Re-Evaluating Newt..

actually get honest jobs cleaning office buildings where they aren't scratching their balls half the day?

Is this true will all Janitors? Hospital ones, office building ones etc? If so, 9 year olds could take all of those jobs as well and put them out on the street.

These are great things to run on. Create more unemployment, and have "poor" 9 year olds not be 9 year olds, but workers. Remember though, only certain ones. The "poor" ones.

Nobody really said go as young as 9, but use a bit of common sense.

I've been working since I was 16. You teach a kid that work=prosperity, they won't be poor. They will be encouraged to get better jobs.

My first job was working at a Pizza place for half of minimum wage. (Yes, family businesses could pay less than minimum back in the day!) That has just encouraged me to get better skills and better jobs over the years.

But you tell kids the world owes them a living (Or maybe OWS them a living) and you get the obvious result.

Yep. That is a very good lesson for people to learn, and the younger the better.

My first paying job was at age 10. My great aunt paid me $1 to dust all the goods on the shelves and sweep out their general store. It took a long time, and I was required to repeat some of it until I got it right. I can still remember how it felt to have a whole dollar--quite a princely sum for a child in that day--and how rich and how proud I felt. I have been working steadily for wages since age 12 doing everything from dog sitting to baby sitting to feeding chickens to lawn mowing to leaf raking to car washing. Anything I could do for a buck. My first regular paying job was at Age 16 for 75 cents an hour as a copy girl after school at the Santa Fe New Mexican and then I worked some bussing tables for tips at the ski lodge. Working my way through college I did everything from man the front desk at the dorm to working in the college laundry, served as research assistants for professors, and free lanced a bit for the local newspaper. Most for less than $1/hour. (And because the college used so much student labor for just about everything, tuition and fees were kept affordable for all of us.)

None of that hurt me. I was able to gain valuable experience and skills in all of it, developed a work ethic, and acquired some priceless references that almost certainly opened other doors for me later on.

And I think among those of that generation, it never occurred to any of us that we were entitled to ANYTHING other people had worked for. It never occurred to us that we deserved anything we hadn't worked for or that we couldn't achieve whatever we had the skill, ambition, and ability to strive and qualify for. We didn't expect anybody to give it to us.
 
I just "re-evaluated" Newt & think he's MORE of a scumbag for taking $1.6- $1.8 million from Freddie Mac :)

Really.. it is a Democrat Piggy Bank after all...the nerve...:lol:

I guess they needed a token Republican...I do find that a tad embarrassing
 
Last edited:
actually get honest jobs cleaning office buildings where they aren't scratching their balls half the day?

Is this true will all Janitors? Hospital ones, office building ones etc? If so, 9 year olds could take all of those jobs as well and put them out on the street.

These are great things to run on. Create more unemployment, and have "poor" 9 year olds not be 9 year olds, but workers. Remember though, only certain ones. The "poor" ones.

Nobody really said go as young as 9, but use a bit of common sense.

I've been working since I was 16. You teach a kid that work=prosperity, they won't be poor. They will be encouraged to get better jobs.

My first job was working at a Pizza place for half of minimum wage. (Yes, family businesses could pay less than minimum back in the day!) That has just encouraged me to get better skills and better jobs over the years.

But you tell kids the world owes them a living (Or maybe OWS them a living) and you get the obvious result.

Yes, 16. 16. Not 9. Newt brought up 9. None, as you might have guessed, Herman Cain.

"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid," Gingrich told the Harvard gathering. The former Speaker of the House also noted that all the "really successful in one generation" had " their first job between nine and 14 years of age."

Gingrich Education Fix: Make Kids School Janitors Because 'Child Laws... Are Truly Stupid' - Yahoo! News
 
Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Either you object to what it reveals about his character, or you feel that what it shows about his character doesn't make or break your decision on the kind of President he would be.
 
Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Either you object to what it reveals about his character, or you feel that what it shows about his character doesn't make or break your decision on the kind of President he would be.

Why are Democrats so preferentially self righteous, it's kinda fishy?
 
Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Either you object to what it reveals about his character, or you feel that what it shows about his character doesn't make or break your decision on the kind of President he would be.

Why are Democrats so preferentially self righteous, it's kinda fishy?

Sounds more like the GOP to me. :shrug:
 
Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Either you object to what it reveals about his character, or you feel that what it shows about his character doesn't make or break your decision on the kind of President he would be.

I can't imagine anyone I need instruction on "character" from LESS than I need it from a bunch of leftists. It would be like taking flying lessons from a guppy.
 
As opposed to taking morality lessons from Former House Speaker Newton Gingrich. :lmao:
 
As opposed to taking morality lessons from Former House Speaker Newton Gingrich. :lmao:

Why don't you let us worry about who we're choosing and why, and concentrate on rescuscitating your Messiah. A big part of why I laugh my ass off at your pathetically self-righteous attempt to claim ANY morality is looking at him and his Presidency.

You and your comrades wouldn't know morality if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left testicle, so just keep pounding on the "Your candidate isn't moral" button, and I'll just keep laughing. You don't have the cred for it now, you didn't have it yesterday, and you won't have it by the election.
 
As opposed to taking morality lessons from Former House Speaker Newton Gingrich. :lmao:

Why don't you let us worry about who we're choosing and why, and concentrate on rescuscitating your Messiah. A big part of why I laugh my ass off at your pathetically self-righteous attempt to claim ANY morality is looking at him and his Presidency.

You and your comrades wouldn't know morality if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left testicle, so just keep pounding on the "Your candidate isn't moral" button, and I'll just keep laughing. You don't have the cred for it now, you didn't have it yesterday, and you won't have it by the election.

Oh, calm down. You made a dumb statement, and I laughed. SS, DD.
 
As opposed to taking morality lessons from Former House Speaker Newton Gingrich. :lmao:

Why don't you let us worry about who we're choosing and why, and concentrate on rescuscitating your Messiah. A big part of why I laugh my ass off at your pathetically self-righteous attempt to claim ANY morality is looking at him and his Presidency.

You and your comrades wouldn't know morality if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left testicle, so just keep pounding on the "Your candidate isn't moral" button, and I'll just keep laughing. You don't have the cred for it now, you didn't have it yesterday, and you won't have it by the election.

Oh, calm down. You made a dumb statement, and I laughed. SS, DD.

In other words, "Don't contradict me, just let my stupid comments stand unchallenged."

You continue to make dumb statements, I continue to view you with contempt.
 
Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Either you object to what it reveals about his character, or you feel that what it shows about his character doesn't make or break your decision on the kind of President he would be.

I can't imagine anyone I need instruction on "character" from LESS than I need it from a bunch of leftists. It would be like taking flying lessons from a guppy.

CC, you made this dumb statement. I laughed at you for it. You attacked "leftists" for their alleged lack of conventional morality, in the process of defending Newt's demonstrated lack of conventional morality.

You said something dumb. I laughed. Get over it.
 
Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Either you object to what it reveals about his character, or you feel that what it shows about his character doesn't make or break your decision on the kind of President he would be.

I can't imagine anyone I need instruction on "character" from LESS than I need it from a bunch of leftists. It would be like taking flying lessons from a guppy.

CC, you made this dumb statement. I laughed at you for it. You attacked "leftists" for their alleged lack of conventional morality, in the process of defending Newt's demonstrated lack of conventional morality.

You said something dumb. I laughed. Get over it.

First of all, pindick, my name is Cecilie. My friends don't call me by nicknames, and you sure as hell aren't qualified to aspire to that role.

Second of all, I am even less interested in "dumb" as defined by you than I am in "character" as defined by you. I realize that you can't wrap those two lonely brain cells around this, but YOU are the only one here who thinks your opinion is worth a bucket of warm spit. If anything, having YOU denigrate something INCREASES its respectability just a bit in most people's eyes.

Third, I attacked no one. I made a simple, self-obvious statement: the American left has nothing whatsoever to say on the subjects of morality and character. They have no standing in either area, nor are they taken seriously on either. Any group of people who referred to Teddy Kennedy as "the conscience of the Senate" should resigne themselves into being a national laughingstock. And you are living proof of this fact.

Fourth, everything you say is dumb, and gets laughed at. Get over it, and stop believing that anyone is going to give a shit what you think.
 
[
First of all, pindick, my name is Cecilie. My friends don't call me by nicknames, and you sure as hell aren't qualified to aspire to that role.

Second of all, I am even less interested in "dumb" as defined by you than I am in "character" as defined by you. I realize that you can't wrap those two lonely brain cells around this, but YOU are the only one here who thinks your opinion is worth a bucket of warm spit. If anything, having YOU denigrate something INCREASES its respectability just a bit in most people's eyes.

Third, I attacked no one. I made a simple, self-obvious statement: the American left has nothing whatsoever to say on the subjects of morality and character. They have no standing in either area, nor are they taken seriously on either. Any group of people who referred to Teddy Kennedy as "the conscience of the Senate" should resigne themselves into being a national laughingstock. And you are living proof of this fact.

Fourth, everything you say is dumb, and gets laughed at. Get over it, and stop believing that anyone is going to give a shit what you think.

You may or may not be dumb, but your statement was dumb. You intended to deliver another lecture about the alleged immorality of the left, in the process of defending the known immorality of your current GOP leader, Newt.

Your concerns with morality are nonexistent. It's about the party, not about morality. You outed yourself. :eusa_angel:

The claim that you attacked "no one", while attacking "the American left" is just icing on the cake. :) Keep it up. :clap:
 
Last edited:
Senator Kennedy wasn't called "The Conscience of the Senate". He was called "The Lion of the Senate".
 

Forum List

Back
Top