Our weird attitudes about sexuality get in the way of sensible debate

[DaGoose]

The Cons can say what they want but yes, it was about the blowjob. And now they want to turn a blind eye to Newt's philandering and desire for an open marriage?

Pure hypocrisy.

Telling yourself that it was about the blow job allows you to howl hypocrisy.

Yeah, its a classic libtard dodge, isnt it?

Make up what you think your opponents *really* mean and then slam them for it.

Facing the truth of the matter, that he treated women like dirt and that if a woman had the courage to say no to him she had better shop the resume is beyond you.

We critisize Clinton for being a philanderer who used his power to get sex and the libtards just assume that we really dont have a problem with that but it *must* be something else.

Wonder why that is?

But we still face the question of what is more important to us as citizens. Voting for incompetent and uxorious like Carter and Obama, or voting for comptent slime like Clinton and Gringrich.

The fact is that some of the best leaders throughout history have been philandering drunkards.

When you need a leader, you can be forgiven for over-looking a few things.

Rape isnt one of them.

Ok.....now we're back to the blowjob again. I wish you bastards would make up your mind.

 

[bodecea]

In the great debate over Newt and his love life, people keep bringing up the case of Clinton.

I believe this to be a case of apples and oranges. Clinton was in trouble for suborning perjury in a civil rights case where he was the defendant. That was also about a blow job, of course. He insisted one of the workers at the DMV give him one and she turned him down and got fired because of that.

However during the clinton debate the Democrats kept going on and on about the blow job. Fundamentally, I think it squicked everyone out to the point they wanted the story over. Plus there was the whole april -december aspect of Monica's mental maturity and age. Normal people found the whole thing beyond disgusting.

Presidential philandering is not new. And where he sticks his wand can be a matter of national importance. John and Robert Kennedy both shared the same girlfriend with Sam Giacanna. This, had we be wiling to talk about it seriously at the time, would have been legitimate cause for concern. The face that James Buchanan was effectively the wife of Alabama Senator King also should have got a bit more scrutiny in the run up to the Civll war.

But over the years we have sort of thrown a blanket over Presidential private lives. For good or ill. President Cleveland's daughter Ruth was an issue in the campaign, but it did his opponents no good because he was busy discussing tariffs and the depredations of the railroads. He never did marry Ruth's mother.

The relationships between Roosevelt and Eleanor and whomever are a matter of titillation but no historical relevance. Eisenhower and Summersby is ignored again because it is pointless and squicky.

The fact that Nixon and Carter were uxorious did not make them good presidents. Pat Nixon's love for Dick didn't solve the Watergate issue, nor did Roselyn's affection for Jimmy reduce the inflation rate. Clinton's tomcatting didn't make him a failure.

So what does this have to do with Newt? The basic issues here are trust, intelligence, national security and economic recovery.

Newt's relations with women are at best reprehensible. If it were a matter of him vs someone equally intelligent and less of a cad I would gleefully go for the other option.

however, there is no drama that he was involved with Anna Chapman or any other honey pot involved with Russian or US mafias. He does have lots of really interesting ideas about the economy and the US's relations with the rest of the world that are worth listening to. (But his actual record vis a vis Israel and the Global Warming hoax show he also has pretty bad ideas as well)

So on balance, I have to say that given a choice between Romney and Romney care and Newt and his affection for all his weird baggage with PBS, Global Warming, playing footsie with various flaky arab regimes... I prefer Santorum. But Newt's conjugal craziness is not part of my decision tree.

Problem is clinton did something no other president did, he violated the oval office by having sex thaere and then lying about it. You did not mention that why? Problem no.2, people want to hang Newt out to dry but still kiss old mr. monicas behind.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Denying that is like a redneck denying the Civil War was about slavery.

Not to change the subject; but the Civil War was about "States Rights" and not slavery.

Actually it was about states rights to have slavery. Slavery was the reason the states wanted to have states rights.

 

[Unkotare]

This is the type of politics Newt, himself, founded. He's got a huge set of balls to complain about it now.

Seriously.

"founded"? You really think he pioneered this kind of politics?

 

[Katzndogz]

It isn't so much Newt's sex life, it is the hypocrisy. He impeached a President for cheating on his wife. Denying that is like a redneck denying the Civil War was about slavery.

Newt was making a big deal of Clinton's blowjob at the same time he was cheating on his own wife.

So it is the sheer hypocrisy that says everything about Newt. Not the sex.

Even if you want to be a dick and say it was about Clinton lying, Newt is STILL a hypocrite. He also lied to Congress and was caught at it and is the only Speaker in history who was busted for it.


Newt's hypocrisy continues to the present day. That's why I don't buy the "he went to God" crock of shit his bleevers swallow.

A couple months ago, Newt went on a rant about the GSEs that led to the sub-prime crisis. He said Chris Dodd and Barney Frank should go to prison for their connections to the GSEs.

He said this as a person who worked for Freddie Mac's top lobbyist for 7 years! All through the buildup of the GSEs which contributed to the crisis!

Judging Newt by his own standard, he should be in prison.

When caught by the media as having worked for Freddie Mac, Newt said he worked for them as a historian. Just how ******* stupid do you have to be to believe that? He also said he warned them that what they were doing was insane.

Really? Gee, that must be why in 2007 he gave a speech to GSE employees praising Fannie and Freddie to the skies, and said there should be more government-sponsored entities out there.

Then when it comes out he worked for Freddie Mac's top lobbyist for seven years, starting right after he resigned as Speaker of the House, he goes dead silent on that. Gosh, I wonder if he was hired by the lobbyist because of his powerful access to Congress and not as a historian. You think?

The sex thing just illustrates how rotten he is. But there is much, much more rot to Gingrich than the affairs. Much more. He was rotten then, and he is rotten to the core now.

When a man keeps changing his story as more facts of his past come to light, that should tell you everything you need to know about him.

Now you have your reason. This is it. Democrats sincerely and honestly believe that Clinton was impeached over sex. They sincerely and honestly believe that slavery was the cause of civil war. They believe it so sincerely and honestly that the truth and facts are rejected entirely.

The record is quite clear. Clinton was not impeached over a BJ. He was impeached and disbarred for lying in the Paula Jones case. The subject of the lie was his sexual conduct. The lie itself was the reason for the impeachment. The purpose of the lie was to affect the outcome of the Paula Jones case. So that she would lose that case. He wanted to cheat her out of her recovery.

That's where democrats get creepy. Democrats have no problem whatsoever in going absolutely hysterical over someone rich and very powerful lying in court to deprive a poor woman of her day in court and cheating her out of her lawful recovery. It just has to be someone they don't like. If the man who lied in court was CEO of Exxon, the democrats would have much more anguish over the subject. If it was George Bush, he not only would have been impeached, but tried and removed from office. It is far more than a double standard. It is creation of democrats as a class of persons who, by reason of political process, be above the law.

 

[Unkotare]

Very well stated!

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It isn't so much Newt's sex life, it is the hypocrisy. He impeached a President for cheating on his wife. Denying that is like a redneck denying the Civil War was about slavery.

Newt was making a big deal of Clinton's blowjob at the same time he was cheating on his own wife.

So it is the sheer hypocrisy that says everything about Newt. Not the sex.

Even if you want to be a dick and say it was about Clinton lying, Newt is STILL a hypocrite. He also lied to Congress and was caught at it and is the only Speaker in history who was busted for it.


Newt's hypocrisy continues to the present day. That's why I don't buy the "he went to God" crock of shit his bleevers swallow.

A couple months ago, Newt went on a rant about the GSEs that led to the sub-prime crisis. He said Chris Dodd and Barney Frank should go to prison for their connections to the GSEs.

He said this as a person who worked for Freddie Mac's top lobbyist for 7 years! All through the buildup of the GSEs which contributed to the crisis!

Judging Newt by his own standard, he should be in prison.

When caught by the media as having worked for Freddie Mac, Newt said he worked for them as a historian. Just how ******* stupid do you have to be to believe that? He also said he warned them that what they were doing was insane.

Really? Gee, that must be why in 2007 he gave a speech to GSE employees praising Fannie and Freddie to the skies, and said there should be more government-sponsored entities out there.

Then when it comes out he worked for Freddie Mac's top lobbyist for seven years, starting right after he resigned as Speaker of the House, he goes dead silent on that. Gosh, I wonder if he was hired by the lobbyist because of his powerful access to Congress and not as a historian. You think?

The sex thing just illustrates how rotten he is. But there is much, much more rot to Gingrich than the affairs. Much more. He was rotten then, and he is rotten to the core now.

When a man keeps changing his story as more facts of his past come to light, that should tell you everything you need to know about him.

Now you have your reason. This is it. Democrats sincerely and honestly believe that Clinton was impeached over sex. They sincerely and honestly believe that slavery was the cause of civil war. They believe it so sincerely and honestly that the truth and facts are rejected entirely.

The record is quite clear. Clinton was not impeached over a BJ. He was impeached and disbarred for lying in the Paula Jones case. The subject of the lie was his sexual conduct. The lie itself was the reason for the impeachment. The purpose of the lie was to affect the outcome of the Paula Jones case. So that she would lose that case. He wanted to cheat her out of her recovery.

That's where democrats get creepy. Democrats have no problem whatsoever in going absolutely hysterical over someone rich and very powerful lying in court to deprive a poor woman of her day in court and cheating her out of her lawful recovery. It just has to be someone they don't like. If the man who lied in court was CEO of Exxon, the democrats would have much more anguish over the subject. If it was George Bush, he not only would have been impeached, but tried and removed from office. It is far more than a double standard. It is creation of democrats as a class of persons who, by reason of political process, be above the law.

The whole point to the women's movement was to remove the casting couch from how women are promoted, retained, or discharged. If this had been anyone else than Clinton, Say the president of HP demanding a blow job or the secretary gets fired, Democrats would be first with the pitchforks demanding his head. Both the one on top and the one below. Which is pretty much as it should be. Using your position as boss to compel sex rather than a knife is still reprehensible. And that was essentially Clinton's MO.