• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Marianne Gingrinch Matter?

Jetboogieman said:
Pffft who doesn't?

I'm not even married and I have marital problems.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't so much "marital problems" - it's more being a sanctimonious prick when it comes to the marriages of others and then turning around and ****ing anything with a heart beat.
 
Hatuey said:
The problem isn't so much "marital problems" - it's more being a sanctimonious prick when it comes to the marriages of others and then turning around and ****ing anything with a heart beat.
Click to expand...
Are you describing Bill Clinton or JFK? :lol:
 
FluffyNinja said:
Are you describing Bill Clinton or JFK? :lol:
Click to expand...

I wasn't alive during JFK's time so I wouldn't know - however, I don't remember Clinton having a hard-on for the whole "family values" nonsense.
 
Hatuey said:
I wasn't alive during JFK's time so I wouldn't know - however, I don't remember Clinton having a hard-on for the whole "family values" nonsense.
Click to expand...
Aw man. You know I'm just yankin' yer chain. I actually liked Bill, I never get too awful worked up over the whole "moral high ground" issue when looking at Presidential qualifications........we could just keep digging dirt till the cows come home if we wanted to........and that goes for almost any president/candidate in recent history. :shrug:
 
Pinkie said:
As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), Mariannne was the second seriously ill wife Gingrinch cheated on, and ultimately left. She has Multiple Sclerious, so when he asked her for an "open marriage", I assume he wasn't proposing she take a lover.

I wouldn't allow this guy in my house to sell Amway...and yet some people consider him a viable presidential candidate?

At what point -- if any -- does character matter?
Click to expand...

The short answer - No more than Monica Lewinsky did. LOL.
 
Bill Clinton versus Newt Gingrich
********************************************************************************
1. Despite the rumors, Bill Clinton was already in office before the public had documented evidence that he was "cheating."
Above and beyond the rumors, Newt Gingrich also has a documented history of repeatedly "cheating" throughout his adult life. The public are now faced with the decision as to whether they are willing to vote this presidential candidate into office, with the fore-knowledge that they aleady proven history of "cheating."

2. Neither Hillary nor Monica have chosen to go public about Clinton's affair(s)
Gingrich's 1st and 2nd wives have gone public about his behavior. In fact, Newt publically refuted his Marianne Gingrinch's claim that he wanted an "open marriage" during the televised debate.

3. There has never been any evidence that Hillary has "cheated."
Gingrich had a 6 year affair with his 3rd wife - while still married to his 2nd wife. Does the nation want a "First Lady" who would allow herself to have an extended affair with a married man and serve as the 3rd party in breakup of his marriage.

4. The Clinton's were able to reconcile their marital problems and are still together.
Gingrich demanded a divorce while his 1st wife was undergoing cancer treatments and his 2nd wife had just been diagnosed with MS. Newt may have asked for forgiveness from the nation, but according to Marianne, he has never apologized to her.

5. Clinton was not impeached and served his 2 terms in office.
Gingrich faced 84 ethics charges and was eventually sanctioned and fined $300 000 by a majority vote in the House - the 1st and only time in the history of the nation that a Speaker has been dealt with in this manner. Newt also faced a "palace revolt" and was removed from his position as Speaker by his own party members in the House.

6. Both Clinton and Gingrich have excellent debating and communication skills which contributed, in no small part, to their political success. The public should have learned from these two as to what happens we you place too much value on a commanding media image.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
damn, if he had just stayed faithful to wife #1 he would have had your Vote!!
Click to expand...
I feel the same way about Edwards. I hazard to say most people should discount both, and it's curious why some do not. I guess they value political affiliation over integrity?

Also, is my opinion of Gingrich's integrity and personality somehow worth less because I don't support his political platform either? I think the combination of delusional, extreme ideological positions and complete lack of integrity is an excellent reason not to vote for a candidate. I'm sorry you disagree.
 
Last edited:
jgarden47 said:
Bill Clinton versus Newt Gingrich
********************************************************************************
1. Despite the rumors, Bill Clinton was already in office before the public had documented evidence that he was "cheating."
Click to expand...

Not true. Jennifer Flowers was an issue before Lewinsky came to light.
 
AdamT said:
Not true. Jennifer Flowers was an issue before Lewinsky came to light.
Click to expand...
In his presidential deposition in January 1998, while denying Kathleen Willey's sexual accusations against him, Bill Clinton admitted that he had a sexual encounter with Flowers. In 1998, Flowers admitted that she had made a total net profit of $500,000 by publicizing her alleged affair with Clinton to Penthouse, Star Magazine and other news sources. In his 2004 autobiography My Life, Clinton acknowledged testifying under oath that he had an encounter with Flowers. He stated it was only on one occasion in 1977.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennifer_Flowers
Click to expand...
Althouigh Clinton had an affair with Jennifer Flowers prior to being elected president, he did not admit to it until his deposition in 1998. Therefore the public did not have conclusive evidence of the affair until well into his 2nd term.

My origin point was that, unlike Gingrich, the America people never voted Clinton into office with conclusive proof that he had cheated on his wife - rumors yes, conclusive proof no!
 
Last edited:
jgarden47 said:
Althouigh Clinton had an affair with Jennifer Flowers prior to being elected president, he did not admit to it until his deposition in 1998. Therefore the public did not have conclusive evidence of the affair until well into his 2nd term.

My origin point was that, unlike Gingrich, the America people never voted Clinton into office with conclusive proof that he had cheated on his wife - rumors yes, conclusive proof no!
Click to expand...

I knew. Any thinking adult knew.

He was a liar then and he's a liar now....and that's the best I can say about him.
 
Fun as it is to bash Clinton (either one)....are we actually willing to elect to lowest common denominator? Will we vote for people we'd never have in our own living rooms?
 
Mariann Gingrich is a fine one to talk. She was cheating with Gingrich while he was married. Ex-wives' vindictive "disclosures?" Just another kind of bimbo eruption.
 
MaggieD said:
Mariann Gingrich is a fine one to talk. She was cheating with Gingrich while he was married. Ex-wives' vindictive "disclosures?" Just another kind of bimbo eruption.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't want either as president.
 
She's not running; she's just trying to ruin her ex. Pathetic after all these years and when she herself was a skanky side-piece.
 
jgarden47 said:
Bill Clinton versus Newt Gingrich
********************************************************************************
1. Despite the rumors, Bill Clinton was already in office before the public had documented evidence that he was "cheating."
Above and beyond the rumors, Newt Gingrich also has a documented history of repeatedly "cheating" throughout his adult life. The public are now faced with the decision as to whether they are willing to vote this presidential candidate into office, with the fore-knowledge that they aleady proven history of "cheating."

2. Neither Hillary nor Monica have chosen to go public about Clinton's affair(s)
Gingrich's 1st and 2nd wives have gone public about his behavior. In fact, Newt publically refuted his Marianne Gingrinch's claim that he wanted an "open marriage" during the televised debate.

3. There has never been any evidence that Hillary has "cheated."
Gingrich had a 6 year affair with his 3rd wife - while still married to his 2nd wife. Does the nation want a "First Lady" who would allow herself to have an extended affair with a married man and serve as the 3rd party in breakup of his marriage.

4. The Clinton's were able to reconcile their marital problems and are still together.
Gingrich demanded a divorce while his 1st wife was undergoing cancer treatments and his 2nd wife had just been diagnosed with MS. Newt may have asked for forgiveness from the nation, but according to Marianne, he has never apologized to her.

5. Clinton was not impeached and served his 2 terms in office.
Gingrich faced 84 ethics charges and was eventually sanctioned and fined $300 000 by a majority vote in the House - the 1st and only time in the history of the nation that a Speaker has been dealt with in this manner. Newt also faced a "palace revolt" and was removed from his position as Speaker by his own party members in the House.

6. Both Clinton and Gingrich have excellent debating and communication skills which contributed, in no small part, to their political success. The public should have learned from these two as to what happens we you place too much value on a commanding media image.
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding your point in Paragraph 5, why would any decent Republican trust this hoary old leopard to change his spots.

It would be infinitely more difficult to dislodge a President with his morals than it was a 'Speaker',
There again, my point as I previously gave it, what other alternative is there?
 
jgarden47 said:
Bill Clinton versus Newt Gingrich
********************************************************************************
1. Despite the rumors, Bill Clinton was already in office before the public had documented evidence that he was "cheating."
Above and beyond the rumors, Newt Gingrich also has a documented history of repeatedly "cheating" throughout his adult life. The public are now faced with the decision as to whether they are willing to vote this presidential candidate into office, with the fore-knowledge that they aleady proven history of "cheating."

2. Neither Hillary nor Monica have chosen to go public about Clinton's affair(s)
Gingrich's 1st and 2nd wives have gone public about his behavior. In fact, Newt publically refuted his Marianne Gingrinch's claim that he wanted an "open marriage" during the televised debate.

3. There has never been any evidence that Hillary has "cheated."
Gingrich had a 6 year affair with his 3rd wife - while still married to his 2nd wife. Does the nation want a "First Lady" who would allow herself to have an extended affair with a married man and serve as the 3rd party in breakup of his marriage.

4. The Clinton's were able to reconcile their marital problems and are still together.
Gingrich demanded a divorce while his 1st wife was undergoing cancer treatments and his 2nd wife had just been diagnosed with MS. Newt may have asked for forgiveness from the nation, but according to Marianne, he has never apologized to her.

5. Clinton was not impeached and served his 2 terms in office.
Gingrich faced 84 ethics charges and was eventually sanctioned and fined $300 000 by a majority vote in the House - the 1st and only time in the history of the nation that a Speaker has been dealt with in this manner. Newt also faced a "palace revolt" and was removed from his position as Speaker by his own party members in the House.

6. Both Clinton and Gingrich have excellent debating and communication skills which contributed, in no small part, to their political success. The public should have learned from these two as to what happens we you place too much value on a commanding media image.
Click to expand...
Clinton was not impeached? Huh. Do you feel fairly confident about the accuracy of that statement? I presume that most of your knowledge of history has come from Comedy Central or from The View?

Now, allow me now to fix your comparison:
1. Bill Clinton = As President was charged with perjury, obstruction, and contempt, and WAS indeed impeached (acquitted on all charges except contempt for which he was fined $90,000 and given a 5-year suspension of his law license)

2. Newt Gingrich = wasn't

3. Bill Clinton = Abused executive power by having sex with a 21 year old Whitehouse intern IN the Whitehouse (admitted).

4. Newt Gingrich = didn't

Thank You. That is all.
 
Last edited:
FluffyNinja said:
Clinton was not impeached? Huh. Do you feel fairly confident about the accuracy of that statement? I presume that most of your knowledge of history has come from Comedy Central or from The View?

Now, allow me now to fix your comparison:
1. Bill Clinton = As President was charged with perjury, obstruction, and contempt, and WAS indeed impeached (acquitted on all charges except contempt for which he was fined $90,000 and given a 5-year suspension of his law license)

2. Newt Gingrich = wasn't

3. Bill Clinton = Abused executive power by having sex with a 21 year old Whitehouse intern IN the Whitehouse (admitted).

4. Newt Gingrich = didn't

Thank You. That is all.
Click to expand...

Right, there were only 84 ethics charges filed against Newt, and his colleagues voted -- 395 to 28 -- to sanction him and fine him over $300,000. :lol:
 
AdamT said:
Right, there were only 84 ethics charges filed against Newt, and his colleagues voted -- 395 to 28 -- to sanction him and fine him over $300,000. :lol:
Click to expand...
Newt wasn't the Chief Executive, wasn't one of the "leaders of the free world" at the time, didn't have veto power, wasn't Commander-in-Chief of the US military, wasn't Chief of State, wasn't head of the largest of the three branches of government, wasn't entrusted with the great deal of power and authority that Clinton was,......shall I go on?
 
AdamT said:
Not true. Jennifer Flowers was an issue before Lewinsky came to light.
Click to expand...

correct you are. the rumor I heard (remember BC appeared on 60 minutes with Hillary) was that Hillary would back Bill and undercut that idiot Flowers rants if she got to pick the AG as a quid pro quo. Based on the three choices it took to get one-each one less qualified than the preceding choice, that appears accurate
 
FluffyNinja said:
Newt wasn't the Chief Executive, wasn't one of the "leaders of the free world" at the time, didn't have veto power, wasn't Commander-in-Chief of the US military, wasn't Chief of State, wasn't head of the largest of the three branches of government, wasn't entrusted with the great deal of power and authority that Clinton was,......shall I go on?
Click to expand...

That's right, he was just speaker of the house -- third in line to the presidency.

Are you serious, btw? Are you honestly trying to argue that being an unethical pig ****er doesn't matter unless somene does it in the White House? :lol:
 
TurtleDude said:
correct you are. the rumor I heard (remember BC appeared on 60 minutes with Hillary) was that Hillary would back Bill and undercut that idiot Flowers rants if she got to pick the AG as a quid pro quo. Based on the three choices it took to get one-each one less qualified than the preceding choice, that appears accurate
Click to expand...

I heard a rumor that the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered. I don't believe that one either. :D
 
Pinkie said:

I wouldn't allow this guy in my house to sell Amway...and yet some people consider him a viable presidential candidate?

At what point -- if any -- does character matter?
Click to expand...

Newt needs to grab a pair of nuts, explain that to idiot America and tell them to shut the **** up about it.
 
AdamT said:
That's right, he was just speaker of the house -- third in line to the presidency.

Are you serious, btw? Are you honestly trying to argue that being an unethical pig ****er doesn't matter unless somene does it in the White House? :lol:
Click to expand...
No, you're missing my point completely. You should go back and read my posts. I really had no problem with Clinton as President. I felt he was moderate on most issues and generally was fiscally conservative. I believe that he wasn't that bad at diplomacy and in matters of state. You see, I am saying that because of Bill's qualifications and the fact that he did an adequate job as Chief Executive, I can give him a pass on his inability to control hormonal urges and his crawfishing while being investigated.

Why can't we do the same for Newt? Let sleeping dogs lie. Let's all agree that Newt has proven that he's human and made mistakes and may have a past which is far from "squeaky clean".......at least morally/ethically (just like many past presidents). Let's now look at his intelligence, governmental experience, accomplishments, and record of fiscal responsibilty, and determine if his qualifications are at least as good as(if not better than) the sitting president. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom