Newt Gingrich admits extramarrital affair

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Let me chime in with some points here:

1. Clinton broke the law by perjuring himself. That is wrong.

2. The hypocrisy of Gingrich is that Clinton would have never perjured himself if he had not been brought in front of Congress for having an affair (hence, the Witch Hunt angle).

3. In order for there to be sexual harrassment, the person being harassed does not have to be a direct subordinate of the harasser. There only needs to be a perceived influence on the harassee.

4. There is no way that anyone would fock Gingrich, so this story can't be true.

[bubba franks 0]

Cheating on your wife is not against the law.

 

You stupid fock.

 

It's a felony in Michigan, moron.

[MDC 8,326]

Subordinate, in the terms used when dealing with employer-employee relationships, is not the definition you gave, you stupid fock.

 

 

Way to distract from the real issue, Torojoe: Newt Gingrich and the Republican party's glaring hypocrisy.

[MDC 8,326]

Let me chime in with some points here:

1. Clinton broke the law by perjuring himself. That is wrong.

2. The hypocrisy of Gingrich is that Clinton would have never perjured himself if he had not been brought in front of Congress for having an affair (hence, the Witch Hunt angle).

3. In order for there to be sexual harrassment, the person being harassed does not have to be a direct subordinate of the harasser. There only needs to be a perceived influence on the harassee.

4. There is no way that anyone would fock Gingrich, so this story can't be true.

 

1. Exactly right. I do think the punishment, in this case public disgrace and being disbarred, fits the crime.

2. Exactly right again. Newt can say he pushed for Clinton's impeachment because of perjury, but Clinton would not have perjured himself if Newt and the Republican congress didn't investigate an unsubstantiated sexual harrassment charge. It was hypocritical to pave the way for an investigation into Clinton's extramarital affairs while banging a congressional aide. It was doubly hypocritical in Newt's case, since he liked to portray himself as a "family values" Republican.

3. I don't think Bisek or Lewinsky ever alleged harrassment, so it's irrelevant. Just pointing out that Clinton banging an intern was not all that different than Newt banging an aide, except for the possible blackmail angle (which never came up, anyway).

4.

[KSB2424 3,180]

It's a felony in Michigan, moron.

 

What kinda focking assbackwards law is that? I can see Alabama, but Michigan?

[Toro 3]

It's a felony in Michigan, moron.

 

Sorry.

 

Cheating on your wife in the district of Columbia and the home state of Newt Gingrich is not a crime.

 

[cday 0]

If Clinton would have just admitted it, then it would have ended. The "witch hunt" happened when he lied - repeatedly and under oath.

 

you really believe that? there is *no chance* that the republicans would have packed it up and went home so to speak. be realistic.

[Flashover 0]

1. Exactly right. I do think the punishment, in this case public disgrace and being disbarred, fits the crime.

2. Exactly right again. Newt can say he pushed for Clinton's impeachment because of perjury, but Clinton would not have perjured himself if Newt and the Republican congress didn't investigate an unsubstantiated sexual harrassment charge. It was hypocritical to pave the way for an investigation into Clinton's extramarital affairs while banging a congressional aide. It was doubly hypocritical in Newt's case, since he liked to portray himself as a "family values" Republican.

3. I don't think Bisek or Lewinsky ever alleged harrassment, so it's irrelevant. Just pointing out that Clinton banging an intern was not all that different than Newt banging an aide, except for the possible blackmail angle (which never came up, anyway).

4.

 

[Toro 3]

you really believe that? there is *no chance* that the republicans would have packed it up and went home so to speak. be realistic.

 

No. They still would have paraded him out to the public as a cheat but that would have been ALL they could have done. I am not saying that the right wingers would have backed off BUT there wouldn't have been any talk of impeachment without the perjury.

 

Same thing with Newt. The dems can sit there and scream "cheater" all they want but it's a morality issue, not one of criminality. And to compare an affair by a congressman, even the SOS, as having the same implications in gov't as an affair in the white house by the POTUS is naive.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

No. They still would have paraded him out to the public as a cheat but that would have been ALL they could have done. I am not saying that the right wingers would have backed off BUT there wouldn't have been any talk of impeachment without the perjury.

 

Same thing with Newt. The dems can sit there and scream "cheater" all they want but it's a morality issue, not one of criminality. And to compare an affair by a congressman, even the SOS, as having the same implications in gov't as an affair in the white house by the POTUS is naive.

 

You are missing the point here. No one would be calling Gingrich a hypocrite if he had not been the first one to cast the stone. There is a little thing called "karma" and it is a biotch.

[MDC 8,326]

No. They still would have paraded him out to the public as a cheat but that would have been ALL they could have done. I am not saying that the right wingers would have backed off BUT there wouldn't have been any talk of impeachment without the perjury.

 

You are probably right about the impeachment, but it is still patent hypocrisy for the "family values" Republicans to rip Clinton as a liar and a cheat, when their most prominent member at the time was porking a congressional aide.

 

Same thing with Newt. The dems can sit there and scream "cheater" all they want but it's a morality issue, not one of criminality. And to compare an affair by a congressman, even the SOS, as having the same implications in gov't as an affair in the white house by the POTUS is naive.

 

No one is comparing adultery to perjury. We're saying that Newt Gingrich is a hypocrit. Try to keep up.

[Blitzen 1]

A political thread that turns into a shouting match between Dems and Reps? Go figure...

[Strike 6,191]

CAN SIZE??

[Toro 3]

You are missing the point here. No one would be calling Gingrich a hypocrite if he had not been the first one to cast the stone. There is a little thing called "karma" and it is a biotch.

 

Politicians are hypocrites?

 

GET OUT OF TOWN!!!!

 

[MDC 8,326]

Politicians are hypocrites?

 

GET OUT OF TOWN!!!!

 

 

Finally, after three pages of deflections and moral acrobatics - my favorite being the suggestion that cheating on your wife in some cases is OK - Torojoe at last admits that Newt Gingrich is a hypocrit.

 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

A conservative hypocrite?!

[Toro 3]

Finally, after three pages of deflections and moral acrobatics - my favorite being the suggestion that cheating on your wife in some cases is OK - Torojoe at last admits that Newt Gingrich is a hypocrit.

 

 

I never asserted that he wasn't.

[Giants Fan 85]

Don't forget that the "family values" crowd is 99% Christian conservative. So, it's OK for Christians to do bad things because Jesus forgives them.

 

[bigtuna 0]

Is this woman blind?

[SUXBNME 1,649]

:sad face:

[Snoopy1 0]

1. Exactly right. I do think the punishment, in this case public disgrace and being disbarred, fits the crime.

2. Exactly right again. Newt can say he pushed for Clinton's impeachment because of perjury, but Clinton would not have perjured himself if Newt and the Republican congress didn't investigate an unsubstantiated sexual harrassment charge. It was hypocritical to pave the way for an investigation into Clinton's extramarital affairs while banging a congressional aide. It was doubly hypocritical in Newt's case, since he liked to portray himself as a "family values" Republican.

3. I don't think Bisek or Lewinsky ever alleged harrassment, so it's irrelevant. Just pointing out that Clinton banging an intern was not all that different than Newt banging an aide, except for the possible blackmail angle (which never came up, anyway).

4.

 

 

What really struck my funny bone in Toro's excuses was A. He was just "a congressman". Toro really needs to a civics lesson about the responsibilites of the "Speaker of the House", being third in the line of succession, control of what reaches the floor, power to control debate...

 

B. That Newt the "congressman" would be immune to blackmail...yeah I'm sure nobody would like to be able to have influence over what get to be heard on the floor of congress...

[Toro 3]

What really struck my funny bone in Toro's excuses was A. He was just "a congressman". Toro really needs to a civics lesson about the responsibilites of the "Speaker of the House", being third in the line of succession, control of what reaches the floor, power to control debate...

 

B. That Newt the "congressman" would be immune to blackmail...yeah I'm sure nobody would like to be able to have influence over what get to be heard on the floor of congress...

 

There is a difference in the level of influence. A significant difference...

[Uh-huh 0]

There is a difference in the level of influence. A significant difference...

Come on folks, give Toro a break. After all, he's just parroting the party line. He really doesn't have a mind of his own. All he does is regurgitate Rush and Hannity's talking points.

 

I never asserted that he wasn't.

Maybe not. But you certainly came across as a major hypocrite.

[wiffleball 4,800]

would love to dig up all the hang-wringing axxtards who talked about how "If he (Clinton) could cheat on his wife, he couldn't be trusted to be in office". Bet Newt same something like that too.

 

Even the focking Xtians are such hypocrites. One of the leading fundies is pushing for Newt. "Well, given the state of America, ONE incidence of adultery is understandable, but any more than that is not (guilliani)."

 

I don't know how many times the radical right has to be caught with their diick in someone's (guy, girl, parishoner's) mouth before they stop with the focking hypocrisy.

 

[wiffleball 4,800]

“Here’s a summary of Gingrich’s family life:

1) Gingrich marries his high school teacher, Jackie, who was seven years his senior;

 

2) Jackie puts Gingrich through college and she works hard to get him elected to the House in 1978 (Gingrich won partly because his campaign claimed that his Democratic opponent would neglect her family if elected—at that time it was common knowledge that Gingrich was straying);

 

3) Shortly after being elected, Gingrich separated from his wife—announcing the separation in the hospital room where Jackie was recovering from cancer surgery (the divorce was final in 1981); Jackie Gingrich and her children had to depend on alms from her church because Gingrich didn’t pay any child support; 3) Six months after the divorce, Gingrich, then 38, married Marianne Ginther, 30;

 

4) “In May 1999, however, Gingrich [55] called Marianne [48] at her mother’s home. After wishing the 84-year-old matriarch happy birthday, he told Marianne that he wanted a divorce.” This was eight months after Marianne was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis;

 

5) In 2000, Gingrich, 57, married ex-congressional aide Callista Bisek, 34, with whom he was having a relationship while married to Marianne”

[Soonerman 0]

1. Exactly right. I do think the punishment, in this case public disgrace and being disbarred, fits the crime.

2. Exactly right again. Newt can say he pushed for Clinton's impeachment because of perjury, but Clinton would not have perjured himself if Newt and the Republican congress didn't investigate an unsubstantiated sexual harrassment charge. It was hypocritical to pave the way for an investigation into Clinton's extramarital affairs while banging a congressional aide. It was doubly hypocritical in Newt's case, since he liked to portray himself as a "family values" Republican.

3. I don't think Bisek or Lewinsky ever alleged harrassment, so it's irrelevant. Just pointing out that Clinton banging an intern was not all that different than Newt banging an aide, except for the possible blackmail angle (which never came up, anyway).

4.

 

Before you and Patriotsfatboy post stuff like this that is so comically wrong, do you ever have the urge to check your facts? Like just once even?

[Uh-huh 0]

Before you and Patriotsfatboy post stuff like this that is so comically wrong, do you ever have the urge to check your facts? Like just once even?

Do you even know what the word 'fact' means?

 

No, of course you don't.

[Soonerman 0]

Do you even know what the word 'fact' means?

 

No, of course you don't.

 

Sure I do. For instance, you are a lying moron, and that's a fact.

[DanXIII 8]

[schaef2k 0]

This thread makes me want to vomit. The fact that anyone can defend the actions of either of these POS is beyond me.

 

It ok for this, It’s ok for that. BS! NO IT’S NOT OK!

 

You should expect and demand more from your leaders. The fact that people just blindly support “their team” regardless of their reprehensible actions is what is making this country a joke.

 

You guys need to wake the ###### up and support whoever is looking out for the best interests of the USA not their own ass and whoever is giving them the most money.

 

This is sickening.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Before you and Patriotsfatboy post stuff like this that is so comically wrong, do you ever have the urge to check your facts? Like just once even?

 

You're right. The 4th one was meant as a joke. The other 3 are spot on. Care to point out your "facts"?

[Jeremy 0]

“Here’s a summary of Gingrich’s family life:

1) Gingrich marries his high school teacher, Jackie, who was seven years his senior;

 

2) Jackie puts Gingrich through college and she works hard to get him elected to the House in 1978 (Gingrich won partly because his campaign claimed that his Democratic opponent would neglect her family if elected—at that time it was common knowledge that Gingrich was straying);

 

3) Shortly after being elected, Gingrich separated from his wife—announcing the separation in the hospital room where Jackie was recovering from cancer surgery (the divorce was final in 1981); Jackie Gingrich and her children had to depend on alms from her church because Gingrich didn’t pay any child support; 3) Six months after the divorce, Gingrich, then 38, married Marianne Ginther, 30;

 

4) “In May 1999, however, Gingrich [55] called Marianne [48] at her mother’s home. After wishing the 84-year-old matriarch happy birthday, he told Marianne that he wanted a divorce.” This was eight months after Marianne was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis;

 

5) In 2000, Gingrich, 57, married ex-congressional aide Callista Bisek, 34, with whom he was having a relationship while married to Marianne”

 

What do you want? He wished the old lady a happy birthday. Obviously a nice guy!

[Soonerman 0]

You're right. The 4th one was meant as a joke. The other 3 are spot on. Care to point out your "facts"?

 

So let me get this straight, you really think that this

 

2. The hypocrisy of Gingrich is that Clinton would have never perjured himself if he had not been brought in front of Congress for having an affair (hence, the Witch Hunt angle).

 

is historically accurate?

 

I hope that you were in elementary school in the 90's or something. How embarrassing for you and MDC to be posting in political threads when your understanding of one of the most historic events of recent times approaches the slim side of none.

 

In case you really have no basic knowledge of the events in question, Clinton perjured himself in a deposition for the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit. Congress had absolutely nothing to do with it up to and past that point.

 

Once the perjury became known, the Clinton Justice Department expanded the ongoing investigation of Kenneth Starr to include the new allegations.

 

Still think you were "spot on"?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

 

So let me get this straight, you really think that this

is historically accurate?

 

I hope that you were in elementary school in the 90's or something. How embarrassing for you and MDC to be posting in political threads when your understanding of one of the most historic events of recent times approaches the slim side of none.

 

In case you really have no basic knowledge of the events in question, Clinton perjured himself in a deposition for the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit. Congress had absolutely nothing to do with it up to and past that point.

 

Once the perjury became known, the Clinton Justice Department expanded the ongoing investigation of Kenneth Starr to include the new allegations.

 

Still think you were "spot on"?

 

The fact is that the sexual harrassment charge in the Jones case was dismissed. It was a non-factor by the time that the mid-term elections were going on. The Congressional hearings in this were based purely on political lines with Newt (the hypocrite) leading the charge. So we had one hypocrite challenging another hypocrite. That is the point of the entire thread.

 

You are now acting in the exact same manner that you have criticized the "liberals" for in that you are "deflecting" away from the horrible actions of one of your party by pointing to similar actions of a person in the other party.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

In case you really have no basic knowledge of the events in question, Clinton perjured himself in a deposition for the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit. Congress had absolutely nothing to do with it up to and past that point.

 

That's gonna leave a mark.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

That's gonna leave a mark.

 

Grasping at straws after having your a$$ handed to you again, huh? Nice try.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Grasping at straws after having your a$$ handed to you again, huh? Nice try.

 

What a focking moron. That was my first post in this thread.

 

I believe it was you having your ass handed to you by Sooner.

 

 

Is this where I say OWNED!. I always get confused in every thread the exact time in which I own your moronic ass.

 

 

[Uh-huh 0]

What a focking moron. That was my first post in this thread.

 

I believe it was you having your ass handed to you by Sooner.

Is this where I say OWNED!. I always get confused in every thread the exact time in which I own your moronic ass.

Whoops, I did it again. That was supposed to be my Soonerman alias folks... sorry about that.

[Soonerman 0]

The fact is that the sexual harrassment charge in the Jones case was dismissed. It was a non-factor by the time that the mid-term elections were going on. The Congressional hearings in this were based purely on political lines with Newt (the hypocrite) leading the charge. So we had one hypocrite challenging another hypocrite. That is the point of the entire thread.

 

You are now acting in the exact same manner that you have criticized the "liberals" for in that you are "deflecting" away from the horrible actions of one of your party by pointing to similar actions of a person in the other party.

 

Please don't embarrass yourself any more. You said that Clinton "wouldn't have perjured himself" if not hauled before Congress. That is just unbelievably wrong. Just man up and admit it rather than try to spin it.

 

And how am I deflecting? I am just trying to educate you a little. It's hard to do that, granted.

 

Oh, and the Paula Jones case was settled with a hefty payment from Big Bill, not "dismissed".

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

What a focking moron. That was my first post in this thread.

 

I believe it was you having your ass handed to you by Sooner.

Is this where I say OWNED!. I always get confused in every thread the exact time in which I own your moronic ass.

 

Really? I love how Sooner does not provide any evidence to his information and oversimplifies things. He fits in well with your style of posting. Interesting.

 

I also find it interesting in your desire to claim that someone is OWNED regardless of whether what they say is true.

 

The fact of the matter is that the Paula Jones case was dismissed by early April, 1998 and Ken Starr had long pushed Whitewater (which had nothing to do with sexual harrassment) past its bounds. Even GBI had criticized Starr for his desire to bring the Secret Service into the investigation.

 

By the time that Newt and his right wing (hypocrite) butt buddies got involved, this was purely a political agenda. As I have stated before, Clinton was wrong in what he did (of course Sooner skips over that part), but Gingrich is just as wrong here. I think that this would be analagous to Ted Kennedy picking on GWB for being a drunk.