Gingrich Thread

[Roy5]

Obviously, Gingrich is going to present himself as a changed man. That is his only chance to be nominated. I wonder if he took marriage vows three times and twice failed to keep them - well, will he keep the vows he would assume as president?
I know this sounds harsh, but I am a devoted patriot concerned about the leadership of my country. Gingrich simply isn't qualified to be president for a dozen other reasons, but to represent a party that claims to embrace family values is ridiculous. My prediction is that if he is nominated many conservative GOPers will sit on their hands or vote for one of the several small third parties. Perhaps a serious third party candidate would enter the race. I would quite possibly vote for such a candidate, depending on whom it is.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

I’m glad…Ron Paul and Gingrich are the only two Republican candidates I’d vote for. So I am very happy that they are in the top three. Though I’m starting to have reservations about Gingrich and his working for Freddie Mac. Other than that, he really is better than many of the other candidates running.

I repeat: Newt did NOT work for Freddy/Fanny. His company did some consultant work
and the agencies did not follow his advice.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Obviously, Gingrich is going to present himself as a changed man. That is his only chance to be nominated. I wonder if he took marriage vows three times and twice failed to keep them - well, will he keep the vows he would assume as president?

 I know this sounds harsh, but I am a devoted patriot concerned about the leadership of my country. Gingrich simply isn't qualified to be president for a dozen other reasons, but to represent a party that claims to embrace family values is ridiculous. My prediction is that if he is nominated many conservative GOPers will sit on their hands or vote for one of the several small third parties. Perhaps a serious third party candidate would enter the race. I would quite possibly vote for such a candidate, depending on whom it is.

Really good way to insure that Obama wins.

 

[ishii]

    Besides all this, Gingrich does a great job of presenting pseudo-history that he manipulates to impress his listeners.

I (and others) have been asking you for examples of Newt’s “pseudo-history” that you accuse him of. You have so far refused or been unable to provide any examples. To the extent that anyone other than me is still reading your posts, this is why your posts do more to discredit legitimate criticisms of Gingrich than they do to discredit support for Newt.

Ishii

 

[Roy5]

** OK. Sorry that I haven’t been taking notes on Gingrich and will try to do so in the future**. I do know that when I hear him give his spiels on history - American history - it sounds authoritative because Gingrich impresses people with an avalanche of ‘facts’ that often substantiate what they believe already. While I’m not the world’s best informed historian, even I know that much of what he says is pseudo-intellectualism, lots of impressive verbiage that can influence people who don’t know all that much about his subject.

** He reminds me of ‘Bible scholars’ - often evangelists** - who can sway a crowd with chapter and verse, but upon analysis preach a lot of nonsense along with some truth.

** You are fair to ask for examples and I shall try to present some** when I have time to do the research.

** On top of everything else, Gingrich doesn’t have the disposition, the personality nor the presence to be the leader of the world’s greatest nation and democracy.** He often makes careless remarks, angry remarks, etc. I must say that he has been clever during the debates. My argument is not that he isn’t clever. That’s why I fret about him as president. The cleverness of a political insider is no substitute for integrity or wisdom.
God bless America and save us from poor leadership. The USA can and must do much better than Gingrich. Obama or Gingrich! What a choice!

 

[ishii]

** OK. Sorry that I haven’t been taking notes on Gingrich and will try to do so in the future**.

** You are fair to ask for examples and I shall try to present some** when I have time to do the research.

If you accuse someone of being a fake, you should be able to provide examples. Otherwise you really have no case. Like I said, your posts discredit those with valid criticisms of Gingrich. It is those who are over the top and “pour it on” with the criticisms that end up being the most incredulous. It means your opposition to Newt is not very well thought out.

Ishii

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

** OK. Sorry that I haven’t been taking notes on Gingrich and will try to do so in the future**. …

** He reminds me of ‘Bible scholars’ - often evangelists** - who can sway a crowd with chapter and verse, but upon analysis preach a lot of nonsense along with some truth.

** You are fair to ask for examples and I shall try to present some** when I have time to do the research.

** On top of everything else, Gingrich doesn’t have the disposition, the personality nor the presence to be the leader of the world’s greatest nation and democracy.** He often makes careless remarks, angry remarks, etc. I must say that he has been clever during the debates. My argument is not that he isn’t clever. That’s why I fret about him as president. The cleverness of a political insider is no substitute for integrity or wisdom.

… /QUOTE

I would think that you could at least come up with one example …

I disagree with your analysis. He has been factual in the debates. He is a very good
debater and does not need a prompter to give a good speech. He has been a very
good researcher in many areas, high tuition costs(in colleges), and
senior medical care, especially in long term care facilities. These are just two examples.

 

[_Abyssinia]

“At a town hall here Monday evening hosted by tea party favorite Rep. Tim Scott, Gingrich outlined a seven-part plan and called for withholding federal funds from “sanctuary cities,” that don’t enforce federal immigration laws. Gingrich also pitched a “World War II selective service model” for long-term illegal immigrants that would allow them to receive support from their communities — and remain in the country.” - Politico

“Newt Gingrich expressed support on Monday for South Carolina’s controversial law [which] would require law officers who make traffic stops to call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. Opponents say the measure would encourage racial profiling.” - National Journal

“Gingrich has surged to the top of the polls in the race for the GOP nomination, but with that front-runner status comes growing concern that his personal baggage could become a campaign liability.” - The Hill

Gingrich meets with pastors in South Carolina - CNN

Gingrich proposes sequel to ‘compassionate conservatism’ - Cal Thomas for the Washington Examiner

 

[qui_est_ce]

If you accuse someone of being a fake, you should be able to provide examples. Otherwise you really have no case. Like I said, your posts discredit those with valid criticisms of Gingrich. It is those who are over the top and “pour it on” with the criticisms that end up being the most incredulous. It means your opposition to Newt is not very well thought out.

Ishii

The research should come BEFORE the accusations, otherwise it is nothing more than a falsehood.

 

[human_being]

Thank goodness God is not as judgemental as you. If the Church has deemed Newt in good standing, how dare we do less?

I’m sure Newt or his collegeus judge nobody…especially Obama…You either right…This is pathetic. I’m sorry but this makes my faith a little shakey latelly…Sounds like corruption or scandal too me…Very public scandall…I geuss all the politicians who vote pro-choice are viewed thed same way??? Like it is OK for them to take the Eucharist? You think that is OK too? Even if the Church sees it OK…I’d think that such ‘moral’ politically minded people as the GOP would find a problem with somebody who took that oath 3 times publiclly…after all they would be also taking the Presidential oath which would be the highest office in the nation…I can see forgiving the guy and allowing him to become Catholic, sort of, but to trust that he is now gonna be faithful to the presidential oath…seems a bit too trustwirthy to be 'safe"…If a convicted bankrobber who was busted 3 times befre joining the Church applied to you for a job driving your Brinks truck, would ya let him drive it with all your valuables? Mary Bobo?

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m sure Newt or his collegeus judge nobody…especially Obama…You either right…This is pathetic. I’m sorry but this makes my faith a little shakey latelly…Sounds like corruption or scandal too me…Very public scandall…I geuss all the politicians who vote pro-choice are viewed thed same way??? Like it is OK for them to take the Eucharist? You think that is OK too? Even if the Church sees it OK…I’d think that such ‘moral’ politically minded people as the GOP would find a problem with somebody who took that oath 3 times publiclly…after all they would be also taking the Presidential oath which would be the highest office in the nation…I can see forgiving the guy and allowing him to become Catholic, sort of, but to trust that he is now gonna be faithful to the presidential oath…seems a bit too trustwirthy to be 'safe"…If a convicted bankrobber who was busted 3 times befre joining the Church applied to you for a job driving your Brinks truck, would ya let him drive it with all your valuables? Mary Bobo?

Bank Robbery is a federal crime. Divorce is not.

 

[louis91766]

Bank Robbery is a federal crime. Divorce is not.

However, is adultery, divorce and remarriage against the law of God?

 

[human_being]

Thanks. I was wondering if he just kept copying and pasing his posts. He doesn’t seem to be reading or responding to any of the rebuttals.

Why bother? No matter what the thruth may bring…Newt will be supported by the smae who think it is an OK example to marry 3 times (Catholic at the time or not)…and it is OK…No matter the Church approved it or not…the fact remains…He has been married three times…and all children who would look up to him as president wther he does good things or not…will see that it is morally acceptable to marry three times…Somehow you can chance it and the Church may OK it…Marriage will mean nothing to many and if he had any morals he would step down,IMO. I’m sorry but the people involved in allowing him to be in full communion after three marriages knowing how public he has been, should have made a better decision.Scandal is a word which comes to mind…I have 3 children and would not want our president to have been married three times…and 2 are in Catholic school…so I find it offensive that he even runs leaving all of this explaining to children by Catholic parents to their children…And for a party which supposedlly stands for better morals than the other to even nominate him is just plain ignorant and elitist. They can do no wrong, even when they do.

 

[qui_est_ce]

However, is adultery, divorce and remarriage against the law of God?

You used the example of hiring a bank robber to drive your Brink’s truck. I answered your example.

 

[human_being]

Bank Robbery is a federal crime. Divorce is not.

I didn’t ask if if it was a crime or not…It is…I asked if they would let him drive their brinks truck with all of their valuables in it…Not Newt…the bank robber.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why bother? No matter what the thruth may bring…Newt will be supported by the smae who think it is an OK example to marry 3 times (Catholic at the time or not)…and it is OK…No matter the Church approved it or not…the fact remains…He has been married three times…and all children who would look up to him as president wther he does good things or not…will see that it is morally acceptable to marry three times…Somehow you can chance it and the Church may OK it…Marriage will mean nothing to many and if he had any morals he would step down,IMO. I’m sorry but the people involved in allowing him to be in full communion after three marriages knowing how public he has been, should have made a better decision.Scandal is a word which comes to mind…I have 3 children and would not want our president to have been married three times…and 2 are in Catholic school…so I find it offensive that he even runs leaving all of this explaining to children by Catholic parents to their children…And for a party which supposedlly stands for better morals than the other to even nominate him is just plain ignorant and elitist. They can do no wrong, even when they do.

Nobody said what Newt did was okay. NOBODY.

He repented.

If you don’t like Newt, don’t vote for him.

I divorced, got annuled and married again. Do you think my boss should hold it against me and consider me untrustworthy with his acounting and taxes?

 

[rlg94086]

I didn’t ask if if it was a crime or not…It is…I asked if they would let him drive their brinks truck with all of their valuables in it…Not Newt…the bank robber.

The problem with the analogy is that the presidency is not a marriage. It doesn’t have the same connection that driving a Brinks truck would have with a potential driver’s felony bank robbery.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The problem with the analogy is that the presidency is not a marriage. It doesn’t have the same connection that driving a Brinks truck would have with a potential driver’s felony bank robbery.

Also, a felon is constitutionally barred from the office of Presidency. An adulteror is not (viz Clinton).

 

[human_being]

The problem with the analogy is that the presidency is not a marriage. It doesn’t have the same connection that driving a Brinks truck would have with a potential driver’s felony bank robbery.

When he 'swears in" does he take a public solemn oath, or not?
Is not a wedding vow a public solemn oath also?
Connection?
What is a vow? An oath? A sworn promise, Right?
It’s not like a credit check…It’s a public swsorn oath or vow or promise…Seems bigtime to me…and not so long ago…maybe before Newt decided to become catholic or when he decided to run for the GOP nominee, something like this would have been a big deal to most GOP’s…or conservatives…but I geuss things change. Charcter may be the word I’m looking for.

 

[human_being]

Also, a felon is constitutionally barred from the office of Presidency. An adulteror is not (viz Clinton).

I was not trying to compare Newt to a bank robber…I was asking if the same sentiment of forgiveness and trust applied just because the Church allowed him full communion.