Gingrich: Love Him, or Not...

I usually do not agree with you on politics, but I will say this is a good point. This goes for the Democrats also, but there are many on this board that put the term Republican above decency, honesty, morality, compentence, and conservative. As is made quite clear in the Scripture, there is a vast difference in an isolated sin, which we are all capable of, and habitual, practicing sin. A leader, especially at this level, is held to a higher standard. Between Gingrich's past record on the trust issue (marriage, Fannie Mae, etc), and Romney's record in Massachusettes, it is quite clear how far down the sewer we have progressed.

 

There was a time when I would have agreed with you -- that electing a REPUBLICAN was the primary goal.

I believe those days are over, save that we all realize (or most of us anyway) that merely being a Republican is not enough. Our candidate must also have a few characteristics that define him or her to the point where the voters can be sure that whom they are supporting will actually do what they say they will do.

We still vote Republican, not because of REPUBLICAN, but because that is generally where the candidate who will do the least harm resides, and this primary season is beginning to exemplify the search for a real conservative to lead the party that was once home of conservatism.

I'm not at all sure we have yet succeeded, and in fact I am very sure that we have not, for our choices are the lesser of evils from the gate... :BangHead:

As to a speculation why other better candidates will not run THIS TIME, one might have to assume it is because they (rightly) know what Obama has unleashed. Most of the bills, containing tens of thousands of pages each, are set to begin taking effect during the next administration, almost as if Obama planned to fail in his attempt at re-election -- or perhas almost as if he plans on becoming a dictator instead of President -- and the hapless individual who wins the nomination and un-elects Obama will be neck deep from day one in new bills taking effect to make he or she the WORST LOOKING and MOST INADEQUATE PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

 

I noticed the radical change in the Republican Party in 1988 when the first Bush first ran. It was a kinder and gentler nation, and a thousand points of light, maybe read my lips. It was a shift from conservatism towards the status quo established liberalism. The first Bush term angered people greatly, as followed by two terms of Clinton, when the Republicans put up Bush again, then Dole. By 2000, they had learned nothing. We elected a second Bush (barely), and at the end of that eight years, we had record deficits, an economy in shambles, and an endless commitment overseas draining the national treasury. Then, after all this, Republicans had the gall to nominate the likes of John McCain. It is very easy to see the progression of destruction of the party. For me, 2008 was the last straw. I thought the party would turn around. In 2012, look at the garbage the Republicans have generated.

You mentioned choosing the candidate that will cause the least destruction. Shouldn't we be picking from two candidates with positive qualities to make this a better place to live and raise our families? If we went any lower on our standards, we would have to bring out the shovels.

 

For a long time during my life I considered myself a Republican and voted more often for Republicans that Democrats. That changed and it was not that I changed, but that the Republican Party had changed. It was the Party that moved, not me. With the election in 1994 they moved from being conservative, but as you said, with kindness and gentleness, to being mean spirited, pernicious while making the, as we now know, false claim of promoting morality and family values. They claimed the high ground, but were men/women with feet of clay, doing exactly what they claimed they were against and then blaming the media for pointing that out to them.

To me they are becoming extreme in being mean spirited. Now they follow a policy of even being against any idea that they promoted but is now called for by Obama. It seems they are anti while not really being pro anything that will help people if Obama and the Democrats are for it.

The art of politics, when healthy, is the art of compromise. No one totally wins nor looses in a compromise, but the good of the country may well be served. The attitude of take no prisoner is very destructive for our country and our people.

I am not happy with either party ... but I will vote for the candidate, be he/she Republican or Democrat, that I feel will have an interest in promoting that which is good for the people of the country.

 

I would beg to disagree that the Republicans are any worse than the Democrats in being 'mean-spirited'. Both parties have their champions in that regard.

 

Here is the thing. When I see the Lord compromise then I will start, but until then I will have to seek the same walk and principles that He sought and if that means not voting for a particular office or doing a write in vote then so be it.

 

I agree... In fact, are we not lifting up Newt for taking on the press and did he not in fact win SC in large part because he got loud and proud?

If anything, the MOST frustrating part of the Republicans of late (and I'm speaking post Reagan) has been their UTTER INABILITY to press forward a party message to the people. It is not that the men elected were such bad dudes, but rather that they were inneffective to accomplish much of anything because they relied on polling data as a gauge of how they were doing in office, and the polls are conducted, largely, by the other camp.

W wanted to honor his campaign pledge to work with both sides of the aisle. In fact, he did, and he signed EVERY bill that came across his desk INCLUDING Kennedy's monstrosity education bill, No Child Left Behind, after which the liberals SKEWERED Bush for pushing and signing.

NO Republican candidate can win the war with the press -- they are TOO solidly anchored in their liberalism -- so what they need to do is SET AN AGENDA then DO IT and to hell with the press!

 

Remember Pelosi marching right thru the Tea Party protestors in celebration of passing a bill against the will of the American people ?

 

If Gingrich has really made his peace with God then he needs to get down on his knees and thank God for John King and Juan Williams. They gave him the South Carolina primary!

 

So you want to see Obama in the White House for 4 more years!

 

If you favor Obama then be honest and say so!

As for being mean spirited nothing is worse than Obama's attempt to block a bill in the Illinois Senate to protect the life of an aborted child born alive. I would also point out that Clinton and the democrats thwarted any attempt to prevent Partial Birth Abortions. So the Republicans are not in the same league as democrats when it comes to being mean-spirited!

 

I posted the following on another thread but it is appropriate here. A lot of self-righteous people voted in 2008 for Obama in 2008 and look what they got, a baby killing Marxist.

 

I find this an interesting sentence, one that I believe is incorrect. Why?

1. I can find nothing in the Constitution that says a corporation should enjoy the same rights as an individual person. Yet in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Decided January 21, 2010) in which the RATS court determined that corporations should enjoy all the privileges and rights as individual citizens. Their vote, in the majority, overruled two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations. VAustin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

This is judicial activism by Roberts, Alito, etc.

There is more:

2. In Morse v. Frederick the Roberts Alito court denied Joseph Frederick gus 1st amendment rights of free speech. Though I completely disagree with what Frederick was saying ... that is not the issue. His free speech was denied. This also is judicial activism. These are not the decisions of strick constitutionalists.

3. The Robert court has been severely criticized in the Kelo v. City of New London case where an extremely liberal interpretation of the 5th amendment practically gave local governments dictitatorial powers to sieze private property from individuals. Even President Bush felt the court had gone too far and on June 23rd, 2006 published an executive order instructing federal government agencies to restrict their use of eminent domain. However he could not do so concerning state or local governments. To temper this decision a number of states, Florida for example, passed laws restricting the use of eminent domain.
This was judical activicism by Roberts, Alito, etc.

If you really want to find out more, do some research on the Roberts court decisions to find out for your own self-interest how they seemingly have little regard for the Constitution.

I am sure there are other examples if more research is done into their decisions. But they are not strict constitutionalists.

 

You are correct. Remember, guns being a collective right was a 5/4 decision. Also, it was good to see the over-reach of the federal government stopped with the repeal of those stupid campaign finance laws. Corporations should be able to give whatever they want to whomever they want. We never see these hypocritical liberals when unions are allowed to prop up the democrats with their donations.

 

Where in the Constitution do you find writings that say Corporations are individuals and have the same protections as individual people?

If you say Corporations are also individuals you are taking a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution.

A historical list of decisions on this. Note the Montana decision that, obviously, totally disagreed with the Roberts, Alito, etc.

 

You have questions in other threads you will not answer. Why should I bother even trying to debate you ? My response was to O/R.

 

My friend, I believe I have answered the majority of your questions and as of yet I do not believe you have answered 5% of my questions. You appear to be very long on uninformed opinion and very short on facts.

The short answer is that you cannot find words in the Constitution saying that corporations are individuals and should be afforded the same rights as individuals ... not unless you are very liberal. I am obviously much more conservative on this issue than you. I think you confuse your opinion with being conservative, and yet you take liberal positions on some issues, like this one.

I gave you a list of judicial history on this issue, some of which, if you would only check might help you support your opinion, much would not. But you only dance and point other directions. Please respond to the question and issue. Thanks in advance.

Enlighten me please.

 

You are not my friend, I consider you an enemy. I stand against just about everything you stand for. You cannot even tell me who was a better peacemaker, David or Gandhi. You waste people's time here. Until you prove to me you can honestly and rationally debate anything, I won't answer another challenge from you.

My rersponse was to O/R. Call me a liberal if you wish. You got your last megabyte out of Brother Curtis.

 

When you have opinion and no facts, duck, weave and call names.


My friend, I have some very gentle advice and I mean this very sincerely. Turn your internal anger and hatred over to Christ and get it out of your system and life. In the end it will eat you alive from the inside and destroy what you love most.