Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Reagan was before my time and I didn't vote for McCain.
I personally find the 'mommy he did it too' excuse unacceptable. I don't care if half of congress have done it. I will not support these people.
For (insert optional deity here) sake, you're talking about a potential President of the United States. Is it not about time we demanded that the person match the office?
So, you're going to vote for Obama?
If you're expecting perfection, then you should look somewhere besides politicians. We are electing a president, not an angel.
The dirty little secret is that everybody does it but democrats were out to get him and they kept filing ethics charges until something stuck. Nancy Pelosi used insider info to buy stock before it was on the market and sold it after it was offered to the public. She made a "legal" killing but was it ethical? Barney Fwank told Americans that Fannie Mae was solvent when it was on the brink of collapse and he is yet to be questioned about it. Democrat Jim Moran used confidential information from the treasury dept to dump 100,000 worth of stock just before Fannie Mae collapsed. Republicans don't have the clout to engage in the same dirty tricks that democrats are skilled at.
Reagan was before my time and I didn't vote for McCain.
I personally find the 'mommy he did it too' excuse unacceptable. I don't care if half of congress have done it. I will not support these people.
For (insert optional deity here) sake, you're talking about a potential President of the United States. Is it not about time we demanded that the person match the office?
So, you're going to vote for Obama?
If you're expecting perfection, then you should look somewhere besides politicians. We are electing a president, not an angel.
If the GOP put up Gingrich, yea.... I might vote for Obama. I don't want an 'angel', but an honest man would be good. I like honesty.... I know that puts me slightly off kilter with both sides of the political spectrum, but that's ok. You are welcome to vote for a lying, cheating, amoral, self serving corrupt, childish twit. Just don't ask me to.
The dirty little secret is that everybody does it but democrats were out to get him and they kept filing ethics charges until something stuck. Nancy Pelosi used insider info to buy stock before it was on the market and sold it after it was offered to the public. She made a "legal" killing but was it ethical? Barney Fwank told Americans that Fannie Mae was solvent when it was on the brink of collapse and he is yet to be questioned about it. Democrat Jim Moran used confidential information from the treasury dept to dump 100,000 worth of stock just before Fannie Mae collapsed. Republicans don't have the clout to engage in the same dirty tricks that democrats are skilled at.
As far as I am concerned, there is a hairs difference between Gingrich and Pelosi. Neither of them deserve the honor of serving 'We, the People'.
Joe Scarboro led the charge to oust Newt. Hear him this morning? He said "Because he caved on taxes, and because he caved on welfare reform." Newt sounds like a tea party kinda guy..
Reagan was before my time and I didn't vote for McCain.
I personally find the 'mommy he did it too' excuse unacceptable. I don't care if half of congress have done it. I will not support these people.
For (insert optional deity here) sake, you're talking about a potential President of the United States. Is it not about time we demanded that the person match the office?
Wow. You weren't even old enough to remember Reagan and you are going to lecture the rest of us about what it means to be "conservative".
I'm still waiting for you to tell me - Who was hurt by anything Newt did in these "Ethics Charges"?
That's how I measure morality, not by how well one follows the rules, but on the good or harm you do to other people.
Mitt Romney destroyed lives. And for no other reason than he was greedy. Didn't have to be his father left him more than enough money to live comfortably on.
Newt didn't understand paperwork with the IRS.
Reagan was before my time and I didn't vote for McCain.
I personally find the 'mommy he did it too' excuse unacceptable. I don't care if half of congress have done it. I will not support these people.
For (insert optional deity here) sake, you're talking about a potential President of the United States. Is it not about time we demanded that the person match the office?
Wow. You weren't even old enough to remember Reagan and you are going to lecture the rest of us about what it means to be "conservative".
I'm still waiting for you to tell me - Who was hurt by anything Newt did in these "Ethics Charges"?
That's how I measure morality, not by how well one follows the rules, but on the good or harm you do to other people.
Mitt Romney destroyed lives. And for no other reason than he was greedy. Didn't have to be his father left him more than enough money to live comfortably on.
Newt didn't understand paperwork with the IRS.
I don't 'lecture', I do add my 2 cents into whatever thread interests me. This seems to be a the heart of your problem. You create an alternative reality... that's fine. It is your right to live in whatever reality you choose... but it becomes an issue when you inflict your reality on me.
You do likewise to Romney - because he is a Mormon and you have some deepseated, irrational fear of Mormon's... maybe it's about their underwear.... I don't know and I don't care. But repeating bullshit does not make it true.... and you insist on repeating bullshit and pretending it is 'truth'.
Joe Scarboro led the charge to oust Newt. Hear him this morning? He said "Because he caved on taxes, and because he caved on welfare reform." Newt sounds like a tea party kinda guy..
This is the same Joe Scarboro who left office when they found a dead woman in his office, right?
Joe Scarboro led the charge to oust Newt. Hear him this morning? He said "Because he caved on taxes, and because he caved on welfare reform." Newt sounds like a tea party kinda guy..
This is the same Joe Scarboro who left office when they found a dead woman in his office, right?
that would be him..
Reagan was before my time and I didn't vote for McCain.
I personally find the 'mommy he did it too' excuse unacceptable. I don't care if half of congress have done it. I will not support these people.
For (insert optional deity here) sake, you're talking about a potential President of the United States. Is it not about time we demanded that the person match the office?
So, you're going to vote for Obama?
If you're expecting perfection, then you should look somewhere besides politicians. We are electing a president, not an angel.
If the GOP put up Gingrich, yea.... I might vote for Obama. I don't want an 'angel', but an honest man would be good. I like honesty.... I know that puts me slightly off kilter with both sides of the political spectrum, but that's ok. You are welcome to vote for a lying, cheating, amoral, self serving corrupt, childish twit. Just don't ask me to.
He wasn't fined...under house rules, he could not be fined unless he personally benefited, which he didn't.
This is from the left leaning Washington Post in 1998:The ethics committee once again referred to the penalty as a "$300,000 cost assessment," a term GOP leaders have used to describe the sum Gingrich must pay. They say that ethics rules call for fines in cases in which the violator was seeking "personal financial benefit" and that Gingrich had reaped no financial benefit from his actions.
Washingtonpost.com: Gingrich to Pay Penalty With His Own Money
I'm confused. Your link calls it a fine a little earlier than the quote about the assessment. What's the point of dispute here? Just semantics? Or something more subtle?
At the time, some of Gingrich's GOP colleagues said they had insisted that he pay the fine from personal funds, not from contributions from others. If he had not agreed to that he might have lost the speakership, they said.
It's the Washington Post...what can I say. They couldn't resist.
Their article, directly quoting the ethics committee, specifically states it was not a fine, and that Newt did not benefit financially.
keep up that personal responsibility!
I'm confused. Your link calls it a fine a little earlier than the quote about the assessment. What's the point of dispute here? Just semantics? Or something more subtle?
It's the Washington Post...what can I say. They couldn't resist.
Their article, directly quoting the ethics committee, specifically states it was not a fine, and that Newt did not benefit financially.
If you have been following at home folks.
Newt got charged because it the dems fault
Republicans also charged him because..its the dems fault
The story calls it a fine because...it's the liberals fault
Newt history is bad because...the liberals did it
It's the Washington Post...what can I say. They couldn't resist.
Their article, directly quoting the ethics committee, specifically states it was not a fine, and that Newt did not benefit financially.
If you have been following at home folks.
Newt got charged because it the dems fault
Republicans also charged him because..its the dems fault
The story calls it a fine because...it's the liberals fault
Newt history is bad because...the liberals did it
The ethics committee...you know, the folks that deliberated the charges...specifically stated that they could NOT fine Gingrich, because he had not personally benefited.
If that FACT doesn't fit your agenda...just treat it the way liberals treat facts...ignore it.
It's the Washington Post...what can I say. They couldn't resist.
Their article, directly quoting the ethics committee, specifically states it was not a fine, and that Newt did not benefit financially.
If you have been following at home folks.
Newt got charged because it the dems fault
Republicans also charged him because..its the dems fault
The story calls it a fine because...it's the liberals fault
Newt history is bad because...the liberals did it
The ethics committee...you know, the folks that deliberated the charges...specifically stated that they could NOT fine Gingrich, because he had not personally benefited.
If that FACT doesn't fit your agenda...just treat it the way liberals treat facts...ignore it.
The charges were bullshit, and he wasn't fined.
End of story.
he was fined $300k, you moron.
he House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.
Washingtonpost.com: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker
He wasn't fined...under house rules, he could not be fined unless he personally benefited, which he didn't.
This is from the left leaning Washington Post in 1998:
The ethics committee once again referred to the penalty as a "$300,000 cost assessment," a term GOP leaders have used to describe the sum Gingrich must pay. They say that ethics rules call for fines in cases in which the violator was seeking "personal financial benefit" and that Gingrich had reaped no financial benefit from his actions.
Washingtonpost.com: Gingrich to Pay Penalty With His Own Money
I think it's more along the line that like you, we don't mistake trivial issues for important ones. You really can't complain about adultery and ethical violations after defending Clinton the way you jokers did for years.Desperation. Suddenly, the GOP is the party that accepts ethics violations and requests for open marriages.
My oh my....Sure hope you guys are proud of how far you've come....or how far you've sunk.
he was fined $300k, you moron.
he House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.
Washingtonpost.com: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker
He wasn't fined...under house rules, he could not be fined unless he personally benefited, which he didn't.
This is from the left leaning Washington Post in 1998:The ethics committee once again referred to the penalty as a "$300,000 cost assessment," a term GOP leaders have used to describe the sum Gingrich must pay. They say that ethics rules call for fines in cases in which the violator was seeking "personal financial benefit" and that Gingrich had reaped no financial benefit from his actions.
Washingtonpost.com: Gingrich to Pay Penalty With His Own Money
it was a cost assessment and not a fine, and he wasn't a lobbyist, he gave *strategic advice*.
riiiiiiiiiiiight
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4e8iAofnrw"][/ame]
I think it's more along the line that like you, we don't mistake trivial issues for important ones. You really can't complain about adultery and ethical violations after defending Clinton the way you jokers did for years.Desperation. Suddenly, the GOP is the party that accepts ethics violations and requests for open marriages.
My oh my....Sure hope you guys are proud of how far you've come....or how far you've sunk.
Yes, these are serious, and Newt will be held accountable by the voters.
You should never have defended Clinton, JoeB.
A "strategist" means he gave fancy advice on how the lobbyists should lobby the Congress.
Newt is as dirty as Blago.
I think it's more along the line that like you, we don't mistake trivial issues for important ones. You really can't complain about adultery and ethical violations after defending Clinton the way you jokers did for years.
Yes, these are serious, and Newt will be held accountable by the voters.
You should never have defended Clinton, JoeB.
A "strategist" means he gave fancy advice on how the lobbyists should lobby the Congress.
Newt is as dirty as Blago.
and obama is dirtier than all of them wrapped into one.
