Ginrich, you can go to Hell.

"Gingrich said he didn't go to war because he had a child. This man married 3 times, divorced first wife while she was in the hospital with cancer, failed to pay adequate child support, and cheated on his second wife while trying to impeach Clinton."

"Hiding behind a family he later broke up and betrayed is the lowest form of hypocrisy.
Before you dismiss this as some kind of liberal smear campaign against Gingrich, most of these attacks actually came from conservative Christians who are tired of his hypocrisy."

Family Values Remain Gingrich

Yea, Gingrich is a liar and a hypocrite.

Oh, so now you've decided that all divorced people really don't care about their children, because they "broke up their families"? Divorced people are, by definition, immoral and bad parents? You sure you want to go there, in your zeal to excoriate Gingrich?

And don't even get me STARTED on what I think of your faux outrage about "going to war". Like anyone is buying THAT.
 
Can we also discuss that gem of a human being that the Dems so embraced in 2004, one John Edwards?

You remember, scumbag lawyer who made millions on phony claims, screwed around on is wife while she battled breast cancer and fathered a child out of wedlock? And then there's Clinton, Gore, etc.
 
Can we also discuss that gem of a human being that the Dems so embraced in 2004, one John Edwards?

You remember, scumbag lawyer who made millions on phony claims, screwed around on is wife while she battled breast cancer and fathered a child out of wedlock? And then there's Clinton, Gore, etc.

I believe my point is that none of these people should be allowed to hold a position of authority if they lie exceedingly?
 
Yea, try to change the subject.

I'm injecting a note of reality. No wonder you don't recognize it.

So you think he should be president even given that?

How many times have you been in a job interview and had the interviewer start questioning you about your marital life? If he did, would you stay and continue the interview, or would you get up and walk out in a huff?

What does his marital history have to do with his ability to do the job?
 
"Gingrich said he didn't go to war because he had a child. This man married 3 times, divorced first wife while she was in the hospital with cancer

So what do you think of Edwards, who was banging a bitch while his wife was dying of cancer? Oops, he's a Democrat...

Oh, he can pretend he was outraged about Edwards, since Edwards decided to quit. Now, if Edwards had hung around and these hypocrites had continued brownnosing him, that would be different.
 
I'm looking at Huntsman right now. As the only one that doesn't deny scientific fact I think he deserves a reasonable chance.

Global warming isnt scientific fact. It's scientific junk.

ಠ_ಠ

Evolution, Sir.

Evolution.

Climate change is an established fact, global warming maybe, but not to such a degree that some people run with it.

There's a difference between "climate change" and "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change", and I for one get heartily tired of the old liberal game of "conflate two different things so you can make an argument for one on the back of the other".

The fact that the climate changes is established; the assumption that humans cause it is far from.
 
Global warming isnt scientific fact. It's scientific junk.

ಠ_ಠ

Evolution, Sir.

Evolution.

Climate change is an established fact, global warming maybe, but not to such a degree that some people run with it.

There's a difference between "climate change" and "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change", and I for one get heartily tired of the old liberal game of "conflate two different things so you can make an argument for one on the back of the other".

The fact that the climate changes is established; the assumption that humans cause it is far from.

Really? Would you feel that way even if 100% of scientists said it was?

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real
 
Can we also discuss that gem of a human being that the Dems so embraced in 2004, one John Edwards?

You remember, scumbag lawyer who made millions on phony claims, screwed around on is wife while she battled breast cancer and fathered a child out of wedlock? And then there's Clinton, Gore, etc.

I believe my point is that none of these people should be allowed to hold a position of authority if they lie exceedingly?

Yeah, I'm sure you were right out in front, demanding that Clinton be removed from office for ACTUALLY lying to the American people, UNDER OATH no less. I'll just bet you were.

When, precisely, did Gingrich do all this "lying", by the way, to anyone but his spouse, which is none of your business? So far as I can tell, whenever something like this has become a public issue, he's owned up pretty much immediately, which is an enormous improvement over the Democrat model of wagging the ol' finger and saying, "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman."
 
ಠ_ಠ

Evolution, Sir.

Evolution.

Climate change is an established fact, global warming maybe, but not to such a degree that some people run with it.

There's a difference between "climate change" and "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change", and I for one get heartily tired of the old liberal game of "conflate two different things so you can make an argument for one on the back of the other".

The fact that the climate changes is established; the assumption that humans cause it is far from.

Really? Would you feel that way even if 100% of scientists said it was?

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

When you shitstains come up with a list of "scientists" that doesn't include a bunch of glorified landscape architects, call me. And USA Today? Puhleeze.
 
Global warming isnt scientific fact. It's scientific junk.

ಠ_ಠ

Evolution, Sir.

Evolution.

Climate change is an established fact, global warming maybe, but not to such a degree that some people run with it.

There's a difference between "climate change" and "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change", and I for one get heartily tired of the old liberal game of "conflate two different things so you can make an argument for one on the back of the other".

The fact that the climate changes is established; the assumption that humans cause it is far from.

No I agree, more evidence needs to be gathered and studied, as we already know the Earth naturally goes through these processes.

I posit that humans can have a vastly significant impact though.
 
There's a difference between "climate change" and "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change", and I for one get heartily tired of the old liberal game of "conflate two different things so you can make an argument for one on the back of the other".

The fact that the climate changes is established; the assumption that humans cause it is far from.

Really? Would you feel that way even if 100% of scientists said it was?

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

When you shitstains come up with a list of "scientists" that doesn't include a bunch of glorified landscape architects, call me. And USA Today? Puhleeze.

Ok...........How about the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences"?

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change........

Expert credibility in climate change

I won't hold my breath that you'll agree since I realize that the RW establishmment carries more weight than our nation's scientists with some folks.
 
ಠ_ಠ

Evolution, Sir.

Evolution.

Climate change is an established fact, global warming maybe, but not to such a degree that some people run with it.

There's a difference between "climate change" and "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change", and I for one get heartily tired of the old liberal game of "conflate two different things so you can make an argument for one on the back of the other".

The fact that the climate changes is established; the assumption that humans cause it is far from.

No I agree, more evidence needs to be gathered and studied, as we already know the Earth naturally goes through these processes.

I posit that humans can have a vastly significant impact though.

Based on what? As far as I can see, we're not much more than an annoying skin rash to something the size and power of the Earth.
 

Forum List

Back
Top