Absolutely. I believe that Newt's fidelity issues (given their frequency and consistency) are indicative of a larger lack of personal integrity that I don't find desirable in a presidential candidate. Legally it still does not disqualify him, but I'd sure as heck not vote for him, nor do I think he is above scrutiny. It's much like the people protesting abortion clinics getting abortions themselves, a la "The only moral abortion is my abortion", except replace "abortion" with "affair."

My point of replying to QM's rhetoric (of which the 'sift is familiar with) was to remind him that both cases must be treated the same, as it's just another crossover of sexual transgressions with political career. If he vilified Clinton during the Lewinksy scandal then he is obligated to similarly vilify Gingrich; the flip side being that if he supports Gingrich in spite of his flaws, then he must have opposed Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

P.S. I'm of the camp that thinks QM is just a very good troll and doesn't actually believe the stuff he says. But for the sake of the sift we still have to take his comments at face value.

In reply to this comment by RadHazG:
>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

Such a magnificent engine... a work of art really... wasted because it's installed in such an ugly car.

Please don't misunderstand me. I would never turn down the opportunity to test drive that machine, I'd just put a paper bag on it first.

That's funny, a similar thing happened to me while I was visiting the 17th/21st Lancers in England while I was test driving a Scorpion light tank.

It didn't catch on fire though.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Top Amazon review:
To Train Up A Child
527 of 565 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Thoughts of someone whose mother used this book, November 15, 2010
By
M. Gray - See all my reviews
This review is from: To Train Up A Child (Paperback)
My mother was given this book while I was a child. Wanting to raise a well-behaved child, she would spank me with a belt. She is proud of me. I am a senior at Princeton University and practicing Catholic. However, today my mother would tell you that I am these things in spite of the teachings of "To Train Up a Child," in spite of the self-loathing and insecurity caused by whippings which would not end until I could pretend to be content. Pretend to embrace the necessity for my own torture.
I was abused. Please do not look to this book for guidance.


This was disturbing. It was like I was watching the same clip of the other couple months back. You can tell their is a strange mindset at play here.

Usually, the definition of psychology for someone will be doled out with complexes, traits, disorders, bi-polar, psychopathy, sociopath, etc... This is reserved for a single person of one mind, of course. But this shows that there is an undeniable new entry for a couples and groups; a couple that has many children and are highly religious. With just the right catalysts, like that evil book you linked and which was talked about, it becomes something else. Their co-habitual drug of fun was given a test drive: the book or simply, their "rod". But, they wanted to fly; to take it farther. So they took that book and made each answer stronger, more correct. ...And how could they be wrong when God made them feel so good...

Scary stuff. I'm sorry for what happened to you @dystopianfuturetoday . Parents have a tough job, but punishing your child with full on physical force is not an answer. There are atleast 100 better books on parenting than these idiotic "Christian's Force Rod!" type books.

I can't wait to test drive one of those. >> ^Peroxide:

LED bulbs will soon be more affordable, and they use even less electricity than CFLs, however, they can be sort of blindingly harsh.
This one looks nice, and like they addressed the harsh light, http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/8/7
>> ^notarobot:
Be careful how you change your bulbs. The 5 mg of mercury in a single CFL is enough to make as much as 50,000 litres of water undrinkable according to Canadian drinking water standerds.

>> ^A10anis:

Answer me one question. Given the luck and privilege of his life, how many of you, given the same good fortune, could not do what he does? Given the time and money, would you not indulge in fun pursuits? Hell, i'd love to learn how to fly a jet or helicopter. I'd love the fame to be invited to drive an F1 car.This is not envy talking, it is reality. Best of luck to him. But, please, don't tell me he is special. Of course his fans will say he is supremely talented..Hmm, ok.


If I had his money, I'd buy one of these

Tom Cruise with Red Bull on his chest?

Oh, they paid him, baby. They paid him.


>> ^solecist:

>> ^bareboards2:
How much did they pay him?

i really hope they didn't have to pay him for this massive ego stroke.

>> ^bareboards2:

How much did they pay him?


i really hope they didn't have to pay him for this massive ego stroke.

I stopped watching after they appeared at the ball in "pretty dresses". First off, God and the Bible teach, quite clearly, that women are not to adorn themselves in that way and to do so is the practice of harlots and prostitutes, and therefor a sin. That's the first clue that the people in the video practicing these "purity balls" have no clue about what God wants for his children. They are horribly and falsely representing the Christian faith.

Secondly, it's completely misleading and false for the reporter to put this sort of thing on the "conservative Christian movement" like it's all some neat and tidy ball-of-wax that involves EVERYONE who's conservative and/or Christian. Holy crap, talk about a COMPLETE LIE! Fucking Al-Jazeera bullshit.

For the "insano" cocksuckers who think you should "test drive" your mate before you get married... you're as brainless and inhuman as they come. Marriage is about everything BUT sex, you worthless pieces of shit. You people are proof that the theory of evolution is a joke, because you obviously haven't evolved beyond the pond scum that existed "billions" of years ago.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Did you even read the post? Here, I'll highlight it to help you.
>> ^smooman:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
Seriously what kind of insano would get married to someone without having sex with them first? Would you buy a car with taking for a test drive? I'm not even slightly joking here. And I'm not being sexist either, both partners need to know. Nor am I saying it's the end of the relationship if it doesn't work, but if you're committing to a lifelong relationship, you should go into eyes open.
And as for the whole "fornication is a sin" concept, we need to drop that crap. Unprotected sex is just idiocy, but if two consenting adults want to have casual safe sex, it's up to them. Honestly, we load all these expectations onto losing your virginity; "it should be special", "it should be with someone you love", blah blah. Let's face it, it's usually pretty unspectacular and awkward. These attitudes made sense when we didn't have birth control or protection from STDs but these days they're just a holdover from a time when you didn't want to end up diseased or stuck with a kid you didn't want.

women are cars now?

FFS, why is this so hard to understand? The puritanical attitude to sex before marriage is outdated and pointless. If you are making a lifelong commitment to be with someone, you should know about as many aspects of your relationship beforehand as you can. Actually forget sex, I wouldn't marry anyone with living with them for at least a year or two.


i did read your post. its not hard to understand. abstinence before marriage is outdated for sure (the institution of marriage is really recent, while throughout history laying with someone typically served as an act of marriage) but pointless? perhaps to you, but to each their own. to me? sex is sex. thats it. what my grievance is, is with the tired and utterly absurd "car test drive" analogy. its laughable on its face, and anyone who persists with it is just plain silly. women arent cars. sex isnt driving. theyre not even remotely comparable, except for humorous anecdotes exclusively.

its clear that you want to know every single detail you can about your future spouse before committing, and thats fine, that works for you. but i dont know if you knew this.......but we're not all you. some of us prefer the method of discovery. is it smart and recommended to live with someone at the very least for a little bit before you decide if this is someone you want to be with the rest of your life? absolutely. is it mandatory for a successful relationship? absolutely not. is it smart and recommended to have a physically intimate relationship with someone you are courting? depends, but usually ya. is it mandatory in order to have a healthy sex life and a lasting marriage? absolutely not

sidenote: love is not a feeling, it is not an emotion. it is action and commitment. if you want to know every possible detail about the relationship you have with someone before committing to them, if it works for you great! but i feel i need to remind you: we are not you. I would argue that whether you want to know all the details you possibly can, or if you know enough to be pretty sure, in either case if you both are committed to each other then who cares if youve had sex before marriage or waited till after.

Did you even read the post? Here, I'll highlight it to help you.
>> ^smooman:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Seriously what kind of insano would get married to someone without having sex with them first? Would you buy a car with taking for a test drive? I'm not even slightly joking here. And I'm not being sexist either, both partners need to know. Nor am I saying it's the end of the relationship if it doesn't work, but if you're committing to a lifelong relationship, you should go into eyes open.
And as for the whole "fornication is a sin" concept, we need to drop that crap. Unprotected sex is just idiocy, but if two consenting adults want to have casual safe sex, it's up to them. Honestly, we load all these expectations onto losing your virginity; "it should be special", "it should be with someone you love", blah blah. Let's face it, it's usually pretty unspectacular and awkward. These attitudes made sense when we didn't have birth control or protection from STDs but these days they're just a holdover from a time when you didn't want to end up diseased or stuck with a kid you didn't want.

women are cars now?



FFS, why is this so hard to understand? The puritanical attitude to sex before marriage is outdated and pointless. If you are making a lifelong commitment to be with someone, you should know about as many aspects of your relationship beforehand as you can. Actually forget sex, I wouldn't marry anyone with living with them for at least a year or two.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Seriously what kind of insano would get married to someone without having sex with them first? Would you buy a car with taking for a test drive? I'm not even slightly joking here. And I'm not being sexist either, both partners need to know. Nor am I saying it's the end of the relationship if it doesn't work, but if you're committing to a lifelong relationship, you should go into eyes open.
And as for the whole "fornication is a sin" concept, we need to drop that crap. Unprotected sex is just idiocy, but if two consenting adults want to have casual safe sex, it's up to them. Honestly, we load all these expectations onto losing your virginity; "it should be special", "it should be with someone you love", blah blah. Let's face it, it's usually pretty unspectacular and awkward. These attitudes made sense when we didn't have birth control or protection from STDs but these days they're just a holdover from a time when you didn't want to end up diseased or stuck with a kid you didn't want.


women are cars now?

Sorry, I didn't make my point right. We hadn't worked out the bad sex yet. It was the first year of our marriage that sex went from really bad, so-so, good, then, eventually, really good.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
Seriously what kind of insano would get married to someone without having sex with them first? Would you buy a car with taking for a test drive? I'm not even slightly joking here. And I'm not being sexist either, both partners need to know. Nor am I saying it's the end of the relationship if it doesn't work, but if you're committing to a lifelong relationship, you should go into eyes open.
And as for the whole "fornication is a sin" concept, we need to drop that crap. Unprotected sex is just idiocy, but if two consenting adults want to have casual safe sex, it's up to them. Honestly, we load all these expectations onto losing your virginity; "it should be special", "it should be with someone you love", blah blah. Let's face it, it's usually pretty unspectacular and awkward. These attitudes made sense when we didn't have birth control or protection from STDs but these days they're just a holdover from a time when you didn't want to end up diseased or stuck with a kid you didn't want.

My wife and I had bad sex at the start (Meaning the first year or more.) If we based love on this we'd have been...fucked... Love isn't a test drive Chaos, it is the gasoline. Now? Now we have great, mind-bending sex. It just took a long time to learn each other.

which is exactly why you shouldn't wait 'til marriage. You had an issue, you worked through it and now you're good. But that should be worked out before getting married. Hell, I think you should have to prove you've been going out at least 5 years (and living together for at least 3) before you're allowed to get married. Would reduce the divorce rate.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Seriously what kind of insano would get married to someone without having sex with them first? Would you buy a car with taking for a test drive? I'm not even slightly joking here. And I'm not being sexist either, both partners need to know. Nor am I saying it's the end of the relationship if it doesn't work, but if you're committing to a lifelong relationship, you should go into eyes open.
And as for the whole "fornication is a sin" concept, we need to drop that crap. Unprotected sex is just idiocy, but if two consenting adults want to have casual safe sex, it's up to them. Honestly, we load all these expectations onto losing your virginity; "it should be special", "it should be with someone you love", blah blah. Let's face it, it's usually pretty unspectacular and awkward. These attitudes made sense when we didn't have birth control or protection from STDs but these days they're just a holdover from a time when you didn't want to end up diseased or stuck with a kid you didn't want.

My wife and I had bad sex at the start (Meaning the first year or more.) If we based love on this we'd have been...fucked... Love isn't a test drive Chaos, it is the gasoline. Now? Now we have great, mind-bending sex. It just took a long time to learn each other.


which is exactly why you shouldn't wait 'til marriage. You had an issue, you worked through it and now you're good. But that should be worked out before getting married. Hell, I think you should have to prove you've been going out at least 5 years (and living together for at least 3) before you're allowed to get married. Would reduce the divorce rate.