• 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.

Gingrinch compares Virginia ballot fiasco to Pearl Harbor

Dittohead not! said:
True. She already knew her husband was a cheating weasel and going to leave her before she went into the hospital.
Click to expand...

Not sure if all this is true, but she did fight the divorce, saying it was not needed. That is from court documents, I believe the rest is from a statement by Gingrich's daughter, who was 13 at the time.
 
danarhea said:
Well, actually, Newt should have compared his being denied in Virginia to 911. Pearl Harbor is so in the past. Another difference between the intel that led us to war against Japan and the intel that led us to war in Iraq is that Japan DID attack us. Iraq didn't attack the WTC. So, using false intel after 911 instead of Pearl Harbor would make Newt's comparing a sneak attack on America and his being denied in Virginia more accurate too. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm surprised he didn't compare it to the RFK assassination.

Has he ever compared his female congressional aides to Monica Lewinsky?
 
Redress said:
Not sure if all this is true, but she did fight the divorce, saying it was not needed. That is from court documents, I believe the rest is from a statement by Gingrich's daughter, who was 13 at the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, CNN broke the story yesterday--they got hold of the court docs.

Newt Gingrich divorced first wife 'because she wasn't pretty enough to be First Lady'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078841/Newt-Gingrich-divorced-wife-Jackie-Battley-wasnt-pretty-First-Lady.html#ixzz1hkiJpum3

Newt Gingrich divorced his first wife because she wasn't pretty enough, an aide has claimed.

The source told CNN that the GOP presidential candidate dumped Jackie Battley because she wasn't 'young or pretty enough' to be the wife of the leader of the country.

Court records now contradict his version of events when it comes to the end of his first marriage, as they show that his then-wife Battley did not want to get a divorce like he has claimed previously.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Not sure if all this is true, but she did fight the divorce, saying it was not needed. That is from court documents, I believe the rest is from a statement by Gingrich's daughter, who was 13 at the time.
Click to expand...

And working for his campaign, currently.
 
This is just like the Gulf of Tonkin.

There, I said it. :lol:
 
Redress said:
That was not the story I was referencing, and what some random aide says I will take with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you read the CNN story, the guy is hardly random.

Leonard H. "Kip" Carter, a former close Gingrich friend, backed the contention that it was Newt Gingrich who wanted the divorce.
"He (Gingrich) said, 'You know and I know that she's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a president,' " Carter, who now lives in South Carolina, told CNN recently, relating the conversation he had with Gingrich the day Gingrich revealed he was filing for divorce. Carter served as treasurer of Gingrich's first congressional campaigns.
Carter, who was a fellow history professor when Gingrich taught at West Georgia College in Carrollton, said he broke off his friendship with Newt Gingrich because of the congressman's treatment of his wife during the divorce.
Click to expand...

The court docs just surfaced, so I'm not sure what docs you were referring to.
 
Redress said:
So it is some one with an axe to grind. Not the most reliable source.
Click to expand...

It's a no win situation. It is possible that it actually is sour grapes. Of course, that's what they say about every whistle blower who is telling the truth.
 
Thorgasm said:
It's a no win situation. It is possible that it actually is sour grapes. Of course, that's what they say about every whistle blower who is telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we are talking about Gingrich here. There is more than enough that we do not need unsubstantiated claims and getting bent out of shape over what is at worst hyperbole. Note also that while I dismiss the staffer saying bad stuff about Gingrich, I also dismiss his daughter's claims. I need nothing more than Gingrich's own words to make him look bad(see, reining in the courts).
 
Redress said:
Yes, but we are talking about Gingrich here. There is more than enough that we do not need unsubstantiated claims and getting bent out of shape over what is at worst hyperbole. Note also that while I dismiss the staffer saying bad stuff about Gingrich, I also dismiss his daughter's claims. I need nothing more than Gingrich's own words to make him look bad(see, reining in the courts).
Click to expand...

If you had read the CNN story, you would have seen that the information they got was directly from the original divorce papers that recently surfaced, NOT from an aid.
 
Redress said:
You know what...I have no problem with this. The way in which he compared it was perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...

You think this is perfectly reasonable?

1
Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941: We have experienced an unexpected setback, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action.
Click to expand...

The last time I checked, Redress, it wasn't in writing that the Japanese were going to attack, and our military just failed to read it. I would say a better comparison would be 9/11 with the memo "bin Laden determined to strike inside the US" and then claiming they weren't aware bin Laden wanted to attack America. Gingrich was not sabotaged, he did not get screwed, and there was no sneak attack.

What makes Romney able to get the signatures but not Newt?

*Edit to add:

danarhea said:
Well, actually, Newt should have compared his being denied in Virginia to 911. Pearl Harbor is so in the past. Another difference between the intel that led us to war against Japan and the intel that led us to war in Iraq is that Japan DID attack us. Iraq didn't attack the WTC. So, using false intel after 911 instead of Pearl Harbor would make Newt's comparing a sneak attack on America and his being denied in Virginia more accurate too. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Aww, I didn't notice you beat me to it. :(
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
If you had read the CNN story, you would have seen that the information they got was directly from the original divorce papers that recently surfaced, NOT from an aid.
Click to expand...

Correct, and I have read that. However, some claims from the aide where also posted here(that is that he left her because she was not good enough looking to be first lady), which you would know if you had read the thread.
 
Objective Voice said:
CIMP.gif


Really, Newt?



Read more: Gingrich Compares Virginia Ballot Fiasco to Pearl Harbor - Fox News

Folks have been saying for a while it was only a matter of time before Newt said something stupid and put his foot in his mouth. Well, looks like they were right. :roll:
Click to expand...

Possibly the dumbest thing ever uttered by a politician and his manager.
 
Redress said:
Correct, and I have read that. However, some claims from the aide where also posted here(that is that he left her because she was not good enough looking to be first lady), which you would know if you had read the thread.
Click to expand...

And yet you only concentrated on what the aid has claimed......

Yes, I read about the claims that the aid made early this morning, before I even saw this thread.
 
Gill said:
And yet you only concentrated on what the aid has claimed......

Yes, I read about the claims that the aid made early this morning, before I even saw this thread.
Click to expand...

Because that was the claim that was brought up....

I also happened to be the one to bring up the court filing.
 
whysoserious said:
You think this is perfectly reasonable?

1


The last time I checked, Redress, it wasn't in writing that the Japanese were going to attack, and our military just failed to read it. I would say a better comparison would be 9/11 with the memo "bin Laden determined to strike inside the US" and then claiming they weren't aware bin Laden wanted to attack America. Gingrich was not sabotaged, he did not get screwed, and there was no sneak attack.

What makes Romney able to get the signatures but not Newt?
Click to expand...

I know this is confusing but...Saying that you are comparing one aspect of something to an aspect of something else, does not mean that you are saying that both events are exactly alike. Gingrich was actually clear that he was referring to the reaction to the two events.
 
Redress said:
I know this is confusing but...Saying that you are comparing one aspect of something to an aspect of something else, does not mean that you are saying that both events are exactly alike. Gingrich was actually clear that he was referring to the reaction to the two events.
Click to expand...

So he is going to nuke Virginia? :lol:
 
hazlnut said:
Yes, CNN broke the story yesterday--they got hold of the court docs.

Newt Gingrich divorced first wife 'because she wasn't pretty enough to be First Lady'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078841/Newt-Gingrich-divorced-wife-Jackie-Battley-wasnt-pretty-First-Lady.html#ixzz1hkiJpum3
Click to expand...

You know, that line of thought is bull. Have you ever seen Barbara Bush? No looks, but she did her job well. Maybe Newt is making a mistake looking for a hooter girl with no brains. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
See? It was a great move. Now, if Obama had done the same thing, the Republicans wouldn't be talking about the size of Michelle's butt.
Click to expand...

How can you NOT comment on it? Its the size of a freight train. Its like looking at a goiter on someones nose and acting like it isnt there...impossible.
 
Imnukingfutz said:
How can you NOT comment on it? Its the size of a freight train. Its like looking at a goiter on someones nose and acting like it isnt there...impossible.
Click to expand...

Yep, it would be like trying to igore Barbara Bush's bugout eyes and turkey neck, or Nancy Reagan's outsized head. Or for that matter, Laura Bush's insane, serial killer stare.
 
AdamT said:
Yep, it would be like trying to igore Barbara Bush's bugout eyes and turkey neck, or Nancy Reagan's outsized head. Or for that matter, Laura Bush's insane, serial killer stare.
Click to expand...

That stare was freaky wasnt it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom