• 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!

Exclusive: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says

misterman said:
It was j-mac who tried to blame the Dems, which is what I was responding to.

If you aren't playing that game, great.

Clinton was found not guilty. Cleared, in other words.

So do we want to continue this game, or just leave the facts to speak for themselves?
Click to expand...

No, Clinton was not cleared. He was fined and disbarred in the real judicial system. That his fellow Democrat politicians embraced him in the Senate is not a sign of right or wrong. Which is where you Dems confuse things. Gingrich lost in the political arena, but won in the Courts. Clinton the opposite.
 
misterman said:
Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce
So what ?
Click to expand...
So don't go blaming it on Democrats when the majority of Republicans voted to censure him AND he admitted his violations.
Click to expand...

misterman said:
It was j-mac who tried to blame the Dems, which is what I was responding to.

If you aren't playing that game, great.

...........So do we want to continue this game, or just leave the facts to speak for themselves?
Click to expand...

See the top ? You quoted, and responded, to me. Inaccurately it would seem. If you keep your **** straight, then you won't have to commit an "ethics violation" like Gingrich did .... LOL
 
j-mac said:
Yep, and on its face it looks pretty bad, unless you actually look back at the times, and dig into the motivations of those voting for this. Now, they have been laid out in this thread, but as usual libs like yourself ignore that important factor in light of making an argument based on just a fragment of the truth. It is utterly dishonest.
Click to expand...

Did a majority of Republicans vote Yes?

If so, what the hell is your point?

My point is that you can't blame the reprimand on Democrats or claim that it was just a political plot. To say otherwise would be "utterly dishonest."
 
Eighty Deuce said:
No, Clinton was not cleared. He was fined and disbarred in the real judicial system.
Click to expand...

Then Gingrich wasn't "cleared." The reprimand was never withdrawn by the House and the fine was not paid back.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
See the top ? You quoted, and responded, to me. Inaccurately it would seem. If you keep your **** straight, then you won't have to commit an "ethics violation" like Gingrich did .... LOL
Click to expand...

Ooh, you got me. I owe you $300,000.
 
misterman said:
Did a majority of Republicans vote Yes?

If so, what the hell is your point?

My point is that you can't blame the reprimand on Democrats or claim that it was just a political plot. To say otherwise would be "utterly dishonest."
Click to expand...


Good Grief....It almost feels like your channeling of Alinsky is complete...lol...Here is a clue, politicians are political, and do things, cast votes, and such based on what is going to aid their ability to hold office...I know that is a shocker right?

Demo's fabricated some 84 ethics charges against Newt, then proceeded to attack anyone who defended him to the point where it was effecting their re election campaigns. So they weaseled out and voted to save themselves.

Now, today you want to rely on peoples memory being fuzzy on the facts of the time, and paint a picture that has NO basis in fact, or reality, and you have the gall to call me dishonest?....heh, heh....Good one Saul.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Good Grief....It almost feels like your channeling of Alinsky is complete...lol...Here is a clue, politicians are political, and do things, cast votes, and such based on what is going to aid their ability to hold office...I know that is a shocker right?

Demo's fabricated some 84 ethics charges against Newt, then proceeded to attack anyone who defended him to the point where it was effecting their re election campaigns. So they weaseled out and voted to save themselves.

Now, today you want to rely on peoples memory being fuzzy on the facts of the time, and paint a picture that has NO basis in fact, or reality, and you have the gall to call me dishonest?....heh, heh....Good one Saul.

j-mac
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight - your pathetic, slimy excuse is that the overwhelming majority of Republicans who voted for this were just being pathetic, slimy politicians and didn't really vote what they believed, and this makes their votes not really matter, but that doesn't apply to Democrats of course.

Wow, you really are the kind of guy who will say anything to excuse your party or "win" a debate, no matter how much you have to demean yourself or deny reality or any of that.
 
As I predicted prior to S.C. vote, his ex-wife again trying to trash Gingrich would help him. EVERYONE knows that exs always trash talk about the other. Since most people have experienced that, I think there is a lot of empathy for him. Added to that is (surprisingly) she didn't even claim "mental abuse" or ANY corruption of any kind.

I think as soon as people hear "Ex-wife claims she will keep her ex-husband from winning an election," people immediately discounted her. That is an entirely predictable of an ex and most people have the attitude that exs should "get on with his/her life." In short, it helped Gingrich.

Democrats screaming "hypocrite! hypocrite!" doesn't change anything and are worthless words. He is not a hypocrite to evangelical conservatives. He is a sinner like everyone who has been redeemed by his confession, acknowledgment it was wrong, and declared his faith in God to forgive him, asking (but not demanding) people to also forgive him. That's a real winner in evangelical Christianity.

What most infuriates many Democrats is they have their own conception of what being an "evangelical Christian" means and then are outraged that they don't meet the standards they want to use for their own Democratic partisan advantage. They truly cannot grasp that the truly succeed and be accepted an a true believer a person also really needed to have been a real sinner. You can't even be saved until you confession you are a hellbound sinner in evangelical Christianity. The great "sin" of Clinton was denying and lying about being a sinner (lying about the affair). His popularity came back up only after he admitted it and admitted it was wrong.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
So, let me get this straight - your pathetic, slimy excuse is that the overwhelming majority of Republicans who voted for this were just being pathetic, slimy politicians and didn't really vote what they believed, and this makes their votes not really matter, but that doesn't apply to Democrats of course.

Wow, you really are the kind of guy who will say anything to excuse your party or "win" a debate, no matter how much you have to demean yourself or deny reality or any of that.
Click to expand...


Ok, so I won? Yea!:2party:


Now, bow naive....:allhail


j-mac
 
Example?

A young woman I know was always perfect behavior “Christian-ny” and highly active in church. Extremely well liked. Then she disappeared and soon it learned she was leading anything but a Christian lifestyle. Sex out of marriage, even child out of marriage, bisexuality approaching swinging, drugs, alcohol, swearing.

Then one day she was back in church and before the group confessed, even that she was still doing those things but was trying to stop or at least cut back. The congregation leap to their feet rushing forward with a mobbing group hug of hundreds of people – declaring how much they love her and how much God loves her no matter how much she sinned.

She confessed and she acknowledged God/Jesus as her Savior – that’s all it takes..

She was their favorite little lost sheep and even if still really sinning a lot at least she had come back to the flock. That even made her more valuable and admired than before. Previously she had been perfect. But now she was REDEEMED!

It may shock people to know that even in the most strict evangelical churches, probably at least 1/4th of couples are living together out-of-marriage. Yet that shouldn't surprise anyone who understands the religion.

People who aren’t evangelicals really don’t understand the religion. Sinning is most definitely condemned. But committing sins also is an integral necessity of it. The most a person sinned, the more that person can be redeemed. That element, combined with that most people see an ex still trashing her ex-husband a decade later as dispicable, lead to the topic of his ex wife and divorce equating to positives for Gingrich - plus that distracted from the legitimate negatives against him.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Awwww...Don't pout dude....
Click to expand...

Not pouting. You didn't actually win, you just talked yourself into believing it. It's how people like you convince yourself that losing a vote by 395-28 is a "win." Talking yourself into that is what makes it a pyrrhic "victory." It rots your mind, among other things.
 
misterman said:
Not pouting. You didn't actually win, you just talked yourself into believing it. It's how people like you convince yourself that losing a vote by 395-28 is a "win." Talking yourself into that is what makes it a pyrrhic "victory." It rots your mind, among other things.
Click to expand...

Heh...:roll:
 
joko104 said:
What most infuriates many Democrats is they have their own conception of what being an "evangelical Christian" means and then are outraged that they don't meet the standards they want to use for their own Democratic partisan advantage. They truly cannot grasp that the truly succeed and be accepted an a true believer a person also really needed to have been a real sinner. You can't even be saved until you confession you are a hellbound sinner in evangelical Christianity. The great "sin" of Clinton was denying and lying about being a sinner (lying about the affair). His popularity came back up only after he admitted it and admitted it was wrong.
Click to expand...

Thats a good point....but I'd like to take it further

Our current social programs, and those proposed in the future, are defended as some how being Christian charity to those in need. That we are a wealthy nation and it is our duty to give out of our largess to those "less fortunate". When a conservative Christian says no, he/she is accused of being "un-Christian" and lacking in charity. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you adhere to a having a religious or social duty to give to others in need, go for it. It is an INDIVIDUAL duty and you don't have the right to impose it on others. Not religiously, and not secularly. A Christian who gives to charity in this world, stores up treasure in the next. That is a stated Biblical principal. But having it taken from you, against your will, is not a voluntary giving and it isn't charity. No heavenly points. This is the crucial difference between conservative and liberal charity. Conservatives give their own away, and quite generously too according to the statistics. Liberals TAKE from others and give it away. Also quite generously, even though their OWN giving has been documented to be very small.
 
j-mac said:
Not likely...just took SC by a large margin.

Sorry the smear didn't work out.

J-mac

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Are you saying Newt did not cheat on his wives, hasn't been married three times? Or are you saying the truth is a smear?
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't have a much higher opinion of people who screw with a married person then I do of people who screw around while married.

Though I realized my post came off as plural when my mind was thinking primarily the 2nd wife.
Click to expand...

the second wife started seeing gingrich when he was going through divorce proceedings, at least that's what i've heard.
 
Boo Radley said:
Are you saying Newt did not cheat on his wives, hasn't been married three times? Or are you saying the truth is a smear?
Click to expand...

in a nutshell, newt is a scumbag who was forced out of congress, BY HOS COLLEAGUES, for ethics violations. the fact the republicans are even considering him shows me that they only pay lip service to their so called values.

there is no denying what the man is. a scumbag.
 
Boo Radley said:
Are you saying Newt did not cheat on his wives, hasn't been married three times? Or are you saying the truth is a smear?
Click to expand...


No, not at all. In fact Newt himself isn't denying that in his earlier lifetime he did things he isn't proud of...(Much like Barry's cocaine use, and possible gay sex) But, that he has done the things to ask forgiveness, and seek redemption. Who are you, or other libs to deny that?

Also, that the dishonest tactic now of dredging up past events in false light, that doesn't tell the entire truth about the circumstances in full, are lies by omission.

You know how that works right?

j-mac
 
liblady said:
in a nutshell, newt is a scumbag who was forced out of congress, BY HOS COLLEAGUES, for ethics violations. the fact the republicans are even considering him shows me that they only pay lip service to their so called values.

there is no denying what the man is. a scumbag.
Click to expand...

Easy to mock values, and exploit opponents said values as false when libs have none to exclaim on their own. The true measure of scum-baggery if you ask me.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No, not at all. In fact Newt himself isn't denying that in his earlier lifetime he did things he isn't proud of...(Much like Barry's cocaine use, and possible gay sex) But, that he has done the things to ask forgiveness, and seek redemption. Who are you, or other libs to deny that?

Also, that the dishonest tactic now of dredging up past events in false light, that doesn't tell the entire truth about the circumstances in full, are lies by omission.

You know how that works right?

j-mac
Click to expand...

It wasn't that early in his life J. He wasn't 19, or even 30. This has been a part of his life, his core value. And it wouldn't be an issue for me at all, if he hadn't stood up and repeatedly decried family values, nenouncing so many, while living a life largely devoid of those values. You do understand that all he has done has allowed the faithful to ignore his hypocracy and have the media, the mean old media, take the heat that should be his.

But then again, when has the buck ever stopped at a republican doorstep for the faithful?
 
j-mac said:
Easy to mock values, and exploit opponents said values as false when libs have none to exclaim on their own. The true measure of scum-baggery if you ask me.


j-mac
Click to expand...

i find your defense of newt hilarious, because it's strictly partisan, because there IS no defense. the same man who initiated the massive ads about clinton and his scandal is now crying "no fair!" when the media, or anyone else, mentions his lapses. well, i call bull****. in fact, newt is WORSE than clinton. he left, not one, but TWO wives when they were ill. no CHARACTER there. all he ever wanted was to be president, and now he's getting his chance. he's a liar, a cheater and an egomaniac, and if by some chance he's elected, i will happy that i will spending my time in the islands and not the states.
 
Last edited:
ric27 said:
Thats a good point....but I'd like to take it further

Our current social programs, and those proposed in the future, are defended as some how being Christian charity to those in need. That we are a wealthy nation and it is our duty to give out of our largess to those "less fortunate". When a conservative Christian says no, he/she is accused of being "un-Christian" and lacking in charity. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you adhere to a having a religious or social duty to give to others in need, go for it. It is an INDIVIDUAL duty and you don't have the right to impose it on others. Not religiously, and not secularly. A Christian who gives to charity in this world, stores up treasure in the next. That is a stated Biblical principal. But having it taken from you, against your will, is not a voluntary giving and it isn't charity. No heavenly points. This is the crucial difference between conservative and liberal charity. Conservatives give their own away, and quite generously too according to the statistics. Liberals TAKE from others and give it away. Also quite generously, even though their OWN giving has been documented to be very small.
Click to expand...

That is quite accurate. In fact, many Christians (and I should note so do many non-Christians) not only give large sums to charity and the needy, but also a lot of time. So do a lot of churches.

Your analysis is correct. The government taking money via taxes and doing whatever they do with it, including social programs, is NOT seen as charity. It is seen for what it is, taxes. The view of many is the government takes SO MUCH that it then just spends on itself they see the government as the antithesis of charity.

Somewhat relevant, is most Christian churches set the standard at 10% of income, much less than the government particularly when ALL forms of taxes and fees are counted, no just federal income tax. Some any see government is preventing charity rather than distributing charity.

People need to be careful not to allow the media to define religions particularly when mixing it with partisan politics.

In 2008, the MOST valid criticism of the Obamas in my opinion was that despite being in the top 1%, they give essentially nothing themselves to the poor and needy or any other charitable contributions. Yet no one cared about that. I think that showed where the Obamas' focus is. Singularly on themselves.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
i find your defense of newt hilarious, because it's strictly partisan, because there IS no defense. the same man who initiated the massive ads about clinton and his scandal is now crying "no fair!" when the media, or anyone else, mentions his lapses. well, i call bull****. in fact, newt is WORSE than clinton. he left, not one, but TWO wives when they were ill. no CHARACTER there. all he ever wanted was to be president, and now he's getting his chance. he's a liar, a cheater and an egomaniac, and if by some chance he's elected, i will happy that i will spending my time in the islands and not the states.
Click to expand...

What is hilarious is the overwhelming hypocrisy of your post !!!!!! No grasp of the actual events, while also turning a blind eye to Clinton's long-term, and continuing infidelity, and HIS lying about it still !!

Libs are too much ...... need my hip waders here ..... ;)
 
liblady said:
i find your defense of newt hilarious, because it's strictly partisan, because there IS no defense. the same man who initiated the massive ads about clinton and his scandal is now crying "no fair!" when the media, or anyone else, mentions his lapses. well, i call bull****. in fact, newt is WORSE than clinton. he left, not one, but TWO wives when they were ill. no CHARACTER there. all he ever wanted was to be president, and now he's getting his chance. he's a liar, a cheater and an egomaniac, and if by some chance he's elected, i will happy that i will spending my time in the islands and not the states.
Click to expand...
Yes...Newt having consensual affairs with women is WORSE than Clinton groping a woman on the day of her husbands funeral, raping a woman, jerking off in front of a campaign staffer and asking her to kiss little Willie, and poking a cigar into a 22 year old interns vag in the Oral office. **** me...talk about selective outrage and definitions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom