Right wing-nuts who would be president

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:35 pm

[quote="smackaholic"]I'll bet newt would like to have a do over on that ridiculous explanation of his being....well.....a dude. [quote]

There's cheating and then there's what Newt did. She could have been the worst wife ever, but serving her with divorce papers when she was undergoing chemo was an all time dick move. Newt should have been a foreclosure lawyer.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:33 am

#3 must really be something in bed, cause she shore aint much to look at.

That hair could prolly cut through flesh and bone.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:23 am

BSmack wrote:There's cheating and then there's what Newt did. She could have been the worst wife ever, but serving her with divorce papers when she was undergoing chemo was an all time dick move.

That story is total horseshit.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:55 am

BSmack wrote:
smackaholic wrote:I'll bet newt would like to have a do over on that ridiculous explanation of his being....well.....a dude.
There's cheating and then there's what Newt did. She could have been the worst wife ever, but serving her with divorce papers when she was undergoing chemo was an all time dick move. Newt should have been a foreclosure lawyer.

Newt had been fucking Mrs. Powder for six years before he divorced his second wife. I guess an opportune time to divorce #2 never presented itself during those six years so he finally broke down while she was cancerous.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:35 am

Bizzarofelice wrote:
BSmack wrote:
smackaholic wrote:I'll bet newt would like to have a do over on that ridiculous explanation of his being....well.....a dude.
There's cheating and then there's what Newt did. She could have been the worst wife ever, but serving her with divorce papers when she was undergoing chemo was an all time dick move. Newt should have been a foreclosure lawyer.
Newt had been fucking Mrs. Powder for six years before he divorced his second wife. I guess an opportune time to divorce #2 never presented itself during those six years so he finally broke down while she was cancerous.

No surprise at all to see you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about again.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:51 am

Mikey wrote:#3 must really be something in bed, cause she shore aint much to look at.

She ain't, but her bank balance is/was.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:06 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:She ain't, but her bank balance is/was.

You're thinking of McCain's wife. Gingrich's wife was an office drudge on the Congressional Ag. Committee. That's where she met Newt's cock.

H4ever · Post by **H4ever** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:51 am

mvscal wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:She ain't, but her bank balance is/was.
You're thinking of McCain's wife. Gingrich's wife was an office drudge on the Congressional Ag. Committee. That's where she met Newt's cock.

We need a moral guy like that as POTUS.... fuck-an-A! I bet him and Jimmy Swaggert are boys!

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:30 am

Mikey wrote:#3 must really be something in bed, cause she shore aint much to look at.

That hair could prolly cut through flesh and bone.

Fuck you, Calista's hot!

Sin,

Guy who used to post here known as Degenerate

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:08 pm

poptart wrote:
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.

So the FFs thought it was ok for someone born in an English colony to British subjects to be POTUS, but not ok for someone born on US soil to an American Mother? You are as stupid as a box of wet mice.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:41 pm

mvscal wrote: No surprise at all to see you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about again.

Enlighten us.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:23 pm

The meme that Newt dropped the divorce papers on his first wife while she was in the hospital battling for her life with cancer is categorically false.

First, she asked him for the divorce. Second, she wasn't fighting for her life. She was in the hospital to have a benign tumor removed and is alive and well 30 years later.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:26 pm

mvscal wrote:She was in the hospital...

Nothing more needs be said.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:28 pm

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:She was in the hospital...
Nothing more needs be said.

So what?

Terry in Crapchester · Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:59 am

Bizzarofelice wrote:
BSmack wrote:
smackaholic wrote:I'll bet newt would like to have a do over on that ridiculous explanation of his being....well.....a dude.
There's cheating and then there's what Newt did. She could have been the worst wife ever, but serving her with divorce papers when she was undergoing chemo was an all time dick move. Newt should have been a foreclosure lawyer.
Newt had been fucking Mrs. Powder for six years before he divorced his second wife. I guess an opportune time to divorce #2 never presented itself during those six years so he finally broke down while she was cancerous.

You're thinking of Wife #1 (Newt's former HS geometry teacher, whom Newt began to date when he was only 16). Wife #2 had MS.

In a strange, perverse sort of way, I actually have to give some props to Newt, though. He always struck me as the kinda guy who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a fistful of Benjamins. Maybe I was a little offbase on that assessment.

Terry in Crapchester · Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:08 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 did spend a good portion of his childhood in a town that's only about a 1/2 hour drive from where I live, and I almost live in Canada. So . . .

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:58 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:In a strange, perverse sort of way, I actually have to give some props to Newt, though. He always struck me as the kinda guy who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a fistful of Benjamins. Maybe I was a little offbase on that assessment.

My guess is that you don’t have a real good grip on what attracts women.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:34 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:In a strange, perverse sort of way, I actually have to give some props to Newt, though. He always struck me as the kinda guy who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a fistful of Benjamins. Maybe I was a little offbase on that assessment.
My guess is that you don’t have a real good grip on what attracts women.

Maybe you can educate him, you fuckin' bitch.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:56 pm

Sirfindafold wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:In a strange, perverse sort of way, I actually have to give some props to Newt, though. He always struck me as the kinda guy who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a fistful of Benjamins. Maybe I was a little offbase on that assessment.
My guess is that you don’t have a real good grip on what attracts women.
Maybe you can educate him, you fuckin' bitch.

Oh, look. I must have stepped on a turd. There’s a little piece of shit clinging to my shoe.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:01 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:Oh, look. I must have stepped on a turd. There’s a little piece of shit clinging to my shoe.

I guess its easy to see the bottom of your shoes when they are continuously pinned behind your ears.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:02 pm

Sirfindafold wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Oh, look. I must have stepped on a turd. There’s a little piece of shit clinging to my shoe.

I guess its easy to see the bottom of your shoes when they are continuously pinned behind your ears.

You can see behind your ears? Idiot.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:18 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Sirfindafold wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Oh, look. I must have stepped on a turd. There’s a little piece of shit clinging to my shoe.

I guess its easy to see the bottom of your shoes when they are continuously pinned behind your ears.
You can see behind your ears? Idiot.

Gotta RACK Sirfindaclue, though, for not overusing the apostrophe.

Underusing...well I guess thats another story.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:32 pm

Sirfindafold wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Oh, look. I must have stepped on a turd. There’s a little piece of shit clinging to my shoe.

I guess its easy to see the bottom of your shoes when they are continuously pinned behind your ears.

~ zing! ~

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:42 am

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:She was in the hospital...
Nothing more needs be said.

But for that, you'd fucking vote for Newt and tell anybody who didn't like it to go fuck an emu, right?

Shut the fuck up, Monica

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:44 am

Cuda wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:She was in the hospital...
Nothing more needs be said.
But for that, you'd fucking vote for Newt and tell anybody who didn't like it to go fuck an emu, right?

Shut the fuck up, Monica

NO, he also shut down the government because he didn't like his seating arrangement on Air Force One. He's a douchebag of the first order for MANY reasons, not just that ONE reason.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:20 am

Felix wrote:maybe you could give me list of the things you believe he's done that fly in the face of "liberty"

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:10 pm

poptart wrote:
Felix wrote:maybe you could give me list of the things you believe he's done that fly in the face of "liberty"

totally unnecessary legislation and clearly violates constitutional guarantees....when given the opportunity to do the right thing, Obama once again sucked out....

meanwhile, gingrich wants to bring judges before congress to justify rulings they hand down, which is a violation under Article III of the constitution....only personal misconduct can result in impeachment and removal of a judge and they can't be removed because of decisions the president might not agree with.....this spits in the face of the constitution...

so, any questions why I'm not voting for anybody in this elections

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:57 am

Felix wrote:meanwhile, gingrich wants to bring judges before congress to justify rulings they hand down, which is a violation under Article III of the constitution....

Link?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:25 am

mvscal wrote:
Link?

sure thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Th ... nstitution

Newt Gingrich wrote: While abolishing judgeships and lower federal courts is a blunt tool and one whose use is warranted only in the most extreme of circumstances ... it is one of many possibilities to check and balance the judiciary,” he wrote. “Other constitutional options, including impeachment, are better suited” to check wayward judges.

so he wants to impeach judges because he doesn't like the way they rule? uh, that's not an impeachable offense and Gingrich knows it, he's just pandering to the unthinking masses...

“In very rare circumstances, the executive branch might choose to ignore a court decision,” he wrote.

Gingrich also said that as president he might ignore a Supreme Court ruling if it held that gays and lesbians have the right to marry.

so as President he's going to ignore court rulings even those by the Supreme Court?

why not just take the constitution and wipe your ass with it Newt.....the guy is a fucking loon....

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:32 pm

mvscal wrote:
Felix wrote:meanwhile, gingrich wants to bring judges before congress to justify rulings they hand down, which is a violation under Article III of the constitution....

Link?

Nice going you stupid Racist.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:08 pm

Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Link?
sure thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Th ... nstitution

WRONG.

You claim that Article 3 prevents Congress from issuing subpoenas to federal judges. It does no such thing. Congress has oversight authority over the federal government. They can subpoena judges for any reason they like and all day long.

Your claim that Federal judges can only be impeached for personal misconduct is likewise false.

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour

Good behavior is not limited to personal conduct. A judge who issues arbitrary and/or baseless rulings is certainly not engaging in good behavior and he should expect an invitation to explain himself before Congress as part of their basic fact finding responsibility.

That is one aspect of the legislative check on judicial power. Is the phrase, 'system of checks and balances,' ringing any bells for you yet?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:54 am

Newt's right...we should have the justices arrested for declaring that corporations are people.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:38 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:Newt's right...we should have the justices arrested for declaring that corporations are people.

That example is germane to the discussion. How would it damage our republic to subpoena these justices to explain their ruling before the Congress of the United States? Would that really be a "crisis"?

Did our founders ever envision that anyone let alone an entire branch of government should be completely unaccountable for the decisions made in the so called public interest?

Wipe your nose and hitch up your big boy pants, you fucking pussy.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:53 am

mvscal wrote:
WRONG.

You claim that Article 3 prevents Congress from issuing subpoenas to federal judges. It does no such thing. Congress has oversight authority over the federal government. They can subpoena judges for any reason they like and all day long.

I never said any such thing....Congress can call a judge to appear before them anytime they want, but issuing rulings they don't like is not an impeachable offense....the president does not have the power to compel a judge to appear before congress, but that's what the Newtster is advocating....the POTUS has no such authority.....

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour

Good behavior is not limited to personal conduct. A judge who issues arbitrary and/or baseless rulings is certainly not engaging in good behavior and he should expect an invitation to explain himself before Congress as part of their basic fact finding responsibility.

That is one aspect of the legislative check on judicial power. Is the phrase, 'system of checks and balances,' ringing any bells for you yet?

don't try and make this about the Congress douchebag, it's Gingrich that's hinting he'd bring judges before congress for rulings he doesn't like....pull me out a few of these "baseless rulings" you're referring to, lay them out on the table, and we can probably figure out if they have merit....of and if he were president and did order judges to appear before congress to justify a ruling, he'd be in violation of the law...only congress can compel a judge to appear before them.....

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:58 am

Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote:
WRONG.

You claim that Article 3 prevents Congress from issuing subpoenas to federal judges. It does no such thing. Congress has oversight authority over the federal government. They can subpoena judges for any reason they like and all day long.
I never said any such thing....

Yes, you did.

Felix wrote:meanwhile, gingrich wants to bring judges before congress to justify rulings they hand down, which is a violation under Article III of the constitution....

Congress can call a judge to appear before them anytime they want, but issuing rulings they don't like is not an impeachable offense....

Of course it is. "Good behavior" means whatever Congress wants it to mean.

the president does not have the power to compel a judge to appear before congress, but that's what the Newtster is advocating....the POTUS has no such authority.....

He is not advocating any such thing. His remarks were clearly in the context of Congressional authority. Stop trying to twist them out of context.

only congress can compel a judge to appear before them.....

That's what he said, you simple, pinheaded fuck.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:30 pm

mvscal wrote:

Yes, you did.

no, here's what gingrich said

Newt Gingrich wrote: While abolishing judgeships and lower federal courts is a blunt tool and one whose use is warranted only in the most extreme of circumstances ... it is one of many possibilities to check and balance the judiciary,” he wrote. “Other constitutional options, including impeachment, are better suited” to check wayward judges.

okay now show me where he mentioned congress anywhere in that statement....

Of course it is. "Good behavior" means whatever Congress wants it to mean.

sure it does, but congress had better have pretty compelling reasons for bringing a federal judge up on impeachment charges and I don't think not caring for a ruling fits that particular criteria...

He is not advocating any such thing. His remarks were clearly in the context of Congressional authority. Stop trying to twist them out of context.

again, where did he mention congress anywhere in his remarks? or is he just assuming that people know that only congress has that type of authority....like I said, he's playing to the unthinking, uneducated masses that he panders to.....I generally refer to them as republicans

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:13 pm

Felxi, as soon as he mentioned "impeachment" as a means of "checking wayward judges" he was by definition referring specifically to Congress, not the presidency.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:28 pm

Van wrote:Felxi, as soon as he mentioned "impeachment" as a means of "checking wayward judges" he was by definition referring specifically to Congress, not the presidency.

He also specifically mentioned rounding them up using the US Marshals. You down with that?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:33 pm

I'm more down with calling Felix "Felxi." What the fuck was that?

:doh:

Good to see you again, TVO. The ol' place seems kinda empty when you go on hiatus.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:35 pm

Van wrote:The ol' place seems kinda empty when you go on hiatus.

I'd say the same about you, but it would be a lie.