Newt Gingrich Outraged at Debate Question About Ex-Wife
Submitted by Mark Berman Opposing Views on Jan 19, 2012
Newt Gingrich lashed out at CNN host John King at the start of Thursday night's debate over King's audacity to ask Gingrich about the ABC News story that Gingrich wanted an open marriage with his second wife.
Gingrich denied that report, but he was much more angry that the issue would be raised during a presidential debate:
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Let's note that "just a thought" (maybe the only one he's ever had) has quietly vanished. Maybe he's rummaging through every post I have ever made trying to find something that is not true? If so, we'll be "shed of him" for a long time.
He might also look on my blog, www.slrman.wordpress.com for errors. Good luck and good riddance. :D
If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.
Boo.....
Wow! another intelligent, erudite comment. Did you think of that all by yourself? It's exactly what I expect from someone of your moral values and intellectual abilities.
Have you found anything I have said that wasn't true? Or are you going to continue to pretend the question was never asked? You don't seem to mind embarrassing yourself on here, so why not give it a try?
I suspect you're rather accustomed to being humiliated intellectually. Perhaps you even get a bit of a cheap thrill from it? Mental masochism isn't unknown on the internet and elsewhere.
If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.
OK.....we were having a bit of intellectual fun but now you've turned mean and I am not interested any longer. I must say, however, that I can now understand why you have so much free time to be on the internet.
You haven't provided anything "intellectual" in your posts...
That's exactly my point. Thanks for the verification. Personally, I was simply stating observed facts. That's hardly what most would consider a great mental exercise. I never claimed anything I have posted was more than the truth and, in some cases, my opinion. I try to base those upon facts, I am sometimes mistaken, of course. That's why I made the challenge to find something I posted that was not true. I am not a bit surprised that "just a thought" declined that invitation.
If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.
"We" have had intellectual fun? No, "we" have not. I have. All you have done is demonstrate a lack on intellectual and moral courage. I have asked you what I have said that is not true. You have demonstrated ethical ans intellectual cowardice by ignoring the challenge. Not one thing you have posted has demonstrated knowledge, courage, or rational thinking.
Do you think "Boo" is a really intellectual comment? Based on your other responses, you probably do.
Your comment here again shows no logical content. What does it matter if I have time to be on the internet? What does that have to do with anything? Does it relate to my question? No, all it does is show that you want to evade the issues and introduce an feeble red herring to attempt to obscure the fact that you are a moral an intellectual coward.
You think I have been mean? Is it because I tell the truth and point out your obvious failings? YOu poor little worm. You haven't even seen mean.
Your ID is misleading. You haven't demonstrated any thinking at all.
If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.
I am not a "poor little worm". I am not morally nor intellectually lacking. I am also not accustomed to the mean personal verbal attacks from someone who obviously has little else to do. "You haven't even seen mean" - that is a bothersome statement. I am sorry for you but I don't have enough sympathy to let you insult me anymore. I hope something good and gentle happens to you one day. Goodbye.
I am only evaluating you by your posts here. If you don't care for a simple statement of observed facts, stop posting as an ethically and intellectually challenged individual.
I have plenty else to do. You are making statements again with nothing to back them up. YOu are also still hiding from my challenge to find something I have said that is not true. That's your intellectual cowardice showing.
I don't need your false sympathy. FYI, I live in one of the best climates on earth, have a full, rewarding life, have my health, many friends, and interesting projects to occupy me. You, on the other hand, do not seem to be able to find the time to post comments more rational that "Boo."
I knew from the beginning that you would find a feeble excuse to run instead of either admitting you could find nothing I have said that is not true (intellectual and ethical courage again) or to actually engage in rational debate.
You do not shudder when you see my posts, you cringe. BTW, who forces you to read them?
If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.
LMAO. Well, sure it was an audaciously inappropriate question to ask Newt while he's running for president, and for sure, the boy has every reason to be angry -- "inappropriate" meaning it potentially decreases his chance for nailing that government job he lusts after, and "angry" because it undermines the artificial image of himself he's foisting on voters. Heck, any car salesman gets angry if someone asks a question that exposes his dishonesty when he's trying to close a sale.
I couldn't care less if a candidate's divorced and remarried multiple times (in a scenario with no minor kids involved). I have zero problem with a candidate who wants an open marriage. But, I definitely have a problem with a candidate projecting himself as devoted to "traditional American values" and utilizing catch phrases equivocal enough to allow voters to assume their own personal definitions, in order to sway voters into believing he wants what they want, when in reality the candidate's own behaviors evidence that he DOESN'T hold the same values they do. Newt's just another minimal-conscience-wired narcissist who can look others in the face and tell them he "wants what they want" while he lives another way. He's dishonest, so what voters assume he means when he speaks isn't what he really means by his carefully worded self-marketing spiels.