Newt Gingrich

[Guest]

I saw him speak at Lake Sumter Landing a while back. That was long before he declared he was running for President, so only a small group of people showed up to see him. Being that it was a hot day, he took off his suit jacket and I was surprised to see how much weight he was carrying; he had a huge waistline! Now, in the debates, he keeps his jacket on and that hides a lot. But the weight it's still there!

I wouldn't be surprised if he's taking high blood pressure medication, a cholesterol medication and who knows what else. If he keeps eating the way he's eating (lots of fast food while he's campaigning on the road) and becomes our president, he may only last one term (considering the amount stress that comes with the office of President).

People who don't take care of themselves age faster. That being the case, I would put him at around 75 years old, although, I don't know his actual age. All I know is that, physically, he's a lot older than his years.

If he becomes President, it might be a good idea to set up a special room in the White House in case he needs emergency bypass surgery.

Other than that, I think he would make a great President.

:wave:

[Guest]

I saw him speak at Lake Sumter Landing a while back. That was long before he declared he was running for President, so only a small group of people showed up to see him. Being that it was a hot day, he took off his suit jacket and I was surprised to see how much weight he was carrying; he had a huge waistline! Now, in the debates, he keeps his jacket on and that hides a lot. But the weight it's still there!

I wouldn't be surprised if he's taking high blood pressure medication, a cholesterol medication and who knows what else. If he keeps eating the way he's eating (lots of fast food while he's campaigning on the road) and becomes our president, he may only last one term (considering the amount stress that comes with the office of President).

People who don't take care of themselves age faster. That being the case, I would put him at around 75 years old, although, I don't know his actual age. All I know is that, physically, he's a lot older than his years.

If he becomes President, it might be a good idea to set up a special room in the White House in case he needs emergency bypass surgery.

Other than that, I think he would make a great President.

:wave:

Maybe this belongs in the medical forum?:a20:

[Guest]

Maybe this belongs in the medical forum?:a20:

Thanks! I might give it a try. :wave:

[Guest]

Maybe this belongs in the medical forum?:a20:

Wouldn't he have to have a heart in order to have a heart attack? People with a heart don't leave their dying wife.

[Guest]

Newt will have a hard time carrying all the baggage he has while campaigning for the GOP nomination. Sometimes I wonder how someone who has so many examples of failures of integrity and character, and who politically says whatever he thinks the public wants to hear--while he simply goes off and does the opposite--can be a legitimate candidate? If some candidates are accused of flip-flopping, Newt leads the list. He's taken opposite positions on questions in the same day! He must think that no one is paying attention.

Who in the world would vote for such a man? Yet in recent polls he's up there among the GOP front runners. The other front runners have as much baggage as Newt, but are nowhwere near as smart or politically experienced.

Amazing! I'm still hopeful that as this primary campaign begins to wind down to taking actual votes that count, that the public will come to its senses and begin to demand debate between the only two candidates who have the experience, character and most importantly, the ability to beat Barack Obama. I'm hoping anyway.

[Guest]

People with a heart don't allow anyone to die if they can at all help it!

[Guest]

I'm looking for a candidate that I can put my trust in. That's a chore. I need a candidate that can prevail in the 2012 election and replace the current administration. I've never voted party lines. So far the options are limited and I've given Newt a look. The current picture of him is still fuzzy, the rear view not so much.

[Guest]

The attacks, whether valid or invalidas respect professional qualifications. on a presidential candidate will increase or decrease depending on their polling numbers. Bottom line is what candidate can lead us out of the domestic and foreign policy mess were in

[Guest]

The attacks, whether valid or invalidas respect professional qualifications. on a presidential candidate will increase or decrease depending on their polling numbers. Bottom line is what candidate can lead us out of the domestic and foreign policy mess were in

That is true, but it seems to me that every administration has been horrible for the past 20 years...different faces, same old BS.

[Guest]

Wouldn't he have to have a heart in order to have a heart attack? People with a heart don't leave their dying wife.

Will you give us a break. The domestic life of candidates do not seem to matter if they are democrats. The biggest scumbags domestically and historically have been Democrats, and they have the nerve to preach down to Newt. Really.

[Guest]

Will you give us a break. The domestic life of candidates do not seem to matter if they are democrats. The biggest scumbags domestically and historically have been Democrats, and they have the nerve to preach down to Newt. Really.

Maybe we should list the scumbags one by one, name for name. Tit for tat....
Newtie is dispicable all on this own. One has nothing to do with the other.

Did you forget the ethical violations that cost him a fortune, or should I say, cost Dole a fortune since he paid them for the Newtie? Maybe he got paid back. The congress rarely imposes such huge fines...but they did for the Newt. The Newt resigned because he knew it was going to come out that his behavior (he was having an affair) was just as bad as Clintons when the impeachment hearings started. And that is the truth, and you know it.

[Guest]

Maybe we should list the scumbags one by one, name for name. Tit for tat....
Newtie is dispicable all on this own. One has nothing to do with the other.

Did you forget the ethical violations that cost him a fortune, or should I say, cost Dole a fortune since he paid them for the Newtie? Maybe he got paid back. The congress rarely imposes such huge fines...but they did for the Newt. The Newt resigned because he knew it was going to come out that his behavior (he was having an affair) was just as bad as Clintons when the impeachment hearings started. And that is the truth, and you know it.
Comparing the morality of Dems compared to repubs is ridiculous. JFK invented the blueprint of treating woman as dirt. John Edwards and so many democrats that I will have to google to verify. Newt is a good man that will set this country straight. You democrats always say that it doesn't matter of personal deficiencies as long as the policies are stable. Are you not hypocrites now?

[Guest]

I hope that Neuter at least had the decency to pay Dole back out of that $1.6 million dollars he got paid from Freddir Mac - for ... ahem.... get this ..."consulting"....

Talk about scumbags !!!!!!! Neuter is at the top of the list ...

[Guest]

Such an uninformed post would not dignify a response.

Did you read the paper this morning about Newtie admitting he got more then $30,000 from Freddie?????????

[Guest]

:icon_bored: Are you calling Harry Truman a scumbag?:p

[Guest]

Yea, maybe your right, I edited it. But there is many posts here that crosses the line and if you can dish it out, one must expect to take it.

I know, it's been a tough couple of years. Folks are frustrated on all sides. Thank goodness though when things get really bad or we get attacked by non-Americans, you can bet that we all stick together.

[Guest]

Ladydoc--- Newt's ex-wife is alive and well. She was in the hospital to have a benign tumor removed. The divorce, which she asked for, was already in the works. This info comes from their daughter.

[Guest]

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/08/gingrich_divorce_hospital_cancer/

[Guest]

Jon Stewart had an interesting "Moment of Zen" last night.

He showed a clip, dated October 8, 2008, of Newt Gingrich saying "Senator Obama, will you return all the money you received from Freddie and Fannie?"

[Guest]

Jon Stewart had an interesting "Moment of Zen" last night.

He showed a clip, dated October 8, 2008, of Newt Gingrich saying "Senator Obama, will you return all the money you received from Freddie and Fannie?"

Funny...I can't wait to see how this is going to be twisted into Newtie being "a good man."

[Guest]

I know, it's been a tough couple of years. Folks are frustrated on all sides. Thank goodness though when things get really bad or we get attacked by non-Americans, you can bet that we all stick together.

It has been a tough couple of years and as election season approaches, it will get worse and worse. The campaign cycle is going to be vicious, on both sides. Nothing will be sacred...religion included. If Romney is up, the Morman faith will be on trial, if it is Newt, every terrible and unethical thing he ever did will be fodder. Unfortunately, it will be Obama up and the whole citizen thing will be tossed around again as well as his "real" religion. The lossers in all of this is us, the people all these politicians are supposed to be working for.

I hate election season because I can not stand the talking heads who will NOT let someone of another party get a word in edgewise. They talk over each other all the time. The debates, which are the only things I pay any attention to, are not that great either. Why can't the moderators say ANSWER THE QUESTION or I am going to cut off your mike? They never answer the questions. They don't care what question they are asked....the say what they want to say and what they want to say is repetitive and predictable.

[Guest]

It has been a tough couple of years and as election season approaches, it will get worse and worse. The campaign cycle is going to be vicious, on both sides. Nothing will be sacred...religion included. If Romney is up, the Morman faith will be on trial, if it is Newt, every terrible and unethical thing he ever did will be fodder. Unfortunately, it will be Obama up and the whole citizen thing will be tossed around again as well as his "real" religion. The lossers in all of this is us, the people all these politicians are supposed to be working for.

I hate election season because I can not stand the talking heads who will NOT let someone of another party get a word in edgewise. They talk over each other all the time. The debates, which are the only things I pay any attention to, are not that great either. Why can't the moderators say ANSWER THE QUESTION or I am going to cut off your mike? They never answer the questions. They don't care what question they are asked....the say what they want to say and what they want to say is repetitive and predictable.

I get my news from the AP and not the spin of cable or networks. Debates I watch in this primary season and waiting for the general election debates. Newt and the President should be good debates IMHO.

[Guest]

It has been a tough couple of years and as election season approaches, it will get worse and worse. The campaign cycle is going to be vicious, on both sides. Nothing will be sacred...religion included. If Romney is up, the Morman faith will be on trial, if it is Newt, every terrible and unethical thing he ever did will be fodder. Unfortunately, it will be Obama up and the whole citizen thing will be tossed around again as well as his "real" religion. The lossers in all of this is us, the people all these politicians are supposed to be working for.

I hate election season because I can not stand the talking heads who will NOT let someone of another party get a word in edgewise. They talk over each other all the time. The debates, which are the only things I pay any attention to, are not that great either. Why can't the moderators say ANSWER THE QUESTION or I am going to cut off your mike? They never answer the questions. They don't care what question they are asked....the say what they want to say and what they want to say is repetitive and predictable. __________________


I agree with every syllable you have written here. I was just sitting around thinking every time I lean toward someone I get the full anal exam report about what a terrible person they are.
I wonder if we need to set up a little world where we raise a new leader sorta like the moive "The Truman Show". That way we know every little thing about them so we get the real staory about them instead of the spin from either side.
That can't go wrong!!!:loco:

[Guest]

I agree with every syllable you have written here. I was just sitting around thinking every time I lean toward someone I get the full anal exam report about what a terrible person they are.
I wonder if we need to set up a little world where we raise a new leader sorta like the moive "The Truman Show". That way we know every little thing about them so we get the real staory about them instead of the spin from either side.
That can't go wrong!!!:loco:

Well, thank you. Nice to read a rational post.:wave:

Raising politicians under glass...now there is an interesting idea. Did you see that movie that was out a year or two ago about the kids who were born and breed to be organ donors? I can not remember the name, but I do remember that Michelle Williams was in it.

All I want in a politician is someone who tells the truth regards of party line and has the strength of character to admit to their shortcomings instead of spinning them ad naseum. Being able to change their position on an issue after new information was introduced would be a really nice bonus as well. I don't understand why changing your mind after learning something new is seen as a bad thing.

[Guest]

Personally, I think Herman Cain's still unproven allegations of sexual harassment pale in comparison to the known dealings of Gingerich and the loathing far right wingers have for Romneycare.

In fact, Cain NOT being a career politician nor Washington Insider has been his main appeal all along.

[Guest]

Perhaps the times for the likes of a Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan are past us?
Perhaps the media mudrakers and /or political pundits have become expert in hyberbole effectively creating a mountain out of a mole hill?

Perhaps there really never was a pure candidate but the media and political pundits strongly believed that for the sake of the country they had to take the high road and focus on the nation's troubles and comparing the skills of candidates learning which in their opinion possess the best to resolve our problems?

Perhaps the /american people have become so exposed to a "Hollywood reality mentaility" that we no longer recognize what is required to maintain a civil society?

For those opposed to Newt Gingrich, you will savor Ann coulter's column in Sunday"s Daily Sun.

For those of you opposed to Sarah Palin you would be proud of the article she wrote which was published in today's (11/18) pertaining to the immumity congress has from insiderer trading which enriches them all. Palin demands that the Freedom of Information Act, conflict of interest laws, etc be mndated to apply to Congress. Her article is classic Palin and the reason I wish she was elected to a federal office. She is a doer. But again she too faced the media which ground her up like hamburger. What person in his/her right mind would place themselves at the mercy of these jackals.?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;419607]For those opposed to Newt Gingrich, you will savor Ann coulter's column in Sunday"s Daily Sun.
QUOTE]

The only way I would savor ann coulter is with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

[Guest]

Perhaps the times for the likes of a Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan are past us?
Perhaps the media mudrakers and /or political pundits have become expert in hyberbole effectively creating a mountain out of a mole hill?

Perhaps there really never was a pure candidate but the media and political pundits strongly believed that for the sake of the country they had to take the high road and focus on the nation's troubles and comparing the skills of candidates learning which in their opinion possess the best to resolve our problems?

Perhaps the /american people have become so exposed to a "Hollywood reality mentaility" that we no longer recognize what is required to maintain a civil society?

...... She is a doer. But again she too faced the media which ground her up like hamburger. What person in his/her right mind would place themselves at the mercy of these jackals.?

All of the above.

An example of how the media and Hollywood have distorted the lens thru which we see candidates is Tina Fey's portrayal of Palin on SNL. At first it was fun, because Fey is such a good impersonator and actor. But then, we started seeing that real voters actually thought Palin WAS the moronic caricature that Fey created by repeating, "I can see Russia from my house!". Then real voters started believing Palin doesn't read books or newspapers because she refused to dignify with a response, the condescending, belittling question by Katie Couric, PhD in who-knows-what.

I think really, in a lot of cases, people are voting for the caricature they have seen in brief blips by the media instead of for the person they've watched performing their duties on the job for a long time or in town hall meetings where they can speak without a pundit "moderator" cutting them off after 30 seconds and right when they start the substantive answer.

[Guest]

Please try to address the topic at hand ... the candidacy and campaign of Newt Gingrich.

There were many personal attack posts in this thread that have now been deleted.

Remember... address the post and not the post-er.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;419607]For those opposed to Newt Gingrich, you will savor Ann coulter's column in Sunday"s Daily Sun.
QUOTE]

The only way I would savor ann coulter is with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Ann Coulter is probably one of the most intelligent women in the media, bar none. Perhaps she threatens the masculinity of some liberals and left-leaning media? She must ring alot of truth or she would be ignored.

[Guest]

[quote=eweissenbach;419612]

Ann Coulter is probably one of the most intelligent women in the media, bar none. Perhaps she threatens the masculinity of some liberals and left-leaning media? She must ring alot of truth or she would be ignored.

loveithere: I happen to agree with you. I also believe that Sarah Palin is both ethical and moral. In the past employees have come to me complaining about another employee. My advice to them was to address ow their complaint affected the division, company etc rather than making a personal attack on said employee. By this suggestion we reached the how and why we should address the issue. I apply that same technique in my personal life. If a politician, store employee, etc annoys me i ask myself how does that person' behavior affect the country, the store, etc. It may seem simplistic to some but to me it helps remove any prejudices and or biases that creep in keeping issue factual

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Loveithere;

Ann Coulter is probably one of the most intelligent women in the media, bar none. Perhaps she threatens the masculinity of some liberals and left-leaning media? She must ring alot of truth or she would be ignored.[/QUOTE]

First I am not a liberal or left-leaning media, I am an independent voter and one of millions who will determine the upcoming election. Ann Coulter is intelligent, but she is spewer of venom second to none. If you get your news or form opinions based on her writings, you are hopelessly mired in the one-sided right wing ideology that threatens to ruin this country. For balance I would say the same for Keith Olberman on the left. I would suggest you try having an open mind and asking yourself what is really best for the mainstream in this country. The political discourse is so divisive and polarized that it is turning off people who seek solutions instead of rigid ideology and ad hominem attacks. The take no prisoners approach of both the tea party, and the occupy wall-streeters will neither lead to solutions nor electable, effective leaders. By the way the "left-leaning media" is largely a figment of the imagination of right wingers to use as an excuse to denigrate any legitimate criticism of their ideology or their figureheads. The media (not including Fox or MSNBC, both of which are spokespersons for their point of view) is largely simply looking for a story and will gladly skewer any politition on either end of the spectrum if it makes good copy.

[Guest]

First I am not a liberal or left-leaning media, I am an independent voter and one of millions who will determine the upcoming election. Ann Coulter is intelligent, but she is spewer of venom second to none. If you get your news or form opinions based on her writings, you are hopelessly mired in the one-sided right wing ideology that threatens to ruin this country. For balance I would say the same for Keith Olberman on the left. I would suggest you try having an open mind and asking yourself what is really best for the mainstream in this country. The political discourse is so divisive and polarized that it is turning off people who seek solutions instead of rigid ideology and ad hominem attacks. The take no prisoners approach of both the tea party, and the occupy wall-streeters will neither lead to solutions nor electable, effective leaders. By the way the "left-leaning media" is largely a figment of the imagination of right wingers to use as an excuse to denigrate any legitimate criticism of their ideology or their figureheads. The media (not including Fox or MSNBC, both of which are spokespersons for their point of view) is largely simply looking for a story and will gladly skewer any politition on either end of the spectrum if it makes good copy.

It is the main problem of today that people do not see what the mainstream media is really about. The New York Times, where most media take their cue, is admittedly left leaning. Have you ever read their editorials. Come on. The Times have been accused of giving our enemies top secrets. They actually employ only one conservative opinion journalist.
As some here like to pigeon hole people, the days of only watching television and newspapers to receive information are over. I rarely watch news on TV and visit many news sites online. And I monitor both sides of the debate as I like to see what the other side is up to.
Maybe some are in denial about the left-leaning media as they have been brainwashed over many years and cannot see the forest from the trees anymore. I suggest that you mainstream addicts venture out from your comfortable recliners and read a little more from the vast amount of resources available.

Try to dig deeper and stay from your comfortable beliefs. You might be surprised at how your being mislead.

[Guest]

It is the main problem of today that people do not see what the mainstream media is really about. The New York Times, where most media take their cue, is admittedly left leaning. Have you ever read their editorials. Come on. The Times have been accused of giving our enemies top secrets. They actually employ only one conservative opinion journalist.
As some here like to pigeon hole people, the days of only watching television and newspapers to receive information are over. I rarely watch news on TV and visit many news sites online. And I monitor both sides of the debate as I like to see what the other side is up to.
Maybe some are in denial about the left-leaning media as they have been brainwashed over many years and cannot see the forest from the trees anymore. I suggest that you mainstream addicts venture out from your comfortable recliners and read a little more from the vast amount of resources available.



Try to dig deeper and stay from your comfortable beliefs. You might be surprised at how your being mislead.

Just what are my comfortable beliefs, you seem so sure I hold? Rather presumptious of you methinks!
I feel I am pretty well read and try to be educated about important things, though I am obviously not as informed as you. David Brooks provides a pretty conservative viewpoint in the NYT, and I find him thought provoking. I realize there are some left leaning folks in the media as well as some right leaning folks. I would guess the predominance of executives in the mainstream news media are on the conservative side while the on-air personalities my lean slightly left in many cases. The thing is, that the true journalists, which I beleive predominate at the major networks and CNN, are committed to finding interesting and yes, sensational stories, and let the chips fall where they may. To quote a very right leaning intellectual "Try to dig deeper and stay from your comfortable beliefs. You might be surprised at how you('re) being mislead (misled)."

[Guest]

Being able to change their position on an issue after new information was introduced would be a really nice bonus as well. I don't understand why changing your mind after learning something new is seen as a bad thing.

Ladydoc,
I don't have any problem with someone changing their mind like you say, hell we all do that all the time.
My problem comes in when someone runs on something like it is burned into their soul, buries the other candidate running against them on that point because it gets them votes and THEN changes their mind. That burns me.
New information to change your mind, that's just being smart.

[Guest]

Give me a reason to vote for your candidate,

I can give you three reasons to vote for one of the rebubs,

2009
2010
2011
and I am afraid 2012

[Guest]

I can give you three reasons to vote for one of the rebubs,

2009
2010
2011
and I am afraid 2012

Well, with all due respect, that is not a reason to vote for just any republican. I, for example, could not vote for herman cain, who has been bought and paid for by the most frightening pair of neo-cons in existence, the koch bros. That also is not a convincing argument that anyone else could or would have done any better, given the circumstances. Obama has made his mistakes, but no more than GWB did in my opinion.

[Guest]

Obama has made his mistakes, but no more than GWB did in my opinion.

So I guess then the question is, are you better off with Obama than you were with Bush? (Both have done a poor job overall) And if you don't vote for a republican then do you vote for Obama because he is at least as good as Bush or do you stay home.
Your argument is not a winner either.
By the way mine was not an argument they were reasons with way too much content to put in a post.
Also, a true independent would have to be honest about how poor a job the hope and change merchant has done.
I am one and I can see it.
By the way I did not say "just any" republican. I said one of them.

PS I am a Jay Hawk, born in Topeka. Been gone from there for years.

[Guest]

Well, with all due respect, that is not a reason to vote for just any republican. I, for example, could not vote for herman cain, who has been bought and paid for by the most frightening pair of neo-cons in existence, the koch bros. That also is not a convincing argument that anyone else could or would have done any better, given the circumstances. Obama has made his mistakes, but no more than GWB did in my opinion.

Are you serious? What is you humble opinion about Obama, who has been bought and paid for by the despicable George Soros? Man, Obama is the most corrupt President in history and the sheeples are so blind.

Where is your evidence or links to prove your statement that Koch is behind Cain. One must drift from MSNBC occasionally to maintain one's mental health.

[Guest]

Are you serious? What is you humble opinion about Obama, who has been bought and paid for by the despicable George Soros? Man, Obama is the most corrupt President in history and the sheeples are so blind.

Where is your evidence or links to prove your statement that Koch is behind Cain. One must drift from MSNBC occasionally to maintain one's mental health.

Straying from Fox News and Limbaugh would also be good for one's mental health.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;419607]For those opposed to Newt Gingrich, you will savor Ann coulter's column in Sunday"s Daily Sun.
QUOTE]

The only way I would savor ann coulter is with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Good one!!!

[Guest]

[quote=eweissenbach;419612]

Ann Coulter is probably one of the most intelligent women in the media, bar none. Perhaps she threatens the masculinity of some liberals and left-leaning media? She must ring alot of truth or she would be ignored.

It's hard to ignore a train wreck....

[Guest]

Ladydoc,
I don't have any problem with someone changing their mind like you say, hell we all do that all the time.
My problem comes in when someone runs on something like it is burned into their soul, buries the other candidate running against them on that point because it gets them votes and THEN changes their mind. That burns me.
New information to change your mind, that's just being smart.

I agree with your differentiation. What burns me is when a candidate legitimately changes their position based on new information and then gets called a flip-flopper. Isn't there a saying like "consistency is a sign of little minds?" Changing their mind for a purely political reason or based on polling numbers is really bad, but all too common.

[Guest]

Newt does not have the morals to be President. George W. Bush was the worst President in the 20th and 21st centuries - but he was a moral man.

Newt on why he wanted a divorce from Jackie: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer."
Source: Katharine Q. Seelye. "Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals." NYTimes.com 11/24/1994

On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 "cost assessment" to recoup money spent on the investigation.

Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 midterm elections—the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party's attempt to remove President Clinton from office was widely unpopular among Americans.[76] Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing another rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well.


Now, do you honestly want a man like that as your President? I don't.

[Guest]

I finding it hard to have a conversation on this forum. I can't address a person directly? I can't critique a post? This is getting a little bit overreaching, isn't it?

[Guest]

I finding it hard to have a conversation on this forum. I can't address a person directly? I can't critique a post? This is getting a little bit overreaching, isn't it?

Good questions...

[Guest]

What you don't realize is the abundance of email/PM received that has to be addressed due to either direct insults between members in political or those who are very good at 'word smithing' their comments so it is not a direct insult at another member, but non the less the comment is sarcastic in nature.

When discussions are civil without comments directed at another user even if one doesn't agree with or even thinks value was added by the OP then we are not receiving numerous notifications and will not moderate.

[Guest]

I agree with RichieLion. A little back and forth is good and as long as it does not get to vicious name calling or mean-spirited insults to a person, it should be allowed.

Not too many things Richie and I agree on politically, but we still are friends and enjoy an ice-cold Yeungling now and then.

Let the light hearted banter and political exchange continue on this forum.

[Guest]

Can't refudiate that........

[Guest]

...Now, do you honestly want a man like that as your President? I don't.

How did anyone feel about this man as president...
Impeached by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (228-206)and obstruction of justice(221-212)...fined $90,000 civil contempt of court for willful failure to obey repeated orders to testify truthfully... ?
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...." Fed Dist Judge Susan Webber Wright(Resulted in 5 year suspension of his law license)

and yet, some still think this guy was a top notch president.

[Guest]

What you don't realize is the abundance of email/PM received that has to be addressed due to either direct insults between members in political or those who are very good at 'word smithing' their comments so it is not a direct insult at another member, but non the less the comment is sarcastic in nature.

When discussions are civil without comments directed at another user even if one doesn't agree with or even thinks value was added by the OP then we are not receiving numerous notifications and will not moderate.

Am I to understand that besides not actually insulting a poster, which I completely understand, that a comment cannot be "perceived" to be insulting, to whomever? This is going to be hard to navigate.

[Guest]

How did anyone feel about this man as president...
Impeached by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (228-206)and obstruction of justice(221-212)...fined $90,000 civil contempt of court for willful failure to obey repeated orders to testify truthfully... ?
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...." Fed Dist Judge Susan Webber Wright(Resulted in 5 year suspension of his law license)

and yet, some still think this guy was a top notch president.

Funny, ain't it?

[Guest]

Am I to understand that besides not actually insulting a poster, which I completely understand, that a comment cannot be "perceived" to be insulting, to whomever? This is going to be hard to navigate.

No you are missing the point. We do not moderate in political the sarcastic or "word smithed" posts that obviously are digs at other users. But we still get the emails and private messages complaining about the users who do this and have to follow up and review each and every one of them.

[Guest]

Dear Admin,

You must be really busy folks. LOL

[Guest]

Dear Admin,

You must be really busy folks. LOL

:a20:

[Guest]

No you are missing the point. We do not moderate in political the sarcastic or "word smithed" posts that obviously are digs at other users. But we still get the emails and private messages complaining about the users who do this and have to follow up and review each and every one of them.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your earlier post. It's got to be quite a challenge. I'm glad it's not my task. Thanks for explaining.

[Guest]

Since I started this thread, Newt came out with a statement that he would consider some form of amnesty for illegals (under the heading of family values?). So, I guess I will have to rethink my opinion that he could be a great president.

For me, it comes back to the issue of him not taking care of his health. He might already have coronary artery disease or diabetes. If he's not conscientious about taking care of his own health, how can we trust him to do his best in caring for the health of this nation?

Can amnesty for lawbreakers be justified by invoking family values? He sounds like he's turning into a "compassionate conservative." Remember, the last time we voted for a compassionate conservative we got "Medicare part D".

[Guest]

Since I started this thread, Newt came out with a statement that he would consider some form of amnesty for elegals (under the heading of family values?). So, I guess I will have to rethink my opinion that he could be a great persident.

Now, for me, it comes back to the issue of him not taking care of his health. He might already have coronary artery disease or diabetes. If he's not conscientious about taking care of his own health, how can we trust him to do his best in caring for the health of this nation?

Can amnesty for lawbreakers be justified by invoking family values? He sounds like he's turning into a "compassionate conservative." Remember, the last time we voted for a compassionate conservative we got "Medicare part D".

My opinion of him plummeted after the amnesty comment. I guess those dinners with Freddy/Frannie added to the waistline. :p

[Guest]

Spin good or bad will continue throughout this campaign. From a personal view I intend to hold back any final determination on my selection of a candiate to run against Obama until I enter the voting booth. This will help me in making as unemotional a choice as I can

[Guest]

I'm not that troubled by his comment. A lot of people feel the same way about long time illegals who've built a life here. You have to know that no one is deporting the people Newt's talking about. If they have made a life here on their backs and, not ours, I would be open to some sort of amnesty, but we've got to control our borders from here on in, and the leeches have got to go.

[Guest]

I'm not that troubled by his comment. A lot of people feel the same way about long time illegals who've built a life here. You have to know that no one is deporting the people Newt's talking about. If they have made a life here on their backs and, not ours, I would be open to some sort of amnesty, but we've got to control our borders from here on in, and the leeches have got to go.

I could live with it if there were a time frame written in stone, say 25 years as he suggested, but I feel they will let them all slide. We'll see. At least he hasn't flipped yet.

[Guest]

Richie, that sounds as though might be a flip-flopper. You are basically saying if an illegal immigrant works hard in America for 20-25 years, you would be willing to say he can stay - but not as a citizen? How about 15-19 years and a hard worker? 10 - 14 years is a maybe?

What about a person (US Citizen) who escaped from a chain gang 20 years ago for a minor theft of bread and milk and is caught in a freak chance thing? They have been leading a perfect life for 20 years. Do you send them back to the chain gang?

When I was working, we said that consistency was the most important part of our work. How do you feel about being consistent with the groups?

[Guest]

Richie, that sounds as though might be a flip-flopper. You are basically saying if an illegal immigrant works hard in America for 20-25 years, you would be willing to say he can stay - but not as a citizen? How about 15-19 years and a hard worker? 10 - 14 years is a maybe?

What about a person (US Citizen) who escaped from a chain gang 20 years ago for a minor theft of bread and milk and is caught in a freak chance thing? They have been leading a perfect life for 20 years. Do you send them back to the chain gang?

When I was working, we said that consistency was the most important part of our work. How do you feel about being consistent with the groups?

Hard to be consistent. It's a case by case thing in my view. When Reagan caved to amnesty while President he was promised many things that were subsequently reneged on by Democrats. I don't know an easy answer.

It easy to just be righteous and say "kick them all out!". It ain't gonna happen. We need to be realistic and deal with the problem we have and eliminate future border infractions without penalty.

I don't think it's ever going to be done because Democrats see illegals as a political asset.