Newt Gingrich's take on "despicable" acts

Newt Gingrich to John King:

"To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine."


C'mon.

Reeeeelly?



I think it's bordering on despicable for Newt to minimize all manner of atrocities - and his own past actions - with that kind of hyperbole.

Newt was right.

I am looking for information on how we get our debt under control and all CNN is concerned with is who he was dicking 15 years ago.

SO FUCKING WHAT................

Because in 6 months it will come out that he was screwing someone other than the Ice Queen.
 
The moderator wasn't thinking. I'd have said...

"You can whine all you want but that question goes directly to your character. Its a very legitimate question about character, especially after someone who displayed poor moral judgement"

No, it's really not particularly legitimate. How many jobs have YOU had where the interviewer felt the need to get a detailed summary of your marital history before hiring you? If you were hiring an employee, would you rule out all divorced people because they lack character? Who gives a flying fuck?

Remember this is "straight laced" SC and the "prim & proper" GOP, not the down and dirty fuk like rabbits dems. Newt isn't much higher on the morality scale than Edwards. How many presidents would have told their dying wife they are being divorced. That type of guy doesn't seem like presidential timber to most Repubs.
 
I did not call his past actions atrocities.

I said "atrocities - and his own past actions", not "atrocities - including his own past actions".

His past actions were despicable. My point is unchanged.

Oh, okay, sweetie. We're talking about his affair, and the moderator asking questions about his affair, and you babble about Newt "minimizing atrocities", but apparently, you weren't referring to the affair, you were referring to some random, unnamed atrocities that he presumably minimized at some point that have no relation whatsoever to the topic of the thread OR the moderator's question. Got it.

In that case, Mensa Girl, would you like to clarify for us what these alleged "minimized atrocities", totally unrelated to the topic but which you shoehorned in here anyway, were, or do we all have to read your mind to figure out what the hell you're babbling about?


Professor Gingrich is very knowledgeable about current events and events throughout the ages, and has a broad imagination. I know there's a lot he can think of which is way worse than the media paying attention to his 2nd wife and asking about her story in a debate. Newt was engaging in typical Newtonian exaggeration.

When Obama uses hyperbole, we're all over him for that.

Newt was over the top. He made some good points. But he went over the top there.

No he didn't he gave the news media some of what they've been dishing out to Republicans. I loved it.
 
The moderator wasn't thinking. I'd have said...

"You can whine all you want but that question goes directly to your character. Its a very legitimate question about character, especially after someone who displayed poor moral judgement"

No, it's really not particularly legitimate. How many jobs have YOU had where the interviewer felt the need to get a detailed summary of your marital history before hiring you? If you were hiring an employee, would you rule out all divorced people because they lack character? Who gives a flying fuck?

Remember this is "straight laced" SC and the "prim & proper" GOP, not the down and dirty fuk like rabbits dems. Newt isn't much higher on the morality scale than Edwards. How many presidents would have told their dying wife they are being divorced. That type of guy doesn't seem like presidential timber to most Repubs.

WHAT "dying wife"? All three of Newt's wives are still alive.
 
402281_352599434751826_147071088637996_1504232_1487283876_n.jpg

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::razz:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top