Newt Gingrich Highlights From National Journal/CBS Debate


Here are the highlights from Speaker Newt Gingrich during the National Journal / CBS Debate Saturday night.

YouTube Preview Image

Support Newt Gingrich for President!

I support Newt Gingrich for President!

[signature]

8 signatures

Share this with your friends:

   


Comments

  1. Newt is and will always be the smartest man in the room, his answers here are concise, clear, understandable and thoughtful. I believe he is the only person up there at this time that will not say, “Well we need to negotiate, or we need to get along”. No he will go in and change the direction of this country immediately. And shut down the idiotic social network of health care, welfare and unemployment for year with nothing in return for the people who pay taxes to support the UN’s.

    Unwashed, Uneducated and Underachievers.

  2. Conservative American says:

    “Gingrich Admits to Affair During Clinton Impeachment”

    “By JAKE TAPPER
    March 9, 2007:”

    “Setting the stage for his entry into the presidential race, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., gave a radio interview to be broadcast today with Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, in which Gingrich for the first time publicly acknowledged cheating on his first and second wives.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2937633&page=1

    No, no Newt! I will not vote for a man who has cheated not just on one wife, but who has cheated on two of his wives!

    We don’t need another president or a vice president who betrays his marriage vows before God to his wives and who, like Slick Willy, can’t keep it in his pants!

    • Hmmm, Jane Wyman was married when Ronald Reagan dated her…

      Adultery?

      • Conservative American says:

        LOL! Gingrich has enough dirt of his own and he is the subject. President Reagan is deceased and therefore not a potential 2012 presidential candidate. So I’m not too interested in what he did when he was alive.

        If Wyman was separated or in the process of getting a divorce then it would be alright to go on an innocent date with her. If Wyman was cheating on her husband, and Reagan knew that, then what Wyman did was wrong and what Reagan did was wrong. Depends on the facts and the details which I’m really not interested in researching. If you wish to do so, feel free. I’m all ears. ;-)

        • So, you are against Adultery when it is convenient to you? BTW, after Reagan divorced, he was quite the playboy, waking up with any number of starlets each morning. Quite the “Mimbo”. As for “innocent date” what planet are you living on?

          But, its OK because, he is dead, and its a convenient way to justify your weak argument.

          • Conservative American says:

            Lampoon wrote: “So, you are against Adultery when it is convenient to you?”

            Give it up! Forget your “so you are” manipulations, Lampoon.

            What is your definition of “adultery”, TC… uh, I mean Lampoon.

            • If Reagan was dating a woman who was married, did they not both commit adultery?

              Who is TC? Clue me in.

              Seems like you ran out of arguments long ago.

              Face it, you are a hypocrite. Its OK if you admit to it.

              • Conservative American says:

                Who is “TC”? That’s “True Conservative”, the other name you post under, TC.

              • Nope, not him. Turn your conspiracy theory/jihad on someone else.

              • Conservative American says:

                Oh yeah, you’re TC alright, LOL! You’re also a memeber of the Human Rights Campaign and Progressive Democrats of America.

              • True Conservative says:

                It always comes back to the black helicopters and fluoride in the water for some people …

              • Conservative American says:

                Oh, you’re back to posting as TC again, LOL!

                You made donations to the Human Rights Campaign, Progressive Democrats of America and the state Democratic Party in 2010 and 2011.

              • Conservative American, are you EVER right?

                How about answering the question, did Reagan commit adultery when he was dating a married woman? (and “it doesn’t matter, because he is dead” is not an answer)

              • Conservative American says:

                How about admitting that you and TC are one and the same and that you donated to the Human Rights Campaign, Progressive Democrats of America and the state Democratic Party in 2010 and 2011.

              • Nope, not the same, and you are insane. Never donated a dime to any political party.

                Boy, you sure can dish, but you can’t take it. You hector people into answering questions, but you won’t answer one yourself.

                Did Reagan commit adultery when he was dating a married woman?

                Are you capable of an answer?

              • Conservative American says:

                Oh sure you and TC are the same person. Don’t be ridicuouls, LOL!

                You contributed to the Human Rights Campaign, Progressive Democrats of America and to the state Democratic Party in both 2010 and 2011.

              • True Conservative says:

                For those scoring at home, this is what traditional conservatives speak of when we complain about the “black helicopter” contingent of the lunatic fringe of the (R) party.

                No doubt CA believes what he writes, though he is both wrong and without any facts to support his fantasy.

                Sad for him. Sad for the party when we let him speak for it.

              • Conservative American says:

                ROFL! TC (Lampoon) has such delusions of grandeur that he thinks that people are “scoring this at home”, LOL! Do you REALLY believe that people are THAT interested in what you have to say? What, you think you are on the evening news or something? You think that you have a following like a football team, that people gather around to look at their monitors with beer and junk food to see what the “score” is? Now THAT is delusional, ROFL!

                You donated to the Human Rights Campaign, Progressive Democrats of America and the state Democratic Party in 2010 and 2011, Lampoon.

                Have a nice day, Lampoon! :-)

              • True Conservative says:

                Idiom fail for CA.

                As for the remainder – res ipsa, CA, res ipsa …

              • Conservative American says:

                You donated the the Human Rights Campaign, Progressive Democrats of America and the sate Democratic Party in 2010 and 2011, Lampoon.

                Have a nice day, Lampoon! :-)

              • CA is just living up to the stereotype of an internet kook and troll, notice how he completely dodges any question he can’t answer? Instead, he goes on a kook hunt. His posts are all here as evidence of his addled mind, any reasonable person can read his blatherings and realize what kind of person he is.

                Hey TC, are you my Doppleganger?

                LOL

              • Conservative American says:

                ROLF! Hey, that ain’t nothin’! You left out the best part!

                I can get you to jump through hoops like a trained dog simply by refusing to answer your question, LOL! You know, you really shouldn’t give me so much control over you!

                As I told you before, you made the strategic error of creating a scenario where I am in control of the outcome. Your want an answer and I have chosen not to give you one. Whatcha gonna do, eh? Call me names, LOL!

                So I can just sit here and laugh as you spin in the wind, hurling insults and calling me names for as long as I want you to do so. The best part is, you can’t even figure that out. I have to explain it to you, LOL!

                Have a nice day, TC! :-)

              • Actually, I’m the one that made you show your cards as a troll and as someone too cowardly to answer a question. I gave you all the rope, you are the one that hung yourself. I think you are a liberal plant, you post here to make conservatives look stupid. Thanks for playing.

              • Conservative American says:

                Ah, let’s see, “troll”. Sorry, we already have that one on the list. A repeat, LOL.

                Oh, “liberal plant”! Hey, now that’s a new one. I’ll add that! ;-)

                ROFL! You’re so dense that you STILL don’t get it, LOL!

                And here I STILL have you spinning in the wind, hurling insults and you STILL haven’t gotten the answer you want. “Jump through the hoop, doggie!”

                Have a nice day, TC! :-)

      • Hmmm… How to measure Reagan … a hypothetical Jane Wyman date versus the fall of the Soviet Union… hmm dating Wyman hypthetical…Soviet Union….

        Gosh, it’s SO tricky these deep thinking thingys.

        • Just want to get an answer from him, why are you trying to change the argument? Focus.

          • Conservative American says:

            Let me be merciful here and give you a tip, Lampoon. Never set a goal that you can’t achieve simply because you are powerless to achieve it. Your goal is to get an answer from me. My goal is to not give you one because I know that an answer is what you so badly want. You have made the strategic error of creating a scenario where I am in control of the outcome.

            I’ll be more than happy to go back and forth with you about this until the end of time and you will never get what you want because I’ve chosen to deny you that. I might have answered were you not so obnoxious. And, if you review what I’ve written, I’ve actually already answered your question anyway, LOL!

            So you can continue on with a battering ram, frontal approach and I’ll stand above you in the parapets laughing at your futile efforts. I don’t mind at all if you continue because I enjoy it. I hope that you are enjoying it as well.

            Have a nice day, TC! :-)

            • You really lack the intellectual maturity to debate don’t you? You accuse me of being someone that I am not, then claim I am being obnoxious to you?

              You badger people on this board, but, when it comes time to answer a simple question, you twist and turn and wuss out. Pretty much sums you up in a nutshell.

              If you are going to debate a point, be man enough to answer a question, even if it disproves you. People might take you seriously, instead of looking at you as the village idiot.

              You can’t answer a question on a obscure opinion board, that is pretty sad.

              • Conservative American says:

                Ahhh, poor, poor, TC. Are you feeling “bullied”? Is that your problem, TC?

                Aw, I “badger” people. I “wuss out”. I’m not “man enough” to answer a question. I’m the “village idiot”. How can I possibly refute such sophisticated points springing from an overabundace of intellectual maturity in debate? Why, it’s impossible, LOL!

                You’ve found me out, TC. Ain’t I awful though?

                Have a nice day, TC! :-)

              • True Conservative says:

                ROTFLMAO!

              • Conservative American says:

                ;-)

  3. Then please vote for Obama and see the country reach it final end. I thought it was God who passed judgement, no it is you.

    • So, you finish of your first post with “Unwashed, Uneducated and Underachievers”.

      Then when ConAm points out a couple simple facts you write…
      “I thought it was God who passed judgement, no it is you.”

      Gotcha.

    • Conservative American says:

      Please, SuzanneC, gather yourself.

      Because I will NEVER vote for Newt Gingrich does not mean that I will vote for Obama and you know that quite well. That is a false choice.

      I am not passing judgement on Newt. That IS between Newt and God. What I AM saying is that I don’t want someone who does not live conservative social values and conservative family values as a Republican president or vice president. We can do better than that and we need to do better than that if we hope to send Obama to the private sector.

  4. Paula Pennypacker says:

    Are you kidding me? Let God be the judge over Newt’s alleged infidelities. We are talking about saving our country. I tried to support Perry, but he just can’t hold a candle to Newt and his grasp on foreign policy — the number one responsibility of the federal government.

    I will take Newt’s personal failings over Romney’s flip flopping on issues in order to get elected any day.

    • Shorter Paula Pennypacker: Character doesn’t count!

      Also, “alleged infidelities”? That’s positively Clintonian of you!

    • WASHINGTON — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

      “The honest answer is yes,” Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. “There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There’s certainly times when I’ve fallen short of God’s standards.”

      But no, no, they’re ALLEGED infidelities.

      If a man can’t hold to th most basic promise (“I will not have sex with other women while I am married to my wife”, what kind of promises can we expect him to hold?

    • Conservative American says:

      First, Paula, they are NOT alleged infidelities they are admitted infildelities, Can you read?

      “…in which Gingrich for the first time publicly acknowledged cheating on his first and second wives.”

      Newt admitted it in public. It’s a matter of public record from his own mouth. Nothing “alleged” about it!

      God IS the judge over Newt’s infidelities but I am the judge of who I want as president or vice president as is every other voting American.

      Paula wrote: “We are talking about saving our country.”

      No, when you talk about Newt you are NOT talking about saving our country. You are talking about putting into the highest office in the land someone who won’t even keep a vow and a promise to his wife. If he will betray his own wife (wives) who will he not betray?

      Newt’s failings are not JUST “personal failings”. His failings undermine the social values and family values which conservative Republicans support. He has failed conservatives and he has failed his political party by behaving in a libertine manner.

      We can and must do better than a candidate who admits cheating on TWO wives and who, like Bill Clinton, is unable to control his sexual implulses. I don’t want someone with their finger on “the button” who can’t even keep it in his pants!

    • Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Paula Pennypacker says:

    OK — you got me on that one! I stand corrected. But that does not change my support for Newt.

    Quite frankly, I have not really followed Newt’s personal life that closely, but I have always like him.

    BTW — I thought Ronald Reagan was married and divorced.

    But since you guys or gals are up to speed on Newt, perhaps you can set me straight on another issue. I have never understood why Matt Salmon was not supportive of Newt when he was Speaker. Can you explain why that was?

    • “BTW — I thought Ronald Reagan was married and divorced. ”

      There’s a difference between “married and divorced” and “Reagan was schtupping Nancy Davis behind Jane Wyman’s back”. I don’t think anyone’s ever made that allegation about Reagan.

      Newt took and oath, broke it.

    • Conservative American says:

      It’s fine to like Newt, Paula, but the question is whether or not he is a suitable candidate for president. You may not know much about his personal life but others do and Democrats most certainly know every detail of it.

      I simply cannot see Republicans starting off with an uphill battle to overcome social values and family values issues, especially when there is no documented “tit for tat” dirt regarding marriage and fidelity to sling back at Obama. Gingrich would be playing pure defense on those issues and people are sick and tired of politicians and their disgusting sexual antics.

  6. Conservative Americans says:

    To support Newt Gingrich for president is to choose to make a complete mockery of the social vaules and family values which have been the battle cry of Republicans and, especially, of conservatives. What credibility can we possibly have with independent voters when we cry “social values”, “family values”, and then support as a candidate someone who is on their third marriage and who admits to cheating on his first two wives? That would be seen as hypocritical in the extreme and rightfully so. “Progressive” Democrats would have a field day with that and we will have handed that political weapon to them on a silver platter! Duh!

    If Republicans aren’t with it enough to avoid self-destructing then Democrats will win and there will be no one to blame for that but Republicans themselves!

  7. Dragging this back to the debate itself, I agree so much with Allapundit’s comment over at HOTAIR that I’m showing it here:

    **”The two worst aspects of this exchange? The smug look on Pelley’s face when he challenged Gingrich on this point, and the “no” you can hear him utter just as Gingrich started his smackdown of Pelley. Regardless of the context of this exchange, this is a perfect encapsulation of why these media debates are utterly worthless, and why the Republican Party needs to force a format change. Pelley isn’t running for President, and we don’t need to have Pelley debating the presidential candidates. We need them to debate each other. It’s only made more ridiculous when a moderator-turned-participant ends up as far out of his depth as Pelley was on this question.”**

    These debates are designed by a hostile partisan media that routinely votes over 95% Democrat to make the GOP look as weak as possible. Cannot understand why he GOP keeps kow-towing to blatently unethical journalism. This moderator was an ignorant partisan ass. Never heard so many Left nonsequitur references to “Rule of Law” as have heard during the past two months.

    CLue-bat: “rule of law” isn’t some talisman that is waved around like a magic wand to make the Conservatives and Republicans lie down like sleep-struck sheep, disarmed to passive incapacitation.

    The talisman stuff seems to work for Progressives, just utter the magic words “Koch Brothers” and *ding* they start twitching like they were possessed.

    • Conservative American says:

      With all respect, wanumba, when the article includes a headline reading, “Support Newt Gingrich for President!” and offers the opportunity to “Sign Now”, the article itself has strayed from the debate.

      That having been said, media debates are pretty much useless, as you say, except for that fact that voters get to see the media at work which is usually a big turn off.

      • Given that a major occupation of the POTUS is supposed to be dealing with the rest of the world on collective behalf of the united 50 states, then it was VERY refreshing to see Gingrich has a VERY firm grasp of how Constituional law and war are applied. Relieved to hear by the audience reaction that only a minority applauded the wrong interpretation while the majority affirmed the correct application. Taking a page from the Socialist playbook, he need to be sent to “Constitution Camp,” which they SHOULD have had in school, but the Left evicerated it.

        Not sure any of the other candidates had anywhere near that grip on it, even though it’s crucial to proper conduct of the Office of President.

        The bottom line is: people are fallible. We are going to have to make decisions on what constitutes a fatal flaw and what constitutes a flaw that is unwelcome but not critical to the overall performance.

        No one has to make a decision at this early stage. Let it ride for a while and see how the attrition pans out.

        • Conservative American says:

          If Republicans tell the country that the best candidate they can come up with for President of The United States is a man who has been married three times and who admits to cheating on his first two wives, the country is already lost.

          • We already passed that milestone in the LAST election where the Democrats put up two junior senators with zip executive experience, one an “organzier” the other a “spouse of former POTUS,” as qualifications and the GOP ran their own senator in McCain, also zip elective experience and a VERY polarizing figure in the GOP.

            The ONLY executive in that group was Palin and the pack of senators went after her. Not one of the finer episodes in political maturity ever seen in the USA. The Senate evidently is indeed a closed club.

            I don’t mind the concern and argument about Newt’s personal behaviors, it has to be determined that he can lead despite them or not. The Democrats will have collective amnesia about Bill Clinton and John Kennedy, John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, Frankln Roosevelt, .. etc etc ad nauseum… so anything they say about “marriage” “fidelity” rule of law” will be complete drivel.

            • Conservative American says:

              It is “moderate” so called Republicans, including the national Republican leadership, which, along with Democrats, is selling out America and Americans. The glue which holds Democrats and “moderate” Republicans together is that both support a “One Word”, multinationalist agenda. That is what the big, international money wants and that is whose wishes they are seeking to implement.

              I respectfully disagee, wanumba, that the issue is whether or not Newt can lead despite his personal behaviors. The issue is that someone who would break their promises and their vows to not one, but two of their wives is not fit to hold the highest office in the land. If a man would break his vow to his wife to be faithul, and have extramarital sex, who would he not betray and deceive? It is, in part, a trust issue and Newt has shown that he cannot be trusted even if he makes a vow before God. Not only that, but he has broken his word in that regard at least twice.

              No, Republicans need to offer someone who LIVES the conservative social values and the conservative family values which conservative Republicans have for so long promoted and supported. It’s not enough to talk the talk, we need candidates who actually walk the walk!

  8. I will put BO in one hand and Newt in the other, guess how I will vote. I will never vote for a third party candidate just to lose my vote. Rob, the only thing u got was your hand caught in the cookie jar. Every election the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot, well you go right ahead and continue, let BO have another 4 years see what happens here in Arizona to our borders. See what happens to our sovereignty, oh please tell me how your protest vote is going to cure all that? You seem to know so much, you are so well informed, tell me do you get out and work for your candidate? Or do u sit behind you desk telling all who reads here how bad Newt is, and complain when your country is brought to its knees because your morals would not let you vote for the Republican nominee who made a mistake admits to it and moves on, something you can not seem to do. I will ask my Priest for forgiveness and my God for salvation, thank God I do not have to ask you.

    • Conservative American says:

      SuzanneC, that’s a good intellectual thought BUT we aren’t at a Gingrich versus Obama scenario yet. My point is that we should AVOID creating such a scenario in the first place for the reasons I have already stated.

      Newt can admit his mistakes and move on. That doesn’t mean that those of us who support conservative social values and conservative family vaules will vote for Newt for president.

      Salvation and forgiveness, and getting elected to office after being unfaithful in marriage with two different wives, are different things. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” – Matthew 22:21

  9. Then Conservative you have made my point. At this point I am not committed to Newt, but he will always be the smartest person in the room, there is no getting around that. He is solution driven not bluster and bloviating. I will go to God for forgiveness and not Rob or anybody else who dare to pass judgement on an issue they know nothing about, now in case you all are confused I think Adultery is a mortal sin, I use the term mortal sin, I am a non-practicing Catholic that still cling to many beliefs taught as a child. In recent years Newt has converted to Catholicism and practices that faith, even his belief system has changed, you people who can not forgive like it is you who count and not God need to realize that about the man. If any of you can say your opinion has never changed or what you believed last year may not be what you believe this year then you have never changed your mind on anything? I myself can not, I have changed my mind on many things.

    • Oh, so convenient for Newt to become a Catholic and mouth the platitudes that religious people want to hear.

      Honestly, all of leading Republicans- Bachmann, Cain, Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum- they are all freaks and people you would hate to be trapped in an elevator with. They would be boring you (Romney), groping you (Cain), trying to convert you (Santorum and Bachmann), getting drunk (Perry), or telling you how much smarter they are (Gingrich).

      The only respectable one- Huntsman- is hated because he doesn’t hate immigrants and gays enough.

      And this is why my entire family, which has voted Republican since the 1860s- is voting for the only rational choice- Obama.

      • Conservative American says:

        And the only thing that Obama has going against him is that he’s doing everything in his power to destroy America. Small point but I thought I would throw that in.

      • Obama,the one who in 2006 flew to Kenya to USA taxpayer money, as a US Senator and campaigned for Odinga, a publically proclaimed communist with a long history of agitation and violence. Illegal meddling in a foriegn country’s presidential election, nepotism as proclaimed by Odinga claiming Obama as his cousin… 2,000 Kenyans murdered and 200,000 still homeless to ti day, after Odinga’s rampage to overturn the electoral results… that Obama?
        Or the sanitized version we are fed by the media every day?

        • True Conservative says:

          Thanks for yet another blatant lie, wanumba.

          Politifact took on your insidious attacks and found it to be absolutely, unequivocally false.

          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/20/jerome-corsi/obama-did-not-take-sides-in-kenya/

          “What we can confirm is that Obama has remained neutral in Kenyan politics, and did not support Odinga during his trip. Odinga attended some of Obama’s events while Obama was in Kenya, and clearly wanted to associate himself with Obama, but there is no evidence to indicate that Obama “openly supported” Odinga. ”

          Again, this is why people tune out the Conservative message they should be listening to … because the wingnuts lie so well, so often and so easily that they taint us all.

          We don’t need to lie about Obama, we just need to focus on what he truly did and why our values, if executed faithfully, are best for America.

          • Conservative American says:

            Ah yes, I see that it is time, yet once again, to expose the disingenuous nature of TC (Lampoon).

            TC (Lampoon) if fond of quoiting PolitiFact. Now why do you think that is?

            “PolitiFact Bias

            “The best evidences showing PolitiFact’s liberal slant.”

            “Thursday, May 5, 2011″

            “Red State: “Yet Again Politifact Shows Itself to be Leftist Propaganda Masquerading as an Agent of Truth”

            http://politifactbias.blogspot.com/2011/05/red-state-yet-again-politifact-shows.html

            “IS POLITIFACT’S DAVE UMHOEFER A LIAR, LIAR?”

            “By Charlie Sykes CREATED Apr. 12, 2011″

            “Instead, Umhoefer and Politifact relied on two sources: the left-wing George Soros-funded Brennan Center and a report in Wispolitics based on the Kloppenburg campaign. They did not include potentially huge outside spending by other outside labor groups such as WEAC, AFSCME, the AFL-CIO, or SEIU.”

            http://www.620wtmj.com/blogs/charliesykes/119679599.html?sort=first+to+last&page=2

            “Study finds significant pro-Democrat bias by PolitiFact”

            “by In the news Tuesday, February 22. 2011″

            “by Dan Lucas”

            “A February 2011 study published by the University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics news site, a part of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, finds a significant bias on the part of PolitiFact in favor of statements made by Democrats.”

            http://oregoncatalyst.com/7461-study-finds-significant-pro-democrat-politifact-bias.html

            Have a nice day, TC! :-)

            • True Conservative says:

              Politifact is widely considered a neutral, unbiased source.

              Yes, some wing-nut blogs don’t like the site because they routinely prove the wingnuts are wrong, but that is hardly the fault of the site. I’m confident the lunatic left feels the same, only with the accusation being of a conservative bias.

              So, let me refer to another source, one often cited in the conservative publications. Factcheck.org.

              http://factcheck.org/2008/09/corsis-dull-hatchet/

              “Jerome Corsi’s “The Obama Nation” (where this false witness originates) is not a reliable source of facts about Obama. Corsi cites opinion columns and unsourced, anonymous blogs as if they were evidence of factual claims. Where he does cite legitimate news sources, he frequently distorts the facts. In some cases, Corsi simply ignores readily accessible information when it conflicts with his arguments.

              “Corsi, however, offers no evidence that Obama actually did endorse Odinga. In fact, MSNBC reported that during that same trip, Obama also met with Mwai Kibaki, who was Odinga’s opponent in that election, as well as with opposition leader Uhuru Kenyatta. And Human Rights Watch reported that both Odinga and Kibaki (or their supporters, anyway) had a hand in the violence that followed the election.”

              I can keep posting more links, but only in separate posts due to SA’s posting regulations.

              Bottom line: this is a lie that now you, CA, endorse, and you do so for the intellectually worst reason: because you want to believe the lie, not because you actually researched it.

              • OHhh. The reaction proves the high stakes of this. This must be a very very dangerous subject,why else the freak out.
                Obama flew on US taxpayer dollars under SENATE auspicies to do a “victory lap” around the “fatherland” Kenya.
                WIthout ANYTHING ELSE, that ALONE is bad news. No USA interests at work there, just personal ones. ANd US Senators should not even be in the same building as an avowed communist troublemaker like Odinga, much less the same campaign stop.

                It don’t MATTER what the lying linky sites say. They weren’t THERE, were they? They DO need to shut this down however. The media super hyped Obama’s arrival GUSH GUSH GUSH and then went DEAD SILENT on his departure because President Kibaki was inches from BOOTING him out.

                Notice the careful careful careful lawyerly parsing of the quotes.
                We were THERE. THe information shut down on this is creepy cynical. MILLIONS of Kenyans are very aware of what happened.. Its not a secret there or some “right wing” thing to be ignored.

                Make Americans look stupid, but the reality is, they are ignorant, the information has been withheld and hidden from and denied to them. The Chicago-Kenya connections go long, deep and ugly.
                Too bad it was Kenyans who paid for it in blood and thanks to Odinga now have sharia law in their Constitution.

                Kenya 2006 is dangerous because it was a micro capsule of everything Obama is about… before the Image-making took over.

              • TruConserv says:

                The only freak out here is yours – which is understandable as you’ve been caught telling a lie.

                I’m doing what I always do here, calmly demonstrate that when the traditional conservative wing of the (R) party allows the far right-wing too loud a voice it replies with black helicopter inspired conspiracy theories.

                But, I’ll be a good sport, you aren’t happy with the fact that every nuetral, non-partisan fact-checking site has debunked your claim and that every major press organization that WAS on the ground dissagrees with your assertions of fact, much less never reaching your bizarro conclusion.

                So, using sources other than your personal knowledge or unsourced right-wing sites, demonstrate that Obama has done what you claimed.

                HERE IS WHY IT MATTERS: when ever I get into a discussion with a liberal about the things I can prove Obama has done, they are inclined not to listen because the some radicalized member of the right-wing has already told them too many lies about what Obama has done.

                It was like when the Clinton’s were accused of assasinating their political rivals – once you’ve been proven wrong on a charge of murder, it’s hard to take you seriously on anything else. For that reason, the nation was unwilling to pay attention to the real stuff, such as the on-its-fact false claim that Hilary just happened to find the Rose Law Firm billing records in a spare bedroom at the White House.

                So, make a decision, keep up with the black helicopter stories or actually do something to help the cause of voting in a (R) to the White House in 2012. I am extremely confident that other than in the echo chamber of the right wing, the majority of Americans are not going to be discussing Kenya during the campaign other than as a way of mocking conservatives.

              • Conservative American says:

                Really, TC? see my post below for the total distruction, yet once again, of the sources you cite.

                Have a nice day, TC (Lampoon)! :-)

            • Conservative American says:

              Politifact is what I just proved it to be; a liberal, left wing propaganda machine. But let’s address your newest efforts at preserving your unblemished record of being disingenuous, shall we?

              “Fact Check Is A Liberal Website Sponsored And Funded By A Liberal Leftist Organization”

              “The fact is, the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FactCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barrack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms.”

              http://www.xomba.com/fact_check_liberal_website_sponsored_and_funded_liberal_leftist_organization

              From The Wall Street Journal:

              “Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.”

              “The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers’s home.”

              “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago’s public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation’s other key body, the “Collaborative,” which shaped education policy.”

              http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

              From where has funding for the “conservative” FactCheck.org come?

              Fiscal Year 2011
              (12 months ending June 30, 2011)

              Annenberg Foundation: $612,125

              Carnegie Corporation of New York: $100,000

              Rajkumar Anketell, Hackensack, N.J.: $5,000

              Allen Stenger, Alamogordo, N.M.: $1,000

              Individual donations of less than $1,000 each: $49,018.59

              Non-corporate employer matching (Pew Charitable Trusts): $1,000

              Well, isn’t that interesting! Both the Pew Charitable Trusts AND the Carnegie Corporation of New York contibuted directly to FactCheck.org this year! Well, so what?

              “Charged with promoting campaign-finance reform when he joined Pew in the mid-1990s, Treglia came up with a three-pronged strategy: 1) pursue an expansive agenda through incremental reforms, 2) pay for a handful of “experts” all over the country with foundation money and 3) create fake business, minority and religious groups to pound the table for reform.”

              “Treglia’s revelations help put in context a report just out from a group called Political Money Line, Campaign Finance Lobby: 1994-2004, which follows the money behind campaign-finance reform. From 1994 to 2004, almost $140 million was spent to lobby for changes to our country’s campaign-finance laws.”

              “The vast majority of this money — $123 million, 88 percent of the total — came from eight foundations. These foundations were: the Pew Charitable Trusts ($40.1 million), the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ($17.6 million), the Carnegie Corporation of New York ($14.1 million), the Joyce Foundation ($13.5 million), George Soros’ Open Society Institute ($12.6 million), the Jerome Kohlberg Trust ($11.3 million), the Ford Foundation ($8.8 million) and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($5.2 million).”

              http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Carnegie_Corporation

              So let’s recap:

              1 – FactCheck.org is sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

              2 – The Annenberg Public Policy Center is supported by the Annenberg Foundation.

              3 – The Annenberg Foundation is the foundation from which Bill Ayers, founder of the Weatherman Underground, secured the 49.2 million dollars to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barrack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms.

              4 – This year, FactCheck.org received donations from both the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Carnegie Corporation of New York which, along with George Soros’ Open Society Institute, funded the propaganda machine to get “campaign finance reform” passed.

              Thus far, TC (Lampoon), has attempted to, at various times, cite the Pew Hispanic Center, part of the aforementioned Pew Charitable Trusts which funded campaign finance reform propaganda, PoltiFact, which was found to have a liberal bias, and FactCheck.org, funded by the Annenberg Foundation which gave $49.2 millon to Bill Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground, as sources of unbiased facts.

              TC has all of the hallmarks of a paid liberal blogger sent to the conservative SA website to disrupt, distort, deceive and misrepresent. He cites libearl soucres. He deliberately omits from his cited sources anything which refutes his arguments. When his arguments fail, as they always do, he resorts to the ridicule of Saul Alinsky’s Rule 5. He is disingenuous by nature.

              Have a nice day, TC (Lampoon)! :-)

          • I was IN KENYA at the time of Obama’s tour. I had no iidea who he was, so I had no preconceived notions of any sort . Obama came in like the conquering hero on his victory lap, a new US Senator, and then left all quiet and furtive because the Kenya sitting government was minutes from booting him out for campaigning against the sitting president.

            You weren’t there, neither was anyone writing for any of your little partisan hackery linky sites.

            I delivered on-the-ground-primary source account and you spin spin spin to coach people to not hear it, because it spoils the carefully constructed fraud, so you call me a liar. I’m innocent. I didn’t use US taxpayer money to pay for a jaunt to Kenya. Our tax money was used to lend US Senate prestige to help a communist get elected in another country, and who later unleashed a murdering mob to grab power.

            Why aren’t you condemning that instead of hiding like a coward behind false constructs? You obviously do not capture the magnitude nor the concept that act of Obama hugely damaged our foreign relations, and openly showed Obama’s complete disregard for the proper use of US taxpayer funds. Right off the bat.

            • ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
              True Conservative says:
              November 14, 2011 at 11:23 am
              Thanks for yet another blatant lie, wanumba.
              :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

              THat’s pretty pompous posturing from a Leftie who can’t even anonymously post without lying, morphing, dodging, changing voices.

              You paid for this stuff? Could I get paid, too, if I switch sides? I’m doing this for free.

              • Conservative American says:

                Tell it like it is, wanumba! ;-)

              • True Conservative says:

                It all comes down to black helicopters for you guys.

                Okay – so maybe you were not lying, maybe you were just posting like an completely ignorant boob who repeats every meme whispered to him by the lunatic fringe.

                Which is it – were you lying or just demonstrating your general incompetence at sussing out the truth?

                Bottom line: you repeated a demonstratively false claim and now you’re whining for having been called out for it. Love the melt down …

              • Conservative American says:

                Really, TC (Lampoon)?

                You donated to the Human Rights Campaign, Progressive Democrats of America and to the state Democratic Party in 2010 and 2011.

                Have a nice day, TC (Lampoon)! :-)

            • True Conservative says:

              My complaint with you is two-fold:

              1) you’re spreading a false statement
              2) you’re doing so while claiming to be a conservative.

              You’re part of the lunatic fringe of the right wing, but you are not a conservative and when you tell these demonstratively false, radical fantasy you make those of us who are conservatives look bad.

              Your claim has been examined and its false nature revealed.

              Man up, say your sorry and move on. Doubling down just makes you sound all the more crazy.

  10. Paula Pennypacker says:

    Homer –

    My first choice for President is Huntsman, and have blogged about my support for him, only to be taken out to the wood shed by my uber-conservative readers. But like you said, he does not have a chance of getting past primary voters. Soooo — I am desperately trying to find a second choice — to no avail as I do not like Romney.

    I believe Huntsman has seven children. I saw three of his lovely daughters on Hannity the other night. They were poised, articulate, and plugged-in to their father’s campaign. They are the next generation of voters.

    True Conservative — could you ever support Huntsman. As far as I know he has never cheated on his wife.

    • Huntsman is a good man, probably the only grown-up in the race.

      • Conservative American says:

        Huntsman is a so called “Republican” who accepted an Obama appointment as ambassador to China. He’s a Mornon, like Romney, and his brother does business with China, although he refrained from doing so while Huntsman was ambassador. He speaks fluent Mandarin, something I don’t see as a virtue in an American politician.

        • “…Huntsman was ambassador. He speaks fluent Mandarin, something I don’t see as a virtue in an American politician.”

          ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

          Now, just thinking here. That depends, doesn’t it?
          If Huntsman had deftly used his fluent Mandarin to call out the Chinese regime for their government-forced abortions, sterilization and one-child policy, under-cutting export practices, their use of their citizens as quasi-slave labor in all their manufacturing production, their hegemonic imperialistic invasion of India, their seizure of Tibet, their funding of the communist insurgency in Nepal, their buttressing the brutal Myanmar regime in Burma and the national atrocity of North Korea, then OKAY.

          But he DIDN’T.

          It’s nice that Huntsman has 7 kids. How many Chinese couples would have liked to have had the same freedom to have even two or three kids?

          • Conservative American says:

            When Jerry Lewis was debating, he was concerned that the Communists in Beijing supposedly see Arizona as racist. Then we have another Mormon and so called “Republican”, John Huntsman, who a left wing, liberal, progressive Democrat appoints as ambassador to China. Why would an American politcian learn Chinese? Why would he feel the need or interest to learn Chinese? Why the language of a Communist country? Sorry, I don’t buy the idea that those representing America should be speaking the language of a communist enemy or that they should be concerned about what the Communists in Beijing think about Arizona. There’s too much of a Mormon-Chinese connection here.

          • Conservative American says:

            Here is how John Huntsman is viewed by Communist China:

            “Greater China
            May 20, 2009″

            “Beijing tickled by Obama’s China envoy”

            “By Ian Williams”

            “United States President Barack Obama has shown an ability to please almost everybody, apart from the irreconcilable conservative wing of the Republican Party. His nomination of Jon Huntsman as ambassador to Beijing has not only demonstrated his bipartisanship to moderate voters and Republicans, it has removed a potential Republican rival for the 2012 elections – and perhaps more significantly has China purring with satisfaction.”

            “Indeed, the importance of China is unchallenged in Washington, given how essential Chinese finance is for any recovery plans. However, given that in former house speaker Tip O’Neill’s dictum “all politics is local”, there will certainly be point-scoring politicians prepared to mount an offensive on trade and currency issues, and Huntsman should be able to help control them, not least of which due to his close ties to Republican Senator John McCain, for whom he campaigned vigorously and prominently.”

            http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KE20Ad01.html

            So conservative Republicans are “irreconcilable” and regarding “point-scoring” Republicans, “…Huntsman should be able to help control them, not least of which due to his close ties to Republican Senator John McCain, for whom he campaigned vigorously and prominently.”

            Hey, what a great “conservative” Huntsman is, LOL! ;-)

            • ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
              “…has removed a potential Republican rival for the 2012 elections – and perhaps more significantly has China purring with satisfaction.”

              :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

              WHat an embarrassment. China is one of the world’s most cruel governments and has military plans to attack the United States, invaded our ally India and grabbed Indian territory which Inida has yet to get back,, invaded Tibet and pounded the monks to death, doing everything in China’s s power to erase Tibet as a people, a culture and nation off the planet, props up the murdering Myramar regime and keeps Kim Il Jong in power n North Korea.

              But Huntman was very comfortable there. He ws probably wined and dined constantly to flatter him he was important.

  11. Spiked Flail says:

    Proof that Pennypacker is a liberal “Republican”? She supports the most liberal “Republican” of the pack running for the nomination: Huntsman. He’s even to the left of Romney…sickening. Huntsman is an Obama appointee. Think the Communist-in-Chief would actually appoint a conservative? If she were a conservative, she’d support a more conservative candidate, but she’s not.

    Want me to predict Pennypacker’s response? Like most liberal “Republicans” running in a primary, like Konopnicki, she’ll claim she’s a conservative and vilify TEA Partiers and real conservatives. Too bad she just can’t be honest and admit she’s a liberal “Republican.” The people are on to her and she’ll never get elected. We’ll simply catalog her comments and use them against her to remind primary voters that she’s a liberal. She won’t be able to run from her record of leftist comments…just like Konopnicki couldn’t run from his liberal voting record even when he styled himself a “conservative” in his campaign mailers.

  12. Paula Pennypacker says:

    Spiked –

    I have always said I am a center-right Republican with Libertarian aspirations. Where did you ever get the idea that I was an extremist like you?

    No news flash there!

    Apparently you did not get the memo Tuesday. Almost all your radicalized tea party candidates lost. Including a historic recall election of your tea party leader. Your hate-filled rhetoric, and name calling is so yesterday!

    For the record, I spoke out against the tea party after the state legislature started micro-managing cities in AZ — right down to eliminating Scottsdale’s sign ordinance. The tea party that I belonged to was for smaller government, not larger government. The tea party that I belonged to was for less government — not MORE government. Hardly the words of a “liberal.”

    • Conservative Republican says:

      ROFL! Now THERE’s a left wing liberal rant if EVER I heard one, LOL! :-)

      Interesting, Ms. Paula, because you swore to me that you were a “conservative” and NOT a “center-right Republican with Libertarian aspirations”, LOL!

      I identified you as a flaming liberal a long time ago. Nice to see that others have your number as well.

      I like this part the best: “Your hate-filled rhetoric…” Oh so classic liberal! The “hate mantra”!

  13. Serrated Blade says:

    Pennypacker, you don’t get it. Your definitions and your understanding of the spectrum are borked. There’s no way someone can be in the middle (“center-right”), which favors big government — but a slower path there-to — and also be Libertarian, which is more anti-government that a conservative. Center-right is mutually exclusive of Libertarian. Take a look at Skousen’s political spectrum. On the far left of his scale, you have totalitarians and, as one moves right, you have an increasing bias against government util you get to anarchists. Your comments make no sense keeping that spectrum in mind. Which leads me to the conclusion that you may not “get it” in addition to being a liar.

    You also lack understanding that city government IS big government. A sign ordinance? That’s additional regulation. If a state eliminated a sign ordinance, that’s INCREASING freedom by killing a government restriction. If you have any Libertarian leanings, you’d applaud a reduction in regulation and a resulting increase in freedom. You don’t, so, you have no Libertarian leanings. In fact, you take the opposite tack and criticize the state for increasing freedom, which is definitive proof that you favor big government. The Democrat Party seems more your speed, Paula.

    Finally, you also show an appalling lack of understanding that all power flows from the states. It was the states that delegated powers to the federal government. It’s also by the grace of the state that subdivisions of the state exist. Take a minute and bother to read the Arizona Constitution. Articles 12 & 13 pretty much state that counties and cities exist at the pleasure of the state. Since authority flows from the state, the state should be applauded for reining in out-of-control subdivisions.

  14. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    Spiked Flail says:
    November 13, 2011 at 10:06 pm
    Proof that Pennypacker is a liberal “Republican”? She supports the most liberal “Republican” of the pack running for the nomination: Huntsman. He’s even to the left of Romney…sickening. Huntsman is an Obama appointee. Think the Communist-in-Chief would actually appoint a conservative? If she were a conservative, she’d support a more conservative candidate, but she’s not.

    Want me to predict Pennypacker’s response? Like most liberal “Republicans” running in a primary, like Konopnicki, she’ll claim she’s a conservative and vilify TEA Partiers and real conservatives.

    Paula Pennypacker says:
    November 13, 2011 at 10:47 pm
    Spiked –

    I have always said I am a center-right Republican with Libertarian aspirations. Where did you ever get the idea that I was an extremist like you?
    Apparently you did not get the memo Tuesday. Almost all your radicalized tea party candidates lost. Including a historic recall election of your tea party leader. Your hate-filled rhetoric, and name calling is so yesterday
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    *ding* ding* ding*

    Spiked: Good thing you didn’t say “Koch Bros” or we would have had a “center-right Libertarian” core melt-down that would have made Chernoble look like a backyard barbeque.

  15. Huntsman like Paul and Flake are Libertarians, not Republicans. Read the Libertarian platform, that alone should tell you why not to vote for any of them. But because they can not win as Democrats they register as Republicans because in their district a “R” has a better chance of winning.

    • Conservative American says:

      And she SCORES! The only distinction I would make is that Flake is a “One World”, multinational guy who, along with Chicago Democrat Congressman Luis Gutierrez, authored amnesty legislation and who supports giving away Arizona land to foreign mining companies who will replace workers with robots.

  16. Paula Pennypacker says:

    Serrated Blade –

    For the record — America is a center-right county!!!!

    RE: Cities sign codes. Let’s do it your way. Let’s have signs everywhere, all over the 101, on every street corner, up and down the sides of every building. Lining every business intersection and front lawns. Or are you for the state only regulating political signs?

    Calling people a ‘liar” is the very reason why your kind of politics was repudiated at the polls last week.

    One more thing. Ronald Reagan did not win two terms in the White House by appealing only to the furthest right voters like yourself. No, he appealed to center-right Republicans, as well as Kennedy Democrats and Independents. Back then there was no shame associated with appealing to the masses — today you are called a “liar” — or a “flaming liberal.”

    Like Reagan — I am a staunch fiscal conservative, and have a record to back that up. I have a 28-year
    record as a Republican political activist and I am not going to let people like you slander my record.

    It’s sad how hateful the tone of the SA blog gets by far-right Republicans. And the dirty tricks you resorted to in order to keep Pearce in power.

    If all of us who are staunch fiscal conservatives would stick together maybe we could stop the out of control spending in Washington. But NO — step out of the far-right ideological box and you must be destroyed. United we stand — divided we will fall.

    CA –

    Go ahead and laugh out loud as I do consider myself a real conservative, and people like you are CINO’s (Conservatives In Name Only). As I support less government in our lives. You support more. The far-right wants to dictate who one sleeps with, who can serve in the military, who can serve on the redistricting commission. CINO’s have overturned our medical marijuana law that voters passed THREE times, and our political sign ordinance that we residents asked our city council for — but the state overturned. The list goes on and on.

    • Conservative American says:

      For the record, you haven’t been elected “Spokeswoman for Americans”.Your subjective opinion regarding whether or not America is a “center-right country” is nothing more than your subjective opinion. Thank you for sharing.

      Ms. Paula wrote: “One more thing. Ronald Reagan did not win two terms in the White House by appealing only to the furthest right voters like yourself. No, he appealed to center-right Republicans, as well as Kennedy Democrats and Independents. Back then there was no shame associated with appealing to the masses — today you are called a “liar” — or a “flaming liberal.”

      The most important part of your statement is, “back then”. It ain’t “back then”, Ms. Paula. It’s “now”.

      I LOVE this part: “Back then there was no shame associated with appealing to the masses…”

      “The masses”? What Communist literature have you been into that you are using Communist terminology?

      Now here is a revealing statment: “If all of us who are staunch fiscal conservatives…” There is no such thing as a “fiscal conservative” as opposed to a “social conservative”. That false dichotomy was created by the liberal left in an attempt to split conservatives.

      Ms. Paula wrote: “The far-right wants to dictate who one sleeps with, who can serve in the military, who can serve on the redistricting commission.”

      I have nothing to add to THAT statement. You just fully revealed what you REALLY are. Thanks for that, Ms. Paula!

    • Conservative American says:

      By the way, Ms. Paula, can you elaborate on your statement that, “The far-right wants to dictate who one sleeps with…”? I’d be VERY interested in hearing more about that one! Are you saying that the “far-right” has been dictating that portion of your life?

  17. Nordine Crub says:

    Give em hell Paula.

    FYI Reagan and woman divorced 6/28/1948; Reagan and Nancy met in 1951; Reagan and Davis married 3/4/1952 and their daughter Patty was born 10/21/52 (7 1/2 months after the wedding)

    • Conservative American says:

      You seem to be operating under two delusions, Nordine. The first is that someone is defending Ronald Reagan. The second is that Ronald Reagan is seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

      There’s nothing quite like talking about a dead President to make a case regarding the 2012 elections, LOL!

      • So, lets get this straight. You don’t mind that Reagan was an adulterer and a fornicator, because he is dead now. But you don’t like Newt because he is still alive.

        Twisted logic and Cognitive Dissonance from a hypocrite.

        • Conservative American says:

          Let’s get this straight. You and TC are one and same poster and you donated to the Human Rights Campaign, Progressive Democrats of America and the state Democratic Party in 21020 and 2011.

          • Nope, and you are just trying to spin out of answering a question. How cowardly of you.

            • Conservative American says:

              Well, you would, of course, be the expert on cowardice seeing as you have so much experience practicing it, LOL!

              You and TC are one and the same person. You donated to the Human Rights Campaign, Progressive Democrats of America and the state Democratic Party in 2010 and 2011.

              • Prove that I am TC. You can’t (I’m not), you are just using it as a way to dodge a question that exposes you as a hypocrite and a dullard.

              • Conservative American says:

                Oh sure you are TC! And you donated to the Human Rights Campaign, Progressive Democrats of America and the state Democratic Party in 2010 and 2011.

                Ah, I’m a hypocrite and a dullard. Hey, thanks! I’ll add that to my “to be fixed” list!

                Have a nice day, TC! :-)

              • True Conservative says:

                CA – a fine example of the radical right-wing mind, and a wonderful reminder why he and his ilk need to rejected by the (R) party faithful.

                Lampoon – sorry you seem to have picked up my cyber-stalker. As you are realizing, he’s not much for fact and absolutely loathes debate. Still, he has his uses … LOL!

              • He loathes debate because he is a coward…and a pussy.

                But, the internet is full of keyboard commandos like him. Thankfully, they are the fringe, witness the trouncing his boy Pearce took.

              • Conservative American says:

                Oh, wait, let me add the new ones to the list! Let’s see we have “coward” and “pussy”. Oh, nice language, TC!

                And I STILL have you jumping through hoops like a trained dog, LOL! All I have to do is to not give you the answer you want and I can make you keep coming back and hurling more crass insults for as long as I want you to do that, LOL!

                Have a nice day, TC! :-)

    • Just remember that Reagan was still a Democrat in 1952….

  18. Nordine Crub says:

    Whoops – woman should have been Wyman.

  19. Nordine Crub says:

    I’m not saying Nancy and Ronnie were doing the Hokie Pokie before marriage or anything.

Speak Your Mind

*