Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I like Newt Gingrich, reallly, I do. He made a contract with America that truly kept the lid on spending in the 1990s, for which others are given credit, but Newt was the driving force.
Unfortunately, Bloomberg is reporting Newt was hired by Freddie Mac to change the Conservative attitude toward their history of bad loans. There's an article at this link. If you want Newt, and he gets nominated, we need to let him know the people of the United States must not be used as a piggy bank as we've been used by a number of spendthrift Congresses who can't say no to any bridge to nowhere, it seems.
Our taxes are through the roof locally and nationally. I hope we can run an efficient government but not throw people's good money after bad.
As near as I can tell, they DID pay him to be a consultant, and then proceeded to not do a single thing that he advised them to do. So he can't be blamed for the bad actions they actually took if none of them were part of his advice.
That's Newt's story, anyway. And why question Newt? After all, he's always been so honest and above board.
You sure are full of piss and vinegar, I'll grant you that. Maybe that's why you have no reservations voting for a serial cheater for president?Why would I? I said the claims against Cain are nothing more than unproven allegations.Wow, you have a crappy memory. He denied it, and Gennifer Flowers turned out to have him on tape. How much more "proven" would you like? Seems Mr. Clinton has a bad habit of leaving behind incriminating evidence. Not too bright for a lawyer.
Call me when Mr. Cain's accusers turn up with tapes . . . or a stained dress.
Because you seem to have such a fuzzy idea of what "unproven allegations" actually are, as demonstrated by your laughable belief that Clinton during his first campaign is comparable to Mr. Cain now. Therefore, if you wish to equate them, then I invite you to do so by showing me the same proof against Cain that existed - and was ignored, or forgotten, by you - concerning Clinton during his campaign.
I just love having to draw you dimwits pictures. I'm going to need a new box of crayons at this rate.
Oh, REPORTED. Well, if you can find someone who'll say it in print, then that's settled, isn't it? A report is as good as a conviction.
Why is it that when I ask for proof from you droolers, every damned one of you comes back with a repetition, as though your word for it is suddenly going to become gospel carved in stone by the finger of God NOW, when it wasn't worth jack shit to me the FIRST time you said it?
Here's a little tip: If I'm asking you for proof, that means I wouldn't believe you if you told me the sky was blue. I'd go outside and check. (Nothing personal. I don't take much of anyone's word for anything.) So if all you're going to do is say it again, don't even waste my time. It just makes me that much more sure that nothing you say is worth the time it takes to type it.
When you're ready to pull on your big-boy Underoos and SHOW me Newt admitting that he went to the hospital to discuss the divorce "while his wife lay in her sickbed" - I can only imagine that you have your wrist dramatically pressed to your forehead, Gothic novel-style, when you type this - feel free to revisit it. Until then, two unsubstantiated assertions = bullshit.
Can your hairsplitting be any more pathetic?
Anyone who dumps their wife while they are sick is a coward and Newt's done it twice.
Obviously, you're in the group that doesn't care about character when voting for president. Not every Conservative shares your lack of standards.I don't HAVE to forgive him, Sparkles. I wasn't married to him. I don't even know the guy. Despite the soap-opera mentality this nation has acquired somewhere, and no matter what Oprah tells you, it's not my place to run around forgiving people for things they didn't do to me. Grow up.
If "many conservatives" are that shallow and juvenile, then this country is doomed, and it really doesn't matter who gets elected, because the population's going to be too stupid and sheeplike to do what needs to be done to fix it, anyway.
Obviously, what you know about judging character wouldn't fill an egg cup. Your so-called standards shift with the wind, depending on who you're applying them to, so I'd suggest you hold onto your lofty moral judgements until you're talking to someone stupid enough to award you the authority you sure as hell haven't earned.
Let me know when you have something more than "His ex-wife said bad things about him twenty years ago." I'm betting you have some people in YOUR life from twenty years ago who think you were a piece of shit, then, so should I decide you're a piece of shit NOW based solely on their opinions? Is THAT you're idea of "character" and "standards"?
You sure are full of piss and vinegar, I'll grant you that. Maybe that's why you have no reservations voting for a serial cheater for president?Why would I? I said the claims against Cain are nothing more than unproven allegations.
Because you seem to have such a fuzzy idea of what "unproven allegations" actually are, as demonstrated by your laughable belief that Clinton during his first campaign is comparable to Mr. Cain now. Therefore, if you wish to equate them, then I invite you to do so by showing me the same proof against Cain that existed - and was ignored, or forgotten, by you - concerning Clinton during his campaign.
I just love having to draw you dimwits pictures. I'm going to need a new box of crayons at this rate.
Oh, REPORTED. Well, if you can find someone who'll say it in print, then that's settled, isn't it? A report is as good as a conviction.
Why is it that when I ask for proof from you droolers, every damned one of you comes back with a repetition, as though your word for it is suddenly going to become gospel carved in stone by the finger of God NOW, when it wasn't worth jack shit to me the FIRST time you said it?
Here's a little tip: If I'm asking you for proof, that means I wouldn't believe you if you told me the sky was blue. I'd go outside and check. (Nothing personal. I don't take much of anyone's word for anything.) So if all you're going to do is say it again, don't even waste my time. It just makes me that much more sure that nothing you say is worth the time it takes to type it.
When you're ready to pull on your big-boy Underoos and SHOW me Newt admitting that he went to the hospital to discuss the divorce "while his wife lay in her sickbed" - I can only imagine that you have your wrist dramatically pressed to your forehead, Gothic novel-style, when you type this - feel free to revisit it. Until then, two unsubstantiated assertions = bullshit.
Can your hairsplitting be any more pathetic?
Anyone who dumps their wife while they are sick is a coward and Newt's done it twice.
Obviously, you're in the group that doesn't care about character when voting for president. Not every Conservative shares your lack of standards.
Obviously, what you know about judging character wouldn't fill an egg cup. Your so-called standards shift with the wind, depending on who you're applying them to, so I'd suggest you hold onto your lofty moral judgements until you're talking to someone stupid enough to award you the authority you sure as hell haven't earned.
Let me know when you have something more than "His ex-wife said bad things about him twenty years ago." I'm betting you have some people in YOUR life from twenty years ago who think you were a piece of shit, then, so should I decide you're a piece of shit NOW based solely on their opinions? Is THAT you're idea of "character" and "standards"?
Pssst....Faun, Cecille wants you to forgive Clinton. After all, it's been a long time.
At least I'm not a hypocrite. I didn't think Clinton's marriage was any of my business, and I don't think Gingrich's are, either. You, on the other hand, are just full of shit and hypocrisy, laughably trying to pass Clinton's infidelities off as "unproven at the time" while getting your panties all in a ruffle about Newt's "lack of character", like you care.
I have no reservations voting for the person I think can do the best job. YOU are the only voyeur in this conversation thinking personal lives are any of your frigging business. Why don't you head back to this week's issue of The Weekly World News and stop wasting space around here?
Pssst....Faun, Cecille wants you to forgive Clinton. After all, it's been a long time.
Yes, Faun, you definitely want to listen to the Gomer who shoehorns his obsessive sexual fantasies about me into every thread he enters. THAT'LL get you nice and clued-in to what's really going on, and DEFINITELY mark you out as one of the intellectual elite.
See how brilliantly he figured out that "It's not my job to forgive people for things they didn't do to me" really meant "I want YOU to go around forgiving people for things they didn't do to you?" Real conversational brilliance, there. You should make him your mentor, or something.
I'm starting to think the liberals killed and ate their first-string debaters, given how much time we spend surrounded by THESE dunces.
Sounds like you agree with me when I say you have no reservations about voting for a serial cheater who breaks his vows. Everything else from you I attribute to your piss and vinegar. Character in a president means nothing to you.You sure are full of piss and vinegar, I'll grant you that. Maybe that's why you have no reservations voting for a serial cheater for president?Because you seem to have such a fuzzy idea of what "unproven allegations" actually are, as demonstrated by your laughable belief that Clinton during his first campaign is comparable to Mr. Cain now. Therefore, if you wish to equate them, then I invite you to do so by showing me the same proof against Cain that existed - and was ignored, or forgotten, by you - concerning Clinton during his campaign.
I just love having to draw you dimwits pictures. I'm going to need a new box of crayons at this rate.
Oh, REPORTED. Well, if you can find someone who'll say it in print, then that's settled, isn't it? A report is as good as a conviction.
Why is it that when I ask for proof from you droolers, every damned one of you comes back with a repetition, as though your word for it is suddenly going to become gospel carved in stone by the finger of God NOW, when it wasn't worth jack shit to me the FIRST time you said it?
Here's a little tip: If I'm asking you for proof, that means I wouldn't believe you if you told me the sky was blue. I'd go outside and check. (Nothing personal. I don't take much of anyone's word for anything.) So if all you're going to do is say it again, don't even waste my time. It just makes me that much more sure that nothing you say is worth the time it takes to type it.
When you're ready to pull on your big-boy Underoos and SHOW me Newt admitting that he went to the hospital to discuss the divorce "while his wife lay in her sickbed" - I can only imagine that you have your wrist dramatically pressed to your forehead, Gothic novel-style, when you type this - feel free to revisit it. Until then, two unsubstantiated assertions = bullshit.
Can your hairsplitting be any more pathetic?
Obviously, what you know about judging character wouldn't fill an egg cup. Your so-called standards shift with the wind, depending on who you're applying them to, so I'd suggest you hold onto your lofty moral judgements until you're talking to someone stupid enough to award you the authority you sure as hell haven't earned.
Let me know when you have something more than "His ex-wife said bad things about him twenty years ago." I'm betting you have some people in YOUR life from twenty years ago who think you were a piece of shit, then, so should I decide you're a piece of shit NOW based solely on their opinions? Is THAT you're idea of "character" and "standards"?
At least I'm not a hypocrite. I didn't think Clinton's marriage was any of my business, and I don't think Gingrich's are, either. You, on the other hand, are just full of shit and hypocrisy, laughably trying to pass Clinton's infidelities off as "unproven at the time" while getting your panties all in a ruffle about Newt's "lack of character", like you care.
I have no reservations voting for the person I think can do the best job. YOU are the only voyeur in this conversation thinking personal lives are any of your frigging business. Why don't you head back to this week's issue of The Weekly World News and stop wasting space around here?
At least I'm not a hypocrite. I didn't think Clinton's marriage was any of my business, and I don't think Gingrich's are, either. You, on the other hand, are just full of shit and hypocrisy, laughably trying to pass Clinton's infidelities off as "unproven at the time" while getting your panties all in a ruffle about Newt's "lack of character", like you care.
I have no reservations voting for the person I think can do the best job. YOU are the only voyeur in this conversation thinking personal lives are any of your frigging business. Why don't you head back to this week's issue of The Weekly World News and stop wasting space around here?
Oh, I think hypocrite describes it very well.
Pssst....Faun, Cecille wants you to forgive Clinton. After all, it's been a long time.
Yes, Faun, you definitely want to listen to the Gomer who shoehorns his obsessive sexual fantasies about me into every thread he enters. THAT'LL get you nice and clued-in to what's really going on, and DEFINITELY mark you out as one of the intellectual elite.
See how brilliantly he figured out that "It's not my job to forgive people for things they didn't do to me" really meant "I want YOU to go around forgiving people for things they didn't do to you?" Real conversational brilliance, there. You should make him your mentor, or something.
I'm starting to think the liberals killed and ate their first-string debaters, given how much time we spend surrounded by THESE dunces.
Oh, give it a rest. You think Newt Gingrich is brilliant. Once you've said that, nobody thinks you're all that smart.
At least I'm not a hypocrite. I didn't think Clinton's marriage was any of my business, and I don't think Gingrich's are, either. You, on the other hand, are just full of shit and hypocrisy, laughably trying to pass Clinton's infidelities off as "unproven at the time" while getting your panties all in a ruffle about Newt's "lack of character", like you care.
I have no reservations voting for the person I think can do the best job. YOU are the only voyeur in this conversation thinking personal lives are any of your frigging business. Why don't you head back to this week's issue of The Weekly World News and stop wasting space around here?
Oh, I think hypocrite describes it very well.
Yes, Faun, you definitely want to listen to the Gomer who shoehorns his obsessive sexual fantasies about me into every thread he enters. THAT'LL get you nice and clued-in to what's really going on, and DEFINITELY mark you out as one of the intellectual elite.
See how brilliantly he figured out that "It's not my job to forgive people for things they didn't do to me" really meant "I want YOU to go around forgiving people for things they didn't do to you?" Real conversational brilliance, there. You should make him your mentor, or something.
I'm starting to think the liberals killed and ate their first-string debaters, given how much time we spend surrounded by THESE dunces.
Oh, give it a rest. You think Newt Gingrich is brilliant. Once you've said that, nobody thinks you're all that smart.
You'd be the expert on what nobodies think. I'm still having trouble believing you think at all.
Oh, I think hypocrite describes it very well.
Oh, give it a rest. You think Newt Gingrich is brilliant. Once you've said that, nobody thinks you're all that smart.
You'd be the expert on what nobodies think. I'm still having trouble believing you think at all.
My point remains.
My point remains.
You mean that that pointy helmet on your head, right...
Admit it... Howdy Dooty has more brain power than Obama...
BTW.. where are his college records?..To embarrassing, I suspect..
Sorry, that is not spot on. That is
Dodd-Frank is insufficient, but it's a start.
My point remains.
You mean that that pointy helmet on your head, right...
Admit it... Howdy Dooty has more brain power than Obama...
BTW.. where are his college records?..To embarrassing, I suspect..
Why the obsession with Obama's early life? We know he graduated, so what else do you want to know?
Sorry, that is not spot on. That is
Dodd-Frank is insufficient, but it's a start.
No, it's not.
Let's look at what happened with the 2008 Meltdown. All these crooked "banksters" as you say, wrecked the system. I say because the government made them do things they didn't want to do, you say because they were crooked. both are probably true to some degree.
But despite the laws in place. None of them went to jail.
Very few of them lost their jobs.
Their companies were bailed out by the government, and they then turned around and put the screws to those of us who could keep paying.
Their executives still got their huge bonuses.
You can have all the laws you want, but at the end of the day, when the rewards are so great and the punishments are so laughable. it's almost an invitation to break them.
The government didn't make them loan to people who didn't qualify. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened. Sorry.
As for folks not going to jail, I hate it. I also see the political reality of the situation. The Faux News propaganda machine, the Rush Limpbaugh bloviating machine, telling people day after day that Obama and Holder are Marxists.
The government didn't make them loan to people who didn't qualify. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened. Sorry.
As for folks not going to jail, I hate it. I also see the political reality of the situation. The Faux News propaganda machine, the Rush Limpbaugh bloviating machine, telling people day after day that Obama and Holder are Marxists.
NO, it really isn't. The CRA forced the banks to make loans to people who never should have gotten loans, in neighborhoods where the property was worthless.
