The Real Newt Gingrich

Gothy, you're sounding more like a Dem than Minks these days.

I think it's sad that Paul has resorted to smear campaigning.

Just about everyone over the age of 21 that knows anything about politics,
knows about Newt.
Some of us choose to back him anyway as opposed to the rest of the field.

Sometimes I wonder if you are trying to convert people, or actually trying
to get Obama re-elected.
 
Death of the Republic

Romney will be elected
Obamacare won't be repealed
and Nero will continue to fiddle
 
catocom said:
Gothy, you're sounding more like a Dem than Minks these days.

I think it's sad that Paul has resorted to smear campaigning.

Just about everyone over the age of 21 that knows anything about politics,
knows about Newt.
Some of us choose to back him anyway as opposed to the rest of the field.

Sometimes I wonder if you are trying to convert people, or actually trying
to get Obama re-elected.
Click to expand...

The above vid was not created by Ron Paul's campaign. The vid that is by Ron Paul's campaign is honest and is calling attention to Gingrich's actions of the last 3-4 years.

Also, did you watch the vid in THIS thread? I implore you to watch if you have not.
 
Newt the crooked fat philanderer

I refuse
358cmfd.gif
 
Gotholic said:
The above vid was not created by Ron Paul's campaign. The vid that is by Ron Paul's campaign is honest and is calling attention to Gingrich's actions of the last 3-4 years.

Also, did you watch the vid in THIS thread? I implore you to watch if you have not.
Click to expand...

maybe that vid wasn't by Paul himself, but he sure didn't condemn ANY of the stuff
his supporters have put out, and in fact basically said alls fair...

When was it Newt said he converted to Catholicism?
 
catocom said:
maybe that vid wasn't by Paul himself, but he sure didn't condemn ANY of the stuff
his supporters have put out, and in fact basically said alls fair...

When was it Newt said he converted to Catholicism?
Click to expand...

i'm not aware of "other stuff" you seem to have a problem with. Gingrich apparently converted in 2009. Regardless of his conversion, he did not renounce nor gave any indication that he opposes the terrible things he was for mentioned in that vid. All you have cato, is Gingrich's terrible record, and a conversion. By voting for Gingrich, you are gambling his conversion was sincere.

Then you have Paul, the most consistent candidate, and a sure bet he will follow through.
 
who the fuck would convert to catholicism? (other than the millions that were forcibly converted by the church?)
 
The real Slim shady

Ron Paul, the most consistently un-electable candidate there ever was
Sarah Palin has a better chance!
 
@ gothiegurl:

holyfuckingbleedingchrist i can't believe you're that fucking naive. really? you need to ask that question? ever pick up a history book?
 
Re: The real Slim shady

Winky said:
Ron Paul, the most consistently un-electable candidate there ever was
Sarah Palin has a better chance!
Click to expand...

"I'd rather chase a rabbit around all day I couldn't catch, than chase a skunk, I could." - Congressman Davy Crockett
 
ummm.... get a set and read something other than official church opinion.

i'm sure the church never condoned boy-fucking priests either, but, hey... shit happens.

for starters, try reading the history of jews in spain.

dude you're like the kid in bad santa.

Bad-Santa-kid-midget.jpg
 
Gotholic said:
i'm not aware of "other stuff" you seem to have a problem with. Gingrich apparently converted in 2009. Regardless of his conversion, he did not renounce nor gave any indication that he opposes the terrible things he was for mentioned in that vid. All you have cato, is Gingrich's terrible record, and a conversion. By voting for Gingrich, you are gambling his conversion was sincere.

Then you have Paul, the most consistent candidate, and a sure bet he will follow through.
Click to expand...

Did not renounce? You don't Really keep up with him much, or watch news
a lot, do you?
He most certainly has said he made mistakes, and named them...most of um anyway.

The prolem with Paul is the congress.
He'd not get one thing done because he'd veto everything they sent him.
THAT's his record...voting NO.
 
catocom said:
Did not renounce? You don't Really keep up with him much, or watch news
a lot, do you?
He most certainly has said he made mistakes, and named them...most of um anyway.

The prolem with Paul is the congress.
He'd not get one thing done because he'd veto everything they sent him.
THAT's his record...voting NO.
Click to expand...

Did he renounce all of what he voted for and supported in the video linked to in this thread? The problem with Gingrich is that all of his political life he supported terrible things. But now we are suppose to look the other way just because he said so? You place too much faith in a man who has constantly demonstrated he is not to be trusted. You never did answer my question here.

Paul has voted no on all things not in conformity with the Constitution. His record of No is great. There are too many yes men in Washington.

By the way, Obama AND Gingrich recently identified themselves with Theodore Roosevelt! Imagine that, both of them identify with the same big government president.
 
which question?
Would I trust him with my kids? ...I don't have kids.

I believe in redemption, and giving a second chance at 'innocent until proven guilty'
Not faith in the man. Hope for him, and us.

I think he'd DO better than Obama, and probably Paul.
Like I said...I don't think Paul would be able to push much through.
 
Romney & Gingrich are both progressives. The difference between them & Obama is how fast we get there.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is so bad he may be a bigger threat than either of those two.

Santorum or Bachman...now that the negro is gone, they're our only hope
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top