published Saturday, January 21st, 2012

Don't Ask

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

151
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
alprova said...

If Newt fails in his bid to become President, he'll be on the prowl for a new, younger mistress. After all, Calista Gingrich is almost 46 years old.

He dumped Jackie Battley Gingrich when she was 44 years old. He dumped Marianne Gingrich when she was 47 years old.

He carried on affairs for years prior to both of his divorces.

So there's a good chance that the next Mrs. Gingrich is waiting in the wings in some hotel in South Carolina, for her sugar daddy to swing on by for a midnight quickie.

January 21, 2012 at 12:19 a.m.

Couldn't be worse than her current husband. At least Newt hasn't filed for Bankruptcy. Except a moral one, and an attempt to let the states do it. For reasons that are probably less than salubrious.

But heck, at least then she could write a book, or get a payoff from some media conglomerate for a tell-all.

January 21, 2012 at 12:29 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

Alprova, what makes you think he isn't already shopping around for #4?

I have just one word of advice for his ex-mistress and current wife. Don't get sick. That's his favorite time to break the news that you're being replaced.

January 21, 2012 at 12:34 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

PAY MORE ATTENTION TO POLICY THAN CHARACTER

Look, everyone knows Newt is, was, and probably always will be, flawed. Lots of powerful men are lustful. Lots of ordinary men are lustful, too. Maybe it's a guy thing. Anyway, CNN debate moderator John King could have asked the former Speaker a tough question, instead of that hanging curve Newt knocked out of the park. King could have asked, for instance, if it had been hypocritical for Newt to be leading the charge to impeach Bill Clinton for having sex with a staffer, at the same time Gingrich was having sex with his own staffer. If I were the moderator I would have asked Newt if he was proud of having had more wives than his Mormon opponent.

But all this personal garbage doesn't say much about how someone will lead the nation. If you want to know how a candidate plans to govern look at their policy statements. The non-partisan Citizens for Tax Justice studied several of the candidates’ tax plans and released their findings:

Newt would give the wealthiest 1 Percent an average tax cut of $391,330.

Mitt Romney, bless his little heart, would CUT taxes $126,450 for the wealthiest 1 Percent and RAISE taxes on half of middle class families with children.

Do either of those plans sound like sound economic policy? Is our biggest concern beleaguered millionaires and billionaires? If you want to get the economy recovering even more quickly, keep the current rate on the first million dollars you earn. Then raise the tax rate on all income over that 4% - what all this pious outrage over 'class warfare' is really about - while giving a bigger cut to middle income earners.

Don't worry all you tea baggers. The rich will still be rich, but working families will have more money to go out and spend, spend, spend. Always remember and never forget:

70% of economic growth is driven by consumer spending, not by rich guys getting richer.

January 21, 2012 at 1:56 a.m.
rolando said...

Change the name to Obama [or Clinton] and ask the same question.

January 21, 2012 at 3:55 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Would you want your sister to marry Bill Clinton or a Kennedy? Gingrich (and Clinton) may've settled down, or even repented, and we can certainly take his conduct into consideration.
And consider that Speaker Gingrich got an unbalanced budget balanced instead of enlarging deficits, that the economy grew while he was Speaker, and that welfare reform, unlike Obamacare, got votes from the other party. His resume excels President Obama's. He may be something of a loose cannon, but he has hit targets bigger than Osama bin Laden.

January 21, 2012 at 5:36 a.m.
EaTn said...

Newt's ex summed it up when she said that Newt doesn't have the character to be president, but I think it's deeper in that he doesn't have the judgement to be president. I'm still one of his biggest supporters and hope he wins the nomination because it will be a sure win for Obama. The right may be willing to hold their nose at the polls but the middle have more common sense.

January 21, 2012 at 7:26 a.m.
dougmusn said...

We are being unfair to Speaker Gingrich. He is truly in favor of jobs. After all, when a man divorces his wife and marries his mistress, he DOES create a job opening...

January 21, 2012 at 7:31 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Christian morals and values wins the day. Santorum will be... huh? what do you mean GINGRICH won? There must be a mistake. All the votes counted? Use photo IDs?

oh snap!

January 21, 2012 at 7:40 a.m.
alprova said...

America Hates Newt Gingrich!!

Unlike Mitt Romney, who occasionally beats President Obama in general election poll match ups, Newt Gingrich trails far behind President Obama in every survey. But just how bad are Gingrich's unfavorable among the general public compared to Obama and Romney?

Not every poll releases their full results, so here are the most recent favorability results I could find for Obama, Romney, and Newt.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:

Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5

Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7

Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:

Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7

Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14

Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:

Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3

Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18

Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/america-hates-newt-gingrich/326161

January 21, 2012 at 7:56 a.m.
joneses said...

And you think Obama is better? Are you people so blind you do not see Obama as wanting to be a ruler/dictator? Why do you not acknowledge his relationships with known communist like Bill Ayers? If you pathetic communist liberals want a ruler move to North Korea, they have a new one I am sure would welcome you worshiping him like a God like you do Obama. Read below.

Also I find it funny you dummycrats whine about someones past infidelity but you give Clinton and Edwards a pass. You are all pathetic hypocrits.

“The co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and used, shall we say, an interesting word to described what she thinks Barack Obama will be doing in January when he's officially sworn into office. She told Tom Brokaw that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one. It's a word that reflects the worst fears that people have for Obama the "arrogant," the "messiah," that imagines he's here to "rule" instead of govern.”

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Friday “ruled” that religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations, including hospitals and universities, will have to offer birth-control coverage to women employees but gave the organizations an extra year to comply.”

“Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar” with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional. President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.”

January 21, 2012 at 8:03 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Also I find it funny you dummycrats whine about someones past infidelity but you give Clinton and Edwards a pass. You are all pathetic hypocrits.

Edwards got no free pass. His political career was over.

“The co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and used, shall we say, an interesting word to described what she thinks Barack Obama will be doing in January when he's officially sworn into office. She told Tom Brokaw that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one. It's a word that reflects the worst fears that people have for Obama the "arrogant," the "messiah," that imagines he's here to "rule" instead of govern.”

How about a focus on action rather than words? Kinda like the GOP and "family values".

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Friday “ruled” that religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations, including hospitals and universities, will have to offer birth-control coverage to women employees but gave the organizations an extra year to comply.”

This is only true if the organization hires a substantial number of people outside their faith, which most Catholic organizations do.

“Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar” with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional. President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

Bush had more. Where was the outrage then?

January 21, 2012 at 8:13 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

hmmmm edit function down. I must say it is true, but not "only" true. I am not sure what circumstances this would not apply.

January 21, 2012 at 8:21 a.m.
joneses said...

Obama’s Close Ties to anti-American Unrepentant Terrorists and Working Relationship with Left Wing Organizations such as ACORN.  His Documented Track Record for Dismantling America as we Know it.

September 23, 2008 © Michael G. Leventhal BarackObamaWebPage.com In a Chicago interview during his failed Congressional bid in 2000, Barack Obama cited a job at an organization founded by former bomber of the Capital and Pentagon, Bill Ayers as evidence of his qualification for public office. "One of the criticisms that arises in connection with your candidacy is that you haven't been in the [Illinois] Senate very long," said the interviewer. "You have a limited track record in terms of time. What is your argument, based on the one term that you served in the Senate so far, that makes you prepared for Congress?” Obama replied: "I've chaired major philanthropic efforts in the city, like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that gave $50 million to prop school reform efforts throughout the city."

Barack Hussein Obama led an education foundation called “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) from 1995-1999 and remained on the board until 2001. During that time, the group channeled more than 100 million dollars to radical community organizers and hard left education activists in Chicago. But what was the CAC anyway. It was the creation of Bill Ayres, founder of the America-hating Weather Underground in the 1960’s. It was his group that bombed the Pentagon and the Capital. But more important, Ayres to this day is unrepentant. After the terrorist murders of September 11th 2001, his response was to state that he wished he had the chance to have done more.

January 21, 2012 at 8:22 a.m.
joneses said...

More of the factual article

Obama has sought to downplay his association with Ayres, who hosted Obama’s first political fundraiser in his own home and was a big money-raiser. Obama covers for his close association by stating that Ayres is merely "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "our kids go to school together.” The later doesn’t hold any water whatever, since the Ayres children are much older than Obamas. But documents in the CAC archives make clear that Ayers and Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago. According to these archives, Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.

The CAC's agenda flowed from the philosophy of Antonio Gromsci, leader of Italy’s Communist Party in the 1960’s. Gromsci discarded violent revolution for undermining a democratic country’s institutions, particularly the schools, so as to radicalize the nation’s youth. Likewise the Ayers/Obama educational philosophy, called for downplaying achievement and scholarship in return for hatred of America and its institutions.   Ayres and the Obama that embraced his philosophy, call for teachers to be “community organizers” dedicated to provoking resistance to what they consider to be American racism and oppression.

"I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.  In 2006, Ayers was in Venezuela praising communist dictator Hugo Chavez, saying, "We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution."  Barack Hussein Obama does, also. 

January 21, 2012 at 8:25 a.m.
joneses said...

Conclusion of the article about your communist ruler (Obama)

In 2001, Ayres published "Fugutive Days," a book of his early terrorist writings, stating he hoped it would be a blueprint for future activists and community organizers.  As for his murdering terrorist acts, quotes like "we didn't do enough" and "no American is innocent," says it all.  Sounds a lot like Osama Bin Laden, doesn't it.   His latest, soon to be released book, "Race Course Against White Supremacy," blames whites for all the world's problems.  As a 20 year proponent of Black Liberation Philosophy, Obama would be in total agreement.

Under Ayres and Obama, CAC money was not normally given to schools. It was disbursed through hard-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN). Scores of  ACORN personnel have been indicted in twelve states for voter fraud.  Charges include registering minors to vote and registering people multiple times under phony names.
 Obama conducted "leadership training" seminars with ACORN, and ACORN members have served as volunteers in Obama's campaigns.    Obama was also ACORN's attorney.  In this capacity, he taught activists how to intimidate banks into extending mortgages to unqualified minorities.  In court, he successfully fought for mortgage quotas to be forced on banks to unqualified minorities.  This began his early and ever growing responsibility for the financial crisis gripping America today.    Other Obama partners in Chicago stress Obama's Black Liberation Philosophy, rather than traditional education. This fits very neatly into Obama’s 20 year membership in Chicago’s anti-white, America-hating Trinity Church, headed by his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

January 21, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Newt Gingrich says he believes Herman Cain has "satisfied most people" that he never sexually harassed anybody ... but that if other accusations come forward, he's going to "have to answer them."

Apparently not so with Newt. John King was a wimp, and a poor excuse for the "Fourth Estate." It was kinda fun, really, because I saw King "give the other side of the issue" so many times when George Bush was stepping in his own scat, and this is his recompense. All he had to do was ask Newt about his mother and he would have cried like a Boehner.

January 21, 2012 at 8:33 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "Gingrich (and Clinton) may've settled down, or even repented, and we can certainly take his conduct into consideration."

Given his track record, and his propensity to lie through his teeth, do you truly think the man is closer to God than he has ever been over the last 30 years?

He trots out that line every time the questions get tough.

"And consider that Speaker Gingrich got an unbalanced budget balanced instead of enlarging deficits,"

For the umpteenth time, Newt did not do so willingly. Bill Clinton refused twice to sign two budget bills and shut down the Government, forcing balanced budgets for the first two years. Newt was out of office during the final two years that budgets were balanced.

You and Newt are guilty of telling the same lie repeatedly.

"that the economy grew while he was Speaker,"

You offer this as if he had a hand in it. People give politicians way too much credit when times are good, and blame them unfairly when they are not so good. Nothing Newt did as Speaker of the House had any effect on how well the economy of the United States fared.

"and that welfare reform, unlike Obamacare, got votes from the other party."

Given that Bill Clinton campaigned on the issue, promising to end "welfare as we know it," its no surprise that the Democrats lined up to support amending welfare.

"His resume excels President Obama's."

I think most people who are not predisposed to judging the President off the cuff, would disagree with you heartily. The man IS the President of the United States.

Newt Gingrich's record for being the only Speaker of the House to have been thrown out of Congress and fined $300k for 84 ethics violations, pretty much negates anything that can be cited on his resume. He will forever be a disgraced politician.

"He may be something of a loose cannon, but he has hit targets bigger than Osama bin Laden."

Newt Gingrich has a core group of supporters, much like Ron Paul, who for some unknown reason, seem oblivious to their real personas. In their own environment, and among their groupies, both men appear to be doing well.

But neither of them stand a chance of being elected President.

January 21, 2012 at 8:33 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Stay the course, wingnut. Keeping up with the 'joneses' would get one shipped to the funny farm.

January 21, 2012 at 8:40 a.m.
joneses said...

Davississ,

Attack the messenger beause you know the message is true. either you are so full of arrogant pride you cannot admit you are wrong or you are just plain stupid.

January 21, 2012 at 8:50 a.m.
joneses said...

Mr. Cain,

Will you please file a lawsuit against the two women that slandered you? This type of disgusting racist attacks on blacks by the white liberal, democrat controlled media has got to stop.

Thanks,

January 21, 2012 at 8:51 a.m.
alprova said...

Joneses wrote: "And you think Obama is better? Are you people so blind you do not see Obama as wanting to be a ruler/dictator?"

Oh Please. That is the most lame of all charges ever leveled at the President. He's done nothing at all to even come close to deserving to be labeled as such.

"Why do you not acknowledge his relationships with known communist like Bill Ayers?"

Because there is no relationship between the two men. Not one person making this charge has ever come up with any proof whatsoever that the two men have done nothing more than sit around a table in the same room more than a handful of times, as members who sat on the same Board.

"If you pathetic communist liberals want a ruler move to North Korea, they have a new one I am sure would welcome you worshiping him like a God like you do Obama."

Sorry Pal, this is our country too. You are not empowered to make the invitation list.

"Also I find it funny you dummycrats whine about someones past infidelity but you give Clinton and Edwards a pass. You are all pathetic hypocrits."

The problem with people like you is that you fail to see that most of us may not have cared much for what Clinton did, but it did not rise to the level deserving impeachment proceedings.

And where is John Edwards now? Do you see anyone calling for him to run for office? At least he had the sense to drop out and stay out of politics, knowing that his goose was cooked.

January 21, 2012 at 8:53 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

In a way, as a liberal, the primaries have been a source of entertainment. However, it also makes me sad that there are good candidates out there with good performance records, people who could never become the party's candidate because the party was hijacked by extremists, particularly religious. As a result, they wisely stay out because they don't see the GOP as the "values" party at all. Their good ideas about fiscal conservatism get shoved aside for social issues and extreme notions of limited federal government (except to impose social values, of course).

If the GOP has a compelling message, they can find good, electable candidates. Unfortunately, what they find is that no candidate can live the extreme message they project, so all candidates are easily exposed as hypocrites. Without a compelling message, the GOP must resort to exaggerations, fear, anecdotes and stereotypes. Of course, these mostly fall apart when scrutinized, so they must constantly change the message. You can't run a party primary on a platform that consists of one message: "stop Obama".

I used to think that conservatives had valid concerns about the Obama administration, and that any democrat president would be criticized loudly and viciously. However, the venom that is spewed in his direction is SO over the top that I am beginning to suspect that this all was based in race after all.

January 21, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.
alprova said...

Joneses, your article contains not one verifiable fact in it. Every point has been debunked numerous times over the years.

Of course, you, like other ignorant people, do believe some or all of the charges written in it. Misery loves company.

"Mr. Cain, Will you please file a lawsuit against the two women that slandered you? This type of disgusting racist attacks on blacks by the white liberal, democrat controlled media has got to stop. Thanks,"

Mr. Cain is no longer a threat to this nation.

As to him suing anyone for anything, he doesn't stand a chance. Such a course would dictate that the facts come out in those cases he so desperately tried to bury in his past, and settlements were made.

January 21, 2012 at 9:01 a.m.
ITguy said...

Newt has repeatedly shown that he believes that the rules do not apply to him. In his public life and in his private life. He borders on pathological. Do you really wany this loose cannon in the White House?

January 21, 2012 at 9:14 a.m.
rick1 said...

Joneses, don't waste your time with Alpo, not only does he defend Obama he even defends Bill Ayers.

Here is what Alpo posted on 01/18/12 at 12:38am

"William Ayers of today is not the same young man he was in the 70's. He's lived an exemplary life since he turned himself in for his crimes. But that aside, the crimes he personally committed harmed not one single soul. He damaged property only. So the heck what?"

"The man has more than admitted the wrong that he did and has said that he regrets that more was not done. The meaning of those words are forever lost on some people. That's their problem to deal with."

"I for one, support what he did. There...I admit it. The leadership of this country forced tens of thousands of young men to give their lives for a cause in which was not in the protection of Americans or our borders. Blowing up a few Federal landmarks was rather lame, compared to what I think should have been done to those who involved us in the Vietnam War and instituted the draft."

Alpo, you have a serious mental issues to believe it is alright to blow up building because no one got hurt. Why don't you tell that to the family members of victims who were killed by the bombings condcuted by members of Ayers group.

January 21, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
rolando said...

ITGuy -- Why do you want someone in today's Whi'ite House who despises everything America [used to] stand for? [The idiotic TFP censor refuses to post the word "Whi'ite" with an "S" -- which is a common Islamic sect or whatever. Perhaps because they see it as a double entendre.]

The Obama is an egotistical, elitist fool who would -- and if re-elected, will -- turn us into a nation of subjects owing fealty to him and him alone.

January 21, 2012 at 9:35 a.m.
rolando said...

rick1 -- Alpo has also stated during an online discussion a while back that he considered retired military members to be "burdens on society" who contribute nothing the day after their retirement. He detests them, plain and simple. No wonder he supports Ayer's terrorist attacks.

January 21, 2012 at 9:40 a.m.
chet123 said...

Jonese...i hope obama do dismantle America as we know it.....remember republican supreme court justices said corporation are PEOPLE...Hmmmm?????

January 21, 2012 at 9:44 a.m.
chet123 said...

Ayers???? ha ha ha ha....see you right-wing nut searching for a boogie-man.......

acorn and ayers ha ha ha ha

try looking at Koch Brother Hmmmm??? ha ha ha

January 21, 2012 at 9:46 a.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Alpo, you have a serious mental issues to believe it is alright to blow up building because no one got hurt."

I could easily turn that around on you and accuse you of having serious mental issues for supporting leaders who forced young men to an early death by fighting in a war in which the United States had no business involving ourselves in.

"Why don't you tell that to the family members of victims who were killed by the bombings condcuted by members of Ayers group."

Every person deserves to be held accountable for their own individual actions. William Ayers did not participate in any bombing that resulted in harm coming to so much as one human being.

He turned himself in to the authorities and they chose not to prosecute him.

Those that did harm others deserve/deserved to be held accountable for their own individual actions.

Guilt by association in the case of William Ayers to acts where people were harmed is as ludicrous as it is to join him to the hip of the President, simply because they were in the same room a few times.

January 21, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.

blackwater: But with Newt, character attacks are part of his policy. If he'd been less inclined to such methods himself, I'd probably give him the benefit of some doubt, but it's more a contrast to his own moralizing of others.

Reflects a certain hypocrisy that will be reflected in other policy decisions as well.

But we can try to discuss some other things. I just saw a poll yesterday. The Pew Research center had some findings on how people feel about their taxes. A bare majority feel that the taxes they pay are fair, but that the taxes others pay...are not. Complexity came in next. Of course, since complexity is the reason taxes are unfair, they could add up to the same.

But there's another thing that concerns me more. His idea of putting students to work as janitors. Has he thought about how much time that will take away from instructional periods? How much supervision will it require? What will be the injury risks?

And honestly, has he had much exposure to students to see what they need? It's not local interactions in a low-status profession (and yes, important as sanitation is, janitors are not respected), but a feeling of opportunity. He need only see how hard a student can work to get an athletic or music scholarship to see that. Expectations matter, as much as anything else.

But when you don't see people able to succeed, to work, when you do see them beaten down, you find yourself depressed. It certainly cannot be reasonable for many to expect to make a career out of sports or music, or anything else like that, but it's what they see that matters.

And I don't think Newt is going to change that.

January 21, 2012 at 9:52 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Although no angels, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have been married to each other since the '70's, raising two children and the child of associates. Take that, "family values" party!

January 21, 2012 at 9:53 a.m.
rick1 said...

roloando, I would like to thank you for your service to our great country.

Alpo, you will support a terrorist like Bill Ayers but you have hatred for the the men and women of our military who have fought and given their lives, so you can live in a free country, and have given you the oppurtunity to become successful as you have posted numerous times. You and Obama have a lot in common.

January 21, 2012 at 9:53 a.m.
rolando said...

lkeithlu -- One can only wonder what great lessons the Ayers have taught to and instilled in their children through example and philosophy... I will leave it there.

January 21, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
rolando said...

Thank you, rick1. I served willingly, expecting no great public recognition...but brooking no public castigation of myself and other military members.

January 21, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.
rolando said...

happy -- look it up, twit. It is in the TFP archived forum records. Do your own research.

January 21, 2012 at 10:06 a.m.
davisss13 said...

"rick1 said... Alpo, you will support a terrorist like Bill Ayers but you have hatred for the the men and women of our military who have fought and given their lives"

Stay the course, wingnut. You GOPers trash everything my dad fought for in the South Pacific and Korea. You are nothing but degenerate torture loving corporate whores.

January 21, 2012 at 10:12 a.m.
rick1 said...

davisss13, I was only speaking about Alpo. I appreciate all former and current members of our military. If Alpo is your dad I dont believe he fought in the South Pacific (WWII) and Korea (early 1950's) since he has stated he is 52 years old in other posts.

January 21, 2012 at 10:25 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

No need to say more, rolando. The child they raised went on to be a Rhodes Scholar.

January 21, 2012 at 10:29 a.m.
linemanty said...

I have been reading these post for over a year now. My conclusion is that a few of you proclaim to read a few articles but your A.D.D. will not let you comprehend what is being said. I voted for W. twice and while im not afraid to admit it I'm also not afraid to admit that although I voted for W. twice that doesnt make me a Replublican. but only as an independent who votes for the candidate whom I believe is in tune with my values. Some of you tend to forget that the nuts that are begging for the power of the U.S. President can barley run their own houses let alone the country! MITT, NEWT, and PAUL, are full of the stuff that I'd like to MUDBUTT. Santorium maybe considerable however he is the BIGGEST PAWN I've ever seen. None of those ant farms can even come close to defeat OBama, and the only complaint you MUDBUTT have to defeat Obama is that he is spendind money running up the deficit.Well in business "you have to spend money to make money. Why do you chose to be against a person who is not making decisions when he is drunk like your dear leader George W. Bush? because he is black? or is it because he is actually trying to accomplish something for the middle class.

January 21, 2012 at 10:35 a.m.
rick1 said...

Al qaeda Al, Ayers was intening to use a bomb to kill American soldiers in New Jersey and it exploded prematurely in a house. Saying Ayers turned himslef in is a little disingenuous since he became a fugitive from justice for 10 years. The charges were dropped dropped when the FBI program that was investigating the Ayers and the Weathermen was accused of improprieties.

Al qaeda Al, Stop getting your information from MediaMatters and start educating yourself on what really happened Al. Of course someone who supports a terrorist has their own agenda and does not want to know the truth.

January 21, 2012 at 10:40 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

About 79 mind numbingly boring and uncreative cartoons to go.

January 21, 2012 at 10:41 a.m.
Momus said...

Let's say, for the sake of argument, everything written about Obama is true. How does that detract from Newt's total separation from the GOP's core values?

January 21, 2012 at 10:41 a.m.
rick1 said...

linemanty: you lose all crediabilty when you bring race into your post without providing any facts to back it up. Tell us what Obama is trying to acomplish for the middle class? What is trying to accomplish for the poor?

Obama attacks the wealthy and Wall Street and talks about income inequality. Then he goes to the wealthy and Wall Street to collect $ 100's of millions of dollars for his re-election. What the democracts and the media does not want you to know is income ineqaulity is climbing under Obama.

Stop reading talking points and educate yourself.

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=528200

January 21, 2012 at 11 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Really interesting the other night to watch the raucous, rabid cheers of the "Family Values" sect encouraging Newt's attempt to stifle the free speech of a woman who knows him better than anyone in the crowd. Scary bunch.

January 21, 2012 at 11:09 a.m.
linemanty said...

Thanks ricks1! I was wondering how long it would take for the attacks to start. Your A.D.D. probalbly caused you to read that post several times. I really was expecting the comment on left out words.

Education goes beyond reading articles. common sense plays a part also. OOOhhhh yeah rick1 " thanks for making me famous and acknowledging me post" I'll be comparable to AL and Blackwater soon.

January 21, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Alpo, you will support a terrorist like Bill Ayers but you have hatred for the the men and women of our military who have fought and given their lives, so you can live in a free country, and have given you the oppurtunity to become successful as you have posted numerous times. You and Obama have a lot in common."

First of all, Bill Ayers does not fit the definition of a "terrorist." He did what he did, without harming or a soul, all to protest an unjust war perpetrated by the powers that be. Those who were in power at the time and who instituted a policy to force men to give up their lives in that war on behalf of this nation are in or will go to Hell.

Second, I have never at any time expressed so much as one word that could be considered "hatred" for those who serve in the service of our country. I have expressed disdain for our nations leaders and for military brass, who have made decisions to involve the United States in wars in which we should have never become involved in.

Third, I am successful due to actions on my part taken that are conducive to being successful. I am thankful to be an American, living in America, but I do not buy into this crap that we live in a free country.

A free country would have never imposed a military draft of our citizens to fight in a war that was clearly not in defense of this nation.

January 21, 2012 at 11:19 a.m.
davisss13 said...

I appreciate all former and current members of our military.

I doubt that very much.

January 21, 2012 at 11:21 a.m.
ITguy said...

rolando said...

"ITGuy -- Why do you want someone in today's Whi'ite House who despises everything America [used to] stand for? [The idiotic TFP censor refuses to post the word "Whi'ite" with an "S" -- which is a common Islamic sect or whatever. Perhaps because they see it as a double entendre."

If I believed that Obama despised everything that America [used to] stand for, then I would not support him. However to believe that I would have to suspend all critical thinking. Let me see if I got this right. We have a bi-racial child raised by a single mother with a strange foreign sounding name who grew up to be the President of the United States. It seems to me that story is a perfect example of what America [used to] stand for. I am not sure what you think America [used to] stand for. It is unclear what your second comment regarding TFP censors who refuse to post the word Whites means. However it leads me to believe that you think that what America [used to] stand for was the America of the 50's where Whites controlled everything and blacks cleaned and farmed for less than subsistance wages. That was the America where blacks were not allowed to vote. I would agree that Obama despises that, as do I and as should every true American.

January 21, 2012 at 11:43 a.m.

rolando, pardon me, but I already did, and I couldn't find it. Perhaps my skills at searching are inadequate to the task, but since it would be trivial for you to reference the post while it's impossible for me to prove the non-existence, I'll request you do it.

January 21, 2012 at 11:49 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "Alpo has also stated during an online discussion a while back that he considered retired military members to be "burdens on society" who contribute nothing the day after their retirement."

You're lying. In response to your assinine remarks in regard to those who receive funds from the Government, I have stated that you are no better than they are. Your existence depends, and always has depended on the same source for your support that theirs does. In that respect, you are just as much a burden to the taxpayers as anyone else who receives their support in the form of a Government check.

I have also pointed out the simple and undeniable fact that retirees of the military are taxpayer supported 100%. When I refer to taxpayers, I refer to those who actually generate incomes that taxes are assessed against. Your entire working life, you merely gave back part of what you took from the Government in pay.

That in no manner suggests that I hold any disdain for any active or any retired member of the military. But when you display the attitude that you have about others who are taxpayer supported, I merely point out that you do so from a very weak position.

"He detests them, plain and simple. No wonder he supports Ayer's terrorist attacks."

I do not detest anyone who has served our nation in military service. I do hold some rather negative opinions of those who hold high power positions within the military, who never leave their offices at the Pentagon.

I'm entitled to my opinions just as you are. Your many years of service in the military, by your own testimony, never placed you in any danger of losing your life. You were never a soldier.

So, the way I see it, you really aren't in any position to compare your service to that of anyone who lost their life in their service to our country.

Take that any way you wish. Just don't atribute words or opinions to me that I have never expressed.

January 21, 2012 at 11:56 a.m.

The only reason "Alpo" will defend Bill Ayers and his relationship with Osama Obama is either 1, he could not join the military to defend this country or 2, which is my guess he came out of the closet before the don't ask don't tell policy was put into place.

January 21, 2012 at 11:58 a.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Al qaeda Al, Ayers was intening to use a bomb to kill American soldiers in New Jersey and it exploded prematurely in a house."

You are going to have to dig up some proof to that one. I'm calling that nothing short of a vicious lie. At no time did the man target to harm any person...period.

He had no beef with service members whatsoever. His protests were aimed at the Government that involved us in the war and the imposition of the draft.

"Saying Ayers turned himslef in is a little disingenuous since he became a fugitive from justice for 10 years. The charges were dropped dropped when the FBI program that was investigating the Ayers and the Weathermen was accused of improprieties."

You know doggone well had the man done half of what he has been accused of over the years, that charges would have been brought. You're right, the man was a fugutive for years, but he eventually voluntarily turned himself in to the FBI and was prepared to take his punishment.

January 21, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.

Not surprised Alprova disputes the allegations made against him, so if you're going to call him on his words, it will be necessary to produce them.

January 21, 2012 at 12:16 p.m.
alprova said...

lovetheusaorleave wrote: "The only reason "Alpo" will defend Bill Ayers and his relationship with Osama Obama is either 1, he could not join the military to defend this country or 2, which is my guess he came out of the closet before the don't ask don't tell policy was put into place."

Wow!! You sure put a lot of thought into that one. I'm awed to have the honor of reading the thoughts of such a deep thinker.

Thank you. We’re all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.

January 21, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.
rolando said...

You lie in your teeth, alpo, just as you always do.

happy, take it and shove it. You can't find it, your problem. Did you even search alpo's looking for "burden on society"? Or are you having problems finding that, too? Alpo is not an honorable man, woman, or what-have-you so any denial he makes is moot. He knows, I know what was said. You don't. That simple.

January 21, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.
linemanty said...

HEY ALPROVA,THAT KINDA SOUNDED LIKE NEWT COMING OUT DIDN'T IT? THOSE REPUBS ARE ALL THE SAME. PUSH THEM AGAINST THE WALL AND THE NAME CALLING COMES OUT.

KINDA LIKE THE STATEMENT JOHN McCAIN SAID ON PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TOUR BUS HUH!

January 21, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
rolando said...

ITGuy -- I wondered when you would bring race into your personal attacks. So you now propose we call it the "Black House"? Maybe you should paint it black, huh? Or gray, maybe?

Obviously, you cannot grasp the import of censorship; it stops the free exchange of ideas/concepts dead in its tracks -- which is the TFPs intent, of course.

For your info -- and spelled phonetically to go around the idiot savant censor -- the "She-eye-tuh [a branch of Islam] House" was the intended meaning...much to your chagrin, no doubt. A mere play on words, you see. The other main branch is the Sunnite.

As I said, it would no doubt be considered [by some bigots] as being somehow race related. You did not disappoint me.

January 21, 2012 at 12:51 p.m.
Lr103 said...

ITguy said...

@rolando said... "ITGuy -- Why do you want someone in today's Whi'ite House who despises everything America [used to] stand for? [The idiotic TFP censor refuses to post the word "Whi'ite" with an "S" -- which is a common Islamic sect or whatever. Perhaps because they see it as a double entendre."

If I believed that Obama despised everything that America [used to] stand for, then I would not support him. However to believe that I would have to suspend all critical thinking. Let me see if I got this right. We have a bi-racial child raised by a single mother with a strange foreign sounding name who grew up to be the President of the United States. It seems to me that story is a perfect example of what America [used to] stand for. I am not sure what you think America [used to] stand for

See bold print. That's what rolando is really against and his clowns are really against. The offspring of white woman and a black man in the White Peoples House. That wasn't suppose to ever happen. To make sure it doesn't happen again anytime soon, they're willing to destroy America and Americans to accomplish their goal. I

January 21, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.
yaffay said...

I think Gail Collins says it best in her comments on Newt's timely transformation when she discusses his "giving up adultery at about the time you’re qualifying for Social Security. Cynics might suggest that Newt didn’t so much reform as poop out."

January 21, 2012 at 1:37 p.m.
rolando said...

One additional word, alpo. I am very aware of the context of the discussion we had wherein you used the phrase "burden on society" in regard to military retirees. Your overall argument was BS then and is BS today. Did you think I would or will ever forget it? Might as well forget Hanoi Jane.

But the issue you argued, re: on the public dole, has and had nothing to do with your despicably referring to us as "burdens on society" at any time...and that is the sole basis of my complaint. We paid our dues...many with their lives. You didn't.

As I told you then and tell you now -- a scurrilous attack such as you made against one military retiree reflects upon us all. Regardless of how much you deny it and cowardly back pedal, on that day you displayed your true colors and your ill-concealed contempt for all military members.

Good day, sirrah.

January 21, 2012 at 1:37 p.m.

Rolando, no, it's your problem since you claim these words exist. The burden is usually on the one who can produce something, versus me, who can't produce evidence that shows nothing. I'd have to post a link to every single post of Alprova's, and you'd have to read them, whereas for you, all you have to do is post one.

More and more likely, especially with your hostility towards producing the exact words, you are taking his statements out of context, and twisting them into something they didn't actually mean.

This is especially troubling since you've been making the accusation against him for over a year. You'd think if you kept at it that long, you'd have the link ready to hand.

But hey, produce the post you claim he said these things in.

Go ahead. That's all you have to do.

Also, more than likely the reason why you had trouble posting that one word is an overzealous filter to stop the use of casual profanity.

Much like I once encountered a site that blocked therapists. It happens. Getting upset over it isn't prudent, especially given how many people I've seen who were clearly not genuinely upset, but just using it to justify attacking others.

January 21, 2012 at 1:39 p.m.
rolando said...

As I said, ITFGuy, I wondered when you would bring up race...your kind always does. "Your kind" meaning "bigot", you racist.

January 21, 2012 at 1:39 p.m.
rolando said...

Go suck rocks, happy6. You defend the indefensible and haven't a clue to boot. You weren't there. It doesn't concern you.

January 21, 2012 at 1:42 p.m.

You're making the exchange now, and expecting the rest of us to be influenced by your words. Sorry, but I'm concerned that you are making something up or misrepresenting something just to express your acrimony towards another poster.

January 21, 2012 at 1:49 p.m.
miraweb said...

It is fairly easy to understand:

Newt always looks out for Newt.

I still can't figure out why Romney wants to be president. It is starting to look like another ego-notch for an utterly bored rich kid.

Even the governorship in Massachusetts was a fairly low-demand gig. It is pretty much a "decorative" office because the state is run by the legislature. In 2006 the legislature overturned all of his vetoes - more than 200 of them.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/romneys-vetoes-seldom-stood

January 21, 2012 at 1:52 p.m.

Looks like Gingrich is gaining in S.C. I guess it's a Bill Clinton thing, huh??? Any attack on Gingrich by Democrats about cheating is hypocracy. Hey, Alprova, why should anyone trust or believe anything you write, after all what self-respecting businessman, as you claim to be, would bend over for a Marxist like B.Hussein is? Your either a liar or Democrat Party operative.

January 21, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Momus said: "How does that detract from Newt's total separation from the GOP's core values?"

But what are the GOP’s core values? I'm having trouble finding any actual values within the GOP these days: they mock the poor; they look down on the unemployed; they advocate economic inequality policies; they ignore urgent domestic needs of our country like affordable healthcare; they don’t appear to respect the rights of consumers; they are stingy when it comes to supporting public education; they undermine our health and safety laws; and they always seem to put partisan politics first and country last.

From what I’ve observed, the current GOP does not even share our Founders belief that the power of the Republic is derived from its citzens. Indeed, when you look at the type of policies they promote, it’s clear that the GOP believes the power of the Republic should be handed over to corporations and a small wealthy elite who continue to extract money from the Republic without paying any kind of fair tax share for the upkeep and maintainance of the Republic.

January 21, 2012 at 1:56 p.m.
hambone said...

Power is the only thing that Newt Gingrich cares about!!

He is self-centered, egotistical and arogant!!

Without morals!

January 21, 2012 at 2:01 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

No, I'd rather have her marry Bill Clinton, or how about Barney Frank? Now John Edwards, there's the boy you want to give your daughter away to.

If it was "just sex" when Clinton did it, then it's "just sex" when Newt does it.

Double standard -- triple standard even.

How about if I get her to give Al Gore a "special" massage?

The only thing I really don't want is Barney Frank babysitting for my SON.

January 21, 2012 at 2:14 p.m.

The double-standard is Newt making hay over a standard which he himself violated, then expects the rest of us to ignore.

It's not that he had affairs. It's that he expects the rest of us to overlook him...now! But you can bet, if it was somebody else, he would leap to the attack.

Hypocrisy is not a good thing.

Still, you need not fear Barney Frank being a child molester. That reflects a bias against homosexuals that is based on prejudice not actual fact. Even Gerry Studds was not involved with somebody who needed a babysitter.

January 21, 2012 at 2:27 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "You lie in your teeth, alpo, just as you always do."

Then by golly, prove it. You dig up the post that proves I have ever wrote one word that proves that I hate those that serve this nation and link to it. Otherwise, you Sir are the liar.

You're the one charging that I have and so it's up to you to get busy backing it up with proof.

But that's not the way you operate, is it? You never, and I do mean, never back up a thing you write.

January 21, 2012 at 2:48 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "One additional word, alpo. I am very aware of the context of the discussion we had wherein you used the phrase "burden on society" in regard to military retirees."

Your memory is very selective.

"Your overall argument was BS then and is BS today."

Then prove it.

"Did you think I would or will ever forget it? Might as well forget Hanoi Jane."

I'm hardly bothered by a thing you ever say. Your credibility has been in the toilet for quite awhile now.

"But the issue you argued, re: on the public dole, has and had nothing to do with your despicably referring to us as "burdens on society" at any time...and that is the sole basis of my complaint. We paid our dues...many with their lives. You didn't."

And neither did you. What dues did you pay? You were a glorified secretary, if I remember correctly.

"As I told you then and tell you now -- a scurrilous attack such as you made against one military retiree reflects upon us all."

Oh...now I get it. Putting you in your place for your hypocrisy, at least in your mind, is an attack upon everyone else who served in the military? You are totally pathetic.

"Regardless of how much you deny it and cowardly back pedal, on that day you displayed your true colors and your ill-concealed contempt for all military members."

Oh shut up Rolando. You're like a little fly at the poo pile.

Get busy backing up your charge or shut up about it already.

I have never, ever posted one word expressing any hatred towards those who serve in the military.

January 21, 2012 at 3:06 p.m.
aidehua said...

Once again the in-house satirist pokes fun in only one direction. Newt isn't auditioning to be a son-in-law. Newt has the vision and experience to lead this nation forward - not backward as our current White House occupant is doing. Had to laugh today when Obama spoke about returning to American values. He doesn't know anything about traditional American values. If you disagree, then you probably think Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a mainline Protestant minister and Bill Ayers is a Sunday school teacher.

January 21, 2012 at 3:45 p.m.
alprova said...

aidehua wrote: "Once again the in-house satirist pokes fun in only one direction. Newt isn't auditioning to be a son-in-law."

As far as we know, anyway.

"Newt has the vision and experience to lead this nation forward -not backward as our current White House occupant is doing."

Please....

"...you probably think Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a mainline Protestant minister and Bill Ayers is a Sunday school teacher."

Some of you people really need to get some new talking points.

Haven't you figured out that not many people care to listen to lies about the President?

January 21, 2012 at 4:19 p.m.
rolando said...

So don't read my posts, happy. It is of none of your concern. Meanwhile, suck rocks.

You too, alpo. As I said earlier, you are either dishonorable or are in early stages of senility.

Whine as you may, it is obvious you detest the military retiree...it leaks out on occasion. I will be here to call you on it, now and forever.

January 21, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.

aidehua, I believe it says sister, not daughter. But if the personal character and activities of a president are not important, what does that make Newt Gingrich's own actions regarding another president? He certainly expected us to judge others, but not him. What does that say about his leadership, his ideas, that he cannot remain faithful to a spouse, that he does not treat them with respect, but when it comes to others, he feels free to harangue them?

And if you don't think Obama knows anything about American values, why are you somehow so upset at that, but not about Gingrich? Do you think he represents American values better? If so, in what ways, and how do you square it with how others feel about him? I find him to be an arrogant, hypocritical blowhard who has no understanding of compassion, no humility, and no moderation. Now I admit a lot of Americans are boastful, but I think some of us know and respect humility.

Or are you saying we are wrong in how we see Newt. Can you persuade us of that in some way? Can you offer how you think Newt somehow offers a better example of values in himself?

rolando, no I think I'll be concerned that you feel free to lie and misrepresent others who disagree with you, and I'll speak out against your behavior. To be silent in the face of wrongdoing is to accede to it.

Hence I'll protest when you don't back up your words.

To do otherwise leads to productive discussion being replaced by nothing more than bickering and hatred.

A tolerance for that is what has lead to this online community being blocked off already. I suspect that the TFP staff would be just as well to block off all comments, it's clear they don't want to spend the effort it takes to keep a community from being trashed by people such as you.

BTW, I find your comments about responsibility in another section of this forum to be quite hypocritical. You complained about liberals not being responsible for their actions, but here you are, refusing to be responsible for yours.

I'll even quote your post:

"Good idea, holdout. Only problem is, that would imply responsibility for their actions -- something no card-carrying Libtard EEOC racist would admit to."

So let's see you be responsible for your own words. Produce this quote where you allege alprova expressed a sentinment. Be responsible.

January 21, 2012 at 4:33 p.m.
Legend said...

happywithnewbulbs said... aidehua, I believe it says sister, not daughter. But if the personal character and activities of a president are not important, what does that make Newt Gingrich's own actions regarding another president?

I have to agree with you on this one, hwnb. After all, wasn't it the GOP who ran on a ticket of wholesome "Christian" and family values and morals? Didn't they accuse Clinton of lacking in those areas and use those very same reasons have him impeached? They've painted themselves into a corner by pointing fingers when they had so many skeletons in their own closet.

January 21, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Aldehua said: "Had to laugh today when Obama spoke about returning to American values. He doesn't know anything about traditional American values."

And have you had to laugh when the GOP talks about returning to America values, Aldehua? Indeed, the only standards these GOP candidates seem to be peddling are the greedy double economic standands traditionally peddled by the GOP:

There is Newt – who made around $1.6 million offering advice to mortgage giant Freddie Mac – ranting about janitors making $28,000 to 48,000 a year.

There is Romney – who has stashed millions offshore in the Cayman Islands – lobbying for economic inequality, the rights of corporate persons to destroy America’s middle class, and special low tax rates for the wealthy financial sector.

And there is Santorum – who has been known to support multibillion dollar scams that benefit small groups of well connected people – ranting about how he doesn’t want “to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

January 21, 2012 at 4:59 p.m.
Legend said...

chattanoogatennesseeusa said... Looks like Gingrich is gaining in S.C. I guess it's a Bill Clinton thing, huh??? attack on Gingrich by Democrats about cheating is hypocracy

actually, ctu, the attacks are coming from Gingrich own GOP camp. The same went for Herman Cain. They got rid of the lone fly-in-da-buttermilk first. The Dems haven't had to so much as lift a finger. The GOP are vaporizing and gobbling up one another. LOL!

January 21, 2012 at 5:02 p.m.

I dunno, but here's a Gingrich quote:

“I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words.”

A) It's not true.

B) It's saying we should behave like bastards?

January 21, 2012 at 5:06 p.m.
Legend said...

rick1 said... davisss13, I was only speaking about Alpo. I appreciate all former and current members of our military.

Just a reminder: The GOPers who've suddenly come to love all things military since Obama became president, despised the military when Bush was in office. When military men and women complained about unsafe, dangerous and faulty equipment they were being forced to use GOPers and their supporters told'em to suck-it-up. Wasn't it Rushie Limbaugh who said "they volunteered didn't they" when military men and women complained? Then Bumpastilskin rumsfeld threaten court martial against any Marine, Airman, Soldier, Navy person who got on camera and complained to the media about unsafe and dangerous equipment and conditions in Iraq. Bushie was too busy tripping over pretzels and bumping his head to give a %$#@! one way or the other. All your right wingnut conservatives were attacking the military under Bush. Now, all of a sudden it's WE LOVE OUR MEN AND WOMEN FIGHTING FOR O'R FREEDOMS? Sorry, no one with any real sense is buying that fake crap!

January 21, 2012 at 5:15 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando offered: "As I said earlier, you are either dishonorable or are in early stages of senility."

As usual, you hit and run with your tall tales and attempt to deflect the focus off of your refusal to prove your points.

"Whine as you may, it is obvious you detest the military retiree...it leaks out on occasion. I will be here to call you on it, now and forever."

No it's not obvious. You're a pathetic liar. You have had every opportunity to back up your claim and you refuse to. You and I both know why that is the case. You can't begin to prove it and now everyone knows it.

You NEVER back up what you write whenever challenged to do so. This is yet another example to be filed in the archives.

January 21, 2012 at 5:23 p.m.

mountainlaurel said...There is Romney – who has stashed millions offshore in the Cayman Islands

Just where did you get that information or is that just your belief? I really believe that with all the PAC money that has been wasted on the GOP campaign if there was "ANY" truth to that it would have with out a doubt been brought to light.

January 21, 2012 at 5:27 p.m.
aidehua said...

Allow me to differ with alprova who says that we on the right are lying about Obama. Were Jeremiah Wright's words G D_ America" just in jest? I think not and this view resonates with our 44th president.

Newt has had issues with marital infidelity, but so too did Bill Clinton, JFK, FDR and others. It is an issue to consider, but there is not much balance from the media. Remember how ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and PBS somehow couldn't be bothered to report on John Edwards' love-child until well after the National Enquirer broke the story? Perry's college transcripts were on the 'Net the day after his announced run. Meanwhile, we have never learned Obama's SAT scores, GPA or much of anything else. The guy is a mystery - except to all-knowing and all-trusting Democrats.

I like Newt's boisterous spirit and recall him advocating for laptops for every school student. Maybe not a practical idea, but he is at least open to thinking outside the box. A big thinker with a PhD - one would expect him to be a little arrogant. It's easy to criticize him - as many conservatives do. But I don't see him backing away from big challenges - unlike Obama who disregards his deficit commission and won't dare tackle entitlements.

If Newt wins South Carolina and the GOP nomination, Obama will likely refuse to debate him. Newt will drive the loony left to fits of rage. They'd rather suffer through with Romney than live under a true conservative - like Newt Gingrich.

January 21, 2012 at 5:38 p.m.

I will pose another question to all the election minds out there. After the N.H. primary Romney had almost a 20% lead in S.C. all the reporters on CNN and other news organizations were stating the as bad as they hated the GOP primary could actually be over after S. Carolina. Going into the debate he still had a 15% lead. Then CNN basically gave Newt a chance to win that debate in the first 5 minutes with the question about his ex-wife. Which if nothing else has turned that state completely around in the voters mind. If you watched any news yesterday the only thing that was repeatedly aired was that question. When they did mention Romney it was about him not releasing his taxes, but yet they have all gave Santorum & Paul a pass on that topic. Now I ask was this nothing more than a ploy to keep the primary going? Without it would there be anything thing for them to cover for the next few months?

January 21, 2012 at 5:53 p.m.
sandyonsignal said...

"But would you want your sister to marry him?" Absolutely not. Newt might be tolerable in the good old boys club, but women are not going to give him a vote. It was bad enough that he cheated and divorced his first wife while she was undergoing cancer surgery, but he did it a second time with Marianne. Newt called her on Mother's Day when she was visiting her mother and suffering with Multiple Sclerosis and wanted a divorce. What a compassionate conservative Newt is.

Marianne told the media, Newt slept with Callista, in their bed at home while she was out of town and told her he loved her, all the while Callista was lying beside him. Well, well, both Newt and Callista are a bunch of hypocritical pieces of trash.

Women will not vote for Newt. No matter what Party unless they are made of the same Mattel plastic, which created Callista. Women will not vote for Newt. He is a hypocrite through and through. Women get mad at men for even hearing about their affairs. So, please all you arrogant Republican men, give tons of money and throw your support behind Newt.

January 21, 2012 at 6:09 p.m.
brokentoe said...

@aidehua said... Allow me to differ with alprova who says that we on the right are lying about Obama. Were Jeremiah Wright's words G D_ America" just in jest? I think not and this view resonates with our 44th president.

You forgot about Bush referring to the Constitution as nothing but a "G'D*%$!! piece of paper!!" And he, Bush, was the leader of this "great nation." Wonder what others from his clan really really feel about America?

At least Jeremiah Wright served his country and served it well as a veteran combat Marine of the Vietnam War. While Bush sat out his days drinking and partying in the Air National Guard.

January 21, 2012 at 6:43 p.m.

lovetheusaorleave, a 20% lead in South Carolina? Post NH? Not across a majority of polls, maybe for some individual ones, but those can be quite suspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,2012#South_Carolina.28January_21.29

If you look, you can see a few with such a lead, but that would seem to be due to the polling.

January 21, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Loving the South Carolina Primaries!!! Go Newt!!! I am so happy he won. Congratulations Newt Gingrich!!

January 21, 2012 at 7:22 p.m.
rolando said...

Only once in a great while do you "prove your points" on this forum, alpo, preferring to point toward some totally biased website at best...plagiarizing them shamelessly and stating it as your own [twisted] thought.

As I said many times before, if you expect any answer from me, state your case cogently in your first paragraph or so. Then and only then, expand your case. Your typical format is off-putting, plain and simple, and I refuse to pick through your crapola.

January 21, 2012 at 7:37 p.m.
rick1 said...

brokentoe said "You forgot about Bush referring to the Constitution as nothing but a "G'D*%$!! piece of paper!!" And he, Bush, was the leader of this "great nation." Wonder what others from his clan really really feel about America?"

This is false and has been withdrawn.

Update, Feb. 21, 2011: The author of the Capitol Hill Blue story has now withdrawn it. Doug Thompson messaged us to say:

Doug Thompson: This is to let you know that the piece on Bush and the Constitution has been changed and reads:

"This article was based on sources that we thought, at the time, were reliable. We have since discovered reasons to doubt their veracity. For that reason, this article has been removed from our database."

I no longer stand behind that article or its conclusions and have said so in answers to several recent queries. In addition, I have asked that it be removed from a documentary film.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

January 21, 2012 at 7:38 p.m.
rolando said...

Wiki-anything is a poor site to cite, happy...being as most anyone can input whatever they please on any topic whatsoever. They are a pretty good starting place though with lots of links to the real stuff.

Personally, I will go with Rasmussen Reports. His polls have reportedly been the most accurate since he started them.

January 21, 2012 at 7:45 p.m.

Happy if you are foolish enough to believe anything that goes on WIKISTUPEDIA then you are less the intellectual person I gave you credit for.

January 21, 2012 at 7:47 p.m.
rolando said...

All right. Who did what with the real sandyonthehill?

Glad Newt won SC? Since when? Here I thought you adored The Mitt because he is so beatable in Nov... Why else would the libtard press be pulling for him?

January 21, 2012 at 7:51 p.m.

Lovetheusaorleave, It's got links to the actual polls there. Complain about Wikipedia all you want, but that's just a collation page.

Besides, if you were worried about stupidity you would not bring up polling in the first place. However, since you did, I referred you to a site to examine instead of a dozen individual links.

But instead of talking about anything, you just go on about Wikipedia, without bothering to offer an alternative or a specific grievance about this page. Just a general complaint. Look, you may find individual things to complain about on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it is all false. At least give some thoughts on the polling so we have something to discuss that is marginally related to the elections.

Though Rasmussen reportedly the most accurate? According to whose reports? They didn't too well in 2010 as I recall.

January 21, 2012 at 8:01 p.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Yep, I'm glad Newt won. Rolando, you will find out soon enough why I am so happy about Newt surging in the GOP primaries.

January 21, 2012 at 8:01 p.m.
acerigger said...

What Sandy said!

Four more years of the "Kenyan Usurper",in the bag!

January 21, 2012 at 8:02 p.m.

I just want to know how well Herman Cain did. Also how many of the dead voted.

January 21, 2012 at 8:12 p.m.
alprova said...

Aidehua wrote: "Allow me to differ with alprova who says that we on the right are lying about Obama. Were Jeremiah Wright's words G D_ America" just in jest? I think not and this view resonates with our 44th president."

Taken out of context, they sure do appear to be bad. Put into the context in which he offered them, they are a condemnation of our Government -- not the United States in general.

He was expressing a widely held belief, and one that permeates the African-American community, that our Government treats many people in this country far differently than they do other people.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! G D America … for killing innocent people. G D America for treating citizens as less than humans. G D America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme."

"Newt has had issues with marital infidelity, but so too did Bill Clinton, JFK, FDR and others. It is an issue to consider, but there is not much balance from the media. Remember how ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and PBS somehow couldn't be bothered to report on John Edwards' love-child until well after the National Enquirer broke the story?"

Hogwash. The media jumped all over the man and dogged him for weeks afterward until he dropped out of the race. They dogged the man right up to the point that his sick wife filed for divorce.

"Perry's college transcripts were on the 'Net the day after his announced run. Meanwhile, we have never learned Obama's SAT scores, GPA or much of anything else. The guy is a mystery - except to all-knowing and all-trusting Democrats."

So what? Every candidate makes their own choice as to what they consider to be the business of the American people. President Obama's life history can be found by simply Googling his name and spending an hour or two reading what can be found online.

He has decided to not release his college transcripts for reasons of his own, and so be it. The fact is that he attended no less than two institutions of higher learning and he graduate from Harvard with full honors. No one can or has disputed those simple facts. He is under no obligation to release his transcripts.

"If Newt wins South Carolina and the GOP nomination, Obama will likely refuse to debate him."

Oh no he won't. Obama will wipe up the floor with that mop on the top of Newt's head.

"Newt will drive the loony left to fits of rage. They'd rather suffer through with Romney than live under a true conservative - like Newt Gingrich."

Newt speaks like a conservative, sure. But Newt doesn't live his life resembling anything at all of a true conservative. He is the poster child for hypocrisy.

His Presidential motto ought to be "Do as I say, but not as I do."

January 21, 2012 at 8:20 p.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Ron Paul skipping Florida??? Well, this is a great week for Democrats. Thank you, Lord.

January 21, 2012 at 8:22 p.m.
rolando said...

Well, sandy, according to FoxNews [but who believes them], with 24% reporting, it is Newt 40%, Mitt 27. The women have gone for Newt over Romney 38% to 29. So much for women not voting for Newt...looks like a lot of them would even consider marrying him

So far, the only ones The Mitt has won over are those with PostGrad study [essentially all libtards] and those making over $200k. Says something about his support group, huh?

January 21, 2012 at 8:24 p.m.
rolando said...

It's the Repub primary, happy, not the Dems. Your comment re: dead voting does not apply.

31% reporting; Newt 41%, Mitt 26. Santorum has surged to third place with 18%.

And the beat goes on...

January 21, 2012 at 8:29 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "Only once in a great while do you "prove your points" on this forum, alpo, preferring to point toward some totally biased website at best...plagiarizing them shamelessly and stating it as your own [twisted] thought."

Look...you claim that I wrote of my "hatred" of those who have served in our military on this site. You claimed that I wrote that all retired military personnel were "burdens on society." If that were remotely true, then you would be able to dig up the post that was written by myself as proof positive that I had indeed written such statements.

Quit turning all of this around on me. You dig up the proof that I have ever written any such thing or admit that you lied.

"As I said many times before, if you expect any answer from me, state your case cogently in your first paragraph or so. Then and only then, expand your case. Your typical format is off-putting, plain and simple, and I refuse to pick through your crapola."

I don't expect anything from you, other than that which has become typical and expected from you. You are known for making false, misleading, and chickensh** statements that you can't back up.

You just keep on refusing to respond appropriately with proof to what you claim. You're fooling no one but yourself.

Your nose has got to be two foot long now.

January 21, 2012 at 8:36 p.m.
rolando said...

Surprisingly, 4% of those who voted in the Repub primary considered themselves Dems; 25% considered themselves Independent or Other -- 31% voted for Newt, 25% for The Mitt. Guess who they will go for come Nov?

Oh yes, non-Christians voted for...wait for it...The Mitt.

January 21, 2012 at 8:41 p.m.
rolando said...

Well, at least you got it into a para or 2, alprova. Thanks for that, anyway. I don't normally use the word "hatred"...it is too strong and emotional a word. "Detest" is so much better.

As for "burden upon society the day of [my] retirement", you most certainly used it in describing me as a retired military man taking money you described as "unearned". As always, when you wrongly and maliciously call one retired military member -- or an active-duty one -- a denigrating name, you call us all one. You never withdrew that comment, choosing instead to deny saying it. You do that a lot.

January 21, 2012 at 8:48 p.m.

rolando, so let's see, you believe that electoral fraud is entirely one-sided then? Well, I think we know that's not true. I've seen the Simpsons. Snowball AND even the Big Bopper voted for Sideshow Bob!

In any case, if it were really a problem, why didn't anybody show up to show how it's an issue, like at the last primary? I know South Carolina had its laws overturned, so if they're really as vulnerable as claimed, wouldn't there be an issue? How can be sure? Maybe they thought they proved something in New Hampshire. Or maybe they're just not pleased with the reaction they got.

Oh wait, or maybe it's not really a problem compared to the numerous other issues involved in elections.

But are you going to produce the cite for your claims about Alprova? Even your tone here seems to be changing from a broad-claim about dislike of the military to a personal despite for you.

You really should produce the posts.

January 21, 2012 at 8:50 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando, Newt will bomb mercilessly in Florida and only has a chance of receiving decent support in no more than a couple of states in the South.

If there is one thing that has been shown in this primary race thus far, is that Republican party support for any candidate is absolutely more fractured than ever.

South Carolina will no longer be able to claim that they are the state that picks the President after this November. A thirty-one year record will be broken.

January 21, 2012 at 8:51 p.m.

Depends on who Rick Scott endorses. My friends in Florida say he's deeply unpopular with them.

Cain seems to have passed Perry though. At least there is that much.

January 21, 2012 at 8:55 p.m.
rolando said...

You idiot, are you really that dense or do you work at it, happy?

The comment was definitely tongue-in-cheek...I expected you to catch that but I still illogically expect more from a libtard than they are capable of delivering.

SC still has no voter ID law -- The Obama/Holder blocked it -- they didn't overturn it. So how would you propose SC identifies a dead voter in their midst?

With so many "other issues" involved in elections, eliminating even one of them would be a step forward in legitimizing our election process. Why do you suppose banks and everyone else requires a photo ID these days? Just for funs or because they can?

January 21, 2012 at 9 p.m.
rolando said...

You speak way too soon, alprova. It isn't so much that Newt is gaining as it is that The Mitt is fading. The voters are going for the NotMitt candidate.

And Santorum won the Iowa caucuses over Romney with three times the votes that Mitt claimed to have won by [24 vice 8].

It is still a ballgame. The Mitt hasn't a snowball's chance behind Satan's door of winning the primary...but even he could win hands down over The Obama.

January 21, 2012 at 9:08 p.m.
rolando said...

Romney is down to winning only three counties with 65% reporting. Must be the ones with major cities...

January 21, 2012 at 9:10 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

No, I'd rather have my sister sneaking into the White House to see fine upstanding presidents like John Kennedy and Slick Willie Clinton. This democRATic-endorsed cartoon would be funny if it weren't so sad.

January 21, 2012 at 9:12 p.m.

What really is appalling is those "few" idiots that are really happy that Osama Obama will get to finish running this country into the ground. But I guess some people don't care that the future generations will be speaking Chinese when he is done. But wait they have already proven they dont care about anyone but themselves.

January 21, 2012 at 9:18 p.m.

No, Rolando, from you I expect an indifferent blindness to offenses by the GOP. You have quite clearly shown your partisanship in numerous posts just on this thread. But I have my flippant side as well, hence my reference to an episode of the Simpsons. I guess you missed that?

Doesn't mean we can't talk about this problem, which still remains an issue. Or so certain people would have it. After all, NH doesn't have such a law, but the O'Keefe gang went there, and tried to make an issue over it.

Things seem silent here. That may be just a factor of time, and we may see something tomorrow, but you aren't complaining about it being too soon to tell, just expressing a general sentiment about it not being something to talk about. For some reason.

Speaking of bank fraud though, did you know there have been many instances of false statements they have been found to make in sworn documents regarding mortgage foreclosures? Personally I'd rather they start living up to some standard themselves before they get to impose upon others. In any case, as I've said before, but perhaps you didn't recall, I would be willing to accept requiring ID if it were proactively provided. The state should not have the power over me, if they cannot accept who I say I am, I believe it should be required of them to produce evidence of who they believe me to be instead of interfering with my civic rights.

You would rather give the state priority, because as I recall, you feared the expense? Isn't a fair and honest election worth the expense? Not to mention the ancillary other benefits. There's a lot of identity fraud out there, wouldn't you like to work on eliminating it?

Or would you like to just continue with the name-calling and insults?

lovetheusaorleave, there's over a billion Chinese in the world, do you have some objection to speaking their language? It's strange though, in only eight years, President Obama managed to run the country into the ground? What kind of Machiavellian super-villain is he? And why doesn't he have killer robots and death rays? So much negativity though.

January 21, 2012 at 9:21 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Keep the focus on the cartoon folks. Newt's character is being called into question by a political hack whose party has cannonized two of the greatest womanizers of all time. Should have opened the blinders before you did this you Claymation.

January 21, 2012 at 9:26 p.m.

Actually, Newt's integrity is being called into question because he would have us disdain others for conduct which he himself engaged in. And I really doubt he has any shame for his own behavior.

January 21, 2012 at 9:27 p.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Rolando, you're right and so is Faux News. 40% of Republican women will vote for him because that is what happened in South Carolina.

Adultery and misogyny is no big deal (just like racism), American women will overlook Newt and Callista's coldhearted transgressions. We will also overlook when Newt failed to pay child support to his first wife and forced her go to on food stamps and to the Baptist Church just to feed their daughters. No big deal. Congrats to Gingrich for his victory in South Carolina.

January 21, 2012 at 9:40 p.m.
rolando said...

Agreed, sandy. Sadly, adultery and misogyny -- as well as under-reported misandry -- and the other forms of sexual perversion/deviance we see today have become the norm.

We are reaping what we have sown...and we don't care.

What's the flip side of his failure to pay child support? There is always "The Rest Of The Story".

Most states these days require payment through the Child Protective Services Gestapo [by whatever name].

January 21, 2012 at 9:58 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

SandyOnSignal said: " Adultery and misogyny is no big deal (just like racism), American women will overlook Newt and Callista's coldhearted transgressions. We will also overlook when Newt failed to pay child support to his first wife and forced her go to on food stamps and to the Baptist Church just to feed their daughters."

Instead of firing janitors, maybe we should just fire all of the politicians and hire children to take their place. All things considered, America might be better off in the long run.

January 21, 2012 at 11:58 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "Well, at least you got it into a para or 2, alprova. Thanks for that, anyway. I don't normally use the word "hatred"...it is too strong and emotional a word. "Detest" is so much better."

I've never written that I "detest" those who serve in the military.

"As for "burden upon society the day of [my] retirement", you most certainly used it in describing me as a retired military man taking money you described as "unearned"."

I never wrote that what you receive was ever "unearned" either. In fact, I wrote the opposite and that you most certainly did earn your retirement benefits.

Okay...enough. You refuse to dig up my words, so I'll do it for you. Here are posts that I have written to you in reference to your retirement and Government supplied health care;

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/oct/25/monopoly/?opinioncartoons#c16935

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/aug/02/speed-trap/?opinioncartoons#c10950

Here's the start of the exchange in which you claim that I wrote that I "despised" those serving in the military. Take note of the fact that the only person whom I stated that became a "burden on the taxpayers" was yourself;

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/nov/24/medics/?opinioncartoons#c19321

"As always, when you wrongly and maliciously call one retired military member -- or an active-duty one -- a denigrating name, you call us all one."

At no time have I referred to you or any other military member with a denigrating name. Good grief, you simply cannot quit with the lies.

You took it totally upon yourself to apply my comments to you, to apply to any and all military members. Sorry, but you don't get away with that one and the proof is in my posts. And there sure as heck is no written rule anywhere that states that during a dispute with a former military member, that any statement written applies to every military member.

"You never withdrew that comment, choosing instead to deny saying it. You do that a lot."

How can I withdraw what I did not write? You are the one who has taken it upon yourself to put words into my fingers that were never written or implied.

Now will you admit that you lied? Will you also now admit that I in no manner stated or implied that I "detest" those who serve in the military or that I ever stated or implied that retired military members are a "burden on society?"

I know better than to hold my breath in the hope that for once, you will man up and admit that you were wrong.

January 22, 2012 at 12:29 a.m.

Well thank you Alprova for providing what you believe to be the posts in question.

It does seem that the accusations Rolando was making against you are quite a stretch. Sure, you did say he became a burden once he stopped working, but that didn't contain any value-judgement to it. A baby is a burden on its parents. A pet is a burden on its owners. An elderly parent can become a burden with infirmity. Jury Duty is a burden. Public education is a burden. That certainly isn't something one necessarily detests. Many people take up such burdens quite willingly.

But it's more a statement towards the hypocrisy of Rolando than any kind of anger or resentment towards the pensions and benefits such persons receive.

However, perhaps Rolando has some other words to which he was referring?

January 22, 2012 at 12:48 a.m.
alprova said...

hwnb wrote: "Well thank you Alprova for providing what you believe to be the posts in question."

The third link is the exchange that he was referring to.

"It does seem that the accusations Rolando was making against you are quite a stretch. Sure, you did say he became a burden once he stopped working, but that didn't contain any value-judgement to it."

Take note of the fact that I only directed that comment to him and no one else, as he has tried to claim. And you're exactly right; Everyone who receives a check from the government becomes a burden on the taxpayers of this nation. It is in no manner an insult. He chose to be insulted. It was merely a statement of fact. In Rolando's case, the deposit he receives every month is an expected burden, but still 100% paid from an account that the taxpayers of this nation fund.

"But it's more a statement towards the hypocrisy of Rolando than any kind of anger or resentment towards the pensions and benefits such persons receive."

I posted that comment because at the time, we had went back and forth over health care issues, and he had repeatedly stated that while he was entitled to his benefits, anyone else who looked toward the Government for health care was as he posted in the first post I linked to in that thread, "liberals detest those who are not beholden to and dependent upon the federal government." He presented it as if he, himself was not dependent upon the Federal Government for every penny that went into his bank account.

"However, perhaps Rolando has some other words to which he was referring?"

Nope. That was the exchange we had and you can clearly see that at no time did I impugn the military or express that he was receiving anything "unearned," as he also has claimed today.

I spent two hours looking for those posts, but he is free to do some digging on his own if he feels that I have been less than forthcoming in what I have linked to.

I don't like posting this, but a clarification is in order. I would be the last person on the planet to hold any ill will towards any members of the military.

Two of my uncles were killed in Vietnam. My father served in Vietnam but came home unharmed. My Grandfather served in WWII. My Grandfather agonized over the deaths of two of his four sons every day of his life after their deaths, until he took his own life in April of 2005. The mere mention of the name of either one of those boys sent him into a severe state of depression that lasted days or weeks at a time. My guess is that it finally sent him over the edge.

As I have written, I blame the 57,000 deaths of those military members on the leadership at the time for involving this nation in a war in which the United States had no business getting us into.

My prayer is that history never repeats itself, UNLESS it is strictly and only for the defense of this nation's borders.

January 22, 2012 at 2:42 a.m.

I do consider it somewhat unlikely that there's another exchange, but I didn't want Rolando to say he had no chance to proffer another one.

Speaking for myself, I only have individual opprobrium to members of the military, for various personal actions which they undertook, though relatively few of them are for behavior in uniform or related to their military duties. To be honest, the only person I know who hates the military is a former member of it, who considers themselves ill-served by it, for various reasons. That may not be the fairest judgment, but I am sympathetic to the reasons for it.

January 22, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.