Newt Gingrich Controversies

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327024122' post='2371744']
It's like during the 9-11 Mosque controversy. When he said that the ability of Muslims to build Mosques should be contingent on the ability of Christians to build Mosques in Saudi Arabia. He's a smart enough man to know why that's a stupid thing to say. But he was fine saying something he knew was utter the essence of cow just so he could through out some red meat. I think he's a man with interesting thoughts, at times. But I've never seen any evidence that he has even an ounce of personal integrity.
[/quote]why are Christians building mosques in Saudi Arabia?

[BG45]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327024614' post='2371755']
No no, silly. That's his first wife who had cancer. His second wife he left shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Very different. Because had she had cancer then it really would have been in bad taste to leave a second time.
[/quote]

I did not realize the second wife had MS. I just assumed he was doing his pattern of marry the mistress and divorce the wife...

[4588686]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1327024912' post='2371764']
why are Christians building mosques in Saudi Arabia?
[/quote]

Because they live in Saudi Arabia and want a Church.

[ardillacid]

Christians in Saudi Arabia are building mosques because they want churches. O rly

Thirsty Thursday or hwhat?

[StMichael]

A little off the rails there on Newt.

Personal life, not what we should aspire to, we definitely agree there.

He was a fantastic speaker, had he not closed down the government (which the speaker alone cannot do), Clinton would not have been reigned in and we would have never seen a balanced budget.

The rest, ah.

His problems, for me:

- A progressive
- For Cap n Trade
- Big government.

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1327009570' post='2371599']
The reasons I'm not the biggest fan of Newt:
1) He's on his third wife, who was once his mistress, he does marry every mistress he cheats and gets caught with.
2) He shut down the government in the 90s. You know the budget threat the GOP keeps doing that keeps sending the stock market into a tailspin and cost us our AAA credit rating due to the brinksmanship between Democrats and Republicans? He didn't back down when he did it to Clinton.
3) He is a major supporter of 3 strikes laws, one of the reasons after our draconian drug policies that we're constantly overflowing the prisons. To give an example of how ludicrous these laws can be applied, in California it is a felony to steal a pomegranate. Steal 3 pomegranates, one time each, and you're in prison for life.
4) I'm pro-life, and that means to me, being more than pro-fetus. Newt is for the death penalty. In 1994 he voted against replacing it with life imprisonment (which is cheaper btw).
5) He wants to expand our prison system, or at least he did as Speaker of the House. Currently our mass incarceration is leading a number of states into bankruptcy.
6) In 1998 he wanted to increase the penalties on drugs, as of 2002, more than 50% of all federal inmates in our overcrowded prison system are already there for drug offenses.
7) He wants to downplay multiculturalism and replace it with "patriotic education".
8) His idea to win the war in Iraq in a 2007 interview involved forcing every citizen of that nation to get a biometric ID card, set up secret military tribunals to detain and try citizens in secret like Lincoln did in the Civil War. What's to keep him from wanting to do that here?
9) He's very anti-press. Referring to it at one point as part of a triumvarate, the media-academic-legal elite.
10) He says if you're not loyal to the US, you can't serve on his Cabinet. He doesn't set out anything to say how this loyalty is determined, just makes vague rhetoric about Pakistan, Communists, and Nazis.

That said, I do like a lot of his stuff in energy, foreign policy, etc.I especially like his opinion of term limits on Congress and that we need to actually build our infrastructure to be competitive.

As for his first wife being bitter...if I was lying in a hospital bed fighting cancer and my hypothetical spouse left me for another person they had been cheating on me with and brought that person to see me, I would be kind of embittered too. Of course there's debate over whether she wanted the divorce or he did, depending on who you believe.

*Points 1 and 2 are easily Googled or found on even Wikipedia. Points 3-10 all can be found under the comprehensive list for Newt's opinions on the issues at [url="http://www.ontheissues.org/Newt_Gingrich.htm"]OnTheIssues.Org.[/url]
[/quote]

[StMichael]

I agree with Newt's statement 100%. Not stopping freedom of religion for any group, but the football spiking near where 3,000 Americans were killed by islamists. move along, thanks.

The Bible is not allowed in Saudia Arabia. Catholics are slaves in Pakistan. Christians are being chased out of any islamic claimed land.

My feelings toward islamic way of life is that it is guided by Satan himself.




[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327024122' post='2371744']
It's like during the 9-11 Mosque controversy. When he said that the ability of Muslims to build Mosques should be contingent on the ability of Christians to build Mosques in Saudi Arabia. He's a smart enough man to know why that's a stupid thing to say. But he was fine saying something he knew was utter the essence of cow just so he could through out some red meat. I think he's a man with interesting thoughts, at times. But I've never seen any evidence that he has even an ounce of personal integrity.
[/quote]

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

Kinda going against newt here, but I find it very hypocritical of him to burn Clinton of his ONE affair which was a huge mistake when newt himself has had two divorces, open marriage plea to his second wife which she refused, and a current wife who was his mistress. Bill didn't divorce Hilary, they worked things out because he realized it was a huge mistake and Hilary had the heart to truly forgive him. That's a true marriage to get through a obstacle like that. If newt really had the heart of a loyal husband he wouldn't have cheated on a wife who had cancer or multiple sclerocis, it's all in the vows in sickness and in health. I know he hasn't cheated on his current wife now, but it's still hypocrital of him to have married her. I don't trust him.

Just saying.

Edited January 20, 2012 by LinaSt.Cecilia2772

[PhuturePriest]

First, it seems that a lot of the things that his wife said are untrue, as actual facts are coming out. It seems that, once you build up anger and resentment towards a man for more than a decade, when you say things about him, your anger comes out and you lie to make him a worse person than he really is. As Newt stated in the debate tonight, all of their friends at that time state that it was not as she said it went. So, that card is thrown out of the deck.

Secondly, he is definitely not a progressive, or for big government. He is a real Conservative, while Romney is a Massachusetts Moderate, that believes in nationalized health care, put tax-payed abortions in his grand invention "Romney-Care", while Newt has never supported these things. When Newt says he's pro-life, he really is, while Romney is not.

Third, he balanced the budget, put unemployment down to 4.2%, made eleven million jobs, took three million people off welfare and got them working again, the list goes on and on.

All of these bad things happened to the Newt in the '90s. There is no proof he's the same man, and all the proof that he's not. He just recently made a documentary on Pope John Paul II's visit to Poland, hardly something an immoral, even man would do. He's great friends with a Priest, whom is in fact the reason he converted, and he's not breaking any Church laws.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1327019188' post='2371685']
Charity also includes not demanding that a person refrain from posting because you don't like their tone or opinion. If you think someone is less than charitable, that's fine, feel free to opine. However, no one here gets to decide who posts where because you don't like what they say. Charity is a two way street.



The answer to that is yes.

If anyone needs a reason to disqualify Newt as a serious candidate for the highest individual office in the country, the fact that he is the only Speaker of the House ever to be punished for ethics violations should be sufficient. The character issues notwithstanding, the fact that someone has a documented past involving questionable ethics in office should be enough to stop a candidacy. However, as plenty of American political history demonstrates (I'm looking at you, people who voted for Marion Berry), nothing forces voters to exhibit anything remotely resembling discernment, or the sense God gave a goat. If consorting with hookers whilst smoking crack can get you re-elected to the mayorate of Washington DC, then why should a documented history of ethics problems be a problem for a president?
[/quote]

I'm going to have to disagree. The way you made it sound, then yes, that would be, but that's not what I said. You make it sound as if I was being uncharitable. I was not. I was simply stating what I would and would not tolerate on my thread. If you want uncharitable posts to run rampantly on your threads, then that is your decision, but I've seen enough things on other threads that went out of hand to know when the uncharitable comments would start, so I wanted to end it right then and there. I'm not angry, nor am I writing this with an angry tone. I'm perfectly calm. I just don't want uncharitable posts on here. As dUST says: "Get charitable."

[Amppax]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1327036046' post='2371874']
I'm going to have to disagree. The way you made it sound, then yes, that would be, but that's not what I said. You make it sound as if I was being uncharitable. I was not. I was simply stating what I would and would not tolerate on my thread. If you want uncharitable posts to run rampantly on your threads, then that is your decision, but I've seen enough things on other threads that went out of hand to know when the uncharitable comments would start, so I wanted to end it right then and there. I'm not angry, nor am I writing this with an angry tone. I'm perfectly calm. I just don't want uncharitable posts on here. As dUST says: "Get charitable."
[/quote]

That's not how it works. If you think someone is being uncharitable, report it. Its the mods job to decide whether or not someone is breaking the rules, not yours.

[Jesus_lol]

even catholics arent normally in the habit of saying politicians are good and moral just because they are catholic, see the Kennedy's for example.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327038829' post='2371893']
even catholics arent normally in the habit of saying politicians are good and moral just because they are catholic, see the Kennedy's for example.
[/quote]
Or Pelosis or Bidens or Sotomayors or....

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1327040621' post='2371907']
Or Pelosis or Bidens or Sotomayors or....
[/quote]

indeed! thanks for the other examples.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1327036046' post='2371874']
I'm going to have to disagree. The way you made it sound, then yes, that would be, but that's not what I said. You make it sound as if I was being uncharitable. I was not. I was simply stating what I would and would not tolerate on my thread. If you want uncharitable posts to run rampantly on your threads, then that is your decision, but I've seen enough things on other threads that went out of hand to know when the uncharitable comments would start, so I wanted to end it right then and there. I'm not angry, nor am I writing this with an angry tone. I'm perfectly calm. I just don't want uncharitable posts on here. As dUST says: "Get charitable."
[/quote]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1327036443' post='2371881']
That's not how it works. If you think someone is being uncharitable, report it. Its the mods job to decide whether or not someone is breaking the rules, not yours.
[/quote]

This. Unfortunately you don't have ownership of threads here...you may start a thread, but you have no control over the discussion. People are free to post as they wish. As Amppax said, if you feel that there has been a violation of the phorum rules, feel free to message a moderator. Otherwise, people here are free to speak their piece. That is part and parcel of what happens when you post a topic that some might find even slightly controversial. Political topics are generally like that.

[BG45]

Not so off the rails, considering points 3-10 have actual quotes from Newt at OnTheIssues.org

---

I realize now that the intent of this thread is to deify Newt Gingrich as the paragon of all that is good and holy in politics and to try and silence any opposition to that ideal because people aren't being "charitable". I don't think I've ever seen a "charitable" politics thread on Phatmass...that said, I have seen a number of wonderful debates on Phatmass where people express their opinions on issues, such as Gingrich's qualifications morally and politically to lead.

I refuse to hold him to a different standard than I hold others though, simply because he is a Catholic. If anything, I should hold him under more of a microscope because he claims to Rep my Church. If people still accuse Bill Clinton of being an adulterer, I should have no issue with people accusing Newt of it as well. Do I think both men have learned from their past mistakes? I hope so. Do I pray that they really have changed? Of course.