Newt Gingrich called for the impeachment of Clinton at the same time he was conducting an affair with his current third wife while married to his second wife. He cheated on his first wife as well, with the woman who became his second wife (so she is hardly one to talk, as she did recently with ABC). He is a hypocrite, as are the Evangelicals who voted for him in droves in South Carolina.

I don't know if I'd call them Evangelicals. South Carolina is its own breed of person. The sons and daughters of Lee Atwater. They only love Jesus so they can hate other people. They're far different from your Evangelical in Iowa which is why Santorum ranked 3rd.

Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice -- not infidelity.

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps, in South Carolina, these "Evangelicals" could be more accurately termed Fundamentalists -- who are more inclined toward an aggressive personality like Gingrich.

That is correct. And Clinton bears the responsibility for that and I do not excuse him in any way. However, Gingrich led the charge against Clinton while vociferously upholding "Family Values" and committing the same indiscretions himself. It makes me wonder how the man could sleep at night.

Agreed. And now calling wife #2 a liar while complaining that his own "family values" shouldn't be discussed in the presidential debates.

Have a look around your local community and tell me what's needed, chances are you already have a decent selection of your usual Commodities so opening shop is always going to be a risk, a risk not many people can afford to take. If you give people social security then at the very least they won't starve if things go belly up, it allows most people to take that plunge rather than just those who already have a respectable portion of the countries wealth. Does this not help capitalism? is it worth cutting down the safety net just because you feel some are using it as a hammock? you don't need the fear of starving to death to motivate people, if you went out and done a survey you'd find unemployment and living on the breadline is more than enough.

I live in a very poor region of the country, so I can personally say that a lot of the people who are unemployed aren't just getting benefits to suck on the government's teat.

The early years of my life were extremely rough, and I grew up in a household that was living paycheck to paycheck - literally. Occasionally, my parents would even have to sell their belongings just to make sure we had enough money to get clothing and living essentials (rent, electric & water, toilet paper / soap / etc., car insurance & gas) and it wasn't until I was 10 and my dad went back to the military that I knew what it was like to have some extra things for entertainment.

My parents, though, were constantly working. They got the best jobs they could get with high school diplomas, and it still wasn't quite enough to raise (at the time) two small children.

When my parents were my age, they had a child already in school (me).

If you don't think that there are reasonable circumstances for people to require government assistance, in spite of their efforts, come to eastern KY and see what's up.

The rest of the country has only felt this economic issue for a few decades at most; Appalachia has never really recovered from the Great Depression.

He got the liberals excited but never had a chance to win the general. He had zero swing vote potential. Newt Gingrich is the same, a cardboard candidate, he has no chance to beat Obama. Just like Kerry, when we desperately NEEDED the incumbent out. If you ask me, we're still feeling the negative effects from that 2004 re-election.

I personally think Romney and Paul are the only candidates with a chance to win it all... and even Romney's win would be for all the wrong reasons. I think we should just start to prepare for another 4 years of Obama...

I agree with you about the negative effects from 2004. However, Kerry would have won had it not been for the Swift Boat clowns. I'm not going to complain, Kerry should have come out early and stomped them. So its his fault he lost. But he was the reasonable person on foreign policy and had a lot of potential. He's a miserable campaigner for the Mid-West though. Up here, I think people demand you have something more than talking points, and take resentment to those who don't. But I don't think most people want that Nationwide.

I don't think Obama is nearly as bad as everyone makes him out to be. Most of what he's failed at has been largely due to Congress, and what Congress hasn't been involved in he's been very successful (mostly foreign policy).

And this is probably the majority of people who are on government assistance. Its called the working poor. Its the biggest tragedy a 1st world government can allow. Its essentially systemic apathy allowing starvation. When Kennedy campaigned in WV in 1960 he talked about children taking their school lunch home to feed the family.

We've got more food and land to grow food on in this country than you could imagine. Yet we use it so poorly that you'd never know it. Its a god damn shame and I wish anyone would talk about it for a change.

That's hardly an excuse. The Democrats had majority in both Houses the first two years of his presidency, and he still didn't close Gitmo, nor revert Bush's enormous tax cuts for the rich. He needs to grow some ****ing balls and actually do the things he promised he would.

Well the tax cuts would have expired if the republicans didn't hold hostage the unemployment funding.

As for Gitmo, where do you propose he move those prisoners to? I'm less concerned about Gitmo when we have an administration who knows what torture means.

Also, my apologies for the aggressive nature of my next sentence. I don't know what Republican, THAT CAN GET ELECTED, is going to close Gitmo or maintain the same position on "enhanced interrogation." I can't even imagine the logic behind hating a President who'd done 85% of what he said he would do despite massive blockades, because 1 thing, which had logistical complications.

If you are mad at Obama because he didn't commit to 100% of what he wanted to do, vote for ****ing Santa Clause in 2012 because no one else is going to give you what you want. Its the most illogical, infantile rebuke of a politician you could make, and it highlights a wildly naive understanding of how the American political system works. If you consider yourself a man of the left, you ought to be ashamed to have come out on that position.

I will never trust a Republican as president.

After New Hampshire and Iowa, it was looking like Paul was the only one who could challange Romney. But now Gingrich has won South Carolina and is polling in first in Florida. Paul s currently in last in the Flordia polls. It saddnes me to say that it looks like Mr. Paul is done for.

Look up the legitimate powers of the president, you would be surprised at how little the president can really do in terms of legislation.

Santorum To Rape Victims: 'Make The Best Out Of A Bad Situation' | ThinkProgress

Fuck everything about this man.

I feel like if a child was born out of rape, the parent whom was raped wouldn't be able to care for the child due to extreme emotional (and maybe physical) trauma (one of the many arguments). It seems awful selfish to sacrifice innocent people all in the name of your stubborn beliefs. Abortion is one of those gray zones in politics. You can't just label abortion as either "wrong" or "right" without first looking at the circumstances, even then it's all down to morals and one's perspective.

It is indeed sad to see good comedy die.

Now where will Charlie Sheen and Gary Busey get their justified governmental representation?

:laughing:

I don't even know where to start with this.

Don't start at all because you'll make yourself look even more idiotic than you already are.

Hmmm... personal insults strike me as a pretty bad idea.

;)

Did he just delete those? Duuuuuuuuude

Delete what?

Really? Also, what exactly is wrong with being gay? Why are you insinuating it's some kind of flaw? As far as I know neither Janszoon and Pedestrian are gay, and if they were what difference does it make?!

For the record, and I can't speak for anyone else here, but my negative opinions about Ron Paul are not "spoken out of ignorance". They are a product of listening to and reading Ron Paul's own statements about his positions.

LIES






nothing but lies...

It's okay, I quoted him in my reply anyway so it's not like he can hide his comments by going back and deleting them.

lol

I support gays. And that's one reason I support Ron Paul. The other candidates want to make an amendment to the constitution that says marriage is strictly between a man and woman.

My comments were strictly between Janszoon and I, just had to vent a little. Can't stand the guy.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx...d2s4o1_500.jpg
oh...

of course you wouldn't, you big gay idiot.

Ron Paul only opposes DOMA because he's anti-federal government. He would have no problem with with individual states banning gay marriage.

Yes, he personally doesn't agree with gay marriage. But if he were president, he would allow states to vote for it themselves. Can't say the same about the other candidates. Gay marriage is up to the states. If a state wanted to legalize gay marriage, then he would allow that.

Its a Civil Liberty. Its in the Constitution that it should be legal. How are you ok with States banning it? That's in direct contrast.

No they weren't. One of them was specifically directed at frownland and the bulk of your comments were directed at "everybody who doesn't like Ron Paul".

And that makes him gay-friendly how exactly?

But I mostly had you in mind when I said it.

It makes him more lenient towards gay marriage than the other candidates. Santorum thinks that a child with a father in prison would be better off than a child who was has gay parents.

You mostly had me in mind when you referred to comments made by other people? That's odd.

Not really. It just means he thinks the states should block gay marriage instead of the fed.

What's your point? The fact that Santorum sucks doesn't magically make me like Ron Paul.