Jump to content

Gingrich in 2012?


Recommended Posts

I agree. I just find it unfortunate that discussing God in public is a detriment. And as I think you know, I ain't no Bible thumper. But it just seems like the very mention of God by a public official gets them in hot water. You can say cops acted stupidly, and that's okay. But suggest you believe in God, people freak out. Which is funny, because the minute the schitt hits the fan, everyone is on their knees.

 

 

Its not the believe in God that irks me at all, but that God would somehow care whether Newt ran for Pres. And the Republicans brought the scorn on themselves with the whole concept of a "moral majority" and focusing far more on social issues than on fiscal ones.

 

And to bring the thread full circle, the hypocritical nature of Gingrich, such as leading the charge against Clinton while having his own on-the-side amongst other things, would IMHO ensure a Republican defeat in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Or retire. Like Stupak. :wallbash:

 

 

 

I agree. I just find it unfortunate that discussing God in public is a detriment. And as I think you know, I ain't no Bible thumper. But it just seems like the very mention of God by a public official gets them in hot water. You can say cops acted stupidly, and that's okay. But suggest you believe in God, people freak out. Which is funny, because the minute the schitt hits the fan, everyone is on their knees.

Imagine the public lashing a politician would face if he said he was an atheist. Just keep your religion out of my face and government please.

 

BTW, "No atheists in foxholes" is so lame. You can have keep the knee pads because I won't be needing them... :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Romney has come out against it.

 

Obamacare is almost the same thing as Romneycare, Although Romney was for it before he was against it. Since then he has been for it, except when Obamacare passed, when he decided to be against it again. Have you seen the interviews when he is asked about it? Hilarious.

 

He has plenty of time to come out for it before 2012 if public support increases. Actually, he has time to change his mind 3 or 4 times before then.

 

Not sure how the Republicans will be able to support him. How do they reconcile their absolute hatred of Obamacare with the person who actually implemented the same thing in Mass?

 

Actually, if the FNC keeps generating nuts at the current rate, Palin-Bachmann looks like a lock to be the Republican ticket. You might actually get the Democrats praying for the Rapture if they actually get elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not the believe in God that irks me at all, but that God would somehow care whether Newt ran for Pres. And the Republicans brought the scorn on themselves with the whole concept of a "moral majority" and focusing far more on social issues than on fiscal ones.

 

And to bring the thread full circle, the hypocritical nature of Gingrich, such as leading the charge against Clinton while having his own on-the-side amongst other things, would IMHO ensure a Republican defeat in 2012.

You're wrong about that. Make one quote that he made about Clinton's affair criticizing him. Other Republicans were all over it, but Newt was not. Gingrich leveled plenty of criticism against Clinton's policies, philosophy and style of governing, as he should. Newt even criticized Bob Dole as being the "tax collector for the welfare state".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not the believe in God that irks me at all, but that God would somehow care whether Newt ran for Pres. And the Republicans brought the scorn on themselves with the whole concept of a "moral majority" and focusing far more on social issues than on fiscal ones.

 

And to bring the thread full circle, the hypocritical nature of Gingrich, such as leading the charge against Clinton while having his own on-the-side amongst other things, would IMHO ensure a Republican defeat in 2012.

I can't believe you got all that out of this-

 

Will he say yes to a presidential campaign?

 

"That will be up to God," he said, "and the American people."

So anyone who ever said"there but for the grace of God go I" or "they did what they could-it's up to God now" is disqualified from office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gingrich is a Smart man, bet he could run circles around Obama in the facts and figures department.

 

I think he was “polarizing” not for the trumped up ethics charges but because he came off as an arrogant pompous ass and the media could not stand him. Back then he had that little know it all smile that needed to be punched straight!

 

All but one of the ethics charges brought forth by the Dem witch hunt were dropped and that one pales in comparison to the tax evaders Obama hired. It’s amazing but the stuff the Dems wanted to get Gingrich on back then would be laughed at now.

 

Both sides waste our $ and time with witch hunts like this. It's just RED meat for their base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kill the fags and don't eat shellfish. It's also ok to kill non-fags, so long as they've already been born. Pedophilia, while widely ignored/supported in the past, will no longer be tolerated (if you get caught).

So you got this from a Gingrich speech? You are one hateful twisted mess of a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Painting with such a broad brush destroys any point you might have made. I should note, as usual.

It may be a bit over the top but nothing I said is untrue. The assumption that "goverinng from a Judeo/Christian ethic" is automatically a good thing is equally absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm just pointing out what a "Judeo/Christian ethic" tends to look like in practice.

Gene, I gotta hand it to ya, you sure are a master of generalizations. It may not be a bad idea to try to correctify that a bit.

 

edit: Didn't see Boosters post till right now. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knows how Washington works and is the ultimate insider, but he is too polarizing.

You are probably right, but he would be a much better candidate than Palin- who I think would probably be the worst president ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be a new big cat defense. "My view is absurd, but the view no one actually expressed is equally absurd."

And don't forget that no one has the right to be offended by it in any way.

In fact, only haters are offended. Bigoted haters. That's right. Religious, bigoted haters. All of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody with a ( D ) or ( R ) next to their name is ever going to bring change to Washington. One would hope that the drooling masses have figured this out by now given what has transpired between "hope and change" in '08 to what we are now saddled with.

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me be clear.

 

I take that as a challenge.

The way politics have worked for the past few decades, neither Bush, nor Obama were in position to be anything good. The goal of the other party was to demonize them both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure about that. Hes a strict Constitutionalist, so he understand the Seperation Clause better than anyone.

 

And besdies....goverining from a Judeo/Christian ethic does not necessarily mean "bringing more religion into government"

Please point out the Separation Clause, if by that you refer to "separation of church and state". I seem to have a problem finding it in the US Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...