Newt Gingrich victorious in South Carolina

[LMD]

Originally Posted by mrtxstar

You must have also missed the part about said President lying under oath, which is what he was impeached for, not the cheating. So, it wasn't the same thing at all, bro.

I guess I also missed the part where said President put himself on oath so that he could lie about his extramarital affair to damage his own reputation, as opposed to being investigated by a party spurred on by a man doing the same thing. Once again, my bad bro.

[mrtxstar]

Originally Posted by LMD

I guess I also missed the part where said President put himself on oath so that he could lie about his extramarital affair to damage his own reputation, as opposed to being investigated by a party spurred on by a man doing the same thing. Once again, my bad bro.

That's exactly the kind of revisionist history I expect to be told by someone too blinded by party politics to see the damage it's done to the country. For the record, Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr served a subpoena on President Clinton that required his testimony under oath. If you want to call that volunteering then okay, he "volunteered". While you're splitting hairs on what these men did(keep in mind one lied under oath and one didn't), why do you condemn one while defending the other? If you would just put the party politics aside, you'd see they both cheated... Clinton stayed in office, so those actions can't possibly disqualify Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich is absolutely right when he says nobody but Christ is perfect and that everyone deserves forgiveness.

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by LMD

I guess I also missed the part where said President put himself on oath so that he could lie about his extramarital affair to damage his own reputation, as opposed to being investigated by a party spurred on by a man doing the same thing. Once again, my bad bro.

Clinton did it once, and that was bad enough. Gingrich did it twice. I don't like either one of them.

I don't trust people that cheat on their wife. If they're willing to cheat on the person that they married, and hold the most solemn vow to, the what are they willing to do with the country they've also sworn to serve?

Though, isn't it strange that we have no stories of women in President Obama's life up until Michelle? Nothing. Good or bad. Except that which only he himself talks about. Almost as if none existed.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Jerry

Though, isn't it strange that we have no stories of women in President Obama's life up until Michelle? Nothing. Good or bad. Except that which only he himself talks about. Almost as if none existed.

You know what that means. Donald Trump will have to launch an investigation in Kenya.

[LMD]

Originally Posted by mrtxstar

That's exactly the kind of revisionist history I expect to be told by someone too blinded by party politics to see the damage it's done to the country. For the record, Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr served a subpoena on President Clinton that required his testimony under oath. If you want to call that volunteering then okay, he "volunteered".

Independent in the sense of the job title. Make no mistake about who's side Starr was on; He had defended big tobacco industries in their trials, he was asked to be Dean of Pepperdine (A largely conservative school) and his main supporters were conservatives. Real impartial.

As far as volunteering, they asked him to look. He spent 4 years and $40 million looking. That's a little over the line of "I guess I'll take a look, because you asked" (Which is probably what a more liberal "Independent" counsel would have done, before you raise the point).

Also, for the lolz, 46% of Americans were concerned about what Starr was doing during the investigation while only 43% were concerned with what Clinton was doing.

Per a Newsweek article written in 1998 ( A falling Starr. By: Klaidman, Daniel, Thomas, Evan, Newsweek, 00289604, 10/05/98, Vol. 132, Issue 14. I used a school database to find it for my thesis last semester, so I'm not sure if you can find it off Google or not.).

Originally Posted by mrtxstar

While you're splitting hairs on what these men did(keep in mind one lied under oath and one didn't), why do you condemn one while defending the other? If you would just put the party politics aside, you'd see they both cheated... Clinton stayed in office, so those actions can't possibly disqualify Gingrich.

Only person splitting hairs about "What these men did" is you.

I'm "Condemning" Gingrich for his hypocrisy in leading the charge for constant violators of "Family Values" to be forced to leave office while he himself runs on the "Family Values" platform, and his supporters following suit.

I'd say I'm surprised at the lack of reading comprehension on your part, but just par from the course to drag in random political attacks on the other side when you can't defend your own (And then cry whenever someone else does it ), isn't it?

[Reveryroadie]

Clinton was wrong to cheat on his wife, and even worse he lied about it. the problem i have with Gingrich is he lied to his wives and the American people by being sactimonious during the impeachment proceedings while carrying out his own affairs. this and the fact that he has NEVER adequately explained the $300.000 he was fined by the house ethics committee while he was speaker of the house.

He also has the nerve to try and be the bastion of "family values" claiming gay marraige hurts the fabric of marraige while having multiple affairs, and multiple divorces. he may not have liked the questions being asked at the debate, but they are fair questions to ask since he is running for president.

[LMD]

Originally Posted by Reveryroadie

Clinton was wrong to cheat on his wife, and even worse he lied about it. the problem i have with Gingrich is he lied to his wives and the American people by being sactimonious during the impeachment proceedings while carrying out his own affairs. this and the fact that he has NEVER adequately explained the $300.000 he was fined by the house ethics committee while he was speaker of the house.

He also has the nerve to try and be the bastion of "family values" claiming gay marraige hurts the fabric of marraige while having multiple affairs, and multiple divorces. he may not have liked the questions being asked at the debate, but they are fair questions to ask since he is running for president.

I wish I could revoke my rep to you for your "Meat Loaf" song in the 30 day song challenge and give it to you for this instead. I guess it'd serve the same purpose, so we'll pretend I gave you rep for this and commended you for Meat Loaf.

This was the exact point I was making (sans the first sentence) before we somehow () started talking about Clinton.

[Reveryroadie]

Originally Posted by LMD

I wish I could revoke my rep to you for your "Meat Loaf" song in the 30 day song challenge and give it to you for this instead. I guess it'd serve the same purpose, so we'll pretend I gave you rep for this and commended you for Meat Loaf.

This was the exact point I was making (sans the first sentence) before we somehow () started talking about Clinton.

the worse part is I am a republican. i can't believe that MY party has gone so far to the right as the pander to the people who wish we lived in a theocracy. they use the bible to frame every argument, forgetting the fact that we are guaranteed freedom of and from religion. personnel beliefs aside about abortion, gays in the military, gay marraige, they have no place in politics.

everyone is flawed in some way, the fact that we harp on it all the time, makes me wish we would go back and see how our founding fathers would feel about the shape of the political discourse today. i bet they would be unhappy with both parties.