Posted on 12/13/2011 11:36:36 AM PST by sodpoodle
Fox announced that Trump has cancelled the 12/27/2011 debate. He is also reported as promising to run as an Independent if the GOP candidate is not to his liking.
What happened to Newt's noon announcement? Nothing being reported.
King David not only committed adultery, but even arranged the murder of his lover's lawful husband. What ultimately mattered was that David repented when he was confronted by Nathan, and God allowed David to continue his successful reign.
Newt Gingrich has acknowledged his past adulteries and says that he has sought forgiveness from God. Whether one chooses to believe him or not, I would be careful not to speak for God concerning a matter that He might already have put to rest. The same would have been true of Bill Clinton if he had acknowledged and repented, but he sadly did not.
On a more practical level, the Democrats might not even need to lift a finger next fall if Republicans continue to destroy each other before the real battle begins. The GOP is the party of winning ideas, but too many Republicans would rather destroy their allies than to defeat their real opponents.
Yep. All those pilgrimages up Trump Mountain by GOPers to see the holy grail of His Supreme Donaldness' endorsement... all in vain.
Yep. All those pilgrimages up Trump Mountain by GOPers to seek the holy grail of His Supreme Donaldness' endorsement... all in vain.
I don't think so. Perot was a serious candidate, was in debates, spent loads of money, had thousands of volunteers went to his own convention, and people really believed in him and wanted him to win.
Other than a couple of blackjack dealers, bartenders and caddies, and a few nitwits that think trump is serious who is going to vote for this media whore?
He'll probably get some people that watch his TV show, who ever that is , but I don't think that this egomaniac wants to spend his own money, especially when he sees how little traction he gets.
What kind of asshat would send their own hard earned money to trump's campaign?
If anybody does, they are too stupid to be allowed to vote.
The msm, those fags that hate trump's guts, will be the first to pimp his run, but only when they are using free TV time, and they won't be donating to trumpster the dumpster.
Much of it, IMO, is based on the too many Republicans' innate desire to remain in the impotent, yet comfortably secure position of the minority. After all, too much in the way of responsibility is demanded of them if they actually have to ... ugh.... LEAD.
LLS
LLS
So another-words, we as free agents of God, should not worry about trying to live decent lives. Okay then, thanks a lot. I can do whatever I please. Wahoo...
Good to know.
I know you mean well, but I didn’t buy the Clinton defense then, and I don’t buy it now. Please don’t make it in front of my kids.
You know, I had not thought about it that way. Thank you.
;^)
I am old enough to remember this tendency as the "Bob Michel Syndrome" -- a remnant of the time when Republicans knew their place and were rewarded for going along with the charade.
(For those too young to know, Bob Michel was the pre-Newtonian GOP House Minority Leader who cheerfully groveled for table scraps from his "good friends" and "colleagues" across the aisle.)
Absolutely not! Or as Paul said in Romans 6: "God forbid!" There are consequences to all sin, but the whole meaning of the gospel is that God has provided a way for us to be forgiven for our sins. All of them.
I know you mean well, but I didn’t buy the Clinton defense then, and I don’t buy it now. Please don’t make it in front of my kids.
You clearly misread my statement about Bill Clinton. What makes Clinton different from Gingrich is that Clinton never acknowledged his actions or repented for them. If he had swallowed his pride and publicly repented for what he did, I believe that would have put his past to rest. It was Clinton's failure to do so that still besmirches his character.
Absolutely not! Or as Paul said in Romans 6: "God forbid!" There are consequences to all sin, but the whole meaning of the gospel is that God has provided a way for us to be forgiven for our sins. All of them.
I am not opposed to the idea that men should be forgiven their sins. God will provide the forgiveness. He will expunge the record, and grant the sinner salvation. I on the other hand can forgive a man his sins, but still understand that the wages of sin don't end simply because a man has repented. If this were what was expected of us as Christians, then there would be no need for prisons. You sin, you pay the penalty.
If you wish to be seen as a person people can trust, then you live a trustworthy life. You can't become a two time loser on infidelity, then ask people to treat you as a person who has fidelity. Forgiveness is one thing, and prudence is another.
Look, if this didn't apply to having fidelity as it applies to Conservative principles, I wouldn't be addressing this as I am. Newt has not shown fidelity to Conservative principles. While I may understand that he is sorry for what he has done in the past, I must use some judgement when it comes to putting him into a position of trust again. I don't have a basis for doing so. There are plenty of other roles for Newt to play, where he could do something positive for society. I just don't see the Oval Office as the place to test my and other Conservatives trust of him.
I know you mean well, but I didn’t buy the Clinton defense then, and I don’t buy it now. Please don’t make it in front of my kids.
You clearly misread my statement about Bill Clinton. What makes Clinton different from Gingrich is that Clinton never acknowledged his actions or repented for them. If he had swallowed his pride and publicly repented for what he did, I believe that would have put his past to rest. It was Clinton's failure to do so that still besmirches his character.
And it is Newt's proclivity to abandon Conservatism every time the mood strikes him, and do whatever he feels like at the moment, no matter what that telegraphs to Conservatives. While he does express some level of repentence, he also continues to make statements that leave little doubt that he still doesn't grasp what it is he did, that he needed to appologize for.
His comments on tying global warming to a business economic solution, is still VERY troubling. His comments about gifting illegals with a pathway, is yet another example.
Vows are vows; and they can be as easily broken w/o an 'affair'.
Would offer that without children to impact; a family to consider - and should we count the 'silent' ways; marriage vows can be broken within a marriage sans divorce - that it is perhaps the 'wiser' at this point; to take a higher road per making judgments about Newt's decisions and perhaps his wife's/or wives as well and as the case may be.
Whatever. . .
And now we must vote for him, for the sake of his wife and marriage.
Kind of a veiled threat really; taken at it's 'core'.
Other than that; certainly hope Trump does not go there. But we know from politicians in general; and just as recently; Herman Cain; that 'egos' can lead one, in the worst of ways.
CDC Marriage/Divorce 2009: In 2009, the marriage rate was 6.8 per 1000 population, and the divorce rate was 3.4 per 1000 population.
That means there were precisely twice as many marriages as divorces. Which could mean 50% of marriages total ended in divorce, although you can draw no conclusions about the relationship between 2009 marriages and 2009 divorces -- they aren't likely the same marriages.
My point is that if the marriage rate is twice the divorce rate, there is no chance that 50% of 1st marriages are ending in divorce, because once you throw in 2nd and 3rd marriages, your total divorce rate would be way above 50%, and the statistics set 50% as the upper limit.
A more interesting statistic might be the average number of years a marriage lasts. Another is the number of people who never get divorced (people who divorce once are more likely to divorce again, and skew the total number of divorces).
I wouldn't be surprised if the total divorce rate could hit 50%, since a person who had little fidelity to marraige could easily marry and divorce multiple times. But the statistics are tricky. For example, Gingrich is on his 3rd marriage. So HIS personal statistics is that 66% of his marriages end in divorce. If you pair him with just one faithful couple, their average is 50%. But if he divorced his current wife and didn't re-marry, you'd need two more couples to join your group in order to have a 50% success rate.
In 2009, the marriage rate was 6.8 per 1000 population, and the divorce rate was 3.4 per 1000 population.
Math much?
That’s exactly 50%
Yes, that’s why I said that could mean that 50% of marriages end in divorce. English much?
My point is that the statistics you cited claimed that 50% of 1st marriages ended in divorce, while more than 50% of the 2nd and even more 3rd marriages did.
If the total divorces is 50%, you can’t have 50% of 1st marraiges and more than 50% of 2nd and 3rd marriages ending in divorce.
And since every 2nd and 3rd divorce is preceded by a 1st divorce, it seems clear that more than half of first marriages survive, and it’s the divorced people that drive up the total statistics, people who marry 3 times or more (although each time the actually re-marry, they do help the statistics).
Here is how the statistics play out, looking at a single individual:
1st marriage - 0% divorce rate
1st divorce - 100% divorce rate
2nd marriage - 50% divorce rate
2nd divorce - 100% divorce rate
3rd marriage - 66% divorce rate
3rd divorce - 100% divorce rate
4th marriage - 75% divorce rate
4th divorce - 100% divorce rate.
Note that each new divorce drives the rate up to 100% for that individual, and each new marriage only partly recovers the rate.
One person who divorces 4 times requires 4 others who never divorce in order to have a 50% divorce rate. And if that was the case, the “1st-marriage” divorce rate would be 20%, while in my extreme example the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th marriage divorce rates would all be 100%. If the guy got married again, we’d need 3 other couples who never divorced, and the 1st-marriage divorce rate in the group would be 25% (oddly, the 2nd and 3rd and 4th marriage rate would still be 100%, and the 5th marriage rate would be 0%).
Since I have found no statistics that show a 50% 1st-marriage divorce rate, and reams of information that even the “50% of all marriages end in divorce” is a misreading of statistics, I do not believe it is possible that 50% of FIRST MARRIAGES could end in divorce.
I believe I understand where you are coming from. While I do understand some of the premises you touched on, at the end of the day I am left thinking that there comes a certain point in the quest for defense, that taking anything from the past into account becomes an infraction of sorts, or is otherwise forbidden.
Don’t hold infidelity against him. Why King David did that.
Don’t hold infidelity against him, because there are many ways to be unfaithful.
Don’t worry about his prior statements on global warming, a lot of people did that.
Don’t worry about his statements on illegal aliens. He’s not the only one making those either.
At some point I have to ask, is there anything at all we can hold a candidate accountable for?
I’m sure you didn’t mean this, but it seems that’s very close to where you are headed with Newt. That can’t be right.
Why vote for Newt vs Obama, if we can’t hold people accountable? If our rules for our guy are so broad so as to prevent holding him accountable for anything, how can we justify holding anyone accountable?
At the end of the day, either things are wrong or they are right. At the end of the day, either there are grounds for measuring who is good and who is not, or everyone is good and nobody is bad.
HEY! ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.