Talk:Newt Gingrich

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Let's get a citation for the affair thing. It's publicly acknowledged, but it'll carry more weight if it has one. --John 23:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)


Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians - Myk 02:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I noticed he was categorized under Category: 2008 Presidential candidates. He never officially declared candidacy, therefore he shouldn't be in it. -Additioner 17:39, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Liberal Vs. Conservative

I have removed Mr. Gingrich from the conservative category into that of of detestable liberals, as the front page of Conservapedia has claimed him to no longer be a true conservative, having embraced socialistic views on Medicare. --TeaPartyFreedom76 19:12, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Ethics Charges

Despite what his spokesperson says he was found guilty of ethics violation and had to pay a $300,000 fine. The panel found that he violated Rule 42 many times. The last three charges were dropped, as his spokesman said, in 1998 but not because they were without merit. The committee found that there was no evidence that he was still violating the rule and saw no reason to impose further sanctions.[1][2] I'm going to remove the quote from his spokesperson. Ayzmo :) 14:04, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Issues vs. quotes

I've started a new section, which shows his stand on issues (or at least indicates areas of concern to him). This may contain direct quotations, but it would not be a random collection of quotes. Wikipedia has quote farms, some of which are use for quote mining (like "Bushisms"): Gingrich said this, see how it proves he's a nutcase!

I want our readers to be able to read a straightforward statement of the man's views, not "distortion by selection". See Star Parker for a test case. See also Quotation out of context and Putting words into someone's mouth. --Ed Poor Talk 11:27, 9 January 2012 (EST)


Personal life

Gingrich is an orphan. The fact an orphan rises to the third highest office in the United States and is considered a viable candidate for President would be of more interest than the marital troubles intended as an obvious attack on his character should have precedence, at least in website written from a conservative viewpoint. Rob Smith 19:06, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Ah, so we should give him a by for being an two-time (at least) adulterer. Okay, I give up. Whatever. Whitewash it anyway you want, Rob. --SharonW 19:08, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Gingrich is an orphan, right but that does not give him the right to live a sinful life !--PhilipN 19:09, 22 January 2012 (EST)
John 8:10-11, Where are thine accusers? She said, No man, Lord. "Neither do I condemn thee." [1] Rob Smith 19:15, 22 January 2012 (EST)
I know the bible Rob, but you cannot just get out of everything with it. Would you excuse murder and rape the same way ? --PhilipN 19:19, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Moses was a murderer. So was David. And between them God wrote the Pentateuch and Psalms (incidentally, Hillary cites the Book of Psalms as having inspired her to save her open marriage. As to rape, I'd have to do more bible research (and way off the point, I recently learned from the BBC that Uncle Joe Stalin condoned mass rape funded with Lend Lease dollars from FDR, but that's neither here nor there...) Rob Smith 19:59, 22 January 2012 (EST)
And you are the one who speaks about Last wordism ? Come on, I am sure you understood my point.--PhilipN 20:48, 22 January 2012 (EST)
  • According to Conservapedia, an orphan is a child who has lost both parents and has no one to look after them. I don't see how Newt Gingrich fits this description:
  • A more loose definition would probably cover Obama, too.

AugustO 00:51, 23 January 2012 (EST)

How did CNN obtain sealed documents?

So, the question is now, for SharonW who wishes to insert citations from what are supposed to be sealed documents, (1) How did CNN obtain personal, confidential, and what are supposed to be sealed court documents? (2) The ethical implicationns of CNN publishing what may be illegally obtained personal, confidential, and sealed documents?, and (3) Should Conservapedia be used as a platform to further the agendas of liberal, radical, and unethical mainstrream news organizations such as CNN with the aim to cause personal, emotional, and professional harm to the reptation and career ambitions of people CNN does not like? Rob Smith 01:09, 23 January 2012 (EST)

The files weren't sealed. Here's a quote: "After initially being told that the divorce documents were sealed, CNN on Thursday obtained the folder containing the filings in the divorce, which had been stashed away for years in a Carroll County, Georgia, court clerk's drawer. Retired clerk Kenneth Skinner told CNN his deputy took Gingrich's file out of the public records room around 1994, "when he (Gingrich) became the center of attention," because Skinner feared tampering and theft. [2]. (Emphasis mine).
From what I remember from the 1990s, it was Gingrich who caused the personal and emotional harm to people - his ex-wife and children. He is an adulterer, and I don't think that should be glossed over like you're attempting to do. --SharonW 02:10, 23 January 2012 (EST)
The files were sealed (as all divorce records are). CNN obtained sealed files. Rob Smith 02:35, 23 January 2012 (EST)
So they were removed to avoid tampering and theft and wound being tampered with and stolen. Rob Smith 02:37, 23 January 2012 (EST)
"Alan Lee, the Carroll County Superior and State courts clerk, confirmed the divorce records were never sealed. Finding the original papers, first requested by Bloomberg and then CNN last week, was simply a matter of locating the box of paperwork in the Carroll County records room, not a drawer."[3] Not sealed, and not stolen. Guess you need to find a different theory to use. --SharonW 03:58, 23 January 2012 (EST)
So we have enough evidence to suspect the theft and illegal handling of what should have been sealed documents, their subsequent mishandling and ethical abuses by CNN and other mainstream new sources, is part of what George Steponopalous calls the Clinton's "scorched earth policy", correct? Rob Smith 08:37, 23 January 2012 (EST)
Except, of course, that divorce records are not routinely sealed in many states, INCLUDING GEORGIA.
"Access to divorce records. Available to the general public. The state Vital Records Office will conduct a search to determine the occurrence of a divorce."[4]
One of the involved parties has to request a court order that they be sealed. Really, Rob, it took me about a minute to come up with this information. That's the beauty of public records. --SharonW 12:43, 23 January 2012 (EST)
(a) the Georgia law can tell you the records exist, that is far different from being held for public viewing; (b) how do we know whether or not one party or the other requested they be sealed, being that (1) those posted on CNN's site are incomplete, and (2) the reluctance of both parties to discuss the case openly for 30 years? Rob Smith 14:58, 23 January 2012 (EST)
(c) and the site you posted clearly states the office "cannot issue a record", and only copies of the decree are available, not the actually filings and record. Rob Smith 15:03, 23 January 2012 (EST)
I'm loving watching you twist in the wind to make this into a huge conspiracy. Divorce records are public records, and anyone can view them (and read them and make copies of them) at the courthouse. I do genealogy for a hobby, and review title searches as part of my job, and I see and obtain divorce records fairly regularly. It takes a court order to seal the records, and the order sealing the records will be in the public records for anyone to see and read.
And do you really think the courthouse is going to give you the original record? Of course it's a copy, and it can be certified if you pay for it. "Certified copies of divorce decrees are only available from the Clerk of the Superior Court in the county where the divorce was granted." (see previous link for quote.) A certified copy means it's an exact copy, guaranteed by the issuing agency. --SharonW 15:14, 23 January 2012 (EST)
A Certified copy of the Final Decree is not a copy of the original filings or hearing transcripts. Why don't ask the resident in house attorney, Mr. Shlafly, if divorce records are routinely available for public viewing in most states and courthouses in America? Rob Smith 15:34, 23 January 2012 (EST)
Not a bad idea, but I believe Mr. Schlafly is only licensed to practice law in New Jersey, while we're looking at Georgia law. Furthermore, I don't believe he practices family law, so his expertise would only be very general in a case such as this. I guess his background in law would put him in a good position to research the answers we're looking for, but I wouldn't consider him an expert on a topic this specific. DanE 00:54, 24 January 2012 (EST)
A non lawyer could tell yoou, divorce records are routinely sealed in all 50,000 counties of the US "not to be opened except upon court order". Only certified copies of final decree are available to anyone for a fee. Rob Smith 19:13, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Stop the edit war!

Shouldn't we agree on something instead of keep reverting everything ? My question is why do we hide this gossip whil we keep the gossip on democrats pages ? --PhilipN 22:01, 22 January 2012 (EST)

(ec)Conservapedia articles tone, style, and content should be written with an American, conservative and/or Christian orientation or focus. If you're referring to debates on several other pages about the liberal concept of "open marriage", the Clinton marriage, as accurately cited from numerous sources, fits the definition of "open marriage" on both the sexual and non-sexual planes. In the Gingrich instance, ABC News correspondence, along with other liberal, mainstream, non--conservative and anti-conservative sources and journalists, clearly attack Gingrich's personal life to cause harm and personal suffering. These same journalists and news organizations in the cases the Clinton family and Obama family have repeated stated a candidates personal life, and that of their families and children, are off limits and out of bounds. Rob Smith 22:15, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Because liberals. ScottDG 22:08, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Gingrich publicly acknowledges having affairs with his second and third wives. That's not gossip. There are many rumors, and have been for years, about other Gingrich adulterous affairs, but those weren't added to the article because those are gossip. The rumors about Gingrich serving divorce papers to the hospital to his "dying" wife" are also rumors and have not been added. What has been added has been cited, and in many cases have court records to back them up. --SharonW 22:12, 22 January 2012 (EST)

None of that material was reverted; the contrast with William Jefferson Clinton who publicly lied and misprisoned a felony, encouraging others to perjure themselves, has remained. Rob Smith 22:19, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Why not to add a section about Morality

That would include the fact that he is an unfaithful overweight man ? You know, the same kind of important information that is given for PZ Myers or Peter Singer.--PhilipN 15:33, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Good point. But I think Gingrich has confessed to his love of donuts. How this translates to morality, I'm not sure. But donut eating is consumer stimulus spending, and thus creates jobs, nes pas? Rob Smith 15:44, 23 January 2012 (EST)
Do you mean: n'est-ce pas? --FrederickT3 16:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Orphan and third wife?

I tried to do a little research and from the sources I found it seems Newt was raised by his biological mother who had remarried?

Also recent edits seem to make it seem like he is still married to his second wife "Gingrich married Ginther in 1981. The couple separated in 1988, and reconciled in 1994." while removing the part of him and his aide. I'm not trying to berate the man, we are all sinners, granted some worse then others, but as a Christian Conservative I need a man who can protect marriage, and I suspect others agree. We have to be a trustworthy source for people to get to know their candidates and their values on marriage and religion. --KenN 16:54, 23 January 2012 (EST)

I think you're right. 'Abandoned' seems more accurate than 'orphaned'. And the other sentenced should read something like "...reconciled in 1994 but were divorced in 1999 (or whatever year)". Any proposals on language? Rob Smith 16:26, 24 January 2012 (EST)
Also, can we put the year his marriage to Callista began(2000) to the info box? Ayzmo :) 18:16, 24 January 2012 (EST)