Newt fires back !

[tombogan03884]

Brought a little bile to my throat. Let's get this straight. A guy who talks about family values, pilloried Clinton for his affair, considers it below the belt when the media air an interview with his ex (who he cheated on and dumped for a younger model)? Am I supposed to take this seriously? He doesn't have a word to defend himself as a husband, nor does he deny being a serial adulterer. He led the charge against BJ. Yet when one of his victims calls him a lying, cheat sack of sh!t, it's the left wing media's fault? WTF?
If they were framing him, he'd be right. But they aren't, he's guilty as hell. He is just pissed that they are bringing up what is a matter of public record. What does he expect them to do, keep it from the voters? Note to Newt: They doing their job. Ideology aside there are lots of folks in both parties who would consider serial adultery a DQ. Clinton found that out. The public has right to know on this one. If you say accepting the interview from the ex is dirty pool, you need to step away from the koolaid. Newt is an adulterous hypocrite. Now, that said, he'd still be a better President than the one we have now, but don't get outraged because the media committed truth on him .
FQ13

More typical FQ BS that ignores inconvenient fact to push the "moderate" agenda that f*cked up the country in the first place.
First off, any one but an idiot, or an agenda driven liberal would realize that an ex-wife is not going to have anything good to say.
He probably would not have been cheating on her if there were not issues he is gentleman enough not to mention
Second, They are doing their job in their typical slanted fashion, not a word about the people laid off bcause Romney, the media's darling, shut down their companies through his investment firm, but 2 days before the vote the media suddenly finds Newts ex wife who has been in the phone book for years.
Third, "there are lots of folks in both parties who would consider serial adultery a DQ" simply proves there are a lot of stupid people who can not tell the difference between picking a President and picking a Saint.
It's worth noting that a murderer or rapist who can prove 3 miracles is still eligible for sainthood.

[Solus]

More typical FQ BS that ignores inconvenient fact to push the "moderate" agenda that f*cked up the country in the first place.
First off, any one but an idiot, or an agenda driven liberal would realize that an ex-wife is not going to have anything good to say.
He probably would not have been cheating on her if there were not issues he is gentleman enough not to mention
Second, They are doing their job in their typical slanted fashion, not a word about the people laid off bcause Romney, the media's darling, shut down their companies through his investment firm, but 2 days before the vote the media suddenly finds Newts ex wife who has been in the phone book for years.
Third, "there are lots of folks in both parties who would consider serial adultery a DQ" simply proves there are a lot of stupid people who can not tell the difference between picking a President and picking a Saint.
It's worth noting that a murderer or rapist who can prove 3 miracles is still eligible for sainthood.

It is in the works in France.

Jacques Fesch (April 6, 1930, Saint-Germain-en-Laye – October 1, 1957, La Santé Prison, Paris) was the murderer of a French police officer, who became such a devout Roman Catholic while in prison awaiting execution that he has been proposed for canonization as a saint.

After his death his wife and daughter honoured his memory as an example of redemption. At first he was excoriated by the public, but with the work of Soeur Véronique, a Carmelite nun, and Father Augustin-Michel Lemonnier, the family effected publication of his writings, and from the 1970s these served as an inspiration to many.

On September 21, 1987 the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, opened a diocesan inquiry into his life; the cause for his beatification was formally opened in 1993. This has proved controversial, with those who feel his early crimes make him unfitting as a role model opposed to those who emphasize the hope of his final conversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Fesch

[kmitch200]

He led the charge against BJ.

Wasn't that "charge" about lying under oath and the cover up - aka - obstruction of justice?

I do agree that ANYONE will be a better prez than the bunghole who is currently in office.

[tombogan03884]

Wasn't that "charge" about lying under oath and the cover up - aka - obstruction of justice?

I do agree that ANYONE will be a better prez than the bunghole who is currently in office.

FQ is one of those deluded fools who think it was about the blow job.

[Pathfinder]

FQ is one of those deluded fools who still thinks it was about the blow job.

FIFY

[Sponsor]

[BAC]

FQ is one of those deluded fools who think it was about the blow job.

I'm going to have to take FQ's side on this.  Speaking as a guy, it's always about the blowjob.   

[tt11758]

Ideology aside there are lots of folks in both parties who would consider serial adultery a DQ. Clinton found that out.

That must be why Gennifer Flowers sunk Clinton's bid for the Presidency in 1992.  And why Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and all the other so-called "bimbo eruptions" spoiled his hopes for re-election in 1996.  What's that?  They didn't?  Hmmmmmmmm  

And YOU tell US to back away from the kool-aid.  I propose a scientific experiement, FQ....................pull your head out of your ass so we can see if your ears pop.

[JC5123]

I was reading Ann Coulters column yesterday. She is still stuck on Romney. I'm not sure where this is coming from. I usually agree with Coulter, but in this case I think she is dead wrong. I don't seem to be the only one either. Reading the comments on her past few weekly articles, she seems to be alienating much of her readers with her Romney obsession. Her latest one is opining that if we get Newt as the nominee, we just threw the election to BHO. My disagreement with her is that Romney has too much in common with the dear leader, and wouldn't be able to effectively debate him. Even though we all know that BHO can't even pull off a knock knock joke without a teleprompter. In this aspect, Newt would shred him to pieces in a debate. I think a BHO / Romney debate would be a argument over petty details rather than a clear distinction of ideology.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49068

[tombogan03884]

I usually agree with her as well, but on this I think she has her head up her skinny azz.
Romney might as well be the Dem's other candidate.
If Romney and BO are the choices there is no point in a 2 party system since both are touting their brilliant stratagy of "Same old failed Same old.