Newt Gingrich admits extramarrital affair

[Toro 3]

But I thought... "What he does with his family and his wife is his business." Because he cheated on his wife that's cause to be put in front of a grand jury?

 

When is Newts trial?

 

So you are saying there shouldn't be any investigation when a President has an extramarital affair in the white house?

 

Think about this before you answer....

[Uh-huh 0]

So you are saying there shouldn't be any investigation when a President has an extramarital affair in the white house?

 

Think about this before you answer....

 

Toro is beyond "sheer"; he is well into "absurd" hypocrisy territory now.

 

Face it, chum. You got caught in your party's own trap.

[Toro 3]

So if his marriage is bad it's okay to cheat

 

So there are no circumstances when it is ok? What happens if you are completely seperated and just waiting for the court date? Is it cheating then?

[Cdub100 3,996]

Wrong. I already told you. The deciding factor is whether you are a Republican or not.

 

Oh okay let me see if I have this straight

 

If my name was Cdub R. I am the moral standard, God loves me.

 

If my name was Cdub D. Then I'm an evil baby killer that cheats on my wife.

 

Is that correct?

[Uh-huh 0]

So there are no circumstances when it is ok? What happens if you are completely seperated and just waiting for the court date? Is it cheating then?

:lol: CRASSIC!!!

 

Oh okay let me see if I have this straight

 

If my name was Cdub R. I am the moral standard, God loves me.

 

If my name was Cdub D. Then I'm an evil baby killer that cheats on my wife.

 

Is that correct?

That's about right. At least according to the right-wingnuts.

[Toro 3]

Toro is beyond "sheer"; he is well into "absurd" hypocrisy territory now.

 

Face it, chum. You got caught in your party's own trap.

 

No, I was responding to the assertion that Newt's affair should be handled the exact same way as Clinton's when there are so many differences.

 

But you guys can't see that. Typical democrats, seeking revenge.

[cday 0]

So you are saying there shouldn't be any investigation when a President has an extramarital affair in the white house?

 

Think about this before you answer....

 

considering how most of the country viewed it as a witch-hunt, the consensus answer seems to be no.

 

the republicans kept trying to feed it down the public's throats, and couldn't figure out why anyone didn't care.

 

so, it follows that if the majority of people don't care, then i don't want my taxpayer dollars wasted on an investigation.

[Uh-huh 0]

No, I was responding to the assertion that Newt's affair should be handled the exact same way as Clinton's when there are so many differences.

 

But you guys can't see that. Typical democrats, seeking revenge.

:lol:

 

Please, continue. You're on a roll.

[Cdub100 3,996]

So you are saying there shouldn't be any investigation when a President has an extramarital affair in the white house?

 

Think about this before you answer....

 

You're the one that said, "What he does with his family and his wife is his business."

 

Not sure what the white house has to do with anything. Where was he going to go the motel 6? Usually the president lives there full time and not on some ranch he bought before the election to make it seem like he was a real cowboy.

[KSB2424 3,180]

At least Newt has the balls to own up to it.

[MDC 8,326]

Not all congressional aides are under the Speaker's direct control, and therefore they are not his subordinate.

 

Neither are all interns under the President's direct supervision, but I recall the GOP making a huge deal about the fact that Lewinsky was Clinton's subordinate. At any rate, I see you've given up defending Newt's hypocrisy and are now playing torridjoesque rhetorical games, so I'll take that as an admission of ownage.

 

Thanks for playing.

 

At least Newt has the balls to own up to it.

 

Ten years after the fact and right before a potential White House run.

[Uh-huh 0]

At least Newt has the balls to own up to it.

Well, technically so did Clinton. Except that Slick Willie made a lot of money out of his confession.

[Toro 3]

considering how most of the country viewed it as a witch-hunt, the consensus answer seems to be no.

 

the republicans kept trying to feed it down the public's throats, and couldn't figure out why anyone didn't care.

 

so, it follows that if the majority of people don't care, then i don't want my taxpayer dollars wasted on an investigation.

 

You might have viewed it as a witch hunt and maybe a majority of Americans did as well, but at the same time, I truly believe that when the president it getting head from an intern in the white house and gets caught, they need to investigate to ensure that nothing else was going on.

 

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

 

Congressman are different than Presidents. Everyone here is trying to assert that it should be the same thing, yet it's not.

 

 

Neither are all interns under the President's direct supervision, but I recall the GOP making a huge deal about the fact that Lewinsky was Clinton's subordinate. At any rate, I see you've given up defending Newt's hypocrisy and are now playing torridjoesque rhetorical games, so I'll take that as an admission of ownage.

 

Thanks for playing.

 

Clinton could fire any and all white house interns, hence direct supervision.

 

Owned.

[Uh-huh 0]

Republicans are held to different standards than Democrats. Everyone here is trying to assert that it should be the same thing, yet it's not.

 

Updatored to show what you really meant.

[Toro 3]

You're the one that said, "What he does with his family and his wife is his business."

 

Not sure what the white house has to do with anything. Where was he going to go the motel 6? Usually the president lives there full time and not on some ranch he bought before the election to make it seem like he was a real cowboy.

 

Whether you like it or not, there are things about being president that make things like extramarital affairs a little more tricky. Manipulation, or the ability to manipulate, a complete branch of government through a single person is the difference.

 

 

 

Updatored to show what you really meant.

 

Uh-huh is now a mindreader.

 

I see that you have nothing else to say except "Your on a roll" and "Crassic" and sweet quote manips.

 

See ya.

[MDC 8,326]

Clinton could fire any and all white house interns, hence direct supervision.

 

Owned.

 

Yes, I'm sure the President of the United States is the direct supervisor of every focking intern in the White House.

 

For the record, I think Newt and Clinton together were a successful combination. But the bottom line is Newt was actively courting the "family values" wing of the GOP and leading the charge for impeachment, and that is gross hypocrisy. I also get a big laugh out of the National Review and other right-wingers calling for Libby's pardon because there was no national security leak, so who cares if he lied to federal investigators? Clinton perjured himself in the course of being investigated for sexual harrassment against Paula Jones.

 

Bush Republicans have no sense of irony or shame.

[GobbleDog 1,029]

Whether you like it or not, there are things about being president that make things like extramarital affairs a little more tricky.

 

Yep. You don't want your President to be open to blackmail. How far would Clinton go to hide his actions? Well, we know at the very least he was willing to perjur himself.

 

The only similarity here is that both polititians have no morals. Other than that, it's black and white.

[Toro 3]

Yes, I'm sure the President of the United States is the direct supervisor of every focking intern in the White House.

 

I didn't say direct supervisor. I said the President has the ability to fire a white house intern. The Speaker of the House does not have the ability to fire every congressional staffer.

 

Thanks.

[MDC 8,326]

I didn't say direct supervisor. I said the President has the ability to fire a white house intern. The Speaker of the House does not have the ability to fire every congressional staffer.

 

Thanks.

 

Well in that case it's totally OK for the Speaker of the House to be focking a congressional aide while he's calling for the President to be fired for perjury himself while answering questions about ... focking an intern.

 

No hypocrisy there whatsoever! :lol:

[Toro 3]

Well in that case it's totally OK for the Speaker of the House to be focking a congressional aide while he's calling for the President to be fired for perjury himself while answering questions about ... focking an intern.

 

No hypocrisy there whatsoever!

 

I didn't say that. You said:

 

Actually, he went after Clinton for alleged sexual harrassment ...

 

I am pointing out the fact that Clinton did have control over Lewinsky via the office and Newt didn't. Also, Newt didn't break any laws. They both cheated. They were both wrong in that area. But that is where the similarity ends.

[MDC 8,326]

I didn't say that. You said:

I am pointing out the fact that Clinton did have control over Lewinsky via the office and Newt didn't. Also, Newt didn't break any laws. They both cheated. They were both wrong in that area. But that is where the similarity ends.

 

The affairs were very similar. Both affairs were consentual - there was no evidence that Clinton or Newt coerced the women into the affairs - and women were also much younger subordinates.

 

Anyway, I'm not comparing Clinton's perjury to Newt's affair. I'm saying that Gingrich is a fat focking hypocrit. You are the one trying to turn this into yet another whining right wing "At least he's not Clinton!" debate.

 

Why can't Bush Republicans ever admit mistakes or flaws in their own party? I think Clinton got what he deserved - disgraced and disbarred. But you think it's superokay for the leader of the "family values" Republicans to be sticking his beefstick into a congressional aide.

 

[Uh-huh 0]

Let's see what we've learned in this thread:

• Certain right-wingnuts believe a Congressman -- who also happened to be Speaker of the House -- that cheated on his wife isn't a big deal;
  
• However, the same right-wingnuts who don't think cheating is a big deal do believe a President cheating on his wife should be impeached for lying about his affair;
  
• The same right-wingnuts also claim to support the GOP because it is the party of "moral/family values";
  
• These folks don't see a problem with a public figure violating his most sacred vow as long as they don't lie about it to a grand jury;
  
• The same right-wingnuts refuse to admit there is any inconsistency in their beliefs
  

So, in conclusion, right-wingnuts have no moral backbone and will say anything to defend politicians on their ideological side. The extremes to which the right-wingnuts go to are pathetic.

[GobbleDog 1,029]

Let's see what we've learned in this thread:

One broke the law - the other didn't.

[Toro 3]

and women were also much younger subordinates.

 

NO THEY WERE NOT.

 

And I have proven that over and over. Do I need to cut and paste my earlier posts and reown you?

 

Quit typing lies. No wonder no one can have a rational conversation with you.

 

 

 

I'm stoopid.

 

[Mungwater 601]

I'm not going to get on the moral horse about the affairs, but the lying to a jury is against the law.

 

Hell, didn't Clinton get disbarred in his own state because of it?

[Uh-huh 0]

One broke the law - the other didn't.

1) Both broke their vows and are ethically challenged.

2) A couple of people see no problem with Newt breaking his word.

3) Therefore, these people appear to be ethically challenged as well.

 

Please try again. By all means. Watching y'all flounder is entertaining.

[MDC 8,326]

NO THEY WERE NOT.

 

And I have proven that over and over. Do I need to cut and paste my earlier posts and reown you?

 

Quit typing lies. No wonder no one can have a rational conversation with you.

 

 

Whatever you say, Torojoe.

 

sub·or·di·nate

1. placed in or belonging to a lower order or rank.

 

This would seem to describe the relationship between the Speaker of the House and a Congressional aide.

 

At least you're smart enough to give up on defending Newt's hypocrisy.

[parrot 790]

NO THEY WERE NOT.

 

And I have proven that over and over. Do I need to cut and paste my earlier posts and reown you?

Did you prove Bisek wasn't a subordinate of Gingrich's?

[Toro 3]

Whatever you say, Torojoe.

This would seem to describe the relationship between the Speaker of the House and a Congressional aide.

 

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

 

[GobbleDog 1,029]

1) Both broke their vows and are ethically challenged.

2) A couple of people see no problem with Newt breaking his word.

3) Therefore, these people appear to be ethically challenged as well.

 

Please try again. By all means. Watching y'all flounder is entertaining.

 

Ethically challenged isn't in the same league as criminal activity. But if you don't believe that, then fine.

 

In your opinion, both Clinton and Gingrich are equally pieces of crap.

In my opinon, Clinton is a bigger piece of crap.

 

That's basically what we're arguing here.

[Toro 3]

Did you prove Bisek wasn't a subordinate of Gingrich's?

 

Bisek was not on Gingrich's staff. He did not have direct or indirect control over her.

[parrot 790]

At least Newt has the balls to own up to it.

Yeah, once it was common public knowledge and he's trying to position himself for a Presidential run, and he knows he needs to try and explain it away to satisfy a voting segment he must have to have any shot of winning, he owned up to it.

 

Ballsy.

[Toro 3]

1) Both broke their vows and are ethically challenged.

2) A couple of people see no problem with Newt breaking his word.

3) Therefore, these people appear to be ethically challenged as well.

 

Please try again. By all means. Watching y'all flounder is entertaining.

 

One broke the law. The other didn't.

 

HTH.

[parrot 790]

Bisek was not on Gingrich's staff.

That's not the way I hear it.

[FranksTanks 0]

Ethically challenged isn't in the same league as criminal activity. But if you don't believe that, then fine.

 

In your opinion, both Clinton and Gingrich are equally pieces of crap.

In my opinon, Clinton is a bigger piece of crap.

 

That's basically what we're arguing here.

 

Actually I'm pretty sure that is what you're probably arguing, because hey, if he's not as bad as Bill, its alright with you, right?! I think most others are just trying to call a spade a spade and point out his blatant hypocrisy.

[Toro 3]

That's not the way I hear it.

 

I was actually trying to find a 100% definite link providing proof.

 

The most I have heard was that she was a staffer.

[GobbleDog 1,029]

Actually I'm pretty sure that is what you're probably arguing, because hey, if he's not as bad as Bill, its alright with you, right?! I think most others are just trying to call a spade a spade and point out his blatant hypocrisy.

I don't see the hypocrisy. Gingrich went after Clinton for breaking the law, not for cheating on his wife.

[Toro 3]

Actually I'm pretty sure that is what you're probably arguing, because hey, if he's not as bad as Bill, its alright with you, right?! I think most others are just trying to call a spade a spade and point out his blatant hypocrisy.

 

Nobody said it was right or ok.

 

But people are making straight comparisons to the actions when it's not fair to.

[parrot 790]

I was actually trying to find a 100% definite link providing proof.

 

The most I have heard was that she was a staffer.

Gingrich... staff... c'mon, try and keep up here.

[Toro 3]

Gingrich... staff... c'mon, try and keep up here.

 

Sorry. It's Friday.