Kate wrote: Actually, the point is that Newt (and other Republicans) run on a platform of family values and are very vocal about defending the "sanctity of marriage," yet Newt behaves like this and expects us to believe that what he says is the truth? This is a perfect example of "Do what I say and not what I do."
To my knowledge, Clinton never accused and prosecuted other people that were cheating on their spouses, while he was himself cheating. That's the difference between Newt and Clinton. The former President was a cheating spouse, the former Speaker is a cheating spouse and a hypocrite.
Clinton was much more than simply a cheating spouse. He was a perjurer. He lied under oath about a material matter that was before the court. That is what he was impeached for doing. Repeating the lie over and over that he was accused and prosecuted for letting another woman play with little willy will never make it true. He was accused and impeached for committing perjury. He was found guilty of committing perjury by the Arkansas Supreme Court, stripped of his law license for 5 years by the State of Arkansas and fined $90K for his actions as well as having the Supreme Court of the United States of America disbar him as a result of his perjury.
You want to talk about hypocrisy? He looked straight into the camera, wife at his side, and said to the union's citizens that he never had sexual relations with that woman when both he and Hillary knew the opposite was true. He placed himself under oath before a court of law and said he never had any sexual contact with Lewinsky when he knew the opposite was true. He said that he never had a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers when he was a candidate in 1992 and later admitted that he lied about that one as well. Do you have any doubt in your mind that Clinton, serial philanderer that he is, would have been elected to a third term if he had been able to run in 2000? I don't. The Democrats would gladly have put aside his philandering and his perjuring himself before a court of law and put him on the ticket. To this day this serial philanderer, perjurer and professional liar is sought after for his counsel by the members of his party. There's your hypocrisy Kate, in all its glory.
PrintSmith wrote: To this day this serial philanderer, perjurer and professional liar is sought after for his counsel by the members of his party. There's your hypocrisy Kate, in all its glory.
You forgot to include sexual harasser (to the tune of $850K) and accused of rape (of course the woman is lying again).
Kate wrote: Actually, the point is that Newt (and other Republicans) run on a platform of family values and are very vocal about defending the "sanctity of marriage," yet Newt behaves like this and expects us to believe that what he says is the truth? This is a perfect example of "Do what I say and not what I do."
To my knowledge, Clinton never accused and prosecuted other people that were cheating on their spouses, while he was himself cheating. That's the difference between Newt and Clinton. The former President was a cheating spouse, the former Speaker is a cheating spouse and a hypocrite.
You see... that's where you broad brush the whole GOP. Not every conservative is concerned with the social issues that are normally associated with the GOP platform. I'll give you a little hint on how you can tell a conservative presidential candidate who is running on the conservative social issues. See which candidate is endorsed by the evangelicals. Now... who in this slate of candidates has been endorsed by the religious right? Why it's Rick Santorum. Endorsed by over 150 evangelical leaders last week. So stop playing your little games. Newt and Romney are not social conservatives and nothing you say can make them that way. Go whine about Santorum if you want. You don't have anything.
Ok...so we know there's no such thing as a "fiscally conservative" Republican anymore (remember, deficits don't matter?). Now "social conservative" doesn't mean anything. What the hell does "conservative" mean anymore? Best I can tell its a new synonym for "hypocrite".
plaidvillain wrote: Ok...so we know there's no such thing as a "fiscally conservative" Republican anymore (remember, deficits don't matter?). Now "social conservative" doesn't mean anything. What the hell does "conservative" mean anymore? Best I can tell its a new synonym for "hypocrite".
Well... it's amazing that you can be so stupid. Just like there are Democrats who are not progressives, just like there are socialist (like Bernie Sanders) who are Democrats... guess what baby-face? There can be conservatives who are more concerned with fiscal, defense and state issues then concerned with who is sleeping with who. Must be hard for your little pea-brain to understand that... since your comment above apparently speaks volumes of your lack of understanding. Or were you just being an partisan ass?
PrintSmith, you know damn well you are distorting the truth: Clinton was asked if he had "sexual relations" with Lewinski. Clinton asked "sexual relations" to be defined. The court defined "sexual relations" as vaginal intercourse. Clinton said that by their definition he did not have sexual relations. You know this, as you and I have discussed this before. For you to persist would make you a liar. I believe you to be an honorable man...please drop this inaccurate argument. Your good arguments suffer when you use a tactic such as this.
The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
Well... it's amazing that you can be so stupid. Just like there are Democrats who are not progressives, just like there are socialist (like Bernie Sanders) who are Democrats... guess what baby-face? There can be conservatives who are more concerned with fiscal, defense and state issues then concerned with who is sleeping with who. Must be hard for your little pea-brain to understand that... since your comment above apparently speaks volumes of your lack of understanding. Or were you just being an partisan ass?
Will you never learn the difference between "then" and "than"? You certainly give "published authors" a bad name.
I asked a legit question...what does "conservative" mean anymore. Your response?..nothing but more playground taunts and insults. Of course, nobody respects you as a spokesperson for anything, so I do not accept your answer, but I would be interested in further explanation from adult Republicans.
