i somehow doubt that newt would publicly say that israel's continued settlement expansion is the main barrier to resuming talks, as obama has on numerous occasions. if anything, he would blame the palestinians and as obama has done, continue to have our un envoy veto things at the un that are favorable to palestine.
i would bet that newt, perry, mitt, all would be the first one to line up behind israel in attacking iran to take out their nuclear plants and change the regime...
newt's a moderate really ... i don't think he is as pro-war as perry, santorum, romeny or bachmann
romney said israel would be his first foreign trip if he became president ... not to his largest trading partner, not to their biggest ally in foreign policy, not to the country that holds all their debt ...
the best you could hope for is ron paul who says its none of their business ...
I like Pauls view on foreign policy, but I'm not in line with his more libertarian views. Watching that debate last night was scary.
give it time, he is like a jedi master, those ideas will sneak into your head soon !!! That is how it started for me. I heard him not only repeat the same things over and over but saw a politician actually do what he said...was so strange I just had to like him
I can understand the fear of libertarianism...I just think we have tried democrat and republicanism for so long and we are brought to this point...why not try something else?
I think a complete change in policy from the top down is necessary to survive as a country...i fear where we will end up with someone in office the next 4 years who will or has shown a desire for military action, especially in a preemptive capacity.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
debunks conservative ideals? how?
a person wanted to work and tried to get a job. that isn't the people that are talked about when referencing people who can work but CHOOSE not to. there is a difference.
the how is in the way conservatives portray the many people who are in this situation ... how many people are out there who CHOOSE not to work!?? ...
116,327.7
who knows, the point I have in the discussion is that we shouldn't have a system that benefits them. ever. There should be a system set up that supports those willing to work but cannot. I have no problem with that, and I don't think any reasonable person would either...
Your own assumption is that conservatives are talking about people like this in their discussion, and most aren't
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Why is it so hard for some to understand. Reformimg the child labor laws TO ALLOW CHILDREN TO WORK AT A YOUNGER AGE IF THEY WANT TO.
Many inner-city children could earn money at a part-time job starting when they are 12 or 13. These children are the product of state-sponsored families, i.e welfare recipient, single-parent homes, etc., and could greatly benefit from the opportunity.
But some here just speak, without EVER listening first.
And some on here harbor real HATE for anyone who advocates self-reliance and responsibilities.
I was arguing that he DOES advocate changing child labour laws, and you confirmed that, thanks. I never said anything about whether it was a choice or not...? But how noble of you to give children the choice of whether or not they'd like to work.
Are you going to ensure that each of these kids are working by choice, being paid fairly (and allowed to keep the money), and given proper worker's rights? Because you realize that at 12, they are likely not prepared/able to stand up to an adult, right?
you specify inner-city kids....So it's about getting single moms and welfare recipients get off your golden tit, right? I get it. You want to put the unfortunate circumstances, the mistakes, the shortcomings of parents onto their children. You want 12 year old kids to be self reliant and pay for their own food and shelter. BRILLIANT. Before you try to backpedal - how else would these families 'greatly benefit' from this? Can't believe I'm even having this discussion.
there are more, and the one i read was a few months ago that i forgot what the source was. i'll keep looking. this is the best i could do in between patients.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Why is it so hard for some to understand. Reformimg the child labor laws TO ALLOW CHILDREN TO WORK AT A YOUNGER AGE IF THEY WANT TO.
Many inner-city children could earn money at a part-time job starting when they are 12 or 13. These children are the product of state-sponsored families, i.e welfare recipient, single-parent homes, etc., and could greatly benefit from the opportunity.
But some here just speak, without EVER listening first.
And some on here harbor real HATE for anyone who advocates self-reliance and responsibilities.
I was arguing that he DOES advocate changing child labour laws, and you confirmed that, thanks. I never said anything about whether it was a choice or not...? But how noble of you to give children the choice of whether or not they'd like to work.
Are you going to ensure that each of these kids are working by choice, being paid fairly (and allowed to keep the money), and given proper worker's rights? Because you realize that at 12, they are likely not prepared/able to stand up to an adult, right?
you specify inner-city kids....So it's about getting single moms and welfare recipients get off your golden tit, right? I get it. You want to put the unfortunate circumstances, the mistakes, the shortcomings of parents onto their children. You want 12 year old kids to be self reliant and pay for their own food and shelter. BRILLIANT. Before you try to backpedal - how else would these families 'greatly benefit' from this? Can't believe I'm even having this discussion.
You could have just watched the debate, and then NEWT could've confirmed it for you... You would be informed. You wouldn't be asking me questions that the candidates answered last night.
There is a lot of that on here today. People supposing what these candidates might do... worrying and fretting... blowin their top- all because they DON"T KNOW- because they DON'T LISTEN.
Try participating in your country's primary process. It's a HOOT. WOOT for NEWT.
there are more, and the one i read was a few months ago that i forgot what the source was. i'll keep looking. this is the best i could do in between patients.
Thanks for the links. Will take a look.
Wow, speak of the devil... 12 PEOPLE IN GA ARRESTED FOR VOTER FRAUD TODAY!
there are more, and the one i read was a few months ago that i forgot what the source was. i'll keep looking. this is the best i could do in between patients.
Thanks for the links. Will take a look.
Wow, speak of the devil... 12 PEOPLE IN GA ARRESTED FOR VOTER FRAUD TODAY!
just a warning to those that click your link MAY DAY, the comments at the bottom are pretty vile and some are disgusting.
i would like to see how that trial pans out. it says it won't be until next year though. if you think about it and if you live in GA can you keep us posted when it starts?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
who knows, the point I have in the discussion is that we shouldn't have a system that benefits them. ever. There should be a system set up that supports those willing to work but cannot. I have no problem with that, and I don't think any reasonable person would either...
Your own assumption is that conservatives are talking about people like this in their discussion, and most aren't
well ... in fairness ... i am integrating a few topics ... if you read what people are posting in the OWS threads - you will see what i'm talking about ...
who knows, the point I have in the discussion is that we shouldn't have a system that benefits them. ever. There should be a system set up that supports those willing to work but cannot. I have no problem with that, and I don't think any reasonable person would either...
Your own assumption is that conservatives are talking about people like this in their discussion, and most aren't
well ... in fairness ... i am integrating a few topics ... if you read what people are posting in the OWS threads - you will see what i'm talking about ...
I usually cop out of discussions like that because rational comments often get ignored
but what are you going to do...I just have to keep telling myself that even though we disagree on the finer points, we all want a better place for the vast majority of people who live here .... or visit
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
just a warning to those that click your link MAY DAY, the comments at the bottom are pretty vile and some are disgusting.
i would like to see how that trial pans out. it says it won't be until next year though. if you think about it and if you live in GA can you keep us posted when it starts?
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
sorry bout that, but looks like a local news channel's site, and some small minded individuals are poppin off- disregard them.
I usually cop out of discussions like that because rational comments often get ignored
but what are you going to do...I just have to keep telling myself that even though we disagree on the finer points, we all want a better place for the vast majority of people who live here .... or visit
haha ... yeah, for sure - i'm pretty sure we want mostly the same things ... how we get there is obviously a lot different ... and although generalizations are just that ... i think they do highlight some overriding principles ... last night's debate had two people flat out say they would racial profile all muslims and target them at airports for extra screening ... you know most conservatives are gonna vote for whoever the GOP put out there ... and this is the kind of stuff i'm talking about ...
I usually cop out of discussions like that because rational comments often get ignored
but what are you going to do...I just have to keep telling myself that even though we disagree on the finer points, we all want a better place for the vast majority of people who live here .... or visit
haha ... yeah, for sure - i'm pretty sure we want mostly the same things ... how we get there is obviously a lot different ... and although generalizations are just that ... i think they do highlight some overriding principles ... last night's debate had two people flat out say they would racial profile all muslims and target them at airports for extra screening ... you know most conservatives are gonna vote for whoever the GOP put out there ... and this is the kind of stuff i'm talking about ...
yeah, I know what you mean, but those people are the ones who may shine bright for a second, but fail miserably when elections are finally had...don't let them fool you Rick Santorum stands NO CHANCE. None. He never did. he is simply there to take the focus off the front runners with his crazy rants. that way no one talks about the media darling Mitt.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Why is it so hard for some to understand. Reformimg the child labor laws TO ALLOW CHILDREN TO WORK AT A YOUNGER AGE IF THEY WANT TO.
Many inner-city children could earn money at a part-time job starting when they are 12 or 13. These children are the product of state-sponsored families, i.e welfare recipient, single-parent homes, etc., and could greatly benefit from the opportunity.
But some here just speak, without EVER listening first.
And some on here harbor real HATE for anyone who advocates self-reliance and responsibilities.
I was arguing that he DOES advocate changing child labour laws, and you confirmed that, thanks. I never said anything about whether it was a choice or not...? But how noble of you to give children the choice of whether or not they'd like to work.
Are you going to ensure that each of these kids are working by choice, being paid fairly (and allowed to keep the money), and given proper worker's rights? Because you realize that at 12, they are likely not prepared/able to stand up to an adult, right?
you specify inner-city kids....So it's about getting single moms and welfare recipients get off your golden tit, right? I get it. You want to put the unfortunate circumstances, the mistakes, the shortcomings of parents onto their children. You want 12 year old kids to be self reliant and pay for their own food and shelter. BRILLIANT. Before you try to backpedal - how else would these families 'greatly benefit' from this? Can't believe I'm even having this discussion.
You could have just watched the debate, and then NEWT could've confirmed it for you... You would be informed. You wouldn't be asking me questions that the candidates answered last night.
There is a lot of that on here today. People supposing what these candidates might do... worrying and fretting... blowin their top- all because they DON"T KNOW- because they DON'T LISTEN.
Try participating in your country's primary process. It's a HOOT. WOOT for NEWT.
It’s not my country, nor my primary process. I’m commenting simply because it’s outrageous to see anyone advocate going backwards on child labour laws.
So explain it to me....What would Newt have confirmed? I was asking YOU questions, because YOU led me to believe you were projecting your own opinions into the thread. But when challenged on them, you put it all back on your boy Newt…..and stray from the topic to call me uninformed and saying I don't know cause I can't listen...personal attacks! Careful or usamamasan might report you(rself).
Oh wait, you woke up, got out of bed, stumbled to your computer to post about other members.
whatever....
More a comment on the GOP race in general.. First it was Trump, then Bachmann, then Cain, now Newt... Newt will flame out then it'll be Rick, until it finally goes to Romney, where it was going go go all along.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry accused of blatant untruths about Barack Obama
Republican candidates criticised for TV ads that step over line
Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 November 2011
Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have been accused of telling TV viewers blatant untruths about Barack Obama.
The candidates deny their TV commercials are deceitful and dishonest but both ads selectively quote the president to make it appear he is saying one thing when he is saying another.
The advertisements have been widely scorned for crossing a line from a longstanding practice of political campaigns pushing the truth to its limits, over to misrepresentation. One ad appears to show Obama admitting he will lose next year's election if he talks about the economy. The other has him calling American workers lazy.
Romney's campaign ad is airing on TV stations in New Hampshire, which holds its primary in January. It shows the president saying: "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."
The ad appears to have the president admitting he is vulnerable on the economy. But Obama's words were from his 2008 campaign, and he was quoting a statement by a strategist for his Republican opponent, John McCain, who was the one on the back foot over the economy.
Perry's ad shows a short soundbite of Obama saying: "We've been a little bit lazy I think over the last couple of decades."
The ad switches to Perry saying: "Can you believe that? That's what our president thinks is wrong with America – that Americans are lazy. That's pathetic."
But a viewing of Obama's full statement shows that he was saying the US government had been lazy in attracting foreign investment.
Darrell West, director of governance studies at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution in Washington, said that Romney and Perry had gone further than previous campaigns in misrepresenting the truth.
"Those ads are blatant misrepresentations," he said. "They are much more egregious than what we've seen in the past. Typically candidates have tried to be close to the truth because they know journalists are paying attention, but with all the problems of the news industry politicians have concluded they can get away with murder." The president's spokesman, Jay Carney, said of the Romney ad, which is the first TV spot of his campaign: "It's a rather remarkable way to start. And an unfortunate way to start."
But the Romney campaign defended the commercial, saying they were merely turning the tables on Obama for having mocked McCain on the economy three years ago.
Gail Gitcho, Romney's press secretary, said in a blogpost on the candidate's website: "President Obama's campaign is desperate not to talk about the economy. Their strategy is to wage a personal campaign – or 'kill Romney'. It is a campaign of distraction.
"Now, the tables have turned – President Obama and his campaign are doing exactly what candidate Obama criticised [in 2008]."
Perry defended his ad while appearing on Fox News. "That's a fair ad, absolutely," he told host Bill O'Reilly. "He said 'We've been a little lazy.'"
O'Reilly challenged him by pointing out that Obama was talking about the government, "not the folks". But Perry brazened it out. "I think he's talking about Americans … I think that's exactly what he's talking about," he said.
Romney's campaigners are delighted at the attention the controversial ad has drawn, giving it a wider audience than it would otherwise have had. They appear to have calculated that hitting Obama on the economy outweighs whatever damage may be done by charges of untruths.
West is sceptical. "It plays to Romney in the sense that his ad is getting a lot of attention," he said. "But I think the Romney campaign is on very shaky ground to be running a false ad. Voters do pay attention to the veracity of ads."
But West acknowledged that politicians are less concerned about being exposed by reporters. "Politicians think that the news media have completely collapsed, based on the financial crisis, and so they are acting as if there's no accountability and they can say whatever they want," he said.
"They know the news media don't have the same credibility as they had in the past. They think they can say whatever they want and get away with it."
Romney's campaign has also borrowed a historic campaign ad from Margaret Thatcher's 1979 election campaign that declared "Labour isn't Working" and featured a long line of people waiting outside an unemployment office. Romney's campaign has substituted "Obama" for "Labour" and called it a tribute ad.
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry accused of blatant untruths about Barack Obama
What does that have to do with this thread?
It has everything to do with this thread, because all the G.O.P candidates are slippery, lying cocksuckers, including your latest flavour of the week Newt Gingrich.
Comments
So you're sayin Newt's your guy, right?!!
give it time, he is like a jedi master, those ideas will sneak into your head soon !!! That is how it started for me. I heard him not only repeat the same things over and over but saw a politician actually do what he said...was so strange I just had to like him
I can understand the fear of libertarianism...I just think we have tried democrat and republicanism for so long and we are brought to this point...why not try something else?
I think a complete change in policy from the top down is necessary to survive as a country...i fear where we will end up with someone in office the next 4 years who will or has shown a desire for military action, especially in a preemptive capacity.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
haha ... hell no ...
116,327.7
who knows, the point I have in the discussion is that we shouldn't have a system that benefits them. ever. There should be a system set up that supports those willing to work but cannot. I have no problem with that, and I don't think any reasonable person would either...
Your own assumption is that conservatives are talking about people like this in their discussion, and most aren't
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I was arguing that he DOES advocate changing child labour laws, and you confirmed that, thanks. I never said anything about whether it was a choice or not...? But how noble of you to give children the choice of whether or not they'd like to work.
Are you going to ensure that each of these kids are working by choice, being paid fairly (and allowed to keep the money), and given proper worker's rights? Because you realize that at 12, they are likely not prepared/able to stand up to an adult, right?
you specify inner-city kids....So it's about getting single moms and welfare recipients get off your golden tit, right? I get it. You want to put the unfortunate circumstances, the mistakes, the shortcomings of parents onto their children. You want 12 year old kids to be self reliant and pay for their own food and shelter. BRILLIANT. Before you try to backpedal - how else would these families 'greatly benefit' from this? Can't believe I'm even having this discussion.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.co ... it-happen/
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/re ... ter_fraud/
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/re ... ed_voters/
http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/what-do-v ... -in-common
there are more, and the one i read was a few months ago that i forgot what the source was. i'll keep looking. this is the best i could do in between patients.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
You could have just watched the debate, and then NEWT could've confirmed it for you... You would be informed. You wouldn't be asking me questions that the candidates answered last night.
There is a lot of that on here today. People supposing what these candidates might do... worrying and fretting... blowin their top- all because they DON"T KNOW- because they DON'T LISTEN.
Try participating in your country's primary process. It's a HOOT. WOOT for NEWT.
Thanks for the links. Will take a look.
Wow, speak of the devil... 12 PEOPLE IN GA ARRESTED FOR VOTER FRAUD TODAY!
http://www.walb.com/story/16104533/12-i ... oter-fraud
Looks like more people will be struck by lightning now!!
thanks for the link. i'll check it out when i get a minute..
in the meantime, NOBODY STAND UNDER A TREE and NOBODY PLAY GOLF IN A STORM!!
(that was my public service announcement for the week, haha)
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i would like to see how that trial pans out. it says it won't be until next year though. if you think about it and if you live in GA can you keep us posted when it starts?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
well ... in fairness ... i am integrating a few topics ... if you read what people are posting in the OWS threads - you will see what i'm talking about ...
I usually cop out of discussions like that because rational comments often get ignored
but what are you going to do...I just have to keep telling myself that even though we disagree on the finer points, we all want a better place for the vast majority of people who live here .... or visit
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
sorry bout that, but looks like a local news channel's site, and some small minded individuals are poppin off- disregard them.
Will try to follow that one.
CANADA BOOTS ARE NOW IN GOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!![/size]
haha ... yeah, for sure - i'm pretty sure we want mostly the same things ... how we get there is obviously a lot different ... and although generalizations are just that ... i think they do highlight some overriding principles ... last night's debate had two people flat out say they would racial profile all muslims and target them at airports for extra screening ... you know most conservatives are gonna vote for whoever the GOP put out there ... and this is the kind of stuff i'm talking about ...
yeah, I know what you mean, but those people are the ones who may shine bright for a second, but fail miserably when elections are finally had...don't let them fool you Rick Santorum stands NO CHANCE. None. He never did. he is simply there to take the focus off the front runners with his crazy rants. that way no one talks about the media darling Mitt.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"Sick for Rick"
So explain it to me....What would Newt have confirmed? I was asking YOU questions, because YOU led me to believe you were projecting your own opinions into the thread. But when challenged on them, you put it all back on your boy Newt…..and stray from the topic to call me uninformed and saying I don't know cause I can't listen...personal attacks! Careful or usamamasan might report you(rself).
Who? Newt? The topic?
Oh wait, you woke up, got out of bed, stumbled to your computer to post about other members.
whatever....
Oh Look A Falling Star
But when you do it, it's perfectly acceptable, right?
You set a great example to us all.
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry accused of blatant untruths about Barack Obama
Republican candidates criticised for TV ads that step over line
Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 November 2011
Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have been accused of telling TV viewers blatant untruths about Barack Obama.
The candidates deny their TV commercials are deceitful and dishonest but both ads selectively quote the president to make it appear he is saying one thing when he is saying another.
The advertisements have been widely scorned for crossing a line from a longstanding practice of political campaigns pushing the truth to its limits, over to misrepresentation. One ad appears to show Obama admitting he will lose next year's election if he talks about the economy. The other has him calling American workers lazy.
Romney's campaign ad is airing on TV stations in New Hampshire, which holds its primary in January. It shows the president saying: "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."
The ad appears to have the president admitting he is vulnerable on the economy. But Obama's words were from his 2008 campaign, and he was quoting a statement by a strategist for his Republican opponent, John McCain, who was the one on the back foot over the economy.
Perry's ad shows a short soundbite of Obama saying: "We've been a little bit lazy I think over the last couple of decades."
The ad switches to Perry saying: "Can you believe that? That's what our president thinks is wrong with America – that Americans are lazy. That's pathetic."
But a viewing of Obama's full statement shows that he was saying the US government had been lazy in attracting foreign investment.
Darrell West, director of governance studies at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution in Washington, said that Romney and Perry had gone further than previous campaigns in misrepresenting the truth.
"Those ads are blatant misrepresentations," he said. "They are much more egregious than what we've seen in the past. Typically candidates have tried to be close to the truth because they know journalists are paying attention, but with all the problems of the news industry politicians have concluded they can get away with murder." The president's spokesman, Jay Carney, said of the Romney ad, which is the first TV spot of his campaign: "It's a rather remarkable way to start. And an unfortunate way to start."
But the Romney campaign defended the commercial, saying they were merely turning the tables on Obama for having mocked McCain on the economy three years ago.
Gail Gitcho, Romney's press secretary, said in a blogpost on the candidate's website: "President Obama's campaign is desperate not to talk about the economy. Their strategy is to wage a personal campaign – or 'kill Romney'. It is a campaign of distraction.
"Now, the tables have turned – President Obama and his campaign are doing exactly what candidate Obama criticised [in 2008]."
Perry defended his ad while appearing on Fox News. "That's a fair ad, absolutely," he told host Bill O'Reilly. "He said 'We've been a little lazy.'"
O'Reilly challenged him by pointing out that Obama was talking about the government, "not the folks". But Perry brazened it out. "I think he's talking about Americans … I think that's exactly what he's talking about," he said.
Romney's campaigners are delighted at the attention the controversial ad has drawn, giving it a wider audience than it would otherwise have had. They appear to have calculated that hitting Obama on the economy outweighs whatever damage may be done by charges of untruths.
West is sceptical. "It plays to Romney in the sense that his ad is getting a lot of attention," he said. "But I think the Romney campaign is on very shaky ground to be running a false ad. Voters do pay attention to the veracity of ads."
But West acknowledged that politicians are less concerned about being exposed by reporters. "Politicians think that the news media have completely collapsed, based on the financial crisis, and so they are acting as if there's no accountability and they can say whatever they want," he said.
"They know the news media don't have the same credibility as they had in the past. They think they can say whatever they want and get away with it."
Romney's campaign has also borrowed a historic campaign ad from Margaret Thatcher's 1979 election campaign that declared "Labour isn't Working" and featured a long line of people waiting outside an unemployment office. Romney's campaign has substituted "Obama" for "Labour" and called it a tribute ad.
What does that have to do with this thread?
Hey Newt, go fuck yourself!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It has everything to do with this thread, because all the G.O.P candidates are slippery, lying cocksuckers, including your latest flavour of the week Newt Gingrich.