Well....let's look at some demos with "great" family vaules.....
these are not all.....not enough space
This is tit-for-tat. You know. Yours did it too.
CLINTON’S DEALINGS WITH WOMEN, UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL/SUBSECTION:
This from the womens depositions and police reports. Not my oppinion, historical facts
--Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 14 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
--Clinton Misogyny - Other
Linda Tripp - coerce, intimidate, deny - Bob Bennett transfered her.
Julia Hiatt-Steele - Billie boys friend and neighbor - used the machine to change his story.
Hillary Rodham Clinton - used as a cover-- humiliated
Betty Currie - used as cover and enabler
Donna Shalala - used as cover, used as whipping post in Cabinet meeting
Madeline Albright - used as cover
Secret Service - female agent complaints--numorous
Kathy Ferguson – unwelcome advances
And then there is the most infamous democrat president womanizer of all:
John F. Kennedy...He appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, as U.S. Attorney General so that he could get whores for him and cover up the deceit of adultery for him. Some even say that Robert Kennedy and Peter Lawford, an actor and brother-in-law, "got" rid of Marlyn Monroe because she was obsessed with president Kennedy.
The Catholic church supported Kennedy. Kennedy didn't run on a religious platform. I quote:
"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me." -JFK
Kennedy had the backing of the catholic church because he was the first and only catholic president in a long line of white anglo saxon protestants, he mixed things up by being catholic.
Also, while Clinton was adulterous, all rape charges were eventually publicly rescinded by the accusers jumping on the" pay me off for our tryst" bandwagon. This is not my opinion, its fact. Their speeches were also televised.
Only a complete idiot would post something trying to make it look like Newt is ok for what he has done and continues to do by posting examples of people that he doesnt like doing things.
That's basically a lot of words you posted to just say 'see, they did it, so its ok that my guy is a disgusting skin waste'
The hypocrisy is yours and the liberal medias double standard.
I was 15 when kennedy ran. But no I wouldn't have voted for him at the time. The man was from one of the riches and most corrupt families at the time. He was in the papers all of the time, when he was a young senator, as a playboy and womenizer when he had just married Jackie. And to top that off he was a Catholic who "was" supposed to not do that. Adultery..
As for Clinton. At the time I would not, as I wouldn't today, vote for anyone who is a Socialist or even leans that way. I don't believe that liberal democrats have the answer. They want to spend to much. That is what got us so deep in debt.
As for Gingrich. Will not vote for him either. He's an old DC politician. We need something new. Different. Someone to get rid of the same old thing. Clean up the cronyism.
Personaly I have not seen anyone like that around lately. That includes present administration.
As far as what I posted just showing it's a two way street. It happens on both sides. So to me,,,,who gives a crap about nonsense like that. Men have been voted in, in spite of themselves, They all are definitely not saints. Both parties. Given the corruption, the scandals, and pure biased partisan politics going on along with the fact our country is falling apart, you people blow way out of proportion a scorned and hurt ex-wife whos own daughters are saying she is not telling the truth.
That's pretty much the end of where I read someone's spoonfed, brainwashed crap. The minute they say "liberal media".
Being that 95% of all news in the US is spun out by 5 major corporations, I can safely put to bed the thought that there might be a chance of good exchange of independent thought.
@noven...you know nov I've posted this before so you know that "corporations that are owned and operated primarily by rich conservative white men" doesn't fly anymore. There are a ton of liberal demos out there who are in the corporate world now.
The 1%'ers are more liberal democrat than republican. So why are the republicans helping the democrats? I know, just another liberal demo spin...........nice try
What gets me is that the liberal democrats are more captialistic than republicans.
1.Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $294.21 Million
2.Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $220.40 Million
3.Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $193.07 Million
4.Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $81.63 Million
5.Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $76.30 Million
6.Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $65.91 Million
7.Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) $55.07 Million
8.Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) $52.93* Million
9.Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $45.39 Million
10.Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $44.21 Million
and the great white champion of the poor and ethnic groups herself.........
12.Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) $35.20 Million-- she's on a $350,000 Hawaiian vacation right now. I wonder if she took any of the poor or OWS'ers with her?...................Not
Wealthy liberal Democrats are not new. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is probably the most famous rich liberal of all time. And the Kennedy brothers were wealthy and liberal. In addition, a lot of the wealthest of the big money these days is being made in liberal states of America. Most of the new rich live in places like New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Seattle, and the suburbs of Washington, D.C. – all Democratic strongholds. Barack Obama won eight out of ten of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. in 2008.
-Some of America’s wealthiest people back Barack Obama’s presidential bid and are pouring record sums into the Democratic Party and liberal organizations, some say it will reach a billion dollars, even though they stand to see their taxes go up. That's because it is just political grandstanding. They know it is not going to happen.
-How wealthy donors have spent millions to create the modern environmental activists and have tapped into a river of new liberal cash. You see that is more campaign money.
-Why Hollywood, rolling in new profits thanks to globalization, has more money than ever to back Democratic candidates and push politics to the left. 95% of entertainers are liberal.
-Why Silicon Valley is more liberal and how tech money—including Bill Gates’s and Steve Job's vast fortune—is funding a growing array of liberal groups and politicians.
-How the upper class is likely to get more liberal as young heirs are inculcated with liberal ideas in America’s most elite prep schools and universities.
the ultra-rich liberals.....affectionally know as the Obama Campaign Cash Cows.......
Bill Gates $59 B 55 Medina, Washington Microsoft
Larry Ellison $33 B 67 Woodside, California Oracle
Christy Walton $24.5 B 56 Jackson, Wyoming Wal-Mart
George Soros $22 B 81 Katonah, New York hedge funds
Sheldon Adelson $21.5 B 78 Las Vegas, Nevada casinos
Jim Walton $21.1 B 63 Bentonville, Arkansas Wal-Mart
Alice Walton $20.9 B 61 Fort Worth, Texas Wal-Mart
Steve Balmer, Paul Allen.......the list goes on because there are many liberal Internet billionaires and millionaires.
The richest men and women in the world are liberals.....1%'ers
So let me get this straight, the republicans are helping the 1% democrats, yet the liberals are lying and saying that the democrats are the 99%. The facts say the opposite.
@floop
"That's pretty much the end of where I read"
And that's the reason you don't have a clue what other people say and think. Because you are so "brainwashed" and "spoonfeed" to your own deluted world.
You can't bring your brainwashed walnut brain to even entertian a different point of view.
"The richest men and women in the world are liberals.....1%'ers"
Nope - that is not what I am finding:
"The top 20 richest Americans (identified in Forbes magazine), and their companies, contributed an impressive $22.6 million to state-level candidates and political committees from 2005 through 2008. As a group, they gave nearly half ($11.2 million) of all contributions to Republican candidates and committees, with ballot measure committees gaining an impressive 35 percent of the total." http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=437
After the ballot measure contributions, it looks like there is 15% left for the Dems...
The Waltons sure can not be counted as liberal:
"Four Waltons and Wal-Mart, collectively, gave the most state campaign contributions of the Forbes magazine's Top 20 list, with $6.8 million in total giving. Walton-related contributors favored Republicans with 72 percent of their total contributions." http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=437
Heck - even Gates pretty gives pretty much 50/50 liberal/conservative:
Since Reagan, the Republican Party has had a much-hyped political agenda called "family values" which goes way beyond just having a church back you. They use this agenda to justify telling all what to do in the areas of gays, womens' rights, judge appointments, and the "sanctity" of marriage.
The Dems don't use "family values" as a weapon to instill an agenda.
So - there is no double standard here. There is only the fact that these "family values" people would vote in a "hypocritical bigoted" person like Newt.
Bottom line: the Republican Party can no longer claim their high, moral ground based on their hypocrisy of voting for Newt.
Wrong. Clinton nor Kennedy called for anybody's impeachment while they were engaaged in their extramarital affairs. An extramarital affair is one thing, calling somebody else out for it while you're engaged in the same behavior makes you not only a hypocrite, but takes away your ability to ever point fingers at anyone else for any reason, or to be equals to anyone else that engaged in an affair. Gingrich has zero credibility on the issue, and now the religious right has zero credibility also. For any church to retain any credibility at all requires them to turn their backs on Gingrich immediately, or forever share in his lack of it.
Were the f,,k do you idiots come from? That is documented history from the women themselves, police reports from Arkansas, DC, and other police reports. Also a Congressional Hearing into some of these affairs, particular Monica Lewinsky, And a Grand Jury that he lied too, remember " I did not have sexual relations with that girl", and got impeached by the House but still stayed president.
Not "unsubstantiated, hyperbolic, conservative emails?"
Great - then I am sure that you can easily provide a credible link that would prove rape and murder. All I could find is the exact BS you posted on a bunch of conservative sites.
Otherwise - I am seeing no charges, besides Clinton's "lie".
None of these bozos will be willing to do what you are asking of them, which is to make a statement precise enough to prove something.
What they are hoping to do is to whip up emotions by mixing definitions and contexts. You would never hear some pro-life lunatic splitting hairs about what exactly constitute "murder" in legal terms. What you would hear, instead, is a lot of high-pitched volume about some vague "liberal conspiracy" to "mass murder" children. That kind of wordsmithing feels really good to them because it makes the other side look vaguely evil in some generic fashion, and it is conducive to chanting and screaming all day long with others of the same ilk.
The problem is, of course, this is not a substitute for substantive discussions, which any sort of "proving" exercise requires, so you ain't gonna get anything near that much thought discipline from them. It is just not in their interest to do so.
Nuts like aveteren are mostly here to make a mess of the conversation, and not really to point out anything new you might not have thought of.
Unfortunately, trolls vote on the high-pitched volume about some vague "liberal conspiracy", which is why sometimes I fruitlessly try to get them to at least understand the other side.
After all, Digg is the only non-Fox place they have.
A family of liars. I'm still trying to sift through the lies that were so numerous in his speech last night that it defies reality. I'm sure the pundits are dissecting them as we speak. See you in the news cycles next week.
I think all extremes (right or left) are stupid - and not capable of compromise. It speaks volumes that your current Pres wants to compromise with bunch of testosterone driven monkeys who put their party and their self-interest BEFORE the good of the USA. It shows who is a grown-up.
Unfortunately, it was also short-sighted. Some people will just not give in. Not out of a feeling of justice, mind, but out of a feeling of pure and utter ****ism.
Karl Marx asserted that "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." No respect for peoples beliefs as afforded by the Constitution.
Obama's Class Warfare....
Obama called American people lazy and not in tune with with what's really going on.
How about the inability to spell "discrimination" correctly?
... actually, his comment was overgeneralizing and I really do hate that from either side... and I'm not usually a spelling nazi, but you threw it out there and I had to hit it... 8-)
"He's a sociopath, but he's our sociopath," Marianne Gingrich quotes his staffers as saying, during the late 1990s when the House Ethics Committee investigated Gingrich's GOPAC's donations and his charity fundraising came under suspicion.
He married his first wife in 1962. His latest wife was born in 1966. I can't find the birth dates for his daughters, but it makes sense they would be just about the same age.
Who cares who Newt has slept with - is he different than any college campus dude? What matters is the fact that he is the only man with the smarts and IQ needed to get this country back on track. Get on the n00t-wagon or get out the way!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
My guess is that Newt's daughters chose to support their dad of their own volition, and the fact is that they support their dad.
Not that the premise of Ole's crappy graphic has much merit anyway; it was the smackdown of the press and the way it was done which won him the support he needed to win.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
1> Newt is a politician - ergo; he lies. Show me one who doesn't and I will show you how the Earth is really balanced on the back of a giant tortoise.
2> Newt had sexual relations with women who were not his wife - while he was married. By definition, he is a Philanderer - ergo, a lying philanderer.
3> Newt is using the daughters from his first marriage to support him against his second wife - who is talking about Newt's philandering with his third wife (Jerry Springer anyone?).
4> Whether you are Obama's children, Bush's daughters, Clinton's little girl or Newt's offspring, most people would assume there are certain advantages to your father being the POTUS.
The same statement I posted could be used in the context of Chelsea Clinton. So, is there anything I stated which is incorrect? Please do point it out.
Do you have any evidence that what Newt is saying is true? Do you have any evidence that what his Ex is saying is untrue? No, you don't.
As I have stated in multiple posts - we don't know, so stop asserting that Newt is telling the truth and she is lying. Because you don't know. We will probably never know.
Again I ask - which part of my statement is incorrect?
" There are certain advantages to "Daddy" being President - even if he is a lying philanderer. "
Newt's living the old Mormon ideal of having numerous wives, he just calls it having an "open marriage". From a political independent's vantage point, It looks like 2 out of 3 Republican frontrunners follow the Mormon faith, old warts and all.
I can't WAIT to see how Social Conservatives explain their way out of THIS "Christian values" predicament. There is only ONE true social conservative among the frontrunners, Rick Santorum. Everyone else falls short of meeting their "values" watermark.
It must REALLY eat social conservatives raw knowing a Democrat, Barack Obama, comes closer to meeting their "Christian value" ideal than MOST Republicans running for office.
Most conservatives--social or otherwise--long for the day when someone calls out the president for his radical associations, his bungled policies and his failed socialistic policies. Newt's the only guy with the stones to do it.
So... you mean Newt would talk about Bush's business and personal associations with the Bin Laden family and the house of Saud - I really can't think of any other President who had such a direct association with a bigger supporter of Islamic fundamentalists than that.
It's a good thing I brought my hip waders with me today, because the BS, you keep spewing, is getting deep.
Baseless character assassination and mudslinging is ALL conservatives have to offer the country since your ideological beliefs are so broken they have collapsed the U.S. economy AGAIN. As if your contributions in creating the Great Depression weren't bad enough. You know it and WE know it.
Newt's got "stones" alright. It's shame he doesn't have the credibility to back up his/your bulls**t.
If you think nominating a political thug, with NO history of economic success, to the Presidency is a solution, your thinly veiled racism runs FAR deeper than any of us thought possible. In essence, you'd rather torpedo this nation, than see a black man re-elected to the Presidency. UNBELIEVABLE!!!! If your party succeeds in perpetuating YOUR agenda, I hope you are hunted down, prosecuted and incarcerated when you create the NEXT Great Depression. Absent that, you'll deserve the street justice that will SURELY follow.
Obama's policies stand FAR more chance of reviving the U.S. economy, but have NEVER seen the light of day because your KKK Grand Wizards in the Senate (i.e., MItch "bitter turtle" McConnell, R-KY) and House (John "Which way to the links?" Boehner, R-OH) have stonewalled every effort made thus far. If you think your party's political/economic sabotage is lost on anyone...IT ISN'T.
Yes, yes of course...it isn't that we disagree with the President because he's failed miserably on every economic benchmark or because he's radical, it's because of his skin color.
I would laugh if your idelogical insanity wasn't so tragic for my fellow Americans.
First, the economic hole we're all standing in was created by Republicans, NOT Democrat's.
Second, Obama and the Democrat's are the ONLY presence in DC making an effort to restore the U.S. economy. What do we see from Conservatives? NOTHING but stonewalling. Hell, there isn't a SINGLE Conservative serving OR running for office who has proposed a SINGLE economic/fiscal policy that would credibly revive the U.S. economy OR reduce the nation's debt.
Deregulation and tax cuts CREATED that economic hole, "genius". If you think doubling down on THAT stupidity is a "solution" to the nation's troubles, you and your band of conservative morons have NO place influencing national public policy in ANY way, shape or form.
Finally, God help this nation if Conservatives continue to stonewall, or worse, implement their ongoing ideological stupidity. It WILL crash the national economy. Herbert Hoover PROVED as much. When that happens, all Hell will break loose on Conservatives. BANK on it!!!
"it isn't that we disagree with the President because he's failed miserably on every economic benchmark"
Shedding a quarter of a million jobs per month in dec 2008. Adding jobs today. Turnaround took effect right as the stimulus money kicked in, but i'm sure that's just coincidence.
His corporate-friendly policies have focused on keeping taxes low while spending enough to keep business afloat and bolster consumer spending. But that's because he's a "radical" right?
I mean, if the first and second part of your statement is demonstrably false what am i to think of the third?
"First, the economic hole we're all standing in was created by Republicans, NOT Democrat's."
Really? Which party pushed the nonsensical "everyone deserves a home" policies and ideas which lowered lending standards?
Which president signed major legislation repealing key parts of the Glass/Steagal Act?
Which party & political philosophy was it which saddled us with trillions in entitlement programs we can't afford?
"Hell, there isn't a SINGLE Conservative serving OR running for office who has proposed a SINGLE economic/fiscal policy that would credibly revive the U.S. economy OR reduce the nation's debt."
Ummm....2011 House budget? Upwards of 30 jobs bills passed by the House, none of Which Majority Reid will even allow debate on?
I'm happy to gut your baseless theories (i.e., like shooting fish in a barrel). Write them down this time because I'm getting tired of pointing out your ignorance and gutting your baseless theories.
1) "Which party pushed the nonsensical "everyone deserves a home" policies and ideas which lowered lending standards?"
First, Republicans controlled Congress when those destructive loan practices were being made, NOT Democrat's. Those loan practices WEREN'T reined in until Democrat's REGAINED control over Congress in 2007, AFTER most of the damage had already occurred. Newt even lobbied his conservative "pals" to prevent the crackdown you attempt to take credit for now.
Second, MOST of the financial damage created by the Housing Bubble collapse is tied to private sector-created, Wall Street financial instruments (i.e., mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps), NOT regulations. You can thank Republican deregulation for that BS because those TOOLS and the destruction they created weren't possible until Republicans INCREASED capital leveraging from 15x to 40 TIMES the underlying asset value.
2) "Which president signed major legislation repealing key parts of the Glass/Steagal Act?"
While Bill Clinton signed that bill, WHO CARES??!!! Republicans CHAMPIONED that piece of crap from beginning to end and legislation ORIGINATES from Congress, NOT the Executive branch. Clinton should have vetoed it and every other piece of that financial "modernization" (more like "antiquation") effort.
3) "Which party & political philosophy was it which saddled us with trillions in entitlement programs we can't afford?"
Democrat's deserve FULL credit for Social Security AND Medicare. It's not as if Republicans have EVER created anything that has made the nation better. By the way, the national debt was created by Republican fiscal stupidity, NOT our social safety net. We could easily fix the fiscal cahllenges in BOTH programs by tweaking them and creating a healthcare program for seniors similar to the VA. IT's not as if Republicans offer a credible substitute to EITHER plan in meeting senior's financial/healthcare needs. You'd rather leave them at the mercy of the streets, poverty and starvation.
4) "Ummm....2011 House budget? Upwards of 30 jobs bills passed by the House, none of Which Majority Reid will even allow debate on?"
You call those weak efforts and mis-labelled bills credible? I read them. Did you? They amount to nothing short of changing "the shade of lipstick on the same ol' pig". NONE of those initiatives offer a credible solution to the nation's economic, unemployment OR fiscal challenges.
If conservatives want credibility in this country, they'll have to EARN it by first realizing that their broken ideas have NEVER worked and never WILL (i.e., "trickle down" is a tragic joke) then recognizing that Progressives/Independents offer economic solutions with a LONG track record of success. In America, credible solutions with track records of success should ALWAYS be favored over broken, useless theories.
5) Finally, it took 3 decades for Republicans to wreck the U.S. economy. There's NO way Obama or anyone else could repair it in less time. So stop blaming him for your mistakes.
"Yes, yes of course...it isn't that we disagree with the President because he's failed miserably on every economic benchmark or because he's radical, it's because of his skin color."
He hasn't failed on every economic benchmark. He's not a radical.
"Which president signed major legislation repealing key parts of the Glass/Steagal Act?"
Which party created it and gave Clinton a veto proof majority? Created by Republicans (written by banks) and bought into by Democrats. BOTH parties are responsible.
Now, to Obama:
Taxes lower under Obama than any time in 60 years (something you claim to support)
Manufacturing jobs created higher than any time in the last 20 years (something you claim to support)
Created more jobs in 3 years than Bush in 8 years (something you claim to support)
Decimated Al Qaeda (something you claim to support)
Killed Bin Laden (something you claim to support)
Re-signed Patriot Act (something you claim to support)
Signed NDAA (something you claim to support)
So what is it AHM? I just put up an extensive list of items you SHOULD be thanking Obama for. Why is it you ignore all this and make false claims?
There is only one possible reason: You are a racist pig.
You do realize that by your standards, a surgeon who can't make a terminal patient fit to run a marathon within a few months is an "abject failure" by merely saving the patient's life.
The 8% "promise" you keep citing was made before he was in office, about a stimulus proposal that was very different than what passed.
I won't argue that faster recovery wouldn't be better, but looking at the global financial situation, I'm curious how you think that would be accomplished.
Anyway I think you're trying to hold this president to an unrealistic standard... is there any particular reason for that? If McCain had won, faced similar economic prospects, and got us to where we are today, would you also judge him an abject failure?
eraptor, as usual your diatribe runs contrary to fact, and the only ignorance here is yours; born of your simplemindedness and blind, irrational extremism.
The CRA was proposed during the Carter Administration by Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisc.). That was the catalyst for the decreased lending standards which followed, and was passed under Democrat control of both houses of congress.
Further, the criminals in your party didn't reign anything in until the housing market crashed, and even when it was evident that it would, Dems like Barney Frank and Speaker Pelosi continued to defend F&F.
"While Bill Clinton signed that bill, WHO CARES??!!! "
Not you, apparently, despite the fact that Clinton and his inner circle were the ones pushing hardest for it. Of course if Clinton were a Republican, hacks like you would be screaming from the rooftops that it was ALL his fault.
And your statement right there illustrates very clearly what a disingenuous hack you are. In your world anything which crossed Bush's (or any other Republican's )desk he is fully and totally responsible for. But in the case of "your" guy, policies they support and even legislation they sign into law, isn't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
@ sam, The surgeon analogy is an interesting one, but I'm not sure it's apt. A closer one might be that the surgeon convinces a patient to try a new, expensive, unproven procedure which he claims will cure him, but all it really does is mitigate his symptoms for a while and leave him hopelessly in debt.
"The 8% "promise" you keep citing was made before he was in office, about a stimulus proposal that was very different than what passed. "
I think that's more than a little bit misleading. The 8% claim was made by the WH...specifically by Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, on January 9th, 2009. One day later, on January 10, 2009, President-Elect Obama’s administration released the report, and the bill was presented in the House six days after the president's inauguration, on January 26, 2009.
But don't take my word for it, take the president's. From the administration's own website, whitehouse.gov:
"The methodology used to estimate the job impact of the ARRA was described in detail in Romer and Bernstein (Obama Transition Document, January 11, 2009)."
The nuts and bolts of the stimulus and how to sell it were being crafted by the president's transition team so that, in the president's own words, he could "hit the ground running". To claim that because the president was a few days away from being sworn in when his people released the report--one that they used to help get it through congress--somehow translates into absolving the WH from its own claims and predictions isn't credible now, and won't be come general election time either.
"If McCain had won, faced similar economic prospects, and got us to where we are today, would you also judge him an abject failure?"
As far as I'm aware, Senator McCain's campaign didn't include a wasteful, $800+ billion stimulus package or a nonsensical, monolithic new healthcare law. If he'd opted to do those things anyway after being elected, then I'd have to say yes.
Your pathetic attempts at character assassination make me laugh. If I'm "simpleminded, blind and irrational", imagine what that makes you considering the number of times I keep beating you in debates. You're as challenging to debate as "a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest".
Since you enjoy the "agony of defeat" so much, he's a second helping:
1) If the CRA was proposed during the Carter Administration and responsible for the Housing Bubble, why did it take alomst 20 YEARS before those disastrous loans manifested themselves? If your claim had any validity, we would have seen the Housing Bubble during the Carter/Reagan administration's, NOT Dubya's lost decade of incompetence. You had to go up to your elbow to pull that one out of your ass/brain. Epic FAIL...
2) You can't blame Democrat's for failing to rein in the Housing market for the simple reason that they didn't control Congress, REPUBLICANS did. Democrat's were virtually powerless to stop the morons YOU supported.
3) As for blaming Clinton for the financial industry's crimes, YOU CAN'T. If you want to blame someone for their crimes against this nation AND Housing Bubble, look to Phil Gramm (R-TX) since HE and Newt Gingrich were at the center of it. As I told you before, legislative deregulation was and CONTINUES to be championed by CONSERVATIVES, NOT Progresives/Liberals. In short, you and your conservative boys "screwed the pooch" and the Congressiuonal Record PROVES IT.
4) As for Dubya, I blame him for HIS administration's actions. Legislative blame belongs with the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, executive branch blame belongs to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. This is true REGARDLESS of whether a Republican OR Democratic President occupies the White House. If Dubya earns legislative blame it's ONLY because Congressional Republicans RUBBER-STAMPED everything he put before them until they were kicked out of office in 2007. When Democrat's behave like Republicans, they'll earn the DSAME disgrace. We all know Democrat's are more independently minded than their "Lemming" counterparts.
I realize truth is a hard pill for YOU to swallow. Get used to it, because the 2012 election is shaping up to be a real b***h for the Conservative movement. Enjoy that well-deserved ass-kicking from the nation when it arrives because you EARNED it.
eraptor, you can thump your chest like an ignorant primate all you like, but the simple fact is that you've lied here, provably.
Add to that your hypocritical double-standard when it comes to Clinton and his role in deregulation and it's apparent that "character assassination" isn't possible in your case...the alleged victim assumed room temperature a long time ago.
Since your reading comprehension SUCKS. You can't blame Clinton for the actions of a Republican Congress because they didn't rubber-stamp HIS policy initiatives as they did with Dubya. Congressional behavior may be lost on you, but it's NOT lost on me.
Having said that, the SAME standard of judgment applies to legislative accountability, REGARDLESS of who occupies the Oval office...U.S. legislation and legislative initiatives originate from the LEGISLATIVE branch (hence the NAME), NOT the executive branch. As such, CONGRESS is ultimately responsible for the legislation it passes (SPECIFICALLY those legislators who champion, support AND vote for EACH legislative initiative), NOT the President.
"The 8% claim was made by the WH...specifically by Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, on January 9th"
So in other words, my statement was accurate on this account.
"To claim that because the president was a few days away from being sworn in when his people released the report--one that they used to help get it through congress--somehow translates into absolving the WH from its own claims and predictions isn't credible"
At the point at which the 8% claim was made, 2008's employment and economic data weren't fully complete. The drastic state of the economy- at the time obama took office- FAR WORSE than it is today on any measure, was not yet entirely clear. The models they were working with showed an 8% cap because the numbers they were working with were showing ~150k/month job losses instead of the actual 250k/month. So the timing really has less to do with him being in office, but the point remains the same... furthermore I don't see how the WH needs to be "absolved" of the claim in any way. Anyone with a middle school education should understand that economic forecasting is an inexact science and so wouldn't hear "8%" and think... "AHA! if it goes to 9% they've FAILED!!!!"
"As far as I'm aware, Senator McCain's campaign didn't include a wasteful, $800+ billion stimulus package"
As far as I'm aware, Obama's _campaign_ didn't include that either. And as to it's wastefulness:
"six find that the stimulus had a significant, positive effect on employment and growth, and three find that the effect was either quite small or impossible to detect."
"Most conservatives--social or otherwise--long for the day when someone calls out the president for his radical associations, his bungled policies and his failed socialistic policies. "
Not ONE fact. Another shocker. Just call him uppity and get over yourself.
Prove what? Gingrich said in the last debate that his daughters called ABC to complain about them airing the interview with his second wife.
So which part are you disputing: that Gingrich was married to the three women who claim they are/were his wives; that the girls Gingrich talks about are actually his daughters; or that Gingrich was telling the truth when he said that his daughters called ABC?
That's Gingrich's responsibility and he was given an opportunity respond to do so right off the bat in the South Carolina debate:
CNN's JOHN KING: "As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with The Washington Post, and this story has now gone viral on the Internet. In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?"
But rather than present his side, Gingrich decided to attack the media as "biased and disgusting" simply for the media giving him an opportunity to make his case on a nationally broadcast news event. And you folks drank it up like so much kool-aid.
So let's take personal politics out of it so that I might present you with a hypothetical scenario:
Someone is charged with an offense. What does the innocent man do:
A) Defend his name against these charges?
B) Attack the court for providing him the opportunity to defend himself?
@usarugula, ignore the troll. His pathetic existence revolves around talking s**t and desperately trying to get people to respond. I guess negative attention is still attention for brats.
meanwhile ABC ran the headline story from the interview with a bitter and vindictive ex wife in an attempt to influence the primary results. Real credible. Wreaks of the National Guard story.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Hey, I agree it was wrong and I am not even a Newt fan. In fact, I thoroughly dislike the man. However, opening the debate with that question was a disgrace to the Presidential Debates. Perhaps giving each of the candidates in turn the chance to respond to each of their biggest scandal items of the day at some point further into the debate would have been appropriate, but the way they did it was just unprofessional.
Having said that, you don't know if she is telling the truth or lying. Do you really think Newt is a good, family values kind of guy after serially dumping wives for inappropriate relationships with younger women? He's on his third wife and who knows how long that will last. None of us know what he said so really, can you sit there and tell me you are so certain that she is lying?
FrankLuskaJan 22, 2012
Excellent
diefreeJan 22, 2012
What else do you expect from a hypocritical bigoted moron like Newt, fitting first name his as low as the amphibian that shares his name.
aveterenJan 22, 2012
Well....let's look at some demos with "great" family vaules.....
these are not all.....not enough space
This is tit-for-tat. You know. Yours did it too.
CLINTON’S DEALINGS WITH WOMEN, UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL/SUBSECTION:
This from the womens depositions and police reports. Not my oppinion, historical facts
--Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 14 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
--Clinton Misogyny - Other
Linda Tripp - coerce, intimidate, deny - Bob Bennett transfered her.
Julia Hiatt-Steele - Billie boys friend and neighbor - used the machine to change his story.
Hillary Rodham Clinton - used as a cover-- humiliated
Betty Currie - used as cover and enabler
Donna Shalala - used as cover, used as whipping post in Cabinet meeting
Madeline Albright - used as cover
Secret Service - female agent complaints--numorous
Kathy Ferguson – unwelcome advances
And then there is the most infamous democrat president womanizer of all:
John F. Kennedy...He appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, as U.S. Attorney General so that he could get whores for him and cover up the deceit of adultery for him. Some even say that Robert Kennedy and Peter Lawford, an actor and brother-in-law, "got" rid of Marlyn Monroe because she was obsessed with president Kennedy.
Just saying......Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredJan 22, 2012
Did any of them actually ran on a ticket of pro-family values?
aveterenJan 22, 2012
Kennedy did. He had the backing of the Catholic church because he was a rich Irish Catholic. Even the Vatican backed him.
woj1sJan 23, 2012
The Catholic church supported Kennedy. Kennedy didn't run on a religious platform. I quote:
"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me." -JFK
rixbadJan 23, 2012
The Pope is infallible you know.
fakbik2Jan 23, 2012
Kennedy had the backing of the catholic church because he was the first and only catholic president in a long line of white anglo saxon protestants, he mixed things up by being catholic.
Also, while Clinton was adulterous, all rape charges were eventually publicly rescinded by the accusers jumping on the" pay me off for our tryst" bandwagon. This is not my opinion, its fact. Their speeches were also televised.
booglefloopJan 22, 2012
Only a complete idiot would post something trying to make it look like Newt is ok for what he has done and continues to do by posting examples of people that he doesnt like doing things.
That's basically a lot of words you posted to just say 'see, they did it, so its ok that my guy is a disgusting skin waste'
letsgetreal50Jan 22, 2012
Only to republicans does two wrongs make a right. Not all, mind you, but one hell of a lot of them.
It certainly doesn't work out mathematically. But it works out will for right wingers.
geejayeJan 22, 2012
So - based on all the time you took dredging up their records, I assume you would not vote for Clinton and Kennedy today, based on their character.
Then - I can only assume that you would never vote for Newt, either.
Otherwise, you join Newt in his hypocrisy.
Just saying....
aveterenJan 22, 2012
"Otherwise, you join Newt in his hypocrisy."
The hypocrisy is yours and the liberal medias double standard.
I was 15 when kennedy ran. But no I wouldn't have voted for him at the time. The man was from one of the riches and most corrupt families at the time. He was in the papers all of the time, when he was a young senator, as a playboy and womenizer when he had just married Jackie. And to top that off he was a Catholic who "was" supposed to not do that. Adultery..
As for Clinton. At the time I would not, as I wouldn't today, vote for anyone who is a Socialist or even leans that way. I don't believe that liberal democrats have the answer. They want to spend to much. That is what got us so deep in debt.
As for Gingrich. Will not vote for him either. He's an old DC politician. We need something new. Different. Someone to get rid of the same old thing. Clean up the cronyism.
Personaly I have not seen anyone like that around lately. That includes present administration.
As far as what I posted just showing it's a two way street. It happens on both sides. So to me,,,,who gives a crap about nonsense like that. Men have been voted in, in spite of themselves, They all are definitely not saints. Both parties. Given the corruption, the scandals, and pure biased partisan politics going on along with the fact our country is falling apart, you people blow way out of proportion a scorned and hurt ex-wife whos own daughters are saying she is not telling the truth.
Give me a brake here.........geez
Oh. By the way it only took me about 5 minutes dredging up their records.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
booglefloopJan 22, 2012
"and the liberal medias double standard"
That's pretty much the end of where I read someone's spoonfed, brainwashed crap. The minute they say "liberal media".
Being that 95% of all news in the US is spun out by 5 major corporations, I can safely put to bed the thought that there might be a chance of good exchange of independent thought.
novenatorJan 22, 2012Submitter
Not just corporations, corporations that are owned and operated primarily by rich conservative white men.
booglefloopJan 22, 2012
Thanks, Novie. That's basically what I was getting at, but yah, you can draw the inevitable conclusion.
aveterenJan 22, 2012
@noven...you know nov I've posted this before so you know that "corporations that are owned and operated primarily by rich conservative white men" doesn't fly anymore. There are a ton of liberal demos out there who are in the corporate world now.
The 1%'ers are more liberal democrat than republican. So why are the republicans helping the democrats? I know, just another liberal demo spin...........nice try
What gets me is that the liberal democrats are more captialistic than republicans.
1.Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $294.21 Million
2.Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $220.40 Million
3.Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $193.07 Million
4.Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $81.63 Million
5.Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $76.30 Million
6.Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $65.91 Million
7.Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) $55.07 Million
8.Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) $52.93* Million
9.Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $45.39 Million
10.Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $44.21 Million
and the great white champion of the poor and ethnic groups herself.........
12.Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) $35.20 Million-- she's on a $350,000 Hawaiian vacation right now. I wonder if she took any of the poor or OWS'ers with her?...................Not
Wealthy liberal Democrats are not new. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is probably the most famous rich liberal of all time. And the Kennedy brothers were wealthy and liberal. In addition, a lot of the wealthest of the big money these days is being made in liberal states of America. Most of the new rich live in places like New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Seattle, and the suburbs of Washington, D.C. – all Democratic strongholds. Barack Obama won eight out of ten of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. in 2008.
-Some of America’s wealthiest people back Barack Obama’s presidential bid and are pouring record sums into the Democratic Party and liberal organizations, some say it will reach a billion dollars, even though they stand to see their taxes go up. That's because it is just political grandstanding. They know it is not going to happen.
-How wealthy donors have spent millions to create the modern environmental activists and have tapped into a river of new liberal cash. You see that is more campaign money.
-Why Hollywood, rolling in new profits thanks to globalization, has more money than ever to back Democratic candidates and push politics to the left. 95% of entertainers are liberal.
-Why Silicon Valley is more liberal and how tech money—including Bill Gates’s and Steve Job's vast fortune—is funding a growing array of liberal groups and politicians.
-How the upper class is likely to get more liberal as young heirs are inculcated with liberal ideas in America’s most elite prep schools and universities.
the ultra-rich liberals.....affectionally know as the Obama Campaign Cash Cows.......
Bill Gates $59 B 55 Medina, Washington Microsoft
Larry Ellison $33 B 67 Woodside, California Oracle
Christy Walton $24.5 B 56 Jackson, Wyoming Wal-Mart
George Soros $22 B 81 Katonah, New York hedge funds
Sheldon Adelson $21.5 B 78 Las Vegas, Nevada casinos
Jim Walton $21.1 B 63 Bentonville, Arkansas Wal-Mart
Alice Walton $20.9 B 61 Fort Worth, Texas Wal-Mart
Steve Balmer, Paul Allen.......the list goes on because there are many liberal Internet billionaires and millionaires.
The richest men and women in the world are liberals.....1%'ers
So let me get this straight, the republicans are helping the 1% democrats, yet the liberals are lying and saying that the democrats are the 99%. The facts say the opposite.
hypocrite = liberals = democratsComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aveterenJan 22, 2012
@floop
"That's pretty much the end of where I read"
And that's the reason you don't have a clue what other people say and think. Because you are so "brainwashed" and "spoonfeed" to your own deluted world.
You can't bring your brainwashed walnut brain to even entertian a different point of view.
Very biased partisan politics.
CLOSED MIND..............OSTRICHComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorJan 23, 2012Submitter
@avete,
You are using selective data again. Show the top 100 list of congressmen to get a more fair sample, or better yet quantify the whole thing.
geejayeJan 23, 2012
"The richest men and women in the world are liberals.....1%'ers"
Nope - that is not what I am finding:
"The top 20 richest Americans (identified in Forbes magazine), and their companies, contributed an impressive $22.6 million to state-level candidates and political committees from 2005 through 2008. As a group, they gave nearly half ($11.2 million) of all contributions to Republican candidates and committees, with ballot measure committees gaining an impressive 35 percent of the total." http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=437
After the ballot measure contributions, it looks like there is 15% left for the Dems...
The Waltons sure can not be counted as liberal:
"Four Waltons and Wal-Mart, collectively, gave the most state campaign contributions of the Forbes magazine's Top 20 list, with $6.8 million in total giving. Walton-related contributors favored Republicans with 72 percent of their total contributions." http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=437
Heck - even Gates pretty gives pretty much 50/50 liberal/conservative:
"Political Campaign Contributions by Bill Gates (1999 to Present) - $371,958
DEMOCRAT: 54.99% REPUBLICAN: 45.01%" http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/bill_gates.asp
Looks like you have some fact-checking to do before you can draw any conclusions....
geejayeJan 22, 2012
Some history here:
Since Reagan, the Republican Party has had a much-hyped political agenda called "family values" which goes way beyond just having a church back you. They use this agenda to justify telling all what to do in the areas of gays, womens' rights, judge appointments, and the "sanctity" of marriage.
The Dems don't use "family values" as a weapon to instill an agenda.
So - there is no double standard here. There is only the fact that these "family values" people would vote in a "hypocritical bigoted" person like Newt.
Bottom line: the Republican Party can no longer claim their high, moral ground based on their hypocrisy of voting for Newt.
skews13Jan 22, 2012
Wrong. Clinton nor Kennedy called for anybody's impeachment while they were engaaged in their extramarital affairs. An extramarital affair is one thing, calling somebody else out for it while you're engaged in the same behavior makes you not only a hypocrite, but takes away your ability to ever point fingers at anyone else for any reason, or to be equals to anyone else that engaged in an affair. Gingrich has zero credibility on the issue, and now the religious right has zero credibility also. For any church to retain any credibility at all requires them to turn their backs on Gingrich immediately, or forever share in his lack of it.
geejayeJan 22, 2012
And - you know - you are talking about sexual assault, rape and murder. Those are some mighty strong allegations.
So - where are the charges?
Or is this just from one of those unsubstantiated, hyperbolic, conservative emails?
aveterenJan 22, 2012
Were the f,,k do you idiots come from? That is documented history from the women themselves, police reports from Arkansas, DC, and other police reports. Also a Congressional Hearing into some of these affairs, particular Monica Lewinsky, And a Grand Jury that he lied too, remember " I did not have sexual relations with that girl", and got impeached by the House but still stayed president.
Not "unsubstantiated, hyperbolic, conservative emails?"
HIS-TO-RY. Please learn it................
Get a f,,king life and learn your history.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geejayeJan 23, 2012
"That is documented history"
Great - then I am sure that you can easily provide a credible link that would prove rape and murder. All I could find is the exact BS you posted on a bunch of conservative sites.
Otherwise - I am seeing no charges, besides Clinton's "lie".
ernesthuaJan 23, 2012
geejaye,
None of these bozos will be willing to do what you are asking of them, which is to make a statement precise enough to prove something.
What they are hoping to do is to whip up emotions by mixing definitions and contexts. You would never hear some pro-life lunatic splitting hairs about what exactly constitute "murder" in legal terms. What you would hear, instead, is a lot of high-pitched volume about some vague "liberal conspiracy" to "mass murder" children. That kind of wordsmithing feels really good to them because it makes the other side look vaguely evil in some generic fashion, and it is conducive to chanting and screaming all day long with others of the same ilk.
The problem is, of course, this is not a substitute for substantive discussions, which any sort of "proving" exercise requires, so you ain't gonna get anything near that much thought discipline from them. It is just not in their interest to do so.
Nuts like aveteren are mostly here to make a mess of the conversation, and not really to point out anything new you might not have thought of.
In other words, he is a troll.
geejayeJan 23, 2012
You are so right, enesthua.
Unfortunately, trolls vote on the high-pitched volume about some vague "liberal conspiracy", which is why sometimes I fruitlessly try to get them to at least understand the other side.
After all, Digg is the only non-Fox place they have.
lpezzJan 23, 2012
You've been hanging on to that for some time, haven't you?
area51undefinedJan 23, 2012
hehaheha how about zawar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A839xCZuEU4
drcordycepsJan 23, 2012
Hey now, comparing him to a real newt is offensive to amphibians.
skews13Jan 22, 2012
A family of liars. I'm still trying to sift through the lies that were so numerous in his speech last night that it defies reality. I'm sure the pundits are dissecting them as we speak. See you in the news cycles next week.
sly7765Jan 22, 2012
Is it just me or does he look like the Stay Puft marshmallow man from GhostBusters?
diefreeJan 22, 2012
Hey don't insult Stay Puft, He was just a world destroying monster, Newt can do much more damage.
glbernsJan 22, 2012
Yes.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j-mQoTwDXvs/TqWnoBhlX9I/AAAAAAAAAts/gByvPGKBgWs/s400/ghostbusters-screenshot.jpg
antilimitJan 23, 2012
How bout the Green Goblin?!
http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/8/2009/06/spiderman_goblin.jpg
EnnovateJan 22, 2012
all of us must have some type of another family values
breadfredJan 22, 2012
He's got lots of family values. After all, he's got lots of families.
aveterenJan 22, 2012
Cheap shot. There are a lot of multi-families out there. Their kids are the one who suffer.
fakbik2Jan 23, 2012
Let's not forget the first wife....or the second.
breadfredJan 23, 2012
Differences being THEY do not run for president on a family ticket.
By the way, I got a mum, a step mum and an ex-step-mum. I doubt MY dad would run for pres on a family ticket.
pdpgtiJan 22, 2012
This is full of win
letsgetreal50Jan 22, 2012
It appears from these posts that all right wingers are just as stupid as Newt.
breadfredJan 22, 2012
I think all extremes (right or left) are stupid - and not capable of compromise. It speaks volumes that your current Pres wants to compromise with bunch of testosterone driven monkeys who put their party and their self-interest BEFORE the good of the USA. It shows who is a grown-up.
Unfortunately, it was also short-sighted. Some people will just not give in. Not out of a feeling of justice, mind, but out of a feeling of pure and utter ****ism.
aveterenJan 22, 2012
"all right wingers are just as stupid as Newt"
Give me one example of your very assine comment and I will give you left-winger behavior and more right back at you.
Quit generalizing....It's pure descriminationComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorJan 22, 2012Submitter
Death panels.
Check and mate.
letsgetreal50Jan 22, 2012
You want a good example? OK
You, aveteren.
fakbik2Jan 23, 2012
This comment (letsgetreal50) needs more diggs.
aveterenJan 23, 2012
OWS'ers..rapist, murders, thieves, s**ts in the street...
Oh, I'm sorry you only wanted one....
analogkid1Jan 22, 2012
Birthers.
aveterenJan 23, 2012
Socialism.....
Karl Marx asserted that "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." No respect for peoples beliefs as afforded by the Constitution.
Obama's Class Warfare....
Obama called American people lazy and not in tune with with what's really going on.
Keynesian economics.....
Fast and Furious
hell I'm tired....... going to have my dinnerComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
analogkid1Jan 23, 2012
Karl Marx was 100% correct.
Obama's class warfare? Non-existent. The rich and rich corporations don't pay their fair share. Some don;t pay any taxes at all.
American people lazy and not in tune with with what's really going on? Again...100% correct.
fakbik2Jan 23, 2012
Not everything you read on the lonely conservative is true. And by not everything I mean close to nothing.
geejayeJan 23, 2012
One example of a very asinine comment?
"OWS'ers..rapist, murders, thieves, s**ts in the street."
Quit generalizing....It's pure discrimination....
asfinktersezwutJan 23, 2012
How about the inability to spell "discrimination" correctly?
... actually, his comment was overgeneralizing and I really do hate that from either side... and I'm not usually a spelling nazi, but you threw it out there and I had to hit it... 8-)
jpurdyJan 23, 2012
"He's a sociopath, but he's our sociopath," Marianne Gingrich quotes his staffers as saying, during the late 1990s when the House Ethics Committee investigated Gingrich's GOPAC's donations and his charity fundraising came under suspicion.
DF68Jan 22, 2012
Fun-ny. :0D
nmw6Jan 23, 2012
Also, don't forget that his third wife is the same age as the daughters from his first wife.
isaac7719Jan 23, 2012
Is that true? If it is, that's actually really creepy.
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
He married his first wife in 1962. His latest wife was born in 1966. I can't find the birth dates for his daughters, but it makes sense they would be just about the same age.
analogkid1Jan 22, 2012
Newt is all about family values...just like Captain Schettino is all about heroism and self-sacrifice.
letsgetreal50Jan 23, 2012
"Family values" are not practiced, they are just code words for the stupid. They simply mean, "vote for me."
Now, Mr and Mrs Obama are impeccable when it comes to being an example to follow.
analogkid1Jan 23, 2012
Can't argue with that.
StonnaJan 23, 2012
The problem I have with newt besides the point he is nothing but a puppet, is that he left his wife when he knew stress might kill her.
letsgetreal50Jan 23, 2012
Newt and Romney are f**king ass h**es, par excellent.
gt777Jan 22, 2012
Every Single Politicians are pretty f up in America!
markglJan 23, 2012
Step down Newt. He just another Obama in disguise.
jaketyson85Jan 22, 2012
Who cares who Newt has slept with - is he different than any college campus dude? What matters is the fact that he is the only man with the smarts and IQ needed to get this country back on track. Get on the n00t-wagon or get out the way!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 22, 2012
My guess is that Newt's daughters chose to support their dad of their own volition, and the fact is that they support their dad.
Not that the premise of Ole's crappy graphic has much merit anyway; it was the smackdown of the press and the way it was done which won him the support he needed to win.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
asfinktersezwutJan 22, 2012
There are certain advantages to "Daddy" being President - even if he is a lying philanderer.
atomheartmotherJan 23, 2012
Funny how you parrot speculation as if it's fact.
asfinktersezwutJan 23, 2012
But... exactly which part do you object to?
Let's look at some of the "facts" shall we:
1> Newt is a politician - ergo; he lies. Show me one who doesn't and I will show you how the Earth is really balanced on the back of a giant tortoise.
2> Newt had sexual relations with women who were not his wife - while he was married. By definition, he is a Philanderer - ergo, a lying philanderer.
3> Newt is using the daughters from his first marriage to support him against his second wife - who is talking about Newt's philandering with his third wife (Jerry Springer anyone?).
4> Whether you are Obama's children, Bush's daughters, Clinton's little girl or Newt's offspring, most people would assume there are certain advantages to your father being the POTUS.
The same statement I posted could be used in the context of Chelsea Clinton. So, is there anything I stated which is incorrect? Please do point it out.
atomheartmotherJan 23, 2012
Do you have any direct evidence which supports your speculation?
No you don't.
asfinktersezwutJan 23, 2012
Do you have any evidence that what Newt is saying is true? Do you have any evidence that what his Ex is saying is untrue? No, you don't.
As I have stated in multiple posts - we don't know, so stop asserting that Newt is telling the truth and she is lying. Because you don't know. We will probably never know.
Again I ask - which part of my statement is incorrect?
" There are certain advantages to "Daddy" being President - even if he is a lying philanderer. "
atomheartmotherJan 23, 2012
assfink, you've got real issues when it comes to staying on point, don't you?
Let me repeat...you're merely speculating. You made the statement; it's up to you to back it up.
And of course you cannot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
"assfink"
A teenage response. What a shocker...
eraptorJan 22, 2012
What's wrong? Truth gotcha by the "short hairs"?
Newt's living the old Mormon ideal of having numerous wives, he just calls it having an "open marriage". From a political independent's vantage point, It looks like 2 out of 3 Republican frontrunners follow the Mormon faith, old warts and all.
I can't WAIT to see how Social Conservatives explain their way out of THIS "Christian values" predicament. There is only ONE true social conservative among the frontrunners, Rick Santorum. Everyone else falls short of meeting their "values" watermark.
It must REALLY eat social conservatives raw knowing a Democrat, Barack Obama, comes closer to meeting their "Christian value" ideal than MOST Republicans running for office.
atomheartmotherJan 23, 2012
Most conservatives--social or otherwise--long for the day when someone calls out the president for his radical associations, his bungled policies and his failed socialistic policies. Newt's the only guy with the stones to do it.
I can't WAIT for that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
asfinktersezwutJan 23, 2012
So... you mean Newt would talk about Bush's business and personal associations with the Bin Laden family and the house of Saud - I really can't think of any other President who had such a direct association with a bigger supporter of Islamic fundamentalists than that.
atomheartmotherJan 23, 2012
You mean the twice removed, tenuous link of Saudi oil people who disowned OBL? THAT "personal association"?
Don't see how that's relevant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJan 23, 2012
It's a good thing I brought my hip waders with me today, because the BS, you keep spewing, is getting deep.
Baseless character assassination and mudslinging is ALL conservatives have to offer the country since your ideological beliefs are so broken they have collapsed the U.S. economy AGAIN. As if your contributions in creating the Great Depression weren't bad enough. You know it and WE know it.
Newt's got "stones" alright. It's shame he doesn't have the credibility to back up his/your bulls**t.
If you think nominating a political thug, with NO history of economic success, to the Presidency is a solution, your thinly veiled racism runs FAR deeper than any of us thought possible. In essence, you'd rather torpedo this nation, than see a black man re-elected to the Presidency. UNBELIEVABLE!!!! If your party succeeds in perpetuating YOUR agenda, I hope you are hunted down, prosecuted and incarcerated when you create the NEXT Great Depression. Absent that, you'll deserve the street justice that will SURELY follow.
Obama's policies stand FAR more chance of reviving the U.S. economy, but have NEVER seen the light of day because your KKK Grand Wizards in the Senate (i.e., MItch "bitter turtle" McConnell, R-KY) and House (John "Which way to the links?" Boehner, R-OH) have stonewalled every effort made thus far. If you think your party's political/economic sabotage is lost on anyone...IT ISN'T.
atomheartmotherJan 23, 2012
Yes, yes of course...it isn't that we disagree with the President because he's failed miserably on every economic benchmark or because he's radical, it's because of his skin color.
Seriously, is that all you jackasses have? 'Cause that's not going to be a winning theme.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJan 23, 2012
I would laugh if your idelogical insanity wasn't so tragic for my fellow Americans.
First, the economic hole we're all standing in was created by Republicans, NOT Democrat's.
Second, Obama and the Democrat's are the ONLY presence in DC making an effort to restore the U.S. economy. What do we see from Conservatives? NOTHING but stonewalling. Hell, there isn't a SINGLE Conservative serving OR running for office who has proposed a SINGLE economic/fiscal policy that would credibly revive the U.S. economy OR reduce the nation's debt.
Deregulation and tax cuts CREATED that economic hole, "genius". If you think doubling down on THAT stupidity is a "solution" to the nation's troubles, you and your band of conservative morons have NO place influencing national public policy in ANY way, shape or form.
Finally, God help this nation if Conservatives continue to stonewall, or worse, implement their ongoing ideological stupidity. It WILL crash the national economy. Herbert Hoover PROVED as much. When that happens, all Hell will break loose on Conservatives. BANK on it!!!
samthurstonJan 23, 2012
"it isn't that we disagree with the President because he's failed miserably on every economic benchmark"
Shedding a quarter of a million jobs per month in dec 2008. Adding jobs today. Turnaround took effect right as the stimulus money kicked in, but i'm sure that's just coincidence.
His corporate-friendly policies have focused on keeping taxes low while spending enough to keep business afloat and bolster consumer spending. But that's because he's a "radical" right?
I mean, if the first and second part of your statement is demonstrably false what am i to think of the third?
atomheartmotherJan 23, 2012
"First, the economic hole we're all standing in was created by Republicans, NOT Democrat's."
Really? Which party pushed the nonsensical "everyone deserves a home" policies and ideas which lowered lending standards?
Which president signed major legislation repealing key parts of the Glass/Steagal Act?
Which party & political philosophy was it which saddled us with trillions in entitlement programs we can't afford?
"Hell, there isn't a SINGLE Conservative serving OR running for office who has proposed a SINGLE economic/fiscal policy that would credibly revive the U.S. economy OR reduce the nation's debt."
Ummm....2011 House budget? Upwards of 30 jobs bills passed by the House, none of Which Majority Reid will even allow debate on?
atomheartmotherJan 23, 2012
sam, the president muscled through his trillion dollar stimulus on the promise that unemployment wouldn't go over 8% if we passed it. Didn't happen.
He said it would turn the economy around...hell, a couple of years ago it was "recovery Summer", remember?
Lastly, there are nearly two million more Americans out of work now than when he took office.
Like I said....abject failure.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorJan 23, 2012
@AHM,
I'm happy to gut your baseless theories (i.e., like shooting fish in a barrel). Write them down this time because I'm getting tired of pointing out your ignorance and gutting your baseless theories.
1) "Which party pushed the nonsensical "everyone deserves a home" policies and ideas which lowered lending standards?"
First, Republicans controlled Congress when those destructive loan practices were being made, NOT Democrat's. Those loan practices WEREN'T reined in until Democrat's REGAINED control over Congress in 2007, AFTER most of the damage had already occurred. Newt even lobbied his conservative "pals" to prevent the crackdown you attempt to take credit for now.
Second, MOST of the financial damage created by the Housing Bubble collapse is tied to private sector-created, Wall Street financial instruments (i.e., mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps), NOT regulations. You can thank Republican deregulation for that BS because those TOOLS and the destruction they created weren't possible until Republicans INCREASED capital leveraging from 15x to 40 TIMES the underlying asset value.
2) "Which president signed major legislation repealing key parts of the Glass/Steagal Act?"
While Bill Clinton signed that bill, WHO CARES??!!! Republicans CHAMPIONED that piece of crap from beginning to end and legislation ORIGINATES from Congress, NOT the Executive branch. Clinton should have vetoed it and every other piece of that financial "modernization" (more like "antiquation") effort.
3) "Which party & political philosophy was it which saddled us with trillions in entitlement programs we can't afford?"
Democrat's deserve FULL credit for Social Security AND Medicare. It's not as if Republicans have EVER created anything that has made the nation better. By the way, the national debt was created by Republican fiscal stupidity, NOT our social safety net. We could easily fix the fiscal cahllenges in BOTH programs by tweaking them and creating a healthcare program for seniors similar to the VA. IT's not as if Republicans offer a credible substitute to EITHER plan in meeting senior's financial/healthcare needs. You'd rather leave them at the mercy of the streets, poverty and starvation.
4) "Ummm....2011 House budget? Upwards of 30 jobs bills passed by the House, none of Which Majority Reid will even allow debate on?"
You call those weak efforts and mis-labelled bills credible? I read them. Did you? They amount to nothing short of changing "the shade of lipstick on the same ol' pig". NONE of those initiatives offer a credible solution to the nation's economic, unemployment OR fiscal challenges.
If conservatives want credibility in this country, they'll have to EARN it by first realizing that their broken ideas have NEVER worked and never WILL (i.e., "trickle down" is a tragic joke) then recognizing that Progressives/Independents offer economic solutions with a LONG track record of success. In America, credible solutions with track records of success should ALWAYS be favored over broken, useless theories.
5) Finally, it took 3 decades for Republicans to wreck the U.S. economy. There's NO way Obama or anyone else could repair it in less time. So stop blaming him for your mistakes.
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
"Yes, yes of course...it isn't that we disagree with the President because he's failed miserably on every economic benchmark or because he's radical, it's because of his skin color."
He hasn't failed on every economic benchmark. He's not a radical.
That leave skin color. DING DING DING!!!
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
"Which president signed major legislation repealing key parts of the Glass/Steagal Act?"
Which party created it and gave Clinton a veto proof majority? Created by Republicans (written by banks) and bought into by Democrats. BOTH parties are responsible.
Now, to Obama:
Taxes lower under Obama than any time in 60 years (something you claim to support)
Manufacturing jobs created higher than any time in the last 20 years (something you claim to support)
Created more jobs in 3 years than Bush in 8 years (something you claim to support)
Decimated Al Qaeda (something you claim to support)
Killed Bin Laden (something you claim to support)
Re-signed Patriot Act (something you claim to support)
Signed NDAA (something you claim to support)
So what is it AHM? I just put up an extensive list of items you SHOULD be thanking Obama for. Why is it you ignore all this and make false claims?
There is only one possible reason: You are a racist pig.
samthurstonJan 24, 2012
You do realize that by your standards, a surgeon who can't make a terminal patient fit to run a marathon within a few months is an "abject failure" by merely saving the patient's life.
The 8% "promise" you keep citing was made before he was in office, about a stimulus proposal that was very different than what passed.
I won't argue that faster recovery wouldn't be better, but looking at the global financial situation, I'm curious how you think that would be accomplished.
Anyway I think you're trying to hold this president to an unrealistic standard... is there any particular reason for that? If McCain had won, faced similar economic prospects, and got us to where we are today, would you also judge him an abject failure?
atomheartmotherJan 24, 2012
eraptor, as usual your diatribe runs contrary to fact, and the only ignorance here is yours; born of your simplemindedness and blind, irrational extremism.
The CRA was proposed during the Carter Administration by Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisc.). That was the catalyst for the decreased lending standards which followed, and was passed under Democrat control of both houses of congress.
Further, the criminals in your party didn't reign anything in until the housing market crashed, and even when it was evident that it would, Dems like Barney Frank and Speaker Pelosi continued to defend F&F.
"While Bill Clinton signed that bill, WHO CARES??!!! "
Not you, apparently, despite the fact that Clinton and his inner circle were the ones pushing hardest for it. Of course if Clinton were a Republican, hacks like you would be screaming from the rooftops that it was ALL his fault.
And your statement right there illustrates very clearly what a disingenuous hack you are. In your world anything which crossed Bush's (or any other Republican's )desk he is fully and totally responsible for. But in the case of "your" guy, policies they support and even legislation they sign into law, isn't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 24, 2012
@ sam, The surgeon analogy is an interesting one, but I'm not sure it's apt. A closer one might be that the surgeon convinces a patient to try a new, expensive, unproven procedure which he claims will cure him, but all it really does is mitigate his symptoms for a while and leave him hopelessly in debt.
"The 8% "promise" you keep citing was made before he was in office, about a stimulus proposal that was very different than what passed. "
I think that's more than a little bit misleading. The 8% claim was made by the WH...specifically by Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, on January 9th, 2009. One day later, on January 10, 2009, President-Elect Obama’s administration released the report, and the bill was presented in the House six days after the president's inauguration, on January 26, 2009.
But don't take my word for it, take the president's. From the administration's own website, whitehouse.gov:
"The methodology used to estimate the job impact of the ARRA was described in detail in Romer and Bernstein (Obama Transition Document, January 11, 2009)."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/Estimate-of-Job-Creation
The nuts and bolts of the stimulus and how to sell it were being crafted by the president's transition team so that, in the president's own words, he could "hit the ground running". To claim that because the president was a few days away from being sworn in when his people released the report--one that they used to help get it through congress--somehow translates into absolving the WH from its own claims and predictions isn't credible now, and won't be come general election time either.
"If McCain had won, faced similar economic prospects, and got us to where we are today, would you also judge him an abject failure?"
As far as I'm aware, Senator McCain's campaign didn't include a wasteful, $800+ billion stimulus package or a nonsensical, monolithic new healthcare law. If he'd opted to do those things anyway after being elected, then I'd have to say yes.
atomheartmotherJan 24, 2012
@leech, you are an ignorant troll who adds nothing to any discussion whatsoever.
You don't deserve, nor will receive, anything except derision and scorn
eraptorJan 24, 2012
@AHM,
Your pathetic attempts at character assassination make me laugh. If I'm "simpleminded, blind and irrational", imagine what that makes you considering the number of times I keep beating you in debates. You're as challenging to debate as "a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest".
Since you enjoy the "agony of defeat" so much, he's a second helping:
1) If the CRA was proposed during the Carter Administration and responsible for the Housing Bubble, why did it take alomst 20 YEARS before those disastrous loans manifested themselves? If your claim had any validity, we would have seen the Housing Bubble during the Carter/Reagan administration's, NOT Dubya's lost decade of incompetence. You had to go up to your elbow to pull that one out of your ass/brain. Epic FAIL...
2) You can't blame Democrat's for failing to rein in the Housing market for the simple reason that they didn't control Congress, REPUBLICANS did. Democrat's were virtually powerless to stop the morons YOU supported.
3) As for blaming Clinton for the financial industry's crimes, YOU CAN'T. If you want to blame someone for their crimes against this nation AND Housing Bubble, look to Phil Gramm (R-TX) since HE and Newt Gingrich were at the center of it. As I told you before, legislative deregulation was and CONTINUES to be championed by CONSERVATIVES, NOT Progresives/Liberals. In short, you and your conservative boys "screwed the pooch" and the Congressiuonal Record PROVES IT.
4) As for Dubya, I blame him for HIS administration's actions. Legislative blame belongs with the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, executive branch blame belongs to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. This is true REGARDLESS of whether a Republican OR Democratic President occupies the White House. If Dubya earns legislative blame it's ONLY because Congressional Republicans RUBBER-STAMPED everything he put before them until they were kicked out of office in 2007. When Democrat's behave like Republicans, they'll earn the DSAME disgrace. We all know Democrat's are more independently minded than their "Lemming" counterparts.
I realize truth is a hard pill for YOU to swallow. Get used to it, because the 2012 election is shaping up to be a real b***h for the Conservative movement. Enjoy that well-deserved ass-kicking from the nation when it arrives because you EARNED it.
atomheartmotherJan 24, 2012
eraptor, you can thump your chest like an ignorant primate all you like, but the simple fact is that you've lied here, provably.
Add to that your hypocritical double-standard when it comes to Clinton and his role in deregulation and it's apparent that "character assassination" isn't possible in your case...the alleged victim assumed room temperature a long time ago.
eraptorJan 24, 2012
AHM,
Put up or shut up.
Since your reading comprehension SUCKS. You can't blame Clinton for the actions of a Republican Congress because they didn't rubber-stamp HIS policy initiatives as they did with Dubya. Congressional behavior may be lost on you, but it's NOT lost on me.
Having said that, the SAME standard of judgment applies to legislative accountability, REGARDLESS of who occupies the Oval office...U.S. legislation and legislative initiatives originate from the LEGISLATIVE branch (hence the NAME), NOT the executive branch. As such, CONGRESS is ultimately responsible for the legislation it passes (SPECIFICALLY those legislators who champion, support AND vote for EACH legislative initiative), NOT the President.
samthurstonJan 25, 2012
"The 8% claim was made by the WH...specifically by Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, on January 9th"
So in other words, my statement was accurate on this account.
"To claim that because the president was a few days away from being sworn in when his people released the report--one that they used to help get it through congress--somehow translates into absolving the WH from its own claims and predictions isn't credible"
At the point at which the 8% claim was made, 2008's employment and economic data weren't fully complete. The drastic state of the economy- at the time obama took office- FAR WORSE than it is today on any measure, was not yet entirely clear. The models they were working with showed an 8% cap because the numbers they were working with were showing ~150k/month job losses instead of the actual 250k/month. So the timing really has less to do with him being in office, but the point remains the same... furthermore I don't see how the WH needs to be "absolved" of the claim in any way. Anyone with a middle school education should understand that economic forecasting is an inexact science and so wouldn't hear "8%" and think... "AHA! if it goes to 9% they've FAILED!!!!"
"As far as I'm aware, Senator McCain's campaign didn't include a wasteful, $800+ billion stimulus package"
As far as I'm aware, Obama's _campaign_ didn't include that either. And as to it's wastefulness:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html
"six find that the stimulus had a significant, positive effect on employment and growth, and three find that the effect was either quite small or impossible to detect."
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
"Most conservatives--social or otherwise--long for the day when someone calls out the president for his radical associations, his bungled policies and his failed socialistic policies. "
Not ONE fact. Another shocker. Just call him uppity and get over yourself.
pc25Jan 22, 2012
prove it Novey
usarugulaJan 22, 2012
Prove what? Gingrich said in the last debate that his daughters called ABC to complain about them airing the interview with his second wife.
So which part are you disputing: that Gingrich was married to the three women who claim they are/were his wives; that the girls Gingrich talks about are actually his daughters; or that Gingrich was telling the truth when he said that his daughters called ABC?
pc25Jan 22, 2012
that a vindictive ex wife is not lying.
usarugulaJan 22, 2012
That's Gingrich's responsibility and he was given an opportunity respond to do so right off the bat in the South Carolina debate:
CNN's JOHN KING: "As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with The Washington Post, and this story has now gone viral on the Internet. In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?"
But rather than present his side, Gingrich decided to attack the media as "biased and disgusting" simply for the media giving him an opportunity to make his case on a nationally broadcast news event. And you folks drank it up like so much kool-aid.
So let's take personal politics out of it so that I might present you with a hypothetical scenario:
Someone is charged with an offense. What does the innocent man do:
A) Defend his name against these charges?
B) Attack the court for providing him the opportunity to defend himself?
pc25Jan 22, 2012
and he did, he said it was an absolute falsehood, that ABC knew it was false.
asfinktersezwutJan 22, 2012
There are many ways to ask this question depending on the emphasis...
How do you know it is false?
HOW do you know it is false?
How do you KNOW it is false?
but most importantly...
How do YOU know it is false?
You can't and you don't.
pc25Jan 23, 2012
prove the charges and accusations of a bitter ex wife with an axe to grind is true. You can't.
novenatorJan 22, 2012Submitter
@usarugula, ignore the troll. His pathetic existence revolves around talking s**t and desperately trying to get people to respond. I guess negative attention is still attention for brats.
GentlemanGhost542Jan 22, 2012
pc25 is throwing a fit again I see.
I sometimes wonder if the PC in his name stands for the Political Correctness often he spews
letsgetreal50Jan 22, 2012
Those who seek "negative attention," in behavioral science refer to "children" not so much to adults.
http://tinyurl.com/7dmdfqk
I think we have some small children here with big problems.
pc25Jan 23, 2012
you should talk about a pathetic existence ODDBALL. Only a pathetic liberal stoops into hacking and posting private emails.
GentlemanGhost542Jan 22, 2012
Gingrich took the cowards way out and played the victim and attacked the media for asking a simple question the voters are going to ask him anyhow.
asfinktersezwutJan 22, 2012
Oh grow up man! They are ALL lying - each for their own purposes. None of us will ever know the complete truth.
pc25Jan 22, 2012
meanwhile ABC ran the headline story from the interview with a bitter and vindictive ex wife in an attempt to influence the primary results. Real credible. Wreaks of the National Guard story.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
asfinktersezwutJan 22, 2012
Hey, I agree it was wrong and I am not even a Newt fan. In fact, I thoroughly dislike the man. However, opening the debate with that question was a disgrace to the Presidential Debates. Perhaps giving each of the candidates in turn the chance to respond to each of their biggest scandal items of the day at some point further into the debate would have been appropriate, but the way they did it was just unprofessional.
Having said that, you don't know if she is telling the truth or lying. Do you really think Newt is a good, family values kind of guy after serially dumping wives for inappropriate relationships with younger women? He's on his third wife and who knows how long that will last. None of us know what he said so really, can you sit there and tell me you are so certain that she is lying?