Michael Moore on death of Bin Laden [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

highnote

05-12-2011, 01:33 PM

I agree with a lot of what Moore writes about the death of bin Laden.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/some-final-thoughts-on-death-of-osama-bin-laden

Last week, President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise and killed Osama bin Laden. Well he didn't actually do the killing himself. It was carried out by a very brave and excellent team of Navy SEALs. Not only does Mr. Obama have the overwhelming support of the country, I think there are millions who gladly wish it could have been their finger on the gun that took out bin Laden.

When I heard the news a week ago Sunday, I immediately felt great. I felt relief. I thought of those who lost a loved one on 9/11. And I was glad we finally had a President who got something done. This is what I had to say on Twitter and elsewhere on the internet in that first hour or two:

more at the link above

It's also interesting that Moore hires ex Navy SEALS for his personal security.

JustRalph

05-12-2011, 09:20 PM

so you would have been in favor of a trial for Bin Laden ?

You are kidding right?

bigmack

05-12-2011, 09:27 PM

What self respecting SEAL would be willing to take a spitball for Moore?

Can you imagine that security detail?

MM: Hey, I'm gonna need some more McNuggets here. Would ya mind makin' a run?

highnote

05-12-2011, 10:03 PM

so you would have been in favor of a trial for Bin Laden ?

You are kidding right?

Definitely would have been in favor of a trial, if it would have been possible to take him alive.

What would have been so wrong with giving him a trial, if it would have been possible?

Timoth McVeigh got a trial.

Charles Manson got a trial.

MM makes the point that a lot of Nazi's got trials and they were collectively responsible for the deaths of millions.

Tom

05-12-2011, 10:06 PM

No one in the WTC or the Pentagon got a trail.

highnote

05-12-2011, 10:32 PM

No one in the WTC or the Pentagon got a trail.

Yeah. So why did Timothy McVeigh get a trial?

Why did Nazi's get a trial?

Why did Charles Manson get a trial?

Had he gotten a trial and then was found guilty the victims of WTC and Pentagon would have at least had the satisfaction of seeing him put to death.

delayjf

05-12-2011, 10:51 PM

Yeah, they got a trial - but I would have opted for he .223 labodamy.

To other things to consider 1) the cost. 2) the political circus it would have created.

highnote

05-12-2011, 11:07 PM

Yeah, they got a trial - but I would have opted for he .223 labodamy.

To other things to consider 1) the cost. 2) the political circus it would have created.

That's why I said "if it was possible" to have a trial I would have liked to have seen one. Perhaps some of the victims families' would have liked to have seen him brought to trial, too.

Cost is not a factor. The U.S. has already spent a trillion on the wars. I think I read where it costs about 3 billion per week to run these wars. So what's another billion for a trial.

The political circus probably would have made it very difficult if not impossible to hold a trial. But then again, we'll never know.

I don't know if the Nuremberg trials were a circus.

I don't have any problem with people thinking or feeling he shouldn't have been brought to trial and that he got what he deserved. It's not up to me to tell other the correct way to think or feel.

But if it would have been possible, I would have liked to have seen him stand trial.

bigmack

05-12-2011, 11:16 PM

But if it would have been possible, I would have liked to have seen him stand trial.
Ding dong the turd is dead. Enough already. A trial would have gone not unlike that of Nic Ceausescu. You're guilty - Kablooey.

Get a grip; you're getting thought stimuli from Michael Moore. That ain't a good sign.

JustRalph

05-12-2011, 11:17 PM

and when Al Qaeda took hostages all over the world, maybe at a mall or school with a couple of hundred kids and demanded his release.......what then?

Killing the Bastard was the only answer..........and I still believe they have known where he was since August of last year (being reported in multiple places) and they had gleaned a ton of info already. It was time for him to die.

This is the one thing the Obama admin has done right

highnote

05-12-2011, 11:40 PM

and when Al Qaeda took hostages all over the world, maybe at a mall or school with a couple of hundred kids and demanded his release.......what then?

That could still happen. Al Qaeda could take hostages and demand that Al Qaeda prisoners be released. Then what?

I'll tell you what might happen. The prisoners don't get released. The place where the hostages are held gets stormed. Innocent people die. It already happened at that school in Russia.

Killing the Bastard was the only answer..........

I'm not an absolutist. I believe there may always be more than one answer. I wasn't there when bin Laden was shot. It's likely the SEALS didn't have time to give it much thought. They probably had to act in an instance. Or they may have had orders to shoot on site. Who knows?

It was time for him to die.

I think only God should decide when someone should die. But I also understand that not everyone shares my belief.

GameTheory

05-12-2011, 11:42 PM

You have a trial when the war is over and you're rounding up the criminals or they surrender to you. When you are AT WAR and the enemy is in your sights, you shoot him.

bigmack

05-12-2011, 11:48 PM

I think only God should decide when someone should die.
He did in this case. I trust you believe when someone dies in a car crash, God decided it. So too, God decided it was time for this trash to perish.

Don't tell me you know God's decisions by the method of death?

highnote

05-12-2011, 11:54 PM

Ding dong the turd is dead. Enough already.

I think it's worth discussing. I'm not convinced that the method used in bin Laden's execution is always the best method. But, fighting Al Qaeda is probably unlike any fighting that has been done before. I suppose rapid, global communication makes it possible for Al Qaeda to operate.

A trial would have gone not unlike that of Nic Ceausescu. You're guilty - Kablooey.

Possibly. But at least the families' of the 9/11 victims would have seen justice served.

Get a grip; you're getting thought stimuli from Michael Moore. That ain't a good sign.

Actually, I read a lot of sources. I agreed with some of the things in MM's article long before he wrote about them.

For example, I think it is almost always a good idea to ask, "What would Jesus do?" before you take action or make a decision. That MM wrote that does not mean he influenced me on that point.

Dahoss9698

05-13-2011, 12:04 AM

labodamy.

You're slipping 'Mack.

PaceAdvantage

05-13-2011, 12:04 AM

highnote

05-13-2011, 12:06 AM

You have a trial when the war is over and you're rounding up the criminals or they surrender to you. When you are AT WAR and the enemy is in your sights, you shoot him.

Good point. That's why I said that "if it was possible" to have a trial, to me, that would have preferable to shooting him.

But I also said that I understand that not everyone shares my views. I'm not saying I'm right. Nor am I criticizing anyone for believing differently from me. I'm simply stating my views.

PaceAdvantage

05-13-2011, 12:09 AM

highnote

05-13-2011, 12:15 AM

He did in this case. I trust you believe when someone dies in a car crash, God decided it. So too, God decided it was time for this trash to perish.

Don't tell me you know God's decisions by the method of death?

Hmmmmm... so you say that I shouldn't tell you I know God's decisions... but you say you know God decided it was time for him to die?

Interesting that it's OK for you to think you know what God decided, but not OK for me.

I'm OK with that.

highnote

05-13-2011, 12:21 AM

The USA has never been about dropping into foreign nations we are at peace with and executing unarmed individuals. At least not publicly... :lol:

I think that's what makes this a very unique situation.

We didn't execute the Emperor of Japan during or after WWII -- a nation we were at war with! Surely, he was behind the bombing of Pearl Harbor that resulted in the death of 2,008 military personnel.

I was not alive then. I wonder how many U.S. citizens wanted him dead?

elysiantraveller

05-13-2011, 12:30 AM

We didn't execute the Emperor of Japan during or after WWII -- a nation we were at war with! Surely, he was behind the bombing of Pearl Harbor that resulted in the death of 2,008 military personnel.

I was not alive then. I wonder how many U.S. citizens wanted him dead?

Major difference between the two is that Japan is on a map and Al Qeada is a non-state actor. Makes trials a lot more difficult, and, on the other side, it makes murders and assassinations more palateable to the public.

JustRalph

05-13-2011, 12:33 AM

This is a lame argument. There is nothing preventing Al Qaeda from doing exactly what you describe right now and making all sorts of demands.

I disagree. The head of the beast is much more important than the tail.

Killing him stopped any chance of the scenario playing out anywhere. Binny's followers are in the same position today as they were 10 minutes before Binny died. On the other hand, abductions etc in the name of a lower level member would be hard to promote from within the organization. Action on behalf of the "Dear Leader" are an easy sell to the lower levels. Martyrdom is one thing. Being alive and being Waterboarded and paraded around for a trial would be another.

Two different circumstances. Obama and family chose right on this one.

GameTheory

05-13-2011, 12:39 AM

The USA has never been about dropping into foreign nations we are at peace with and executing unarmed individuals. At least not publicly... :lol:

I think that's what makes this a very unique situation.It is interesting. I think the main reason we can get away with it was because everyone everywhere wanted him dead. That, and because it was Pakistan, and no help from the government could be assumed, but at the same time they are too weak to stop us. If he was hiding in France, we would have just altered the French and they would have gotten him. If he was hiding in Iran, we'd have a real problem.

bigmack

05-13-2011, 12:50 AM

Hmmmmm... so you say that I shouldn't tell you I know God's decisions... but you say you know God decided it was time for him to die?

Interesting that it's OK for you to think you know what God decided, but not OK for me.
Haven't you heard? - Turns out God is supposedly everywhere. In a slippery pavement for a car to plow into a tree and in a bullet plowed through the skull of Capt. Shithead.

See there. God always decides. ;)

highnote

05-13-2011, 01:19 AM

Haven't you heard? - Turns out God is supposedly everywhere. In a slippery pavement for a car to plow into a tree and in a bullet plowed through the skull of Capt. Shithead.

See there. God always decides. ;)

You may be right. However, I believe God gave us the ability to make choices. I don't believe that God dictates everything we do. He might. But that's not what I believe. I believe God let's us make our own good and bad decisions.

Given a choice, I would have prefered to have seen bin Laden captured and brought to trial. But, it wasn't my choice to make. Next time, I hope the White House calls me in advance and asks for my opinion, but I won't hold my breath.

highnote

05-13-2011, 01:34 AM

Major difference between the two is that Japan is on a map and Al Qeada is a non-state actor. Makes trials a lot more difficult, and, on the other side, it makes murders and assassinations more palateable to the public.

Valid points. However, the attacks on Pearl Harbor were premeditated just like 9/11. Why was Hirohito given a pass? Is what he did any less of a crime than what bin Laden did?

Hirohito knew that bombing Pearl Harbor would draw the U.S. into a war. Bin Laden knew that the 9/11 bombings would draw the U.S. into war. Yet, Hirohito was allowed to live for 40 some years after he planned the Pearl Harbor bombings.

bigmack

05-13-2011, 01:57 AM

Given a choice, I would have prefered to have seen bin Laden captured and brought to trial.
On a fascinating scale this is registering utter boredom.

It don't matter what you would have preferred. The stone cold truth is that it's a done deal. What's next; a thread speculation about getting to Hitler & Eva before cyanide kicked in? That'd be sweet, huh? See him on trial would be justice personified. :sleeping:

With all due respect, you bring strange notions to the table in this area of this joint. Lighten up and "what if" less.

dav4463

05-13-2011, 02:10 AM

Does he really think Obama did all this himself and the earlier work under Bush's watch had nothing to do with it?

PaceAdvantage

05-13-2011, 02:40 AM

With all due respect, you bring strange notions to the table in this area of this joint. Lighten up and "what if" less.It's not really strange when you stop and consider what Obama "stood for" during the campaign.

I know, I know, he promised us he would find and/or kill OBL.

But this whole execution smells more like a "Bush thing" more than an "Obama thing." (calm down toetoe)

newtothegame

05-13-2011, 03:15 AM

Does he really think Obama did all this himself and the earlier work under Bush's watch had nothing to do with it?

Of course dav..where ya been??? :lol:

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/U.S./396/223/rambama.jpg

newtothegame

05-13-2011, 03:16 AM

for the above picture so we dont get any legal issues.....

Action Figure Company Selling Obama SEAL Doll After Bin Laden Raid

Published May 12, 2011

| FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/action-figure-company-selling-obama-seal-doll-bin-laden-raid/

highnote

05-13-2011, 04:37 AM

On a fascinating scale this is registering utter boredom.

To paraphrase Robert McNeil and Jim Lehrer about their opinion of the Newshour, "I have the courage to be boring." ;)

It don't matter what you would have preferred.

It matters to me.

The stone cold truth is that it's a done deal.

Maybe so, but I think it's interesting to talk about the news. You may find it boring, or me boring, but no one is making you chime in here. But don't let that stop you. I welcome any and all comments.

What's next; a thread speculation about getting to Hitler & Eva before cyanide kicked in? That'd be sweet, huh? See him on trial would be justice personified. :sleeping:

Is that a hint of sarcasm I am detecting from you? That's downright snarky! :D

With all due respect, you bring strange notions to the table in this area of this joint. Lighten up and "what if" less.

What PA said.

maddog42

05-13-2011, 03:41 PM

That's why I said "if it was possible" to have a trial I would have liked to have seen one. Perhaps some of the victims families' would have liked to have seen him brought to trial, too.

Cost is not a factor. The U.S. has already spent a trillion on the wars. I think I read where it costs about 3 billion per week to run these wars. So what's another billion for a trial.

The political circus probably would have made it very difficult if not impossible to hold a trial. But then again, we'll never know.

I don't know if the Nuremberg trials were a circus.

I don't have any problem with people thinking or feeling he shouldn't have been brought to trial and that he got what he deserved. It's not up to me to tell other the correct way to think or feel.

But if it would have been possible, I would have liked to have seen him stand trial.

I too would have like to have had him brought to trial,but I think the Seals did
a good job. I am not going to second guess them. I wasn't there.

johnhannibalsmith

05-13-2011, 03:58 PM

It's not really strange when you stop and consider what Obama "stood for" during the campaign.

I know, I know, he promised us he would find and/or kill OBL...

Yeah, but then again...

Kill does not equal kill. "I killled that Kentucky Derby" does not mean I murdered all the horses and jockeys in the Derby. "That Kentucky Derby killed me" ( a much more accurate statement by the way) does not mean that Valazques, Borel et al traveled to North Riverside and slit my throat.

I'm more confused than usual... I need an interpretation...

bigmack

05-13-2011, 04:26 PM

You're slipping 'Mack.
Who's toes did I squish, Spalding...whatever?

Dahoss9698

05-13-2011, 05:13 PM

Who's toes did I squish, Spalding...whatever?

It's just funny to watch your hypocrisy in action...as always. You correct spelling mistakes of people you don't agree with and let obvious ones slide for people you agree with.

Soild tactics. :ThmbUp:

PaceAdvantage

05-13-2011, 06:19 PM

Come on now boys, it was just a love-fest in Dahoss' picks thread...don't go back to your warrin' ways....

bigmack

05-13-2011, 07:50 PM

It's just funny to watch your hypocrisy in action...as always. You correct spelling mistakes of people you don't agree with and let obvious ones slide for people you agree with.

Soild tactics. :ThmbUp:
Are you talking about Spalding? That post was a mess.

Meanwhile, run along and get off my cloud. Christ, try and make nice and you still need to push idiocy.

Dahoss9698

05-13-2011, 09:38 PM

Are you talking about Spalding? That post was a mess.

Meanwhile, run along and get off my cloud. Christ, try and make nice and you still need to push idiocy.

I love the play dumb, disingenuous routine. So convincing.

thaskalos

05-13-2011, 10:57 PM

So THIS is what the off-topic is like...

Dahoss9698

05-13-2011, 11:09 PM

So THIS is what the off-topic is like...

Not for the faint of heart....:lol:

benzer

05-13-2011, 11:26 PM

I'll stick my nose in this.

osama bin laden got what he deserved.

Robert Goren

05-13-2011, 11:45 PM

benzer

05-13-2011, 11:53 PM

Ron Paul is a libertarian and not a republican. While the two sides agree on many issues, the military and its use is not one of them.

newtothegame

05-14-2011, 12:57 AM

Ron Paul said that he would not have authorized the raid that killed Bin Laden. Where is the conservative outrage over that? Do they only get upset at liberals who say stupid things and give their own a pass? I don't see anyone questioning his patriotism.
http://theweek.com/article/index/215266/does-ron-pauls-unpopular-bin-laden-stance-make-him-unelectable

Am I the only one who thinks that letting the Pakistanis in on the raid would be like giving Bin Laden a get out free card? Approximately 15% of the republicans think Paul is their best choice for president. You couldn't find 15 democrats let alone 15% who think Michael Moore should be president.

Nope robert..I agree to that the pakistanis should NOT have been notified.
I don't think many people (right or left) have a problem that Bin Laden is gone. I think from the rights point of view, its not about what was done, its about the crying about Bush, then turning around doing the same thing. It's a matter of the left pointing fingers and saying its ok NOW.
From the left, they are touting this as the next coming and that Obama is somehow fullfilling his promise. His poll numbers have spiked slighgtly, but I believe that to be only temporary. Sooner or later it has to and will come down to economy, gas prices, jobs.

Robert Goren

05-14-2011, 05:00 AM

Ron Paul is a libertarian and not a republican. While the two sides agree on many issues, the military and its use is not one of them.He announced yesterday he was a candidate for the republican nomination for president in 2012, not the libertarian nomination. He will get a lot of votes in republican primaries. That makes him a republican in my book.

fast4522

05-14-2011, 08:33 AM

He announced yesterday he was a candidate for the republican nomination for president in 2012, not the libertarian nomination. He will get a lot of votes in republican primaries. That makes him a republican in my book.

No one is going to elect a 75 year old man, the block vote that he gets will go on the trading block as power to have a say in what goes on. Expect severe cuts in government programs before any agreement to raise the debt ceiling. The Tea Party will gut this administration before the election and several hired guns will damage creditability when the sitting President is in the home stretch of his reelection attempt. How many will drive to the polls to reelect a guy who gave them $6 gasoline?

lsbets

05-14-2011, 10:17 AM

I would so like to vote for Ron Paul. I agree with him about 95% of the time. But its comments like this that make it impossible for me to vote for him. Maybe Gary Johnson, need to see more of him.

benzer

05-14-2011, 07:08 PM

He announced yesterday he was a candidate for the republican nomination for president in 2012, not the libertarian nomination. He will get a lot of votes in republican primaries. That makes him a republican in my book.

Robert,

You are correct that Paul is going for the Republican nomination. That does not take away that he is more Libertarian than Republican.

The best way to have a chance to become president of the USA is to get on either the Democratic or Republican party ticket. Because of this some people will move toward one party or another to reach their goals.

Like I said earlier the Libertarians and Republicans share many of the same conservative views, the problems between the two though are many. The
military is a big one as is the legalization of drugs.

Anyway, while the media would like people to think Ron Paul is your average Republican, he is not. After this thing gets underway I doubt Paul will take many votes from the serious contenders in the Republican party. IMHO

CryingForTheHorses

05-15-2011, 11:31 AM

That's why I said "if it was possible" to have a trial I would have liked to have seen one. Perhaps some of the victims families' would have liked to have seen him brought to trial, too.

Cost is not a factor. The U.S. has already spent a trillion on the wars. I think I read where it costs about 3 billion per week to run these wars. So what's another billion for a trial.

The political circus probably would have made it very difficult if not impossible to hold a trial. But then again, we'll never know.

I don't know if the Nuremberg trials were a circus.

I don't have any problem with people thinking or feeling he shouldn't have been brought to trial and that he got what he deserved. It's not up to me to tell other the correct way to think or feel.

But if it would have been possible, I would have liked to have seen him stand trial.

He got his trial..He was shot dead...No wasting taxpayers money...Justice was done.

Rookies

05-15-2011, 12:46 PM

Ron Paul said that he would not have authorized the raid that killed Bin Laden. Where is the conservative outrage over that? Do they only get upset at liberals who say stupid things and give their own a pass? I don't see anyone questioning his patriotism.
http://theweek.com/article/index/215266/does-ron-pauls-unpopular-bin-laden-stance-make-him-unelectable

Am I the only one who thinks that letting the Pakistanis in on the raid would be like giving Bin Laden a get out free card? Approximately 15% of the republicans think Paul is their best choice for president. You couldn't find 15 democrats let alone 15% who think Michael Moore should be president.

Maybe, the Republi-Con strategy is to put forward ALL the losers up front. Newt, with as many wives/ex-wives/GFs as a Mormon... uhhh yeah that one too, who dosn't like the public health option except his own...:lol: :lol: and now Rube Paul- with the single most unpopular statment by an American in this millenium- maybe ever!
What a gaggle of the old, former and disreputable...:D

Is Palin up next ? :bang: Nah, that other old warhorse Barbour! :rolleyes:

If I were the Democrats, I'd be worried about the second tier... the Nikki Haley's and Bat Ears, Ryan. They've been through some tough slogging campaigns with no personal baggage and are articulate in advocating the Con position.

Too bad they're too new, unfortunate, very unfortunate...;)

Tom

05-15-2011, 12:53 PM

Don't you have politics up there to whine about?
Didn't I hear about a Canadian Tea Party recently?

I'm sure the repubs are dying to hear the analysis of someone not bright enough to live hear. That puts you behind 250 million Americans and 25 million Mexicans.

PaceAdvantage

05-15-2011, 09:28 PM

PaceAdvantage

05-15-2011, 09:30 PM

He got his trial..He was shot dead...No wasting taxpayers money...Justice was done.Yeah, I get the sentiment and all the emotionality around the issue (I had friends AND family running away from the WTC that September morning)...but kind of scary to hear Americans talking like this...wouldn't you agree?

highnote

05-15-2011, 09:42 PM

Yeah, I get the sentiment and all the emotionality around the issue (I had friends AND family running away from the WTC that September morning)...but kind of scary to hear Americans talking like this...wouldn't you agree?

As GameTheory wrote... the U.S. is at war with Al Qaeda. He was killed for being an enemy combatant.

However, he was the leader. The U.S. didn't shoot Hirohito during or after WWII. The U.S. was in a cold war with Russia for decades. The U.S. didn't shoot Krushchev. The U.S. didn't shoot Saddam.

I'm not saying it was right or wrong to shoot bin Laden. I'm only saying I would have preferred to see him stand trial.

Rookies

05-15-2011, 09:43 PM

Since when are left-leaners overly concerned with how many wives/ex-wives/GFs a candidate has? Could a reversal of other long-held left-leaning positions not be far behind as well? :bang:

It's not that, PA. Could care less about it normally.

BUT, when you advance your moral house of cards on that holier than thou 'family values' screed, down you go, when you're not up to snuff yourself... and outed. The louder I hear that riff from these family values loons yell, the more I believe their closet is full of skeletons.

And it usually is...;)

benzer

05-15-2011, 10:00 PM

Rookies,

Skeletons in the closet? So you have none? You are perfect? You sure are full of yourself or at the least you're full of it.

Rookies

05-15-2011, 10:18 PM

Rookies,

Skeletons in the closet? So you have none? You are perfect? You sure are full of yourself or at the least you're full of it.

No, I'm certainly not... imperfect like many.

And, I don't CLAIM to be!

That's the point...

BTW, stick around for at least another SIX posts...:lol:

You may learn something or is your game just to insult people personally ?:rolleyes:

benzer

05-15-2011, 10:28 PM

Good to hear that, because if I were perfect I'd have to change my username.

PaceAdvantage

05-15-2011, 10:35 PM

It's not that, PA. Could care less about it normally.

BUT, when you advance your moral house of cards on that holier than thou 'family values' screed, down you go, when you're not up to snuff yourself... and outed. The louder I hear that riff from these family values loons yell, the more I believe their closet is full of skeletons.

And it usually is...;)I wasn't that big into politics when Gingrich was at the height of his Congressional power. Can you tell me some of the family values he espoused and how that conflicted with his personal life?

Did he claim that people shouldn't cheat on their wives and get divorced? Did he claim there should be federal laws outlawing adultery and/or divorce?

benzer

05-15-2011, 10:42 PM

Rookies,

No intent to insult you, but your comments in this thread look insulting.

Rookies

05-15-2011, 11:03 PM

I wasn't that big into politics when Gingrich was at the height of his Congressional power. Can you tell me some of the family values he espoused and how that conflicted with his personal life?

Did he claim that people shouldn't cheat on their wives and get divorced? Did he claim there should be federal laws outlawing adultery and/or divorce?

A Conservative Family values position postulates that there are certain fundamental values that are its sacrosanct pillars: (No) Abortion, Divorce, Sexually explicit content, Homosexuality and premarital sex. Those that espouse contrary positions are the enemy of these family values. ( I would certainly ad EXTRA-marital sex). It is clear that Gingrich rode to power in part by articulating these values and blending them into his conservative economic theories.

e.g.
In Campaign, Gingrich Used "Family Values" Platform To Attack Female Opponent With Charge She Would Leave Her Husband Behind While In Washington. From Vanity Fair: "Another Gingrich theme in that campaign was moral leadership and family values. He drove the point home with an ad claiming that if Shapard were elected to Congress she would leave her husband, a local businessman, behind, while Gingrich would keep his family together. This issue was a subject of particular irony among the Shapard campaign staffers, where gossip about Gingrich's roving eye was widely believed and it was assumed that the Gingrich marriage was on the verge of breaking up. 'As the days dwindled down in the end of the campaign,' Shapard says, 'the campaign workers had an unofficial pool going on to see how long it would take him when he got to Washington to dump [Jackie.]'" [Vanity Fair, July 1989 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/boyernewt2.html), via PBS.org]

And of course, he tried to get President Clinton impeached on the basis of his belief that he perjured himself with respect to the Lewinsky affair. He did this, at exactly the same time that he himself was engaged in an affair. Prior to that, he sought his first divorce, while his first wife was convalescing from cancer.

Rookies

05-15-2011, 11:22 PM

Rookies,

No intent to insult you, but your comments in this thread look insulting.

My comments are to point out the blatant hypocrisy of hypocrites like Gingrich who campaign on a set of moral values, while ignoring them in their own personna. If they come out as insulting him, then my point has been made.

David Frum, late of the Bush White House, offered this opinion a couple of days ago.

Many of the rest of us are on a continuum when it comes to deciding how much infidelity should matter in the selection of a president. ... Was the infidelity an isolated instance or a chronic pattern? Were the transgressions long ago or recent? What levels of deception and cover-up were involved? What was the position of authority the person held when the infidelity occurred? Was there an alarming degree of recklessness on display? What evidence is there that this person has changed his ways? Has this person shown other worrisome signs when it comes to character and trustworthiness?
These are all fair and interesting points, but they do not address the reason that Gingrich’s personal life has been – and will be – so politically lethal.

It’s not the infidelity. It’s the arrogance, hypocrisy, and – most horrifying to women voters – the cruelty.

Anyone can dump one sick wife. Gingrich dumped two.

As it poses the same arguments and comes to similar, if even more hardened conclusions, you may find it 'insulting'.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/09/david-frum-family-values-and-the-newt-gingrich-question/

benzer

05-15-2011, 11:28 PM

Wow,
This early in the campaign (all the potential runners yet to show themselves) and you bring up old stuff. When it is all said and done Republicans will put forth a canidate that can defeat the current president in the next election. IMHO

bigmack

05-15-2011, 11:43 PM

Maybe, the Republi-Con strategy is to put forward ALL the losers up front. Newt, with as many wives/ex-wives/GFs as a Mormon... uhhh yeah that one too, who dosn't like the public health option except his own...:lol: :lol: and now Rube Paul- with the single most unpopular statment by an American in this millenium- maybe ever!
What a gaggle of the old, former and disreputable...:D

Is Palin up next ? :bang: Nah, that other old warhorse Barbour! :rolleyes:

If I were the Democrats, I'd be worried about the second tier... the Nikki Haley's and Bat Ears, Ryan. They've been through some tough slogging campaigns with no personal baggage and are articulate in advocating the Con position.

How does someone so far removed from bumping into a point that makes any sense post such cocksure analysis as if he's ready for the Sunday news programs?

PaceAdvantage

05-16-2011, 02:52 AM

A Conservative Family values position postulates that there are certain fundamental values that are its sacrosanct pillars: (No) Abortion, Divorce, Sexually explicit content, Homosexuality and premarital sex. Those that espouse contrary positions are the enemy of these family values. ( I would certainly ad EXTRA-marital sex). It is clear that Gingrich rode to power in part by articulating these values and blending them into his conservative economic theories.Really? No divorce? Hmmm....I don't know about that one...No premarital sex? Really? Hmmm...I doubt that's a real big deal. Now Abortion is a biggie, I will grant you that...and I've never heard it reported or even whispered that Newt paid for any abortions, so I think he's clean there.

Same goes for homosexuality, as it has been proven pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt that Newt is most definitely a ladies' man.

Sexually explicit content...well, that pretty much goes with divorce and premarital sex as no real big deal...it's a nice ideal to live up to, but we're all human...

I think the bottom line remains that these will NOT be big issues AGAINST Newt. There are plenty of other substantial issues to debate him on as opposed to this rather petty, personal stuff.

Anyone who brings this up during the campaign (either his Republican opponents, or, should he land the nomination, his Democrat foes) is going to look pathetic and desperate if you ask me.

I mean come on...last time we elected a guy who was an ADMITTED pothead, boozer and coke fiend...Newt can't possibly look worse than THAT, can he?

Robert Goren

05-16-2011, 09:12 AM

I think most people still think that cheating on a dying wife is a big deal.

benzer

05-16-2011, 11:06 PM

I think most people still think that cheating on a dying wife is a big deal.

You mean like other democratic hopefuls of the past and green peace American job destroyers?

PaceAdvantage

05-17-2011, 02:20 AM

I think most people still think that cheating on a dying wife is a big deal.I'm not too sure of that. Liberals didn't get that name for no reason.

elysiantraveller

05-17-2011, 09:52 AM

I'm not too sure of that. Liberals didn't get that name for no reason.

In all fairness John Edwards political career was effectively ruined by his affair.

ArlJim78

05-17-2011, 10:01 AM

Robert Goren

05-17-2011, 10:12 AM

I like how liberals try to win the partisan infidelity wars. When one of their own is caught, the answer is "hey we didn't say we were about moral values, or, its a personal matter", as if that excuses anything.

When a conservative has a trangression its "Oh man what a hypocrite, you said you were for moral values".

Show me a democrat who will go on the record and say that they ARE NOT for moral values. There is difference between what liberals and conservatives consider moral values on some issues. Abortion is one. Liberal consider taking away woman's right to choose what to do with her own body as immoral. Conservatives do not agree. Gay marriage is another. I could go for quite awhile.

maddog42

05-17-2011, 10:13 AM

Really? No divorce? Hmmm....I don't know about that one...No premarital sex? Really? Hmmm...I doubt that's a real big deal. Now Abortion is a biggie, I will grant you that...and I've never heard it reported or even whispered that Newt paid for any abortions, so I think he's clean there.

Same goes for homosexuality, as it has been proven pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt that Newt is most definitely a ladies' man.

Sexually explicit content...well, that pretty much goes with divorce and premarital sex as no real big deal...it's a nice ideal to live up to, but we're all human...

I think the bottom line remains that these will NOT be big issues AGAINST Newt. There are plenty of other substantial issues to debate him on as opposed to this rather petty, personal stuff.

Anyone who brings this up during the campaign (either his Republican opponents, or, should he land the nomination, his Democrat foes) is going to look pathetic and desperate if you ask me.

I mean come on...last time we elected a guy who was an ADMITTED pothead, boozer and coke fiend...Newt can't possibly look worse than THAT, can he?

Pothead, Boozer, Coke Fiend .Man these presidents have all the fun. Which president are you referring to? Bush, Clinton, Reagan ?

hcap

05-17-2011, 02:01 PM

Hypocrisy is ALWAYS funny

http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/no-thanks-im-a-registered-republican.jpg

Tom

05-17-2011, 02:33 PM

You looking in that mirror again?

PaceAdvantage

05-17-2011, 10:03 PM

PaceAdvantage

05-17-2011, 10:04 PM

Pothead, Boozer, Coke Fiend .Man these presidents have all the fun. Which president are you referring to? Bush, Clinton, Reagan ?Silly...why Obama of course...

benzer

05-18-2011, 12:56 AM

There is difference between what liberals and conservatives consider moral values on some issues. Abortion is one. Liberal consider taking away woman's right to choose what to do with her own body as immoral. Conservatives do not agree. Gay marriage is another. I could go for quite awhile.

The right to abort a baby is OK with you even though the father wants the child? This street is not one way.

How do you expect a women to choose what to do with her own body and not be held responsible at the same time to work with her male counterpart?

Making babies takes 2 people under normal circumstances and the father should have a say in any abortion decision.

Greyfox

05-18-2011, 01:02 AM

The right to abort a baby is OK with you even though the father wants the child? This street is not one way.

.

Your comments benzer remind me of this little ditty:

Susie Lee done fell in love;
She planned to marry Joe.
She was so happy 'bout it all
She told her Pappy so.

Pappy told her, "Susie gal,
You'll have to find another.
I'd just as soon yo' Ma don't know,
But Joe is yo' half brother."

So Susie put aside her Joe
And planned to marry Will.
But after telling Pappy this,
He said, "There's trouble still...

You cain't marry Will, my gal,
And please don't tell your Mother,
But Will and Joe and several mo'
I know is yo' half brother."

But Mama knew and said, "My child,
Just do what makes you happy.
Marry Will or marry Joe,
You ain't no kin to Pappy!"