Gingrich Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not voting for Rick Santorum in this election and I was making an argument for why I don’t believe his voting record is one that Catholics should support.

I guess the question to ask is whether one bad apple spoils the whole barrel for you. How many times does a “pro-life” candidate have to vote for pro-abortion measures before they lose that title? Once? Twice? Fifty percent of the time?

For me, once is enough. Especially after the excuses he made to justify the vote.

To put this in context, Newt Gingrich is taking the heat because of some poor moral decisions, but ultimately, Catholics overwhelmingly seem to think Santorum is A-OK but Gingrich is morally unfit.

So I guess in modern day Catholicism, having an mistress is more morally reprehensible than supporting measures to give taxpayer money to the largest abortion provider in the nation? :confused:
Your all or nothing approach is exactly why we can never make progress. Sadly.
 
Ron Paul’s devotion to his interpretation of the Constitution would endanger the unborn under a Paul Presidency. He ardently believes that the Fed’s have no place in ensuring that the right to life for the unborn. If a state like California voted to permit unresricted abortion then he would say their blood be upon their hands like Pontius Pilate.

That’s what you call a pro-life position?
You are very confused.

Ron Paul has not said that there can NEVER be any federal involvment in the issue of abortion. He simply says that any limits placed on abortion must be done Constitutionally, thru the States.

Isn’t it ironic that the federal interventionist position that you and Rick Santorum advocate, has actually done NOTHING to end legal abortion. Yeah, you may have tinkered around the edges, but the fact remains that abortion is currently legal in all 50 states.

Ron Paul authored the reintroduced 2005 and 2007 Sanctity of Life Act and the We the People Act. Had Ron Paul’s constitutional approach to abortion been followed and supported by the pro-life movement, there is a very good chance that abortion would ALREADY be illegal in many of our 50 states, and we would be well on our way to resolving this issue on the federal level.

If you really want to know what Ron Paul thinks on abortion (rather than what Rick Santorum tells you he thinks) then I suggest you begin your education by listening to his comments at the Republican Personhood USA pro life forum on Wednesday night in Greensville, SC. You can find the video of his comments here: youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7wNgZWU9c
 
Your all or nothing approach is exactly why we can never make progress. Sadly.
The continued success of the “lesser of two evils” argument is exactly why we have two major political parties who are becoming more and more fiscally and morally indistinguishable from each other with each election cycle.
 
The continued success of the “lesser of two evils” argument is exactly why we have two major political parties who are becoming more and more fiscally and morally indistinguishable from each other with each election cycle.
That is precisely why a bold decision like a vote for Santorum is better to go with. Santorum, despite all the false statements and hand-wringing and justifying here, is 100% prolife and will fight against abortion, and he will fight for traditional marriage. It sickens me that so few people do not understand THOSE two issues ARE the most important and literally swamp all the rest combined.

Let us put a real, authentic, faithful, Roman Catholic, into the White House, and see what he can do with his well formed conscience.
 
You are very confused.

Ron Paul has not said that there can NEVER be any federal involvment in the issue of abortion. He simply says that any limits placed on abortion must be done Constitutionally, thru the States.

Isn’t it ironic that the federal interventionist position that you and Rick Santorum advocate, has actually done NOTHING to end legal abortion. Yeah, you may have tinkered around the edges, but the fact remains that abortion is currently legal in all 50 states.

Ron Paul authored the reintroduced 2005 and 2007 Sanctity of Life Act and the We the People Act. Had Ron Paul’s constitutional approach to abortion been followed and supported by the pro-life movement, there is a very good chance that abortion would ALREADY be illegal in many of our 50 states, and we would be well on our way to resolving this issue on the federal level.

If you really want to know what Ron Paul thinks on abortion (rather than what Rick Santorum tells you he thinks) then I suggest you begin your education by listening to his comments at the Republican Personhood USA pro life forum on Wednesday night in Greensville, SC. You can find the video of his comments here: youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7wNgZWU9c
Awesome. So we trade federally sanctioned abortion for State sanctioned abortion, with Paul’s “it says so in the Constitution” seal of approval.

This Neo-Confederate view trumps states rights over HUMAN rights, much like others did, 151 years ago.

Thanks, but no thanks.
 
Awesome. So we trade federally sanctioned abortion for State sanctioned abortion, with Paul’s “it says so in the Constitution” seal of approval.
I’d rather that 20 states allowed unlimited abortion and 30 outlawed it entirely, thanks to states’ rights, than to have the current federally sanctioned arrangement.
 
That is precisely why a bold decision like a vote for Santorum is better to go with. Santorum, despite all the false statements and hand-wringing and justifying here, is 100% prolife and will fight against abortion, and he will fight for traditional marriage. It sickens me that so few people do not understand THOSE two issues ARE the most important and literally swamp all the rest combined.

Let us put a real, authentic, faithful, Roman Catholic, into the White House, and see what he can do with his well formed conscience.
If he is 100% Pro-Life, why did he support allocating taxpayer funds to Planned Parenthood? Why did he support very openly pro-choice candidates?

Rick Santorum is just another candidate who wants a Federal government solution to issues that aren’t even properly within the scope of the Federal government to begin with. Even if he was a 100% pro-life candidate (and I dispute the claim that he is, based on his record), he wants a Federal solution to economic and social problems which I believe is improper and bad for the country.

He voted to raise the debt ceiling five times, voted to expand the scope of the Department of Education, voted to increase federal involvement in housing programs, voted for a massive expansion of Medicare entitlement spending, suported increased big government initiatives like No Child Left Behind, etc. His policies are very reminiscent of G.W. Bush’s Big Government “compassionate conservatism” and I believe they are harmful to the country because they increase the Federal control over our lives and further the idea that the Fed has the right to be involved in these issues when it does not and never did.
 
I’d rather that 20 states allowed unlimited abortion and 30 outlawed it entirely, thanks to states’ rights, than to have the current federally sanctioned arrangement.
Not to mention that, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue of legality once again returns to the individual States, unless there is - you guessed it - more Federal intervention.
 
I’d rather that 20 states allowed unlimited abortion and 30 outlawed it entirely, thanks to states’ rights, than to have the current federally sanctioned arrangement.
So states rights should trump human rights, and the right for the state to murder held sacrosant, for eternity?

Why not just ban it federally, altogether? Protection of “life” is one of those tricky unalienable ones that the Constitution is supposed to safeguard.

Paul has the same twisted view some pro-slavery secessionists had. Must be why he considers Lincoln such a tyrant.

And yet, he wants to lead the “Party of Lincoln”.
 
I agree. I’m glad he became a Catholic, but that doesn’t wash away his record. We can’t be blind to the things he’s done.
I am not saying anybody should be, but I think voters should take in other things into consideration like his voting record rather than just judging him on his past mistakes.
 
So, you’re basing your conclusions on internet blogs and the tell-all from an ex-wife? How do you know whether Gingrich is sincere in being sorry for past bad decisions in his private life?.
It’s not based on INTERNET BLOGS,

this was reported in CNN. Americanthinker is a known conservative source. Not just an internet blog. You didn’t even read it. Otherwise you’d see the sources.

the same guy quoting Gingrich “she’s not pretty enough” was reported in the LA times as early as 1994…

this partisan defense of Gingrich and will to believe he’s innocent of everthing… is confounding.

The power of Reconciliation is up to that person to make a good confession. Why did Gingrich go ahead and endorse Scozzafava a pro gay marriage, and pro abortionist when there was a pro-life alternative, only MONTHS after he converted??? and had newspapers report about it?? in 2009?

So the power of Reconciliation is good enough for Pelosi??? right, when she claims she is regular Church goer…we’ll give her that same when see signs she is disobedient and scandalizing the faithful.

This isn’t judging faith. This is no different then NOT wanting to see Pelosi have interdict or disciplined by her Bishop with it placed on her.

But no Republican Catholic gives her words credence when Pelosi says she’s a DEVOUT Catholic. But because Gingrich is a Republican…reconciliation works for him.
** Do you know what he’s thinking? Guess the power of Reconciliation doesn’t go far enough for you**
I DON’T HAVE TO KNOW WHAT HE’S THINKING. I just have to look at his public policy actions and support. HIS QUOTES. His campaign actions. And what he SAYS publicly.

It’s okay to question my faith? But i can’t question Gingrich’s public signs of faith or lack thereof.

We always complain when Democrats give Pelosi and biden a pass receiving hte sacraments.

Now Republican Catholics are pointing to Newt receiving the sacraments and giving a round of interviews in his three years, of how Catholic he is… and we don’t even err on the side of caution.

SO all Conservative Catholics like to hold the reconciliation card , and question someone using their brain and tell them “They don’t believe in the power of reconciliation” and question a posters’ faith , who doesn’t have public actions out there. It’s okay to judge anyone who asks questions on policy discrepancies which ARE in the sphere of judging.

Please. People need to stop putting politics before the Kingdom of God. It will keep us from being played by these opportunists.

I am NO more being cynical, then calling into question why Gingrich supported stem cell research.

Than I am when Pelosi keeps funding abortion. Or when Pelosi said Life doesn’t begin at conception it’s debated by the early Church fathers.

So Why Gingrich a clearly well read man say life begins at Implantation. Both were trying to be academic about personhood. Gingrich was more subtle with his goal post. Of course his campaign backpeddled.

Use your heads. If we have pointed out Church infiltration. If bad priests have gotten in, as witnessed by ex communist Bella…

Then a man is capable of lying too even when getting into the church.

… I am not saying that Gingrich isn’t sincere.

What I am saying is. He has said some ODD things and endorsed a position that is NOT Catholic. Tolerated gay marriage etc.

Therefore we have to be looking at a person’s FRUITS. and not just take words at face value.

These have been recent PUBLIC signs of heterodoxy and willful dismissal of non-negotiables with Gingrich. that is okay to discuss.
 
I am not saying anybody should be, but I think voters should take in other things into consideration like his voting record rather than just judging him on his past mistakes.
If we were electing a Congressman, where votes are onlly impacting us, with repercussions. We are considering a president which is more than just a person who votes YEA OR NAY

So character is very important for executive office. Look at Obama. Look what Clinton did. his distractions ended up in foreign policy blunders…and enabled Bin Laden.

One priest said it’s a misnomer to call our sins . Just mistakes…

and I believe he is right, the way people seem to become more and more indifferent to grave sins.
For instance, it makes us take Penance LESS seriously…

Sins have to be rooted out. Especially 20 years of Mortal Sin…it takes more than just a one and done conversion.

I do not like gingrich just saying “it’s only past mistakes”
 
Awesome. So we trade federally sanctioned abortion for State sanctioned abortion, with Paul’s “it says so in the Constitution” seal of approval.

This Neo-Confederate view trumps states rights over HUMAN rights, much like others did, 151 years ago.

Thanks, but no thanks.
“Neo-Confederate.” No, you mean “Constitutional” You see,151 years ago a certain faction decided to solve a similar issue by following Santorum’s approach to the Constitution and government in general: forceful intervention. That approach nearly destroyed the nation. That approach is better suited for those who would like to live in a Theocracy or Monarchy. In reality, Lincoln “saved” the federal union in the same sense that a man who has been abusing his wife “saves” his marital union by violently forcing his wife back into the home and threatening to shoot her if she leaves again. The union may well be saved, but it not the same kind of union that existed on their wedding day. We live in a government of** VOLUNTARY consent and VOLUNTARY union, so Santorum’s approach will never really solve the abortion problem. Ron Paul simply wants to approach the issue on the correct Constitutional basis. His approach is really not much different than the way abortion was dealt with prior to Roe v. Wade. And as Ron Paul has remined us, laws relfect morality. If the people are not moral then it does not matter what Santorum does at the federal level, the problem remains. Had we been following Ron Paul’s Constitutional approach, there is a high probability that abortion would be illegal in MANY of our States RIGHT NOW and therefore many more lives would have been saved. As it stands RIGHT NOW, thanks to Santorum’s unconstitutional approach to the abortion issue, abortion is legal in ALL **of our States.
 
For instance, it makes us take Penance LESS seriously…
So you are questioning the sincerity or validity of Mr. Gingrich’s reconciliation and penance as administered by the Catholic Church?
Sins have to be rooted out. Especially 20 years of Mortal Sin…it takes more than just a one and done conversion.
“Rooting out” the sins Mr. Gingrich has been Reconciled for, quite frankly, is none of your business.
I do not like gingrich just saying “it’s only past mistakes”
There is a significant difference between being sincerely concerned that someone has a systemic flaw of character he may or may not have gotten under control (he might “fall off the wagon” again) and running around castigating someone for being a sinner and “not taking his sins seriously.” One is prudence. The other is acting exactly like a Pharisee in Jesus’s time.

Nothing in Church teaching requires us to walk around in public flagellation for things that Christ has already absolved us of - only to continue to reject our sins. Nothing in Church teaching instructs us to look down upon or disparage the penitent either - quite the opposite, actually.
  • Marty Lund
 
Why did Gingrich go ahead and endorse Scozzafava a pro gay marriage, and pro abortionist when there was a pro-life alternative, only MONTHS after he converted??? and had newspapers report about it?? in 2009?

I DON’T HAVE TO KNOW WHAT HE’S THINKING. I just have to look at his public policy actions and support. HIS QUOTES. His campaign actions. And what he SAYS publicly.

What I am saying is. He has said some ODD things and endorsed a position that is NOT Catholic. Tolerated gay marriage etc.
Whether it was helping to build the Republican Party of Georgia back when Democrats controlled the entire state or leading the nationwide effort in 1994 to break 40 years of Democratic rule in the House, Newt has always tried to advance the cause of a truly conservative Republican party. This has always meant supporting the most conservative nominee possible as selected by Republican primary voters.

Therefore, Newt will almost always back the nominee of the Republican party and not back an independent candidate in a race against a Democratic candidate.

Newt still believes in this principle, however, he has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election. Although she was the Republican nominee, the problem was that Republican primary voters did not pick her, the local party leaders did, otherwise her liberal views would have prevented her from becoming the nominee. The Conservative Party candidate whom Scozzafava was running against, Doug Hoffman, recently remarked about Newt’s endorsement of his rival, "I would advise other conservative republicans: Don’t hold this against him."

newt.org/answers#Dede
 
It’s not based on INTERNET BLOGS,

this was reported in CNN. Americanthinker is a known conservative source. Not just an internet blog. You didn’t even read it. Otherwise you’d see the sources.
Therefore we have to be looking at a person’s FRUITS. and not just take words at face value.
americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/court_files_show_gingrich_lying_about_first_divorce.html

The above is the site you quoted from. I can see the word “blog” in the web address. The article is an opinion piece. Here’s a quote from it:“I don’t understand why Gingrich continues to lie about this issue. The facts are clear; he left his first wife for a younger, prettier woman, and left his second wife for the same reason. We are supposed to believe that since his conversion to Catholicism, he is a different man. I hope for Calista’s sake that is true.”
 
So you are questioning the sincerity or validity of Mr. Gingrich’s reconciliation and penance as administered by the Catholic Church?
That’s not what I am doing.

I pointed out the misnomer and to be wary of trivializing sins as mistakes, not that Gingrich is guilty of it. He is probably ignorant…

You are acting defensive for no reason that relates to the Faith, but it is sanctimony on behalf of your partisanship.

I already pointed out this is no different than discussing Joe Biden or any Catholic politician. Even Santorum can be discussed. read my posts and don’t falsely accuse me.

I am no more questioning the sincerity of Gingrich screw ups in the public eyes. When it comes to policy than you guys do to Nancy Pelosi.

I really don’t know how Gingrich repents daily. But i can judge what I see publicly. And from the reports.
His private sins were public scandal. Just like Bill Clinton.

But Gingrich apparently is becoming a special protected class among Republicans.
“Rooting out” the sins Mr. Gingrich has been Reconciled for, quite frankly, is none of your business.
There’s a difference between pointing , signs of a penitent. I didn’t say it was my business. And signs of someone who goes out and endorses a pro abortionist, gay marriage, moments after he lets everyone know.

First of all Gingrich made his conversion public. More public than tony blair.

So when Tony blair goes out and does something to scandalize the faithful. it’s none of our business.

you are too partisan towards Newt and start attack the poster who is n’t really attacking Newt’ privately. But his public actions. You watch yourself.
There is a significant difference between being sincerely concerned that someone has a systemic flaw of character he may or may not have gotten under control (he might “fall off the wagon” again) and running around castigating someone for being a sinner and “not taking his sins seriously.” One is prudence. The other is acting exactly like a Pharisee in Jesus’s time.
Nothing in Church teaching requires us to walk around in public flagellation for things that Christ has already absolved us of - only to continue to reject our sins. Nothing in Church teaching instructs us to look down upon or disparage the penitent either - quite the opposite, actually.
  • Marty Lund
I am not acting like a Pharisee. I just am very serious about the faith and have ongoing catechisis, and keep trying to build. Maybe we aren’t at the same point but I am speaking from what I know of the Faith. Saints lives

And there was a time when the Church would make the penitent do public acts…

You are perceiving me to act like a pharisee but I am not.

I am concerned because I believe when you really are embracing Christ you seek first the kingdom of God. Not start preparing your way through poitical machinery, PR rehabilitations. While being caught in not so humble, not Catholic things such as some public dishonesty. For instance his inconsistency.

A priest saidthat it isn’t wise for Gingrich who had as you put it “character flaws” exacerbated by the trappings of Power.

So you are actually in correct. It is an act of charity for me to be wary.

For instance St. Francis tested St. Anthony’s humility by being hard on him.

Why should we voters be so easygoing about our public servants.

Again, above in your quote you are conflating a man’ as if he has no control. Sin is only an addiction, through bad habits. That’s all i meant, you have to root them out. I am no more a pharisee, than wishing Newt if he wanted to be president, would have waited a little longer.
“It seems to me,” Professor Beckwith wrote, “that a man whose sins arose as a consequence of the pursuit of political power and the unwise use of it after he became Speaker of the House should not be seeking the most powerful office in the world.”
Again it is a sign of the times that sins are now called “mistakes”
a mistake is forgetting to carry the one in math.

a mistake is making a wrong measurement or putting two eggs instead of three.

Sin is an act of the will, and disobedience and defiance of God.
Sin is very serious. And it is a sign of the times that Christians now view sins as “mistakes”

It is no more doubting God’s grace for me to want to see action, and works. Rather than just words.

Just as Christ is no more casting doubt on his saving power, when he mentions that there are those , say “Lord, Lord” with their words, and he rejects them.

A sign of God’s grace working in the soul working with God’s grace would be striving towards humility. Meekness. Which is restraint.

I don’t expect him to act like a Saint, holy person no more than I screw up in cooperating…

However, I know I would never say “life begins at implantation” that is basic. Even Father Z said so.

And I would never promote a pro gay, pro abortionist right after I had a tearful embrace of the Faith and entering Christ’s body months earlier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top