Right wing-nuts who would be president

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:07 am

Dinsdale wrote: centuries of case law?

President Chester A. Arthur was accused of being a secret Canadian, that's hilarious.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:19 am

Dr_Phibes wrote:
Dinsdale wrote: centuries of case law?

President Chester A. Arthur was accused of being a secret Canadian, that's hilarious.

Well, he was one of our fattest Presidents.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:45 am

mvscal wrote:
Dr_Phibes wrote:
Dinsdale wrote: centuries of case law?

President Chester A. Arthur was accused of being a secret Canadian, that's hilarious.

Well, he was one of our fattest Presidents.

He was wearing a puffy coat.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:44 am

"No duty was neglected in his administration, and no adventurous project alarmed the nation."

Definitely a canuck. Good to see villains get more exotic with time, pleasantry and bland food can't really compete with mustachios waving scimitars on flying carpets.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:07 am

Dr_Phibes wrote:
"No duty was neglected in his administration, and no adventurous project alarmed the nation."
Definitely a canuck. Good to see villains get more exotic with time, pleasantry and bland food can't really compete with mustachios waving scimitars on flying carpets.

Arthur ruined his career by pushing for and getting the first civil service law passed. For some reason, politicians of the day thought that a civil service system would impinge upon their ability to profit from their office. Later day hacks would prove them wrong.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:14 am

Mace wrote:You're one stupid sonofabitch, tart. Stick to reading your Bible.

A predictable retort from you.

Your explanation of what "natural born" in Article II, Section I is supposed to mean may sound correct to you, but the fact of the matter is the Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on it, BUT has consistently used the term only in reference to persons born on U.S. soil, to U.S.-citizen parents.

If you want to cite any case in which they spoke of it as meaning anything other than what I've said, go fetch it.

Pass me a Snickers, 'tard.

Dins, from your link...

the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates...

Legal and historic opinion doesn't matter.
LAW matters.
To date, the Supreme Court has not given an official ruling as to the definition of the term, hence, my obviously correct earlier take that THIS NEDED TO BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THE '08 ELECTION.

And also from your link, as I've been saying...

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen

The Supremes haven't specifically addressed it, but as I told Mace, in multiple cases, they HAVE used the term, and it has ONLY been in reference to persons born on U.S. soil to U.S.- citizen parents.

Again, you may think YOUR definition is correct, but there is not law to back it up, nor is there language from the Supremes at any time to back it up.

Now if you read the link I posted, you can see where the founders got this term, why they used it, and certainly what it meant to them.

It is NOT what you are saying it is - and it is NOT what most sheeple have now grown accustomed to believing it means.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:23 pm

congrats tart, you've got company in your crusade
Orly Taitz, the batshit crazy advocate for this sort of thing

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:36 pm

poptart wrote:[Article II Section I - requirements for presidential eligibility:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

If, according the founders intent, anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, what is your explanation for the distinction made between citizen and natural born citizen?

Why didn't they say, No person except a natural born Citizen, or a natural born Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption...

Or simply, No person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible...

What's your answer?

There is certainly a distinction they are making between citizen and natural born citizen.

I answered your question, dumbass, and you're still too fucking stupid to get it. Just for shits and giggles, I'll tell you once again......at the time our Constitution was written, there were a lot of people in the U.S. that were born outside our borders, who were not natural born citizens, but could run for POTUS because they lived here at the time, hence the "at the time of the Adoption" of the Constitution phrase in the Constitution.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:52 pm

I think I get what pahtah is saying.

his daddy was a furrin' national, therefore, he carries daddy's citizenship.

that might fly, if, his other parent wasn't american or if he had taken his bastard kid back to kenya with him.

he didn't.

he packed his shit and booked, sans progeny.

barry stayed in america, with his american mom. so, he is a natural born american.

i sure do wish you wee right on this one, pop, but you ain't.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:46 pm

At the time the Constitution was adopted there were no "natural born Citizens" because there was not yet any United States. They would have had to wait for thirty-five years for any natural born Citizens to be eligible.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:26 pm

poptart wrote:... ONLY been in reference to persons born on U.S. soil to U.S.- citizen parents.

Please stop. For your sake...

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:31 pm

Martyred wrote:
poptart wrote:... ONLY been in reference to persons born on U.S. soil to U.S.- citizen parents.
Please stop. For your sake...

Pay him no mind, poptart. Do continue.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:41 pm

Natural born?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:53 am

Mace wrote:at the time our Constitution was written, there were a lot of people in the U.S. that were born outside our borders, who were not natural born citizens, but could run for POTUS because they lived here at the time, hence the "at the time of the Adoption" of the Constitution phrase in the Constitution.

At the time of the Adoption is clearly understood, Mace, however you are wanting to assign a meaning to natural born citizen which is bogus and simply NOT BACKED BY LAW.

Again, the Supreme Court has never ruled on it's meaning, and making things EXTREMELY troubling for you is what the HAVE said about it.

In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, Chief Justice Waite said, "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

In fact, Justice Waite said that common law needed to be looked at in order to know what a natural born citizen is.

Then Justice Grey, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), repeated what Waite said about needing to look at common law to know the meaning of natural born citizen, and said, "The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

Understand that the 14th Amendment (defining citizenship) was already in place when these cases were heard, and yet these justices both said that common law needed to be looked at to know the meaning of natural born citizen.

So what do both of these Supreme Court decisions tell us?

First, they show that there is a difference between a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

If the two terms were the same, the Supreme Court in both of these cases would not have said that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution, for the Fourteenth Amendment was already part of the Constitution and the Court could have easily said that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is contained right in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Second, the Supreme Court in both of these cases also said that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution but rather in the "common law."

This is clear evidence that the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.

In other words ---> YOU ARE TALKING OUT YOUR ASS.

Being declared a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Congressional Acts has changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” because they only speak to the question of what is a “citizen” and do not touch upon what is a “natural born Citizen.”

The Framers did not define an Article II "natural born Citizen" because they did not see a reason to.
It was a term that was well defined by the Law of Nations and well-know by civilized nations of the time.

There is no backing for the fantasy definition you are peddling here - and the Supremes should have been made to issue a ruling prior to the '08 election.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:01 am

Felix wrote:congrats tart, you've got company in your crusade
Orly Taitz, the batshit crazy advocate for this sort of thing

Guess I'm not surprised that you dig the fascist tyrant's act here.

Invite guest on show.
Abuse, berate, interrupt, and scream down guest ---> and then kick her off.
Tremble, quiver, and act self-righteous.

Easily one of the biggest meltdowns, and most unprofessional inteviews, I have ever seen.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:05 am

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:07 am

If it's all too difficult for you here, Marty, I'll explain it to you on my radio show.

... and provide an address for you to mail in your offering.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:09 am

The guy who'd rather live in Korea is going to qualify what it takes to be an American...

awesome

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:23 am

poptart wrote:I'll explain it to you on my radio show.

In hindsight, maybe you shouldn't bother.
Your proselytizing comes across as rather amateurish and quite frankly, I don't think you do a very good job doing the Lord's work.

Are you sure you're cut out for this? I mean, I know you've invested your whole life in it, but you exhibit a shocking lack of finesse in the art of preaching the Gospel.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:25 am

poptart wrote:Invite guest on show.
Abuse, berate, interrupt, and scream down guest ---> and then kick her off.
Tremble, quiver, and act self-righteous.

You've been watching Bill O'Reilly again, haven't you? I warned you against that.

Well, unless it's just for a few quick yucks and to see Ann Coulters legs.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:36 am

Hey 'tart...would you let Orly Taitz perform dental work on you? She is a "dentist" after all. I sure as fuck wouldn't.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:58 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:I admit to being a single-issue voter in the last presidential election. I voted for Obama because it was way too scary having Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency. Obama has been beyond a huge disappointment. I don’t intend to vote for him again.
Is Mitt Romney your guy? Or are you going 3rd party?
I'm waiting to see what develops. I might just write in mvscal.

Here’s an interesting editorial making a case for Ron Paul. There’s a lot there that I agree with. On the surface, I feel like he’s the guy the Republicans should be pushing, because I think he could draw significant support from disillusioned Democrats.

I admit to not following Republican politics very closely, so help me out here. What is the downside to a Ron Paul candidacy?

Ron Paul is far from perfect. But the Texas congressman and maverick GOP presidential contender brings to the 2012 race a record far more worthy of commendation than those of his competitors for the Republican nomination.

Paul voted against the Patriot Act.

Paul voted against launching the Iraq war.

Paul has consistently supported moves to bring the troops home from Iraq, from Afghanistan and from just about everywhere else they are garrisoned.

Paul has worked with Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank on a campaign to cut the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion.

Paul has worked with Frank to decriminalize marijuana and to dial back the worst excesses of the drug war.

Paul has consistently opposed free-trade deals that have led to massive layoffs and factory closings in the United States.

Paul has worked with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Florida Congressman Alan Grayson to crack down on the Federal Reserve’s secrecy and abuses.

Yes, yes, of course Paul’s anti-government rhetoric goes to extremes, and, yes, yes, of course he is an inconsistent libertarian on some vital issues.

But Ron Paul really has taken a lot of commendable stands in recent years.

And now, he has done something truly worthy of admiration.

He has chosen not to be ridiculous.

Confronted with the prospect of a participating in a debate hosted by the second most-absurd figure in American public life, Donald Trump, Paul simply said “no.”

The campaign of the candidate who, in the new Des Moines Register survey is running second in the field of GOP presidential contenders with less than a month to go before Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, issued a delightfully snarky statement:

“The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity. Mr. Trump’s participation as moderator will distract from questions and answers concerning important issues such as the national economy, crushing federal government debt, the role of the federal government, foreign policy, and the like. To be sure, Mr. Trump’s participation will contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere.

“Mr. Trump’s selection is also wildly inappropriate because of his record of toying with the serious decision of whether to compete for our nation’s highest office, a decision he appeared to make frivolously. The short-lived elevation of Mr. Trump’s stature as a candidate put him on the radar of many organizations and we recall that last spring he was invited to keynote the Republican Party of Iowa’s annual Lincoln Day Dinner, yet at the last minute he left RPI holding the bag by canceling. In turn, RPI canceled its biggest fundraising gala of the year and suffered embarrassment and in addition RPI was required to engage in refunding measures. Our candidate will not even consider participating in the late-December debate until Mr. Trump publicly apologizes to Iowa party leaders and rectifies in full the situation.

“Therefore our candidate Ron Paul, the champion of the Constitution, has advised he will not attend.”

Trump was furious. The reality-TV show host dismissed the congressman from Texas as “clown-like.” (Trump also took a shot at another contender who rejected the debate invite, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. But, unlike Paul, Huntsman is not a serious contender in Iowa, where the debate is set to be held.)

Paul responded to Trump’s jab by saying: “I didn’t realize he had the ability to lay on hands and anoint people.”

Ron Paul may not win the presidency, but he is winning the debate about the debate with Donald Trump.

But even if Trump will not have a serious presidential contender on his debate panel, he will not be alone.

The second most absurd figure in American public life will reportedly be joined Dec. 27 by the most absurd figure in American public life: Newt Gingrich.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:33 pm

poptart wrote:In fact, Justice Waite said that common law needed to be looked at in order to know what a natural born citizen is.

OK. Let's have a peak at English common law in the late 18th century.

From Blackstone's Commentaries, 1765

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.

....

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... hips1.html

It's pretty cut and dried. Unless there is some compelling evidence that Odowngrade was born elsewhere, he is a natural born citizen and meets the Constitutional standard of eligibility for the office.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:45 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:I admit to not following Republican politics very closely, so help me out here. What is the downside to a Ron Paul candidacy?

Most of the rabble dismiss him with ad hominems like, "He's crazy." "He's a nut." The more thoughtful Republicans agree with him on most if not all of his domestic agenda, but are concerned that his foreign policy is dangerously naive and I think that is a valid reason for concern.

On the other hand, we do need to bring our Imperial Stormtroopers home for a few years to rest and refit anyway, so now might not be a bad time for a Paul Presidency. I suppose I'd vote for him if he somehow won the nomination.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:03 pm

mvscal wrote:I suppose I'd vote for him if he somehow won the nomination.

sweet

merciful

Allah...

What?

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:17 pm

Wow. Obama isn't in the top two of absurd public figures? How does that compute?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:31 pm

mvscal wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:I admit to not following Republican politics very closely, so help me out here. What is the downside to a Ron Paul candidacy?
Most of the rabble dismiss him with ad hominems like, "He's crazy." "He's a nut." The more thoughtful Republicans agree with him on most if not all of his domestic agenda, but are concerned that his foreign policy is dangerously naive and I think that is a valid reason for concern.

Even I agree with a fair amount of his domestic agenda. I also thin he doesn't have a 10 year old in Jerry Sandusky's house chance of getting that agenda passed. What you would see in a Paul Presidency would be corporate hacks from both parties uniting to keep business as usual running over Paul's vetoes and no change of any substance happening at all. In other words, just like it is now.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:35 pm

BSmack wrote:...corporate hacks from both parties uniting to keep business as usual running over Paul's vetoes and no change of any substance happening at all. In other words, just like it is now.

Oh...Is that what's going on now? Obama has been waging a "secret war" against the plutocrats and is being foiled at every turn?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:37 pm

Martyred wrote:
BSmack wrote:...corporate hacks from both parties uniting to keep business as usual running over Paul's vetoes and no change of any substance happening at all. In other words, just like it is now.

Oh...Is that what's going on now? Obama has been waging a "secret war" against the plutocrats and is being foiled at every turn?

I said nothing of the kind. Sadly Obama has not even provided a reach around for the 99% of us who do not own companies. I'd consider a vote for Paul. But I won't be expecting any miracles.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:44 pm

BSmack wrote: I said nothing of the kind.

Actually...

BSmack wrote:...just like it is now.

...you did.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:20 am

Martyred wrote:
BSmack wrote: I said nothing of the kind.
Actually...

BSmack wrote:...just like it is now.
...you did.

I meant business as usual for the corporate state is happening now and will happen again with a Paul Presidency. And anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:51 am

Rooster wrote:Wow. Obama isn't in the top two of absurd public figures? How does that compute?

Pssst. Hey, Rooster. That op-ed piece was written by a liberal editor. You fucking douchenozzle.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:57 am

BSmack wrote:I meant business as usual for the corporate state is happening now and will happen again with a Paul Presidency. And anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional.

So you aren't voting for anybody because it makes no difference, right?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:00 am

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:I meant business as usual for the corporate state is happening now and will happen again with a Paul Presidency. And anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional.
So you aren't voting for anybody because it makes no difference, right?

There are social issues where who I vote for would matter. Obama at least would hold the line on those issues. Which is why barring a credible 3rd option, I'll still vote for Obama again. But I have no illusions about any fundamental change in the corporation run government as regards economic policy and economic fairness. The only way those issues are going to be decided in the people's favor is to keep up the pressure on the hack politicians until they do the right thing out of necessity of get the hell out.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:23 am

mvscal wrote:
poptart wrote:In fact, Justice Waite said that common law needed to be looked at in order to know what a natural born citizen is.
OK. Let's have a peak at English common law in the late 18th century.

From Blackstone's Commentaries, 1765

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.

....

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... hips1.html
It's pretty cut and dried. Unless there is some compelling evidence that Odowngrade was born elsewhere, he is a natural born citizen and meets the Constitutional standard of eligibility for the office.

Not true.

First, look again at what Chief Justice Waite said in Minor v. Happersett, 1875.

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

He said there has never been a doubt that a person born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen.

THIS is... cut and dried.

There is, however, NO instance ever where the Supreme Court has called someone other than a person born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens a... natural born citizen.

Further, Blackstone used the term natural born subjects, not citizens.

Among many other things, English common law still considered those who had become naturalized citizens of America to be... IT'S "natural born subjects." lol

There is a very big distinction between a subject and a citizen, and it was not this Blackstone term that was being used in our Constitution.

The term WE used was natural born citizen.

We should notice, also, that Justice Waite did not say English common law must be looked at, but just... common law.

As George Mason, the "Father of the Bill of Rights" and one of the "Founding Fathers" had said, “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”

It was instead from the Law of Nations, which morphed to within what became "common law" here, that the EXACT term natual born citizen, came.

And within the Law of Nations, natural born citizen ONLY meant, a person born on the soil of a country ---> to two citizens of that country.

-- The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

And again, there is... at the very least, sufficient doubt (of course I would say a helluva lot more than doubt) as to the meaning of natural born citizen that people are wanting to assign to it, that it needed to be addressed by the Supreme Court prior to the '08 election.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:42 pm

mvscal wrote: I suppose I'd vote for him if he somehow won the nomination.

BSmack wrote: I'd consider a vote for Paul.

jeezus palomino......

nobody has seen four dudes riding around on white, red, black and pale or green horses have they?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:56 pm

Felix wrote:jeezus palomino......

nobody has seen four dudes riding around on white, red, black and pale or green horses have they?

Understand that my consideration of Paul would be contingent on two things;

1. Does he have the backbone to stand up to the Taliban wing of the GOP on social issues?
2. Is Obama going to continue to ignore the people who got him elected?

Besides, we all know the GOP isn't going to nominate him anyway.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:31 pm

BSmack wrote:
Besides, we all know the GOP isn't going to nominate him anyway.

yeah, Newton seems to be the flavor of the week.....you know, the family values guy who was driven to having affairs because he's so passionate about the country....

one thing you can say about gingrich....that dude is as fucking cold blooded as they come.....

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:16 pm

Felix wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Besides, we all know the GOP isn't going to nominate him anyway.
yeah, Newton seems to be the flavor of the week.....you know, the family values guy who was driven to having affairs because he's so passionate about the country....

one thing you can say about gingrich....that dude is as fucking cold blooded as they come.....

I'll bet newt would like to have a do over on that ridiculous explanation of his being....well.....a dude.

Fortunately for him, he got that out of the way a long time ago and the ADHD riddled american electorate is likely to let it go. Of course, the dems will shamelessly pummel him with it anyway, next year.

Still not sure how someone I consider one of the smartest fukks around, stepped on his dick that badly.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:23 pm

smackaholic wrote:
Felix wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Besides, we all know the GOP isn't going to nominate him anyway.
yeah, Newton seems to be the flavor of the week.....you know, the family values guy who was driven to having affairs because he's so passionate about the country....

one thing you can say about gingrich....that dude is as fucking cold blooded as they come.....
I'll bet newt would like to have a do over on that ridiculous explanation of his being....well.....a ~~dude~~ douche.

Fortunately for him, he got that out of the way a long time ago and the ADHD riddled american electorate is likely to let it go. Of course, the dems will shamelessly pummel him with it anyway, next year.

They'll shamelessly pummel him with facts? That's downright un-American.

Newt's family doesn't even support him.