Wow!

EdsonNascimento

Yes. Can we actually be smart?


I am guessing no. But sc left a minuscule chance. Stop the rhetoric and listen to what makes sense.

Please.

Thank you.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Yes. Can we actually be smart?


I am guessing no. But sc left a minuscule chance. Stop the rhetoric and listen to what makes sense.

Please.

Thank you.

Are you saying Newt makes sense?

gimmesometruth27

i guess a man who has been divorced a few times and wanted an open marriage with his second wife jogs well with republican family values these days....they will be willing to embrace and defend any sort of infidelity and unsavory act that they would have condemned a year ago so long as you are on their team and are not a homosexual or an atheist....remember, this is the same man who pursued impeachment charges against president clinton while having his own extramarital affairs at the exact same time...

i am waiting to see the republican backlash against his second wife once the interview airs....they would rather defend newt and attack the accuser than address the actual problem or the actual accusations made....but then again, that is the same thing that happens to any whistleblower, especially if they are a woman...ie that accusers of herman cain...

Prince Of Dorkness

I think It makes total sense that a man who has been married to two of his mistresses and still can't get enough is a big supporter of the family values.

I mean look how much he paid for Candice. A blow up sex doll that realistic isn't cheap.

Nevermind90

nothing makes no sense if americans do this shit to themself.. I feel bad fr so many people at the same time I shake my head and think god when I see the media starting to trow shit on Newt and Romney in 2 years..

CH156378

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Yes. Can we actually be smart?


I am guessing no. But sc left a minuscule chance. Stop the rhetoric and listen to what makes sense.

Please.

Thank you.

oona left

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i guess a man who has been divorced a few times and wanted an open marriage with his second wife jogs well with republican family values these days....they will be willing to embrace and defend any sort of infidelity and unsavory act that they would have condemned a year ago so long as you are on their team and are not a homosexual or an atheist....remember, this is the same man who pursued impeachment charges against president clinton while having his own extramarital affairs at the exact same time...

While continuing to claim that same sex marriage would destroy the "sanctity" of the institution.

It's worse than hypocritical: it's borderline psychotic

MookiesLaw

inlet13

Newt is a hypocrite. And in my opinion, the majority of Republicans who support him are hypocrites too. Why? Well, these are the very same people who would tear down the opposition (a Democrat) who did the same thing or something similar in his/her personal life. In fact, Newt did just that.

That said, I find it humorous that some liberal leaning members in this very thread, and liberals commentators elsewhere, tear down Newt Gingrich for his stance on "infidelity", "open marriages", "sex", name it. These are the very same people who defended John Edwards, Bill Clinton and those who engaged in this sort of thing with a D next to their name. These individuals are also hypocrites. There are many of them who commented above my comment.

At the end of the day, this is why I can't stand the current political environment. This very thread is proof that there are kool-aid drinkers on both sides who are so blinded by the game, they don't see their own hypocrisy.

F'ing wake up! Some things are black and white. It can't be ok when the person who partakes in an act has a "D" or "R" next to their name but wrong when someone with a "R" or "D" next to their name partakes in the same act.

Your partisanship makes me physically ill.

blueandwhite

inlet13 wrote:

That said, I find it humorous that some liberal leaning members in this very thread, and liberals commentators elsewhere, tear down Newt Gingrich for his stance on "infidelity", "open marriages", "sex", name it. These are the very same people who defended John Edwards, Bill Clinton and those who engaged in this sort of thing with a D next to their name. These individuals are also hypocrites. There are many of them who commented above my comment.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Gingrich sought to have Clinton impeached for having an affair; a pretty hypocritical thing to do when your own behaviour mirrors that of the guy you're going after. Clinton wasn't going after his opponents for their sexual transgressions. I don't think most lefties are upset by Newt's affairs, but by his own hypocrisy. Condemning others for having an affair while doing the same thing isn't exactly a strong showing of integrity.

inlet13

blueandwhite wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

That said, I find it humorous that some liberal leaning members in this very thread, and liberals commentators elsewhere, tear down Newt Gingrich for his stance on "infidelity", "open marriages", "sex", name it. These are the very same people who defended John Edwards, Bill Clinton and those who engaged in this sort of thing with a D next to their name. These individuals are also hypocrites. There are many of them who commented above my comment.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Gingrich sought to have Clinton impeached for having an affair; a pretty hypocritical thing to do when your own behaviour mirrors that of the guy you're going after. Clinton wasn't going after his opponents for their sexual transgressions. I don't think most lefties are upset by Newt's affairs, but by his own hypocrisy. Condemning others for having an affair while doing the same thing isn't exactly a strong showing of integrity.

No, in fact, I'm not. I'm just not blinded by partisanship... so, I'm pointing out that both sides are full of shit. No one really cares about the sex stuff if their guy/girl did it.

For supporters of politicians, either sexuality in their personal life matters or it doesn't. You can't pick and choose when it does and when it doesn't. Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, JFK, nameless congressmen and the endless list of politicians that engaged in this sort of thing are either wrong or right. Sure, there are differences in each circumstance,... some may be more wrong, some may be less... in some rare cases, it may not be wrong at all. I have no clue. Personally, I don't care at all because I think all of these people are scum.

But, what I find ironic, and the point of my post... is people like you (or atleast a few in this thread)... rationalize that the people with "D" next to their name are infallible strictly because they have the "D". When the guy with the "R" fucks up... you make a big thing of it. But, when the guy with the "D" does, you don't.

This is also true on the other end. Republicans support this clown Newt and then freak out about Clinton or Edwards. It's kinda disgusting and shows how people become zombie sheep when engaging in politics. It's both sides... and it's most prevalent in places like.... Moving Train.... because people have a stake in the game, or at least, they think they do.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i guess a man who has been divorced a few times and wanted an open marriage with his second wife jogs well with republican family values these days......

I'm not a fan of newt, but why are you so willing to believe?

cincybearcat

Nevermind90 wrote:

nothing makes no sense if americans do this shit to themself.. I feel bad fr so many people at the same time I shake my head and think god when I see the media starting to trow shit on Newt and Romney in 2 years..

Huh?

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

You're comparing apples to oranges.

No, in fact, I'm not.

But yeah.. You are.

Bill Clinton never went after anyone for doing what he was doing himself. He never said he was a "family values" warrior while screwing anything with a pulse.

I don't know anyone who defended Jihn Edwards. What he did was wrong and horrible and indefensible.

Newt Gingrich ground the government to a halt. Twice. And he derailed the whole democratic process so he could impeach the president for getting head from an intern while screwing that creepy Stepford whore while his wife was in the hospital with cancer.

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:

No, in fact, I'm not.

But yeah.. You are.

Bill Clinton never went after anyone for doing what he was doing himself. He never said he was a "family values" warrior while screwing anything with a pulse.

I don't know anyone who defended Jihn Edwards. What he did was wrong and horrible and indefensible.

Newt Gingrich ground the government to a halt. Twice. And he derailed the whole democratic process so he could impeach the president for getting head from an intern while screwing that creepy Stepford whore while his wife was in the hospital with cancer.

Right bill just took advantage of an employee, that issooooo much nicer. :?

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

But yeah.. You are.

Bill Clinton never went after anyone for doing what he was doing himself. He never said he was a "family values" warrior while screwing anything with a pulse.

I don't know anyone who defended Jihn Edwards. What he did was wrong and horrible and indefensible.

Newt Gingrich ground the government to a halt. Twice. And he derailed the whole democratic process so he could impeach the president for getting head from an intern while screwing that creepy Stepford whore while his wife was in the hospital with cancer.

But, I'm not.

I find it funny that anyone would challenge the fact that political party supporters are incredibly bias regarding personal life issues or missteps.

Sticking with the one "Clinton/Newt" example (of arguably thousands)...

1) Newt (and Republicans) went after Clinton. Newt did something similar (Republicans support him).
Dumb... Dum..Dum..Dumb.
2) Democrats rallied around Clinton and supported him, saying what he did in his personal life didn't matter... and it's a "right wing conspiracy". Now, that Newt has some semi-similar issues on his personal life come out (or rehashed), they are trying to take down his character using "those issues".
Dumb...Dum..Dum.. Dumb.

There's plenty more examples: but, the point is these personal life attributes either matter or they don't. If they do matter, be consistent regardless if there's an "R" or a "D". If they don't matter, be consistent regardless if there's an "R" or a "D".

The problem is, it's rare anyone,... including you, is fair about it. Why? Because one of the guys is always "your guy". He's a "D" or he's a "R". And, to you, "D"s are always right and "R"s are always wrong. To the OP, I assume, "R"s are always right... and so on.

That sort of thinking makes me vomit. It's so inconsistent it's silly.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

2) Democrats rallied around Clinton and supported him, saying what he did in his personal life didn't matter... and it's a "right wing conspiracy". Now, that Newt has some semi-similar issues on his personal life come out (or rehashed), they are trying to take down his character using "those issues".
Dumb...Dum..Dum..

If you see Bill Clinton being a bit naughty and newt Gingrich being a hypocritical, slime bag, lying adulterer as being "semi-similar," I guess we have a different definition of the word "similar."

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

And, to you, "D"s are always right and "R"s are always wrong.

Aside from my job and sexual orientation (that you bring up more than I do), you know nothing about me or which politicians I support. You are wrong about the above statement.

That sort of thinking makes me vomit. It's so inconsistent it's silly.

What makes me vomit is someone making assumptions about me and whom I support based on a few posts I made in the political forum on the Pearl Jam fan club website and then has the nerve to call me "Dum."

(and spells "dumb" wrong, too.)

Prince Of Dorkness

cincybearcat wrote:

Right bill just took advantage of an employee, that issooooo much nicer. :?

She was an adult and a very willing participant. Nobody was "taken advantage of" in that situation.

I really wish people would stop assuming that any sexually active woman is either a victim or a slut.

blueandwhite

I see it like this; Newt's personal life has nothing to do with his ability to do his job. On the other hand, when he (or anybody else) starts pointing the finger and condemning others for the same behaviour, I take some issue with that. It's like an anti-gun lobbyist registering and owning a dozen guns while complaining that gun ownership is fundamentally wrong. It's hard to hold a position and come across as being credible when your actions contradict your words.

Gingrich simply rubs me the wrong way a bit more because he condemns others for their piss-poor behaviour while he's doing the same thing. The fact he's a Republican doesn't really come into the picture.

Prince Of Dorkness

"We all know the record. He was run out of the speak­er­ship of his own party, he was fined $300,000 for ethics vio­la­tions. This is a guy who’s had a very dif­fi­cult polit­i­cal career at times and has been an embar­rass­ment to the party. The fact of the mat­ter is I don’t need to regale the coun­try with that entire list again except to say this. I’m not say­ing he will do it again in the future, but some­times past is prologue." - Chris Christie (R), governor of New Jersey.

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Right bill just took advantage of an employee, that issooooo much nicer. :?

She was an adult and a very willing participant. Nobody was "taken advantage of" in that situation.

I really wish people would stop assuming that any sexually active woman is either a victim or a slut.

I'm not defending Newt by any means, but Bill Clinton did his deed with an intern. Even if she was a willing participant, most companies would have fired that employee...but the government has different standards.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Aside from my job and sexual orientation (that you bring up more than I do), you know nothing about me or which politicians I support. You are wrong about the above statement.

Umm... you brought it up AGAIN, chief. I did not, nor would I. I only comment on it after you first bring it up, which is in every single thread, to point out how ridiculous it is. It's trolling behavior, so I point it out for that.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

What makes me vomit is someone making assumptions about me and whom I support based on a few posts I made in the political forum on the Pearl Jam fan club website and then has the nerve to call me "Dum."

(and spells "dumb" wrong, too.)

First, the "dum-dum-dumb" is a take off of a South Park episode, genius.

Second, you've made it pretty apparent that you're an outspoken "D" in thread after thread. You knock libertarians, you knock Republicans and you support Democrats. It's not rocket science.

inlet13

blueandwhite wrote:

I see it like this; Newt's personal life has nothing to do with his ability to do his job. On the other hand, when he (or anybody else) starts pointing the finger and condemning others for the same behaviour, I take some issue with that. It's like an anti-gun lobbyist registering and owning a dozen guns while complaining that gun ownership is fundamentally wrong. It's hard to hold a position and come across as being credible when your actions contradict your words.

Gingrich simply rubs me the wrong way a bit more because he condemns others for their piss-poor behaviour while he's doing the same thing. The fact he's a Republican doesn't really come into the picture.

First, many Republicans are undoubtedly being hypocritical here if they are supporting Newt and chastised any Ds for similar behavior.

Second, what I'm also trying to say is that many Democrats are being hypocrites too because they are fine with this sort of thing when it's their guy. They say "it has nothing to do with his ability to govern" and whatnot. Ok... fair enough. But, then when it's a guy with an "R" next to his name, they freak out and act morally superior.... all of the sudden it appears like it does have something to do with his ability to govern.

Both sides do it. It's done in this very thread. It's gross.

So... My point is if you don't want to judge people based on their personal life, you shouldn't judge them on their personal life (period). Doesn't matter if they have a D or R. Further, if you are ok with people being judged on their personal behavior (be it open marriages, homosexuality, infidelity, etc.) you can't pick and choose when it's ok and when it's not based on political affiliation.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

Umm... you brought it up AGAIN, chief. I did not, nor would I. I only comment on it after you first bring it up, which is in every single thread, to point out how ridiculous it is. It's trolling behavior, so I point it out for that.

I Didn't mention my own in that other thread, you did that...I Just made a parallel between GOProud and the anti-war/pro-choice splinter factions in the republican party. You brought me into it personally. And you point it out cuz yer kinda whiny.

Second, you've made it pretty apparent that you're an outspoken "D" in thread after thread. You knock libertarians, you knock Republicans and you support Democrats. It's not rocket science.

Oh I don't deny being a progressive, that's for sure. But you said that to me, "Ds are always right and Rs are always wrong." and that's it's not accurate. Not even close.

Please stop making assumptions about what I "always" do based on a few posts.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

So... My point is if you don't want to judge people based on their personal life, you shouldn't judge them on their personal life (period).

I think you're wrong.

I think that if you attack someone else for their personal life, yours is now fair game.

If someone minds their own business, I'll allow them their privacy. If someone like Newt Gingrich (like he has) attacks my family and tries to pass laws to hurt us, I am within my right to talk about how he married his mistress...twice. And how his new wife is a creepy Stepford whore blowup sex doll.

Maybe you think "two wrongs don't make a right."

I say "a wrong and a right makes me a doormat and I'm not willing to be one any longer."

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

So... My point is if you don't want to judge people based on their personal life, you shouldn't judge them on their personal life (period).

I think you're wrong.

I think that if you attack someone else for their personal life, yours is now fair game.

If someone minds their own business, I'll allow them their privacy. If someone like Newt Gingrich (like he has) attacks my family and tries to pass laws to hurt us, I am within my right to talk about how he married his mistress...twice. And how his new wife is a creepy Stepford whore blowup sex doll.

Maybe you think "two wrongs don't make a right."

I say "a wrong and a right makes me a doormat and I'm not willing to be one any longer."

You're in your right to feel however you want. And I'm in my right to read what you write and say what you're writing makes you sound like a hypocrite. All I'm trying to say is there's an inconsistency here (not picking on you, but on all the Ds looking down upon this Newt marriage thing... and all the Rs supporting it)... and it has to do with partisan supporters (not really with the crap politicians on both sides) and their sheep-like tendencies.

My thought is: If you don't want people to judge you, don't judge them (this was the old Dem point of view on matters like this). If you are ok with judging others, be consistent on your morals (what's right and wrong) and be prepared to have them tossed back on you (this was the old Republican point of view). Choose one side and stick with it. Otherwise, you're being a hypocrite. With this current issue, both the Dems and the Republicans are hypocrites.

This is not just about politicians and their lives. It's about freedom to live how we want with no judgment... OR... to say judgment is permitted and it should be across the board and fair. We can't have it both ways.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

My thought is: If you don't want people to judge you, don't judge them (this was the old Dem point of view on matters like this). If you are ok with judging others, be consistent on your morals (what's right and wrong) and be prepared to have them tossed back on you (this was the old Republican point of view). Choose one side and stick with it. Otherwise, you're being a hypocrite. With this current issue, both the Dems and the Republicans are hypocrites.

Well then by your argument, Gingrich should be ready to have it tossed back at him.

I for one am sick and tired of being the one "in the right" while I lay down in the road and get run over.

Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Come for me, and I'll fight you back. I'm sorry if you think that fighting my enemies makes me a "hypocrite." I think it makes me a survivor.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

My thought is: If you don't want people to judge you, don't judge them (this was the old Dem point of view on matters like this). If you are ok with judging others, be consistent on your morals (what's right and wrong) and be prepared to have them tossed back on you (this was the old Republican point of view). Choose one side and stick with it. Otherwise, you're being a hypocrite. With this current issue, both the Dems and the Republicans are hypocrites.

Well then by your argument, Gingrich should be ready to have it tossed back at him.

I for one am sick and tired of being the one "in the right" while I lay down in the road and get run over.

Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Come for me, and I'll fight you back. I'm sorry if you think that fighting my enemies makes me a "hypocrite." I think it makes me a survivor.

My point again is...

Gingrich should be prepared to have it tossed back at him. But, my point isn't about him... it's who should be doing it. If everyone was sticking to their agenda... he would have it tossed back at him from the "RIGHT". But, up until now, they are not... and hence, are being hypocritical. So, instead, it's coming from the LEFT. They are also being hypocritical because they are of the "mind your own personal matters" mantra ... clearly they aren't doing such here.

P.S. Gingrich is a scum bag. I'm just pointing out there's an agenda to these attacks on his character by the left and lack of attack on his character by the right. Those engaged in the forementioned, in my humble opinion, are also scum bags.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

If everyone was sticking to their agenda... he would have it tossed back at him from the "RIGHT". But, up until now, they are not... and hence, are being hypocritical. So, instead, it's coming from the LEFT. They are also being hypocritical because they are of the "mind your own personal matters" mantra ... clearly they aren't doing such here.

Except my personal agenda is "live of your terms and I'll live on mine. If you do not let me live on my terms, I will not let you live on yours." I will not pick a fight. But I also won't lie down in the ditch when one is picked with me.

I apply this across the board.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger had his marital problems, I didn't do my dance of glee because he had very publicly opposed Proposition 8 (as a Republican Governor) and hadn't held himself up as a pillar of moral values.

When Democratic virulently anti-gay congressman Carl Kruger was accused of taking bribes that were used to partially pay for his gay lover's water front mansion, I DID do my dance of glee.

So as you can see... you were quite wrong when you said I always say that the "Ds are right and the Rs are wrong." The people who mind their own business are right and the ones who don't will not get to keep their privacy.

And THAT is my "personal agenda."

satansbed

WOW!

the republicans are really stupid

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/