• 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

joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed

Here's an irony for you. The liberal left is the first to cry out Separation of Church and State. They are the first to castigate religious beliefs of our leaders and to remove all religion from public life, especially Christianity. But their social welfare programs actually mirror much of Christian teaching regarding charity, looking out for one's brother/neighbor, etc. The difference is that the Bible says it is an individual duty and it has to be voluntary to be of any merit. You can't impose it on anyone, yet that is exactly what the liberals do. By not adhering to it personally, with their own wealth and property, and imposing it on the people, without their voluntary contribution, they completely pervert the idea.​
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's dial the rhetoric down to low broil only
 
ric27 said:
Agreed

Here's an irony for you. The liberal left is the first to cry out Separation of Church and State.​
Click to expand...


Okay.

They are the first to castigate religious beliefs of our leaders and to remove all religion from public life, especially Christianity.
Click to expand...

No.

But their social welfare programs actually mirror much of Christian teaching regarding charity, looking out for one's brother/neighbor, etc. The difference is that the Bible says it is an individual duty and it has to be voluntary to be of any merit. You can't impose it on anyone, yet that is exactly what the liberals do. By not adhering to it personally, with their own wealth and property, and imposing it on the people, without their voluntary contribution, they completely pervert the idea.
Click to expand...

I think a liberal would say that it's not about "merit." Social programs are for helping the poor, not getting into heaven.​
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
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...
Click to expand...

Worse or not worse isn't really the question. The question is how can anyone excuse one and not the other, make excuses for one and not the other, say the media should ask about one but not the other?
 
Boo Radley said:
Worse or not worse isn't really the question. The question is how can anyone excuse one and not the other, make excuses for one and not the other, say the media should ask about one but not the other?
Click to expand...


Ok, its been asked now, and answered.


Moving on


j-mac
 
All hail Saint Newt!!!

newt2.jpg
 
Obama gets the news that Gingrich wins SC:


gingrichcover.jpg
 
ric27 said:
The left demonizes Newt as much as the right is said to demonize Clinton...but here's the kicker

Newt didn't lie about it and he resigned. Clinton lied and didn't resign.​
Click to expand...

newt was forced out for ethics violations, by his own party.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, its been asked now, and answered.


Moving on


j-mac
Click to expand...

No, not answered. Diverted. Sidestepped to the mean old media picking on me. Poor, poor republcian.

:coffeepap
 
j-mac said:
Wow, a partisan, liberal paper mocks the American people in favor of Obama...I am shocked.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Nice spin. But the truth is even republicans don't think Newt can win the election. Not good at names, but someone from the weekly standard was speaking on one of the talk shows this weekend. him and Buchann stated clearly this would be big for Newt in the short term, among believers (my word), but not in the long run, not with the general electorate. The huge woman gap he has will only widen due to this.

But by all means, pick Newt. While that laughing above wasn't likely about Newt winning, come November, if Newt wins, it might well be. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
No, not answered. Diverted. Sidestepped to the mean old media picking on me. Poor, poor republcian.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...


Nope, answered, you just don't like the answer. Too bad...

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Nice spin. But the truth is even republicans don't think Newt can win the election. Not good at names, but someone from the weekly standard was speaking on one of the talk shows this weekend. him and Buchann stated clearly this would be big for Newt in the short term, among believers (my word), but not in the long run, not with the general electorate. The huge woman gap he has will only widen due to this.

But by all means, pick Newt. While that laughing above wasn't likely about Newt winning, come November, if Newt wins, it might well be. ;)
Click to expand...


I haven't picked anyone, other than who I voted for in the primary here. And that was Santorum, but I'll be damned if I will let some liberal tell me who I should vote for when there is 0, and I mean ZERO chance that a liberal like you would vote for anyone other than your savior Obama...So really in the end what you have to say about republican process has about as much sway as a warm bucket of spit.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Nope, answered, you just don't like the answer. Too bad...

j-mac
Click to expand...

Nope, not answered. Sorry. Some just have a really low standard for what they call an answer. What should have happened was a follow up that linked Newt's actions to his words.
 
j-mac said:
I haven't picked anyone, other than who I voted for in the primary here. And that was Santorum, but I'll be damned if I will let some liberal tell me who I should vote for when there is 0, and I mean ZERO chance that a liberal like you would vote for anyone other than your savior Obama...So really in the end what you have to say about republican process has about as much sway as a warm bucket of spit.


j-mac
Click to expand...

No one's telling you j. Pointing out facts and reality is not telling you. You really should understand this by now. Vote for whoever you want, but neither Santorum or Newt have any real cahnce of wining. Which is good, as they would make both Obama and Bush look like world beaters.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope, not answered. Sorry. Some just have a really low standard for what they call an answer. What should have happened was a follow up that linked Newt's actions to his words.
Click to expand...

All of that is silly anyway. We have far bigger things to worry about in this country than Newt's wives. Obama is the issue here, and he is a failure. That is what will defeat him.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
All of that is silly anyway. We have far bigger things to worry about in this country than Newt's wives. Obama is the issue here, and he is a failure. That is what will defeat him.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Well ,it was conservatives who told us character matters. Apparently it only matters if we're speaking of a democrat. That said, this will matter later on. Remember I told you that. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Well ,it was conservatives who told us character matters. Apparently it only matters if we're speaking of a democrat. That said, this will matter later on. Remember I told you that. ;)
Click to expand...

I would say that is true. There were many conservatives that were not pleased at the least that Clinton was having an affair, further, that he was having the affair during State business. Then after the lying under oath came out, it got wrapped up into the "national embarrassment" category, where we had two candidates that either distanced themselves from the entire image or were out in front campaigning on making the image problem go away.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well ,it was conservatives who told us character matters. Apparently it only matters if we're speaking of a democrat. That said, this will matter later on. Remember I told you that. ;)
Click to expand...

It may, it may not...Here in SC Newt grabbed nearly 40% of the vote, including a fair share of women...Character does matter, and right Obama better be concerned about his record, which highlights his character as President as a failure...That is going to be the issue when it matters.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
It may, it may not...Here in SC Newt grabbed nearly 40% of the vote, including a fair share of women...Character does matter, and right Obama better be concerned about his record, which highlights his character as President as a failure...That is going to be the issue when it matters.

j-mac
Click to expand...

It's early, and SC GOP is a very, very limited audience.

But it’s worth keeping in mind that even before Marianne Gingrich went public, Newt Gingrich was already facing tough odds when it comes to his support among women nationally — a factor that underscores the argument made by his GOP rivals against his electability in the fall.

There typically tends to be a gender gap in presidential general elections, as women vote more Democratic than men.

But a CNN/Time/Opinion Research survey conducted Jan. 11-12 showed that among national adults, Gingrich faces the biggest gender gap of all the GOP contenders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...woman-problem/2012/01/20/gIQAkITGEQ_blog.html
 
Boo Radley said:
Well ,it was conservatives who told us character matters. Apparently it only matters if we're speaking of a democrat. That said, this will matter later on. Remember I told you that. ;)
Click to expand...

The focus on the issues at hand, the economy, defense, foreign policy, debt, taxes, etc...a mano a mano on different philosophies will prevail. The childish "who is ****ing who" will take a back seat​
 
Boo Radley said:
Well ,it was conservatives who told us character matters. Apparently it only matters if we're speaking of a democrat. That said, this will matter later on. Remember I told you that. ;)
Click to expand...

Show us all that person who has not wronged another.

In the meantime, Clinton is still lying. Gingrich not ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom