• 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

Boo Radley said:
Yes, Clinton lied. And as Dole voter, I don't approve. But frankly, if you don't know Newt threw stones, you either have no knowledge of newt, or your memory is selective.
Click to expand...

I have more knowledge of Newt than you, a far less selective memory, and frankly have forgotten more than you will ever learn. Satisfied ?

Clinton lied to a grand jury.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I have more knowledge of Newt than you, a far less selective memory, and frankly have forgotten more than you will ever learn. Satisfied ?

Clinton lied to a grand jury.
Click to expand...

Is lying wrong? Is adultery wrong? Both? Or neither?
 
misterman said:
Is lying wrong? Is adultery wrong? Both? Or neither?
Click to expand...

LOL .. what's next, is "murder" wrong ...... show us all "he who is without sin", and then maybe you got something ;)
 
Eighty Deuce said:
LOL .. what's next, is "murder" wrong ...... show us all "he who is without sin", and then maybe you got something ;)
Click to expand...

It's amazing you can't just give a straight answer to such easy questions.
 
misterman said:
It's amazing you can't just give a straight answer to such easy questions.
Click to expand...

That you choose to ask questions one would expect of a first grader is your business. That they would appear as stupid from someone pretending to be an adult is also a freely made choice.

That I or others do not care to engage in liberal nonsense would be akin to that wise Chinese proverb "If one stops to argue with an idiot, all an observer will see is two idiots arguing".
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I have more knowledge of Newt than you, a far less selective memory, and frankly have forgotten more than you will ever learn. Satisfied ?

Clinton lied to a grand jury.
Click to expand...

You've clearly forgotten a lot.

Yes, I know Clinton lied to a jury, but you don't see me defending him. You are defending newt, who has spoken for family vaules. Who maintians marriage is between one man and one woman (not several women).
 
misterman said:
Is lying wrong? Is adultery wrong? Both? Or neither?
Click to expand...

Apparent;y lying is okay for Democrats but not for Republicans.

Adultery is okay for Democrats but nor for Republicans.

And by asking if lying or murder is wrong it seems safe to assume you are a Democrat.
 
Boo Radley said:
You've clearly forgotten a lot.

Yes, I know Clinton lied to a jury, but you don't see me defending him. You are defending newt, who has spoken for family vaules. Who maintians marriage is between one man and one woman (not several women).
Click to expand...

Newt is married to one woman and not several women.
 
Grant said:
Newt is married to one woman and not several women.
Click to expand...

Married is the key word, but he's had more than one woman during those marriages, which I'm sure is a fine distinction to make. :roll:
 
Boo Radley said:
Married is the key word, but he's had more than one woman during those marriages, which I'm sure is a fine distinction to make. :roll:
Click to expand...

Of course marriage is the key word and he is married to one woman.

He's "had" more than one woman during those marriages??

What "distinction" are you trying to make?

The left is getting all pervy about sex, again.
 
Grant said:
The left is getting all pervy about sex, again.
Click to expand...

No, see the left doesn't care because they are not going to vote for Newt in the first place. What is funny is the right, who are the ones boasting about family values and ranting about the declining of morality, are willing to vote for someone that did not respect those values. That is the funny part.
 
Grant said:
Of course marriage is the key word and he is married to one woman.

He's "had" more than one woman during those marriages??

What "distinction" are you trying to make?

The left is getting all pervy about sex, again.
Click to expand...

That you cannot value marriage in any way and have affiars like he does. It's really quite simple. :coffeepap
 
Personally, I would like to see Gingrich get the nomination just to see what Pelosi has on him.

Pelosi: Gingrich presidency "not going to happen"

"Pelosi told CNN's John King in an interview on Tuesday. "That's not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it: it isn't going to happen."

When pressed on why she was so sure, Pelosi said: "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him, that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen."

Pelosi: Gingrich presidency "not going to happen" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
 
Catawba said:
Personally, I would like to see Gingrich get the nomination just to see what Pelosi has on him.

Pelosi: Gingrich presidency "not going to happen"

"Pelosi told CNN's John King in an interview on Tuesday. "That's not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it: it isn't going to happen."

When pressed on why she was so sure, Pelosi said: "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him, that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen."

Pelosi: Gingrich presidency "not going to happen" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Click to expand...

I mentioned this earlier. I was watching when she said this. I find it annoying that she says this without being more specific.
 
Who knows, maybe he propositioned Granny Pelosi. Conservatives absolutely hate her, but she's usually pretty sharp.:roll:

On the serious side, as most people know, Pelosi was a part of Gingrich's Ethics investigation. So, while she's not gonna release what she's not supposed to, there's plenty of material. How much of that is public record? I think she'd rather see him blunder on, though, for now.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
That you cannot value marriage in any way and have affiars like he does. It's really quite simple. :coffeepap
Click to expand...
?

I do not value marriage? What evidence do you have of that.

How many affairs has he had and how many would be approved by the Democrats these days?
 
joko104 said:
This White House had turned graft into an art form. Give money by the billions to millionaires and political cronies - and the environmentalists cheer you for it!
Click to expand...

They are minor leaguers compared to the previous crowd that enriched Halliburton, Blackwater and DynGroup.... with billions, not hundred millions. Moreover, that group was actually enriched. Solyendra is merely a failed enterprise.... the money substantially went to driving forward an enterprise, not making people rich.
 
Last edited:
Prof. Peabody said:
That's one of the reasons the "Stimulus" failed so miserably, but we're still stuck with the bill. I can't think of a better reason to dump Obama come November.
Click to expand...

It doesn't appear to have failed at all.....
 

Attachments

  • unemployment 2008 to 2011 by month.jpg
    unemployment 2008 to 2011 by month.jpg
    95.9 KB · Views: 16
Boo Radley said:
I mentioned this earlier. I was watching when she said this. I find it annoying that she says this without being more specific.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I find the mystery kind of intriguing.
 
Grant said:
?

I do not value marriage? What evidence do you have of that.

How many affairs has he had and how many would be approved by the Democrats these days?
Click to expand...

I know nothing about you, but if you have affiars like newt, you can't value it. Same with Clinton or anyone else.
 
AdamT said:
Well, again, there is nothing in the article that establishes a connection between the contract change and the campaign donor. From a business perspective there is a very good reason why they might have wanted to subordinate the government interest. It makes private investment more attractive.

OTOH, we know for a fact that Gingrich accepted $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, and if you believe he was paid $1.6 million for "historian services" I've got some swamp land I'd like to sell you.
Click to expand...

Ditto for if you believe the Obama administration gave hundreds of millions for the reason they wanted electric cars.
 
Grant said:
So the big issue in this election is how many wives a candidate has had?

Not debt, over regulation, unemployment, the possibility of a budget?

Rock on!
Click to expand...

Not really. He was booted out as Speaker of the House for ethics violations. He lies like a rug. I think character has a lot to do with it. He's also been pointed out as siding with some Libs on some issues, so, since when do cons accept Lib policies? When they think that's all they've got left?
 
mertex said:
Not really. He was booted out as Speaker of the House for ethics violations. He lies like a rug. I think character has a lot to do with it. He's also been pointed out as siding with some Libs on some issues, so, since when do cons accept Lib policies? When they think that's all they've got left?
Click to expand...

Do you know what the ethics violation charge was? Why don't you explain it to us?

I think the IRS later declared he was in the right legally, but I'd have to read up on it again.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom