Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 57 of 57

Thread: Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican

  1. #41
    Wow



    [QUOTE=Warfish;4266061]The only hypocricy here my friend is someone calling another the lowest of the low for the same actions they themselves engage in, and trying to do so with a strait face.

    There is no out clause in morality for not saying it's bad. There is no argument for you "not saying it was bad, but he did, so him doing it is therefore bad, cause he said it was bad, but me doing it is a-ok, cause I never said it was bad, but he's bad, bad, bad!"

    That kind of twisty self-serving pretzel logic is as lolworthy as it comes. For example, since the Nazi's never said killing Jews was bad, it must be OK they did it, right? But if the U.S. said it was bad, and then did it, then it's bad....casue they said it was bad And the Nazi's could then call out the U.S. for doing it, because the U.S. doing it is bad, but the Nazi's doing it is ok, cause they never said it was bad.

    That, in a nutshell, is your argument here. [IMG]http://failheap-challenge.com/images/smilies/facepalm.gif[/IMG]

    In any event, there is little doubt where your vote is going this next election, so no point belaboring the point further. I get it, you're just a frustrated (R) giving it good to the man PK, right. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

  2. #42
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,032
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4266061]The only hypocricy here my friend is someone calling another the lowest of the low for the same actions they themselves engage in, and trying to do so with a strait face.

    There is no out clause in morality for not saying it's bad. There is no argument for you "not saying it was bad, but he did, so him doing it is therefore bad, cause he said it was bad, but me doing it is a-ok, cause I never said it was bad, but he's bad, bad, bad!"

    That kind of twisty self-serving pretzel logic is as lolworthy as it comes. For example, since the Nazi's never said killing Jews was bad, it must be OK they did it, right? But if the U.S. said it was bad, and then did it, then it's bad....casue they said it was bad And the Nazi's could then call out the U.S. for doing it, because the U.S. doing it is bad, but the Nazi's doing it is ok, cause they never said it was bad.

    That, in a nutshell, is your argument here. [IMG]http://failheap-challenge.com/images/smilies/facepalm.gif[/IMG]

    In any event, there is little doubt where your vote is going this next election, so no point belaboring the point further. I get it, you're just a frustrated (R) giving it good to the man PK, right. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


    Did I run for office on a platform of family values?

  3. #43
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,328
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4266089]Did I run for office on a platform of family values?[/QUOTE]
    Yes, obviously you are mis-remembering.

  4. #44
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4266061]
    That kind of twisty self-serving pretzel logic is as lolworthy as it comes. For example, since the Nazi's never said killing Jews was bad, it must be OK they did it, right? But if the U.S. said it was bad, and then did it, then it's bad....casue they said it was bad And the Nazi's could then call out the U.S. for doing it, because the U.S. doing it is bad, but the Nazi's doing it is ok, cause they never said it was bad.[/QUOTE]

    This argument works fine. No, it was not hypocritical for the Nazi's to kill jews. Yes, it would be hypocritical for the U.S. to begin killing Jews after condemning the holocaust. Neither of those facts change the fact that committing genocidal murder is bad.

    Hypocrisy is not synonymous of bad or immoral. Hypocrisy is a member in the set of bad, and also a member in the smaller set of immoral.

    All roosters are chickens, and all chickens are birds, but not all birds are roosters.

  5. #45
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4266089]Did I run for office on a platform of family values?[/QUOTE]

    No.

    You also never said ass****ing 6 year old boys was bad either.

    So I guess you can ass**** all the 6 year old boys you can find, then get all pompous and attack someone else who ass****s 6 year old boys. After all, you never said it was bad, so you doing it must not be bad, right?

    What you've created in this thread is a morality system where the actual action itself is irrelevant, it's what one says about the action (good or bad or silent) that makes it moral or immoral.

    Cheating and Divorce is ok for you, bad for him, only because you never said it was bad, and he did.

    If you cannot see the problem with this.....****, maybe I give you too much credit.:rolleyes:

  6. #46
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,032
    [QUOTE=Axil;4266110]Hypocrisy is not synonymous of bad or immoral. Hypocrisy is a member in the set of bad, and also a member in the smaller set of immoral.

    All roosters are chickens, and all chickens are birds, but not all birds are roosters.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly.

    Newt Gingrich is the cop talking on his cell phone who says "Sorry, babe...I gotta go. I have to pull this guy over for talking on his cellphone"....

  7. #47
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,032
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4266119]No.

    You also never said ass****ing 6 year old boys was bad either.

    So I guess you can ass**** all the 6 year old boys you can find, then get all pompous and attack someone else who ass****s 6 year old boys. After all, you never said it was bad, so you doing it must not be bad, right?

    What you've created in this thread is a morality system where the actual action itself is irrelevant, it's what one says about the action (good or bad or silent) that makes it moral or immoral.

    Cheating and Divorce is ok for you, bad for him, only because you never said it was bad, and he did.

    If you cannot see the problem with this.....****, maybe I give you too much credit.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Now you're just being willfully ignorant...which is fine. Obviously, you're working hard today.

    Cheating is bad. But you're a giant f*cking a**hole if you're going around giving lectures on how cheaters are evil and are responsible for all the ills of society...only to have the public find out you're doing it yourself.

    Newt Gingrich is the judge who drinks and drives while handing out sentences to people who drink and drive.

  8. #48
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4266126]Now you're just being willfully ignorant...which is fine. Obviously, you're working hard today.

    Cheating is bad. But you're a giant f*cking a**hole if you're going around giving lectures on how cheaters are evil and are responsible for all the ills of society...only to have the public find out you're doing it yourself.

    Newt Gingrich is the judge who drinks and drives while handing out sentences to people who drink and drive.[/QUOTE]

    It's funny how this cool new moral relativity system you've created means your own actions are a-ok, but any (R) who supports fidelity, faithfulness and the sanctity of marriage is a automatic scumbag-waiting-to-happen.

    Ine ffect, in your moral system, it's better to be an ourright whore with no loyalty or faithfulness, because then you can never break your own morals, than it is to believe in those things, and fail to live up to them 100%.

    In effect, you give a de facto pass to anyone who stands for nothing. When standing for nothing, you can never be a hypocrite (in your view, the worst thing involved here), since only those who actully stand for something have the opportunity to fail to live up to it.

    The best possible politician in your system is one who never denounces or supports anything. They are the perfect non-hypocrite.

    Sorry this one cuts so close PK. /shrug. Have a good day.:(

  9. #49
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,032
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4266137]It's funny how this cool new moral relativity system you've created means your own actions are a-ok, but any (R) who supports fidelity, faithfulness and the sanctity of marriage is a automatic scumbag-waiting-to-happen.[/QUOTE]

    You're still missing the point. And you're the only one in the thread who is. Even Palmetto gets what I'm saying...so I have to assume you're just doing it for sh*ts and giggles.


    I haven't created a "morality" system. I don't care about their morality system either. What I DO have a problem with is a person who wraps themselves in a cloak of morality and thumps their chest that they are better than me...an Atheist. They invoke God's name and blame people who don't attend church for societies collapse.

    But...


    But then you find out...they're doing EXACTLY what they are preaching AGAINST.

    Now...being a hypocrite is par for the course for a politician. But the line is crossed when you thump your chest because you profess to adhere to this superior morality "system" and have publicly stated that you think the entire country should adopt the same....but come to find out, you're just as immoral as the rest of us.

    And the whole time you were telling us you are better than us?

    I just have no respect at all for spiritual hypocrites. Maybe it's because my father, the minister, beat me with a bat once for having sex before "marriage" only to find out he was cheating on my step-mom. Maybe it's because I saw church leaders in church being all Christ-like and then spent the night at their house with my friend and overhead a good old fashioned wife asskicking emanating from the other room. Maybe it's because I overheard our church's moral police weekly meetings in the basement of our church while I was sneaking a smoke in the boiler room.

    Be a hypocrite. Whatever. Wrap yourself in a cloak of godliness and do the opposite? Well...then you're a f*cking a**hole.

  10. #50
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4266165]
    Now...being a hypocrite is par for the course for a politician. But the line is crossed when you thump your chest because you profess to adhere to this superior morality "system" and have publicly stated that you think the entire country should adopt the same....but come to find out, you're just as immoral as the rest of us.

    <snip>

    Be a hypocrite. Whatever. Wrap yourself in a cloak of godliness and do the opposite? Well...then you're a f*cking a**hole.[/QUOTE]

    I think your argument falls flat here. Obviously i snipped out the personal experiences you had explaining your experience with and disdain for this particular brand of hypocrisy.. but it's still just hypocrisy. I fail to see why moral hypocrisy is qualitatively different than any other brand. I'm also not convinced you can draw a clear distinction. Isn't all hypocrisy predicated on a breach of personal ethics, or at least professed personal ethics?

  11. #51
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4266165]You're still missing the point. And you're the only one in the thread who is. Even Palmetto gets what I'm saying...so I have to assume you're just doing it for sh*ts and giggles.


    I haven't created a "morality" system. I don't care about their morality system either. What I DO have a problem with is a person who wraps themselves in a cloak of morality and thumps their chest that they are better than me...an Atheist. They invoke God's name and blame people who don't attend church for societies collapse.

    But...


    But then you find out...they're doing EXACTLY what they are preaching AGAINST.

    Now...being a hypocrite is par for the course for a politician. But the line is crossed when you thump your chest because you profess to adhere to this superior morality "system" and have publicly stated that you think the entire country should adopt the same....but come to find out, you're just as immoral as the rest of us.

    And the whole time you were telling us you are better than us?

    I just have no respect at all for spiritual hypocrites. Maybe it's because my father, the minister, beat me with a bat once for having sex before "marriage" only to find out he was cheating on my step-mom. Maybe it's because I saw church leaders in church being all Christ-like and then spent the night at their house with my friend and overhead a good old fashioned wife asskicking emanating from the other room. Maybe it's because I overheard our church's moral police weekly meetings in the basement of our church while I was sneaking a smoke in the boiler room.

    Be a hypocrite. Whatever. Wrap yourself in a cloak of godliness and do the opposite? Well...then you're a f*cking a**hole.[/QUOTE]


    "Even Palmetto gets it". Well PK, thanks for the ass backwards compliment.
    Of course I get it, I'm open minded. Back to Newt. Like I said, yes, he is a hypocrit. But that's not the problem. He has a character problem. BTW, I do not. No wife cheating, wife beating, stealing, drugs or the like. Does that mean I can knock people with bad character? YES. If YOU have flaws/faults, that's ok (depending on the gravity) because you are not a major figure. Even if you call him a dirtbag while you cheat is ok. Your social position allows you that latitude. No insult intended.

  12. #52
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,802
    I cut a few of the more interesting paragraphs out of the article for those of you who are too busy pontificating to read the entire article.


    [QUOTE]

    Since he was a teenager, Newt Gingrich has never been without a wife, and his bond with Marianne Gingrich during the most pivotal part of his career made her the most important advisor to one of the most important figures of the late twentieth century. Of their relationship, she says, "We started talking and we never quit until he asked me for a divorce."

    Still, isn't there one major problem with all this? The Tea Parties only embrace half of the Gingrich vision, the one that ties bureaucracy and corruption around the neck of the Democratic party like a dead cat. But some of the policy proposals he's thrown out over the years suggest that Gingrich also supports massive government spending on education, technology, high-speed trains, national parks, health care, Social Security, and a host of odd pet projects: compulsory gym class for every public-school student in America, forcing teachers to take attendance every hour, paying kids to read, even compulsory health insurance isn't that exactly like the "Obamacare" that drives the Tea Parties mad?
    [/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE]
    She met him in 1980, at a political fundraiser in Ohio. She was twenty-eight, the daughter of a small-town Republican mayor. He was thirty-six, a brand-new congressman from Georgia just emerging from an emotional crisis so severe that he drank heavily and contemplated suicide. She told him about the local economic decline, he said somebody needed to save the country. She said that he couldn't do it alone, he asked about her plans for the future. Even then, he was making rash pronouncements that reasonable people made fun of, such as that he would be the next Republican Speaker of the House.

    They kept the conversation going on the phone, often talking late into the night. Although he was still married to his first wife, Jackie Battley, Gingrich told Marianne they were in counseling and talking about divorce. That summer, she went to Washington to visit him, and soon afterward he introduced her to his mother and stepfather. "They were thrilled because they hadn't wanted Newt to marry [Jackie]. I think his stepdad wanted to be able to say, 'Look, we always knew this wasn't going to work.' "

    At first, she had no idea that the wife he was divorcing was actually his high school geometry teacher, or that he went to the hospital to present her with divorce terms while she was recovering from uterine cancer and then fought the case so hard, Jackie had to get a court order just to pay her utility bills. Gingrich told her the story a little at a time, trusting her with things that nobody else knew to this day, for example, the official story is that he started dating Jackie when he was eighteen and she was twenty-five. But he was really just sixteen, she says.

    [/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE]
    After the election of 1982, he recruited twelve disciples and named them the Conservative Opportunity Society. Then he took control of a much larger group called GOPAC and turned it into a giant recruitment-and-training operation, sending out a stream of audiotapes and videotapes to promote his slogans and strategies. He began comparing himself to Churchill, FDR, and Benjamin Franklin.

    He became a master of wedge issues, calling Democrats unpatriotic, accusing them of sympathizing with communists, even blaming them for Woody Allen's affair with Soon-Yi and Susan Smith's murder of her children in South Carolina. To badger the moderates in his own party, he called Bob Dole the "tax collector for the welfare state" and threatened House Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois with extinction.

    But it was the nakedness of his attack on Speaker Jim Wright of Texas that shocked traditionalists of both parties. Working the press relentlessly all over the country, Gingrich began calling Wright the "least-ethical Speaker of the twentieth century" and leaking vague but ominous charges: Was he involved in the teenage-page scandal? Did he scam a pension out of the Air Force Reserve? Did he lobby a foreign president on behalf of a Texas oil family? Eventually a few stories got printed and Gingrich passed them out, sparking more stories. A couple of senior Republicans looked into his evidence and told him he didn't have anything, others looked a second time and told him the same. But Gingrich would not relent.

    One charge finally stuck that Wright failed to report income from a vanity book he sold in bulk to supporters, earning about $60,000. The charge seems especially brazen given Gingrich's own adventures in creative financing: A few years before, he had taken $13,000 from a group of wealthy friends to write a novel; he took $105,000 to promote another book, and would later use at least $1 million of GOPAC's money to underwrite a satellite-TV college class that fed the staff that produced his books and strategy memos. But it was enough to humiliate and destroy Wright.
    [/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE]
    His bitterness only deepened when the House Ethics Committee started investigating GOPAC's donations to his college class and caught him trying to hide his tracks by raising money through a charity for inner-city kids called the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation. Another charity of his called Earning by Learning actually spent half its money supporting a former Gingrich staffer who was writing his biography. Gingrich even gave out the 800 number for videotapes on the House floor. The Ethics Committee found him guilty of laundering donations through charities, submitting "inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable" testimony, and making "an effort to have the material appear to be nonpartisan on its face, yet serve as a partisan, political message for the purpose of building the Republican party." Seven years after he had destroyed Jim Wright for a lesser offense, the committee punished Gingrich with the highest fine ever imposed on a Speaker of the House, $300,000.
    [/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE]
    One night, Marianne says, Bill Clinton called from the White House. She answered the phone and the president asked if he could please speak to her husband. Could the Speaker come over immediately? After he hung up, Newt summoned his driver and went in the back door to the Oval Office. During that meeting, he would tell her later, Clinton laid it out for him: "You're a lot like me," he told him.

    Whatever else happened at that meeting, Newt Gingrich was muzzled in the critical run-up to the '98 midterms. Three weeks before the election, Gingrich got a visit from Kenneth Duberstein, a senior Republican who had served as chief of staff to Ronald Reagan. "He says, 'What's going on? We're gonna lose seats if something doesn't change.' " Marianne jumped in, too. "I asked Newt, 'What are you doing? Why aren't we out there blasting them?' "
    [/QUOTE]

  13. #53
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,328
    [QUOTE=Buster;4266251]I cut a few of the more interesting paragraphs out of the article for those of you who are too busy pontificating to read the entire article.[/QUOTE]

    Funny as much as I agree that he is a hypocrite that isn't my real problem with him. My problems stem from his policy and do anything to get elected platform. Drudge posted a transcript of an interview of Gingrich by Glenn Beck today and say what you want about Beck he got Gingrich to show how liberal his policies really are.

    This one quote shows that Gingrich is leaning left of John Kerry on global warming. :eek:

    [QUOTE]
    [COLOR=#000000][FONT=MS Shell Dlg 2]GINGRICH: Evidence is sufficient, but we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon looting of the atmosphere.
    VOICE: And do it urgently?
    GINGRICH: And do it urgently, yes.
    GLENN: Now, you have John Kerry in this debate sticking up for the private sector and you say the government should help pay.

    [/FONT][/COLOR]




    [/QUOTE]

    [COLOR=#000000][FONT=MS Shell Dlg 2]What the hell is carbon looting?[/FONT][/COLOR]

  14. #54
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,622
    Frankly, I'm shocked Gingrich is still a serious part of the conversation. This primary period blows.

  15. #55
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,802
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4266317]Frankly, I'm shocked Gingrich is still a serious part of the conversation. This primary period blows.[/QUOTE]

    Just on pure politics it seems weird. The guy has knifed a bunch of powerful Republicans in the back when he sat mute in the '98 elections and it appears his ex-wives will bad-mouth him if given the proper insentives.

    IMHO he will do poorly in a general election because much of his time will be consumed explaining things that occurred 15 years ago.

  16. #56
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,328
    [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jzi3HBCS2M[/URL]

  17. #57
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,663
    TL;DR

    ABO! Anyone But Obuttocks!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us