Originally Posted by buggyone

Richie says, "The tangent has swung wide, but that what happens when you try to defend the indefensible. You must divert, and this thread is a good illustration."

Since he opened the door, I have to add that this is the same tactic Newt used in the South Carolina debate when he refused to answer the question about his ex-wife's statements - and turned indignant toward the questioner that this gossip was no way to start a debate about national issues.

Newt could not defend the indefensible and therefore had to divert.

You have to admit that Newt does have good political consultants who prepped him with the proper answers and appropriate act for him to take. Still, he is a slimeball, Washington insider, career politician, and actor.

Newt says his ex-wife and you are lying. He got indignant, but he answered the question. Your example is "a fail" as the kids would say, but nice try. You're on your toes today.

Newt and Calista are both lying cheats. Amazing how the family values people are so easily fooled by these sleazes.

I'm still wondering what the difference is between Herman Cain's alleged 13 year affair and the famously poplular president Bill Clinton and His numerous affairs and one night stands and kneels...I guess it is all in one's perspective

Originally Posted by buggyone

Newt and Calista are both lying cheats. Amazing how the family values people are so easily fooled by these sleazes.

I get you, I really do. If you don't like someone, every allegation that is thrown at them is fervently believed by you as fact, and you'll stick with your view come hell or high water.

If you like someone, it's completely opposite. You wouldn't believe something against Obama or Clinton if you saw them doing it with your own eyes. You would defend them and pluck out your own eyes for lying to you.

I really do get it, old buddy.

Quote I saw last night..

"So let me see if I have this straight. Newt is depending on the children from his first wife to tell the world that his second wife is lying about his third wife."

Originally Posted by djplong

Quote I saw last night..

"So let me see if I have this straight. Newt is depending on the children from his first wife to tell the world that his second wife is lying about his third wife."

You (the collective "you") have no real idea of the Gingrich family dynamic; you have to admit that much.

Making assumptions on the doings of another family is presumptuous.

We all love gossip though, don't we. Much more fun to just assume things.

Originally Posted by janmcn

What does any of this have to do with "Rejecting of Keystone Pipeline; Act of National Insanity"?

???

I make no assumptions. I just thought the line was funny.

There are time when Newt seems like a genius to me. And others when I look at him and the response is "WHAT is he SMOKING?".

It's hard to take someone preaching "family values" when you have as checkered a history as Newt does. I mean, he was screaming about Bill cheating on Hillary while doing the exact same thing.

Now, to your point, of course circumstances matter. Just like Newt, I'm on my third marriage. In my case, I married too young the first time (Lisa and I have a very friendly relationship these days though she's moved to Canada). The second time I was married for 19 years - my two daughters are from this marriage. Unfortunately my wife decided the grass was greener elsewhere and did everything she could to try and make me leave (you wouldn't believe the stories I could tell) - but I wouldn't. She finally left nearly 6 years ago. Now I'm married (for 1 1/2 years and counting) to a woman I can't imagine leaving.

So, yeah, circumstances matter.

I've always said that I thought Newt torpedoed himself when it comes to being President but that he still had a lot to offer as a consultant or advisor. In some areas, he certainly does have the lights on. But, President? Definitely not for me.

Originally Posted by djplong

I make no assumptions. I just thought the line was funny.

There are time when Newt seems like a genius to me. And others when I look at him and the response is "WHAT is he SMOKING?".

It's hard to take someone preaching "family values" when you have as checkered a history as Newt does. I mean, he was screaming about Bill cheating on Hillary while doing the exact same thing.

Now, to your point, of course circumstances matter. Just like Newt, I'm on my third marriage. In my case, I married too young the first time (Lisa and I have a very friendly relationship these days though she's moved to Canada). The second time I was married for 19 years - my two daughters are from this marriage. Unfortunately my wife decided the grass was greener elsewhere and did everything she could to try and make me leave (you wouldn't believe the stories I could tell) - but I wouldn't. She finally left nearly 6 years ago. Now I'm married (for 1 1/2 years and counting) to a woman I can't imagine leaving.

So, yeah, circumstances matter.

I've always said that I thought Newt torpedoed himself when it comes to being President but that he still had a lot to offer as a consultant or advisor. In some areas, he certainly does have the lights on. But, President? Definitely not for me.

Well......I guess if it's Newt or Barry you're going to have to decide what to do. Vote for anyone else but Newt in that scenario and you've voted for Barry.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Well......I guess if it's Newt or Barry you're going to have to decide what to do. Vote for anyone else but Newt in that scenario and you've voted for Barry.

Unfortunately, there's more truth in that statement than I'd like.

To me, the decision is as follows...

Obama - definitely not my first choice. Could have done a LOT better with the economy but he seems to have stopped most of the bleeding. He's made more progress on most economic fronts than Reagan did with the mess he inherited from Carter. Remember that Reagan said it would take more than 4 years to recover from the mess - and he was right. Note that I said "stopped the bleeding" - this is a VERY anemic recovery and I can't help but to feel that the lack of string on TARP has something to do with it. Admittedly, I'm not sure what the President can do about one fundamental flaw in our system right now - the fact that companies are ONLY looking out for their shareholders - and then only for the next quarter with ver few exceptions (like Apple - sitting on $90B and refusing to do dividends or stock buybacks because that doesn't meet their long-term strategic goals).

Republicans - With the exception of Ron Paul, they all seem to want to return to the policies that got us into this mess un the first place. They want to de-regulate without any specifics - just demagoguery about jobs being strangled. So far, a vote for almost any of them seems like a vote for George W. Bush.

I'm normally an optimist but it's hard to keep that going under these circumstances.