Uh oh...here comes the dirty on Gingrich

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Impeached and acquited <> Convicted of Perjury.

Found in Comtempt of Court <> convicted of perjury.

It's a good thing I didn't use the term "convicted". You did.

 

I said "found guilty".

 

But hey, if it makes you sleep better believing he didn't commit perjury who am I to rain on your fantasy.

[DankNuggs 305]

 

I'm just not of the opinion there is some big liberal conspiracy out there. I am of the opinion that the masses in our country care too much about this shiit and it's kind of sad. If no one was watching, there would be no demand for digging into the personal lives of public figures and sensationalizing their personal mistakes. But the people have spoken.

There is a big liberal lean in the MSM...undeniable. I agree with you that to a certain extent its shock/trash news gets ratings, but it is beyond that.

 

 

 

For example: John Kerry never got the Romney financial enema they are giving Romney... He only ever released bits and pieces of one return showing he paid 13% taxes. His wife Therea Heinz is megawealthy and I'm sure was living on the high hog of low capital gains taxes as well...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-not-only-15-percenter-john-kerry-002350310.html

[Mike Honcho 5,558]

Who's been convicted of Perjury?

 

 

Clinton was found guilty if perjury in his impeachment trial.

 

He was also disbarred and heavily fined for his perjury by a judge in Arkansas.

 

Hth.

 

 

It's a good thing I didn't use the term "convicted". You did.

 

I said "found guilty".

 

But hey, if it makes you sleep better believing he didn't commit perjury who am I to rain on your fantasy.

 

So your original answer was a complete red herring, since I asked who was convicted. Thanks

[Strike 6,058]

So your original answer was a complete red herring, since I asked who was convicted. Thanks

 

Actually Clinton was found guilty of perjury at his impeachment trial. Impeachment is the process that occurs in the House, and Clinton WAS impeached. If a President is impeached they are then put on trial in the Senate. Clinton was acquitted in the Senate trial. But he was impeached and he was impeached on the charge or perjury in front of a grand jury.

[Mike Honcho 5,558]

Actually Clinton was found guilty of perjury at his impeachment trial. Impeachment is the process that occurs in the House, and Clinton WAS impeached. If a President is impeached they are then put on trial in the Senate. Clinton was acquitted in the Senate trial. But he was impeached and he was impeached on the charge or perjury in front of a grand jury.

 

 

I asked about being convicted, he wasn't.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So your original answer was a complete red herring, since I asked who was convicted. Thanks

No. It was me sticking my finger thru the ring in your nose and dragging you around the bored for a while.

[nikki2200 4]

There is a big liberal lean in the MSM...undeniable. I agree with you that to a certain extent its shock/trash news gets ratings, but it is beyond that.

 

 

 

For example: John Kerry never got the Romney financial enema they are giving Romney... He only ever released bits and pieces of one return showing he paid 13% taxes. His wife Therea Heinz is megawealthy and I'm sure was living on the high hog of low capital gains taxes as well...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-not-only-15-percenter-john-kerry-002350310.html

 

In 2004, things were a bit different. Times were good and there wasn't the anti-rich people/banking industry sentiment that exists today. The MSM did a pretty good job de-railing his campaign about the Swift Boat incident though, war and military being the hot topics of that election.

[Strike 6,058]

I asked about being convicted, he wasn't.

 

WTF are you talking about? He was found guilty. You wanna play semantics go right ahead. Being found guilty is being convicted. The fact that the house doesn't have the ability to level penalties for the conviction besides sending it on the Senate is irrelevant. He was found guilty.

[DanXIII 8]

Hi, I'm Strike, and I do not understand how impeachment works.

 

hai 2 u!

[BunnysBastatrds 2,722]

I'm just not of the opinion there is some big liberal conspiracy out there. I am of the opinion that the masses in our country care too much about this shiit and it's kind of sad. If no one was watching, there would be no demand for digging into the personal lives of public figures and sensationalizing their personal mistakes. But the people have spoken.

 

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's a fact. I have paid close attention to the media and the way they handle politics for the last decade. I finally had to stop paying attention after Obama was elected because all the proof you needed about the media being on the side of the left was right there. It's a fact of politics and it cannot be disputed. There would be no Fox News if there was no bias.

 

John Edwards is a perfect example. During the campaign, Matt Drudge posted a story about rumors of Edwards having an affair months before the story broke and his eventual withdraw from the race. It took the National Fawking Enquierer to break and run the story. They began investigating the story in 2007, before the first primary. They offered it to ABC and they refused.it saying they would look into it, which they didn't. The story broke because of the National Enquier even though the MSM knew about it. And don't give me the bullsh!t that "he was out of the race so it doesn't matter." He was on the short list to be the VP for Obama.

[Frank M 181]

WTF are you talking about? He was found guilty. You wanna play semantics go right ahead. Being found guilty is being convicted. The fact that the house doesn't have the ability to level penalties for the conviction besides sending it on the Senate is irrelevant. He was found guilty.

 

Impeachment in the House of Representatives is tantamount to an indictment. To convict an official of charges brought in an impeachment proceedings, the Senate holds a trial.

 

It's not really the same thing.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Unlike the British system, impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he was removed. Impeachment with respect to political office should not be confused with witness impeachment.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

jeebus christ people. Newt is focking done. Let's check the scorecard...

 

Left Congress under a miasma of ethics violations? Check.

Served his caner stricken wife with divorce papers? Check.

Cheated on his next wife, who btw, had multiple sclerosis? Check.

Questions as to the propriety of his dealings as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac? Check.

 

Short of a youtube vid of him blowing a black dude, this campaign could scarcely be more of a train wreck.

 

The fact that he was stupid enough to run in the first place with all that baggage is a sign of his massive arrogance.

 

Dooshbag extrordianaire.

[Strike 6,058]

Impeachment in the House of Representatives is tantamount to an indictment. To convict an official of charges brought in an impeachment proceedings, the Senate holds a trial.

 

It's not really the same thing.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Uh, no one gets their law license suspended and thrown out of the SCOTUS for being indicted.

[BLS 315]

jeebus christ people. Newt is focking done. Let's check the scorecard...

 

Left Congress under a miasma of ethics violations? Check.

Served his caner stricken wife with divorce papers? Check.

Cheated on his next wife, who btw, had multiple sclerosis? Check.

Questions as to the propriety of his dealings as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac? Check.

 

Short of a youtube vid of him blowing a black dude, this campaign could scarcely be more of a train wreck.

 

The fact that he was stupid enough to run in the first place with all that baggage is a sign of his massive arrogance.

 

Dooshbag extrordianaire.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, and the fuckin guy in LEADING the polls in South Carolina.

 

It's beyond unreal.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Yeah, and the fuckin guy in LEADING the polls in South Carolina.

 

It's beyond unreal.

 

South Carolina has always been the nuttiest of the southern states. They are the ones who started that whole civil war thing you may recall.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

jeebus christ people. Newt is focking done. Let's check the scorecard...

 

Left Congress under a miasma of ethics violations? Check.

Served his caner stricken wife with divorce papers? Check.

Cheated on his next wife, who btw, had multiple sclerosis? Check.

Questions as to the propriety of his dealings as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac? Check.

 

Cleared by the IRS of the ONE ethics charge that made it to fruition? Check

 

Cancer stricken wife is actually who filed for divorce, and those who were there say this didn't happen? Check.

 

Personal matter that has no bearing on the ability to be POTUS (see Clinton)? Check.

 

Made money as a consultant to FM and FM? Check. Illigal? Nope.

 

Awesome list of red herrings.

[MDC 8,161]

Cleared by the IRS of the ONE ethics charge that made it to fruition? Check

 

Cancer stricken wife is actually who filed for divorce, and those who were there say this didn't happen? Check.

 

Personal matter that has no bearing on the ability to be POTUS (see Clinton)? Check.

 

Made money as a consultant to FM and FM? Check. Illigal? Nope.

 

Awesome list of red herrings.

 

Totally agreed - this guy is a shoe-in over Obummer! Republicans like me should nominate Newt post haste!

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Cleared by the IRS of the ONE ethics charge that made it to fruition? Check

 

Cancer stricken wife is actually who filed for divorce, and those who were there say this didn't happen? Check.

 

Personal matter that has no bearing on the ability to be POTUS (see Clinton)? Check.

 

Made money as a consultant to FM and FM? Check. Illigal? Nope.

 

Awesome list of red herrings.

 

If you really believe that all this stuff is just bunk, and that Newt is anything but a dooshnozzle, then you are even dumber than I thought.

 

Now if you want to argue that you don't care that he's a dooshnozzle, and that a dooshnozzle can be a great President, I can understand that argument. It has historical precedent. But cmon, don't be that guy who is that blind to reality. Hell, the guy has come right out and said he has sought forgiveness for his sins, and you are denying that they exist?

 

Un focking real. Even for you.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If you really believe that all this stuff is just bunk, and that Newt is anything but a dooshnozzle, then you are even dumber than I thought.

 

Now if you want to argue that you don't care that he's a dooshnozzle, and that a dooshnozzle can be a great President, I can understand that argument. It has historical precedent. But cmon, don't be that guy who is that blind to reality. Hell, the guy has come right out and said he has sought forgiveness for his sins, and you are denying that they exist?

 

Un focking real. Even for you.

I've never said one way or the other whether I think he is a " dooshnozzle".

 

I just thought throwing some facts in the way of your libtard talking point rant was a good idea.

[DankNuggs 305]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/

 

Lolfoxnews

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/

 

Lolfoxnews

 

Wow. That article is pretty focking stoopid.

[gocolts 300]

Wow. That article is pretty focking stoopid.

 

Dr. Keith Ablow :lol:

[DankNuggs 305]

Wow. That article is pretty focking stoopid.

One of the more ridiculous articles I've read from there. That guy is a doctor.

[SUXBNME 1,633]

Cleared by the IRS of the ONE ethics charge that made it to fruition? Check

 

Cancer stricken wife is actually who filed for divorce, and those who were there say this didn't happen? Check.

 

Personal matter that has no bearing on the ability to be POTUS (see Clinton)? Check.

 

Made money as a consultant to FM and FM? Check. Illigal? Nope.

 

Awesome list of red herrings.

Good post.

Then again, I'm a Newt honk, but still..

 

I'm kinda surprised that he hasn't gained that much support from most of the bored repubs here.

 

I get why most of the MDC types hate him, and I get why BLS hates him

Also, I can kinda understand that some find him to be too volatile to be in charge of the free world...Hell, he might have a violent mood swing or summthing and press the big red button, right?

 

The dood is focking brilliant and at least deserves a chance.

Hope and change? How 'bout Change your Hope to realism.

 

Meh..I'll be voting the party line no matter who we end up throwing out there. Fock the 'protest vote'. Dumb

 

Until we get out of the 2 party system it's just plain stoopid.

 

Also, I'm drunk...Sorta

I tried earlier to be more eloquent in this post, but the fact that I had to google the word 'eloquent' for proper speelling tells you all you need to know

[Me_2006 14]

But he wants to stand on stage and tell all the gays marriage is sacred and we can't let them call it marriage because that would ruin it. How do you put on pants with nuts big enough to go in front of the world and be that big of a hypocrite?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

But he wants to stand on stage and tell all the gays marriage is sacred and we can't let them call it marriage because that would ruin it. How do you put on pants with nuts big enough to go in front of the world and be that big of a hypocrite?

 

Well that's easy: you have to be a narcissist. Which is nothing new in the world of politics. Most politicians that make it to the national stage are narcissists. It just comes with the territory.

 

But I will say that Newt seems to be even more narcissistic than the rest.

[tikigods 77]

Yeah, and the fuckin guy in LEADING the polls in South Carolina.

 

It's beyond unreal.

 

You need to be a inbred Christian in order to even register in SC.

[Frank M 181]

Uh, no one gets their law license suspended and thrown out of the SCOTUS for being indicted.

 

So you're saying a person must be convicted of something to be disbarred? Really?

 

You should wear soundproof pants because you're talking out of your ass again.

 

Please show me where Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury in his Senate trial.

[Strike 6,058]

So you're saying a person must be convicted of something to be disbarred? Really?

 

You should wear soundproof pants because you're talking out of your ass again.

 

Please show me where Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury in his Senate trial.

 

I never said that he was. You're the dooshbag saying his impeachment was the equivalent of being indicted. I just pointed out that no one has ever been suspended or disbarred for simply being indicted. Please show me where a lawyer has been disbarred for being indicted.

 

Or let me just ask you a simple yes/no question. Do you think Clinton committed perjury? Yes or No?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I never said that he was. You're the dooshbag saying his impeachment was the equivalent of being indicted. I just pointed out that no one has ever been suspended or disbarred for simply being indicted. Please show me where a lawyer has been disbarred for being indicted.

 

Or let me just ask you a simple yes/no question. Do you think Clinton committed perjury? Yes or No?

I already drug his stoopid ass around the bored after he asked for me to back up a claim I didn't make.

 

Now he's back for more.

[Frank M 181]

I never said that he was. You're the dooshbag saying his impeachment was the equivalent of being indicted. I just pointed out that no one has ever been suspended or disbarred for simply being indicted. Please show me where a lawyer has been disbarred for being indicted.

 

Or let me just ask you a simple yes/no question. Do you think Clinton committed perjury? Yes or No?

 

WTF are you talking about? He was found guilty. You wanna play semantics go right ahead. Being found guilty is being convicted. The fact that the house doesn't have the ability to level penalties for the conviction besides sending it on the Senate is irrelevant. He was found guilty.

 

Fock off, you lying assclown.

 

You don't even understand the definition of impeachment.

 

Here it is, dummy:

 

 

1im·peach

 

verb \im-ˈpēch\

 

Definition of IMPEACH

 

transitive verb

 

1a : to bring an accusation against

 

b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically

 

: to charge (a public official)before a competent tribunal with misconduct in officec : to remove from officeespecially for misconduct

 

2: to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibilityor validity of <impeach the testimony of a witness>

 

 

 

Where does it say that impeachment means finding someone guilty? Nowhere. In fact, it says to bring an accusation against, or to charge with a crime.

Here's the definition of indictment:

in·dict·ment noun \in-ˈdīt-mənt\

 

 

 

Definition of INDICTMENT

 

1

 

a : the action or the legal process of indicting

 

 

 

b : the state of being indicted

 

2

 

: a formal written statement framed by a prosecutingauthority and found by a jury (as a grand jury) charging a person with anoffense

 

3

 

: an expression of strong disapproval <an indictment ofgovernment policy on immigrants>

 

 

Once again, fock off, you lying sack of sh1t.

[Frank M 181]

I already drug his stoopid ass around the bored after he asked for me to back up a claim I didn't make.

 

Now he's back for more.

 

 

You must have me confused with someone else. Or you're just confused in general.

[SUXBNME 1,633]

jeebus christ people. Newt is focking done. Let's check the scorecard...

 

Left Congress under a miasma of ethics violations? Check.

Served his caner stricken wife with divorce papers? Check.

Cheated on his next wife, who btw, had multiple sclerosis? Check.

Questions as to the propriety of his dealings as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac? Check.

 

Short of a youtube vid of him blowing a black dude, this campaign could scarcely be more of a train wreck.

 

The fact that he was stupid enough to run in the first place with all that baggage is a sign of his massive arrogance.

 

Dooshbag extrordianaire.

 

Since 1980 every winner of the GOP primary in South Carolina has gone on to win the nomination.

 

Go Newt

[Strike 6,058]

 

Fock off, you lying assclown.

 

You don't even understand the definition of impeachment.

 

Here it is, dummy:

 

 

 

 

Where does it say that impeachment means finding someone guilty? Nowhere. In fact, it says to bring an accusation against, or to charge with a crime.

Here's the definition of indictment:

 

Once again, fock off, you lying sack of sh1t.

 

Way to ignore a simple yes/no question. Why don't you answer it and we'll go from there and I'll address this other Bullsh*t. But answer the question first.

[Frank M 181]

Way to ignore a simple yes/no question. Why don't you answer it and we'll go from there and I'll address this other Bullsh*t. But answer the question first.

 

Why, so you can try to weasel out of your idiocy as usual? I said you don't know what impeachment means and I proved it. Hell, you don't even know what it takes to get someone disbarred.

 

You're a focking idiot, a lying sh1thead, and you should do everyone a favor and step in front of a bus.

 

TIA

 

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

You must have me confused with someone else.

Nope, it was you.

[Frank M 181]

Nope, it was you.

 

You said you drug (I can only assume you meant dragged, but I cut you slack seeing as you're a retard) me around the board. That never happened, so obviously you weren't talking about me.

 

Sorry you're so confused.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You said you drug (I can only assume you meant dragged, but I cut you slack seeing as you're a retard) me around the board. That never happened, so obviously you weren't talking about me.

 

Sorry you're so confused.

 

That's the beauty of doing it to a moron like you, you are too dumb to know it's happening while in the middle of it. :lol:

[Frank M 181]

That's the beauty of doing it to a moron like you, you are too dumb to know it's happening while in the middle of it. :lol:

 

What beauty are you talking about? Using the word drug for dragged?

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

You're approaching strike stupidity with every passing post.

[Mike Honcho 5,558]

I already drug his stoopid ass around the bored after he asked for me to back up a claim I didn't make.

 

Now he's back for more.

 

 

How so...did you give him a roofie?