do you cheat on your wife?

If not, you obviously don't love your country enough. If you did, you'd cheat on your first and second wives with staffers 23 years your junior while prosecuting the president for a BJ. He even looks and sounds like Slick Willie. How does he think he's electable?

But he admits his failings so it's OK. Plus he's white and old (check, and check) and a Christian (check), and obviously hetero (check)... I'm running out of ammo here... anybody?

How does he think he's electable?

Haha.... they're all so batty. Makes me feel like being average middle class white kid, I could run (in 10 years) on the grounds of "I'm effin' clueless as to how **** works, but so are they, and I'm not a liar."

Clearly, old white xtian democrats never cheat on their wives, and all politicians obviously put their constituents' best interests first.

The Fox News / Daily Kos biases get tiresome. Think for yourself!

Well, at least he didn't kill anyone.

He thinks he's electable because he's Newt. If he didn't think he was electable, then he might be electable.

Paul, not yet, anyway..... Ha, ha, ha.

Newt IMO is the most inteligent guy possibly running. He would slaughter Obama in a debate. Anyone who points a finger at Newt for past discretions has 3 pointing right back at you. Everyone on this thread has told lies, probably stolen something or done much worse. If you say you haven't then you're lying.

Obviously Newt is no different, he joins the ranks of millions who have cheated on their spouses. Many of us have firends or family members we know right now are cheating on their wife or husband. Although i don't condone this kind of behavior ever, I would say this....let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

John Edwards was just crucified for the same things that Newt did.

Plus, I don't think Newt is an American citizen and I demand to see his birth certificate.

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Obviously you missed the part about Newty being a major stone thrower. That's the whole point of the post. Wow.

John Edwards got crucified because his wife was dying.

No I did get that point. I'm pretty sure Newt wouldn't go after someone again for those same things. Sometimes it takes being humbled by our own frailties to realize that none of us can judge someone because we are all prone to sin.

I'm not a huge Newt fan but I do think he is a brilliant guy. Out of all the Republican hopefulls I would rather see him as President then any of them. Unfortunetely he will never get elected because he is not a likeable guy and his past will rear it's ugly head. If Alan Keyes were running I would vote for him. I think we have a horrible field of possible candidates running this time around.

^^ Predictable rhetoric from both sides. ^^

I just remembered why I stopped visiting Wakeworld... Wes.

I wasn't trying to spout any rhetoric. I am just as against Newt's hypocrisy as the next guy, but there is a distinct difference between Newt's cheating, which is a moral wrong, and John Edwards, which is perceived as a greater moral wrong due to the fact that he cheated on his wife as she was dying of cancer. If he wanted to screw around, he could have waited, instead of causing his wife that extra emotional pain as she was already dying. For her to have to deal with the betrayal of her husband at that time in her life was pretty much unforgivable by most people in this nation, despite how common cheating is.

So basically they are two different situations in the eyes of the American people, not just Republicans or Democrats. Cheating is a forgivable offense, doing what John Edwards did is not.

That wasn't directed at your comment, Nick. I agree JE was crucified mostly because of his wife's condition, which IMO just demonstrates opportunism in the media.

...and now back to your regularly scheduled partisan rhetoric...

Nick, is it okay that Newt cheated on his first wife, while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer, because she didn't die?

"In 1962, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther. According to Battley, Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce."

To the American people, yes, it is okay. Elizabeth Edwards was terminal and everyone knew it at the time. I'm not justifying Newt's actions, he clearly lacks a lot of class, but it's different. Plus the fact that the John Edwards thing happened during the election cycle (a very intense one at that), whereas Newt did this 30 years ago. The American public has a very short term memory.

But for all intents and purposes, the fact that Edwards wife died of cancer after that it is "worse" in the eyes of the public. Again, I'm not saying that I think what Newt did is right. Frankly I wish he'd go away, but it has to be pointed out why the situations are different and why they aren't comparable.

She has cancer / she dies of cancer. Does it really matter?

Newt, and John, both slime bags. Big difference is that John is fading away, and Newt won't!

Cheating on wife if she has operable cancer...OK
Cheating on wife if she has terminal cancer....NOT OK

Gotcha!!!

Wow. You are fantastic at taking one little thing out of a post and twisting it. I didn't say it was okay, but comparatively speaking that it is okay to the American public. How many more times do I have to say it was seen as an unforgivable act for John to do that to his dying wife rather than if it had been done while she was in the process of recovering. Both acts are NOT OK. But the way that people look at them is as one is less of an evil than another...

No wonder people are always saying that you are intellectually dishonest. You really can be an ass sometimes with the way you take things out of context. How many times do I have to state that they were both in the wrong? One is just viewed as worse than the other because one's wife died and the other didn't.

It's like if you were dying and someone you cared deeply about called you a bastard. If you lived, no one else would remember that past a certain time or care all that much, but if you died, it makes that person a bastard to have called you that on your death bed. Is it wrong that you were called that either way at that time? Hell yes, but people see it as a much worse thing to do if you were to have died because you died with the pain of someone you cared about betraying you.

Essentially, you're not allowed to say bad things about people (even if they're true) after they die (unless it's Hitler or someone who's generally thought of as evil by the vast majority of people), but if they survive it's game on. Same principle here.

The minutia of this argument just shows that the American public are sheep, and the opportunistic media is their shepherd. Cheating on your wife is bad, period. If your name is well-known, and she happens to have a terminal disease, that spells ratings!

Originally Posted by bruce

I just remembered why I stopped visiting Wakeworld... Wes.

ooooook... is newt a person hero or something?

From the Party of No (way do I have to make sense).....

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/24/ne...on-in-libya-v/

Originally Posted by bruce

I just remembered why I stopped visiting Wakeworld... Wes.

Me too. The endless pointless political threads are tiresome. And I could give a **** about politics so I'm not coming from either side. Heading back to my guitar forum now. The general discussion forum is useful over there.

aaron, what guitar forum do you frequent? I check out a few regulary as well.

Gear Page. Best forum on the net IMO.

Originally Posted by bruce

I just remembered why I stopped visiting Wakeworld... Wes.

thanks - don't come back.

Did all this while prosecuting for a BJ? Nice lie again. Bill Clinton was not prosecuted for a BJ. Bill Clinton was prosecuted for lying during a trial where a former woman employee was suing him for being sexually harassed by Bill. He was getting BJ's in the oval office from Monica at the time of his testimony. I think the fact that he was womanizing another woman and cheating on his wife while being President of the United States would have swayed pretty heavy in the favor for the woman bring suit against him if this information was known. Way to throw women under the bus in the name of keeping Bill Clinton's little lie (that got him disbarred by the way) as a BJ witch hunt.

On your John Edwards BS. It has not as much to do with cancer as it does with him being just a couple percentage points in votes from being the second most powerful person in the world all while running around cheating on his wife and having a secret life. If anyone else with a security clearance did that, they would have it pulled in a second. Now the fact he did it with his wife dying just makes it to the point that not even most democrats can lie it off like they do for Bill Clinton. They even have a hard time lying for a guy like Edwards. If he had won the election with Kerry, then they may be able to do it for the sake of the greater good of the party.

And get rid of the stupid cancer argument. Not all cancers are the same. If you really cared about that, you would pay attention to all the women who have endometriosis that you know that have their lives ruined by it and give them a little more time of day. The reason I bring that disease up, is not all tumors are the same to people and you probably know 5 women that have that disease and know nothing about it and thy have tumors or other issues because of it and you don't even give them any extra time of day but yet you argue like you actually give a crap about Edwards or Newts ex-wife's cancer.. You are just trying to argue cancer for politics sake. It is like Wes Starting a post regarding a Republican being electable. Do you really think he cares?

Speaking of someone not being electable. How about all those wars Obama was supposed to get us out of? I thought he only started with 2 wars. Now we have 3? Didn't he get the peace prize? Besides, wasn't democrats supposed to get us out of the wars in 2006 when they were elected for that reason? Now we have 3 wars? Or is it not a war since only airplanes are involved and they are dropping candy to the people? Didn't he get a Nobel Peace Prize of something?

What about the patriot act everyone was so mad about? What about Gitmo that everyone was mad about? What about free health care that is turning out not to be free? Say this in your best Jim Mora "playoffs, were talking playoffs" voice. "Electable? Were talking electable?"

Delta's post is a prime example of why nothing gets done right in govt.

- He likes the fact that Bush took us to war in Iraq, but doesn't like the fact that Obama isn't able to unravel the mess he's happy to be in.
- He doesn't like that Obama couldn't shut down Gitmao, but like's that his party prevented it from happening.
- He's happy for a Republican to put us in two war's, but doesn't like it when a Democrat adds a third.
- He's happy to ridicule Edward's for his behavior and ignore Newt's and claim it's because of percentage points to the Presidency even though Newt is the only one possibly running for Pres this time.
- He's happy that health care isn't free, but unhappy because Obama couldn't make it free.

If Florida can elect an ex-CEO that presided over massive medicare fraud, then I'm willing to bet Obama is electable. Newt, I don't think so.

Originally Posted by aarond0083

Gear Page. Best forum on the net IMO.

Yeah, I visit that forum regularly. My account name on TGP is fly135.

John, like usual, you are incorrect on nearly every point and intentionally being obtuse.

I don't like that we are in any war for starters. Of the two wars that were ever thrust in, the Iraq war was the war that was able to show results and I am correct at this time in history. I am pointing out the fact that democrats lied about their vote about the wars, bitched without mercy that only Bush did it and then used it to get elected over Republicans but have done zero to get the troops out. Their lack of any action to getting the troops out pretty much validates my original point that they (democrats) were for the wars all the time which validates what I said the entire time. You guys on the other hand, still want to believe it was all Bush. You know, the little guy you guys called a chimp and other names including the dumbest president ever but still wish everyone to believe that he is also the smartest most evil president ever.

Gitmo is a continuation of a policy that appears to be the correct way to go. If Obama wanted it gone he could do it with the swipe of a pen just like Bush did to create it. Or is that another one of those things that democrats don't like to admit. You know the detail that high ranking democrats are briefed on things like Gitmo before they happen since they are on the committees that get the info. It was all Bush again right? Obama could release those people in a heart beat if he wanted to. He is the Commander of the military and that is a military prison. Or did Obama look at the same information that Bush had and make the same choice?

There is that same lie again. Republicans put is into two wars even though I have presented evidence over and over again that democrats voted for the war and held dozens of speeches proclaiming the need for war. Even thought the democrats have had the purse strings for over 3 years now and did nothing about it even though they attacked the president for it. More lies. All of them got us into wars. Democrats even went around publicly saying Afgahnistan is the correct war and were for it only so they could contrast against Iraq to attack Bush. Now Iraq is successful and Afgahnistan is a waste just like I said from the beginning.

On the doesn't like it when a democrat gets us into a third comment. I am not the one campaigning for the last decade that we should not have been in wars and that the president was evil for getting us into one. You see, that is your side of the isle. I just pointed out that you were crazy for only blaming on man.

I am not ridiculing Edwards. I yet again, pointing out the facts of the matter. He was doing while running as a VP and got caught and also again telling the truth about Clinton was not about a BJ. Simple truths. You guys are the ones lying about it.

I also see this as the beginning of the democrat attack campaign starting. They are attacking Palin and Newt all the time to try and plant the seeds of hate yet again before the elections start. In case you have not notice, this happens every election cycle or do you need to pay attention a few more years to realize this. You guys certainly did not care about Ted Kennedy killing a woman and remaining a high ranking senate member so don't lecture other people on the issue. Remember, you are the party of moral relativism.

Why am I happy one way or the other on health care. I am the one who was trying to tell you the truth that there is no such thing as a free lunch and when it came down to it, many more people are now going to be required to pay when they are healthy and it is going to cost more in the long term. Unlike you and others, I was not myopic enough to elect a guy based on a pipe dream.

I don't think Florida is the way of the country in all matters. I don't think Obama is electable. Obama did not pay for the black communities rent and car payments. Reality has set in that he is a empty suit when it comes to his pie in the sky promises. The I am going to vote for the first black president hype is over. Now it is about the other lies of politics and the young people will not show up either.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

John, like usual, you are incorrect on nearly every point and intentionally being obtuse.

Saying I'm incorrect on every point doesn't make it true. Iraq being a good idea is hardly shown to be on the correct side of current history.

I think it's a joke that you call me obtuse. Criticizing a President for doing what you think is correct is obtuse. A person should always criticize a politician or his policy based on it being incorrect on his own view. Otherwise you are doing nothing but playing political games.

I think the fact that you have problems with people criticizing Newt speaks for itself. LOL on me being myopic. I figured that Obama was a better bet than McCain and there is no evidence that speaks otherwise. The Republican's biggest argument now is that lefties should be hating Obama for not being a radical liberal. How sad

Even the Tea Party is upset because Boehner turned out to be a joke. Anyone what half a brain knows the Republican's can't do anything about the budget. The best they can do is be a tool for Fox News and cut NPR funding. Like I said... who do the Republicans have with name recognition that isn't better suited in a cartoon (or as a Fox News commentator) than the Oval Office?

Bravo, bravo. Now we are on to Boehner. Nice change. I never said I was for the tea party. At least you have finally drop the false premise of being neutral or even conservative. About time.

I did not say Obama was wrong for bombing Lybia. I approve of his actions. He is a true politician. He is doing what is going to keep him elected. Problem is, he did not deliver to the leftist that got him elected. That is a fact. He did not deliver on any issue for them and black people do not believe in the ultra left. They are fairly conservative socially and do not agree with the progressives. They only went together for the social program issues and frankly Obama failed on his perceived promises to his community. Beyond that, I am pointing out the peoples politics on the issue of war. Everyone was sure against it when Bush did it, but I have not seen a single post on it now we are butting in on another nations private matter. I thought war was against yours and others on here belief system. Sure heard a ton about it for 8 years before this week. I also have heard for years now that all of the middle east hates America because of our policies. Really? Who were the Lybian people calling for during the start of the revolution? They were calling for Bush.... How funny is that. The guy who took out Saddam that the American Left called the devil was called by name to save them. Who on here told you that going into Iraq was the chance to place American values into the middle east. Sounds like you agree with Obama on this issue, so why were you were anti war for 8 years? That's right, Bush was in the White House. How about Kosavo? I am sure you were right there with Bill. Point is, it tells me people were lying about their beliefs. Reminds me of NOW. They are sure for women as long as it isnot conservative women.

I don't have a problem with people criticizing Newt. He does deserve it. Unlike democrats, when he got himself into cheating, he resigned. What did Bill do? That's right, he argued the meaning of "IS" and lied about demeaning a women I am pointing out the facts yet again that people are lying again by equating what Newt did to Clinton and then arguing that Newt is not fit for office. Then why was Bill fit for office? The crap flows deep.

Maybe you did think Obama was the man but I seem to remember many arguments on here that people like McCain but they were concerned that he is too old and the his VP is less experienced than the now president (makes me laugh) if he were to die. You can not make this crap up.

So Foxnews is now the new Bush? Then I must obey everything that Foxnews says then because experience has told me that when push comes to shove, the facts win. Kind of like when children lecture that adults don't understand them and they are the future.

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make. Newt is better because he resigned and now it's ok he runs for President because... His bad boy timeout is over????

I'm neutral about solutions, but yes I think the Republicans suck worse than the Democrats.

WRT war, I wasn't against Bush or Iraq initially. Even when Bush ran for his second term I still was with him thinking that continuaity of leadship would be a plus. Since then the facts as I see them have revealed this to be a big mistake. I now believe that if you need to remove a regime you let the country rebuild itself. IMO we should be get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now. I also approve of helping the Lybians. So whatever you think I think about about war, you probably have it wrong. And yes, I'm laughing at you thinking McCain would have been a better President.

I have no point about Newt. Newt as a politician is very good. Newt as a husband does not seem to be very good. That is the only conclusion that I can make about him. Only reason you are going to hear about Newt like now is it is the beginning of the left smear campaigns prior to the election cycle. The perceived front running Republicans are going to be on every comedy show, bad talk shows like Bill Maher, and every little video hit peace that are produced from dedicated George Soros hit organizations like moveon.org. It is very typical and it shows up here like it is something big. Then we have people starting to repeat the lie or twists after about a year, people believe it is true. It is propaganda 101.

I don't want our people in any war but I recognize that sometimes hard choices have to be made. Now it looks like Iraq has planted the seed of democracy all over the middle east. It is kind of the way I called it. Does not mean it is somewhat dangerous. Power vacuums can lead to radicals taking over but most of the movements seem to be home grown from the people so we shall see. At the end of the day, the facts as I see them, Iraq seems to be a huge success considering we have people willing to die for their freedom all over the middle east and they are even telling tv crews to send Bush. How is that for a big spit in the eye to all the liberals saying it is Bush's policies that made all the middle east hate us.

I never liked McCain. He has always been to liberal lite but at least he did not have these complete off the farm policy dreams. He also had much much more experience and credibility on issues than Obama.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Now it looks like Iraq has planted the seed of democracy all over the middle east.

Or maybe it was just the high price of Wheat. Egypt had riots in 2008 over a spike in wheat prices. Now the price of wheat has spiked even higher. If people are starving even democracy may not fix that problem. Gahdaffi was an international criminal, so no regrets getting him out. But I doubt it's going to result in a democratic bed of roses in N Africa or the ME.

The President wasn't prosecuted for getting a BJ. He was prosecuted for lying under oath in the Paula Jones case. Please get your facts straight.