Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Jan 9, 2010.
I will never vote for a man who left his wife when she had cancer for another woman. I don't even want to hear what he has to say.
I did not know that. That's awful.
Just because you don't like the man doesn't mean his message isn't worth hearing.
Marcia's dislike of the man is not personal. It is more on principle. What message is worth hearing from someone who abandons his wife in time of pain ?
I put Newt and John Edwards in the same slime bucket. They both may have things worth being heard, but they are not very worthy in their personal conduct. If they'd do this to women they have pledged to love, what will they do to us in their quest for power.
I agree to a point. Would I vote for him or not, I don't know. I did have many professors in school who were as bad as Newt or worse. I have had people work on my truck who were as bad or worse. I've haul freight for people who were as bad or worse. If you have done business with most of the big corp. or unions you have done business with as bad as Newt if not worse. If you voted for folks like Claude Kirk here in Florida, FDR, JFK, WJC and yes even Ronald Reagan all had problems at home. That is why voting for Ronald Reagan was the hardest vote I've ever cast, but I think it was the best after the fact.
My feelings exactly, Marcia! Newt had his chance several years ago and he blew it. It's time for "new blood" in our political arena. The ones currently in office need replaced, and I'm talking about both major parties.
I must concur with Marcia and ABCGrad. I don't expect politicians to be bastions of morality, but I do expect a cursory level of moral prudence. Gingrich and Edwards don't remotely meet that minimal level for me.
But that's strictly me. I don't expect others to have the same litmus test for elected officials.
Right on Marcia. Newt is no role model when it comes to morality.
Has Newt ever publically repented of his behavior? Just wondering.
thanks for derailing the thread
I think it is a reasonable consideration to make this an issue especially when there seem to be no apparent circumstances of which we're aware which might have also complicated the test of their faithfulness in marriage. The test of being admired and even being subject to seduction should be considered a normal given of people in power which they should have the moral fiber to anticipate and rise above... if their vows had any meaning..... and if their vows are easily discarded what about their allegiance when they are sworn to uphold the constitution?
With both Reagon and McCain.... I could see the transition from immaturity to maturity and stability by the time they ran for highest office in the land. In Kerry and Gingrich, I see men who should already be mature and stable behaving barely short of adolescents in a toy store of availability and seduction.
As for Reagon: I don't know that Nancy was so 'good'. She openly admitted to consulting astology charts and brought the southe sayers into the WH, which might as well be called witch craft into the WH to assist with the timing of events. Ms. Clinton did the same thing.... consulting the spirits of Eleanor Roosevelt and others while her husband held office.
It is time that the Republicans toss Newt out as far as following his counsel. He may have some work to do in the Republican Party, and I'm sure that he has a base of 'believers' but he did not fulfill the contract with America which he proposed: He is a globalist. Nothing will change by electing globalist. NAFTA and CAFTA etc were all established and with the Republicans in control of Congress..... not one piece of legislation declaring the unborn to be a human life, begun at conception, and possessing all the rights and protection under the constitution as other human beings, came out of committee and passed on the floor of the House. This would have overturned Roe vs Wade. Prior to that ruling, the SCOTUS had no rule of law defining life... so RvW was founded on rights to privacy between a woman and her doctor.
After the Republicans took power, they showed themselves to be as big a spenders and protectors of the Wall Street and corporate interest as Democrats were protective of their entitlements and pork barrell gifts to their constituents (which also includes big business and corporations) for getting out the vote. Both parties have used ponzi schemes and false information to sell the American people on wars, expenditures and budget promises as real and more blatant that Madoff, yet they protect their own regardless of party and there is no accounting to the American public.
In essence........ both parties are corrupt and mistreat the people badly.... dividing us along economic lines for their own purposes of getting our vote and maintaining their control in power..... while throwing out crumbs of dead promises in return. Both parties are filled with moral decay. The democrats boast of their expoilts. The republicans court the vote of Christians and pride themselves on their self-righteous moral and family values in their speachs..... while they also deal treachously with those who believe in these by their secret lives and recognitions and appointments to positions and legislation which undermine the assumed intent of their flattering promises.
Unless we're willing to consider and either run or help elect new people into most of these positions we will continue to elect leaders who put us to tasks of building cisterns...... empty cisterns: wells without water. Unless we change our ways of thinking from party loyalty to principals, we'll continue to have leaders who tell us what we want to hear...... because the people love to have it so..... to be told lies and prefer flattery over truth.
What are the principals on which our freedom depends? These principals are as important to the sound construct of society and its governments as sound doctrine is to the gospel of Christ..... and they are also Biblical... yet, I dare say, as sound as they are to Christian living..... they are not being taught in our churches any more than sound doctrine is being taught.
raying:and:tear: for my country!
I think the point Marcia is making is that Newt has lost credibility with both political parties, so why should anyone go along with what he says or does now? Even if he's speaking the truth about judges, who's going to listen? He blew it. We're not going to trust him again.
The conservatives need a morally and socially responsible person to act as spokesman--someone we can actually TRUST. Newt isn't that person and sadly that undermines anything "right" he will try to accomplish.
Not what this thread is about
We'll give him the same deference the left gave to the Clinton's.
(Not on topic either..... I wish this had been posted in the political section as the powers that be on BB have a way of shutting down discussion when it reaches 3 pages here.)
Newt makes some very good points.
It is an adhominem. "I don't like the source so any info the source provides is bad." Personally I do not care for Newt even outside of the issue with his wife. But if we are going to hold to adhominem standards then we need to discount anything anyone who supports abortion says as well or any other completely atrocious activity.
So where am I supposed to applaud?
Newt says something right.... I can agree.
But has Newt gone the distance in leadership by doing what was right and leading the charge for others?
He's an opportunist.
He says and shows that he knows what is right.
He's trying to maintain or regain some recognition within the Republican Party. But if he has his way, unless he's repented of his former behaviors in and out of office, he will lead the party sheeple into primary and election choices by his own endorsement of people who will continue the globalist agenda.
Don't care about "adhominem".
As a man thinketh in his heart so is he. He has knowledge in his mind but his character comes from his heart.
It's not an issue of liking or not liking him; it's an issue of character and morality. And I would hate to see Christians endorse such a person.