[quote=eweissenbach;419612]Good one!!!

[quote=Loveithere;419621]It's hard to ignore a train wreck....

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Funny, ain't it?

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.

Dear Admin,

You must be really busy folks. LOL

:a20:

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.

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".

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

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

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.

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.