"Open Marriage" Gingrich
- Thread starter MrFedEx
- Start date
iowa boy
Well-Known Member
REALLY? then why do you spend countless hours digging for dirt on our current first lady ? Its seems pretty important to you with Michele. Or is that something other than character your shooting for?? HMMM?
Peace.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Because I can't stand Michelle just like I hate Oprah.....oh, and lest you think it's just a black thang....I also hate Joy Behar, Rosie Odonnell, DWS, Janean Garafalo, and I'm sure there are plenty others only you wouldn't recognize their names.
Of course you did. It's red meat for the far right. But did you at least feel the hyperbole? Newt calling the lead off the "most despicable thing I have ever seen"? C'mon, Newt! Really?! But if that's what republicans want, I think they will be sorely mistaken by the general election outcome. I
trplnkl
555
Now that is a derailing twist I didn't expect, lol lol lol. Nice try.
Of course everyone would prefer the First Lady to be Glinda the Good Witch, but unfortunately Laura Bush can't be the First LADY again. Her dance card is filled. Instead we are stuck with, The Wicked Witch of Chicago.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Other than spending our money like a drunken sailor on a 3 day pass, how has Michelle Obama been a negative for our country?
Are you sure it's "our money"? It could be super-pac money.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Believe that and I have an ISP model I would love to sell you.
trplnkl
555
Don't tell you're turning into TOSlite? Why not take Newt's "despicable" comment in text? That would be despicable for Presidential Debates, not for his despicable love life or life in general.
I know you are smarter than me and even I understood that.
Now that I think about it, how is Michele's life style budgeted? They do have money. But if it is publicly financed, the House of Representatives "holds the purse-strings" and could cut off that spending if they saw fit. Probably just not the outrage you would make it out to be, at least not in Washington circles.
trplnkl
555
Aren't there rules on how super pac money can be spent? Like for campaigning only? I think what UpState was referring to is all the vaca's. Even if the zer0bamas pay for part of the trips themselves, it is our money that provides all the travel expenses and security. And we're not talking about peanuts here. I would not be surprised if there was an unwritten law(or maybe even a written one) that presidential travel expenses are off limits to cuts.
That would suggest that these debates are somehow high minded, intelligent, and revealing events. They are not. They are a political soap opera with a TMZ of pundits to "bring us up to speed" on the day's happenings. Listen to the applause lines. Perry's claim of Texan leading the nation in executions. Every time Newt attacks the media. You could even see Newt pause to feel the reaction of the faithful before driving harder in at the press. Newt LOVED every minute of it and found it not despicable but a God-send. He could not have scripted this better himself if he had his own uncoordinated super-pac chairman moderating. So to take it in context means taking the whole thing in context. I find nothing despicable in it at all, not Newt's love life, not the moderator. On the flip-side, I don't see anything of substance that would change any voter's mind about any real issue. So let me ask you. After the opening salvo that Newt maintains was of unworthy attention, what real strides were made by any single candidate and what policy or program did they put forth to advance the country? Can you name three? I remember Santorum almost begging for support because he's the most boring. Beyond that, (without googling) what did we learn about these candidates?
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
According to Wikipedia:
The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.[SUP][70][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP] The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.
The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.[SUP][70][/SUP][SUP][71][/SUP] The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.
It seems that super-pac money has almost no constraints and as others here have pointed out, are politicians not always campaigning. And yes, I am sure you are correct about what UpState was talking about, but it is what the D's complaign about when the R's are in power and vice versa, nothing more.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
bbsam, I watched the debate for the sole purpose of learning more about Rick Santorum. I was impressed with what I learned. He is a man of character and devotion to his family. He freely admits to not being the flashiest candidate but I do like his ideals, if not his conservative ideas.
Gingrich is too much of a Washington insider for me.
Romney is beginning to come off as an elitist which may turn off even Republican voters in this down economy. I am very curious to see what is in his tax returns.
Ron Paul is the cool professor we all had in college but I wouldn't want him running our country.
I like Obama's chances in November.
Gingrich is too much of a Washington insider for me.
Romney is beginning to come off as an elitist which may turn off even Republican voters in this down economy. I am very curious to see what is in his tax returns.
Ron Paul is the cool professor we all had in college but I wouldn't want him running our country.
I like Obama's chances in November.
I agree with all of the above, but I didn't need to waste an evening in January to learn it. Wasn't this the 19th debate?
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
I agree with all of the above, but I didn't need to waste an evening in January to learn it. Wasn't this the 19th debate?
Yes but it was the first one that I watched start to finish. What you call wasting an evening in January is my desire to be an informed voter.
trplnkl
555
I wan't suggesting that the debates are in fact "high minded, intelligent, and revealing events", but they should be . Although a few light moments would help keep them more balanced.
Personally, I think the opening question was inappropriate for a presidential debate and I liked Newt's response. No one's love life should be the main focus.(yes, I would say the same if it Clinton's love life) I understand that most news media people disagree with me on that, but when are they really taking anything under consideration other than their ratings and getting their chosen guy the edge? IMO, there hasn't been enough true debating in this circuses (regardless of who is running it). All we hear are talking points and snippets.
Not to dodge your question of what was learned about the candidates, I can't answer. I didn't watch more than the first few minutes.
If your desire to be an informed voter was in any way nurtured by this debate, then it was not a waste for you. But if you found this debate enlightening and instructive into the exact direction the republican field would like to take the country in the next four years, then I wonder where you have been for the last three years, let alone the last 18 debates.
