If Newt Gingrich goes on to win the Republican nomination, I’m voting for Obama.
I don’t personally care what anyone does with their gonads, but this is a man who spearheaded the impeachment of a sitting president over a blowjob while he was in the midst of a six-year affair. His pompous, self-righteous mock anger directed at CNN’s John King was Newt at his most bloviating, hypocritical worst, even if it did go down well with South Carolina voters, to whom it must be asked, “What the fuck were you thinking?”
And another thing: if it DID come down to Lincoln–Douglas-style debates between Newt and Obama, the former University of Chicago senior lecturer will eat Newt’s lunch. Mark my words.
Yes, I know that Romney comes off as a tool, but seriously, I think we need to revisit Jon Stewart’s intervention.
{ 115 comments… read them below or add one }
Ron Paul, sir. Romney’s flip-floppery well surpasses Obama’s, and that’s all it’s gonna take. The only hope the Republicans have in this cycle is a man of superior integrity. Bring the outsider in and get Obama out… please.
Bill Clinton was impeached over perjury.
First off, thank you for this. While I find aspects of your conservatism/libertarianism at times down right irritating, it’s nice when members of two opposing sides can come to an agreement on certain issues.
Apparently not all that much. A news report I read indicated that a good number of South Carolina primary voters made the decision at the last minute.
While I won’t go all out and say that Obama will clean Newt’s clock in a debate on substantive matters (however, I’m pretty sure that Obama will), one thing’s for sure: just in terms of how each will present themselves through their demeanor, manner of speech, and comportment, it’s hands down No Drama Obama. While Newt’s gas bag demeanor may fly with the Republican faithful, come general election time when he’s juxtaposed with Obama, the Newt-ster is gonna have some trouble.
All that dog meat seems to be affecting your brain and memory, Robert. Clinton was impeached because, as a sitting President, he lied to us. Anyway, it is interesting to read that you seem to put more value on the rights to a blowjob in the Oval Office over the security of our country.
What Gingrich did to John King was brilliant, and he will be able to do the same to Obama in a debate. I have no idea why you think Obama will eat Gingrich’s lunch. Obama seems as shallow as my little dog’s pee puddle, and seems to have trouble thinking on his feet. Gingrich will run circles around him.
King picked a crappy question to open the debate, and Newt, being a smart guy as the media keeps reminding us, was ready with his indignant response that SC Republican voters would gobble up. Had a chuckle last night seeing Republican leaders sweat bullets over the prospect of Newt as the nominee because not only will he repel the swing voters needed to win, those same swing voters will give a boost to state and local Democratic candidates.
Brendon is right that married Gingrich schtupping a Congressional aide was not unlawful although this sort of behavior makes a mockery of the family values that he and other Republicans have touted in their platforms. No worries, though. Just tell the public that you asked forgiveness from your God and Republican voters will overlook your sins. And be more careful so you don’t get caught again. It’s a win-win for Newt. Even if he loses the nomination or the election, he’ll cash in as a Fox News show host or with another book. This sort of story disgusts me most about opportunists like Gingrich. I recall similar allegations of political chicanery at work when NY governor and subprime foe Eliot Spitzer got caught with that hooker. The next time a politician gets caught in a scandal, perhaps we should ask ourselves, “Who benefits from his downfall?”
Clinton was not impeached because he lied to us. He lied to us day in and day out. Clinton was impeached because in an effort to avoid civil liability, he lied to a court of law, after taking an oath to tell the truth, an oath which was also backed by criminal statute.
The President of the United States sits atop the United States’ law-enforcement apparatus, including its Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice. So long as the United States jails perjurers — and many perjurers were jailed during the Clinton administration — the President cannot be a perjurer himself.
Brendon is correct on matters of Clinton. To be fair, though, he did lie about a blowjob. Why he was ever questioned in _a court of law_ over that, I’ll never understand (I was too young at the time to keep up with politics). I do know, however, that Clinton was an excellent president and would vote for him if given the chance.
Anyways, I must admit that I agree with post 1, in that Ron Paul is absolutely the best candidate on the field. I don’t agree with all of his policies, but unlike the rest of the GOP candidates, I do at least, agree with some of them, especially his Golden Rule on foreign policy. Not only do his policy stances beat out those of his opponents, but also his demeanor. Look up what he said the other day at the “personhood” meeting/convention the candidates attended. While other candidates proposed laws outright banning abortion and some even promised to remove all funding from planned parenthood (Gingrich), Paul said that while he did agree that personhood was establish at conception (I don’t agree with this), he did say that making new laws was not the way to go about fixing things, but it would require a change in the heart of the people. Diplomatic words from somebody who seems like he has the right stuff to lead.
On Obama… I voted for him, and he seems to be letting me down. I don’t blindly support candidates because of their party affiliation, so I can’t say I’m one of the people still cheering him on, holding up HOPE signs, and yelling 2012. He’s been a weak president. He touted change, but gave us little-to-none for the better. Maybe I missed something, and I understand some things were outside of his control, but outside of his pulling of troops out of the Mideast, he’s not blown me away as a leader.
Oh, and yes, Mitt Romney seems quite the tool.
Why should I have to pay for your abortion?
On this, I agree with Ron Paul. But defunding Federally-supported abortion mills is in no way equivalent to denying people the opportunity to purchase their own abortions if they so choose. Use your own money for your own vices.
I see your content revision there in #6, Brendon, rather like members of Congress who go back and change the Congressional Record to state words that weren’t actually said during the debate.
Sonagi — Give a fella a break. I sometimes add to my thoughts, because I can. I prefer it to the verbal diarrhea of comment after comment after comment of Oh, and another thing. The Disqus commenting system would give everyone this option, if Robert would go for it.
In the words of someone I think is probably mocking me, deal with it.
Brendon: I assure you that Planned Parenthood does not pay for abortions, and if it does, I have not heard anything of it.
numberoneoppa — Federal money provided to Planned Parenthood underwrites abortion because dollars are fungible. Subsidy dollars that Planned Parenthood doesn’t have to spend on advertising, rent, maintenance, or toilet paper allow the original dollars to be spent on abortions.
Gingrich’s run is a vanity run. There’s no way he could defeat Obama. For the good of party and country, he needs to retire or die, who cares which?
And why does he hate Muslims? He could have kept all his wives if he’d converted.
Newt as the Republican nominee almost guarantees Obama’s reelection (so he’ll be able to say ‘Mission Accomplished’, yeah), don’t you think?
Maybe not so simple or straightforward as that:
Personally, I don’t care much for David Gergen. But the guy’s been around the block and he more or less knows what is what. While we need not endorse entirely his analysis, it is useful to keep in mind so as to prevent complacency from settling in.
I would vote for Gingrich over Obama. He has character issues, but he has brains and he probably doesn’t get woodies any more.
As some of you may have noticed, I supported Ron Paul. But it’s clear he can’t win the nomination.
Sure, Gingrich tried to skewer Clinton while also skewering his mistress. Not good, but I’m pretty confident the Repos don’t have the market cornered on those kind of hypocritical hijinks. I guess I could google Marion Barry; and see how many Democrats who stumped on the dangers drugs pose to our children endorsed and supported him.
And compared to Obama? I can’t get over the fact that Obama sat in Wright’s pews for 20 years and listened to all those racist rants. And was ok with it. Listened to all those “America the Evil” diatribes – and didn’t feel the desire to go elsewhere. I’ll take Newt’s sins over that, thank you. I can’t accept Obamacare, either.. I think the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Gingrich is an excellent debater. He can hold his own, or defeat Obama in a debate. He’s Obama’s match on intellect, but has far more experience. He’s more capable than Obama of hitting a home run in a debate (witness the very anti-media sucker punch that RK is complaining about).
He has pretty good economic cred, having helped balance the budget four times. He is realistic , knowledgeable, and ballsy on foreign policy. I agree wholeheartedly on his comments on the importance of work for the young and the importance of training for the unemployed.
And his anti-media gripes are right on! You can decide he’s just tapping anger on this issue, but it’s righteous anger! He’s been consistently pissed about this for a long time; this is nothing new. So, NO, it was not a last minute consultant driven pander to voter anger. It was a legitimate criticism of a media that is like a cheap whore on 42nd, spewing whatever it needs to get attention. If King could have found a way to get a Kardashian element into the debate, the cheap slut probably would have.
But will any Reagan democrats come Gingrich’s way? Others here probably know better than me.
Bottom line, there is enough frustration with Obama and general discontent that any Repo has an advantage in the general. Americans may be a little more ready than in the past to accept personal flaws, Euro style, to get a guy with policy ideas and leadership experience into the oval office.
Obama is too smart to write off any Republican challenger, and that’s why he’s belting out Al Green tunes while passing the hat. Gingrich’s angry white man shtick has limited appeal to swing voters who are becoming more diverse just like this country as a whole. My mom rejected McCain in favor of Obama because she thought the McCains didn’t get the problems of ordinary people and voted to put a Democrat in the White House for the first time since Kennedy. Gingrich’s wife’s appearance and manner are a swing voter turnoff, yet there she is right next to him on the campaign trail. Dogbertt is right about Gingrich, who probably can’t believe his book and DVD tour under the guise of a presidential campaign have mounted a real challenge to Romney.
Please. Newt’s notion of policy ideas are what he read in some Isaac Asimov book way back when. And leadership? I’ll give him credit for what he accomplished in 1994. But stuff after that? Hell, even his fellow comrades attest that he was a pretty shitty leader.
@#1O
Why [Clinton] was ever questioned in _a court of law_ over [spearing a harp seal], I’ll never understand (I was too young at the time to keep up with politics).
Well, golly, perhaps you ought to head on out to your local library and ask a friendly librarian for help with the card catalog in locating back issues of something called News’ Week.
Or you could do your generation proud and start here.
The plaintiff on a charge of sexual abuse was entitled to information on other credible cases of exploitation by an apparent serial predator, and the defendant (a man with direct and indirect power over law enforcement agencies) was not allowed to blatantly lie about a pattern of behavior that a reasonable person might view as exploitative. Never is a long time to get more complex concepts than this.
Jon Stewart for president!
@13 Dogbertt – Heh.
brendon,
i totally get why you don’t want to pay for someone else’s abortion. me neither. that said, why do you then want to pay for our continuous occupation in the middle east and our subsequent killing of hundreds of thousands of those scarrrrry brown people, women and children included?
robert k,
i agree that our goldman sachs’ most valuable employee in the white house will crush newt if that serial hypocrite is our nominee but damn. why not just write in someone else?
numberoneoppa,
this is all you need to read to NOT vote for obama ever again:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/20/us-usa-holder-mortgage-idUSTRE80J0PH20120120
hope and change my ass.
Gingrich was turned into a Newt at birth . . . but didn’t get better.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I have been under the weather the past 3+ days. I have searched my soul and can find no other anomaly in my life that could explain why I am in total agreement with Brendon Carr on this thread.
It is a matter of self-imposed ignorance for anyone to claim that Bill Clinton’s impeachment was simply the result of lying about a blowjob. As Brendon accurately stated, Mr. Clinton was impeached for perjury. He lied under oath in the Paula Jones case. In fact, when all was said and done, and he left the White House, he received some severe sanctions, including the loss of his law license for several years, a $90,000 fine, and a settlement of $850,000 to Paula Jones and her attorneys. He COULD have gone to jail, or at least have been convicted of a crime.
Newt Gingrich’s family values over the years may be less than stellar, and if that is a reason to not vote for him, there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. But to characterize his treatment of John King as pompous and self-righteous ignores the evidence presented by his current wife, his two daughters, and multiple friends who knew him and his second wife very closely, all of which the media (CNN, ABC, et al. have ignored for the sake of sensationalism). Why does one former wife’s claims somehow rise to the level of “ex cathedra” when Mr. Gingrich denies it, his daughters deny it, his current wife denies it, and all of the friends from the time period deny it?
Ahhhh…the lack of objectivity in partisan politics!
How is this suddenly about Clinton? Newt Gingrich has the ethics of a meth whore. Something his own party recognized back in the 90′s, but most of whom seem to have conveniently forgotten. Anyone who is disgusted at the thought of a habitual liar as their head of state should recoil at the thought Newt taking the Oath. I mean really, if the likes of Tom Delay thought he had stepped over the line, repeatedly, shouldn’t that send up a few red flags? (Just for the record I expect politicians to lie and dissemble, more often than not. Unlike some of the opportunistic Boy Scouts in this comment section)
“Newt Gingrich has the ethics of a meth whore.”
Oh, come on! Meth whores have some integrity!
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
To Angus –
It’s not “suddenly” about Clinton. Robert referred to him in his second sentence above – a comment that lacked contextual accuracy, and which Mr. Carr corrected.
To Wiessej,
Fair enough. I stand by my meth whore comment.
in the end, whether it’s obamney or newt, we will get what we deserve. and if SC was any indication, i’d say newt or obamney is about right.
get some hard assets and protect yourself, folks.
It blows my mind that someone like Newt Gingrich can run for public office on a platform that includes family values and traditional marriage. America’s capacity for cognitive dissonance is staggering.
If anyone feels like getting bukkake’d with stupid, here’s a link to Keith Ablow explaining why Gingrich’s flagrant disregard for the women he was closest with is actually a good thing:
http://wonkette.com/460762/newt-gingrichs-tawdry-affairs-secretly-a-sign-of-moral-strength
P.S. to Brendon Carr: I just assumed the whole “Deal with it” persona was your sock puppet. I guess not? Well, you know what they say: imitation, flattery, etc.
Gingrich’s past conduct was deplorable. Still, what is there to distinguish him in this regard from nearly every holder of the office of President in my lifetime. With the possible exceptions of Obama, Truman and Carter ( the latter of whom confessed to having lust in his heart but is perhaps to be respected for having the moral fortitude not to have acted upon it), all of them committed serious transgressions from the point of view of conventional moral standards before and/ or while they were in office. Only two – nixon and clinton – committed offenses that were potential grounds for impeachment (and in Slick Willie’s case imo it’s reasonably debatable whether the offense was so subversive of the constitutional order to warrant impeachment). Gingrich’s trangressions, like those of Eisenhower (Kay Summersby), Regan ( divorce) and the Shrub (drugs, sex and rock’n roll) seems to be well in the past; moreover, like the Shrub he seems to have repented for them and made changes in his life that evidence the reality o f that repentance ( even if the style of his repentance doesn’t resonate with current fashions of confession, especially with those who hypocritically don’t believe in the remission of sin at all). I think a more cogent basis for choosing between candidates is that of their respective political visions and related policy proposals. I’ m not persuaded by Gingrich, but i give him some credit for being more articulate in this regard than everyone but Paul. It will be very intersting to hear what Obama has to say Tuesday evening.
Is that the euphamism in the US for it.
I guess its kinda apt,
Don’t worry johnny get in there, nothin to worry about its just like the real thing but with teeth.
God dammit perjured myself again!!
Don’t worry i’m pretty sure numeroneoppas gonna be needing one
not!!
If Gergen thinks that Gingrich’s $250,000 line of credit at Tiffany will resound with white, working-class voters, well, he’s even a bigger doofus than he looks.
Only thing I remember about Gink is that he used “the media” to publicize the fact that Clinton did not come to the back of the plane to say hello when they flew together in one plane.
What an ego.
I think Newt and CNN moderator “set the stage” together. It is my understanding that all questions are pre-screened by the candidates.
It was just a big show. And, the Southerners ate it up.
If this type of BS makes a person to look “presidential”, then there is something very wrong about American public’s image about a president.
A president should be a good communicator (like Clinton may be or even Reagan) than a pompous fool.
Sincere question: Where is commenter “Baduk” these days? RolyPoly’s avatar reminded me of an old Baduk avatar, so that’s why I ask.
whitey,
I think they’re one and the same.
Baduk is now RolyPoly.
Being against all things Chinese — and finally realizing the the ‘Korean’ game Baduk is none other than the Chinese game Go — he has changed his monkier to the more Korean name “RolyPoly.”
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I’m with Robert, Sonagi, Jeffery, Grandfalloon, dogbert and Tilly…
Newt is an amoral ego-mad monster who would cause severe damage to the Republic if ever in any office again; he should stick with his Paris-Hilton-ish prior existance (with which he started his absrd run).
Then-again, a Newt presdency would be entertaining, in the scary-thrill kinda way. And yeah, maybe America deserves another good hard spanking, as her voters keep voting so stupidly….
It’s truly disgusting that THESE are the candidates we are presented with…
I’m writing in Bernie Saunders, for his anti-CU constitutional amendment!
I wish I were perfect like you.
My understanding is the Tiffany’s credit line was $500,000. Now do you understand the appeal to white working-class voters?
not Obama bro http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/washington-insider-obama-member-of-chicago-gay-mans-club/
Reagan also was a queer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6duzXE-liFY
Reagan and Bush I were involved with a gay call boy ring. though I don’t think Bush I himself used it personally or was queer himself
http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/article_archive.htm “This following is the bizarre and very real child sexual prostitution ring involving the Republican elite of Washington. And the trail leads right up to George H. W. Bush. Read the chilling story.”
So… may I safely assume you have issues with gay folk?
i’m putting Newt’s behavior in perspective bro. only Truman and Carter were probably clean. everybody hates on Carter but he was probably the only truly moral man and one with the greatest integrity. and Newt’s behavior was not as bad as some of the others.
“go” is the Japanese name of the game “baduk”
You mean Baduk got that wrong, too?!
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
To Arghaeri –
FYI, Clinton lied under oath in a deposition that was used in a case brought by Paula Jones. That is what is called perjury. It doesn’t matter what the topic of the questioning was. He was bound by law and by his oath as President of the United States to tell the truth. He chose to be misleading. And that is one of the reasons he was impeached. No “euphamism” [sic] involved. The ignorant view reduces he charges to lying about a blowjob or to cheating on his wife as the reason for his impeachment. But that just wasn’t the case.
RK, have you never Obama go off-teleprompter? He’s rarely allowed to, so no great surprise if you haven’t.
The man is utterly clueless. Deal with it.
I despise most politicians, but Newt Gingrich as a POTUS is a truly horrifying prospect. He almost makes Shrub seem articulate and he makes that smarmy piece of shit Cameron look like a real global leader! The GOP is a really sick joke and if they win the presidential elections it will be another nail in the coffin for the US. I have many American friends and they deserve a much better leader. The least the GOP could do for the American people is offer the choice of candidate doesn’t seem to be functionally retarded.
Obama hasn’t been the most effective of presidents, but he seems to be a much better bet than what the rightwingers have to offer. The only one on the right who even seems to deserve the slightest bit of respect is Ron Paul, and I have my reservations about him.
Like the creature he was named after Newt is slimey, creepy and toxic to humans. After handling a newt it is recommended that you should thoroughly wash your hands. I’d go as fat to suggest that after seeing or hearing Gingrich an eye bath and a thorough cleansing of the eardrums (preferably by diluted bleach) should also be administered.
Unfortunately Gingrich isn’t as endangered as many of his slimy namesake species are, newts are very sensitive to pollution so act as very good indicators of contamination in the environment. Somehow (unfortunately) Gingrich doesn’t strike me as the sensitive type. Toxic and slimy? Without a doubt! Sensitive? You have to be kidding me!
If Gingrich becomes the president the US will lose all respect it has left.
To Weissej,
You don’t say, must have missed that class in law school
Thanks for taking BC’s so complicated explanation and making it exactly the same so that lttle me can understand.
To Arghaeri -
Think nothing of it. I am happy to write it in a way that makes it more clear to you. I was a little taken back that you were apparently not grasping it, but am glad that hurdle has been successfully negotiated.
No problem, anytime you have any more imaginary hurdles, let me know and I’ll permit you to imagine me overcoming them.
If all the ironists would only iron out all irony for the tin-eared like mercurial me, I’d be led to the silver-tongued truth, else silence is golden . . .
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
In respect of Gingrich’s “ethics violation”, it is instructive to read the actual report. I just did (yes, I am bored today), and it appears to have been a retributive hit job. The investigation was based on a claim by a political opponent that Gingrich, while teaching a college course, asked some of his Congressional staff and staff from his tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation to do some chores related to the course. This was allegedly wrong because the content of the course was claimed to be “too Republican”.
The report bears out what Gingrich claims — he was exonerated of a raft of ticky-tack alleged ethical violations, yet in the end he reimbursed Congress $300,000 from his campaign for the cost of the investigation. He was not fined, as Romney, Christie, and the Democrats are claiming and will claim. (I am curious to know what the House ethics rules say about the cost of investigations — is it usual or required for members to reimburse the government? If so, it’s more nonsense for the $300,000 to be represented as “proof” of Gingrich’s misconduct.)
This seems pretty similar to the Palin-deranged Left’s claims of Gov. Palin was investigated for 40+ ethics violations!!!11! eleventy! Never you mind that those investigations, instigated as payback, never went anywhere.
This doesn’t make me think more favorably of Mitt Romney, or Chris Christie, that’s for sure. Maybe Rick Santorum is hanging around to be the not-Mitt, not-Newt candidate. Rick’s a nice guy and would be a far sight better than the One.
@Brendan Carr:
Dude, if you don’t want to “pay for abortions” now, you’re going to pay for it later when that unwanted kid turns into a criminal (who will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in prison) and/or one more of the uneducated masses who can’t afford health insurance (who then drives up your premiums because they go to the emergency room and then don’t pay).
There’s all this fucking anti-abortion talk, but nothing about increasing adoption solutions or taking care of those (more than likely) disadvantaged kids once they’re actually born. Conservative bullshit.
To Arghaeri –
You are very very clever; however, you characterized Mr. Clinton’s act of perjury as a “euphamism” (misspelled) after Brendon pointed out that impeachemnt proceedings were not because of a lie about a blowjob. I then elaborated on Mr. Carr’s point, which seemed necessary, as you were clearly either ignorant of true facts or merely reluctant to admit your conclusion was incorrect. If you feel that is imaginary, well…then I will wait and see if you join the rest of us in reality. Feel free to dispense further insults – but the fact remains you were wrong…period.
“There’s all this fucking anti-abortion talk, but nothing about increasing adoption solutions or taking care of those (more than likely) disadvantaged kids once they’re actually born. Conservative bullshit.”
Wow….so because a kid might be born to a disadvantaged life, the better solution is a pre-emptive abortion. Ever heard of Leopold and Loeb? Two of the most “advantaged” young men of their time – convicted of the senseless murder of a 14 year old boy. And but for the genius of Clarence Darrow, they would have been executed.
What is advantage? What is disadvantage? And why does one warrant abortion while the other does not?
The argument of the ignorant – to claim that adoption options are not aggressively discussed – as they have ALWAYS been – by those opposing the immoral convenience of abortion.
Clinton committed perjury? I’m shocked, we all know politicians never lie! Republicans have never lied about WMD, Watergate never happened, The CIA and Oliver North never got up to mischief arming the Contras with drug money.
Anyone who think the centre-left or right political types are honest is naive at best. You can tell when a politician is lying, its lips usually move. The only difference between some political types than others are that some of them only make you feel a little bit like puking.
Whenever I hear the word ‘politician’ the first images that come to mind are rats, lampposts and rope.
To Weissej,
So now you’re imagining insults too, feel free to point out the grave insult to your honour on this thread.
And no, highlighting your ability to imagine I need the real meaning of perjury explained, and your idiocy in then proceeding in an exceedingly patronising manner to do so, is not an insult,
Not to mention your desperate need to point out the typo in euphanism for the second time, shows you gave some real issues.
No if you’ll forgiveme a need to spend a few hours composing a serious of epilogues on how I really don’t care what you imagine, or assume.
#16 – ‘a media that is like a cheap whore on 42nd, spewing whatever it needs to get attention.’
Great analogy, though even the cheap whores on 42nd Street know wheb to quit.
Robert, did I ever tell you that when I lived in Marietta, GA, my house was across the street from Newt’s office? Marietta had privatized the garbage system, and it was, IMHO, too pricey for what they did. So I used Newt’s dumpster as our trash can.
Arghaeri wrote: “Not to mention your desperate need to point out the typo in euphanism for the second time, shows you gave some real issues.”
Yes, my need was desperate…so desperately desperate!! And in exhibiting said need, I “gave some real issues”. Like desperately wanting to point out to someone who conclusion was incorrect that their spelling was a little off. OH…such issues! Because he happened to misspell a word, I should seek counseling.
FYI. There is a difference between a “typo” and a misspelled word. A typo is a mistake – due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger. Typographical errors don’t include errors of ignorance, such as spelling errors. Now, if on Arghaeri’s keyboard the “a” and “e” were so close to each other that he may accidentally have pressed one when he should have pressed the other, well…that’s a typo. But….oh, hell…in any case, I pointed out that the doofus was incorrect about the reason(s) for Clinton’s impeachment and he would rather just try to get one up on me. Idiot.
To Arghaeri –
By the way, to say I have “issues” because I pointed out that you are a routinely poor speller…well, that’s just a dumb thing to say, and it’s a very unoriginal attempt at an insult. I hope you paid royalties tot he guy (<–see how I failed to space properly when I was trying to write "to the guy"? That's a typo) who originated it. The "issue" is that you don't spell well. It's not a character assassination to point out to someone who can't spell well that they indeed son't spell well…ya know? And it's not a sign of desperation when someone points it out.
#64
who = whose
To robert neff – You are a desperate person who has issues…so there!!!
Hahaha…I must have been in mid-thought when I typed that. So, I think it’s probably an absentminded misspelling, rather than a bona fide typo.
But you still have issues and you are still desperate…at least by Arghaeri’s standards.
He didn’t feel the need to point it out Twice, so no he doesn’t meet my standard, and It may of escaped your attention but I didn’t take pointing out I “son’t spell well” (sic) as a characteristic.
I also note you still haven’t managed to cite this terrible insult you imagined, probably too hung up with repeatedly pointing out my spelling errors.
Wrong conclusion again, because you feel the need to repeat the observation again and again repeatedly.
And look insults galore, doofus, idiot, and all because you still imagine that I don’t know the meaning of perjury and the reason for Clinton’s impeachment.
characteric => character assasination
There haven’t been whores, cheap or otherwise on 42nd Street in nearly 20 years.
Gingrich? Too short, too fat.
‘Nuff said.
DLB
I’d never vote for Newt. If he wins the nomination, I’m with Robert: A creepy hypocrite and shill for big corporations who wants the government to regulate what we can and can’t do with our bodies (aka a “family values” guy) versus a left-of-center shill for big corporations? Yup, I’ll be voting for Obama.
*I would happily vote for Obama over Rick Santorum as well. Anyone who’s retarded enough to believe in creationism is not mentally fit to run a gas station, let alone the United States.
Regardless of who the Republican nominee is, Obama will have my vote, and he will win. And while Newt is impressive as a debator, he will lose to the likes of Obama.
The biggest problem with Newt is he will not make a single change. He is a big government troll. I am also disgusted by his bad mouthing of Magic Underpants. He has cheapened the GOP. Newt also was party to the housing crash. I agree with Carr on the Clinton points but I am going to do so without providing him hand relief!
‘without providing him hand relief’
It gets cold out on the Peninsula, so I’m for not withholding.
Any port in a storm, I guess?
Anyone but Obama, but I would like to see Newt win it mainly because I like the way he rips the media and would love to see him do the same thing to Obama in the debates. Plus, he would make a good president.
I’m tired of it, too.
DLB (#73) wrote:
“Gingrich? Too short, too fat.”
All too true, but I’d add one other, even more objectionable point. Gingrich also looks too much like the totally evil Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters.
I could never vote for an evil creature that claims to be the most harmless thing, something that could never destroy us, something we’ve loved from our childhood . . .
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Gerry, Newt would NOT rip Obama in the debates. Your dislike of Obama (for whatever reason) is clouding your judgment in that you forget Obama has already shown himself to be a proven and successful veteran of Presidential debates against some of the best politicians out there.
I look forward to seeing you eat crow come debate time in the fall of this year. Of course, you’re the same guy who got proven wrong about Kim Dae Jung’s Sunshine policy in 2000, so doubt you’ll admit you’re wrong in 2012.
We need anyone who will de-fund all the bullshit that Barry stole from us.
Arghaeri @#64
“No if you’ll forgiveme a need to spend a few hours composing a serious of epilogues on how I really don’t care what you imagine, or assume.”
And then…68, 69, 70 and 71. Yes….he really doesn’t care…right?
The guy was wrong..it was pointed out, and now, the claws just don’t wanna go back in….oh, and isn’t it interesting how, when I purposely place a few typos (not ignorant misspellings), he points them out, despite saying that a person who does so “has issues”?
LOVE it…kind of a dumb person.
@33: Hahahaha funny but too late, and oh yeah, I payed for it out of pocket, all $1400. So yeah, sorry, planned parenthood doesn’t pay for shit.
hey gbevers,
i don’t agree with whom she’s supporting but ann coulter has a personal message for you:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1407952255001/is-ann-coulter-sticking-with-romney
p.s. the only person who can legitimately “stick it” to obama in debates is ron paul. wake up!
Ron Paul is a crank.
Weissej,
1) You really didn’t get the reference, took it seriously, and your calling me dumb.
2) Still unable the produce that imaginary insult huh.
3) You took an aside seriously, even when followed by an example of aptness indicating knowledge of meaning of perjury and the subject of clintons perjury. So you don’t get the aside, and miss the reference, but you’re calling me dumb. FFS you even clsim my “conclusion” was wrong, what fucking conclusion, it was a one line aside with a question mark.
4) sure you pointed out your typos in your example to make sure I knew, but the ones after that, and in numerous other posts before were all deliberate. Anyways call me on it when I have repeated pointing it out what is it now 5-6 times!!!!
5) For the record I mispelled euphemism, wrong, whoopy do, I even thought at first it was the first m I got wrong, missed the a e altogether. Now quite how that develops into an idiotic obsession that you feel somehow validates and supports your imagination, I have no idea. I mean you even imagine that my character has been assassinated by this terrible accusation. Quite frankly, if thats the case I’d rather be ignorant than be as stupid as you.
FFS You even took my thanks lterally, for explaining perjury in exactly the same terns as BC. Do you really believe I missed that class!!!
Feel free to point out my spelling errors and typos, pnce my character has been assassinated enough I may even be concerned enough to stop using this itty bitty phone keyboard without pausing, and without going back to correct.
In fact repeat as often as you need to validate your existence.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/ron-paul-supporter-likes-the-way-paul-tells-it-lik,27138/
There were more than 46,000 write-in votes for Edward “Ted” Kenndy for U.S senator in 1962. Which isn’t stupid in and of itself — until you discover that the voters lived in Connecticut, while Kennedy was running in Massachusetts.
Oh, right, because a pompous, council-house-raised chav with delusions of (yachting) grandeur whose highest achievement in life has been to stand in front of a classroom of bored eighth graders who can’t even be arsed to laugh at him says so.
I so hope we poor Americans will see the error of our ways.
#93:
I always appreciate it when Americans throw in some deliberate Britishisms when shouting down their interlocutors from Old Blitey.
council-house – check
chav – double check (because it shows one is keeping up with modern socio-cultural epithets)
arsed – check
Where it all went wrong though was “eighth graders” and “I so hope”.
Pity; it was all going smashingly ’til then.
That’s why Americans should avoid all Britishitms, deliberate or not.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
It’s hard to think of a candidate Obama’s election team could like more. I wonder if some SC Democrats re-registered as Republicans just so they could vote for him.
I came across the following in doing some reading about a previous election in which a hard-core Republican conservative was believed to be unelectable.
Associated Press, March 2, 1980: Ford Says Reagan Can’t Win
Former President Gerald R. Ford says Ronald Reagan could not win the general election so he is “cautiously” inviting the Republican Party to back him instead.
“If there was an honest-to-goodness, bona fide urging by a broad-based group in my party, I would respond,” Ford said in an interview published Sunday in The New York Times.
Ford said he would have to decide his own plans by about April 1, although he admitted, “As of today, the party hasn’t asked me.”
The newspaper said the former president called a possible Reagan-Carter matchup this fall “an impossible situation.”
“Every place I go and everything I hear, there is the growing, growing sentiment that Governor Reagan cannot win the election,” the former president said.
Ford said the former California governor is “perceived as a most conservative Republican.” He added, “A very conservative Republican can’t win a national election.”
Although Ford insists he is not scheming to get himself nominated, the Times report said his comments about Reagan “made it clear that he was more interested than ever in joining the race.”
The Associated Press, March 2, 1980: Ford Says He Would Run With ‘Broad-Based’ Support
Reagan said in Boston that Ford should “pack his long johns and come out here on the primary trail with us …”
Reagan, citing his election to two terms as governor of a heavily Democratic state, expressed “confidence in my ability to win the general election.”
#92 – Q
You know, I actually liked that little factoid. Didn’t know it until now.
Out of realism…i think it’s actually cheaper to fork the money for an abortion than paying the costs of an unwanted pregnancy by inadequate parents and another all-around fucked-up kid in the streets
@hamel: I know you were chomping at the bit trying to get the best of one of your intellectual betters, but let me break it down for you.
The Anglicisms were employed to tease our ueberchav when writing of things directly relevant to his being. I am well aware that there is no “eighth grade” in England — but keef doesn’t teach in England, does he? No, he teaches in Korea, where it’s usual for English speakers to use American, and not British, terms when describing the educational system. That is why I used the term.
As for “I so hope”, of course I was speaking my own opinion there, in my own voice.
I’m curious what makes you, IIRC a Dutch-Australian, presumably more knowledgeable than I in this area? You’re better off sticking to animal rights advocacy.
‘ueberchav’
‘but keef doesn’t teach in England’
Cracking good, lad.
Nice one, dogberttt. True to form.
Or, put another way, predictable.
I’m not gonna lie — I kinda like Gingrich’s moon base idea.
Space: the Newt Frontier.
In the interest of international harmony, I propose we lay off ridiculing Brishitisms.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
You’re repeating yourself Jeffery, and anyone doing that has to type in Newfie, eh. I know you favour the underdog from The Rock.
And just so that it’s perfectly clear to everyone, when I type ‘The Rock’, I don’t mean Dokdo. I mean the place where a feller can get a big serving of seal flipper pie if his belly is growling.
I protest, Cactus. My dyslexic comments are always different!
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Jeffery, you’re going to beat that porny into the ground, aren’t you?
Best keep that to yourself.
Does the government pay for the moon base? Seems like a job for the private sector.
Gingrich has spoken admiringly of the success of prize-based technological leaps, noting that Charles Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic to claim a $25,000 prize.
How much of a prize for a moon base? And is Richard Branson eligible for US citizenship? That contest would be right up his street. Virgin moon has a nice (and acceptable in the South) ring to it
prizes have a long tradition of success. another good example is the Longitude Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_prize
prizes and the private sector are better for tech than large politically supported bureaucracies.
right now the only strong space industry is communications satellites and that’s the one area that NASA wasn’t allowed to compete with the private sector in.
Romney Bites the Government Hand that Feeds His Fortune http://dirtdiggersdigest.org/archives/2702
Romney’s record at Bain shows him taking state and local economic development subsidies; e.g., their Steel Dynamics got a $77 million subsidy package, including grants, property tax abatements, tax credits, and reimbursement.
After leaving Bain, Romney still shares in its profits:
* Alliance Laundry Systems received $1.25 million in assistance from Wisconsin.
* Stream International got $4 million in grants and tax breaks.
* Staples got a $4.2 million subsidy package from Maryland.
* Burger King received a $9 million subsidy package to stay in Miami.
* Quintiles Transnational had a $25 million subsidy package from North Carolina.
* AMC Entertainment got more than $40 million in subsidies from Kansas.
While Romney spouts free-market rhetoric, his ascent — and that of the rest of the 1% — has been propelled by public money.
Hamel, isn’t that supposed to be spelled “prony”? Or maybe “pwny”?
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
You must log in to post a comment.