Discussion in 'Current Events' started by theunbubba, Jan 19, 2012.
Relax, it's not like the illegitimate bastard is human.
It's really sickening on that count. I wonder what they will try to use on Santorum when he takes this thing.
Gingrich will face trouble in the south as many southerners consider cheating extremely serious, while in the northern states I doubt it will be such a big deal.
My response is here.
Santorum NOT Gingrich.
The people of South Carolina have a very special task. Will they confirm a moderate Massachusetts RINO or make a choice for a conservative in the flesh. If they seek a conservative they will pick Rick Santorum.
the problem is simple. Do you pick a man who lost one election by standing on principles, or a man who lost a speakership from sheer arrogance?
Rick Perry is no longer a real consideration. He's shot himself in the foot too much. Santorum has not. He just doesn't have the money to run a bigtime campaign. But he will if he makes the mark as the conservative alternative to Romney. Consider the problem from another angle. What do these people stand for? Newt Gingrich believes in manmade Global Warming.
Santorum does not.
Gingrich has toured with Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.
Santorum has not.
Gingrich has called himself a moderate and a libertarian progressive to triangulate on power.
Rick Santorum lost an election to stand on conservative principle, to Robert P. Casey jr. This was during the liberal democrat landslide of 2006 when the Republican party had lost it's way and took Santorum with it.
Gingrich has been in bed with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Santorum tried to shut them down.
Gingrich backed Scozzafava for NY 23 against a real conservative named Doug Hoffman.
Santorum has tirelessly worked to elect real conservatives. He doesn't waver.
Newt Gingrich is unstable and uninformed.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k8Te0NxhJ4&feature=related"]Why Newt Gingrich is Unfit to be President - YouTube[/ame]
PS. Why would you believe conservative loyalty from a man who cheated on his wife? Do you think he would keep those promises ?
Here's a little tidbit people aren't noticing. Santorum has won Iowa's delegates. Romney has New Hampshire's. They thought Gingrich was overtaking Romney in South Carolina. Now since Romney has dropped down, and Gingrich has hit a snag, who they will look at? Santorum. He could take control as a surprise in this primary. Two states would be almost all it takes for Rick Santorum to shove Gingrich into the background. It would certainly make the donations flow.
Perry made his endorsement in a windstorm. Nobody is going to listen. Michele Bachmann is backing the wrong guy.
Who do you think Ron Paul would pick between the three? Or would he just drop out without an endorsement?
Actually I find him a great vehicle to take Mitt Romney down to clear the way for Santorum.
Oh no he still makes great debate points. People hate the leftist media for covering up for people like "The Breck Girl" John Edwards but come after republicans with a vengeance for exactly the same thing. Didn't Edwards cheat on and divorce a dying wife?
It took the National Enquirer to bring it to light. ABC sat on the story that they had for months.
Tell me there is no media bias. I will laugh you off these boards.
watching the debate, I would say you are correct.
Santorum SHOULD be the front runner if Republicans were honest with themselves.
He ripped the health care question hands down but Romney and Newt supporters really don't care.
I don't understand the logic in it.
Made a rule for card companies to dumb down their billing statements, how does this help the job market?
What does freezing pay on staffers have to do with getting people back to work?
Oh, that department that stopped 1000 people in SC from starting work with Boeing? Great.
Being wrong seems to come easy to you.
I like both candidates but honestly Santorum is being eclipsed by Gingrich.
Rick looks like a dim nightlight next to the Newt searchlight in the sky.
Ron Paul should just drop out right now. His pro-Iran stance isn't going to win him any votes in the patriotic American sector. Those murdering bastards took Americans hostage in 1979 and supported Shia militants who sent suicide bombers to destroy the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Ron Paul is scum in my book. Every time that crotchety old bastard speaks, I want to punch him in the face through my TV.
IRT the OP:
I don't think she has anything to say that hasn't been said already. I don't picture this hurting Newt much if at all.
You will come out against protecting the consumer, controlling federal spending and protecting workers from workplace abuse in an effort to discredit your political enemy.
It won't matter what I highlight, you will be against it by default. I am sure you have come up with a reason that the elimination of the Somali pirates at the hands of Seal snipers and the removal of Bin Laden from the field are evil liberal conspiracies, too.
There should be plenty on that list that we agree on, but you feel like that would represent weakness.
This ideological partisanship is exactly the problem with the system.
No, I hate nanny states, faux spending cuts, and lies about workplace abuse. Making rules for things that aren't going on isnt something that helps the economy.
Please, continue with the strawmen arguments, you are funny.
Keep trying, maybe we will hit something he has done that has stopped the democrats from screwing up the system even more...
You blinders that make you think Obama cutting $100 while spending $1million is what is wrong with the country. You have no idea the harm he has done, and will do IF he is a lame duck president.
You prefer corporate abuses of the consumer? Cool, stand up for that.
Real freezes on fed paychecks are faux in what way? What is your objection to it, other than just calling it false with no back up?
Why would you assume that the thousands of cases that are backed up right now are all false? Why are you essentially blindly supporting anything that companies want to do, regardless of how unseemly?
Don't you see you have programmed yourself to simply react, and not investigate? How could a reasonable person be against these things? Your positions are on autopilot from a knee jerk need to discredit the president at all costs.
I'm not going on with this, because you will discredit anything he does whether you can defend it or not. It isn't his policies you object to, it is him.
Really? She looks like she just crawled out from under a bridge. Newt says she's lying. I believe him over her any day.
As far as Newt being negatively effected by the garbage this crazy is claiming Newt is actually going to profit from it. OPPS! Did I use the word "profit" in front of a bunch of Obamasocialists? My bad.
Santorum is a joke. I haven't been able to take him seriously since the Republican party elite pushed him and Pete Hoekstra onto the legislative floor with "evidence" of WMD with old, degraded mustard gas shells that were left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Gingrich, while popular with the party, is utterly unelectable in a national general election. Romney is a a snake oil selling uber wealthy (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) that smiles while he lays people off, or at least that's the impression I get. He's the Republican version of John Kerry.
I don't think Paul is dropping out, and I think if he loses the primary he'll run or endorse third party. The Republican party establishment doesn't truly represent the conservative values that they pretend to promote. I'd accept another 4 years of Obama if it means the establishmnet of a legitimate conservative party that supports the limited government ideals the Ron Paul supports.
The ones Saddam had tried to hide from inspectors, undeclared. The ones that had he been able to store properly would be just as deadly as they were during the Iran-Iraq war. You do know we have just finished destroying some of our own chemical WMD from the 50's. They were just as deadly when we destroyed them as back in the 50's.
The ones that were absolutely not evidence of ongoing, pre-invasion WMD programs, not evidence of any threat from Iraq, and didn't provide any justification for invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was an absolute joke that they were even mentioned at all, but the rabid Republican partisans were so desperate for any indication that their leaders didn't simply lie to them they were willing to fall all over themselves making the same idiotic claims you are now as if that makes them anything more than rusted out and degraded weapons that at worst might give you a little rash.
I'm not trying to turn this thread into a thread about the lack of WMD in Iraq, but by now everyone knows there weren't any, and Tgose that are honest with themselves will see the charade Santorum was a part of as a disingenuous attempt to fool the sheep.
The ones that were hidden from inspectors, part of the WMD that were cataloged by UNSCOM much of which were never accounted for.
Why do you assert that because they existed during the Iraq/Iran war that makes them OK?
It was an absolute joke to ignore them along with the NEW chemical weapons shells we found hidden and the precursor chemicals, deadly enough in their found status, he had hidden so that he could within weeks begin producing new even more deadly WMD once the sanctions were lifted and inspections ended.
He didn't need to "have any" he could and would have produced newer and more deadly one.
You seem to forget that the official policy of the United States that Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power originated during the Clinton administration.
Is this thread still about Newt asking his ex wife for an open marriage?
No, I don't forget anythin and I don't support Clinton any more than I support Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or Obama. Thats irrelevant, tough, and an illogical argument that only lends itself to portraying your overtly partisan position and your desire to present Republicans in the best light rather than the truth.
My position is based on truth, not a partisan agenda, like yours. The truth is that Santorum is a joke, just like his degraded mustard gas shells were a joke of an example of WMD's that were a threat justifying invasion and occupation.
Nah, I think we already established that the GOP backers of Newt don't care how hypocritical he is, they believe he has changed without any proof and are willing to risk allowing a GOP progressive who wants to emulate FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and Teddy R to be in charge to get the country back rolling again. Just hopefully they don't end up locked up since Newt would have the NDAA as justification to do the same as his heroes did in the past.
...only trashing one side is supporting the other...
No it isn't. Now that Newt has flat out denied that pathetic woman's claim and in the process showed once again what a bunch of pigs the LIB media are this thread must be highjacked at once! by the usual LIB Obama 'sheepels'.
"Quick Todd hand me the lap top! Those mean REPs are being 'mean' to us again so I've got to do everything I can to deflect the forum members away from the facts!".
Separate names with a comma.