WASHINGTON (March 9) – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.
I wish I could say I’m surprised that YET ANOTHER Christian right-wing-nut has confessed to disappointing their god.I refer to my earlier post: This man obviously does not fear his god. Nobody would risk Hell if they thought it were real, and an affair (DURING the time when he is prosecuing another man for a similar crime)shows he did not take that threat seriously. My guess: Newt is another faker Atheist using the power of religion to get money and power.Christianity: So lame even it’s leaders are Atheists.
I strongly disagree quixotte77,
You talk about how you try to feel deeply sorry for things you may do wrong, how is that a solution to your poor behavior? How about instead of calling it a devil or some other mystical creature, you realize that you do bad things out of selfishness, greed or many other simple human desires to take the short route to something you want. Magical thinking does not produce results. It gives you scapegoats and excuses.
And “W” and his cronies DID lie. They “wagged the dog”. They forced the intelligence they wanted out of the CIA. People in the CIA resigned because of the daily visits by rummy and VP. They wanted a reason to attack and squezed until they got info they knew to be inaccurate. They made a war, instead of finishing off the job on terrorism.
These actions have made recruiting for terrorists Very Easy. G.W. has made the US an easy enemy for most of the world. All of Bush’s people miss the cold war, and love the advantages of a boogyman.
W did much more than lie. He is a larger and more powerful enemy than Osama himself.
jshane,
I agree totally that W has made the world a much more dangerous place than it was prior to 9-11. Bush is the best recruitment device for terrorists ever.
quixote:
Obviously.
You say all poor behavior is a sin, equal penance.
I say a little sexual fiasco is a far cry from sending our youth off to die based on lies engineered for a specific purpose, & as such, the latter requires a severer punishment.
quixotte77:
One results in embarrassment, the other in thousands of innocent dead/murdered.
Where is your moral compass, quixotte77?
it seems to me that christians are more prompt to jump on “little” sins than big ones in their leaders,
I beleive it is an extention of the human propensity to discount our own behavior. because W claims to talk to god every day, they think the best of bad behavior (he just had bad intelligence! you would have done the same presented with that information! nevermind the evidence that he manufactured the intelligence!)
I beleive they jump on the smaller sins because it makes the leader harder to relate to, because these types of sins are the ones that they manage to stave off somehow every day.
ie: Even I dont cheat on my wife, there’s no way this guy is christian
vs: Jee, I’ve never been in that situation… I’m sure his intentions were righteous.
of course, it’s just my own little food-for-thought theory off the top of my head, I freely admit I cant back it up… (yet)
one death makes a muderer
ten makes a monster
ten thousand makes a hero.
“How about instead of calling it a devil or some other mystical creature, you realize that you do bad things out of selfishness, greed or many other simple human desires to take the short route to something you want.”
What makes you think I call it the devil. I certainly did not and don’t. Can the devil influence me. Of course. (Just to make sure you know I’m as wacked as you think I am.) But I am a free agent, and totally responsible for my actions.
I know that those of you who have had a sip of the liberal coolaid will never be convinced by anything I say about W and the war. So, I’m not sure why I even try. However, we have sent a 100% volunteer army, many of whom are thrilled with the chance to prove themselves in a war theater, to attempt some very, very nobel indeavors. To date, there has been a substantial amount of progress in almost every theater, and the number of military deaths is so small compared to Viet Nam, Korea, etc., that it is hard to imagine what all the bellyaching is about.
There are bad folks in the world, and these evil dudes will stop at nothing until they either win or die. I appreciate that some folks are pacifists and would not even defend their wives and kids if someone walked in the front door with a handgun, and they happened to be holding an UZI. That’s your choice, and I won’t judge you. But as for me and my family, I’m thankful to those men who have gone so that my family can go to the mall without fear, and so that one day, hopefully, Iraqui, Iranian, Syrian, Israeli, Palestinian, Sudanese, etc., families can also go to their markets without fear.
I often wonder how xians justify their multiple marriages. Deosn’t Paul (in the Bible) say that re-marrying after divorce is a sin?
quixote77, you’ve got be to kidding.
FlyingWeasel,
That does appear to be W’s thinking.
Comment from: What
What will you say when we win and Iraq has a stable government…?
Comment from: jshanewhit
Wow…talk about being misinformed and lacking knowledge…?
Comment from: pixel
Where does he state this…?
This kind of preface tells me that the rest of your comment will in fact be a waste of time and space.
Makingthe best of a bad situation perhaps??
Progress toward what?? Need you be reminded that more US military personnel have died in theater than were the number of victims of 9/11 – was this an even smaller amount of deaths that we should care less about? And what about non-combatant deaths? Do the tens or hundreds of thousands not even hit your radar? Where is your humanity????
FYI we’re ‘bellyaching’ about needless death and destruction.
With W at the helm – and certain other US regimes it becomes very difficult to tell who who are the bad, evil folks, and who are not.
This comment is so asinine it doesn’t even warrant a response.
Dude – you are expressing nothing but judgment. Unfortunately your judgments are only of your own strawmen.
Well I guess that shows your priorities.
Alex
“What’s wrong with responsible gun ownership?”
I did not comment on gun ownership. My comment was aimed at the simpleton xtian mind and their simpleton solutions to problems.
I have owned guns in the past. I presently regard them as tool of little significance in one’s comprehsive set of tools for self protection.
“What will you say when we win and Iraq has a stable government…?”
I’ll say “Why are these monkeys flying out of my arse?”
The war in Iraq is unwinnable and Bush needs to admit failure and bring the troops home now. Iraqis are just not prepared for democracy and the moment that we leave the country the people there will fall into anarchy and eventually set up another islamic dictatorship. You can’t forcibly drag people with a seventh century mindset into modernity. I understand that Bush Co. and many xians live in a delusional world of their own making but out here in reality the American people can see the failure plainly.
The situation in Iraq has little to do with Iraqi’s preparation for democracy. We invaded their country. We are occupying their country. We show all signs and behavior of an imperialist nation ready to exploit the Iraqi people and natural resources. If you were an Iraqi would you welcome that? Would you fight?
Iwould be doing exactly what they are doing minus the religious crap.
alexatheist,
I agree, owning a gun you can defend and protect yourself from any harm. In this day and age if a xtian knows about anyone being gay person in their surroundings, the xtians will condemn the gay community because religion “tells” them to in the bible.
I was behind a vehicle yesterday that had that jesus fish on the rear tailgate and the bumper sticker that read, “One man, one woman, equals one child.”
If I were gay, I would never allow that guy driving that vehicle to know about me because of some xtians prejudice against gay people in general. Some xtians are very violent people when it comes to the gay community, I know because of what I’ve heard xtians say about gay people. It’s truly sad that some xtians target gay people with their hate mongering.
Evolving is what happens when we are making plans!
SunbeamAtheist
What does a monkey think when they look at us as humans? I found this article below, it concerns a problem with illegal and corrupt gun sales in Alabama,(the bible belt).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_501_Guns_Flea_Collar.html
Evolve, it’s what nature and science intended!
SunbeamAtheist
It isn’t clear exactly what Paul has to say on remarriage in every situation. He seems to offer at least two reasons that are acceptable for divorce: adultry and one spouse leaving the other (physically? emotionally?)
HeatheNZ,
It is very sad that 1000’s are losing their lives in Iraq as a result of tribal rivalries, outside rabble rousing, 1000 year old religious nonsense, etc. It would be worse without the US presence, and at some point in the not too distant future, there will need to be a time when we find out what will happen when we leave. History will determine whether at the end of our time of assisting Iraq and Afghanistan, we did a good and nobel thing or not, and whether it was done reasonably well or not.
By the way, unlike some conservatives who have also been drinking their own brand of coolaid, I can see the possibility that our withdrawal at this time could have a calming effect. On balance, I just don’t think the risk of that option is worth the potential disaster compared to the potential reward.
quixote77:
Reading directly from your RR propaganda pamphlet? Sorry, but it is obscenely obvious TODAY that our “assisting”?as you put it?of Iraq has been executed totally incompetently. The same could certainly be argued regarding Afghanistan.
Nothing about what we?ve done in Iraq is, or was, noble. Nothing.
History is repeating itself in Iraq
Philip H. Gordon
Trading Places: America and Europe in the Middle East
So i am drinking liberal cool-aid? My positions are hardly those of most liberals. I am not a party line anything. The testimony of many CIA and ex-CIA official show that the administration did “wag the dog”. I do not instantly assume this was done with evil intent. I argue that the results and the thinking was WRONG. I am sure they believed they would “pick the battlefield”. They believe they are protecting american lives by fighting in the middle east. They also wanted to correct what they themselves saw as Bush Sr.’s biggest mistake(leaving iraq in saddams power). Look at who W’s handlers are.
They are all cold war relics, with a belief in war as an economic freight train. They themselves have spoken publicly as such in the past.
But, just like the cold war when we waged war against communism in everyone else’s back yard. It is immoral. Both sides made converts and set them at each other in places that needed food more than ideology. We are making the innocent pay for our prosperity and security. I believe Afghanistan was the terrorist’s ground, and have no problem with getting rid of the taliban and the training camps. The methods were sloppy and inefficient because in that war we used a bunch of warlords to do it for us. Now warlords are in power and the terrorists just keep a lower profile many times with the support of warlords that we arm and supply.
I am hardly a pacifist. If you do have to kill, kill the guilty(not anyone you can shoot). Kill only if it is for your own survival. We are fighting a PR war. We can win every military victory and still lose the war. That is the very fact that eludes our administration.
sorry for the endless rant.
jshanewhit,
Nicely said.
I was watching the History channel the other night re: submarines. There was a comment that the Brits wouldn’t develop subs, because it seemed like an ungentlemanly way to fight. Eventually they had no choice.
I’m not sure what the answer is with regard to how we will settle our differences with despots in a gentlemanly way. I hate the line “we are fighting there so we won’t have to fight here.” But the alternative is to try endless diplomacy while risking someone like Iran taking over the region and doing a Hitler. It would be nice if the sound bites on left or right would actually work as easily as the roll off the tongue, but alas…..
“But the alternative is to try endless diplomacy while risking someone like Iran taking over the region and doing a Hitler.”
Endless diplomacy is what adults do. Endless war is what children like quixy do.
We caused the chaos in Iraq. To brush it off as some never ending sectarian struggle totally side-steps one’s responsibility for having supported the invasion and occupation that uncorked the bottle of chaos. Any nation will under the right circumstances degenerate into lawlessness and tribal fighting. We provided those conditions and worms like Quixy are not man /woman enough to take responsibility for what they have supported.
No matter. Whether they take responsibility or not we will hang the Albatross of Iraq about their scrawny necks.
Spander’s
“just as Bush and Rumsfeld mostly were sincere when they kept stressing that America?s intentions were pure,
and that America wanted to give Iraqis their freedom, not take it away.”
Sincere! Cram the aplogetics. BushCo’s intentions have been clear from the beginning. Invade and exploit.
quixote77,
That statement isn’t correct but even if it has any validity at all, it is your lover that caused it.
Stick your finger in your nose and you will be pointing at someone responsible for your complaint.
What,
I’m not apologizing for Bush. I’ve gone to numerous protest marches and have been quite vocal in my criticism of this war. I’m quoting an article. I think Mr. Gordon done a very good job of summarizing the parallels between England and the US in their efforts in Iraq. It is not up to me to judge the sincerity of the president. However, we can certainly draw upon historic precedence, which is what my point was.
Mr. Gordon done = Mr. Gordon has done
Spanders
I was not suggesting that you cram the apologetics but rather the author of the article.
You write:
“It is not up to me to judge the sincerity of the president.”
What?! You are a US citizen. Correct?
rna2dna
“Stick your finger in your nose and you will be pointing at someone responsible for your complaint.”
But the devil made him do it!
What, do you base what you think of the president on how sincere you think he is or is not? How do you gauge it?
When he stands up in front of the world and says: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” and fails to name this African country you know he is not free of dissimulation.
When he and his admin attempt to frighten Americans with visions of mushroom clouds and bioweapons attacks by a country that was technologically devastated by the embargo of the 90s you know he is not free of dissimulation.
When he says to the world that we will go to the UN for a vote on the authorization of force and does not you know he not free of dissimulation.
When he tells the American public just days before the 8006 elections that “We are winning in Iraq” and then months later starts the surge because we are in fact losing you know he is not of dissimulation.
When he tells America that if he finds out who outed Plame they would be fired and then, upon finding out the many people that did so, fires none of them he is not free of dissimulation.
In fact there has never been a more duplicitous US president. How long must the list be?
Should of grammar checked that.
WOW…another thread hijacked…no wait…it’s ok if someone else offers a new topic…
What, here’s where I’m going with this: it’s more effective to judge his actions than it is to guess his intentions. When we apply a critique to the president we can accurately say he did x and then he did y just as you listed above. We can guess at his sincerity. My father-in-law, who is a die hard Bush supporter, and I had a conversation where I was telling him I thought Bush was full of shit and that Bush was a dick. That conversation didn’t go well. He got defensive and said how did I know what’s in the man’s heart? After thinking about that for a while I thought my father-in-law was right, I don’t know what’s in his heart. Just like Bush looked into Putin’s soul and liked what he saw. I thought, how does one do that? We can judge each other on what we do and what we’ve done in the past and make predictions based on patterns of past actions.
I find it much more accurate to look at what they say and what they do without getting involved in the morass of the sincerity of a person. When speaking about politics, I try to not get into the argument of the sincerity of a politician. I remember my cousing saying they were voting for Bush because they thought he was more sincere than Kerry. I thought that was a stupid reason for voting for someone. I think voting on their record and their stands on positions is a much better way to go.
Just so this doesn’t become a long back and forth… I think Bush’s track record is awful and based on his prior actions I can predict it’s not going to get much better. I will agree with you on the actions listed above and I could probably add to your list as could you. I think that it’s more accurate not to judge their sincerity, but to judge what they do or don’t do.
ah, but spanders… that’s a very workable indication of sincerity isn’t it?
whether or not a man follows through with his word? whether or not he acts as he purports to beleive? dont get me wrong, I understand that circumstances can change, but none of the aforementioned disingenuities were forced by any stretch, and most seem to have been engineered.
lieing is a very good flag for insincerity.
His insincerity is of course secondary to his actions. But as you will recall my initial post said to “cram the apologetics”. This is exactly what the author of the article you posted was doing. He was offering up apologetics based upon the sincerity of the chimp.
Spanders
And before I quit this thread.
Being a goood judge of sincerity IS an extermely useful skill for anybody to have and develop. One can sit around witholding judgement until behavior alone shows that someone can not be trusted. By then much damage may have been done. In contrast one can use the often subtle skill of detecting anothers sincerity so as to prepare in advance for duplicitous behavior.
A good example of greed combined with poor sincerity detection:
Arizona Daily Star 03.11.2007
Investment scheme hurts local military families and church-goers
By Carol Ann Alaimo
A noncommissioned officer at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base is at the center of claims that more than 100 Tucsonans, many of them church members or military personnel, were financially ruined after investing in shaky real estate deals or near-worthless Iraqi currency.
Those involved say they’re now heavily in debt ? some for as much as $400,000 ? for investment money they borrowed against their homes or credit cards to buy Iraqi dinars or California properties that now face foreclosure.
Often, religion was used to push the investment deals, they said, and some investors, including a Tucson pastor, said they bought in to raise money for church projects to aid the poor. The promised rates of return ranged from about 20 percent to 300 percent, they said.
“They said they could help us, that it was based on faith and trust. They knew the vocabulary to use with Christian people,” said Maria Hynum, an East Side grandmother who said she lost $393,000. Two of her relatives also lost tens of thousands of dollars each, she said.
planing for a draw down and mission change in iraq is underway.don’t let the surge fool you.hey you guys will love this bush admin. gave over 40 million dollars to taliban before 9-11 to fight drugs.my favorite business haliburton is moving headquarters to persian gulf.
Shithead quiped: [WOW...another thread hijacked...no wait...it's ok if someone else offers a new topic... ]
Go suck a bible, clown!