Newt

[Westside Steve]

@mld-woody said:

Santorum / Gingrich ticket?

The guy that equated homosexuality to beastiality and the guy that left his ill wife for his mistress, twice.

Good luck getting moderate/independent votes.

Glad to see you democrats suddenly in the moral majority.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Who said I was a Democrat?

You guys and your labeling of those that disagree with you

[Westside Steve]

@mld-woody said:

Who said I was a Democrat?

You guys and your labeling of those that disagree with you

And who says you disagree with me?

I just saw a common thread with the people you choose to attack.

You will probably find some variations in ideology here.

Bill clinton probably paved the way for marital infidelity eh?

Besides I don't think the pro gay platform is necessarily a winner.

The current president was smart enough to affect the other side during the campaign.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

True true

I just think it is a shame part of your campaign can be to NOT allow equal rights to some people.

Clinton cheating on his wife is bad, I agree, but I think leaving an ill wife with cancer to marry the mistress, twice, is worse.

Some things you can overlook, but that, that is too much.

Christians and conservatives love talking about the sanctity of marriage as a reason gays can't get married. How can anyone take him seriously when Newt wats that?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Welcome, rare sane person.

Newt's infidelities don't matter much in the grand scope of things, as Clinton's didn't either. But they do tell you something about the extreme narcissism - among other things - of the people involved, and it's going to hurt you with women voters. Clinton's escapades told you about his personal neediness and his recklessness - the guy was willing to risk his entire presidency over a blowjob. Newt's tell you more about his callousness and enormous ego issues.

Look at the polls - female voters really, really don't like Newt.

[Westside Steve]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Welcome, rare sane person.

Newt's infidelities don't matter much in the grand scope of things, as Clinton's didn't either. But

Lest we forget the old political axiom:

"Everything before the 'but' is bullshit.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

@westside-steve said:

Lest we forget the old political axiom:

"Everything before the 'but' is bullshit.

WSS

Not really in this case. We're not electing Newt to be our husband. We're electing him to be our president. How he cheats on his wife doesn't really tell us something anything about his position on Iran. Plus, it's a lot easier to get at his position on Iran by listening to what he says about Iran or, even better, the type of foreign policy people he surrounds himself with.

So in the grand scheme of things, for the stuff that matters, it doesn't matter. In the political realm is matters a great deal.

[MLD Woody]

Exactly.

Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead

But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected

[Pumpkin Eater]

Any republican ticket that has Gingrich almost guarantees a second term for Obama. The guy is a stooge.

[Mr. T]

@mld-woody said:

Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead

But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected

Please explain your opinion and how you got to this conclusion.

[heckofajobbrownie]

@mld-woody said:

Exactly.

Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead

But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected

I don't think that his narcissism is a great quality in a leader at all. I think it's a bit frightening, actually. But that doesn't have to do with his affairs so much as the clear evidence of his megalomania. He really thinks he's a historic, transformational figure, and I'm a little afraid of what he thinks he needs to do to cement his place in history.

There's a reason none of his former Republican colleagues seem to be for his candidacy, and many are speaking out against him, sometimes loudly. He was a disaster at everything after the 94 elections.

[calfoxwc]

Maybe the fact he is a narcissistic sleazeball doesn't affect his ability to lead

But the fact that he is a narcissistic sleazeball will affect his ability to get elected

*****************************************

You meant to say this about Obamao, right?

If I had to pick someone to run for pres, it would be Rubio. Romney is a rhino and I want him out.

The dem libs want to use "character" as a weapon all of a sudden, because it's politically expedient.

When it was Obamao running for pres, it was NOT politically expedient.

So, there ya go.

With libs, the only principle is the one that benefits their emotionalism.

Which changes again and again. Clinton? Character didn't matter. Edwards? Character doesn't matter.

Newt? CHARACTER REALLY MATTERS .......

Experience in national leadership? Clinton/Obamao/Edwards... doesn't matter.

But Palin and Romney? EXPERIENCE IN NATIONAL LEADERSHIP MATTERS.

And back and forth they go. Whatever gets them gay marriage, murder of unborn and born children, and leglized mary jane wana @@,

thats their "principle" . Otherwise, they have no genuine belief systems. It's just attacking everything that doesn't fit. And anyone who isn't part of their "movements"

[MLD Woody]

I'm sure they could have taken their pick for how they wanted to discredit Palin lol

and you act like your party and people who think like you do NEVER take advantage of certain traits and what not to gain the upper hand, that's politics dude, lol. It is pretty damn obvious you have your blinders all the way up. Its actually really funny how you can't see the irony in so many things you say...

I know I am going to regret saying this... but what were Obama's character flaws?

Also, I might regret this too, but why is legalizing weed bad? Before you go and attack my character/intelligence, because, well you know, you're a master debater, I don't smoke weed and I don't think people should but I do have a couple close friends that do.

[calfoxwc]

Principle. Illegal drugs are a threat to society. LSD, cocaine, etc. Fringe smokie smokie? Still not good, studies show it leads to the other hard drugs.

Alcohol analogy doesn't fly -- though the abuse of it is a huge problem with some people.

And Obamao? Seriously? He falsely represented himself to get elected.

The "Fast and Furious" scandal is exploding, and so is his penchant for throwing billions and billions of

debt monies into entitlement votes to unions and the left.

I can repost Obamao bitterly accusing Bush of our national debt putting the burden on our children. But now?

He couldn't care less that he has exploded our national debt into nearly 15 TRILLION.

And 4 TRILLION was bad enough to make liberals become enraged ...

it's all unprincipled, emotional manipulation. The acquisition of local, personal, and even national power and privilege sp? by

lying one way, then the opposite way, depending on what gets you that power.

Unprincipled, extremist greed and dishonest reigns in the left.

Obamao is no more an American values president than Chavez is.

[MLD Woody]

You don't believe people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves about drugs? So you want the govt. to regulate them? I thought conservatives wanted smaller govt.?

Also, I gotta tell you I can't believe any of your facts or figures straight up. I also don't understand all these Tea Party code words like "Fast and Furious Scandal" I mean... after that whole "look at what this neurosurgeon said you can't discredit that" thread (which suspiciously ended with me calling out that source, lulz), I really have a had time believing what you think is truth, as truth.

[VaporTrail]

Social conservatives want smaller government except when it comes to telling people who they should be allowed to marry. Also, cal, could you please explain why the alcohol analogy doesn't fly? I think it certainly can be compared against marijuana. LSD, heroin, and cocaine, not so much.

[Westside Steve]

@mld-woody said:

You don't believe people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves about drugs? So you want the govt. to regulate them? I thought conservatives wanted smaller govt.?

Also, I gotta tell you I can't believe any of your facts or figures straight up. I also don't understand all these Tea Party code words like "Fast and Furious Scandal" I mean... after that whole "look at what this neurosurgeon said you can't discredit that" thread (which suspiciously ended with me calling out that source, lulz), I really have a had time believing what you think is truth, as truth.

Fast and furious scandal..... code words? Maybe you'd like to expound on that a bit.

As far as conservatives wishing for smaller government, it doesn't mean that they are anarchists.

But here's a question for you if you think that people in general are smart enough to make their own decisions on drugs should everything be legal and available without a prescription? If not, why?

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I we legalized crack today, I don't think by tomorrow everyone would be a crackhead. Also, just because it is legal doesn't mean people will sell it. I don't think crack emporiums will start popping up because 99.9% of the population would hate those people and their business would get run into the ground. The market wouldn't allow it, probably.

The only reason tobacco is legal and not weed is just how our culture developed. If anything cigarettes are more dangerous than weed.

Conservatives want less regulation so the govt. stays out of people's lifes. They people in the strong individual mindset. But when it comes to drugs they think that if we don't regulate them, everyone will instantly become an addict.

Yes, the case is harder to make with drugs that we know are very harmful, but that's just the thing, we know they are harmful. You aren't just going to go "Crack is legal now? I should try that out."

It just seems like, from this board, conservatives want smaller govt. in every place where it helps push their agenda, but increased govt. involvement in other areas to help push their agenda (forcing pro-life, regulating weed, not allow gays equal rights, etc.)

[Westside Steve]

Like I said I don't believe anyone here is an anarchist.

that would be the smallest government no?

I'd imagine you'll have a hard time convincing anybody that crack should be legal.

If you get your wish and it is legalized would you then refuse health services to those who choose to take it and become addicted? or should be taxpayers pick up that tab?

And as I asked you before do you believe abortion should be legal up entirely through the third trimester for any reason?

And exactly what do you mean by equal rights? Marriage is not a right as you probably know.

The reason I ask these things is just to get a better handle on what you actually believe as opposed to what you repeat to attack conservatives.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

The government should differentiate between drugs the same way most people do. Marijuana is not a serious drug, and there's no good reason for the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars compelling its citizens not to use it. That money is wasted, and people who end up in the criminal justice system because of it have their lives ruined for no good reason.

But I'm with Steve here. I don't like the pure libertarian argument either because, especially when you get to harder drugs, you're talking about serious social costs. I have no problem saying that harder drugs like meth, crack, and the like should remain illegal. But I'd also change the way we make them illegal. The drug war is an epic, colossal failure, and I have no idea why that's not a bigger issue.