Gingrich: Love Him, or Not...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by righteousdude2, Jan 21, 2012.

  1. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,458
    Likes Received:
    136
    ...he had the mettle to stand up to that John King of CNN, and dress him down. :thumbsup:

    I've been waiting a long time for someone, anyone to tell the media where to put their ridiculous questions.

    As far as I'm concerned, it was way overdue!!! :applause::applause::applause:
     
    #1 righteousdude2, Jan 21, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 21, 2012
  2. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,606
    Likes Received:
    152
    Did you feel the same when the press was going after Clinton?

    Does this mean you approve of open marriage and infidelity? {I really do not believe you do}

    Does this mean a candidates morals have no place in being examined?



     
    #2 Crabtownboy, Jan 22, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2012
  3. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't speak for my brother above, but the questions are two different things. This was to be a debate about issues not an ad hominem attack to drive down the stock of one particular candidate, which is precisely what the media attempted.

    And, for the record, I FULLY SUPPORT Gingrich's dressing down of the media. ABOUT TIME. But I in no way support his moral stance (or lack thereof) and indeed it is his morality that stops me from supporting him as a candidate. We do not need another dress-soiling President in the White House.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,065
    Likes Received:
    214
    Crabby,

    I agree with you - I will NOT vote for Gingrich as he is a hypocrite. If need be, I would vote 3rd party. But what if Obama wins because of my 3rd party vote - so be it - and I will put the blame on Newt. I am sending a message that morals and character matter. Mind you my decision is not based on the fact that simply he is divorced - but rather how/why he did it and that he was going after Clinton at the same time.

    Is the timing suspicious - YES! But better now then an Oct surprise. Newt told the moderator "Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things."
    I suppose that Marianne did not go thru any pain.

    Hmm, what painful things has Santoran went thur?

    Will women support Newt?

    Bottom line - I am glad the moderator brought it up - as I mentioned before - Character counts. I will also encourage the Conservative Party of NY that they should NOT cross-endorse Newt.
     
    #4 Salty, Jan 22, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2012
  5. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is what I wrote in another part of this forum, and stand by my words:


    Actually, I thought Newt's display was one of the most despicable acts of any Presidential debate in my lifetime... and the crowd made it worse.

    A serial adulterer is asked a serious question about his character because of new revelations from his ex-wife. He then attacks the questioner and receives a standing ovation for deflecting and attacking.

    What a shame and a sham that the Republican Party has resorted to giving standing ovations to a serial adulterer... what a shame that Newt resorted to channeling Clinton and Cain by attacking in such a manner. If my child had done what Newt had done, they would never have forgotten that moment for the rest of their life. It was juvenile, shifted the blame, focused on excuses, and sought to cover up the issue.

    I said it was despicable when Cain did it, Clinton did it, and Newt did it. He may be innocent, but it shows he would rather resort to politics than deal with the issues.

    He is a sham
     
  6. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does this mean you have found some evidence that it is true?
     
  7. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Infidelity is not even debated, it was well known and admitted to that he was unfaithful.

    So would you say that a serial adulterer is no big deal? That character does not matter? Would you compromise on character by getting a serial adulterer just to beat Obama? Is politics really that important that character is unimportant?
     
    #7 Ruiz, Jan 22, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2012
  8. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    The issue I responded to was the repeating of the ex's accusation by CTboy as if he knew it was true. Be careful not to read to much into posts about one's views.
     
  9. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I am saying that the accusations are really a moot matter. Who cares if they are true or not... the fact that his character is so horrendous makes the accusations just another part of the story, but with such horrible character issues, at this point it doesn't matter if the new ones are true.

    What is true is that he is a serial adulterer who is using the daughters of his first wife to show that his second wife is lying about his third wife. He is a despicable man. True or not, I really don't care because it doesn't change the landscape.

    He is a horrible man.

    Yet, I would be interested in your answers. You like attacking people, even me, for my thoughts on Newt. At least you can answer the questions posed to you.
     
  10. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is moot to you but you weren't part of that conversation. You do not get to just dismiss the context of my question you quoted. And I don't care what you care about one way or another. You are hypercritical of every one who is not RP. You fail to try to be fair with any politician who is not RP. The only candidate I really support is Santorum. But the over the top criticism of Gingrich just because he is a conservative (CTboy) or not RP (you) lacks reasoned judgment. And I do not "attack' anyone. But we all see that your over the top attacks on anyone not RP is common place for you. and your obsession with these accusations of sexual misconduct are a bit creepy.
     
    #10 mandym, Jan 22, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2012
  11. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only reason that Newt is still in the race is because he has waxed down several of the liberal moderators in the debates. Every time a moderator asks him a stinging question and he cleans their clock his numbers rise. If the liberal media had any snap they would see that most people think less of them then they do of Newt and they would stay away from these stinging questions. In the end Newt would self destruct without the media trying to force it.
     
  12. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Old Newt used the diversion tactic to its finest. He attacked and almost attempted to look hurt by John King's question and went on the attack.

    Now much debate about another of Newt's moral failings center around his standing up for himself and how neat it was to see someone stand up to the media. This instead of focusing on the moral failings of one who wants to lead this nation.
     
  13. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    If we are going to talk about his moral failing of the past it is unChristian to do so outside of the context of his public condemnation of it and admitted repentance. There are a lot of reasons not to vote for Newt. But at this point he should be treated with forgiveness as anyone should who has condemned his past sine and repented. If only Clinton would have done that.
     
  14. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's put this to the test. Using this formula that you have suggested does it mean that a repented child molester should be allowed to serve alone in the nursery or youth group? Is this forgiveness for everyone or just a select few?
     
  15. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Precisely...

    What the people stood to applaud was not what Newt DID, nor the fact that Newt did not wish to speak about those issues THEN, but rather that the liberal media has FOR TOO LONG called the shots, helped to select the candidate they THEY PREFER, and dictated the policy and platform of those who run against their liberal agenda and liberal preferred candidates.

    KUDOS to Gingrich for THAT. Boo and hiss to him for being a sinful cad...

    I (and I suspect, "we") are searching for that candidate with the cahjones to stand up to the press and carry forth an agenda in keeping with mainstream America -- mom and pop America who raise kiddos, run shops, farm to feed us, and support our schools, etc. Newt IS NOT THAT CANDIDATE, but his rhetoric is precisely what we are searching for and he has tapped into that sentiment very well.

    Now, if Santorum would only take an object lesson and go to do likewise we might have a hope...
     
  16. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    He did indeed...

    But, the news was "old news" and did nothing at all to further a DEBATE AMONGST CURRENT CANDIDATES. It was pure ad hominem designed to take ONE CANDIDATE out of the running when polls indicated that he was likely going to take the state.

    I wonder what Paul supporters would be saying about media bias today if the lead question was to him along the lines of, "You are a radical isolationist and intend to gut our military. Why would you do something that stupid?"

    Oh... My bad. Paul supporters have been decrying that sort of media attention from the start -- he is failing in the primaries because of the media. :wavey:
     
  17. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, he has not repented. He left the Baptist Church to embrace the Catholic Doctrine. This is not Repentance. Repentance is distinctly Christian and Catholicism is not Christian, it is works based.

    Yet, let me ask you, should we vote for a murderer? Should we vote for a rapist? Should we vote for a child abuser? If they repented about a decade ago and said they were okay, would you want them in office? Probably not! If that is the case, then you prove my point about a serial adulterer.

    I think there is room for wisdom in judgment as there is in electing Elders, Deacons, and other offices. Because someone "repents" does not mean we can say, "Oh, he has great character now, we should ignore it from now on." No! This is a part of the record, a part of who he is. You may believe he is forgiven, but this does not mean you ignore this when evaluating his character. As well, if you read my post on the despicable nature of his attacks when he was questioned, I think his character is still in play.

    Character does matter and repent or not, I would not trust a serial adulterer who was corrupt with power to hold the highest office in our land. In fact, I would not trust him to babysit my three children, much less be President.
     
  18. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have a problem with your logic here. According to your logic anyone who has ever committed a sin is not qualified to do anything. The bigger problem with the conversation I have seen thus far is that there is only condemnation. Not discussion of his current state. If one were to say " I know he has repented and I am glad to here that but I just am not sure I am ready to trust him to be President because of his past." I would say then he had been given a fair hearing. But all the conversations thus far act as if he is still engaged in that behavior. All I have seen is pure condemnation and hatred. And by the way I am not voting for him.
     
  19. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two different issues and rather odd logic.

    I have never suggested anyone needs to vote for him.

    See former response.

    Unless it has to do with RP and the racist papers written in his name.
     
  20. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    He didn't say that, nor did I. Yet, a man who has a history of committing gross sins is a person who has horrible character that cannot be trusted. We understand people are sinners, but would you trust a serial adulterer to babysit your kids? I would trust some who are sinners to watch my kids, but I would not trust people with major character flaws like being a serial adulterer to watch my kids.
     

Share This Page

Loading...