Major reason why Gingrinch should not be president

[Sub-Husker]

Gingrich slots MEK terrorists’ supporter John Bolton for State

 

Bolton is an irascible attorney who is horrible to his subordinates, makes Rod Blagojevich look like a paragon of truthfulness, played a role in inserting the notorious, forged “yellowcake uranium from Niger” assertion in George W. Bush’s pre-Iraq War State of the Union address, wants to bomb Iran so badly he sometimes just sits in an F-18 and imagines himself over Isfahan; and, worst of all, he has offered moral support to a terrorist organization, which the Supreme Court rather frowns on.

 

Bolton spoke at an event in honor of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist organization that mixes Marxism and Islam (its logo has a hammer and sickle) and has killed many civilians in Iran as well as having at one time targeted Americans. The MEK is on the State Department terrorism list.

 

http://www.juancole....-for-state.html

[krill]

Well you see, when we sponsor terrorism or at least tacitly endorse it, it's perfectly fine, and even characterizing it as such makes you a damn dirty liberal apologist who hates America.

 

PS is there ANY compelling reason to vote for the Newtster besides his party affiliation and apparent ability to debate? He has absolutely nothing to stand on in the morals department and is the definitive political grifter. Seems to me like Republican leadership got to together about 8 months ago and decided to have a musical chairs nomination process with loud, angry people playing the music. Unbelievably, Newt may get the last chair...

[Husker_x]

Gingrich has slotted no one for State. He said he would ask John Bolton under certain preconditions.

 

Secondly, Gingrich does not favor war with Iran. He favors a variety of covert means of toppling a regime, focussed primarily on cutting off their gasoline supply and oil refinement capabilities, as well as funding dissident groups in the area. All of this to avoid military action, which would become all but inevitable if Iran were to produce a nuclear weapon.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Well you see, when we sponsor terrorism or at least tacitly endorse it, it's perfectly fine, and even characterizing it as such makes you a damn dirty liberal apologist who hates America.

 

PS is there ANY compelling reason to vote for the Newtster besides his party affiliation and apparent ability to debate? He has absolutely nothing to stand on in the morals department and is the definitive political grifter. Seems to me like Republican leadership got to together about 8 months ago and decided to have a musical chairs nomination process with loud, angry people playing the music. Unbelievably, Newt may get the last chair...

 

Maybe you are too young or maybe you think it is a myth but he balanced the budget when he was speaker. Now most credit Clinton with that and I get the POTUS gets credit and criticism for things that he didn't do in office so it is OK for Clinton to get the credit. But Gingrich and the pubs contract with America dragged Clinton into balancing the budget. He is a very intelligent politician and one that has worked in a bipartisan way. Isn't that what people are looking for in this election?

[Sub-Husker]

Gingrich has slotted no one for State. He said he would ask John Bolton under certain preconditions.

 

John Bolton should not be considered under any circumstance, or precondition.

 

Secondly, Gingrich does not favor war with Iran. He favors a variety of covert means of toppling a regime, focussed primarily on cutting off their gasoline supply and oil refinement capabilities, as well as funding dissident groups in the area. All of this to avoid military action, which would become all but inevitable if Iran were to produce a nuclear weapon.

 

So Newt doesn't favor overt war, he favors illegal covert operations.

 

In other words... Newt favors terrorism.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Gingrich has slotted no one for State. He said he would ask John Bolton under certain preconditions.

 

John Bolton should not be considered under any circumstance, or precondition.

 

Secondly, Gingrich does not favor war with Iran. He favors a variety of covert means of toppling a regime, focussed primarily on cutting off their gasoline supply and oil refinement capabilities, as well as funding dissident groups in the area. All of this to avoid military action, which would become all but inevitable if Iran were to produce a nuclear weapon.

 

So Newt doesn't favor overt war, he favors illegal covert operations.

 

In other words... Newt favors terrorism.

 

so you are saying you favor we have an actual war with Iran?

[carlfense]

Well you see, when we sponsor terrorism or at least tacitly endorse it, it's perfectly fine, and even characterizing it as such makes you a damn dirty liberal apologist who hates America.

 

PS is there ANY compelling reason to vote for the Newtster besides his party affiliation and apparent ability to debate? He has absolutely nothing to stand on in the morals department and is the definitive political grifter. Seems to me like Republican leadership got to together about 8 months ago and decided to have a musical chairs nomination process with loud, angry people playing the music. Unbelievably, Newt may get the last chair...

 

Maybe you are too young or maybe you think it is a myth but he balanced the budget when he was speaker. Now most credit Clinton with that and I get the POTUS gets credit and criticism for things that he didn't do in office so it is OK for Clinton to get the credit. But Gingrich and the pubs contract with America dragged Clinton into balancing the budget. He is a very intelligent politician and one that has worked in a bipartisan way. Isn't that what people are looking for in this election?

Also, he resigned in disgrace because of 84 ethics violations and left his wife for another woman while she was in the hospital with cancer.

 

The perfect family values candidate! He regrets that he has but three wives to give for his country.

 

 

Edit: I hope Gingrich is the GOP candidate.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Well you see, when we sponsor terrorism or at least tacitly endorse it, it's perfectly fine, and even characterizing it as such makes you a damn dirty liberal apologist who hates America.

 

PS is there ANY compelling reason to vote for the Newtster besides his party affiliation and apparent ability to debate? He has absolutely nothing to stand on in the morals department and is the definitive political grifter. Seems to me like Republican leadership got to together about 8 months ago and decided to have a musical chairs nomination process with loud, angry people playing the music. Unbelievably, Newt may get the last chair...

 

Maybe you are too young or maybe you think it is a myth but he balanced the budget when he was speaker. Now most credit Clinton with that and I get the POTUS gets credit and criticism for things that he didn't do in office so it is OK for Clinton to get the credit. But Gingrich and the pubs contract with America dragged Clinton into balancing the budget. He is a very intelligent politician and one that has worked in a bipartisan way. Isn't that what people are looking for in this election?

Also, he resigned in disgrace because of 84 ethics violations and left his wife for another woman while she was in the hospital with cancer.

 

The perfect family values candidate! He regrets that he has but three wives to give for his country.

 

 

Edit: I hope Gingrich is the GOP candidate.

 

Since when has the dems cared about ethics. Clinton was getting you know whats in the oval office, no one cared then. John Kennedy had a notorious affair with Marylyn Monroe as well as his brother Bobby no one cared. When has family values mattered to the liberals in this country?

[carlfense]

Well you see, when we sponsor terrorism or at least tacitly endorse it, it's perfectly fine, and even characterizing it as such makes you a damn dirty liberal apologist who hates America.

 

PS is there ANY compelling reason to vote for the Newtster besides his party affiliation and apparent ability to debate? He has absolutely nothing to stand on in the morals department and is the definitive political grifter. Seems to me like Republican leadership got to together about 8 months ago and decided to have a musical chairs nomination process with loud, angry people playing the music. Unbelievably, Newt may get the last chair...

 

Maybe you are too young or maybe you think it is a myth but he balanced the budget when he was speaker. Now most credit Clinton with that and I get the POTUS gets credit and criticism for things that he didn't do in office so it is OK for Clinton to get the credit. But Gingrich and the pubs contract with America dragged Clinton into balancing the budget. He is a very intelligent politician and one that has worked in a bipartisan way. Isn't that what people are looking for in this election?

Also, he resigned in disgrace because of 84 ethics violations and left his wife for another woman while she was in the hospital with cancer.

 

The perfect family values candidate! He regrets that he has but three wives to give for his country.

 

 

Edit: I hope Gingrich is the GOP candidate.

 

Since when has the dems cared about ethics. Clinton was getting you know whats in the oval office, no one cared then. John Kennedy had a notorious affair with Marylyn Monroe as well as his brother Bobby no one cared. When has family values mattered to the liberals in this country?

And there's the rub. Conservatives accuse liberals of not caring about family values . . . but then they support someone like Gingrich. Hypocrisy is a bitch.

 

Actions speak louder than words, eh? But by all means . . . try to make the current GOP nomination be about Clinton and Kennedy.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Well you see, when we sponsor terrorism or at least tacitly endorse it, it's perfectly fine, and even characterizing it as such makes you a damn dirty liberal apologist who hates America.

 

PS is there ANY compelling reason to vote for the Newtster besides his party affiliation and apparent ability to debate? He has absolutely nothing to stand on in the morals department and is the definitive political grifter. Seems to me like Republican leadership got to together about 8 months ago and decided to have a musical chairs nomination process with loud, angry people playing the music. Unbelievably, Newt may get the last chair...

 

Maybe you are too young or maybe you think it is a myth but he balanced the budget when he was speaker. Now most credit Clinton with that and I get the POTUS gets credit and criticism for things that he didn't do in office so it is OK for Clinton to get the credit. But Gingrich and the pubs contract with America dragged Clinton into balancing the budget. He is a very intelligent politician and one that has worked in a bipartisan way. Isn't that what people are looking for in this election?

Also, he resigned in disgrace because of 84 ethics violations and left his wife for another woman while she was in the hospital with cancer.

 

The perfect family values candidate! He regrets that he has but three wives to give for his country.

 

 

Edit: I hope Gingrich is the GOP candidate.

 

Since when has the dems cared about ethics. Clinton was getting you know whats in the oval office, no one cared then. John Kennedy had a notorious affair with Marylyn Monroe as well as his brother Bobby no one cared. When has family values mattered to the liberals in this country?

And there's the rub. (Now that's funny) Conservatives accuse liberals of not caring about family values . . . but then they support someone like Gingrich. Hypocrisy is a bitch.

 

Actions speak louder than words, eh? But by all means . . . try to make the current GOP nomination be about Clinton and Kennedy.

 

 

Seems to me the dems are the ones who are making it an issue. They don't want to focus on the economy or jobs. That wouldn't be good for BO now would it?

[carlfense]

Well you see, when we sponsor terrorism or at least tacitly endorse it, it's perfectly fine, and even characterizing it as such makes you a damn dirty liberal apologist who hates America.

 

PS is there ANY compelling reason to vote for the Newtster besides his party affiliation and apparent ability to debate? He has absolutely nothing to stand on in the morals department and is the definitive political grifter. Seems to me like Republican leadership got to together about 8 months ago and decided to have a musical chairs nomination process with loud, angry people playing the music. Unbelievably, Newt may get the last chair...

 

Maybe you are too young or maybe you think it is a myth but he balanced the budget when he was speaker. Now most credit Clinton with that and I get the POTUS gets credit and criticism for things that he didn't do in office so it is OK for Clinton to get the credit. But Gingrich and the pubs contract with America dragged Clinton into balancing the budget. He is a very intelligent politician and one that has worked in a bipartisan way. Isn't that what people are looking for in this election?

Also, he resigned in disgrace because of 84 ethics violations and left his wife for another woman while she was in the hospital with cancer.

 

The perfect family values candidate! He regrets that he has but three wives to give for his country.

 

 

Edit: I hope Gingrich is the GOP candidate.

 

Since when has the dems cared about ethics. Clinton was getting you know whats in the oval office, no one cared then. John Kennedy had a notorious affair with Marylyn Monroe as well as his brother Bobby no one cared. When has family values mattered to the liberals in this country?

And there's the rub. Conservatives accuse liberals of not caring about family values . . . but then they support someone like Gingrich. Hypocrisy is a bitch.

 

Actions speak louder than words, eh? But by all means . . . try to make the current GOP nomination be about Clinton and Kennedy.

 

 

Seems to me the dems are the ones who are making it an issue. They don't want to focus on the economy or jobs. That wouldn't be good for BO now would it?

So the family values party only cares about family values when it's the other party? Sounds accurate.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Well you see, when we sponsor terrorism or at least tacitly endorse it, it's perfectly fine, and even characterizing it as such makes you a damn dirty liberal apologist who hates America.

 

PS is there ANY compelling reason to vote for the Newtster besides his party affiliation and apparent ability to debate? He has absolutely nothing to stand on in the morals department and is the definitive political grifter. Seems to me like Republican leadership got to together about 8 months ago and decided to have a musical chairs nomination process with loud, angry people playing the music. Unbelievably, Newt may get the last chair...

 

Maybe you are too young or maybe you think it is a myth but he balanced the budget when he was speaker. Now most credit Clinton with that and I get the POTUS gets credit and criticism for things that he didn't do in office so it is OK for Clinton to get the credit. But Gingrich and the pubs contract with America dragged Clinton into balancing the budget. He is a very intelligent politician and one that has worked in a bipartisan way. Isn't that what people are looking for in this election?

Also, he resigned in disgrace because of 84 ethics violations and left his wife for another woman while she was in the hospital with cancer.

 

The perfect family values candidate! He regrets that he has but three wives to give for his country.

 

 

Edit: I hope Gingrich is the GOP candidate.

 

Since when has the dems cared about ethics. Clinton was getting you know whats in the oval office, no one cared then. John Kennedy had a notorious affair with Marylyn Monroe as well as his brother Bobby no one cared. When has family values mattered to the liberals in this country?

And there's the rub. Conservatives accuse liberals of not caring about family values . . . but then they support someone like Gingrich. Hypocrisy is a bitch.

 

Actions speak louder than words, eh? But by all means . . . try to make the current GOP nomination be about Clinton and Kennedy.

 

 

Seems to me the dems are the ones who are making it an issue. They don't want to focus on the economy or jobs. That wouldn't be good for BO now would it?

So the family values party only cares about family values when it's the other party? Sounds accurate.

 

 

That comes from both sides of the aisle. Why are the dems making it an issue when they say it doesn't matter?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Well you see, when we sponsor terrorism or at least tacitly endorse it, it's perfectly fine, and even characterizing it as such makes you a damn dirty liberal apologist who hates America.

 

PS is there ANY compelling reason to vote for the Newtster besides his party affiliation and apparent ability to debate? He has absolutely nothing to stand on in the morals department and is the definitive political grifter. Seems to me like Republican leadership got to together about 8 months ago and decided to have a musical chairs nomination process with loud, angry people playing the music. Unbelievably, Newt may get the last chair...

 

Maybe you are too young or maybe you think it is a myth but he balanced the budget when he was speaker. Now most credit Clinton with that and I get the POTUS gets credit and criticism for things that he didn't do in office so it is OK for Clinton to get the credit. But Gingrich and the pubs contract with America dragged Clinton into balancing the budget. He is a very intelligent politician and one that has worked in a bipartisan way. Isn't that what people are looking for in this election?

 

Bipartisanism only works when everyone wants to be bipartisan. You could have Mahatma Gandhi as the POTUS...and we would still have sh#t.

[Malth]

Liberals care about family values as much as anyone. The issue is that Republicans are the ones constantly touting themselves as the party of family values, and I've seriously lost count of the number of times a Republican has gotten busted for soliciting for gay sex in a public bathroom, not paying child support, cheating on their spouses, soliciting young male pages for sex, the list goes on. Not to mention that they want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and have no problem taking a ham fisted approach to immigrants and splitting up families.

 

You can't jump on a pedestal and claim to be the protector of family values when you're pulling this sh#t. Especially if you want to elect someone like Newt as President. Remember when he was having an affair while trying to get Clinton impeached? Yea...

 

 

Seems to me the dems are the ones who are making it an issue. They don't want to focus on the economy or jobs. That wouldn't be good for BO now would it?

 

Except they are focusing on the economy and jobs. And when you have a potential opponent with this many skeletons in the closet, do you really think they're going to bring it up?

[johnnyrodgers20]

Liberals care about family values as much as anyone. The issue is that Republicans are the ones constantly touting themselves as the party of family values, and I've seriously lost count of the number of times a Republican has gotten busted for soliciting for gay sex in a public bathroom, not paying child support, cheating on their spouses, soliciting young male pages for sex, the list goes on. Not to mention that they want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and have no problem taking a ham fisted approach to immigrants and splitting up families.

 

You can't jump on a pedestal and claim to be the protector of family values when you're pulling this sh#t. Especially if you want to elect someone like Newt as President. Remember when he was having an affair while trying to get Clinton impeached? Yea...

 

 

I do remember that and that is reprehensible. I also know that if you gave Clinton a break you need to give everyone a break. Newt made a mistake that is how many years ago, would you be willing to be held to the same standard? Go back and have your life dissected and any transgression would still be held against you? That is tough for any person, we are all sinners and fall short o fthe glory of God. If you exclude people who have an issue there would be no one left. Hey, great idea I am for that one!!!