Gingrich wanted ‘open marriage’ with both wife and mistress

[quade 3]

Quote

And then they criticize Santorum for adhering to his family values platform.

Because "family values" as a whole has been shown to be a pretty hypocritical position and disingenuously applied by the Republican party.

If the Republican party didn't put themselves on such a high pedestal in their claims of being the party of "family values" it would't be so easy to knock them off it.

I will say that Santorum does appear to be sincere in this regard, but I disagree with almost all of his positions on that basis. I'm not going to knock Santorum for being a typical hypocritical "family values" Republican. I will knock him for his "family values" not being aligned with my own.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Actually I don't think it matters to you one way or another. What I think you are looking for is something, anything, to criticize.

[quade 3]

Quote

Actually I don't think it matters to you one way or another. What I think you are looking for is something, anything, to criticize.

Irony meter pegged on that one. Nice job.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually I don't think it matters to you one way or another. What I think you are looking for is something, anything, to criticize.

Irony meter pegged on that one. Nice job.

At least you can recognize it.

[wmw999 2,122]

No, I think the issue is with the "family values" platform, as seen by some people at least.

That's the platform where the candidate wants a world where people who aren't socially conservative are supposed to modify their behavior so that social conservatives are comfortable.

And if you (this is the "social conservative" you, not the "Gravitymaster" you) want me (or my gay or transgender relatives) to live in a manner designed to make you (and not me) comfortable, then you'd darn well better be living that way yourself.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Marinus 0]

Quote

OMG, an imperfect politician.

Oh, the humanity!

Since it's apparently time to throw around biblical texts: Matthew 7:3

Quote

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

It's no the imperfection, it's the imperfection combined with a tendency to whine about similar imperfections (or "imperfections" if you will) in other people.

[Gravitymaster 0]

That's what Santorum does yet he's criticized for it with the same vitiol as Gingrich is.

[wmw999 2,122]

Different vitriol. I agree that he's consistent, but he's still asking people to modify their lifestyles. Just as some social conservatives in Houston campaigned specifically against the current mayor's "gay lifestyle," some social liberals will campaign against what they see as an assault on their lifestyle.

It's partly a reflection of the polarization brought about by (whoever you want to blame). Jimmy Carter was as socially conservative in his behavior as they come. No one objected to his behaving how he wanted to, did they? Nowadays, even though he'd be considered liberal politically, there would still be suspicion based on his born-again beliefs. I don't think that's an improvement.

Any movement which tries to drive people into predefined molds, rathen than encouraging them to evaluate information for themselves, is negative.

No, we can't all evaluate all information (no one can). But it's lazy not to even try.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,623]

www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/chris-christie-newt-gingrich-embarrassment-republican-party-article-1.1010047

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

No, I think the issue is with the "family values" platform, as seen by some people at least.

That's the platform where the candidate wants a world where people who aren't socially conservative are supposed to modify their behavior so that social conservatives are comfortable.

And if you (this is the "social conservative" you, not the "Gravitymaster" you) want me (or my gay or transgender relatives) to live in a manner designed to make you (and not me) comfortable, then you'd darn well better be living that way yourself.

Wendy P.

No, I think Quade got it right. The issue is that this platform of "family values" does not align with your own and people want to knock them for it. People continually say it's not about his personal life, but then make it about his personal life....example:

Kallend:
"Newt's personal life is not the issue. The issue is that his personal life is....bla bla bla."

Personally I think it would be best if people did stick to the issue, ie. their family values vs. yours...

After all, who is more likely to deliver on those conservative family values...Newt or Snatorum?

...and who is more likely to compromise them? (which is what you want.)

The price for having your cake and eating it to tends to be more than one is willing to pay.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

That's what Santorum does yet he's criticized for it with the same vitiol as Gingrich is.

Santorum is just a busybody who want to impose his "family values" on everyone else.

Gingrich is a hypocritical busybody who wants to impose his "family values" on everyone else while giving a pass to himself.

Can you see the difference?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

OMG, an imperfect politician.

Oh, the humanity!

Since it's apparently time to throw around biblical texts: Matthew 7:3

Quote

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

It's no the imperfection, it's the imperfection combined with a tendency to whine about similar imperfections (or "imperfections" if you will) in other people.

Newt represents his supporters, not himself.

Politics is a dirty business...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

That's what Santorum does yet he's criticized for it with the same vitiol as Gingrich is.

He's criticized because people disagree with his policies, and I disagree that it's with the same vitriol as Gingrich evokes. When a candidate states publicly that US law should conform to the laws of a specific religion (Christianity, and more particularly Catholicism), then they truly do want to change the fundamental nature of America in ways that directly violate the constitution and infringe on the freedom of everyone who doesn't already follow that specific religion. If someone runs on a platform of establishing America as a religious theocracy you can be sure I (and many others) will object strenuously. Santorum has, of course, the right to choose for himself how he will live his life, and as far as I know he does abide by his principles.

Gingrich's behavior (as opposed to his words) shows over and over that he will say or do whatever seems to him at the moment to be most expeditious at gaining power or pussy for himself. He will sell out anyone if he can benefit. I don't know what policies he will promote should he be elected, as his word is of no value and the only predictor of his decisions is "what's in it for him".

I hear over and over from certain posters here in SC (including yourself, rather prominently) that Obama's policies are anti-America and anti-capitalism. That disagreement with policy very obviously extends to a very personal animosity against Obama. I have no doubt that if he were to run into a burning building and carry 10 kids to safety on his back, you and certain others would be here in SC accusing him of setting the fire, corruptly allowing the building contractor to evade fire codes, or of planting the kids where they were really not in danger so he just appear to be the hero. Maybe it's your own inability to separate disagreement with policy from personal hatred that leads you to see vitriol where there is only disagreement.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Different vitriol. I agree that he's consistent, but he's still asking people to modify their lifestyles. Just as some social conservatives in Houston campaigned specifically against the current mayor's "gay lifestyle," some social liberals will campaign against what they see as an assault on their lifestyle.

It's partly a reflection of the polarization brought about by (whoever you want to blame). Jimmy Carter was as socially conservative in his behavior as they come. No one objected to his behaving how he wanted to, did they? Nowadays, even though he'd be considered liberal politically, there would still be suspicion based on his born-again beliefs. I don't think that's an improvement.

Any movement which tries to drive people into predefined molds, rathen than encouraging them to evaluate information for themselves, is negative.

No, we can't all evaluate all information (no one can). But it's lazy not to even try.

Wendy P.

I submit Wendy that we already HAVE modified our life style and have been brow beaten with political correctness in to giving up what is important. Whipped into accepting that which we, (IMO), should not

The dangers of what is happening today were foretold years ago

And to me the reason is very clear. That reason is people NOT wanting to held to account for their own actions


John Adams once said

Quote

it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=63

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,122]

Quote

I submit Wendy that we already HAVE modified our life style and have been brow beaten with political correctness in to giving up what is important.

That depends on what you think is important, doesn't it?

To me, the ability to make a life with family and friends, and the ability to make my self happy productively are serious goals. How others live their lives has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

No matter how life is at present, there are people who look back on different eras as being better, based on their experience, their groups and families, and their families' histories.

If you thought the 50's were pretty good because most people married, had children, and went to church, remember that in the 50's medical care was far inferior to now (which is a two-edged sword), prejudice was rampant and pervasive in the country, and many, many people did not have options to live lives outside of fairly rigidly set guidelines (i.e. many minorities, and many women). "We" were sure in our beliefs, but that's because the people whose beliefs mattered was a much smaller subset -- generally it was white men with some money. The difference was that the structure was more accepted.

If you thought the 30's were pretty good because families stuck together, two words: Great Depression. Not to mention that whole little conflagration setting up across the pond.

Etc. I saw a "slow living" pitch the other day about how we hurry too much, and how we've therefore lost the pleasure in work that people had in the 1800's in working. Unfortunately, I think that the far larger number of people who had to work as domestics, or who had to send their children out to work, probably didn't feel the same way. It's just that their opinion didn't matter.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

That's what Santorum does yet he's criticized for it with the same vitiol as Gingrich is.

He's criticized because people disagree with his policies, and I disagree that it's with the same vitriol as Gingrich evokes.

Uh, huh...right
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4250281;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

When a candidate states publicly that US law should conform to the laws of a specific religion (Christianity, and more particularly Catholicism), then they truly do want to change the fundamental nature of America in ways that directly violate the constitution and infringe on the freedom of everyone who doesn't already follow that specific religion. If someone runs on a platform of establishing America as a religious theocracy you can be sure I (and many others) will object strenuously. Santorum has, of course, the right to choose for himself how he will live his life, and as far as I know he does abide by his principles.

Other than stating his objection to abortion, please show where he's said that he wants to do this

Gingrich's behavior (as opposed to his words) shows over and over that he will say or do whatever seems to him at the moment to be most expeditious at gaining power or pussy for himself. He will sell out anyone if he can benefit. I don't know what policies he will promote should he be elected, as his word is of no value and the only predictor of his decisions is "what's in it for him".

I don't disagree.

I hear over and over from certain posters here in SC (including yourself, rather prominently) that Obama's policies are anti-America and anti-capitalism. That disagreement with policy very obviously extends to a very personal animosity against Obama.

Big leap in logic there.

I have no doubt that if he were to run into a burning building and carry 10 kids to safety on his back, you and certain others would be here in SC accusing him of setting the fire, corruptly allowing the building contractor to evade fire codes, or of planting the kids where they were really not in danger so he just appear to be the hero. Maybe it's your own inability to separate disagreement with policy from personal hatred that leads you to see vitriol where there is only disagreement.

You would be very wrong and I will challenge you to show where I've ever made a serious personal attack on Obama.

Don

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

I submit ... that we already HAVE modified our life style and have been brow beaten with political correctness in to giving up what is important.

Can you offer some examples of important things you have had to give up because of political correctness? I'm genuinely curious. Otherwise I would have just made some smart-assed crack about how that "Emancipation Proclamation" messed up your lifestyle or something.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I submit ... that we already HAVE modified our life style and have been brow beaten with political correctness in to giving up what is important.

Can you offer some examples of important things you have had to give up because of political correctness? I'm genuinely curious. Otherwise I would have just made some smart-assed crack about how that "Emancipation Proclamation" messed up your lifestyle or something.

Don

The specific example would be the bastardization of the seperation of chuch and state clause and how it is used today

It was NEVER intended to used like it is in the courts nowadays

Words have been stolen due to PC bs

Race relations has been HURT by PC bs instead of helped

These are very general I know and maybe off the topic a bit

In the end, open honest conversation about these types of topics are nearly impossible because someone says they are offened and others throw the race card

Its a mess

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,122]

Has this changed what you, personally, would do?

I can see some fear of intended-as-innocent behavior with the whole "sexual harrassment" thing.

OTOH, I can also see sexual harrassment being a problem (having been subjected to it -- and I have a really thick skin when it comes to things like that -- I AM a skydiver, after all).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,122]

Quote

In the end, open honest conversation about these types of topics are nearly impossible because someone says they are offened and others throw the race card

It's hard to have what's seen as an open and honest conversation, especially when you're white. We (light-skinned people) used to hold the bulk of the institutionalized power in the US. The US also has a strong tendency to want the underdog to succeed, as long as we recognize them as a legitimate competitor.

As black people passed from being "other" to being legitimate competitors, there's now that "underdog" thing that lets them vent sometimes without white people also being able to vent.

But, ya know -- if, instead of talking about race relations, you just talk about people, and jobs, I've found it's surprisingly easy to get past all that. I never did call people the N work, never did figure that there were actions that went along with being a certain color. I think I was lucky to have been brought up in the family I was, where I was, because these really haven't ever been issues.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Has this changed what you, personally, would do?

I can see some fear of intended-as-innocent behavior with the whole "sexual harrassment" thing.

OTOH, I can also see sexual harrassment being a problem (having been subjected to it -- and I have a really thick skin when it comes to things like that -- I AM a skydiver, after all).

Wendy P.

I am not sure what you are asking me Wendy

But in the end, some things are right and some are wrong. There is very little gray area

Harrassment is wrong in any context. Special laws are not needed to define that in a moral society

And a big arguement agains religion is that ones morality is being pushed on another

I submit that it is happening the other way. Through political correctness and the liberal courts, a morality other than what was considered normal during the founding of this country is being pushed out on everybody

John Adams does a good job of explaining the context and morality under which this country was founded.

That said however, I do not think that gives society a pass at harrassing those who are not considered the normal of a society

I know there is a balance. Right now, in my mind, the scale it tipped way to the left

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

In the end, open honest conversation about these types of topics are nearly impossible because someone says they are offened and others throw the race card

It's hard to have what's seen as an open and honest conversation, especially when you're white. We (light-skinned people) used to hold the bulk of the institutionalized power in the US. The US also has a strong tendency to want the underdog to succeed, as long as we recognize them as a legitimate competitor.

As black people passed from being "other" to being legitimate competitors, there's now that "underdog" thing that lets them vent sometimes without white people also being able to vent.

But, ya know -- if, instead of talking about race relations, you just talk about people, and jobs, I've found it's surprisingly easy to get past all that. I never did call people the N work, never did figure that there were actions that went along with being a certain color. I think I was lucky to have been brought up in the family I was, where I was, because these really haven't ever been issues.

Wendy P.

Race has never been an issue to me either Wendy

BUT, that said, how many times on this site, have many been called racists when they are only disagreeing with someone who is of a different race??

An example of the dishonesty of those who like to throw the race card to stop a conversation they can not win

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,122]

I once heard an interview with a black columnist. He said that no, not everything is about race, but that the percentage is larger when one is dealing between races, in part because generally in our race-homegeneous society, people see someone of a different race as representing that race if they don't have a large interracial experience.

Which puts an onus on people that's not fair.

And, when one sees enough of that (which is going to be more common when one is part of the minority, not the majority race), one tends to see that kind of dynamic even when it's not intended.

Just as a policeman who walks a beat tends to see people as being automatically guilty -- after all, most of hte people that he deals with professionally are guilty, right???

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,122]

Quote

But in the end, some things are right and some are wrong. There is very little gray area

The definition of what's right and what's wrong has changed. It used to be right to own people. It used to be right that only men voted. It used to be right that women were daughters or wives, and had no serious legal rights or existence of their own. It used to be right that Christmas was a heathen celebration.

Quote

Harrassment is wrong in any context. Special laws are not needed to define that in a moral society

It used to be OK to taunt people because they were black or hispanic or irish, depending on where you were. Hazing used to be an accepted part of getting into a fraternity. When a classmate of mine interviewed for a job as an electrical engineer, she was informed that as a woman, she would be expected to cook the turkey for the company's Thanksgiving party. It used to be OK for the boss to ask the secretary to come sit on his lap and take dictation in some offices.

Quote

And a big arguement agains religion is that ones morality is being pushed on another.

I submit that it is happening the other way. Through political correctness and the liberal courts, a morality other than what was considered normal during the founding of this country is being pushed out on everybody

Morality is how each of us lives and conducts ourselves. It doesn't come from the outside, it comes from the inside. Exercising it might mean that we lose some things that others get (like dating while married), but it means that we gain other things, like a sense of rightness with ourselves.

Life is different from what it was when the Founding Fathers started this all. To say that some societal/moral rules cannot be re-evaluated or change, while others can, is kind of arbitrary.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

And a big arguement agains religion is that ones morality is being pushed on another

I submit that it is happening the other way. Through political correctness and the liberal courts, a morality other than what was considered normal during the founding of this country is being pushed out on everybody

Who has forced you to have sex with another man, Marc? Who has forced your wife to have an abortion? Who is forcing your kids into homosexual marriages?

The only pushing of their morality on others is being done by the religious right.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.