Tea Party – Housing Manifesto

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CardiffBaseball]I’ve already said Gingrich’s personal life is scarred, this isn’t news. And many hard core types think he is a RINO if you must know.

However, the faith as a wedge stuff was not coming from him. He was laser focused on contract with america. The point Alan was trying to make is that you are making shit up. It’s called an agenda. Your agenda is simply that christian republicans are seeping from the sidewalks at every turn and must be stopped. Then you find a way to plop that agenda down, and in this case you plopped it into the wrong thread and got called on it. I don’t mind you having an agenda in some cases it drives discussion, but you need to step out of the prism you see the world through and realize it’s not all black and white.

I don’t recall anyone attaching Newt to the Falwell/Robertson wing. Read the contract with America (and see how much Bill implemented in a warmed over way)…. You aren’t going to see a lot of evangelical talk in it.[/quote]

Cardiff: Bingo. And very well said.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]I remember that the reign of Newt Gingrich on the Hill was when the Christian Coalition’s influence was at its strongest. Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were powerful figures in Washington.

[/quote]

Brian: Hmmm. So, let me get this straight. Newt was in power in Washington at the same time that influential evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were around, so Newt must be an evangelical Christian? Huh. That’s a real well-reasoned argument there, Bry.

Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.

Again, as both Cardiff and I have now pointed out, you bring this sort of bullshit to the table and act as though its proof of anything. You are thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized and anything that doesn’t fit within your narrowly held world-view is either ignored or papered over with some nonsensical response.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]I remember that the reign of Newt Gingrich on the Hill was when the Christian Coalition’s influence was at its strongest. Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were powerful figures in Washington.

[/quote]

Brian: Hmmm. So, let me get this straight. Newt was in power in Washington at the same time that influential evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were around, so Newt must be an evangelical Christian? Huh. That’s a real well-reasoned argument there, Bry.

Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.

Again, as both Cardiff and I have now pointed out, you bring this sort of bullshit to the table and act as though its proof of anything. You are thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized and anything that doesn’t fit within your narrowly held world-view is either ignored or papered over with some nonsensical response.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]I remember that the reign of Newt Gingrich on the Hill was when the Christian Coalition’s influence was at its strongest. Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were powerful figures in Washington.

[/quote]

Brian: Hmmm. So, let me get this straight. Newt was in power in Washington at the same time that influential evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were around, so Newt must be an evangelical Christian? Huh. That’s a real well-reasoned argument there, Bry.

Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.

Again, as both Cardiff and I have now pointed out, you bring this sort of bullshit to the table and act as though its proof of anything. You are thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized and anything that doesn’t fit within your narrowly held world-view is either ignored or papered over with some nonsensical response.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]I remember that the reign of Newt Gingrich on the Hill was when the Christian Coalition’s influence was at its strongest. Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were powerful figures in Washington.

[/quote]

Brian: Hmmm. So, let me get this straight. Newt was in power in Washington at the same time that influential evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were around, so Newt must be an evangelical Christian? Huh. That’s a real well-reasoned argument there, Bry.

Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.

Again, as both Cardiff and I have now pointed out, you bring this sort of bullshit to the table and act as though its proof of anything. You are thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized and anything that doesn’t fit within your narrowly held world-view is either ignored or papered over with some nonsensical response.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]I remember that the reign of Newt Gingrich on the Hill was when the Christian Coalition’s influence was at its strongest. Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were powerful figures in Washington.

[/quote]

Brian: Hmmm. So, let me get this straight. Newt was in power in Washington at the same time that influential evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed were around, so Newt must be an evangelical Christian? Huh. That’s a real well-reasoned argument there, Bry.

Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.

Again, as both Cardiff and I have now pointed out, you bring this sort of bullshit to the table and act as though its proof of anything. You are thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized and anything that doesn’t fit within your narrowly held world-view is either ignored or papered over with some nonsensical response.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]

Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]

Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]

Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]

Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]

Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)

[gandalf]

Ha,ha! Good one, Aecetia…

Or maybe we round all the assholes up, put them on TV for entertainment…

Oh right, that’s Fox News.

Change of topic, did # of SFR listings / for sale inventory go up past couple of weeks?

[gandalf]

Ha,ha! Good one, Aecetia…

Or maybe we round all the assholes up, put them on TV for entertainment…

Oh right, that’s Fox News.

Change of topic, did # of SFR listings / for sale inventory go up past couple of weeks?

[gandalf]

Ha,ha! Good one, Aecetia…

Or maybe we round all the assholes up, put them on TV for entertainment…

Oh right, that’s Fox News.

Change of topic, did # of SFR listings / for sale inventory go up past couple of weeks?

[gandalf]

Ha,ha! Good one, Aecetia…

Or maybe we round all the assholes up, put them on TV for entertainment…

Oh right, that’s Fox News.

Change of topic, did # of SFR listings / for sale inventory go up past couple of weeks?

[Author]

Posts