ribbons

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.

TheBig3

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.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

skaltezon

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

__________________

ribbons

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.

ribbons

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.

skaltezon

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

__________________

Rubato

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.

ThePhanastasio

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.

__________________

• Phish: Studio Discography Reviewed
• 100 Albums I Heartily Recommend
• My last.fm

crash_override

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...

__________________
My MB music journal

TheBig3

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).

__________________
I've moved to a new address