Posted on 03/10/2012 3:55:56 PM PST by VinL
Edited on 03/10/2012 4:01:19 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
There was an overflow crowd greeting Newt Gingrich when he arrived at the Wiregrass Museum of Art in the southeast corner of Alabama on Saturday.
Looking over the hundreds of people packed into the gallery area and spilling down the steps in the main lobby, Gingrich enthused, "What a crowd. I'm really impressed. There must be no one left at Wal-Mart this afternoon."
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.blogs.foxnews.com ...
It’s not the suggestion that people might shop at WalMart, it’s the comment suggesting that everybody who is a Republican would shop at Walmart.
You want to debate class, Charles Wayne. Fine. One at a time. Here’s the quote:
““I didn’t sit on the couch with anybody,” Santorum said. “I would only sit on the couch with my wife. Period. No other women — particularly not Nancy Pelosi.”
You defend that! I’m here; I’m waiting.
it’s the comment suggesting that everybody who is a Republican would shop at Walmart.
*******************
You have to learn to stop distorting the facts, Charley.
Where did the poster or Gingrich say that?
Huh? You are clueless about the South. Have you ever been to peanut country in Alabama and Georgia? There’s nothing to do. It’s a joke enjoyed by Alabamians, Missippians, etc. Newt shares the joke. You don’t. You are out of touch.
(sic) “two rether rediculous complaints”... disgusting to even THINK about the bizarre interpretation you had...funny that you didn’t see the irony
*********************
Charley???? Let’s go....you can’t hide under your keyboard...defend your distortions and vituperation.
Yes, I am out of touch, because I didn’t know that every republican in Alabama goes to the Walmart. ;-)
I’m noticing that the Gingrich folks are being particularly sensitive lately. Attackign Santorum for not cheating on his wife and having the temerity to actually mention it, and then not recognizing the illustration of the absurd by using absurdity in commenting on a Walmart joke.
I did notice though that a couple of others did take the Walmart joke more seriously — and they were attacked as class warfarists or something... :-)
I’d defend something if I had the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Your complaints were rediculous, and the image I got from YOUR interpretation of what Santorum said about Gingrich and Pelosi on the couch was a disgusting image, or maybe I should say “disturbing in a “wash my eyes out” sort of way”.
Do you actually think that everybody who has complained about Gingrich sitting on the couch with Pelosi the past 2 years were all really making a crude sex joke?
At I believe the 2006 republican convention, Barbara Bush mentioned how well her husband had run the white house during his time as President. She was attacked by liberals for “attacking Clinton”, by pointing out her husband had good character. Your complaint about Santorum mentioning he had been married for 21 years is very similar and equally rediculous.
Now, if you want me to defend against some argument you want to advance in defence of YOUR first comment, you’ll have to actually MAKE a defense first, not just act all outraged.
Don’t dance. Here again, is your candidate’s quote:
““I didn’t sit on the couch with anybody,” Santorum said. “I would only sit on the couch with my wife. Period. No other women — particularly not Nancy Pelosi.”
It’s classless. As i indicated, it’s innuendo. You see it otherwise, you tell me what it means.
He didn’t say that. If he had SAID it, it wouldn’t be a “suggestion”, it would be a “statement”. I wonder after today whether anybody actually understands english, much less the art of sarcasm, parody, and hyperbole.
Gingrich, according to the article, said “”What a crowd. I’m really impressed. There must be no one left at Wal-Mart this afternoon.”
Taken literally, which apparently everybody here is doing way too much, he said that the only people who shop at Wal-Mart are republicans who would come to one of his campaign events.
See, if democrats shopped at WalMart, the store wouldn’t be empty because of people being at his rally. And if republicans shopped elsewhere, there’d be more stores than just Walmart empty.
Anyway, this is a “Gingrich” thread. I don’t normally end up in a Gingrich thread, but when the person who POSTS the “pro-Gingrich” thread can’t think of anything but negative Santorum stuff to say in the first comment, and posts rediculous arguments against Santorum, I decided to respond.
I’ve re-iterated that response, and I don’t care about the Walmart comment, and won’t discuss it any more.
The fact that you think that needs “defending” is the whole problem. Santorum was bringing up Gingrich’s unfortunate commercial with Nancy Pelosi about Global Warming. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to bring up, it is a fair attack on Gingrich, even though Gingrich has admitted it was a mistake to do so — just because you admit a mistake doesn’t mean it is off-limits to mention it again.
Nobody would think Gingrich was sexually involved with Pelosi. Well, at least until this thread I wouldn’t have expected it.
Well, now you know that in Lower Alabama, almost everybody of every political party, race, religion, etc. goes to Wal-Mart. I noticed that the other posters who took issue with the old Southern joke were not from Alabama or Georgia or Missippi.
Your argument is flawed and inept- or in your new invention “rediculous” (4 times in 4 posts— try ridiculous) - Since you have no basis of knowing the political affiliation of the people who attended-you have no foundation for your hallucination.
Secondly, in my original post, I quoted Santorum directly- and based on the content of the quote- I called him classless. I had never said anything negative about the guy- but in reading this quote- there was only one conclusion to be drawn.
You then claimed that my interpretation of the quote was bizarre and disgusting— but you refuse to tell him how else Santorum’s quote can/should be interpreted.
You constantly operate in this way— you distort posts in order to provoke a confrontation- attack posters personally- and then run from the confrontation..
Frankly, that’s not very “classy”.
Nobody would think Gingrich was sexually involved with Pelosi. Well, at least until this thread I wouldn’t have expected it.
***************
He says: “I didn’t sit on the couch with anybody.I would only sit on the couch with my wife. Period. No other women — particularly not Nancy Pelosi.”
Interpretation- He’s a faithful husband who only sits on a couch with his wife.The predicate is thus fidelity - no other possible interpretation when he introduces his “wife” and “other women”.
He then injects Pelosi- that can only lead to one further identification- Gingrich.
Thus, he is the faithful who only sits on a couch with his wife, as opposed to the identified Gingrich who sits with other “women”.
As i indicated in the thread, I’ve never objected to Santorum speaking to Gingrich/Pelosi and global warming. That’s factual.
This is an undisguised reference to Gingrich’s marital problems- it’s a personal attack on a “friend”-— and thus, classless!
or
when that 3am phone call comes aren’t you glad they’re calling newt.
thanks. I like them both very much.
I am hoping the glaring disparity of their leadership qualities will be made very clear on Monday:
Alabama GOP will hold a Debate/Discussion between Newt and Rick on Monday March 12. This can be viewed on C-SPAN 1 at 6:30pm EST. Tell all you know that have not decided between the two.
I know, but it is still very touch-and-go if you are a worrier, and I am. I had a friend who worked in Tenn - he was something like a county chair or something. And he told me that they rarely if ever got any calls returned or any help from the Tenn campaign for Newt. That was where Newt's chair defected to Santorum with 3 others the day before Tenn's vote.
My friend said they finally got so desperate they formed their only little campaign - printed flyers, door to door stuff - that the state campaign would have usually helped with at least marginally. And Newt won his precinct or cty or whatever you call it by 68%. That kind of stuff makes me worry that there are powerful forces behind the scenes working against Newt that we don't even comprehend.
And then yesterday, I think it was, the gov of MS came out for romney, and it makes me worry the same GOP machinery is working against Newt. It's the same in every state.
“Santorum doesn’t pay his tithes?”
According to his tax records, Santorum gave an average 2% of his income to charitable donations. I don’t know where it went, but it was definitely not a biblical 10%. But he is a “devout Catholic” which in his case apparently means a sanctimonious blowhard.
Oh charles, you and I have had many meaningful exchanges on Gingrich threads.
“He (Santorum) should have backed off Al and Miss- and let Newt win. At least, that would slow Romney down”
Santorum does not want to slow Romney down. He wants to keep the Evangelical vote from Newt and secure his position as Romney’s running mate. The evanglicals won’t vote for a Mormon, but they will vote for a sanctimonious Catholic that has not been married 3 times. So what if the US turns into socialist hell hole.
"I know that the first thought that’ll run through my head every morning when I wake up in the labor camp will be “I can’t believe Newt Gingrich married more than once.” ~ trappedincanuckistan
and they'll call rush, who's been married 4 times, and tell him they think he should run for president, or he's their inspiration...
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.