• 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.

Gingrich nails CNN at Presidential Debate

if that is the case, then you should be concerned about the fact that Gingrich's mismanagement and abuse of the Speaker position led to a Republican ouster of him from that post.

That is a concern.
However, my topic of not using private lives of candidates as a campaign tool still applies equally to ALL candidates.
 
Not if it has absolutely nothing to do with government....

He himself made it a matter of government under Clinton. Does that matter in what you think of him?
 
Why is it we want to hold our politicians to unrealistic standards?

With the power of the media and the information age it is much easier to find dirt on a candidate than it was in the past.

When all the stuff about Clinton " didn't inhale" or "didn't have sexual relations with that woman" even then, I remember thinking so what? Aren't their more important things to talk about?

I realize that most people on this board are passionate enough about politics that they do their own research and look and both sides of an issue before they come up with their own conclusions, but most Americans just watch the news and take it as the word. The media tells them what is important, and when most people wouldn't care about things such as this, they think well if it's important enough to be in the news, then it must be a big deal.
 
Why is it we want to hold our politicians to unrealistic standards?

With the power of the media and the information age it is much easier to find dirt on a candidate than it was in the past.

When all the stuff about Clinton " didn't inhale" or "didn't have sexual relations with that woman" even then, I remember thinking so what? Aren't their more important things to talk about?

I realize that most people on this board are passionate enough about politics that they do their own research and look and both sides of an issue before they come up with their own conclusions, but most Americans just watch the news and take it as the word. The media tells them what is important, and when most people wouldn't care about things such as this, they think well if it's important enough to be in the news, then it must be a big deal.

Well stated...and agreed.
 
That is a concern.
However, my topic of not using private lives of candidates as a campaign tool still applies equally to ALL candidates.

Gingrich's ethics violation was not a private lives matter.
 
Gingrich Nails CNN at Presidential Debate! - YouTube


Wow, that's all I've got to say. Home run by Newt.

Classy answer by Romney as well.


Just so I understand...

It's OKAY to question sexual indiscretions of someone IN OFFICE... But when they're RUNNING FOR OFFICE, those questions are off limits?

Is that what this was all about?

If Bret Baier asked the same question to a Dem Candidate, would the S.C. Nascar redneck audience have applauded or booed.
 
Gingrich Nails CNN at Presidential Debate! - YouTube

Wow, that's all I've got to say. Home run by Newt.

Classy answer by Romney as well.
Americans need to realize that the skills that a candidate employs to get himself/herself elected are not the same skills that make a successful presidency.

Gingrich's has the oratry skills to debate Obama, but past history shows that being a good debater were not enough to allow him to retain his position as House Speaker within his own party.
 
Last edited:
Americans need to realize that the skills that a candidate employs to get himself/herself elected are not the same skills that make a successful presidency.

Gingrich's has the oratry skills to debate Obama, but past history shows that being a good debater were not enough to allow him to retain his position as House Speaker within his own party.

True, but Obama's oratory and momentum were likewise contrasted with his lack of experience in projecting into the future whether or not his style of governance would be competent (and, in reply, many political scientists argued that his transition and incoming administration had shown competence.)
 
He himself made it a matter of government under Clinton. Does that matter in what you think of him?

I think it was ignorant of him to have done so.

But that doesn't somehow make it appropriate to use it against him now...

I thought liberals were against "An eye for an eye" measures.
 
Gingrich's ethics violation was not a private lives matter.

Apparently you fAIL at reading comprehension.

I stated, in the post that you responded to.....

"That is a concern"

And then went on to keep the content of my post to the topic that I was discussing, which was the private lives of candidate's being used as a campaign tool against them. Gingrich's only connection with said topic is that he is the most recent example being used, and the topic of this current thread is about Gingrich's reaction to CNN shamelessly making his private life an issue at a Presidential debate.

This topic is NOT about Gingrich's ethics violations of the 1990s.

Lets try to stay on topic please...... I shouldn't have to tell you of all people that.
 
S.C. Nascar redneck audience have applauded or booed.

Is the bigotry really necessary??????

I've seen the Chicagoland Speedway pretty ****ing packed up there in ILLINOIS when NASCAR was in town...... :roll:
 
Is the bigotry really necessary??????

Buy a dictionary and look up the word 'bigotry'. Let me know if intolerance of particular fans is covered.

Are you saying, I'm being unfair to NASCAR and that audience was even below them in intelligence and critical thinking.

I don't get this thread at all. How can anyone defend the clapping and cheering of that audience?

Yes, Newt, you're running for President. And it seems that you behaved similarly to President Clinton. Remember him?

And I'm sick of hearing about Newts 'debate' skills. The guy is a liar, race-baiter, and fear flame fanner, just like Palin... Only a tad more articulate.

Obama would destroy Newtie because he's too undisciplined.
 
Buy a dictionary and look up the word 'bigotry'. Let me know if intolerance of particular fans is covered.

Are you saying, I'm being unfair to NASCAR and that audience was even below them in intelligence and critical thinking.

I don't get this thread at all. How can anyone defend the clapping and cheering of that audience?

Yes, Newt, you're running for President. And it seems that you behaved similarly to President Clinton. Remember him?

And I'm sick of hearing about Newts 'debate' skills. The guy is a liar, race-baiter, and fear flame fanner, just like Palin... Only a tad more articulate.

Obama would destroy Newtie because he's too undisciplined.

Your intolerance of all persons in South Carolina is what showed.

You instantly perceived South Carolinians (because last I checked... the SC debates were not held at a NASCAR Event) as "Redneck Nascar Audience"

Now, if you were specifically talking about an audience of people at an event at some point in time at the Darlington, SC Speedway....... WTF does that have to do with anything exactly?

Oh, wait, it was just another opportunity for you to show us all how you hate people culturally different than you.
 
Buy a dictionary and look up the word 'bigotry'. Let me know if intolerance of particular fans is covered.

Are you saying, I'm being unfair to NASCAR and that audience was even below them in intelligence and critical thinking.

You're dissembling now...and not fooling anybody by pretending that you only meant "particular fans." You're leaving out the important word "redneck." :roll:
 
I think it was ignorant of him to have done so.

But that doesn't somehow make it appropriate to use it against him now...

I thought liberals were against "An eye for an eye" measures.

Not as an eye for an eye measure as much as...

...is it on the table if Gingrich himself put it on the table?

The two most prominent words that falls out of Gingrich's mouth are:

1) Frankly
2) Values

I agree with you that it should be about policies. It'd be much nicer to know where they actually stand on issues rather than how well they pander. But the GOP has a habit of wielding piousness like a sword and when the hypocrisy is pointed out, they cower behind the shield of playing the victim card. If we are to get back to talking about policies, the GOP has to stop with the Holy roller stuff, screaming about "family values" and other such platitudes that are so vague that they don't mean anything other than, "we have them, therefore you don't."

If they keep trying to play that card of "we have higher standards and are more righteous family values folk than others," they are the one's putting it on the table. If they throw those stones, they deserve to get pelted by those stones as well.


 
Funny how the libs here want us to vote for Mitt.....the one who created RomneyCare.

The far-right does loves those snarky talking points.

It saves them from having to critically analyze the pros and cons of any policy.

Much easier to just dismiss it with a cute word or phrase.
 
Back
Top Bottom