The fact Gingrich is running for President shows what low life scum the American people are. Saddam spent years and the deaths of untold thousands attacking Iran because he thought it would please his American masters. So look what he got for it. Gingrich right now on CNN trying to explain his demonic behaviour is the man American people allow to make a play for the whitehouse means the US is, as a whole, totally and without question insane. America thinks it is God. Curse you to hell America.
@Ellipser what does saddam have anything to do with it? And why does the fact that one person is trying to restore our country to the way it was before obama screwed everything up the american peoples fault?
Even though I am not a fan of Gingrich in ANY way, I really do like what he said at the end, about the media bashing Republicans to make Obama look better. It's very true, I believe, and one of the most truthful, sensible things that has ever come from Gingrich's mouth.
Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and other cases, were mostly about the privacy in discussing/using/advocating on contraceptives, abortions, unmarried contraception, and etc.
So ya, this "right to privacy" that you argued about with Gingrich, mostly applies to how his marital affairs had such a right.
Also, this "story" about an open-marriage with his "ex-wife" at 1:17 , is just about his marital affairs with his ex-wife and not his infidelity.
@7DrPhysics After Griswold, states figured that the court's stance applied ONLY to married couples, so they banned contraceptive pill sales to unwed women.
The court struck this down in Eisenstadt, making their point still clearer that the right to privacy they outlined in Griswold was NOT limited only to cases LIKE Griswold.
The same stance was used in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws that banned homosexual intercourse.
@7DrPhysics Once one considers ALL the case history, the message becomes pretty clear: The right to privacy is the right for every individual to be free from state laws governing his consensual sexual behavior, and this right was one that originated in the GRISWOLD decision (as opposed to the latter decisions based on it). The latter cases were simply those in which the court was telling states that Griswold is to be interpreted much more broadly than they have been willing to do.
If a person who breaks their marital vows... Does not deserve to be punished?
So people who break marital vows are protected, because certain cases have said that the Constitution protects marital privacy and discussions of "open marriages."?
Surely, if the Const. says so, and the people look pass it, then the person who committed Adultery is clearly innocent and does not deserve to be penalized.
@7DrPhysics I'm through discussing this with you. You have no interest in anything but pushing your own moral code as THE Law of Humanity. It's ironic that those who hold themselves as so morally superior are often so intellectually INferior. I suppose that hard and fast moral truths are the only ones to which they are capable of clinging.
"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." - H. L. Mencken
@7DrPhysics 'Also, Natural Law isn't my "own moral code."'
We were NEVER talking about natural law, and ALWAYS talking about your own code as an objective standard. The fact that you just suffer from the delusion of grandeur that says that the two are the same thing never changed that. lol
@7DrPhysics 'I brought up "Natural Law" as something standard for even you to understand basic human moral and virtue.'
HAH! No, you didn't. You brought it up because your previous attempt to claim moral objectivity by citing state adultery statutes failed. Bringing up the idea of natural law was just a different tactic to claim your own values as a universally accepted standard.
@7DrPhysics 'Gingrich committing Adultery. Are you saying that that is an action that deserves approval?'
I've never thought that something between Gingrich and his wife was ever a subject requiring my approval or disapproval. It's their issue, not mine, and not yours. Seems like this approach is the exact OPPOSITE of deluding myself into a state of grandeur. ;-)
@7DrPhysics 'I think I have answered all of your questions while you ignore mine, and go for the ones where you can pinpoint an error on.'
How can I address your questions selectively while ignoring them at the same time? lol You're just contradicting yourself again.
You have the situation backwards; not only have I answered your questions, I answered many MULTIPLE TIMES! The fact that you have no interest in considering the answers doesn't mean I never gave them. ;-)
@PrimeSoup So go run away and act like you made a point. You haven't convinced me of anything, challenged my thoughts on anything, given me any more ideas or perspectives, or deserved my respect.
Had you not been such an asshole, I would respected your opinion and tried to actually have a nice debate/discussion with you.
But I'm sure you knew that and wanted to see how much of a smart, egotistical asshole you are...
@7DrPhysics 'So go run away and act like you made a point.'
Oh, I never said I was running away. I just said that I'm not going to discuss your pet interest of absolute morality. There's no such thing, and it's already quite clear that your delusion is too deeply ingrained for me to dispel.
2. Pretty sure saving someone's life deserves an applause than someone COMMITTING ADULTERY. So if you want to talk about how I have high moral standards of grandeur and delusion, then you are a dumbass.
3. Are you seriously going to keep on about how much at fault I am when you haven't done anything? Lol, you've just carped at my comments while providing fail arguments.
@7DrPhysics 'Are you seriously going to keep on about how much at fault I am when you haven't done anything?'
That's not what I said, genius. I just said I didn't START it, which is true. Believe what you like, though. The truth hasn't stopped you from doing so thus far. lol
@7DrPhysics 'I wouldn't have argued against all of your comments if I didn't try to understand.'
CORRECTION: You wouldn't have argued against all of my comments if you didn't have an agenda of your own to pursue. Pretending that understanding is the only explanation for your participation is pure sophistry. It's not like you have any shortage of that, though.
@7DrPhysics 'All I have seen is you arguing on Gingrich's "right to privacy" in marital affairs, and I have told you several arguments to disprove you.'
... none of which has shown ANY understanding of the Griswold decision that ARTICULATED the right to privacy in the first place. Can't disprove a claim that you aren't even representing accurately, Einstein. You just knock down a straw man, while the ACTUAL claim remains intact.
I will. Because it is True. There is proof. I did help provide it by telling you what you've said in the first couple of pages, when this first began.
@7DrPhysics 'Newt could of said no to the "open marriage" question. Which disables your "right to privacy."'
That's not what the right to privacy is about. The fact that you can't get your head around that doesn't change the facts. I've tried several times to explain this to you, but you persist with this erroneous interpretation. I've long since given up on further attempts, but take as many cracks at it as you wish.
@7DrPhysics 'If "right to privacy", then saying "NO" would be an option to the "open marriage" question, yes?'
*shrug* It's an option regardless of Griswold. The right to privacy has nothing to do with how Gingrich answered the question; it has to do with whether having an affair was a legal offense, as you claimed. You may as well be asking, "If Jack has one apple and Jill has three apples, how many oranges do they have between them?" Good luck with that.
@7DrPhysics 'Having an affair is not a "legal offense" to you?'
I wasn't describing my views. I was describing what every legal expert in the country expects would be the Supreme Court's stance on adultery laws should they ever be challenged in federal court.
I happen to agree with the court's view that regulating consensual sex shouldn't be the task of the legislature, but that has nothing to do with what I recognize as reality. That which is positive is NOT normative.
"Principle 26 - The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity. "
I do agree that marital matters and divorce proceedings should be handled on the civil level, but considering that those who commit Adultery isn't something to be approved of nor applauded for. I just want people to realize, if they haven't, that Gingrich did do something that is regarded as wrong.
@7DrPhysics "I just want people to realize, if they haven't, that Gingrich did do something that is regarded as wrong."
Gingrich did nothing to them, and he did nothing to you except, apparently, offend your delicate sensibilities.
If Gingrich and his wife shared a prenuptial agreement that limited their behavior outside the confines of their marriage, then SHE has a claim of harm that is relevant to their divorce settlement. Anything more is akin to stoning him in the street.
@PrimeSoup So if you don't think he should be punished because the Legislatures and the Constitution have said so, then alright.
I, however, do. Or at least, so that he understands what he has done, and doesn't escape with the knowledge that people are backing him up because of it.
That was how I viewed this video and of Gingrich.
If you want to prove to me how much of a Saint or a good presidential candidate Gingrich is, then go ahead. I will listen.
However, my opinions of Gingrich were directed towards him like so because of his beliefs, the basic moral code that people normally would follow, and his rhetoric answer to JK's question about "open marriage."
@7DrPhysics '... and his rhetoric[al] answer to JK's question about "open marriage."'
Another lie. You aren't upset at the answer he gave. You're upset that the audience applauded it, which you interpret as a challenge to your view that the mob should not and does not applaud adulterers. Never mind that that's not what the applause was about. Never mind that people are sick of dissecting a politician's personal life. YOU declare him an outlaw to society, and you want mob justice.
@7DrPhysics "So what did they applaud Gingrich for?"
I've already told you why:
"The question that I'd raise is why Gingrich's - or ANY candidate's - marriage should be such a support-gaining or -losing issue, and, judging by the applause Gingrich got when he chastised CNN for leading with the question, I'm not alone in asking that."
The audience applauded because Gingrich echoed them: The question wasn't worthy of a presidential debate. You really need to learn to pay attention.
@7DrPhysics "So don't tell me that what I say or believe is just wrong and false."
When what you say IS wrong and false, that's EXACTLY what I'll tell you. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. Ordering me to stop isn't going to change anything, because you aren't suddenly right just because no one is willing to tell you otherwise.
@7DrPhysics 'I don't "declare him an outlaw to society" and I do not want "mob justice."
'Really need to stop putting words that were never there.'
I'm not repeating your words, Einstein. I'm describing your concepts. The "natural law" you emphasize is the EXACT SAME concept of mob justice, because you haven't JUST been talking about some abstract notion of absolute morality, but ALSO about punishment for breaking it.
@7DrPhysics Societies that have embraced "natural law" have defined what their absolute cultural standards are to be through either the general consensus of the mob or through invoking the authority of some non-subjective, higher power. Because there are no gods that ACTUALLY interfere with such human societies, though, both these types of "natural law" have been enforced in the same way: mob justice.
@7DrPhysics Examples of mob justice are pretty well-known, but because you don't seem to grasp what I'm writing, they must not be known to you, so I'll explain:
Adultery is a pretty common taboo in societies formed around the Abrahamic religions. An often-cited example is found in the bible's new testament, when Jesus protects a woman from being stoned to death by a mob that accuses her of adultery. This kind of mob justice is still practiced in parts of the Muslim world.
@7DrPhysics Your point of conflict with the mob in question here, though, isn't that the debate audience didn't throw rocks at Gingrich, but rather that they didn't hold their applause. I liken this to another form of mob justice practiced by religious communities: shunning. You see the applause as a form of social acceptance, and this upsets you. You would rather see Gingrich rejected and ignored by the audience because he is an adulterer. This IS mob justice; it's social exile.
'Mind that the audience was applauding for Gingrich and his responses towards JK.
'Mind that "people" aren't "sick of" "dissecting" a politician's personal life."'
Considering that Gingrich was receiving applause for telling CNN that such dissection of HIS personal life wasn't worthy of a presidential nomination debate, I'd say that these two statements are quite contradictory.
Get a life and stop obsessing about who screws whom.
@7DrPhysics 'Had you not been such an asshole, I would [have] respected your opinion and tried to actually have a nice debate/discussion with you.'
BULLSHIT! I was NOT insulting to you until YOU made this personal, treating my questions as an unwarranted attack on your sacred opinions! Don't insult my intelligence by claiming that you EVER had an interest in intellectual discourse here. YOU began this flyting; I'm just happy to oblige you in it. lol
@7DrPhysics 'But I'm sure you knew that and wanted to see how much of a smart, egotistical asshole you are.'
Harp on that all you like, baby. What I've noticed, though, is that, while the gist of my argument has been, "@7DrPhysics is wrong, and I can show it," the gist of YOUR argument has been, "@PrimeSoup is an asshole, and he can show it." Seems like I'm the one providing for BOTH arguments, so remind me what you're even DOING here. LOL!
I find it funny how I've actually made my points and arguments while you avoid them.
Read them again, "baby."
You haven't shown anything.
Providing both arguments? Not sure if you are delusional, playing stupid, or just stupid.
If me calling you an "asshole" isn't the correct term to describe the type of comments you have made to me, then tell me what I should describe you as such.
@7DrPhysics 'Providing both arguments? Not sure if you are delusional, playing stupid, or just stupid.
'If me calling you an "asshole" isn't the correct term to describe the type of comments you have made to me, then tell me what I should describe you as...'
I suspect you missed the word "he" in my last comment. Read it again, Hawkeye. ;-)
So after all the insults you have given me, the comments where you just carp at my responses, and the fail-proofs and arguments that you have made, you literally have done nothing.
I remember that Gingrich would ask these same questions to President Clinton back when Gingrich was Speaker of The House and wanted Clinton impeached for his"immoral" back round.
How dare CNN ask that first question Newt??? Take a look back in your own history Newt. It's okay for you to say and ask questions like that to other political office holders but when the tables are turned it's a NO NO!?
Ok fair, this was a rancid topic to start a debate off with. But I couldn't believe that the most despicable thing you could imagine was talking about it. HE CHEATED ON BOTH HIS EX-WIVES WHILE THEY WERE IN THE FUCKING HOSPITAL!!! I agree with Newt that it shouldn't be the subject of a national debate, but let's not pretend he should be judging despicable people
newt has TOO much backbone... i'm scared of what he might do as president.... considering how nice Obama was and he still managed to f-up some stuff....
@megamanxu no dude we want a president with that much backbone. we need a president who isnt scared to call out injustice when he see's it. everything gingrich said was true so how can you turn what he said into a reason to not elect him president. The media is bias against any one republican or conservative. just watch the colbert report. they make fun of all four of these guys in viscous ways.
what would happen if someone came out with a show all about bashing obama.
@Reportedcomet7 - Newt did not cheat? Good God man, he admits it. Both times. See the YouTube video. He uses the excuse that the love for his country made him do it. Please, get YOUR facts straight. If a guy treats 2 sick women that love him like shit, how do you think he will handle domestic issues. Ya, he won't give a shit. He is a lier and a cheat and how the "Christians" in the Republican Party can tolerate his BS is beyond me...
@phillipmarch22 first off you cant even spell liar right.... secondly. that was 13 years ago and no matter what we WANT to think about him and his ex wives we dont know their story. all we know is what the liberal media wants us to know.
like Good gosh man. every republican that runs for president or anything important they find crap like this about. Get over it.
@Keenaners - Using the word lier and liar are both correct. But thanks for paying attention to the details. And please don't rely on the media in regard to Newt's affair(s). Just watch the videos where Newt himself admits it. Ya, right out of his own mouth. And like I said before, he tops it off with the excuse for fucking around on his wive(s) is because of his love for our country. If that doesn't make you sick, nothing will.
Sorry, but it’s relevant Gingrich – your personal life shows a lack of self-discipline, it shows you promise one thing and do another. We need someone who is not easily seduced – not by corporations/lobbyists/anyone. You are easily seduced. We need a president who honors their vows and does what they say. If you can't honor your vows to your own wife, why should you keep your word to us?
GINGRICH WHY RU ANGRY AT CNN, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT REPUBLICANS DID WITH MONICA LEWINSKI DRESS? WHILE EUROPE TOOK THAT OPPORTUNITY AND CREATED EUROS. EUROS PUT US DOLLAR DOWN, COS REPUBLICANS WERE BUZY WITH A FUCKING DRESS, OUR ECONOMY IN DEEP SHIT, GINGRICH U SERVED UR WIFE WITH DIVORCE PAPERS WHILE SHE WAS SICK U HAVE NO HEART, GINGRICH U WILL NEVER BE US PRESIDENT U THINK TOO MUCH ABOUT UR COCK, U SHOULD THINK WITH UR OTHER HEAD! REPUBLICANS U TURN LEWINSKI DRESS INTO HOLLYWOOD REALITY SHOW!
Yeah, because Nwet is a moral compass when it is time to judge whether someone is appalling or not. He's a bully, because he's an asshole of the first order. Blaming CNN for bringing up HIS immoral behavior. Probably the most despicable person on this stage.
He says it's as close to despicable as I can imagine. Well, I guess there his one thing he can imagine that is even more despicable: CHEATING ON YOUR WIFE AND LEAVING HER WHEN SHE GETS CANCER.
to those who are being openly critical of what Newt did and angry that Newt responded the way he did, you're encompassing one flaw of a man over the rest of his other qualities that would make him a great U.S. president. things change and so the people. let's move forward
Newt Gingrich trying to take the moral high ground is an exercise in irony. His past behavior indicates that he is a sociopath. He should be incarcerated for the benefit of humanity. That the Republicans would ever consider running him for public office after his shenanigans in the 80s and 90s shows how low that party has fallen.
Newt was set up. They let him do this to himself so they could hammer him all-day , seen the news?
That newt thing was staged. Gave him 3 minutes to belittle the host , give me a break. The thing CNN was really doing wrong was giving him a platform to dismiss the interview, He didn't have to pay for it and they allowed him to look like he was being attacked (poor victim), instead of the cheating (abusive) husband he was.
Turns out , thy gave him rope and he hung himself.
Who cares if he did or not? USA need a leader with visions AND a human being. Whether it is open marriage, a lust for a sandwich in the bedroom or anything else that does not hurt anyone: Who gives a damn? Is is all about what he can do and not about anything else.
@rosenstand Yes, we know Gingrich is a Human. Yes, the USA would like a President that could lead its people and represent it correctly. Being President also suggests that one should be able to lead by example.
This is why many people look closely at what they have done. So yes, the fact that he had an affair is highly unethical. It is wrong, both morally and legally. It's called, "Adultery." So yeah, he should face the consequences.
@7DrPhysics '... yes, the fact that he had an affair is highly unethical. It is wrong, both morally and legally. It's called, "Adultery."'
... which is only a crime in the US under the UCMJ, so unless you're claiming that he should somehow stand for court martial (WHY would his marriage be under military jurisdiction?), you don't really know what you're talking about.
@PrimeSoup Adultery is a crime where its punishment varies in different states. Gingrich married Marianne Ginther for eighteen years. He had an affair with Callista Bisek in 1993, while still married.
And although this happened a long time ago, Gingrich still tried to still deny and lie about this, while barely admitting this infidelity behind doors.
So no, I'm not implying that he should be punished. But it is wrong because he broke marital laws. Apparently, he is a Catholic.
@7DrPhysics "Adultery is a crime where its punishment varies in different states."
Wrong. The laws may be on the books, but the Supreme Court's stance on individual privacy rights has made criminal adultery statutes defunct since the '60s. The military is the only US atmosphere in which adultery charges are still to be feared, because that is the only US atmosphere in which privacy rights don't apply. If you're a soldier, the government owns your ass.
@7DrPhysics "... I'm not implying that he should be punished. But it is wrong because he broke marital laws. Apparently, he is a Catholic."
1) What does his religious affiliation have to do with it? You say it's a legal matter, and that applies regardless of faith. Breaking an adultery statute is wrong only if you're catholic?
2) First, you claim Gingrich should "face the consequences" for his actions. Now, you say he shouldn't be punished. Make up your mind, "k."
@PrimeSoup And even if he does not get punished, he still did something wrong, k.
If you don't want to admit that he did something wrong and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, then...good luck....
Also, when I say that he is a Catholic, I'm implying that his "change" and beliefs to being a better and more virtuous person, did not seem exemplified when he lied in front of everyone. k.
So no, I don't want a President who lies to his people in order to gain support.
@7DrPhysics "If you don't want to admit that he did something wrong and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, then...good luck."
Thanks!
I don't give a damn whether he did something wrong in his marriage, "k." His wife may have reason to care about that, as might Gingrich's conscience, but neither has anything to do with me, "k." I'm more concerned about Gingrich's questionable views on the role of federal courts, "k."
@7DrPhysics "... I don't want a President who lies to his people in order to gain support."
The question that I'd raise is why Gingrich's - or ANY candidate's - marriage should be such a support-gaining or -losing issue, and, judging by the applause Gingrich got when he chastised CNN for leading with the question, I'm not alone in asking that.
@7DrPhysics "I like how you completely ignored my previous comments and went straight to a clearly opinionated statement."
Uh, no, I didn't. The first reply I made was to your FACTUALLY erroneous statements about the criminality of adultery, and the timestamps show it. Pay attention, "k."
@7DrPhysics 'Are you saying that me stating how Adultery is punished differently in many states?
'I am pretty sure it is a crime and ethically wrong, but okay...'
Do you have trouble comprehending English or something? Repeating the same falsehood over and over doesn't make it true. You are wrong. Right to privacy trumps criminal adultery statutes in civilian US courts, and it has for 50 years. Get over it!
'Apparently, I still don't know what I am talking about.'
@7DrPhysics "Thanks for pointing an obvious opinion as my flaw."
I've done no such thing. I've ASKED (repeatedly) why Gingrich's marriage matters to his qualifications nor nomination. So far, your only explanation is that because Gingrich is catholic, he should enjoy no right to privacy and state adultery statutes should apply to him. You seem to be arguing that the law should treat catholics more harshly than others. WHY? I'm not criticizing opinion; I'm asking for your logic.
@7DrPhysics 'Me telling you that he is Catholic, was no my "only explanation" for why his marriage matters to his qualifications and nomination.'
Really? You've sure fooled me, then, because that's the only thing on which you've been a broken record. Kindly spell out what other reasoning you have, if you would.
@7DrPhysics 'When did I say that he should enjoy no right to privacy or "seem" to be arguing that law should treat Catholics more harshly?'
For you to understand the answer to that, you would first have to recognize that the US Supreme Court recognizes a right to privacy that overrides adultery statutes. Since you can't seem to manage that, you aren't likely to understand how I come to that conclusion.
@7DrPhysics 'If you want my "logic", then ask and not assume, "k."'
ASKING for it is exactly what I did, IN THOSE WORDS! Herp derp! The only thing I have assumed is that you could actually put together a coherent explanation of your views. I'm starting to realize that that was asking far too much of you.
@7DrPhysics "Anything else you would like to correct me on?
"Oh I hope I don't have to regret typing anything so you can patronize me."
I should be asking YOU if there are any more ad hominems you'd like to throw. It's a sure sign you're out of argument when all you can do is question the personal attributes of your opponent. I've corrected you on nothing except verifiable facts that you've misstated, so if you don't want to feel patronized for it, then quit stating falsehoods, "k"
@PrimeSoup Also, just because Gingrich had the audience applaud for him, does not permit him to lie about his marital status.
The fact that he tried to insult CNN and John King and avoiding the question was pretty wrong, k. The fact that the audience clapped for him means they probably fell for Gingrich's rhetoric. Had he answered the question truthfully, I doubt they would have clapped. So ya, not everyone clapping considered the marital status only.
@7DrPhysics "Also, just because Gingrich had the audience applaud for him, does not permit him to lie about his marital status."
1) Gingrich hasn't denied having an affair. What he denies is asking his wife for an open marriage. Pay attention, "k."
2) I never said that an audience's applause gives him permission to lie. What I said is that it indicates that they, like I, question whether he should be expected to answer in the first place, REGARDLESS of whether it's true or false.
1. However, an open marriage or not, he is still breaking marital vows, both legally or illegally.
2. What I meant was that, the applaud from the audience does not make John's question invalid. If you are really asking the validity of questioning Gingrich's marital status, then my point stands. Apparently, you can't open a Presidential debate with this question.
Only to you. To those of us who can actually comprehend the spoken word, Gingrich is talking about his ex-wife's claims that he asked her for an open marriage. We know this because that is SPECIFICALLY what John King asked him about. Duh.
'However, an open marriage or not, he is still breaking marital vows, both legally or illegally.'
@7DrPhysics 'What I meant was that, the applaud from the audience does not make John's question invalid.'
That assumes his question was valid in the first place, an assumption I contend is by no means axiomatic.
'If you are really asking the validity of questioning Gingrich's marital status, then my point stands.'
What point would that be? You have yet to give a reason why Gingrich's marriage should matter that doesn't completely ignore the past 50 years of jurisprudence.
@PrimeSoup In my opinion, I am disappointed in Gingrich's affair and with many other things. I'm sure there are some qualifications for being President, but I still dislike him.
I distrust all of the debates and elections, regardless.
Just my opinion, so I am sorry if that doesn't seem right to you or too "ad hominem".
Not sure what you are trying to argue to me about now, though.
I just stated my opinion towards Gingrich's denial of the "story."
@7DrPhysics 'Not sure what you are trying to argue to me about now, though.'
... or ever, from what I can tell.
My question now is the same as it has been: Why does this matter? It disappoints you. Well, bully for your disappointment, but it's hardly objective. The only objective reason you've given (which you've stated repeatedly) is that you think it makes Gingrich a criminal, but you're wrong about that. FACTUALLY, OBJECTIVELY WRONG. So, I ask YET AGAIN: Why should I care?
@7DrPhysics 'I find it funny how you continue to insult me, lol...'
Hey, I call it like I see it. You question me on every other word I type, which leads me to wonder if you know what they mean. I ask myself whether you're too young to understand what I'm saying, if English isn't your first language, or if you're just playing a semantic game to avoid facing the fact that you have no case here. In any case, look them up yourself; I'm not your personal dictionary.
'Again, it seems you are assuming negative statements that derive from the opinions that I have given about Gingrich.'
Wrong:
'So yes, the fact that he had an affair is highly unethical. It is wrong, both morally and legally. It's called, "Adultery." So yeah, he should face the consequences.'
^ Your words. You state that Gingrich has erred legally. You believe that adultery is a crime. You believe that GIngrich is a criminal.
@7DrPhysics 'If I am "wrong" about Gingrich, then please, go ahead and give me some examples of some good qualities of Gingrich.'
Unneccessary and irrelevant. I haven't claimed that you are wrong on Gingrich's character. I've claimed that you're wrong on the criminal nature of adultery. Pay attention.
'You don't have to "care" about anything, as I'm not telling to do so...'
What, then, is the point of your incessant drivel on Gingrich's high crimes and misdemeanors?
I question some of your insulting and confusing comments for a reason. If you really think I'm not understanding any of your comments or eluding your questions with the same answer, then you are one egotistical asshole.
You are really making a point by condescending me, lol.
"Incessant drivel", lol. Your intelligence is clearly showing...
@7DrPhysics 'Lol, that's totally not arrogant and crude.'
No more so than your judgments of Gingrich, to be sure.
'I question some of your insulting and confusing comments for a reason.'
Yes, you do. The reason is that you have difficulty understanding the language of Shakespeare. So far, I have typed exactly what I mean. You can't say that my comments are confusing at the same time that you claim to understand them. If you understand, then you aren't confused. Herp derp.
rosenstand asked, "Who gives a damn?", which probably implied that no one needs to care about what Gingrich did in the past. When I talked about why questioning Gingrich on his marital status, I did so because it is important to know as qualifications as President. Is it harmful to ask an important question? Like why he had an affair and tried to have an open marriage?
You are asking me "why?". I am asking, "why not?".
@7DrPhysics 'You are asking me "why?". I am asking, "why not?".'
Oh, that's an EASY one. I would argue that Gingrich's affairs matter for his eligibility for a Republican nomination about as much as anyone else's sex life would matter to his landing a job as a fast-food cashier - that is, not one whit. If the latter is entitled to privacy, then so is the former, Gingrich.
@PrimeSoup It is your own opinion that Gingrich's marital affairs do not matter.
He obviously has the right to privacy, so he could of just said no.
He could of just denied the "story" and make Marianne's interview completely false.
Again, we have our own opinions. So please stop talking to me, because I really don't want to see you condescend and one-up me in order to look intelligent. You aren't making a point. So far, it just looks like you insulting me and supporting Gingrich's privacy.
@7DrPhysics 'He obviously has the right to privacy, so he could [have] just said no.'
If you believe he has the right to privacy, then you believe King's question is illegitimate. If you believe the question is legitimate, then you don't believe his sex life should be kept to himself. You can't have it both ways. Derp!
'He could [have] just denied the "story" and make Marianne's interview completely false.'
He did. Doesn't seem to have done much for you, though.
Are you sure? Mine is pretty well-defined, but you seem to keep changing yours. First he should face the consequences, then he shouldn't be punished. First he should be accountable to the public for his marriage, then he has a right to his privacy about it. You keep changing what you say you believe, son, as if none of this is contradictory. Yeah, as if.
That Gingrich doesn't have to answer the opening-debate question? Is that it? So you insult me over all that? We have moved from Catholicism to Adultery laws, all you have eluded.
We are debating over Gingrich's story of an open marriage? Seriously? What do you really want?
Also, I find it hilarious how you refer to me as a "kid."
If you didn't understand after the tenth time, an eleventh isn't likely to change that.
"We have moved from Catholicism to Adultery laws, all you have eluded."
Wrong. Adultery statutes are at the core of my argument. The supreme court has held multiple times that laws regulating consensual sex and reproductive behavior violate the fourteenth amendment. Adultery statutes fall within this distinction.
@7DrPhysics Also, 'I find it hilarious how you refer to me as a "kid."'
What I have noticed is that you seem to have trouble understanding the meaning of many of the English words I use and that there is a glaring hole in your knowledge of US supreme court history. I can draw either of two conclusions from this. One is that you are foreign to the US. The other is that you are quite young. Either would explain your lack of experience with the English language and US jurisprudence.
Well, perhaps you are right that your youth is a less likely assumption than your foreign origin. I had thought this because of your naive insistence that "It's my opinion!" actually constitutes an argument, as if you don't really have to have any reason for thinking what you think. On the other hand, a kid who has grown up in the internet age would likely know what a timestamp is.
@7DrPhysics "After so long ago, you still continue? Cute."
Gee, I didn't know I had to type on YOUR schedule. "Cute."
"You should look at what you have typed and ask how much of an asshole you are."
YOU should look at what I have typed and ask whether it's my goal to support a differing conclusion (that the matter is irrelevant) by pointing out a factual error (that adultery is a crime in the US) or just to avoid being called an asshole by a nitwit such as you.
"MY" schedule or not, it was in the past. So yes, you are still continuing to insult me.
Your goal to support a "differing conclusion" has also involve condescending me.
Factual error? Adultery is a crime, nitwit. Again, look it up. If you seriously think citizens are free to commit adultery because the US has no punitive law against it, then you are ignorant and stupid.
Even if the US didn't punish those who do, it is still quite morally wrong. Natural Law, asshole.
@7DrPhysics "Adultery is a crime, nitwit. ... If you seriously think citizens are free to commit adultery because the US has no punitive law against it, then you are ignorant and stupid."
ROFLMFAO! OMG, that's a better one than I've heard in a while! You call ME "ignorant and stupid" at the same time that you define a CRIMINAL act as something for which there is NO CRIMINAL STATUE! Bwahahaha! Priceless!
@7DrPhysics "Even if the US didn't punish those who do, it is still quite morally wrong. Natural Law, asshole."
1) This was NOT your argument before. You argued that Gingrich was a criminal because of STATE CIVIL LAW, NOT because of "Natural Law." Perhaps you're changing horses now because you finally read Griswold v. Connecticut, though.
1. "State civil law" or "Natural Law", my point was that it was morally wrong to cheat on your wife...
2. For the Privacy argument: Gingrich, again, could of just refused to answer instead of rambling and rhetorically making him look good.
3. The right to make your marital affairs private is not specifically protected in the Bill of Rights. It's mostly the 1st and 9th amendment in the Bill of Rights that does so...
@7DrPhysics 2) The US penalizes violations of US civil law, not violations of "natural law." Furthermore, in a society for which marriage is primarily a contract regulated by the state, the only way to make adultery commonly objectionable is through civil statute. The alternative is to look the other way while the village throws stones at the adulterer. Is this what you would advocate?
@7DrPhysics 3) "Natural law" holds no relevance to violations of marriage because marriage is an entirely artificial construct. Humanity is the only species that practices such formal monogamy. Even informal monogamy is rare in the natural world outside of humanity, and even the briefest of glances through human history shows that we're not always big on monogamy in any form. The proliferation of Genghis Khan's Y chromosome should be evidence enough for that.
@7DrPhysics With all that said, why don't you come out and say what you really mean? By "natural law," you're referring to Exodus 20:14, commonly viewed as the sixth biblical commandment (as if a law written down by Moses is any more "natural" than a law written down by social consensus). You strike me increasingly as a Santorum supporter, who believes that the supreme court was wrong to see a right to privacy in the 14th amendment, and that states SHOULD regulate consensual sex.
The fact Gingrich is running for President shows what low life scum the American people are. Saddam spent years and the deaths of untold thousands attacking Iran because he thought it would please his American masters. So look what he got for it. Gingrich right now on CNN trying to explain his demonic behaviour is the man American people allow to make a play for the whitehouse means the US is, as a whole, totally and without question insane. America thinks it is God. Curse you to hell America.
Ellipser 2 days ago
@Ellipser what does saddam have anything to do with it? And why does the fact that one person is trying to restore our country to the way it was before obama screwed everything up the american peoples fault?
lovewins49 2 days ago
Even though I am not a fan of Gingrich in ANY way, I really do like what he said at the end, about the media bashing Republicans to make Obama look better. It's very true, I believe, and one of the most truthful, sensible things that has ever come from Gingrich's mouth.
MisterModder123 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup
Also...
Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and other cases, were mostly about the privacy in discussing/using/advocating on contraceptives, abortions, unmarried contraception, and etc.
So ya, this "right to privacy" that you argued about with Gingrich, mostly applies to how his marital affairs had such a right.
Also, this "story" about an open-marriage with his "ex-wife" at 1:17 , is just about his marital affairs with his ex-wife and not his infidelity.
7DrPhysics 2 weeks ago
@7DrPhysics 'So ya, this "right to privacy" that you argued about with Gingrich, mostly applies to how his marital affairs had such a right.'
Written like someone who has no clue what Griswold meant. I guess I'll have to spell it out even MORE clearly:
Court decisions do not happen in a vacuum. You have to be aware of the history.
In Griswold, the court struck down a law barring the sale of contraceptives to married couples, but that is where the story STARTS, not where it ends.
PrimeSoup 2 weeks ago
@PrimeSoup k.
7DrPhysics 2 weeks ago
@7DrPhysics After Griswold, states figured that the court's stance applied ONLY to married couples, so they banned contraceptive pill sales to unwed women.
The court struck this down in Eisenstadt, making their point still clearer that the right to privacy they outlined in Griswold was NOT limited only to cases LIKE Griswold.
The same stance was used in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws that banned homosexual intercourse.
PrimeSoup 2 weeks ago
@7DrPhysics Once one considers ALL the case history, the message becomes pretty clear: The right to privacy is the right for every individual to be free from state laws governing his consensual sexual behavior, and this right was one that originated in the GRISWOLD decision (as opposed to the latter decisions based on it). The latter cases were simply those in which the court was telling states that Griswold is to be interpreted much more broadly than they have been willing to do.
PrimeSoup 2 weeks ago
@PrimeSoup k.
7DrPhysics 2 weeks ago
@PrimeSoup
Hm...So...
If a person who breaks their marital vows... Does not deserve to be punished?
So people who break marital vows are protected, because certain cases have said that the Constitution protects marital privacy and discussions of "open marriages."?
Surely, if the Const. says so, and the people look pass it, then the person who committed Adultery is clearly innocent and does not deserve to be penalized.
When was the Justice System completely flawless?
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics I'm through discussing this with you. You have no interest in anything but pushing your own moral code as THE Law of Humanity. It's ironic that those who hold themselves as so morally superior are often so intellectually INferior. I suppose that hard and fast moral truths are the only ones to which they are capable of clinging.
"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." - H. L. Mencken
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup Lol...
It's IRONIC how you started questioning my moral opinion of Gingrich and his marital affairs.
It's IRONIC how you insulted me egotistically as if you were intellectually superior.
So just because I point out that Gingrich having an affair doesn't deserve to be applauded, makes me look like a hypocritical Puritan?
Also, Natural Law isn't my "own moral code." It was just a basis for you to see my perspective.
Nice try, k.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'Also, Natural Law isn't my "own moral code."'
We were NEVER talking about natural law, and ALWAYS talking about your own code as an objective standard. The fact that you just suffer from the delusion of grandeur that says that the two are the same thing never changed that. lol
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup Uh...
1. I brought up "Natural Law" as something standard for even you to understand basic human moral and virtue.
2. Gingrich committing Adultery. Are you saying that that is an action that deserves approval?
3. Not sure what kind of "moral code" you have, but mine doesn't include clapping for someone who BROKE THEIR MARITAL VOWS.
4. So if you think I'm the one with "delusions of grandeur" then look at yourself and what you have typed.
5. Hypocritical and stupid...
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics 'I brought up "Natural Law" as something standard for even you to understand basic human moral and virtue.'
HAH! No, you didn't. You brought it up because your previous attempt to claim moral objectivity by citing state adultery statutes failed. Bringing up the idea of natural law was just a different tactic to claim your own values as a universally accepted standard.
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'Gingrich committing Adultery. Are you saying that that is an action that deserves approval?'
I've never thought that something between Gingrich and his wife was ever a subject requiring my approval or disapproval. It's their issue, not mine, and not yours. Seems like this approach is the exact OPPOSITE of deluding myself into a state of grandeur. ;-)
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup LOL!
I like how you degrade all of my arguments as "attempts to provide an argument in which I failed to provide."
You dumbass, when I talked about Natural Law, it was a point in my argument.
It wasn't a "different tactic."
Natural Law is a universally accepted standard. If it isn't, then what is? What are your moral standards?
I like how you again, avoid my question. There is an obvious point, and you just can't read them correctly...
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup
1. You have said that the audience looked pass Gingrich's actions and clapped for him. So do you think the audience approved of Gingrich's Adultery?
2. Again, I ask: "Are you saying that that is an action that deserves approval"?
3. Going to avoid this one again? There is point when I ask my questions.
4. What are moral standards? Apparently, Natural Law is too much for you.
5. Also, you did start this argument. I would like the violin.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup
I think I have answered all of your questions while you ignore mine, and go for the ones where you can pinpoint an error on.
And after all of your assumptions and insults, I am "through discussing this with you" too.
Just accept that Gingrich had an affair, most likely lied about an open marriage, and another "politician".
You questioned my opinions, I answered.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'I think I have answered all of your questions while you ignore mine, and go for the ones where you can pinpoint an error on.'
How can I address your questions selectively while ignoring them at the same time? lol You're just contradicting yourself again.
You have the situation backwards; not only have I answered your questions, I answered many MULTIPLE TIMES! The fact that you have no interest in considering the answers doesn't mean I never gave them. ;-)
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup So go run away and act like you made a point. You haven't convinced me of anything, challenged my thoughts on anything, given me any more ideas or perspectives, or deserved my respect.
Had you not been such an asshole, I would respected your opinion and tried to actually have a nice debate/discussion with you.
But I'm sure you knew that and wanted to see how much of a smart, egotistical asshole you are...
Good luck.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'So go run away and act like you made a point.'
Oh, I never said I was running away. I just said that I'm not going to discuss your pet interest of absolute morality. There's no such thing, and it's already quite clear that your delusion is too deeply ingrained for me to dispel.
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup Lol...
1. "Absolute morality"? Fucking retard.
2. Pretty sure saving someone's life deserves an applause than someone COMMITTING ADULTERY. So if you want to talk about how I have high moral standards of grandeur and delusion, then you are a dumbass.
3. Are you seriously going to keep on about how much at fault I am when you haven't done anything? Lol, you've just carped at my comments while providing fail arguments.
4. Lol...so sad...
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'Are you seriously going to keep on about how much at fault I am when you haven't done anything?'
That's not what I said, genius. I just said I didn't START it, which is true. Believe what you like, though. The truth hasn't stopped you from doing so thus far. lol
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'You haven't convinced me of anything...'
... which is obvious, and it was a mistake for me to ever think I could...
'... challenged my thoughts on anything...'
... which is a losing battle when such thoughts will brook no challenge...
'... given me any more ideas or perspectives...'
... not any that you've even TRIED to understand, anyway...
'... or deserved my respect.'
That assumes that I ever cared about having your respect. More delusions of grandeur. lol
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup
1. You fail.
2. You have served no purpose. I'm sure it was "obvious" as you are nothing.
3. Me not respecting you does not mean I have a "delusion of grandeur", k.
4. Being recognized as of any value or deserving of respect was what I meant, but you can rant on about how much I'm the "asshole" and egotist.
5. Nice try.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup 1. You actually don't think I tried to understand?
2. Funny, how you began to question my motives, moral value, and opinion on Gingrich and his actions.
3. And I actually tried to provide an accurate and satisfactory response.
4. I wouldn't have argued against all of your comments if I didn't try to understand.
5. All I have seen is you arguing on Gingrich's "right to privacy" in marital affairs, and I have told you several arguments to disprove you.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'You actually don't think I tried to understand?'
Not very hard, no. It's amazing how intellectually lazy people can be when faced with facts that contradict their preconceived beliefs.
'Funny, how you began to question my motives, moral value, and opinion on Gingrich and his actions.'
... not before you did the same to me. ;-)
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'I wouldn't have argued against all of your comments if I didn't try to understand.'
CORRECTION: You wouldn't have argued against all of my comments if you didn't have an agenda of your own to pursue. Pretending that understanding is the only explanation for your participation is pure sophistry. It's not like you have any shortage of that, though.
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'All I have seen is you arguing on Gingrich's "right to privacy" in marital affairs, and I have told you several arguments to disprove you.'
... none of which has shown ANY understanding of the Griswold decision that ARTICULATED the right to privacy in the first place. Can't disprove a claim that you aren't even representing accurately, Einstein. You just knock down a straw man, while the ACTUAL claim remains intact.
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup Lol...You are such a hypocrite...
Look at around the first couple of pages. You definitely started the discussion and the insults.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'You definitely started the discussion and the insults.'
*yawn* Keep telling yourself that.
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup Lol, "yawn"...
I will. Because it is True. There is proof. I did help provide it by telling you what you've said in the first couple of pages, when this first began.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup Sigh...
Amongst all of your comments labelled as spam, all I have derived were arguments about:
1. Gingrich's right to privacy.
2. How Griswold v Connecticut protects people's marital priv.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup
My arguments:
1. Natural Law.
2. Various states do punish those who commit Adultery.
3. Newt could of said no to the "open marriage" question. Which disables your "right to privacy."
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics 'Newt could of said no to the "open marriage" question. Which disables your "right to privacy."'
That's not what the right to privacy is about. The fact that you can't get your head around that doesn't change the facts. I've tried several times to explain this to you, but you persist with this erroneous interpretation. I've long since given up on further attempts, but take as many cracks at it as you wish.
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup Yeah, I am pretty sure I did not question your motives, moral value, and opinion of Gingrich and his actions.
I did not start this discussion. I did not start insulting you.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup Questions:
1. Your moral standards?
2. Do you approve of Gingrich committing Adultery?
3. If "right to privacy", then saying "NO" would be an option to the "open marriage" question, yes?
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'If "right to privacy", then saying "NO" would be an option to the "open marriage" question, yes?'
*shrug* It's an option regardless of Griswold. The right to privacy has nothing to do with how Gingrich answered the question; it has to do with whether having an affair was a legal offense, as you claimed. You may as well be asking, "If Jack has one apple and Jill has three apples, how many oranges do they have between them?" Good luck with that.
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup
Actually...
The question JK asked was about "open marriage", which breaks marital vows.
Newt denies asking his ex-wife this, thus answering JK's question regardless.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup Having an affair is not a "legal offense" to you?
If not, then I wonder what kind moral standards you have...
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'Having an affair is not a "legal offense" to you?'
I wasn't describing my views. I was describing what every legal expert in the country expects would be the Supreme Court's stance on adultery laws should they ever be challenged in federal court.
I happen to agree with the court's view that regulating consensual sex shouldn't be the task of the legislature, but that has nothing to do with what I recognize as reality. That which is positive is NOT normative.
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup
Lol...Puritans...
To me, Gingrich did not deserve to be applauded after rhetorically denying and answering JK's question. That, and the breaking of marital vows.
Legislatures and others who who also agree that Adultery should not be punished by just a moral code, can believe what they want.
So forgive me for not respecting Gingrich for the actions that I have just seen or know.
So if people believe that he should not be punished, then so be it.
7DrPhysics 6 days ago
@PrimeSoup
"Principle 26 - The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity. "
I do agree that marital matters and divorce proceedings should be handled on the civil level, but considering that those who commit Adultery isn't something to be approved of nor applauded for. I just want people to realize, if they haven't, that Gingrich did do something that is regarded as wrong.
7DrPhysics 6 days ago
@7DrPhysics "I just want people to realize, if they haven't, that Gingrich did do something that is regarded as wrong."
Gingrich did nothing to them, and he did nothing to you except, apparently, offend your delicate sensibilities.
If Gingrich and his wife shared a prenuptial agreement that limited their behavior outside the confines of their marriage, then SHE has a claim of harm that is relevant to their divorce settlement. Anything more is akin to stoning him in the street.
PrimeSoup 6 days ago
@PrimeSoup So if you don't think he should be punished because the Legislatures and the Constitution have said so, then alright.
I, however, do. Or at least, so that he understands what he has done, and doesn't escape with the knowledge that people are backing him up because of it.
That was how I viewed this video and of Gingrich.
If you want to prove to me how much of a Saint or a good presidential candidate Gingrich is, then go ahead. I will listen.
7DrPhysics 6 days ago
@7DrPhysics "So if you don't think he should be punished because the Legislatures and the Constitution have said so, then alright."
That's not what I wrote. You should read more carefully.
I, however, do ... [so that he] doesn't escape with the knowledge that people are backing him up because of it.
MORE sophistry. This implies that Gingrich was applauded because the audience approved of his adultery, which is NOT true.
PrimeSoup 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics "If you want to prove to me how much of a Saint or a good presidential candidate Gingrich is, then go ahead."
lol There's that short memory again.
PrimeSoup 6 days ago
@PrimeSoup
However, my opinions of Gingrich were directed towards him like so because of his beliefs, the basic moral code that people normally would follow, and his rhetoric answer to JK's question about "open marriage."
Lol, Jonathan Turley...
So is this what you get your information from?
Lol...
7DrPhysics 6 days ago
@7DrPhysics '[M]y opinions of Gingrich were directed towards him like so because of his beliefs ...'
Liar. Your opinion of Gingrich is a reaction to his BEHAVIOR as opposed to his beliefs.
'... the basic moral code that people normally would follow ...'
... which changes with every generation, so that means nothing.
PrimeSoup 6 days ago
@PrimeSoup Basic moral codes change with every generation?
Considering that people don't follow the same exact moral code, sure.
But considering that basic moral codes like, knowing that stealing, murdering, and battery are wrong.
7DrPhysics 6 days ago
@7DrPhysics '... and his rhetoric[al] answer to JK's question about "open marriage."'
Another lie. You aren't upset at the answer he gave. You're upset that the audience applauded it, which you interpret as a challenge to your view that the mob should not and does not applaud adulterers. Never mind that that's not what the applause was about. Never mind that people are sick of dissecting a politician's personal life. YOU declare him an outlaw to society, and you want mob justice.
PrimeSoup 6 days ago
@PrimeSoup Okay...
So what did they applaud Gingrich for?
If not for Adultery, then the way he rebuked JK?
Such a noble deed that is deserving of an applause.
Also, when you tell me that I am a liar, I am pretty sure I know what I have said.
So don't tell me that what I say or believe is just wrong and false.
I don't "declare him an outlaw to society" and I do not want "mob justice."
Really need to stop putting words that were never there.
7DrPhysics 6 days ago
@7DrPhysics "So what did they applaud Gingrich for?"
I've already told you why:
"The question that I'd raise is why Gingrich's - or ANY candidate's - marriage should be such a support-gaining or -losing issue, and, judging by the applause Gingrich got when he chastised CNN for leading with the question, I'm not alone in asking that."
The audience applauded because Gingrich echoed them: The question wasn't worthy of a presidential debate. You really need to learn to pay attention.
PrimeSoup 2 days ago
@7DrPhysics "If not for Adultery, then the way he rebuked JK?
"Such a noble deed that is deserving of an applause."
As I said, you're not upset with the answer Gingrich gave. You're just upset that the mob doesn't follow YOUR obsession with his sex life.
"Also, when you tell me that I am a liar, I am pretty sure I know what I have said."
I beg to differ. Considering the number of times you've changed your arguments, I don't think you know what you're saying AT ALL.
PrimeSoup 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics "So don't tell me that what I say or believe is just wrong and false."
When what you say IS wrong and false, that's EXACTLY what I'll tell you. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. Ordering me to stop isn't going to change anything, because you aren't suddenly right just because no one is willing to tell you otherwise.
PrimeSoup 2 days ago
@7DrPhysics 'I don't "declare him an outlaw to society" and I do not want "mob justice."
'Really need to stop putting words that were never there.'
I'm not repeating your words, Einstein. I'm describing your concepts. The "natural law" you emphasize is the EXACT SAME concept of mob justice, because you haven't JUST been talking about some abstract notion of absolute morality, but ALSO about punishment for breaking it.
PrimeSoup 2 days ago
@7DrPhysics Societies that have embraced "natural law" have defined what their absolute cultural standards are to be through either the general consensus of the mob or through invoking the authority of some non-subjective, higher power. Because there are no gods that ACTUALLY interfere with such human societies, though, both these types of "natural law" have been enforced in the same way: mob justice.
PrimeSoup 2 days ago
@7DrPhysics Examples of mob justice are pretty well-known, but because you don't seem to grasp what I'm writing, they must not be known to you, so I'll explain:
Adultery is a pretty common taboo in societies formed around the Abrahamic religions. An often-cited example is found in the bible's new testament, when Jesus protects a woman from being stoned to death by a mob that accuses her of adultery. This kind of mob justice is still practiced in parts of the Muslim world.
PrimeSoup 2 days ago
@7DrPhysics Your point of conflict with the mob in question here, though, isn't that the debate audience didn't throw rocks at Gingrich, but rather that they didn't hold their applause. I liken this to another form of mob justice practiced by religious communities: shunning. You see the applause as a form of social acceptance, and this upsets you. You would rather see Gingrich rejected and ignored by the audience because he is an adulterer. This IS mob justice; it's social exile.
PrimeSoup 2 days ago
@PrimeSoup I'm not "upset" at anything. Still need to keep your assumptions to yourself, and not bring them on to your opponent as if they said it.
Mind that the audience was applauding for Gingrich and his responses towards JK.
Mind that "people" aren't "sick of" "dissecting" a politician's personal life."
7DrPhysics 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics 'I'm not "upset" at anything.'
Liar.
'Mind that the audience was applauding for Gingrich and his responses towards JK.
'Mind that "people" aren't "sick of" "dissecting" a politician's personal life."'
Considering that Gingrich was receiving applause for telling CNN that such dissection of HIS personal life wasn't worthy of a presidential nomination debate, I'd say that these two statements are quite contradictory.
Get a life and stop obsessing about who screws whom.
PrimeSoup 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics 'Lol, Jonathan Turley...
'So is this what you get your information from?'
Huh?
PrimeSoup 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics 'Had you not been such an asshole, I would [have] respected your opinion and tried to actually have a nice debate/discussion with you.'
BULLSHIT! I was NOT insulting to you until YOU made this personal, treating my questions as an unwarranted attack on your sacred opinions! Don't insult my intelligence by claiming that you EVER had an interest in intellectual discourse here. YOU began this flyting; I'm just happy to oblige you in it. lol
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'But I'm sure you knew that and wanted to see how much of a smart, egotistical asshole you are.'
Harp on that all you like, baby. What I've noticed, though, is that, while the gist of my argument has been, "@7DrPhysics is wrong, and I can show it," the gist of YOUR argument has been, "@PrimeSoup is an asshole, and he can show it." Seems like I'm the one providing for BOTH arguments, so remind me what you're even DOING here. LOL!
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup ...
I find it funny how I've actually made my points and arguments while you avoid them.
Read them again, "baby."
You haven't shown anything.
Providing both arguments? Not sure if you are delusional, playing stupid, or just stupid.
If me calling you an "asshole" isn't the correct term to describe the type of comments you have made to me, then tell me what I should describe you as such.
Remind you? Such a stupid question.
"LOL!"
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics 'Providing both arguments? Not sure if you are delusional, playing stupid, or just stupid.
'If me calling you an "asshole" isn't the correct term to describe the type of comments you have made to me, then tell me what I should describe you as...'
I suspect you missed the word "he" in my last comment. Read it again, Hawkeye. ;-)
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
@PrimeSoup
So after all the insults you have given me, the comments where you just carp at my responses, and the fail-proofs and arguments that you have made, you literally have done nothing.
So ya, you want to play that card, I can too.
Keep ignoring my arguments, troll.
7DrPhysics 1 week ago
@7DrPhysics 'Keep ignoring my arguments, troll.'
Keep using sophistry and setting up straw men and you can rest assured that I will. ;-)
PrimeSoup 1 week ago
tell em' newt, i still like romney though
etstway 2 weeks ago
Staged question and staged answer...simple as that.
And I'm not buying it.
Newt was first in line to Bill Clinton but somehow thinks
he is above reproach? What a condescending self-righteous asshole!!
Newt you are (and always will be) a slimeball. The fake indignation just
makes you a lying, conceited slimeball.
irival 1 month ago
CNN = COMMUNIST NEGA NEURON-ALTERATION
Liberalsarearetard 1 month ago
I remember that Gingrich would ask these same questions to President Clinton back when Gingrich was Speaker of The House and wanted Clinton impeached for his"immoral" back round.
How dare CNN ask that first question Newt??? Take a look back in your own history Newt. It's okay for you to say and ask questions like that to other political office holders but when the tables are turned it's a NO NO!?
brisco42 1 month ago
Ok fair, this was a rancid topic to start a debate off with. But I couldn't believe that the most despicable thing you could imagine was talking about it. HE CHEATED ON BOTH HIS EX-WIVES WHILE THEY WERE IN THE FUCKING HOSPITAL!!! I agree with Newt that it shouldn't be the subject of a national debate, but let's not pretend he should be judging despicable people
supersamschwartz 1 month ago
newt has TOO much backbone... i'm scared of what he might do as president.... considering how nice Obama was and he still managed to f-up some stuff....
megamanxu 1 month ago
@megamanxu no dude we want a president with that much backbone. we need a president who isnt scared to call out injustice when he see's it. everything gingrich said was true so how can you turn what he said into a reason to not elect him president. The media is bias against any one republican or conservative. just watch the colbert report. they make fun of all four of these guys in viscous ways.
what would happen if someone came out with a show all about bashing obama.
Keenaners 1 month ago
Newt for President!! He has backbone :)
SCOTTYBEE4JC 1 month ago
@TheDavidLovas I would love for newt to be the next president but I dont think he will beat Mitt Rommney
Reportedcomet7 1 month ago
Comment removed
Reportedcomet7 1 month ago
Only a democrat oh i mean socialist swine could dislike this video.
Reportedcomet7 1 month ago
@Reportedcomet7 - Newt did not cheat? Good God man, he admits it. Both times. See the YouTube video. He uses the excuse that the love for his country made him do it. Please, get YOUR facts straight. If a guy treats 2 sick women that love him like shit, how do you think he will handle domestic issues. Ya, he won't give a shit. He is a lier and a cheat and how the "Christians" in the Republican Party can tolerate his BS is beyond me...
phillipmarch22 1 month ago
@phillipmarch22 first off you cant even spell liar right.... secondly. that was 13 years ago and no matter what we WANT to think about him and his ex wives we dont know their story. all we know is what the liberal media wants us to know.
like Good gosh man. every republican that runs for president or anything important they find crap like this about. Get over it.
Keenaners 1 month ago
@Keenaners - Using the word lier and liar are both correct. But thanks for paying attention to the details. And please don't rely on the media in regard to Newt's affair(s). Just watch the videos where Newt himself admits it. Ya, right out of his own mouth. And like I said before, he tops it off with the excuse for fucking around on his wive(s) is because of his love for our country. If that doesn't make you sick, nothing will.
phillipmarch22 1 month ago
Newt destroyed him
CazHattrick11 1 month ago
@CazHattrick11 CNN's a democrat channel I knew the subject was going to come up
Reportedcomet7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry, but it’s relevant Gingrich – your personal life shows a lack of self-discipline, it shows you promise one thing and do another. We need someone who is not easily seduced – not by corporations/lobbyists/anyone. You are easily seduced. We need a president who honors their vows and does what they say. If you can't honor your vows to your own wife, why should you keep your word to us?
JamieJourney 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GINGRICH WHY RU ANGRY AT CNN, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT REPUBLICANS DID WITH MONICA LEWINSKI DRESS? WHILE EUROPE TOOK THAT OPPORTUNITY AND CREATED EUROS. EUROS PUT US DOLLAR DOWN, COS REPUBLICANS WERE BUZY WITH A FUCKING DRESS, OUR ECONOMY IN DEEP SHIT, GINGRICH U SERVED UR WIFE WITH DIVORCE PAPERS WHILE SHE WAS SICK U HAVE NO HEART, GINGRICH U WILL NEVER BE US PRESIDENT U THINK TOO MUCH ABOUT UR COCK, U SHOULD THINK WITH UR OTHER HEAD! REPUBLICANS U TURN LEWINSKI DRESS INTO HOLLYWOOD REALITY SHOW!
democratsaresmart 1 month ago
somewhere right now john king is sitting on a bag of ice (trying to keep the swelling down)LMFAO
philbert577 1 month ago
John King was just taken behind the wood shed. Wow Mr King got put in his place.
FFI1332 1 month ago
HE CAN STICK HIS FAT PENIS IN ANY VAGINA HE WANTS U MAD NIGGERS?
BigTrollShaman 1 month ago
Yeah, because Nwet is a moral compass when it is time to judge whether someone is appalling or not. He's a bully, because he's an asshole of the first order. Blaming CNN for bringing up HIS immoral behavior. Probably the most despicable person on this stage.
lalaurentide 1 month ago
@lalaurentide You're a joke.
LordAP1 1 month ago
to be honest, reading the exchanges in the comment section may be more interesting than watching the video. Either that or i'm crazy :P
IVitaminWater 1 month ago
He says it's as close to despicable as I can imagine. Well, I guess there his one thing he can imagine that is even more despicable: CHEATING ON YOUR WIFE AND LEAVING HER WHEN SHE GETS CANCER.
willzyx23 1 month ago
to those who are being openly critical of what Newt did and angry that Newt responded the way he did, you're encompassing one flaw of a man over the rest of his other qualities that would make him a great U.S. president. things change and so the people. let's move forward
JOHNPAIbestill 1 month ago
Damn Newt kicking the shit out of CNN.
TheSataraid 1 month ago
I guarantee that Newt himself didn't even realize that he was standing there at the Republican Convention today wearing nothing more than his boxers.
mrmjmolina 1 month ago
Newt Gingrich trying to take the moral high ground is an exercise in irony. His past behavior indicates that he is a sociopath. He should be incarcerated for the benefit of humanity. That the Republicans would ever consider running him for public office after his shenanigans in the 80s and 90s shows how low that party has fallen.
shambhaladawa 1 month ago
shut up and answer the question
geezereadgbe 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Newt was set up. They let him do this to himself so they could hammer him all-day , seen the news?
That newt thing was staged. Gave him 3 minutes to belittle the host , give me a break. The thing CNN was really doing wrong was giving him a platform to dismiss the interview, He didn't have to pay for it and they allowed him to look like he was being attacked (poor victim), instead of the cheating (abusive) husband he was.
Turns out , thy gave him rope and he hung himself.
YouAreOneOfUs 1 month ago
Here's your head--what's your hurry?
hookalakah 1 month ago
Who cares if he did or not? USA need a leader with visions AND a human being. Whether it is open marriage, a lust for a sandwich in the bedroom or anything else that does not hurt anyone: Who gives a damn? Is is all about what he can do and not about anything else.
rosenstand 1 month ago
@rosenstand Yes, we know Gingrich is a Human. Yes, the USA would like a President that could lead its people and represent it correctly. Being President also suggests that one should be able to lead by example.
This is why many people look closely at what they have done. So yes, the fact that he had an affair is highly unethical. It is wrong, both morally and legally. It's called, "Adultery." So yeah, he should face the consequences.
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics '... yes, the fact that he had an affair is highly unethical. It is wrong, both morally and legally. It's called, "Adultery."'
... which is only a crime in the US under the UCMJ, so unless you're claiming that he should somehow stand for court martial (WHY would his marriage be under military jurisdiction?), you don't really know what you're talking about.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup Adultery is a crime where its punishment varies in different states. Gingrich married Marianne Ginther for eighteen years. He had an affair with Callista Bisek in 1993, while still married.
And although this happened a long time ago, Gingrich still tried to still deny and lie about this, while barely admitting this infidelity behind doors.
So no, I'm not implying that he should be punished. But it is wrong because he broke marital laws. Apparently, he is a Catholic.
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics "Adultery is a crime where its punishment varies in different states."
Wrong. The laws may be on the books, but the Supreme Court's stance on individual privacy rights has made criminal adultery statutes defunct since the '60s. The military is the only US atmosphere in which adultery charges are still to be feared, because that is the only US atmosphere in which privacy rights don't apply. If you're a soldier, the government owns your ass.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics "... I'm not implying that he should be punished. But it is wrong because he broke marital laws. Apparently, he is a Catholic."
1) What does his religious affiliation have to do with it? You say it's a legal matter, and that applies regardless of faith. Breaking an adultery statute is wrong only if you're catholic?
2) First, you claim Gingrich should "face the consequences" for his actions. Now, you say he shouldn't be punished. Make up your mind, "k."
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup And even if he does not get punished, he still did something wrong, k.
If you don't want to admit that he did something wrong and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, then...good luck....
Also, when I say that he is a Catholic, I'm implying that his "change" and beliefs to being a better and more virtuous person, did not seem exemplified when he lied in front of everyone. k.
So no, I don't want a President who lies to his people in order to gain support.
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics "If you don't want to admit that he did something wrong and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, then...good luck."
Thanks!
I don't give a damn whether he did something wrong in his marriage, "k." His wife may have reason to care about that, as might Gingrich's conscience, but neither has anything to do with me, "k." I'm more concerned about Gingrich's questionable views on the role of federal courts, "k."
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics "... I don't want a President who lies to his people in order to gain support."
The question that I'd raise is why Gingrich's - or ANY candidate's - marriage should be such a support-gaining or -losing issue, and, judging by the applause Gingrich got when he chastised CNN for leading with the question, I'm not alone in asking that.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup I like how you completely ignored my previous comments and went straight to a clearly opinionated statement.
Obviously, I don't just judge Gingrich's abilities as a President solely on his marital statuses and scandals.
There are many other reasons why Gingrich isn't my choice of being a President.
Thanks for pointing an obvious opinion as my flaw.
Anything else you would like to correct me on?
Oh I hope I don't have to regret typing anything so you can patronize me.
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics "I like how you completely ignored my previous comments and went straight to a clearly opinionated statement."
Uh, no, I didn't. The first reply I made was to your FACTUALLY erroneous statements about the criminality of adultery, and the timestamps show it. Pay attention, "k."
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup "Timestamps"?
Are you saying that me stating how Adultery is punished differently in many states?
I am pretty sure it is a crime and ethically wrong, but okay...
I'll try to pay attention then, "k."
Apparently, I still don't know what I am talking about.
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics 'Are you saying that me stating how Adultery is punished differently in many states?
'I am pretty sure it is a crime and ethically wrong, but okay...'
Do you have trouble comprehending English or something? Repeating the same falsehood over and over doesn't make it true. You are wrong. Right to privacy trumps criminal adultery statutes in civilian US courts, and it has for 50 years. Get over it!
'Apparently, I still don't know what I am talking about.'
Agreed!
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics "Thanks for pointing an obvious opinion as my flaw."
I've done no such thing. I've ASKED (repeatedly) why Gingrich's marriage matters to his qualifications nor nomination. So far, your only explanation is that because Gingrich is catholic, he should enjoy no right to privacy and state adultery statutes should apply to him. You seem to be arguing that the law should treat catholics more harshly than others. WHY? I'm not criticizing opinion; I'm asking for your logic.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup Me telling you that he is Catholic, was no my "only explanation" for why his marriage matters to his qualifications and nomination.
I wanted to tell you he was Catholic because it would seem that having an affair would be hypocritical against the beliefs of one.
When did I say that he should enjoy no right to privacy or "seem" to be arguing that law should treat Catholics more harshly?
If you want my "logic", then ask and not assume, "k."
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics 'Me telling you that he is Catholic, was no my "only explanation" for why his marriage matters to his qualifications and nomination.'
Really? You've sure fooled me, then, because that's the only thing on which you've been a broken record. Kindly spell out what other reasoning you have, if you would.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics 'When did I say that he should enjoy no right to privacy or "seem" to be arguing that law should treat Catholics more harshly?'
For you to understand the answer to that, you would first have to recognize that the US Supreme Court recognizes a right to privacy that overrides adultery statutes. Since you can't seem to manage that, you aren't likely to understand how I come to that conclusion.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics 'If you want my "logic", then ask and not assume, "k."'
ASKING for it is exactly what I did, IN THOSE WORDS! Herp derp! The only thing I have assumed is that you could actually put together a coherent explanation of your views. I'm starting to realize that that was asking far too much of you.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics "Anything else you would like to correct me on?
"Oh I hope I don't have to regret typing anything so you can patronize me."
I should be asking YOU if there are any more ad hominems you'd like to throw. It's a sure sign you're out of argument when all you can do is question the personal attributes of your opponent. I've corrected you on nothing except verifiable facts that you've misstated, so if you don't want to feel patronized for it, then quit stating falsehoods, "k"
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup Also, just because Gingrich had the audience applaud for him, does not permit him to lie about his marital status.
The fact that he tried to insult CNN and John King and avoiding the question was pretty wrong, k. The fact that the audience clapped for him means they probably fell for Gingrich's rhetoric. Had he answered the question truthfully, I doubt they would have clapped. So ya, not everyone clapping considered the marital status only.
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics "Also, just because Gingrich had the audience applaud for him, does not permit him to lie about his marital status."
1) Gingrich hasn't denied having an affair. What he denies is asking his wife for an open marriage. Pay attention, "k."
2) I never said that an audience's applause gives him permission to lie. What I said is that it indicates that they, like I, question whether he should be expected to answer in the first place, REGARDLESS of whether it's true or false.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup 2:25
"This story is false."
It is quite unclear what this "story" is.
1. However, an open marriage or not, he is still breaking marital vows, both legally or illegally.
2. What I meant was that, the applaud from the audience does not make John's question invalid. If you are really asking the validity of questioning Gingrich's marital status, then my point stands. Apparently, you can't open a Presidential debate with this question.
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics '"This story is false."
'It is quite unclear what this "story" is.'
Only to you. To those of us who can actually comprehend the spoken word, Gingrich is talking about his ex-wife's claims that he asked her for an open marriage. We know this because that is SPECIFICALLY what John King asked him about. Duh.
'However, an open marriage or not, he is still breaking marital vows, both legally or illegally.'
Huh?
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics 'What I meant was that, the applaud from the audience does not make John's question invalid.'
That assumes his question was valid in the first place, an assumption I contend is by no means axiomatic.
'If you are really asking the validity of questioning Gingrich's marital status, then my point stands.'
What point would that be? You have yet to give a reason why Gingrich's marriage should matter that doesn't completely ignore the past 50 years of jurisprudence.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup In my opinion, I am disappointed in Gingrich's affair and with many other things. I'm sure there are some qualifications for being President, but I still dislike him.
I distrust all of the debates and elections, regardless.
Just my opinion, so I am sorry if that doesn't seem right to you or too "ad hominem".
Not sure what you are trying to argue to me about now, though.
I just stated my opinion towards Gingrich's denial of the "story."
You are asking the validity?
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics 'Not sure what you are trying to argue to me about now, though.'
... or ever, from what I can tell.
My question now is the same as it has been: Why does this matter? It disappoints you. Well, bully for your disappointment, but it's hardly objective. The only objective reason you've given (which you've stated repeatedly) is that you think it makes Gingrich a criminal, but you're wrong about that. FACTUALLY, OBJECTIVELY WRONG. So, I ask YET AGAIN: Why should I care?
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup Lol...
I find it funny how you continue to insult me, lol...
Do I think Gingrich is a "criminal"?
Again, it seems you are assuming negative statements that derive from the opinions that I have given about Gingrich.
If I am "wrong" about Gingrich, then please, go ahead and give me some examples of some good qualities of Gingrich.
What should you "care" about? You don't have to "care" about anything, as I'm not telling to do so...
"Bully"? "Timestamp"?
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics 'I find it funny how you continue to insult me, lol...'
Hey, I call it like I see it. You question me on every other word I type, which leads me to wonder if you know what they mean. I ask myself whether you're too young to understand what I'm saying, if English isn't your first language, or if you're just playing a semantic game to avoid facing the fact that you have no case here. In any case, look them up yourself; I'm not your personal dictionary.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics 'Do I think Gingrich is a "criminal"?
'Again, it seems you are assuming negative statements that derive from the opinions that I have given about Gingrich.'
Wrong:
'So yes, the fact that he had an affair is highly unethical. It is wrong, both morally and legally. It's called, "Adultery." So yeah, he should face the consequences.'
^ Your words. You state that Gingrich has erred legally. You believe that adultery is a crime. You believe that GIngrich is a criminal.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics 'If I am "wrong" about Gingrich, then please, go ahead and give me some examples of some good qualities of Gingrich.'
Unneccessary and irrelevant. I haven't claimed that you are wrong on Gingrich's character. I've claimed that you're wrong on the criminal nature of adultery. Pay attention.
'You don't have to "care" about anything, as I'm not telling to do so...'
What, then, is the point of your incessant drivel on Gingrich's high crimes and misdemeanors?
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup Lol.
"Hey, I call it like I see it."
Lol, that's totally not arrogant and crude.
I question some of your insulting and confusing comments for a reason. If you really think I'm not understanding any of your comments or eluding your questions with the same answer, then you are one egotistical asshole.
You are really making a point by condescending me, lol.
"Incessant drivel", lol. Your intelligence is clearly showing...
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics 'Lol, that's totally not arrogant and crude.'
No more so than your judgments of Gingrich, to be sure.
'I question some of your insulting and confusing comments for a reason.'
Yes, you do. The reason is that you have difficulty understanding the language of Shakespeare. So far, I have typed exactly what I mean. You can't say that my comments are confusing at the same time that you claim to understand them. If you understand, then you aren't confused. Herp derp.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup "Factually, objectively wrong"?
Also, when you ask why Gingrich's marital status "matters", I didn't say it did or didn't.
I do think it is a bit important to note how Gingrich denies this "story" of open marriage/affair.
I don't really trust him so far, because of this. So yes, it kind of influences my thoughts on him and doubts of being a good President.
Forgetting his past and only looking what he might do, is still a bit close-minded...
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics '... you ask why Gingrich's marital status "matters", I didn't say it did or didn't.'
Oh, I see! So, when @rosenstand asked this same question, you were just responding for shits and giggles, then? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup Lol...
rosenstand asked, "Who gives a damn?", which probably implied that no one needs to care about what Gingrich did in the past. When I talked about why questioning Gingrich on his marital status, I did so because it is important to know as qualifications as President. Is it harmful to ask an important question? Like why he had an affair and tried to have an open marriage?
You are asking me "why?". I am asking, "why not?".
"Shits and giggles"? Lol...
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics 'You are asking me "why?". I am asking, "why not?".'
Oh, that's an EASY one. I would argue that Gingrich's affairs matter for his eligibility for a Republican nomination about as much as anyone else's sex life would matter to his landing a job as a fast-food cashier - that is, not one whit. If the latter is entitled to privacy, then so is the former, Gingrich.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup It is your own opinion that Gingrich's marital affairs do not matter.
He obviously has the right to privacy, so he could of just said no.
He could of just denied the "story" and make Marianne's interview completely false.
Again, we have our own opinions. So please stop talking to me, because I really don't want to see you condescend and one-up me in order to look intelligent. You aren't making a point. So far, it just looks like you insulting me and supporting Gingrich's privacy.
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics 'He obviously has the right to privacy, so he could [have] just said no.'
If you believe he has the right to privacy, then you believe King's question is illegitimate. If you believe the question is legitimate, then you don't believe his sex life should be kept to himself. You can't have it both ways. Derp!
'He could [have] just denied the "story" and make Marianne's interview completely false.'
He did. Doesn't seem to have done much for you, though.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@7DrPhysics '... we have our own opinions.'
Are you sure? Mine is pretty well-defined, but you seem to keep changing yours. First he should face the consequences, then he shouldn't be punished. First he should be accountable to the public for his marriage, then he has a right to his privacy about it. You keep changing what you say you believe, son, as if none of this is contradictory. Yeah, as if.
PrimeSoup 1 month ago
@PrimeSoup Well-defined?
Then please, go ahead and define them again.
That Gingrich doesn't have to answer the opening-debate question? Is that it? So you insult me over all that? We have moved from Catholicism to Adultery laws, all you have eluded.
We are debating over Gingrich's story of an open marriage? Seriously? What do you really want?
Also, I find it hilarious how you refer to me as a "kid."
Condescending with an ego, much?
Again, you assume, "son."
7DrPhysics 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics "Well-defined?
"Then please, go ahead and define them again."
If you didn't understand after the tenth time, an eleventh isn't likely to change that.
"We have moved from Catholicism to Adultery laws, all you have eluded."
Wrong. Adultery statutes are at the core of my argument. The supreme court has held multiple times that laws regulating consensual sex and reproductive behavior violate the fourteenth amendment. Adultery statutes fall within this distinction.
PrimeSoup 3 weeks ago
@7DrPhysics Also, 'I find it hilarious how you refer to me as a "kid."'
What I have noticed is that you seem to have trouble understanding the meaning of many of the English words I use and that there is a glaring hole in your knowledge of US supreme court history. I can draw either of two conclusions from this. One is that you are foreign to the US. The other is that you are quite young. Either would explain your lack of experience with the English language and US jurisprudence.
PrimeSoup 3 weeks ago
@7DrPhysics 'Again, you assume, "son."'
Well, perhaps you are right that your youth is a less likely assumption than your foreign origin. I had thought this because of your naive insistence that "It's my opinion!" actually constitutes an argument, as if you don't really have to have any reason for thinking what you think. On the other hand, a kid who has grown up in the internet age would likely know what a timestamp is.
PrimeSoup 3 weeks ago
@PrimeSoup So...
After so long ago, you still continue? Cute.
Also, you assuming that I am of foreign origin or of a young age based on your opinions of me is pretty rude and stupid.
You should look at what you have typed and ask how much of an asshole you are.
If you want proof, look it up. Don't ask me to cite something quite obvious.
Also, about the right to Privacy, again, he could of just said NO. Understand? Too much drama for you?
7DrPhysics 3 weeks ago
@7DrPhysics "After so long ago, you still continue? Cute."
Gee, I didn't know I had to type on YOUR schedule. "Cute."
"You should look at what you have typed and ask how much of an asshole you are."
YOU should look at what I have typed and ask whether it's my goal to support a differing conclusion (that the matter is irrelevant) by pointing out a factual error (that adultery is a crime in the US) or just to avoid being called an asshole by a nitwit such as you.
PrimeSoup 3 weeks ago
@PrimeSoup
"MY" schedule or not, it was in the past. So yes, you are still continuing to insult me.
Your goal to support a "differing conclusion" has also involve condescending me.
Factual error? Adultery is a crime, nitwit. Again, look it up. If you seriously think citizens are free to commit adultery because the US has no punitive law against it, then you are ignorant and stupid.
Even if the US didn't punish those who do, it is still quite morally wrong. Natural Law, asshole.
7DrPhysics 3 weeks ago
@7DrPhysics Funny, how you started this by insulting me and apparently providing a point, which you haven't repeated to me, yet.
So me "harping on" about how much of an asshole you are, has a reasonable purpose, in my opinion. Are you ready to "actually focus on the subject"?
If you do, then please stop insulting me in a patronizing manner.
If you tell me that I deserve, then you are a hypocrite in my opinion.
7DrPhysics 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics "Adultery is a crime, nitwit. ... If you seriously think citizens are free to commit adultery because the US has no punitive law against it, then you are ignorant and stupid."
ROFLMFAO! OMG, that's a better one than I've heard in a while! You call ME "ignorant and stupid" at the same time that you define a CRIMINAL act as something for which there is NO CRIMINAL STATUE! Bwahahaha! Priceless!
PrimeSoup 3 weeks ago
@7DrPhysics "Even if the US didn't punish those who do, it is still quite morally wrong. Natural Law, asshole."
1) This was NOT your argument before. You argued that Gingrich was a criminal because of STATE CIVIL LAW, NOT because of "Natural Law." Perhaps you're changing horses now because you finally read Griswold v. Connecticut, though.
PrimeSoup 3 weeks ago
@PrimeSoup Also...
My argument towards Gingrich's Adultery was that:
1. "State civil law" or "Natural Law", my point was that it was morally wrong to cheat on your wife...
2. For the Privacy argument: Gingrich, again, could of just refused to answer instead of rambling and rhetorically making him look good.
3. The right to make your marital affairs private is not specifically protected in the Bill of Rights. It's mostly the 1st and 9th amendment in the Bill of Rights that does so...
7DrPhysics 2 weeks ago
@7DrPhysics 2) The US penalizes violations of US civil law, not violations of "natural law." Furthermore, in a society for which marriage is primarily a contract regulated by the state, the only way to make adultery commonly objectionable is through civil statute. The alternative is to look the other way while the village throws stones at the adulterer. Is this what you would advocate?
PrimeSoup 3 weeks ago
@7DrPhysics 3) "Natural law" holds no relevance to violations of marriage because marriage is an entirely artificial construct. Humanity is the only species that practices such formal monogamy. Even informal monogamy is rare in the natural world outside of humanity, and even the briefest of glances through human history shows that we're not always big on monogamy in any form. The proliferation of Genghis Khan's Y chromosome should be evidence enough for that.
PrimeSoup 3 weeks ago
@7DrPhysics With all that said, why don't you come out and say what you really mean? By "natural law," you're referring to Exodus 20:14, commonly viewed as the sixth biblical commandment (as if a law written down by Moses is any more "natural" than a law written down by social consensus). You strike me increasingly as a Santorum supporter, who believes that the supreme court was wrong to see a right to privacy in the 14th amendment, and that states SHOULD regulate consensual sex.
PrimeSoup 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7DrPhysics "If you want proof, look it up. Don't ask me to cite something quite obvious."
That's not the way it works, Einstein. YOU make a claim, YOU back it up. I've cited my support in Griswold v. Connecticut. Where's yours?
"... about the right to Privacy, again, he could of just said NO. Understand?"
I do. You don't. That's not what "right to privacy" means under the fourteenth amendment, as I have tried to explain to you half a dozen times by now.
PrimeSoup 3 weeks ago
@PrimeSoup If you actually wanted to prove that you are right and I am wrong, then do so. There is no need to condescend me.
Also, if you think his infidelity is irrelevant, then I am guessing that you want to debate about his "right to Privacy."
Again, is that the only topic we are debating about? That he did not have to say anything else?
Because if that is all, it's pretty stupid to try and condescend me like an asshole just to try and prove your "point."
7DrPhysics 3 weeks ago