Newt Gingrich: Impeach judges - Crush and Replace the Left - 2012 "Victory or Death!"

The above examples are not analogous at all. These are not people you are voting for or putting into positions of power that could lead to the presidency or someone close to that position, nor are they people that have political influence like Gingrich does or could.

 

I don't think my comment derails it. He didn't just leave his wife - he left her when she had cancer. I mean, that is about as low as you can get in the context of marriage, imo.

 

True, but it explains why I don't think his statements have value. People give their views on politicians all the time in this forum on various people. I'm not one to do that often, so when I do, I have a strong reason for it.

 

I strongly disagree here, Rev!
Enough is not said.... not when a person's statements are appealing and may be true.... but nothing else is said which leads others who are more shallow in their experience of knowledge to have more confidence in that person's judgement than they ought.... enough was not said. It wasn't what Newt said but how he's led. He brokered a contract with America and the religious 'Right' got on board and elected a bunch of people called Republicans to office, many indiscriminantly, I might add, due to the 'endorsement' of people like Newt and the trust in others' authoritative judgement.

What Newt says may be right. I believe he's got most of it right....... But his hindsight aint no better than yours or mine. While he looks back and reports about the loans of money, sub prime, the deals were being made which altered these regulations under the oversight of the Congress and began in the mid 1990's.

Incidentally, the banking failure and bailouts was blamed on these sub-prime loans and OBAMAnation is promoting the same thing again.... only a year after the last collapse. Incidentally, shortly after Bush took office in 2001, there was a sudden rise in unemployment preceding the 9-11 event and increased housing foreclosures.

Let's put it another way. Obama can give a good speach. If this had been Obama talking instead of Newt, I'd have to agree with his talking points. However, I would also have to caveat or separate that agreement from his judgement and actions or else it would seem to some to be approval and confidence in his person.

It is not adhommmein..... whatever technical important to debate.
It is a matter of removing the deception from what may be an otherwise correct impression.

Its sort of like...... faith without works is dead. Show me your faith without works and I'll show you faith by works. The former is unproven confidence, the latter condifence is dependant. We do this all the time with politicians who quote a little scripture and tell us they are Christian.... and then we accept the word of 'credible leaders' like Billy Graham who 'endorsed' practically, Hillary Clinton for the presidency and encourage Bill Clinton that he ought to preach.... and, without some one saying something, many are led by impressions left by persons they regard as more credible and authoritative.

 

Too bad..... but its your bag!

There might be a lot more to add had you posted it in politics and let it stay open to see if justices etc. might get discussed.


I'm disappointed!

 

No. I disagree.

This was settleing one issue up front regarding the confidence in Newt's leadership as a person before getting to address the validity of his point.
But you kept on insisting that a persons character has nothing to do with their words and those impressed by his speach.

 

Boot the Newt! He's the one who advocated taking children away from the poor and putting them in orphanages!

 

Actually Newt makes some very excellant points regarding winning an election and making a difference and getting really a 'change you can believe in' to replace 'a change you would not believe'.

Follow the link and see the whole speech!














And, JTornado1..... I don't know where you're coming from.... but Newt's political downfall was the conflict of interest over teaching a college course while discharging the duties of his office.

The Democrats made the biggest stink over his marriage (because they love to wallow and brag in their sin while laughing at the sins others are at least 'smart enough' to feel shame) and make a point of others hiprocrasy.

 

I agree with both you and Marcia concerning Newt's character, he doesn't have any. I know I wouldn't vote for him. I was just pointing out that some of the things he said was correct.

 

Yes, he made some very good points, I thought. Unfortunately, when people dislike a man they usually dislike his message. The libbies will be sure to point out all of his errors to damage any credibility he might have left (as a conservative.) I believe Edwards also had an affair when his first wife had cancer (I'd have to check my facts on that one) but the left will overlook that and scream about Newt's problems instead.

 

The current administration is filled with people who should have the skeletons still in their closets.... but instead they are out in the open, blatant and proud in their exposure and confidence that it doesn't matter..... and to the people who support them, apparently it doesn't. The previous administration and its entourage had its foibles also.... but they knew that their supporting base believed in codes of decency and behavior, morality and justice, and the God who can save or administer judgement..... and exposure of their skeletons was a pox of shame upon them. (Yes, Edwards is among those others, btw.)

Newt is right about one thing..... if the people are able to change the present course it will require setting aside personalities and parties and concentrating on the real issues...... at the level of the true principals which underlie them.... like who we are, the areas which we agree upon and our potential.... and how to effectively return to our base of prosperity and strength while holding fast our liberty. For anyone to win an election requires enough votes to make a difference... but that doesn't happen if people don't see the possiblity of a difference. But that also means that the person who is elected must be capable of carrying his part in the team work of representing us and strong enough in his own character and principals to make that difference. Character marred opens people up to manipulation and control by others.... so any who have skeletons, (and no doubt, many do.... but that doesn't mean they haven't learned from their errors... we are all human) had better possess some repentance and redemption and separation from that bondage to their past, or they will remain weak and vunerable.