How dare the Lame Stream Media disparage Newt Gingrich with the truth!

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

He sounds like a real champ. A family values hypocrite and typical slimy politician.

“he went to the hospital to present her with divorce terms while she was recovering from uterine cancer”

What a compassionate guy.

paulmdoro said:
He sounds like a real champ. A family values hypocrite and typical slimy politician. “he went to the hospital to present her with divorce terms while she was recovering from uterine cancer” What a compassionate guy.

With this one PMD…I agree with you!

I’ve just skimmed this, but it is good stuff. Just the type of hard-hitting exposé we need about Newt and all candidates. And, from Esquire! Journalism is still alive! I can’t wait to red the entire article.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

BatBoy said:
With this one PMD…I agree with you!

As do I, but I suspect this is another example of bi-partisanship.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

BatBoy said:
With this one PMD…I agree with you!

Yeah that story about the divorce paper hospital delivery has been around for quite some time now. Really hard to defend that one. And the family values platform is tough when you’ve had public affairs and two divorces. His moment in the sun has passed. Is anyone in the GOP all that enthused about the idea of Newt in 2012?

Good

This scumbag spent millions of our tax dollars on a blowjob witch hunt while he was off doing the same exact thing.

Only issue is that Clinton was a pure scumbag womanizer….Newt was just “lost”.

Jackie_Treehorn said:
Good

This scumbag spent millions of our tax dollars on a blowjob witch hunt while he was off doing the same exact thing.

Only issue is that Clinton was a pure scumbag womanizer….Newt was just “lost”.

Do as I say, not as I do.

I strongly recommend ______ B l a c k w h i t e C u p i d * C o m ______ to you where I just found my interracial boyfriend! You know it is a great place to meet black men and beautiful women. What’s kind of relationship do you want? ;)

willakq12li said:
I strongly recommend ______ B l a c k w h i t e C u p i d * C o m ______ to you where I just found my interracial boyfriend! You know it is a great place to meet black men and beautiful women. What’s kind of relationship do you want? ;)

Hey willakq12li

Contact Tommy and Colby at this site…they might be interested in what you have to offer!

“Do as I say, not as I do.”

That would be the GOP M.O.

“he went to the hospital to present her with divorce terms while she was recovering from uterine cancer”

Sounds like he’d make a great president er I mean janitor.

If Gingrich was ever going to run for President it was in 2008 with neither party having a president or vice-president running and the Democrats had a woman and a black guy as the frontrunners.Gingrich is like Palin you always drop hints that you will run but making money and not having the burden of actually governing but you get to go on TV all the time and just make shit up because you will never run.

The Real Royal King said:
I’ve just skimmed this, but it is good stuff. Just the type of hard-hitting exposé we need about Newt and all candidates.

I couldn’t agree more. I also just skimmed the article…..is there anywhere in the piece where she accepts responsibility for her part in the whole sordid mess? She can’t be totally clueless….everyone knew his wife was in the hospital suffering with cancer.

Gingrich is, and always has been, a hypocrite and a liar. He should be anathema to all family values Americans. I suspect that all well-meaning conservatives will turn their backs on him.

You can tell which candidates the left fears based on the attacks against them. We’re only half way thru 2010 and the left-wing media is already out for Gingrich. The 2012 race is going to be nasty. Obama was the media’s candidate. They put him into office. They are not going to sit by and let ANYBODY change that. Oh, and no matter who the Republican is, the media will try to convince the public that he/she attends Klan meetings when they’re not going around the country throwing rocks at black people. That’s the media world we live in.

The left is scared of Newt Gingrich? How so? Is he someone you want running in 2012?

Since I don’t know the whole story on the Gingrich divorce, I will reserve comment on that, but I do find it interesting that stories iike this that are about Republican’s, seem to come out BEFORE elections and for Dem’s like Edwards, they don’t see the light of day til AFTER the election is over. Just something to think about.

MichelleF said:
Since I don’t know the whole story on the Gingrich divorce, I will reserve comment on that, but I do find it interesting that stories iike this that are about Republican’s, seem to come out BEFORE elections and for Dem’s like Edwards, they don’t see the light of day til AFTER the election is over. Just something to think about.

The stories about Gingrich are not really new though. His divorces, his affairs, his hospital divorce paper delivery, none of that is new information.

True Paul, but we know the Edwards afair wasn’t really that secret, yet it didn’t come out til WAY after the election.

I assumed well-meaning conservatives would turn their backs on Gingrich, given his hypocritical past and the way he treats women. We have known about that past for 10 years. Apparently I was wrong, considering the comments above from MichelleF and lonestar77. Apparently, there are some people who would vote for the devil if he espoused their message. So sad….

ps, and even then, it was the Enquirer that ran it and other more “mainstream” outlets CHOSE to ignore it.

MichelleF said:
True Paul, but we know the Edwards afair wasn’t really that secret, yet it didn’t come out til WAY after the election.

Yes it seems the media dropped the ball with Edwards and his affair, but that has nothing to do with Gingrich and his run in 2012. He will be damn near 70 in 2012. Is another old white guy who peaked in the ’90s and has a sordid personal life really who Republicans want?

Alamo, I didn’t defend Gingrich, I said I wouldn’t comment since I’m not privy to all the inner workings of their marriage and don’t have all the details. Way to twist what I said though!

Paul, I never said he was my candidate, I was making a larger point about how biased the media is.

I was posing more of a general question for everyone.

MichelleF said:
Alamo, I didn’t defend Gingrich, I said I wouldn’t comment since I’m not privy to all the inner workings of their marriage and don’t have all the details. Way to twist what I said though!

Speaking of bias, does it always work this way? Seems to me that if it’s a liberal the scourge comes fast and furious, but for a conservative, it’s a wait and see approach.

And here I thought the left’s matra was to leave people’s private lives alone! I guess that’s also a one way street.

Oh well… I wonder how much attacks like this (and it is an attack, there’s no reason to do a detailed interview with an ex-wife unless you’re planning an attack) will resonate with the public. I think Newt’s defense will probably be along the lines of, “Aren’t we supposed to be talking about issues and important things?” and “Terrorism, taxes, national debt, poorly constructed ‘healthcare,’ etc… and you want to talk about my ex-wife?”

I wonder if this is enough to derail him… frankly, I doubt it.

That’s ok paul, I’ve stopped expecting you on the left to admit their is a huge bias in the media.

There, not their, before Royal Race-Baiter/English professor shows up.

“Speaking of bias, does it always work this way? Seems to me that if it’s a liberal the scourge comes fast and furious, but for a conservative, it’s a wait and see approach.”

Funny how that works.

They also lke to point to OTHER people’s bad behavior instead of dealing with the issue just like Michelle F did-she seems to think she’s some kind of master at obfuscation-too bad she’s not.

ImNotBlue said:
And here I thought the left’s matra was to leave people’s private lives alone! I guess that’s also a one way street.

Oh well… I wonder how much attacks like this (and it is an attack, there’s no reason to do a detailed interview with an ex-wife unless you’re planning an attack) will resonate with the public. I think Newt’s defense will probably be along the lines of, “Aren’t we supposed to be talking about issues and important things?” and “Terrorism, taxes, national debt, poorly constructed ‘healthcare,’ etc… and you want to talk about my ex-wife?”

I wonder if this is enough to derail him… frankly, I doubt it.

Is that what Newt said back during the Clinton years, that there were more important issues than the president’s personal life?

But shouldn’t it derail him, if family values are so important to the right? Or do they not matter anymore?

MichelleF said:
That’s ok paul, I’ve stopped expecting you on the left to admit their is a huge bias in the media.

And I’ve stopped expecting you to go a day without whining and moaning about media bias.

MichelleF said:
Since I don’t know the whole story on the Gingrich divorce, I will reserve comment on that, but I do find it interesting that stories iike this that are about Republican’s, seem to come out BEFORE elections and for Dem’s like Edwards, they don’t see the light of day til AFTER the election is over. Just something to think about.

Don’t know? He spilled all the beans to Dobson back in 07

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/gingrich.schneider/index.html

“But shouldn’t it derail him, if family values are so important to the right? Or do they not matter anymore?”

The libertarians who run the tea parties could care less.

Thank god.

“Don’t know? He spilled all the beans to Dobson back in 07″

Of course she would not know-the information does not help her smear democrats or liberals. She most likely doesn’t know about Mark Foley either.

Newt is good as a political and history commentator, but was such a hypocrite when it came to philandering that he has zero chance of becoming the president.

Stick to commentary, Newt, and besides, do we really want someone who is named Newt to be a president??

notsofast said:
Newt is good as a political and history commentator, but was such a hypocrite when it came to philandering that he has zero chance of becoming the president.

Stick to commentary, Newt, and besides, do we really want someone who is named Newt to be a president??

Yes he seems more suited to a behind the scenes role these days.

Bootleghaircut said:
“But shouldn’t it derail him, if family values are so important to the right? Or do they not matter anymore?”

The libertarians who run the tea parties could care less.

Thank god.

I agree, but the family values crowd is a different story, or used to be. Have they moved on as well?

Of course she would not know-the information does not help her smear democrats or liberals. She most likely doesn’t know about Mark Foley either.

I heard about Mark Foley. DIdn’t that come out RIGHT before the election too? Of course, I didn’t defend Foley and am not defending Gingrich. I’m not condoning the actions of either man, but this is a media site and I think the subject of media bias is fair game here. But I can see why you libs don’t ever want to acknowledge it.

Paul Ryan – 2012!!!

So the media is nicer to Democrats when it comes to affair revelations?

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:02 am

Is that what Newt said back during the Clinton years, that there were more important issues than the president’s personal life?

Did Newt lie about his divorce under oath?

See… a difference!

But shouldn’t it derail him, if family values are so important to the right? Or do they not matter anymore?

Well, being that it’s the left who’s pretty consistently guilty of touting the “family values” of the right, not actually the right wing anymore… it’s hard to say. That was a strategy that backfired on the Republicans years ago… the left just hasn’t quite let go yet.

Of course, one could also ask the question, why is it that the Democrats seem comfortable raising taxes, yet have so many members (past and present) who fail to pay their taxes correctly? And yet, we’ve already been told to brush that off and pretend it doesn’t happen. The point being, if you want to play the “hypocrisy” game… there’s more than enough to go around.

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:03 am

And I’ve stopped expecting you to go a day without whining and moaning about media bias.

It would be much better if people stopped pointing it out, and just put their heads back in the sand and pretended it wasn’t there, right? Oh well… too bad.

But if you’re really committed to that attitude, I’m sure you’ll post the same message over at Newshounds and MediaMatters. Let them know how you don’t appreciate their daily “whining and moaning.”

notsofast says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:10 am

I more or less agree with you. I think the baggage he takes is simply too much to mount an effective campaign.

Newt would be a better RNC head, than President. Better to have him behind the scenes making policy, than in the front getting attacked for nonsense.

paulmdoro said:
Speaking of bias, does it always work this way? Seems to me that if it’s a liberal the scourge comes fast and furious, but for a conservative, it’s a wait and see approach.

msNBC ran fast and hard with the Rand Paul story last night Countdown & Hardball, back to back bashings.

CNN & FNC pretty much ignored it.

Gingrich? Stories are endless about this guy, he’s a Washington Elite. He’s a bum. Any wonder why him & Bill got along so well in the 90′s?

Paul, I’m not saying they don’t report if a Dem has an affair, but they definately time the coverage to minimize damage to Dem’s. Do you acknowledge that?

And keep your eye out for how the media covers scandals of R’s and D’s and how often the D is left off when reporting on the offender, and how that never seems to happen when it’s an R. Let me be clear (man, now I sound like Obama!), if an R does something wrong, I say kick them to the curb, I’m just looking for consistency and intellectual honesty in journalism.

You can call it whining all you want, it’s not, it’s pointing out the obvious, whether the left will admit it or not. It’s not like this is a matter of opinoin, it’s FACT.

paulmdoro said:
Yes he seems more suited to a behind the scenes role these days.

He belongs there and so do you.

Try working on fixing the “inner city Failed Eductation” that you are a part of.

Quit posing “general question for everyone” to ponder and come up with an alternate solution to 50 years of Failed Public Education in the inner city.

ImNotBlue said:
paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:02 am

Is that what Newt said back during the Clinton years, that there were more important issues than the president’s personal life?

Did Newt lie about his divorce under oath?

See… a difference!

But shouldn’t it derail him, if family values are so important to the right? Or do they not matter anymore?

Well, being that it’s the left who’s pretty consistently guilty of touting the “family values” of the right, not actually the right wing anymore… it’s hard to say. That was a strategy that backfired on the Republicans years ago… the left just hasn’t quite let go yet.

Of course, one could also ask the question, why is it that the Democrats seem comfortable raising taxes, yet have so many members (past and present) who fail to pay their taxes correctly? And yet, we’ve already been told to brush that off and pretend it doesn’t happen. The point being, if you want to play the “hypocrisy” game… there’s more than enough to go around.

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:03 am

And I’ve stopped expecting you to go a day without whining and moaning about media bias.

It would be much better if people stopped pointing it out, and just put their heads back in the sand and pretended it wasn’t there, right? Oh well… too bad.

But if you’re really committed to that attitude, I’m sure you’ll post the same message over at Newshounds and MediaMatters. Let them know how you don’t appreciate their daily “whining and moaning.”

notsofast says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:10 am

I more or less agree with you. I think the baggage he takes is simply too much to mount an effective campaign.

Newt would be a better RNC head, than President. Better to have him behind the scenes making policy, than in the front getting attacked for nonsense.

Oh so Newt only cared about lying under oath and never would have went after Clinton otherwise. I totally forgot. Such a man of principle!

Has the right totally stopped talking about and caring about family values?

Regarding media bias, you know why there’s partisan media watchdog groups representing both sides? Because everyone sees media bias.

MichelleF said:
Paul, I’m not saying they don’t report if a Dem has an affair, but they definately time the coverage to minimize damage to Dem’s. Do you acknowledge that?

And keep your eye out for how the media covers scandals of R’s and D’s and how often the D is left off when reporting on the offender, and how that never seems to happen when it’s an R. Let me be clear (man, now I sound like Obama!), if an R does something wrong, I say kick them to the curb, I’m just looking for consistency and intellectual honesty in journalism.

You can call it whining all you want, it’s not, it’s pointing out the obvious, whether the left will admit it or not. It’s not like this is a matter of opinoin, it’s FACT.

Has someone gone back and studied exactly when stories about sex scandals are released and proven that there is a long history of bias there?

BatBoy said:
He belongs there and so do you.

Try working on fixing the “inner city Failed Eductation” that you are a part of.

Quit posing “general question for everyone” to ponder and come up with an alternate solution to 50 years of Failed Public Education in the inner city.

Wrong place to post your incoherent rambling. And posing?

paulmdoro said:
Oh so Newt only cared about lying under oath and never would have went after Clinton otherwise. I totally forgot.

You forgot what Clinton was impeached for?

ImNotBlue says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:20 am

“Of course, one could also ask the question, why is it that the Democrats seem comfortable raising taxes, yet have so many members (past and present) who fail to pay their taxes correctly? And yet, we’ve already been told to brush that off and pretend it doesn’t happen. The point being, if you want to play the “hypocrisy” game… there’s more than enough to go around.”

Funny you should bring this up, caught Nikki Haley on Greta last night. It seems the left is going after her for not paying her taxes. It turns out she did, but her and her husband had to file extensions.

Pablo said:
You forgot what Clinton was impeached for?

Of course not. I only forgot how principled and courageous Newt was.

paulmdoro said:
Has someone gone back and studied exactly when stories about sex scandals are released and proven that there is a long history of bias there?

Better yet, look at who breaks the stories. Clinton – Drudge, Edwards – National Enquirer.

Paul, like a typical lib, you could see something happen right in front of your eyes, but if it didn’t fit into the liberal template, you would deny it happened til the cows come home. I’ve wasted enough time beating my head against the wall (AKA, talking to you)! Enjoy your delusions!!

Pablo said:
Better yet, look at who breaks the stories. Clinton – Drudge, Edwards – National Enquirer.

Those two stories are representative of all political sex scandals?

MichelleF said:
Paul, like a typical lib, you could see something happen right in front of your eyes, but if it didn’t fit into the liberal template, you would deny it happened til the cows come home. I’ve wasted enough time beating my head against the wall (AKA, talking to you)! Enjoy your delusions!!

Says the person who sees everything through a conservative template. The fact of the matter is, Michelle, people of all political persuasions see and believe in media bias, not just conservatives.

paulmdoro said:
Wrong place to post your incoherent rambling. And posing?

I know…this is your easy way out of a tough question…and…one you have no answer for!

In Chicago Public Schools, only around half the freshmen who enter high school will earn their diploma. WEBZ 91.5

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:26 am

Oh so Newt only cared about lying under oath and never would have went after Clinton otherwise. I totally forgot. Such a man of principle!

Where did I say “man of principal?” Only that the situation is/was significantly different. Do you disagree?

Has the right totally stopped talking about and caring about family values?

Well, I think they have in terms of a winnable argument. The argument used to be about families raising children, participating in the community, and trying to keep the family unit together. Apparently, the left disagreed with that… and are happier with single parents struggling to raise multiple children. WTG guys!

But as for a political argument, it’s become too hard to argue. The landscape has changed significantly, and you can’t campaign for better families, when so many families are already in trouble or struggling. And I think this is something BOTH parties recognize. Remember Obama’s father’s day speech about Black fathers, and the value of family… as I recall, a lot of Black groups weren’t too excited about those statements.

So to answer the question… I don’t think they’ve given up believing in strong family values… but at the same time, it’s just a winning strategy at the moment, so they’ve moved on.

Regarding media bias, you know why there’s partisan media watchdog groups representing both sides? Because everyone sees media bias.

Uh-okay. So what does that mean? That there is none… or that everyone should stop complaining? I’m trying to apply your standard here, and having difficulty understanding what you want.

paulmdoro said:
The fact of the matter is, Michelle, people of all political persuasions see and believe in media bias, not just conservatives.

That depends on what your definition of is , is .

BatBoy said:
I know…this is your easy way out of a tough question…and…one you have no answer for!

In Chicago Public Schools, only around half the freshmen who enter high school will earn their diploma. WEBZ 91.5

You continue to read like an illiterate. I have said repeatedly that school reform is needed. You choose to ignore that, which I can do nothing about.

ImNotBlue said:
paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:26 am

Oh so Newt only cared about lying under oath and never would have went after Clinton otherwise. I totally forgot. Such a man of principle!

Where did I say “man of principal?” Only that the situation is/was significantly different. Do you disagree?

Has the right totally stopped talking about and caring about family values?

Well, I think they have in terms of a winnable argument. The argument used to be about families raising children, participating in the community, and trying to keep the family unit together. Apparently, the left disagreed with that… and are happier with single parents struggling to raise multiple children. WTG guys!

But as for a political argument, it’s become too hard to argue. The landscape has changed significantly, and you can’t campaign for better families, when so many families are already in trouble or struggling. And I think this is something BOTH parties recognize. Remember Obama’s father’s day speech about Black fathers, and the value of family… as I recall, a lot of Black groups weren’t too excited about those statements.

So to answer the question… I don’t think they’ve given up believing in strong family values… but at the same time, it’s just a winning strategy at the moment, so they’ve moved on.

Regarding media bias, you know why there’s partisan media watchdog groups representing both sides? Because everyone sees media bias.

Uh-okay. So what does that mean? That there is none… or that everyone should stop complaining? I’m trying to apply your standard here, and having difficulty understanding what you want.

Somehow I have missed the left’s campaign for only single parents. Weird.

“I agree, but the family values crowd is a different story, or used to be. Have they moved on as well”

and this is the problem that both parties have-the dems has their far left base applying pressure on Obama to the point that now even sites like this ahve to report that Obama is not in lockstep with the far left which is making GOP heads explode as they have been trying to get the country to believe he more to the left than Marx-that would seem not to be the case.

On the other hand the Social conservatives in the GOP are frustrated because they don’t have a voice and really haven’t had one for for the past ten years-Bush using the cover of “compassinate conservatism” got them to shut and now they are finding they can’t get heard over the voice of the tea party which is actually quite funny because socialo conservatives represent a larger share of the GOP base than libertarians but since the GOP has invested so much time and energy into making everybody treat a minorty viewpoint as the most important view point they have cut off their nose to spite their face.

My prediction; after the midterms both social conservatives and the tea party will started present set in stone litmus tests that will in turn cancel out each others candidates because there is not a politician in the GOP that will able to satisfy both camp without pissing off moderates and independent voters-its too think a tight rope and Boehner and McConne; and Steele will not be able to maintain their balancing act.

This is a great ‘gotcha’ moment, since there are no Democrats who have ever cheated on their wives.

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:41 am

Somehow I have missed the left’s campaign for only single parents. Weird.

Is this the best you got, Paul? Pull a line out, misrepresent what I said, and pretend to be “surprised” with something I didn’t actually say? Do you think anyone is going to fall for it?

Ugh.

Anyway… I didn’t say the left campaigned for “only single parents.” The left refused to criticize single parents for any reason, or even to say there’s something more preferable than a single parent family. They didn’t want to address the issue for fear of offending someone. Conversely, the right said, “This is important to the welfare of our country, and to the upbringing of many children,”… and thusly he left portrayed them as racists, out of touch, and offensive. The media jumped on board showing the less common single parent family which did really well, and pretended that the odd exception defeated common sense.

As a result, the right has moved on. But tell me, since you make the claim that the right is still all about “family values,” show me who. Who has said, “family values” recently? Who represents that? Enlighten the class, please.

The progressives want to choose the candidates for the right. Meanwhile they still put Bill Clinton on the front of their magazines – and not only did he lose his law license over criminal behavior, he paid Paula Jones regarding her allegation that he exposed himself to her. Juanita Brodrick insists to this day that he raped her. President Ford is quoted as saying that Bill Clinton is “sick.”

” “He’s sick – he’s got an addiction. He needs treatment,” Ford told Daily News Washington Bureau Chief Thomas M. DeFrank, author of “Write It When I’m Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conversations with Gerald R. Ford.”

“Ford’s wife, Betty, who founded a pioneering treatment center after her battle with alcoholism and drugs, agreed.

“You know, there’s treatment for that kind of addiction,” she told DeFrank during the same conversation in 1999. “A lot of men have gone through the treatment with a lot of success. But he won’t do it, because he’s in denial.”

But the left has no problem heralding him as one of their leaders. Speaking of women:
we’re still waiting for even ONE of Obama’s girlfriends to come forward and identify herself. {crickets}

ImNotBlue said:
paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:41 am

Somehow I have missed the left’s campaign for only single parents. Weird.

Is this the best you got, Paul? Pull a line out, misrepresent what I said, and pretend to be “surprised” with something I didn’t actually say? Do you think anyone is going to fall for it?

Ugh.

Anyway… I didn’t say the left campaigned for “only single parents.” The left refused to criticize single parents for any reason, or even to say there’s something more preferable than a single parent family. They didn’t want to address the issue for fear of offending someone. Conversely, the right said, “This is important to the welfare of our country, and to the upbringing of many children,”… and thusly he left portrayed them as racists, out of touch, and offensive. The media jumped on board showing the less common single parent family which did really well, and pretended that the odd exception defeated common sense.

As a result, the right has moved on. But tell me, since you make the claim that the right is still all about “family values,” show me who. Who has said, “family values” recently? Who represents that? Enlighten the class, please.

Wait, the left portrayed the right as racists for stating the importance of two-parent families? And the left feared offending single parents? What evidence would you use to support those statements. I’m very curious.

ImNotBlue said:
paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:41 am

But tell me, since you make the claim that the right is still all about “family values,” show me who. Who has said, “family values” recently? Who represents that? Enlighten the class, please.

Feda Kidd Morton, a Republican seeking the nomination to run for U.S. Congress in the 5th District in Virgina. She is running as a “traditional family values” candidate. Took two seconds to find this.

The left always says that since Republicans push family values, they should be especially called to task when they’re being hypocrites. That’s why, since Democrats are always pushing for ‘going green’, we heard such howls of outrage at Michelle using up all that jet fuel.

writer said:
The left always says that since Republicans push family values, they should be especially called to task when they’re being hypocrites. That’s why, since Democrats are always pushing for ‘going green’, we heard such howls of outrage at Michelle using up all that jet fuel.

People should be called out on their hypocrisy, Republican or Democrat.

I also think that explains media fervor when “family values” politicians are caught in sex scandals.

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:55 am

Wait, the left portrayed the right as racists for stating the importance of two-parent families? And the left feared offending single parents? What evidence would you use to support those statements. I’m very curious.

Didn’t I already mention Obama’s father’s day speech. See how that was received… and you’ll understand.

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:59 am

So nobody currently serving in the government, just someone seeking a nomination? That’s it?

One candidate seeking party nomination, does not a whole party or movement make, does it?

ImNotBlue said:
paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:55 am

Wait, the left portrayed the right as racists for stating the importance of two-parent families? And the left feared offending single parents? What evidence would you use to support those statements. I’m very curious.

Didn’t I already mention Obama’s father’s day speech. See how that was received… and you’ll understand.

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:59 am

So nobody currently serving in the government, just someone seeking a nomination? That’s it?

One candidate seeking party nomination, does not a whole party or movement make, does it?

What does the Father’s Day speech have to do with the left allegedly portraying the right as racist for stating their belief in two-parent families?

Of course one person doesn’t represent an entire party, but it was ridiculously easy to find that one person. You really think she’s a rarity? That the entire GOP has stopped playing the family values card?

Also, Marco Rubio has campaigned on family values in Florida. In Georgia this year Rep. Daniel Stout ran on his family values (he had an affair with his mother-in-law by the way). Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich of Pennsylvania campaigned on family values this year.

Pushing family values isn’t a bad thing. Being hypocritical about it is. Same as wanting to save the enviornment is a good thing. But don’t use up enough energy to power a small city while you’re preaching it.

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm

What does the Father’s Day speech have to do with the left allegedly portraying the right as racist for stating their belief in two-parent families?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002812.html

The point being, if that’s going to be the criticism of Obama in “semi-private,” what do you think the reaction was to Republicans? Come on… be logical here.

Of course one person doesn’t represent an entire party, but it was ridiculously easy to find that one person. You really think she’s a rarity? That the entire GOP has stopped playing the family values card?

Have you found anyone else? You made the claim… now back it up!

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:22 pm

Have they? What is your supporting evidence?

. Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich of Pennsylvania campaigned on family values this year.

^ OHIO ^ not PA

ImNotBlue said:
paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm

What does the Father’s Day speech have to do with the left allegedly portraying the right as racist for stating their belief in two-parent families?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002812.html

The point being, if that’s going to be the criticism of Obama in “semi-private,” what do you think the reaction was to Republicans? Come on… be logical here.

Of course one person doesn’t represent an entire party, but it was ridiculously easy to find that one person. You really think she’s a rarity? That the entire GOP has stopped playing the family values card?

Have you found anyone else? You made the claim… now back it up!

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:22 pm

Have they? What is your supporting evidence?

I’m not making it up ImNotBlue. They have it on their websites. They tout it in speeches. It was very easy to find. Simple google search.

I have yet to see evidence of a widespread effort to call Republicans racist for stating the importance of two-parent families.

In all fairness, paul, they’re called that for so many reasons, it’s hard to keep track of them all.

“I have yet to see evidence of a widespread effort to call Republicans racist for stating the importance of two-parent families.

They see racism EVERYWHERE which is why they brought it up on an article about Gingrich-see the connection?

They think they do.

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:37 pm

I’m starting to get that feeling that no amount of evidence would satisfy you.

Justify the reaction to Obama… then we’ll talk.

ImNotBlue said:
paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:37 pm

I’m starting to get that feeling that no amount of evidence would satisfy you.

Justify the reaction to Obama… then we’ll talk.

No Amount? You provided one story.

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Of which you apparently can’t or won’t justify.

Puter Boi said:
I couldn’t agree more. I also just skimmed the article…..is there anywhere in the piece where she accepts responsibility for her part in the whole sordid mess? She can’t be totally clueless….everyone knew his wife was in the hospital suffering with cancer.

That is certainly a fair question, and Marianne has been muted in her criticism and sparing in her recollections in the past. Something provoked this. Newt seems to have cloaked himself in his current wife’s stifling sanctimony, a superfluous garment for him, if ever there was one.

Some self-reflection by Marianne might have been warranted, however.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

paulmdoro said:
In Georgia this year Rep. Daniel Stout ran on his family values (he had an affair with his mother-in-law by the way).

Now that’s icky, even for a Republican.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

The Real Royal King said:
paulmdoro said:
In Georgia this year Rep. Daniel Stout ran on his family values (he had an affair with his mother-in-law by the way).
Now that’s icky, even for a Republican.
THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

Is this M-i-L a Republican, too?

ImNotBlue said:
paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Of which you apparently can’t or won’t justify.

So Jackson was unhappy with Obama’s speech while Sharpton defended it? Do either of those guys represent the entire black community or the left?

MichelleF said:
I’ve wasted enough time beating my head against the wall

Please don’t stop on our count.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

Gingrich and most of the rest of the politico are true scumbags and actually very few “live what the say”. It’s time for major political reform my friends. We need to stop the partisan bickering BS, band together and beat these bastards. We can if we work together.

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:10 pm

So Jackson was unhappy with Obama’s speech while Sharpton defended it? Do either of those guys represent the entire black community or the left?

Does anyone represent the entire black community or the left?

ImNotBlue said:
paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:10 pm

So Jackson was unhappy with Obama’s speech while Sharpton defended it? Do either of those guys represent the entire black community or the left?

Does anyone represent the entire black community or the left?

No, I don’t think so. But that story was your evidence. Is that all you’ve got?

paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:20 pm

No, I don’t think so. But that story was your evidence. Is that all you’ve got?

The story reflected the problem of criticizing or being critical of single parents. Nowhere did I claim “all,” or did “everyone” need to be part of that story.

Sorry, try again.

ImNotBlue said:
paulmdoro says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:20 pm

No, I don’t think so. But that story was your evidence. Is that all you’ve got?

The story reflected the problem of criticizing or being critical of single parents. Nowhere did I claim “all,” or did “everyone” need to be part of that story.

Sorry, try again.

Try what again? You made a pretty bold and broad statement, saying the left portrays Republicans who champion family values as racists. I wanted to know what you were basing that on. So far you have pointed to a single story about prominent black leaders having opposing viewpoints on Obama’s speeches about parental responsibility. Maybe you can try again.

I am all for vetting politicians. Did Esquire do a similar hatched piece on Obama? Read this article —->
http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/08/why-obama-is-subjected-to-blackmails/
Its not unlike the piece on Newt…If this article on Newt is to be believed, then this article on Obama is also credible.

Besides – these are accusations by a ex-wife! How cowardly of Esquire to hide behind a woman!

When Esquire does a report on Obama and his scandals then we can say this attack piece on Newt is done in a non-partisan manner.

Wonder how many of Esquires staff were on the Journalist list?

Shame on those who are so gullible that they jump at the first hachet piece. That’s how we landed in this current situation.

The media is trolling for good candidates that may run against Obama in 2012 and trying to discredit them in advance of any announcements.

The American public does not think the media is credible anymore.

Reva Perkins said:
I am all for vetting politicians. Did Esquire do a similar hatched piece on Obama? Read this article —->
http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/08/why-obama-is-subjected-to-blackmails/
Its not unlike the piece on Newt…If this article on Newt is to be believed, then this article on Obama is also credible.

Besides – these are accusations by a ex-wife! How cowardly of Esquire to hide behind a woman!

When Esquire does a report on Obama and his scandals then we can say this attack piece on Newt is done in a non-partisan manner.

Wonder how many of Esquires staff were on the Journalist list?

Shame on those who are so gullible that they jump at the first hachet piece. That’s how we landed in this current situation.

The media is trolling for good candidates that may run against Obama in 2012 and trying to discredit them in advance of any announcements.

The American public does not think the media is credible anymore.

You may find this to be a hatchet piece, but much of the information is indisputable. Gingrich has admitted to affairs. He has been divorced twice. He served an ex divorce papers while she was in the hospital. All facts.

“Marianne Gingrich suggested that her ex-husband “believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected”

That applies to ALL conservatives. That is why I refer to them as hypocritical SOBs.

Didnt he become Catholic? How did he manage to get both his 1st 2 marriages annulled?

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers said:
“Marianne Gingrich suggested that her ex-husband “believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected” That applies to ALL conservatives. That is why I refer to them as hypocritical SOBs.

I am glad you clarified that. I thought you referred to them as POS’s.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

AngelPeters said:
Didnt he become Catholic? How did he manage to get both his 1st 2 marriages annulled?

Papal indulgence perhaps? The joys of being wealthy.

AngelPeters said:
Didnt he become Catholic? How did he manage to get both his 1st 2 marriages annulled?

He wasn’t married in the Church. The first two do not have to be annulled. This one will have to be annulled, however. Of course, he’ll probably stop being a Catholic when that time comes.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

The Real Royal King said:
He wasn’t married in the Church. The first two do not have to be annulled. This one will have to be annulled, however. Of course, he’ll probably stop being a Catholic when that time comes. THE BECKERHEAD’S LIESARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,BUT TO MISINFORMIS MERELY HIS NORM.HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATESHE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

Even then, he doesn’t have to get an annullment he just wants to keep house. The annullment is the route by which you can be married in the Church again. A divorce doesn’t result in excommunication.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:50 pm

That applies to ALL conservatives. That is why I refer to them as hypocritical SOBs.

Of course, it doesn’t apply to Democrats. That’s why they’re so good at raising taxes, and then paying their own! That’s why John Kerry is good at keeping his boats in his higher taxed home state. And why Charlie Rangel isn’t in any ethics problems.

Nope… no hypocrisy on the left! None.

ImNotBlue said:
Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:50 pm

That applies to ALL conservatives. That is why I refer to them as hypocritical SOBs.

Of course, it doesn’t apply to Democrats. That’s why they’re so good at raising taxes, and then paying their own! That’s why John Kerry is good at keeping his boats in his higher taxed home state. And why Charlie Rangel isn’t in any ethics problems.

Nope… no hypocrisy on the left! None.

Dude obviously hypocrisy only applies to one political party. Duh.

I won’t be voting for Newt in the primaries.
However the lefties commenting here have no standing to criticize people that vote for Newt. They also have no standing to hold Newt accountable for his past.
These very lefties will vote for known crooks, liars, adulterers and all manner of scum with no qualms.

Therefore if Newt were to get the nomination and be on the ballot against Obama I will vote for Newt as will a majority of the American people. The left will have to come up with an honest candidate and that is impossible in the democrat party.

gordonbloyershow said:

Therefore if Newt were to get the nomination and be on the ballot against Obama I will vote for Newt as will a majority of the American people. The left will have to come up with an honest candidate and that is impossible in the democrat party.

Right cause the old white guys have done so well for the GOP lately. President Dole and President McCain.

“I thought you referred to them as POS’s.”

That too.

Blower,
you are an attention whore, and that is why you have 10 years worth of youtube videos and and proudly display your name and mug here and eagerly link to old newspapers articles when the opportunity presents. You remind me of Paris Hilton but for the older dumpling crowd.

I’m not a Republican, I am a conservative, and Newt is not a candidate I could support. He is a lot like Bill Clinton, except he didn’t pick a ‘stand by your man’ wife like Clinton did.

One thing in this article that is new, at least to me. I had heard all about the divorce papers in the hospital story, which is appalling of course (and his girlfriend has to have known- I have no sympathy for mistresses who then get cheated on later).

But what I didn’t know is that he was a minor still in high school and his first wife was one of his teachers, nine years his senior when they began dating. . I think the 25 year old adult teacher in a position of authority is much more responsible for that unethical relationship than the 16 year old high school kid, and that’s an important part of this story. What his first wife did (dating a minor child in her classroom) is illegal and unethical. What Newt later did to her later is also sleazy and creepy (much the way Edwards behaved as a sleazy creep). The mistress who dated him while his wife was suffering from cancer and still married to him behaved in a sleazy and creepy way, and she couldn’t possibly have expected that her marriage would end well. In other words, not one of these people, wives, exwives, girlfriends, or Newt himself behaved in a way consistent with sound ethics or morals.

I get no sense at all that the Republican party wants Newt as their candidate. I do get a strong sense that the Democrat Media (but I repeat myself) would like to see Newt that way. It would make them less ashamed of Bill Clinton and Edwards.

DeputyHeadmistress said:
I’m not a Republican, I am a conservative, and Newt is not a candidate I could support. He is a lot like Bill Clinton, except he didn’t pick a ’stand by your man’ wife like Clinton did.

One thing in this article that is new, at least to me. I had heard all about the divorce papers in the hospital story, which is appalling of course (and his girlfriend has to have known- I have no sympathy for mistresses who then get cheated on later).

But what I didn’t know is that he was a minor still in high school and his first wife was one of his teachers, nine years his senior when they began dating. . I think the 25 year old adult teacher in a position of authority is much more responsible for that unethical relationship than the 16 year old high school kid, and that’s an important part of this story. What his first wife did (dating a minor child in her classroom) is illegal and unethical. What Newt later did to her later is also sleazy and creepy (much the way Edwards behaved as a sleazy creep). The mistress who dated him while his wife was suffering from cancer and still married to him behaved in a sleazy and creepy way, and she couldn’t possibly have expected that her marriage would end well. In other words, not one of these people, wives, exwives, girlfriends, or Newt himself behaved in a way consistent with sound ethics or morals.

I get no sense at all that the Republican party wants Newt as their candidate. I do get a strong sense that the Democrat Media (but I repeat myself) would like to see Newt that way. It would make them less ashamed of Bill Clinton and Edwards.

This is thoughtful and reasonable analysis, and I agree with you, right until the end.

The media isn’t sitting around going, “Man, let’s hope Newt runs in 2012 so we can feel less ashamed of Clinton and Edwards.” Just not happening.

The Real Royal King said:
He wasn’t married in the Church. The first two do not have to be annulled. This one will have to be annulled, however. Of course, he’ll probably stop being a Catholic when that time comes.
/blockquote>

Not true. You dont have to be married in the Catholic church in order to have to have it annulled. Any marriage would have to be.

That should have read, any marriage, regardless if it was done in the Catholic church, would need to be annulled. Marriages done outside the Catholic church are recognized.

If the media is fair and non-partisan, would like to see article on Obama with facts without defensive statements..

Why it is so difficult to get records such as his birth certificate, his college grades, his association with the Rev. Wright, his association with Hamas, his association with Resko, his association with the Weather underground,
As well as all the associations that Glenn Beck has uncovered. (too numerous to list here)

Until then all the facts in the world about his potential opposition will be construed as partisan.

genera said:
If the media is fair and non-partisan, would like to see article on Obama with facts without defensive statements..

Why it is so difficult to get records such as his birth certificate, his college grades, his association with the Rev. Wright, his association with Hamas, his association with Resko, his association with the Weather underground,
As well as all the associations that Glenn Beck has uncovered. (too numerous to list here)

Until then all the facts in the world about his potential opposition will be construed as partisan.

How is life in the underground bunker? Good Internet connection at least. Come back and join society someday.

Here is another one for you “Fox”. Still hiding under your bed I see. Come out of the closet. Let all your friends know you are a left-wing nut job. Your parents will be so proud. You get so many things wrong do you do it on purpose or is it you just can’t read and comprehend what you are reading. Where did you come up with the idea that I have “10″ years of YouTube videos? I said I have ten years of videos of my television shows. Some clips are on YouTube, NOT TEN YEARS of them. YouTube has not existed for ten years. Yesterdays paper is an old paper. So if anyone here links to yesterdays paper, you have a complaint? People use those links to prove something they are saying and to inform others. Like YOU. I know you don’t want that info because you like making statements that have no basis in truth.

My interview with Newt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql0s1Jm-HhM

gordonbloyershow said:

My interview with Newt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql0s1Jm-HhM

No questions about being a mad playa? He’s got game.

Fox, Colby writes this blog for attention. I use my real name and stand up for what I believe. Over the years that seems to draw media attention. You don’t get “media” attention unless you are making a difference or pissing the left off. I am not afraid like you. I know that I make you feel small and usless. Get over it.

gordonbloyershow said:
Fox, Colby writes this blog for attention. I use my real name and stand up for what I believe. Over the years that seems to draw media attention. You don’t get “media” attention unless you are making a difference or pissing the left off. I am not afraid like you. I know that I make you feel small and usless. Get over it.

Everywhere I go, people won’t shut up about Gordon Bloyer. Drives me nuts.

Seems the Obama blogger back under a different pseudonym?

Actually Colby writes this blog because it is his job.

I wonder if Bloyer had expectations that a talent scout would someday give him his own REAL radio show if he kept making these videos.

Well, at least he has Mediate and Youtube.

AngelPeters said:
That should have read, any marriage, regardless if it was done in the Catholic church, would need to be annulled. Marriages done outside the Catholic church are recognized.

But, they are not sanctified, which is the entire point.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers says:
August 10, 2010 at 2:57 pm

And why do YOU write here?

paulmdoro said:
gordonbloyershow said:
Fox, Colby writes this blog for attention. I use my real name and stand up for what I believe. Over the years that seems to draw media attention. You don’t get “media” attention unless you are making a difference or pissing the left off. I am not afraid like you. I know that I make you feel small and usless. Get over it.
Everywhere I go, people won’t shut up about Gordon Bloyer. Drives me nuts.

You have a sense of humor, Paul. I like it. But, Marceaux, I mean Blower has a point. Since I am the only person on this site to have had a spinach salad and minted ice tea with President Obama, the media has been constantly hounding me. So far, not Marceaux, I mean Blower, but I expect to be on his show next week, if only I can find the television station on which it will be broadcast.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

ImNotBlue said:
Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers says:August 10, 2010 at 2:57 pm And why do YOU write here?

I thank All the Marys in Heaven he does. If it weren’t for WPPT, Paul, several others and myself, this site would be filled with bitter, angry, unwitty rightists, sort of like the Koldys Phox Phan Klub. The one bright spot, literally and fiuratively on the rightist side is NSF.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

ImNotBlue says:

And why do YOU write here?

To give you something to do with your free time.

Note that Fox and RRK have no comments except nonsense. That is why they won’t identify themselves. Their parents must be proud.

A message for all the left-wing nut jobs here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Vmt167Y6Y

LMAO! Nice shirt man! Do you love America, cause I’m not sure? Have a matching tie? Oh man that is hilarious.

New t’ s ex-wife not a fan of his ? What up with that ?

Someone should tell the editors at Esquire that they are not following the playbook. They are supposed to wait until the candidate is nominated, and then drop the sleazy story into the news cycle on the Friday before election day — like they did with the Schwarzenegger groping allegations and the Bush drunk driving case.

I guess they felt that Newt will never get the nomination, so they need to dish up all this garbage right now. I can hear Rachel, Keith and others slurping it all up right now. Slurp! Slurp! Slurp! I think it’s safe to say that this will get more coverage on MSNBC tonight than the Democrat’s collapsing poll numbers.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html

Funny how I never see these media outlets scrutinizing John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, etc. It seems that that kind of sleaze is never covered, any day of the year.

gordonbloyershow said:
Fox, Colby writes this blog for attention. I use my real name and stand up for what I believe. Over the years that seems to draw media attention. You don’t get “media” attention unless you are making a difference or pissing the left off. I am not afraid like you. I know that I make you feel small and usless. Get over it.

Hey Gordo – Are you deliberately trying to be funny? Is this satire? It’s very good by the way.

Wow! Lotsa the Reds spent all of their tiny little lives here. Talking a lot – but saying nothing. Pests.
“Republicultists.” Babbling forth easy-listening patriotism and other embedded ignorance. Angry at a world they lack the ability to comprehend. Not unlike the common rat or roach – they never quite disappear.
Bourgeois. Straight out of “King Of The Hill.”

Ted you are always funny even though it is never on purpose. It just comes from your being an ass.

gordonbloyershow said:
Ted you are always funny even though it is never on purpose. It just comes from your being an ass.

Okay Gordo – is this supposed to be funny? i suppose this is satire; very good!!

gordonbloyershow said:
A message for all the left-wing nut jobs here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Vmt167Y6Y

You can’t fool me. That’s Basil Marceaux. Don’t think that dumbing down is can make anyone think you are Gordon Blower, Marceaux. And, Marceaux, you do realize wearing stars and stripes adds 10 pounds to your image?

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

RRK people that make comments about the way people look are always the ones that hide behind phony names and won’t show their face anywhere. They are most likely child molesters. Your childish name changes and your ignorant comments about others indicate that you may be just a kid playing with your parents computer. Why do you make youself look like a fool by making comments that are obviously lies. Didn’t you say Hannity wears a hair piece? You look stupid because everyone knows he doesn’t. Are you that stupid?

lonestar77 said:
You can tell which candidates the left fears based on the attacks against them. We’re only half way thru 2010 and the left-wing media is already out for Gingrich. The 2012 race is going to be nasty. Obama was the media’s candidate. They put him into office. They are not going to sit by and let ANYBODY change that. Oh, and no matter who the Republican is, the media will try to convince the public that he/she attends Klan meetings when they’re not going around the country throwing rocks at black people. That’s the media world we live in.

You had to add black people in your comment,I wonder why????????