Gingrich Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Carolus_Martell said:
Say what you want about Gingrich but he’s always the smartest man in the room. He doesn’t need a teleprompter to communicate because he understands just about everything falling under the shadow of Federal government.
Click to expand...
He’s not smarter than Ron Paul. He’s a crooked lobbyist, Global warming shill, rubs shoulders with Pelosi. BTW, Pelosi calls herself Catholic, too. Why not vote for her?
 
Cho said:
He’s not smarter than Ron Paul. He’s a crooked lobbyist, Global warming shill, rubs shoulders with Pelosi. BTW, Pelosi calls herself Catholic, too. Why not vote for her?
Click to expand...
Because Gingrich is pro-life and Pelosi is crazy.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Since his conversion to the Catholic faith, yes.

2012.republican-candidates.org/Gingrich/Abortion.php
Click to expand...
Thank you Scott.
I found this also:
usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/03/20/exclusive-interview-newt-gingrich-stepping-up-defense-of-religion-in-the-public-square
(Question)You weren’t known as a religious conservative during your House speaker days. Was there a turning point for you in focusing more seriously on religious issues?
Click to expand...
(Newt) I think it’s that the overtness of the assault on religious liberty has risen dramatically. It was the 9th Circuit Court’s decision [in 2002] that was the last straw. [The decision found that recitation of the pledge of allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional because its “under God” clause violates the First Amendment’s ban on government-established religion.] And I said, “It’s time to challenge head-on secular domination in the West.’”
Click to expand...
(question)You’ve started a new organization, Renewing American Leadership, that’s devoted to issues like religious liberty and defending the role of religion in American history. Why now? Aren’t there lots of groups like that already?
Click to expand...
(Newt)You look at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals outlawing saying “one nation under God.” You look at the current [White House] effort to impose the secular state as a matter of conscience on people who believe profoundly that abortion is an act of murder, and we go from tolerating abortion to telling doctors you can only serve if you cooperate in abortion. You look at the current effort in Connecticut to impose a legal order that would destroy the Catholic Church. And you have to ask yourself, when you have this kind of continued assault on religion, whether you need to reach out to the whole country and talk about these kind of issues
Click to expand...
.
 
I don’t share Newt’s admiration for Darwin. Besides the fact that his great theory is fundamentally wrong, my understanding is that he was a rather timid character. If you wanted a good argument about evolution, you’d be better off with his “bulldog”, Thomas Huxley. As to inviting Jesus Christ, He doesn’t need an invitation; He knows He can come to my house any time He wants. Maybe Newt feels the same way. In any case, inviting our Lord and Savior as if he were a regular guy seems awful cheeky.

That having been said, Newt Gingrich remains the best candidate in the Republican field. I mean, who else is there?

Michele Bachmann is none too knowledgeable, none too experienced, and up until the beginning of her campaign she attended a church that says the Pope is the Anti-Christ. She officially left that church, but if you don’t have a problem with her previous membership you ought to not have a problem with Obama and “Reverend” Wright.

Rick Perry is a certifiable moron, and I will not entertain talk about individuals who only seem stupid, but are inwardly brilliant. You talk like a doofus, look like a doofus, act like a doofus, you are a doofus.

Herman Cain is not too far ahead of Perry in the intellectual department, and there is the little matter of his being a serial sexual harasser, “allegedly” sure, but with this many accusers the word becomes meaningless.

Mitt Romney, besides not being a Christian, is–morally–an amorphous blob. His only core belief is that he should be president.

Ron Paul is a decent fellow, but even for those who agree with his economic ideas, the fact remains that he is marshmallow soft on Islamic radicals. Besides, he is pushing 80, which puts a serious damper on his electability.

Jon Huntsman is uncharismatic–too much so to go up against Obama–and the non-Christian thing applies.

Rick Santorum is a really good guy, and I hope he has a long political career ahead, but after being defeated in a landslide in his reelection bid for the Senate, it would be more sensible to start his comeback at a lower level than the presidency.

Like I said, who else is there?
 
fkjuliano said:
That having been said, Newt Gingrich remains the best candidate in the Republican field. I mean, who else is there?..

Like I said, who else is there?
Click to expand...
There is Huntsman and there is Ron Paul. Both are excellent candidates. And neither one of them has been cited for ethics violations.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Because Gingrich is pro-life and Pelosi is crazy.
Click to expand...
Yes Gingrich from what I can gather fits the Church definition of pro life as it relates to abortion. But when you call someone something very negative, presumably even if it’s someone on the poltical left and assuming “crazy” is very negative to call a person, you need proof please beyond that you disagree with her politics. Why didn’t you just say you would vote for Gingrich over Pelosi because you agree with him and not her?
 
CMatt25 said:
Yes Gingrich from what I can gather fits the Church definition of pro life as it relates to abortion. But when you call someone something very negative, presumably even if it’s someone on the poltical left and assuming “crazy” is very negative to call a person, you need proof please beyond that you disagree with her politics. Why didn’t you just say you would vote for Gingrich over Pelosi because you agree with him and not her?
Click to expand...
I agree. She’s not crazy. She’s a shrewd, inside trader.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Because Gingrich is pro-life and Pelosi is crazy.
Click to expand...
Robert_Bay said:
No name calling or belittling anyone, including political candidates. Keep all comments charitable. Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.
Click to expand...
(I don’t happen to care for her much, for various reasons, but I wouldn’t call her “crazy.”)
:eek:
 
louis91766 said:
There is Huntsman and there is Ron Paul. Both are excellent candidates. And neither one of them has been cited for ethics violations.
Click to expand...
Yes in another yr without Romney, I actually think Newt might have been surging right now as the anti Huntsman candidate. I’m thinking it might have been Huntsman vs ??? rather than Romney vs ???. If Newt proceeds to slide, I suppose Paul or Santorum are left. But time is running out. Not long now before Iowa and NH vote. Will be interesting.
 
rlg94086 said:
He didn’t say he would rather have dinner with Darwin than Christ. He was asked to list 6 people, and he did. It’s a pretty decent list and has nothing to do with his religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Six people living or dead that he would want to have dinner with. It is curious that he did not mention Moses, St. Paul, Mary, the Mother of God, St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Augustine, but he did mention Charles Darwin. Why would anyone want to have dinner with Charles Darwin over St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine or Our Divine Lord?
 
fkjuliano said:
Rick Perry is a certifiable moron, and I will not entertain talk about individuals who only seem stupid, but are inwardly brilliant. You talk like a doofus, look like a doofus, act like a doofus, you are a doofus.

Herman Cain is not too far ahead of Perry in the intellectual department, and there is the little matter of his being a serial sexual harasser, “allegedly” sure, but with this many accusers the word becomes meaningless.

Like I said, who else is there?
Click to expand...
There is Romney, who you can’t write off. He is arguably the most electable of the colorful bunch. The great WFB said that we should support the most conservative candidate who can win. I agree. Now I know that Romney’s conservative credentials are suspect. However, I would consider the political realities of his having to govern a liberal state like Massachusetts. I think we need to be realistic. Romney may not be the conservative’s conservative, but I believe he’d govern as a fairly mainstream conservative. I believe him when he says that he’d nominate justices in the mold of Scalia or Alito. We have to consider political reality. Newt, as much as I like the guy, has too much baggage.

Ishii
 
louis91766 said:
Six people living or dead that he would want to have dinner with. It is curious that he did not mention Moses, St. Paul, Mary, the Mother of God, St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Augustine, but he did mention Charles Darwin. Why would anyone want to have dinner with Charles Darwin over St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine or Our Divine Lord?
Click to expand...
Maybe he wanted to ask him if he agrees with how his theory of Evolution is used as a talking point for atheists. Does Darwin agree with what the atheists are saying about him, or is what they’re saying revisionist history?

That seems important to know. Darwin’s answer could potentially lead a lot of people away from atheism.

Seriously though… 6 people you’d want to eat dinner with. I mean, would you refuse to vote for a President if the 3 books he took to a desert island were: The Bible, The Catechism, and The Lord of the Rings…

as opposed to the Divine Office?

Give me a break, Are you people seriously saying this has bearing on your VOTE? Your vote for the leader of this country involves a discussion on 6 people a candidate would eat dinner with. Are you serious? :doh2: Are you people for realz? :ehh:

HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY?!?!?! ] 😦 :confused::eek:
 
louis91766 said:
Six people living or dead that he would want to have dinner with. It is curious that he did not mention Moses, St. Paul, Mary, the Mother of God, St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Augustine, but he did mention Charles Darwin. Why would anyone want to have dinner with Charles Darwin over St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine or Our Divine Lord?
Click to expand...
Who knows? Maybe he wanted to debate him. 🤷

You are making the same erroneous assumption that the journalist made. He didn’t choose Darwin “over” Aquinas, Augustine or Christ. He was asked for a list, and he provided one. To say he would choose any one of the six on his list versus the Saints or Our Lord is presumptive on your part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top