You can't make this shit up:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2014444141_apusgingrich2012.html
Quote"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate," Gingrich said.
Or, as someone or other put it, "I regret that I have but one wife to give for my country" :P
Edit: screwed up his name.
I love the "things happened in my life" bit.
What a great way to take responsibility for your actions Newt! :lol:
Actually I love Newt. He's an ideas man, and there are too few of them in politics. But his personal life is an absolute train wreck.
His ideas are mostly bad though. I can't stand him - total partisan hack - cares more about winning than about being right or helping his country. And a complete hypocrite, lying, no ethics piece of shit.
Other than that he seems like a nice guy.
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 04:58:13 PM
Actually I love Newt. He's an ideas man, and there are too few of them in politics. But his personal life is an absolute train wreck.
I've always liked him as well, but he's damaged goods as far as presidential candidacy is concerned. And he's not the only GOP'er in that category, sadly.
Clinton must have been really hard-working and patriotic - just look at the uggos he screwed. He must have been in a work-induced daze. :D
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 05:02:18 PM
His ideas are mostly bad though. I can't stand him - total partisan hack - cares more about winning than about being right or helping his country. And a complete hypocrite, lying, no ethics piece of shit.
I'm not sure that's completely right. He is hyper-partisan, to be sure. But to say he cares more about winning than being right or helping his country? No - he pushes ideology first and foremost. He isn't a "do whatever it takes to win" guy.
Nationalism can have very different effects on sexuality. Elizabeth I stayed the virgin queen, victorian brides were compliant to their husbands sexual advances (that era seems to have passed :( ) and Newt Gingrich had affairs. And of course in an earlier time the English tried to breed some civilization into the Scots through prima nocte.
Patriotism: the last refuge of the horny.
LOL "Newt" :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on March 10, 2011, 04:39:14 PM
Or, as someone or other put it, "I regret that I have but one wife to give for my country" :P
Then dumping two is twice as patriotic!
He was talking to the Christian Broadcasting Network, for fuck's sake. Of course he's going to play the contrite-before-the-eyes-of-the-Lord card.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2011, 05:07:55 PM
Nationalism can have very different effects on sexuality. Elizabeth I stayed the virgin queen, victorian brides were compliant to their husbands sexual advances (that era seems to have passed :( ) and Newt Gingrich had affairs. And of course in an earlier time the English tried to breed some civilization into the Scots through prima nocte.
:lol:
Are you willing to quote a source on that last that isn't Braveheart? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 04:58:13 PM
Actually I love Newt. He's an ideas man, and there are too few of them in politics. But his personal life is an absolute train wreck.
He's a poser. He's an ideas man of politics like Bernard Henri-Levy's an ideas man of modern philosophy. He looks and occassionally sounds the part, actually he's as vapid as his excuses.
Quote from: Slargos on March 10, 2011, 05:43:03 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2011, 05:07:55 PM
Nationalism can have very different effects on sexuality. Elizabeth I stayed the virgin queen, victorian brides were compliant to their husbands sexual advances (that era seems to have passed :( ) and Newt Gingrich had affairs. And of course in an earlier time the English tried to breed some civilization into the Scots through prima nocte.
:lol:
Are you willing to quote a source on that last that isn't Braveheart? :hmm:
Pssst - I think he may not be *entirely* serious on that ... :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on March 10, 2011, 05:43:03 PM
Are you willing to quote a source on that last that isn't Braveheart? :hmm:
Would you be willing to accept an interview with Mel Gibson?
I understand Newt's pain. I too, get boners with additional money and power.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2011, 06:01:22 PM
Quote from: Slargos on March 10, 2011, 05:43:03 PM
Are you willing to quote a source on that last that isn't Braveheart? :hmm:
Would you be willing to accept an interview with Mel Gibson?
Well, if it involved that gentleman's views on Jews, I think there would be a receptive audience. :D
I never would have voted for Nootie anyway, but if I would have considered it that absurd quote by him (assuming it wasn't taken totally out of context) likely would have changed my mind. :lol:
Actually, come to think of it... it sounds like something Clinton would have said. :hmm: :wub:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2011, 05:57:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 04:58:13 PM
Actually I love Newt. He's an ideas man, and there are too few of them in politics. But his personal life is an absolute train wreck.
He's a poser. He's an ideas man of politics like Bernard Henri-Levy's an ideas man of modern philosophy.
But a lot less tan and physically fit.
I liked the concept of the Contract With America. Not the particulars, of which I remember none, just the notion that "here's a list of things we promise to do if you elect us."
Who is going to arbitrate the breach of contract issues?
You talking to me?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 07:06:09 PM
I liked the concept of the Contract With America. Not the particulars, of which I remember none, just the notion that "here's a list of things we promise to do if you elect us."
Looking it up - they did pretty good for Congress doing a lot of what they said they would. However a lot of the bigger profile items were vetoed, or struck down in the courts.
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 07:43:51 PM
Looking it up - they did pretty good for Congress doing a lot of what they said they would. However a lot of the bigger profile items were vetoed, or struck down in the courts.
Can't fault them for that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 07:42:46 PM
You talking to me?
Why would I ever do something like that? :huh:
Yes, mister, I'm talking to you.
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 05:06:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 05:02:18 PM
His ideas are mostly bad though. I can't stand him - total partisan hack - cares more about winning than about being right or helping his country. And a complete hypocrite, lying, no ethics piece of shit.
I'm not sure that's completely right. He is hyper-partisan, to be sure. But to say he cares more about winning than being right or helping his country? No - he pushes ideology first and foremost. He isn't a "do whatever it takes to win" guy.
Yeah, it sounds more like Karl Rove.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 07:22:02 PM
Who is going to arbitrate the breach of contract issues?
The voters, obviously.
edit: Wait a minute. "Is going to?" Like, in the future?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 07:52:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 07:22:02 PM
Who is going to arbitrate the breach of contract issues?
The voters, obviously.
edit: Wait a minute. "Is going to?" Like, in the future?
That's not really an arbitration, though. That's more like failure to renew contract.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 07:55:31 PM
That's not really an arbitration, though. That's more like failure to renew contract.
:huh: I don't get it. Are you trying to make the point that the Contract With America wasn't really a contract?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 08:06:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 07:55:31 PM
That's not really an arbitration, though. That's more like failure to renew contract.
:huh: I don't get it. Are you trying to make the point that the Contract With America wasn't really a contract?
Yes. :contract:
:mellow:
You still got his name wrong.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 05:02:18 PM
His ideas are mostly bad though. I can't stand him - total partisan hack - cares more about winning than about being right or helping his country. And a complete hypocrite, lying, no ethics piece of shit.
Other than that he seems like a nice guy.
And his worst crime....co-authoring Nazi-victory Alt-history novels.
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 05:06:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 05:02:18 PM
His ideas are mostly bad though. I can't stand him - total partisan hack - cares more about winning than about being right or helping his country. And a complete hypocrite, lying, no ethics piece of shit.
I'm not sure that's completely right. He is hyper-partisan, to be sure. But to say he cares more about winning than being right or helping his country? No - he pushes ideology first and foremost. He isn't a "do whatever it takes to win" guy.
The guy was pushing to have Clinton impeached while at the same time having an affair himself. How is that "ideology first and foremost"? What does ideology have to do with impeaching a sitting President fot getting a blowjob?
He is most definitely a "do whatever it takes to win" guy. I would add "...and fuck the country in the process if necessary".
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 10:32:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 05:06:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 05:02:18 PM
His ideas are mostly bad though. I can't stand him - total partisan hack - cares more about winning than about being right or helping his country. And a complete hypocrite, lying, no ethics piece of shit.
I'm not sure that's completely right. He is hyper-partisan, to be sure. But to say he cares more about winning than being right or helping his country? No - he pushes ideology first and foremost. He isn't a "do whatever it takes to win" guy.
The guy was pushing to have Clinton impeached while at the same time having an affair himself. How is that "ideology first and foremost"? What does ideology have to do with impeaching a sitting President fot getting a blowjob?
He is most definitely a "do whatever it takes to win" guy. I would add "...and fuck the country in the process if necessary".
I said he was hyper-partisan.
But someone said your description sounded more like Karl Rove, and that's an interesting comparison. Both are highly partisan, but Rove always put winning over ideology. He was a different animal than Gingrich.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2011, 05:57:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 04:58:13 PM
Actually I love Newt. He's an ideas man, and there are too few of them in politics. But his personal life is an absolute train wreck.
He's a poser. He's an ideas man of politics like Bernard Henri-Levy's an ideas man of modern philosophy. He looks and occassionally sounds the part, actually he's as vapid as his excuses.
Nice comparison! :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2011, 01:25:27 AM
I said he was hyper-partisan.
But someone said your description sounded more like Karl Rove, and that's an interesting comparison. Both are highly partisan, but Rove always put winning over ideology. He was a different animal than Gingrich.
I see no difference between Rove and Gingrich other than that Rove reveled in the image of being the worlds biggest asshole, and Gingrich tried to pretend he wasn't. Maybe you have seen something substantive that i haven't, however.
I don't see Gingrich as being any kind of a patriot any more than I see Rove in that role. As a the kind of person they are, the difference to me is that Rove was a bit more honest and straightforward; he never pretended that he was doing it all for his country.
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2011, 01:25:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 10:32:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 05:06:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 05:02:18 PM
His ideas are mostly bad though. I can't stand him - total partisan hack - cares more about winning than about being right or helping his country. And a complete hypocrite, lying, no ethics piece of shit.
I'm not sure that's completely right. He is hyper-partisan, to be sure. But to say he cares more about winning than being right or helping his country? No - he pushes ideology first and foremost. He isn't a "do whatever it takes to win" guy.
The guy was pushing to have Clinton impeached while at the same time having an affair himself. How is that "ideology first and foremost"? What does ideology have to do with impeaching a sitting President fot getting a blowjob?
He is most definitely a "do whatever it takes to win" guy. I would add "...and fuck the country in the process if necessary".
I said he was hyper-partisan.
But someone said your description sounded more like Karl Rove, and that's an interesting comparison. Both are highly partisan, but Rove always put winning over ideology. He was a different animal than Gingrich.
You said he was NOT a do whatever it takes to win guy - about the guy who led the charge to impeach Clinton on his sexual indiscretions, while at the exact same time was having an affair himself.
If trying to impeach a sitting President for something trivial is not "doing whatever it takes to win" and no mind the consequences - then what would be???
The difference between Rove and Gingrich is only that Rove is an operative, rather than a politician. So I guess Rove is a little more honest about what he is - I actually have no real problem with Rove. Don't like the guy really, but he is a guy who is doing a job, and was pretty damn good at it. Gingrich is everything I despise about the worst of politicians. A partisan hack who cares nothing about the country he supposedly leads except insofar as it can get him more power, and lacking a basic understanding of what it means to be a leader.
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2011, 09:02:21 AM
You said he was NOT a do whatever it takes to win guy - about the guy who led the charge to impeach Clinton on his sexual indiscretions, while at the exact same time was having an affair himself.
Actually, he was fairly quiet during the whole episode if I recall. He seemed to be keeping his head down. After all he had already left one wife before that who was dying of cancer.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2011, 09:08:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2011, 09:02:21 AM
You said he was NOT a do whatever it takes to win guy - about the guy who led the charge to impeach Clinton on his sexual indiscretions, while at the exact same time was having an affair himself.
Actually, he was fairly quiet during the whole episode if I recall. He seemed to be keeping his head down. After all he had already left one wife before that who was dying of cancer.
You do not remember correctly. He was very vocal attacking Clinton, and was one of the first to bring up the idea of impeaching him.
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2011, 09:02:21 AM
The difference between Rove and Gingrich is only that Rove is an operative, rather than a politician. So I guess Rove is a little more honest about what he is - I actually have no real problem with Rove. Don't like the guy really, but he is a guy who is doing a job, and was pretty damn good at it. Gingrich is everything I despise about the worst of politicians. A partisan hack who cares nothing about the country he supposedly leads except insofar as it can get him more power, and lacking a basic understanding of what it means to be a leader.
In other words, Gingrich is most definitely Presidential material. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on March 11, 2011, 09:14:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2011, 09:02:21 AM
The difference between Rove and Gingrich is only that Rove is an operative, rather than a politician. So I guess Rove is a little more honest about what he is - I actually have no real problem with Rove. Don't like the guy really, but he is a guy who is doing a job, and was pretty damn good at it. Gingrich is everything I despise about the worst of politicians. A partisan hack who cares nothing about the country he supposedly leads except insofar as it can get him more power, and lacking a basic understanding of what it means to be a leader.
In other words, Gingrich is most definitely Presidential material. :cool:
:lol:
:cry:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 07:06:09 PM
I liked the concept of the Contract With America. Not the particulars, of which I remember none, just the notion that "here's a list of things we promise to do if you elect us."
Don't all parties do that every election?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2011, 01:52:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 07:06:09 PM
I liked the concept of the Contract With America. Not the particulars, of which I remember none, just the notion that "here's a list of things we promise to do if you elect us."
Don't all parties do that every election?
Last congressional election, the Dems line was:
BUSH DID IT. IT'S ALL HIS FAULT. DON'T ELECT THEM.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2011, 01:52:37 PM
Don't all parties do that every election?
Parties endorse platforms which are full of plattiudes like "we will work for goodness and against badness."
The CWA was very specific (things like eliminat the National Endowment for the Arts) and it was signed by the great majority, if not all, Republican Congressmen who won election that term.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 11, 2011, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2011, 01:52:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 07:06:09 PM
I liked the concept of the Contract With America. Not the particulars, of which I remember none, just the notion that "here's a list of things we promise to do if you elect us."
Don't all parties do that every election?
Last congressional election, the Dems line was:
BUSH DID IT. IT'S ALL HIS FAULT. DON'T ELECT THEM.
I guess that explains why they lost so many seats. Bush hadn't been president for two years.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2011, 06:49:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 11, 2011, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2011, 01:52:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 07:06:09 PM
I liked the concept of the Contract With America. Not the particulars, of which I remember none, just the notion that "here's a list of things we promise to do if you elect us."
Don't all parties do that every election?
Last congressional election, the Dems line was:
BUSH DID IT. IT'S ALL HIS FAULT. DON'T ELECT THEM.
I guess that explains why they lost so many seats. Bush hadn't been president for two years.
I can't help it if the party you like ran shitty campaigns.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2011, 06:33:05 PM
Parties endorse platforms which are full of plattiudes like "we will work for goodness and against badness."
Nothing wrong with working for goodness and against badness in my book. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2011, 06:33:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2011, 01:52:37 PM
Don't all parties do that every election?
Parties endorse platforms which are full of plattiudes like "we will work for goodness and against badness."
The CWA was very specific (things like eliminat the National Endowment for the Arts) and it was signed by the great majority, if not all, Republican Congressmen who won election that term.
Yes, the Contract on America was specific and, importantly, limited. It was not, as you note, a catchall sloganeering document but a finely tailored message.
It did have some wishywashiness about fraud, waste, and abuse, and some clearly unrealistic elements like (IIRC) term limits, but I would agree with you that it was a significant benefit to the Republicans in that election. I wish more US elections were run on those kinds of grounds.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 11, 2011, 06:51:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2011, 06:49:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 11, 2011, 05:35:45 PM
Last congressional election, the Dems line was:
BUSH DID IT. IT'S ALL HIS FAULT. DON'T ELECT THEM.
I guess that explains why they lost so many seats. Bush hadn't been president for two years.
I can't help it if the party you like ran shitty I get my campaigns confused.
FYPFY. :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2011, 07:05:39 PM
Yes, the Contract on America was specific and, importantly, limited. It was not, as you note, a catchall sloganeering document but a finely tailored message.
It did have some wishywashiness about fraud, waste, and abuse, and some clearly unrealistic elements like (IIRC) term limits, but I would agree with you that it was a significant benefit to the Republicans in that election. I wish more US elections were run on those kinds of grounds.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2011, 07:13:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2011, 07:05:39 PM
Yes, the Contract on America was specific and, importantly, limited. It was not, as you note, a catchall sloganeering document but a finely tailored message.
It did have some wishywashiness about fraud, waste, and abuse, and some clearly unrealistic elements like (IIRC) term limits, but I would agree with you that it was a significant benefit to the Republicans in that election. I wish more US elections were run on those kinds of grounds.
:rolleyes:
Humor doesn't translate well across borders, I note. :cool:
The line "Contract on America" grew old very quickly in the mid 90s, and has not improved with age.
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2011, 07:17:55 PM
The line "Contract on America" grew old very quickly in the mid 90s, and has not improved with age.
:lmfao: To the sticks in the mud, probably so. I have always enjoyed it, as well as the "No Child Left Alive" bon mot.
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2011, 07:17:55 PM
The line "Contract on America" grew old very quickly in the mid 90s, and has not improved with age.
Not as quick as the Contract with America did.
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2011, 07:05:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2011, 06:33:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2011, 01:52:37 PM
Don't all parties do that every election?
Parties endorse platforms which are full of plattiudes like "we will work for goodness and against badness."
The CWA was very specific (things like eliminat the National Endowment for the Arts) and it was signed by the great majority, if not all, Republican Congressmen who won election that term.
Yes, the Contract on America was specific and, importantly, limited. It was not, as you note, a catchall sloganeering document but a finely tailored message.
It did have some wishywashiness about fraud, waste, and abuse, and some clearly unrealistic elements like (IIRC) term limits, but I would agree with you that it was a significant benefit to the Republicans in that election. I wish more US elections were run on those kinds of grounds.
Clearly the most unrealistic item from the Contract with America was tort reform.