bills_fan Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 I agree. I just find it unfortunate that discussing God in public is a detriment. And as I think you know, I ain't no Bible thumper. But it just seems like the very mention of God by a public official gets them in hot water. You can say cops acted stupidly, and that's okay. But suggest you believe in God, people freak out. Which is funny, because the minute the schitt hits the fan, everyone is on their knees. Its not the believe in God that irks me at all, but that God would somehow care whether Newt ran for Pres. And the Republicans brought the scorn on themselves with the whole concept of a "moral majority" and focusing far more on social issues than on fiscal ones. And to bring the thread full circle, the hypocritical nature of Gingrich, such as leading the charge against Clinton while having his own on-the-side amongst other things, would IMHO ensure a Republican defeat in 2012.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Or retire. Like Stupak. I agree. I just find it unfortunate that discussing God in public is a detriment. And as I think you know, I ain't no Bible thumper. But it just seems like the very mention of God by a public official gets them in hot water. You can say cops acted stupidly, and that's okay. But suggest you believe in God, people freak out. Which is funny, because the minute the schitt hits the fan, everyone is on their knees. Imagine the public lashing a politician would face if he said he was an atheist. Just keep your religion out of my face and government please. BTW, "No atheists in foxholes" is so lame. You can have keep the knee pads because I won't be needing them...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Nope. Romney has come out against it. Obamacare is almost the same thing as Romneycare, Although Romney was for it before he was against it. Since then he has been for it, except when Obamacare passed, when he decided to be against it again. Have you seen the interviews when he is asked about it? Hilarious. He has plenty of time to come out for it before 2012 if public support increases. Actually, he has time to change his mind 3 or 4 times before then. Not sure how the Republicans will be able to support him. How do they reconcile their absolute hatred of Obamacare with the person who actually implemented the same thing in Mass? Actually, if the FNC keeps generating nuts at the current rate, Palin-Bachmann looks like a lock to be the Republican ticket. You might actually get the Democrats praying for the Rapture if they actually get elected.
Nanker Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Its not the believe in God that irks me at all, but that God would somehow care whether Newt ran for Pres. And the Republicans brought the scorn on themselves with the whole concept of a "moral majority" and focusing far more on social issues than on fiscal ones. And to bring the thread full circle, the hypocritical nature of Gingrich, such as leading the charge against Clinton while having his own on-the-side amongst other things, would IMHO ensure a Republican defeat in 2012. You're wrong about that. Make one quote that he made about Clinton's affair criticizing him. Other Republicans were all over it, but Newt was not. Gingrich leveled plenty of criticism against Clinton's policies, philosophy and style of governing, as he should. Newt even criticized Bob Dole as being the "tax collector for the welfare state".
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 9, 2010 Author Posted April 9, 2010 Its not the believe in God that irks me at all, but that God would somehow care whether Newt ran for Pres. And the Republicans brought the scorn on themselves with the whole concept of a "moral majority" and focusing far more on social issues than on fiscal ones. And to bring the thread full circle, the hypocritical nature of Gingrich, such as leading the charge against Clinton while having his own on-the-side amongst other things, would IMHO ensure a Republican defeat in 2012. I can't believe you got all that out of this- Will he say yes to a presidential campaign? "That will be up to God," he said, "and the American people." So anyone who ever said"there but for the grace of God go I" or "they did what they could-it's up to God now" is disqualified from office?
whateverdude Posted April 9, 2010 Posted April 9, 2010 Gingrich is a Smart man, bet he could run circles around Obama in the facts and figures department. I think he was “polarizing” not for the trumped up ethics charges but because he came off as an arrogant pompous ass and the media could not stand him. Back then he had that little know it all smile that needed to be punched straight! All but one of the ethics charges brought forth by the Dem witch hunt were dropped and that one pales in comparison to the tax evaders Obama hired. It’s amazing but the stuff the Dems wanted to get Gingrich on back then would be laughed at now. Both sides waste our $ and time with witch hunts like this. It's just RED meat for their base.
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 9, 2010 Author Posted April 9, 2010 Kill the fags and don't eat shellfish. It's also ok to kill non-fags, so long as they've already been born. Pedophilia, while widely ignored/supported in the past, will no longer be tolerated (if you get caught). So you got this from a Gingrich speech? You are one hateful twisted mess of a person.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 So you got this from a Gingrich speech? You are one hateful twisted mess of a person. Hey, I'm just pointing out what a "Judeo/Christian ethic" tends to look like in practice.
Booster4324 Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 Hey, I'm just pointing out what a "Judeo/Christian ethic" tends to look like in practice. Painting with such a broad brush destroys any point you might have made. I should note, as usual.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 Painting with such a broad brush destroys any point you might have made. I should note, as usual. It may be a bit over the top but nothing I said is untrue. The assumption that "goverinng from a Judeo/Christian ethic" is automatically a good thing is equally absurd.
Barack Obama Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 Let me be clear The only thing better than Gingrich winning the Republican nomination would be for Sarah Palin to win it Run baby run
Magox Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 Hey, I'm just pointing out what a "Judeo/Christian ethic" tends to look like in practice. Gene, I gotta hand it to ya, you sure are a master of generalizations. It may not be a bad idea to try to correctify that a bit. edit: Didn't see Boosters post till right now.
Adam Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 Knows how Washington works and is the ultimate insider, but he is too polarizing. You are probably right, but he would be a much better candidate than Palin- who I think would probably be the worst president ever.
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 11, 2010 Author Posted April 11, 2010 It may be a bit over the top but nothing I said is untrue. The assumption that "goverinng from a Judeo/Christian ethic" is automatically a good thing is equally absurd. This may be a new big cat defense. "My view is absurd, but the view no one actually expressed is equally absurd."
Nanker Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 This may be a new big cat defense. "My view is absurd, but the view no one actually expressed is equally absurd." And don't forget that no one has the right to be offended by it in any way. In fact, only haters are offended. Bigoted haters. That's right. Religious, bigoted haters. All of them.
Barack Obama Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 Palin- who I think would probably be the worst president ever. Let me be clear. I take that as a challenge.
Kevin Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 Nobody with a ( D ) or ( R ) next to their name is ever going to bring change to Washington. One would hope that the drooling masses have figured this out by now given what has transpired between "hope and change" in '08 to what we are now saddled with. +1
Adam Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 Let me be clear. I take that as a challenge. The way politics have worked for the past few decades, neither Bush, nor Obama were in position to be anything good. The goal of the other party was to demonize them both.
nero47 Posted April 13, 2010 Posted April 13, 2010 Im not sure about that. Hes a strict Constitutionalist, so he understand the Seperation Clause better than anyone. And besdies....goverining from a Judeo/Christian ethic does not necessarily mean "bringing more religion into government" Please point out the Separation Clause, if by that you refer to "separation of church and state". I seem to have a problem finding it in the US Constitution.
Fastback Posted April 13, 2010 Posted April 13, 2010 BTW, "No atheists in foxholes" is so lame. You can have keep the knee pads because I won't be needing them... Ever been in a foxhole fighting for your life? That's what I thought...
Recommended Posts