Well, if they really want to be for open marriages, divorce, etc. they should not support a party which is obsessed with this weird family values shit and just own up to the fact that relationships come in all sorts of forms. Newt is SOOO hypocritical in this regard. He should own it! I hate Newt not because he wanted to be poly-amorous or see other people, but because he ditched his wives when they got sick. If you really cared about someone, you would support them through that time. If you couldn't picture yourself standing by them like a true friend through their fight, then why were you married? My friends would be more loyal than that, let alone my significant other. I have no problem with the open-relationships idea, as long as both parties are okay with it. I'd rather know (and like!) the person my partner had interest in, rather than find out that they lied and sneaked around without telling me! That's how people get diseases!
Well, if they really want to be for open marriages, divorce, etc. they should not support a party which is obsessed with this weird family values shit and just own up to the fact that relationships come in all sorts of forms.
But clinging to the doctrine of monogamy and family values is the only thing that lets them feel okay about all the sin. It's okay if they live in lies and sin as long as they can all agree to pretend they are living the dream!
Well, if they really want to be for open marriages, divorce, etc. they should not support a party which is obsessed with this weird family values shit and just own up to the fact that relationships come in all sorts of forms.
But clinging to the doctrine of monogamy and family values is the only thing that lets them feel okay about all the sin. It's okay if they live in lies and sin as long as they can all agree to pretend they are living the dream!
This. There's a weird thing going on here, as far as I can tell. Christians are people, as far as I can tell, so they're complex creatures. While they desire the idealistic view of marriage that they fight for (one man, one woman, forever), at the same time they may not be in the happiest of relationships themselves.
So from a social point of view, I bet they really are able to sympathize with Newt. They may even think that his failings are a strength, since it makes him more of a "real person".
I think Nuri's hit the nail on the head here. Newt is someone that a lot of people can associate with, because he is so blatantly flawed rather than the polished politicians we usually see.
I'm just surprised that people are swallowing his lines about fighting the Republican establishment. Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation brought the question up twice to his panelists this last weekend: Who is the Republican establishment that everyone is talking about? As far as I can tell, Newt embodies it as much (if not more) than anyone else I could point to.
I'm just surprised that people are swallowing his lines about fighting the Republican establishment. Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation brought the question up twice to his panelists this last weekend: Who is the Republican establishment that everyone is talking about? As far as I can tell, Newt embodies it as much (if not more) than anyone else I could point to.
I don't know that they are swallowing it. The problem with that line is that EVERY politician running for national election in the history of Washington has promised change because they are DIFFERENT from the Washington establishment. The line is so overused that it has lost all meaning and no one cares about it anymore. Knowing how Washington politics work, and having leverage there, is not necessarily a bad thing for the President.
I'm just surprised that people are swallowing his lines about fighting the Republican establishment. Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation brought the question up twice to his panelists this last weekend: Who is the Republican establishment that everyone is talking about? As far as I can tell, Newt embodies it as much (if not more) than anyone else I could point to.
I don't know that they are swallowing it. The problem with that line is that EVERY politician running for national election in the history of Washington has promised change because hey are DIFFERENT from the Washington establishment. The line is so overused that it has lost all meaning and no one cares about it anymore. Knowing how Washington politics work, and having leverage there, is not necessarily a bad thing for the President.
You are once again correct, and maybe they're not swallowing it. As you probably know, I don't generally run in many of those circles (people who are voting for Newt/Rick/Mitt). My experience comes from what I hear on NPR, read on various blogs/opinion sites, debate I read on Reddit, and a few other myriad sources. So I'm open to being corrected. I'll have to do some more reading and see if that line is actually being believed by anyone.
Having someone in office who knows how politics works is definitely a good thing, too.
My opinion of Romney as a person improved. Conversely my opinion of the hostess declined.
I need to listen to that episode again but I got the feeling that she was looking for dirt on him and that when the discussion painted Romney in a positive light she wanted to change the subject rather than explore his good points.
It was very recent, maybe last 14 days. It was on Fresh Air.
Give it a listen and let me know your thoughts. I'd also like to listen to an episode where she discusses Obama to see if that same attitude is there.
I'll see if I can dig it up. Usually I don't listen to critique the interviewer's technique or whatever, but simply listen to learn about what I want to read more about. I'll pay closer attention though.
Well, my parents managed to save money while they were employed (they were pretty grossly overpaid for the jobs they were doing, so saved the surplus) so they used that savings to help pay for Cobra.
In my situation, my fiance would probably have to pick up the slack, and we'd cut back on frivolous expenses. Or, if frivolous expenses wouldn't do it, I'd start selling things off. If we still needed more money (which might happen), she could put off repaying some of the student loans until I got another job.
Sometimes you're better off not having insurance. Jeremy was lucky to be an established patient with Virginia Mason to qualify for free care as long as it was medically necessary. As long as he filled out the proper financial forms, he got free care.
Comments
I hate Newt not because he wanted to be poly-amorous or see other people, but because he ditched his wives when they got sick. If you really cared about someone, you would support them through that time. If you couldn't picture yourself standing by them like a true friend through their fight, then why were you married? My friends would be more loyal than that, let alone my significant other. I have no problem with the open-relationships idea, as long as both parties are okay with it. I'd rather know (and like!) the person my partner had interest in, rather than find out that they lied and sneaked around without telling me! That's how people get diseases!
So from a social point of view, I bet they really are able to sympathize with Newt. They may even think that his failings are a strength, since it makes him more of a "real person".
I think Nuri's hit the nail on the head here. Newt is someone that a lot of people can associate with, because he is so blatantly flawed rather than the polished politicians we usually see.
I'm just surprised that people are swallowing his lines about fighting the Republican establishment. Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation brought the question up twice to his panelists this last weekend: Who is the Republican establishment that everyone is talking about? As far as I can tell, Newt embodies it as much (if not more) than anyone else I could point to.
Having someone in office who knows how politics works is definitely a good thing, too.
I need to listen to that episode again but I got the feeling that she was looking for dirt on him and that when the discussion painted Romney in a positive light she wanted to change the subject rather than explore his good points.
Give it a listen and let me know your thoughts. I'd also like to listen to an episode where she discusses Obama to see if that same attitude is there.
NPR Fresh Air - A New Book Examines 'The Real Romney'
Text and audio available on that page.
In my situation, my fiance would probably have to pick up the slack, and we'd cut back on frivolous expenses. Or, if frivolous expenses wouldn't do it, I'd start selling things off. If we still needed more money (which might happen), she could put off repaying some of the student loans until I got another job.
Myself, I'm leaning towards replacing all this with Thunderdome.