT by Checkers
Pretty good job by Newt
NG: No…it depends on how you define civil unions. I certainly do not believe anything which resembles marriage should apply to anyone except a man and a woman. But I do think that a number of contractual things, if you want to designate somebody for your pension, or you want to allow somebody to come visit you in the hospital, I think there are specific kind of patterns of affection that we should not be inhumane about.
Wimpy. What is this "patterns of affection" business? No one should get anything as a reward for being immoral. Period. Hospitals decide visitation rules so it is not a gov't thing. Heck, My married brother's girlfriend was allowed back in intensive care at a Catholic hospital, so don't give me this nonsense that it is an issue. And you can draw up a contract and leave your estate to whomever you please. If there are more taxes because you are not married then tough. Either let everyone inherit without paying taxes or don't. But don't give special tax breaks to people just because they like to have unnatural sex. If "love" is your standard, then let friends leave their pensions to friends if they choose. Immoral sex should not advantage anyone.
He's the smartest one in the bunch. I don't know if he could get elected, because I've never heard him speak outside of his role in Congress many years ago, so I don't know how he comes across. While people laugh at Bush's communication skills, he was always excellent at campaign events, although he obviously is not as good at TV things. I don't know what Newt would be like in such a situation, giving campaign speeches on a big stage, but this is important to his success.
But Newt Gingrich has ideas, he's not knee-jerk on anything but is conservative across the board, and so far, he's the only one I like.
Indeed
Newt is a little too liberal on immigration and not strong enough defending the Second Amendment.
The Clinton's ran him out of town once. If Shrillary is the Dem. nominee Newt will not run.
NG: Right. I just think, you know, if you said to me would I feel comfortable if my next door neighbor had a 50 caliber machine gun, I would say no.
Nope. Newt just showed he has no understanding of the Constitution. My neighbor has every right to own a 50 caliber machine gun if he wants one, and, as long as he doesn't use it to commit a crime, I'm fine with that.
Newt! you had your chance, you blew it big time. I like a lot of your ideas BUT not as a President. Give it up and keep your pants zipped:-()
Newt needs to either sh*t or get off the pot. Is he running or not? It's easy to appear on Hugh Hewitt aand offer solutions, quite another to re-enter the fray and fight to actually accomplish something. What's the deal Newt? Running or not?
Newt has a far greater grasp of the Constitution, history, economics and political science than the rest of the candidates put together. And that apparently includes quite a few here too.
Unfortunately, he is completely unelectable.
Newt probably has more knowledge about the constitution in his little finger than you'll ever have in your entire bloated, inflated head.
Newt said, he wouldn't feel "comfortable" if his neighbor had a .50 caliber machine gun, he didn't say, or even insinuate his neighbor didn't have a "right" to own one.
"Immoral sex should not advantage anyone."
Speak for yourself. I'm hoping it's at least good for me.
[rimshot]
From the article, Newt thinks that the general public shouldn't be allowed to own "military weapons"----to quote--- "I think we ought to draw a clear distinction about a whole range of weapons that are explicitly military..."
The Second Amendment makes no such distinction, and, in fact, (Miller decision) the Supreme Court has ruled that "military weapons" are specifically protected (i.e "weaposns suitable for use by a militia").
The Second Amendment ain't about hunting.
Newt just lost MY support, even for VP. He just sank to the same level as Guiliani, and for the same reason.
I don't know you...I assume he wouldn't. I think if my neighbor had a machine gun I'd be a little uncomfortable, and I support anyone owning any fire arm they want. I support the 2nd amendment.
The point is, not whether you can OWN certain fire arms, it's WHAT could you do with them?
If I knew my neighbor was licenced and had ample training in these fire arms I'd at least know they knew what they were doing, and were responsible.
That "you" wasn't supposed to be there.
Obviously you are aware that several subsequent lower court rulings took exception to that view. In fact, the recent DC decision took exception to the collective view of Miller. But I suspect there is not one Republican candidate who would argue with Newt on his point. Nor would about 99% of Americans. The Constitution was not a suicide pact as has been said many times before.
Ultimately, the USSC will conclude either that the 2d Amendment is collective and that the National Guard satisfies its intent, thereby concluding no one outside of an authorized military has any right to a weapon, or that it is an individual right, but as with all other rights, have reasonable limitations permitting its inclusion into a free and safe society.
But in any case, that issue will ultimately be decided by the courts, not the president or Congress.
Newt just lost MY support, even for VP. He just sank to the same level as Guiliani, and for the same reason.
LOL. I doubt the 2d Amendment purists will have much of an influence on the upcoming election in any case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.