CommentsDisplaying David's 10 most recent comments.

• ‘This Is What Flailing Looks Like’: Watch Fox Panel Rip Gingrich’s Nevada Speech

  February 5, 2012 at 5:12pm

  The problem is that you all forget that back in 1968 with Nixon, 1972, 1976, and 1980, when it came to the idea of the size of government, and when reagan came along and talked about it, even comparing it to Nixon or Ford administrations, not just to Carter, it was always on this relative scale! So, reagan was a great orator, so would constantly talk about reducing the size of the government, and government being the problem, and government getting out of the way. But the problem is, reagan was a complete thinking, and NOT a libertarian like ron paul! a lot of you think by all these statements that reagan was like the extreme thinking that some hold today, a radical reaction to all the crazy spending! and even people like newt gingrich who keeps talking about colonies on the moon and “big ideas!”

  but, you see, that’s the thing, in some ways reagan was a little bit like newt in that he had a romantic idea of america such as in th space program, or the federal government getting involved in important discoveries! He USED to be a democrat, remember? The difference between him and Newt i believe is that reagan had a brain, and can see that its not in the budget! but still, wouldd never talk like ron paul does, without a glimmer in his eye about america, and actually wanting to spend some money on programs if afffordable, and would not threaten the republic!

  So, quit thinkin santorum, who had a few votes that none of u seem to want to even listen to him on, isnt th

• ‘This Is What Flailing Looks Like’: Watch Fox Panel Rip Gingrich’s Nevada Speech

  February 5, 2012 at 5:03pm

  I’m not sure what a lot of these comments have to do with the article. Plus, the title of this acticle seems a bit misleading to me since it implies all of the fox panels comments concerning Nets speech were negative, when if you read the article, it speaks about them giving some praise to what Newt says concerning some things, but criticism towards his response towards Mitt romney and his victory.

  I’m not a Newt supporter whatsoever, but like these analyst (even though I’m not a fan of these particular analyst either!) I tend to enjoy some of what Newt says abou certain things as well.

  I sort of wish Newt could have just stayeed as he was, a voice “in the background,” with some of his oratory or debatee skills he uses to combat the media, and give some “history lessons” once in a while (although as Glenn put it, I didn’t like his Andrew Jackson reference, since his idea of killing the enemy was slaughtering relatively defenseless native americans).

  But anyway… the problem with you people is you talk a big talk, but dont really give any real solutions. No one seems to mentio9n Rick Santorum as an answer. And if you critisize him as not being tea party enough because some of his votes, it seems to me you become a bit ridiculous, and have a bit too romantic idea of president reagan. It’s true Santorum is not as radical as Rom Paul in the fiscal area, or a few tea party congress people, but come on! Santorum is not to the left of reagan fiscally!

• Report: Upcoming ABC Interview With Gingrich Ex-Wife Could ‘End’ Candidate’s Career, Network Likely to Air This Thursday

  January 19, 2012 at 10:19am

  My point though is I was against Newt before needing something like this, and for other things besides this. ABC may have sinister motives for bringing this up, who knows! But, that’s not my point. In a way, ABC bringing it up does make me have a “knee jerk” reaction to want to make me defend Newt simply because I suspect they are up to no good. :-) I mean, I don’t like these kind o things either, such as the case with Hermain Cain, I didn’t like the “timing” issue either. I mean, it DID matter to me if he was having affairs and such. However, the fact that it came out to correspond at just the moment he was ahead in the polls does make me wonder. And the same thing here! So, I do get “defensive” the other way as many of you probably feel like as well. And that may cause you to dismiss this as “nothing” and want to move on, or “old story.”

  But my point, like with Obama, is the “old story” to SOME, as if they know about it and don’t care, to others has made them discount him from the beginning! So, bringing it up to people like me, even if I don;t like the source and timing, if it’s TRUE, why not LOOK AT IT! (1) Moral character, DOES it matter? (2) The idea that iff it’s “in the past,“ can you automatically ”forget it?” (3) if you say you should automatically forget all past actions, then why is this campaign ALL about constainly talking about BAIN and everything ABOUT the past for goodness sake! Even if Newt is sorry doesnt mean he wont

• Report: Upcoming ABC Interview With Gingrich Ex-Wife Could ‘End’ Candidate’s Career, Network Likely to Air This Thursday

  January 19, 2012 at 10:10am

  The phenomenon of Newt reminds me exactly of Mr. Obama. To this day I can’t believe all of the people who say they were “duked” by Obama, as if with all his rhetorical speeches, on his fancy, colossal campaigns always completely removed everything Obama did and said his entire live as a Senator, citizen, and “community organizer” before that time! And it’s these SAME people that are so “scary” to me that seem to change their mind like their underwear every morning based on what Newt might say in a debate, and I realize he’s good, so is Obama! So, you want “the best with the best,” I get it! But, what good is it to have 2 great charismatic people if you look at what they ACUTALLY believe and do BEHIND the scenes and that falls short? Are people REALLY this stupid?

  It’s as if you want a more conservative version of Obama to go up against Obama, a political fraud, who’s great a debates, and turning on a crowd, but in this case, saying all the right things to give the conservatives political orgasms. What ever happened to charater?

  I understand about the past is the past, and about forgiveness. And I don’t hold any of what Newt has done against him personally. But for goodness sake, we’re picking a president people! Those who say you‘re not picking a pastor or choir boy I would say that’s right, I would want someone better morally than that seeing how many of them are, someone I could trust personally, and you can’t separate personal morality from th

• Mother of Gay Son Asks Santorum & His Wife How to Handle Her ‘Sense of Guilt’ Over Supporting Him

  January 18, 2012 at 4:21pm

  So, yes, the government should leave people be. But it itself has always beeen seen as an institution that should promote what is right and godly values and ethics, not establishing a religion, or forcing anyone, or its citizens to believe in any particular dogma, but still, to promote judeo-Christian values, which it was founded upon, and which it from the beginning believed it needed to prmote to its people in order to last, such as the institution of marriage, and family, accountability to a higher power, the ethics of the Bible, and so forth.This does not mean to require anyone to believe in them.

  This is where the ACLU gets it wrong. If anyone feels “offended” by this because that person doesnt believe in God, that is too bad. In 1776 there were few atheists, so it wasn’t an issue. It was more about moral character and so forth. And the government never wanted to foster or force any particular denomination doctine, establishing a church, that was the point, such as they had in other countries at the time. You libertarians who seek to go back and brag about being a “strict constitutionist” MUST understand at the time it was written the idea of personal morality and the government promoting it was absolutely not an issue! It was not to be FORCED, of course, but promoting is DIFFERENT. Do you understand? Washington would promote good ethics and behavior. So stop with the stay out of the bedroom liberal stuff! No one is coming into any bedroom to arrest anyone!

• Mother of Gay Son Asks Santorum & His Wife How to Handle Her ‘Sense of Guilt’ Over Supporting Him

  January 18, 2012 at 3:58pm

  This is where so many of you dopes don’t get it. It’s like I was talking about making a law to have to “state the obvious,” such as a judge to not rule on sharia law to be ever accepted as a legitimate argument to excuse behavior, or have it entered in as some kind of “dual law” as accpeted. It seems absurd lawnmakers would need to make a law to forbid judges to rule in such a manner. But, lawmakers for reasons to control such actions do so. Don’t you get it? I don’t like the idea either.

  The marrriage amendment would not actually say much of anything. That‘s where most off you don’t get it either. It’s pretty much not an amendment like any of the other that instructs any persons to do, act, say, or not to do, act, or say anything! it simply states that marriage is between a man and a woman period. The reason I suspect you don’t like it is because you libertarians are secretly liberals really, as you give yourself away with the “stay out off the bedroom” comments! To simply state what marriage means doesn’t enter anyones personal life, restrict commerce, instruct any behavior of anyone! it doesn’t even stop gay people from marrying or doing whatever they want! It’s just sort of like the USA “snactioning” what marriage is, period. You don’t like the idea of the USA taking any kind of ethical stance, as the founders did in original writings? It’s all over the D. of I.! The “pursuit of happiness” is a PERSONAL thing you dimwits, that is getti

• Mother of Gay Son Asks Santorum & His Wife How to Handle Her ‘Sense of Guilt’ Over Supporting Him

  January 18, 2012 at 2:32pm

  In reply to another mimi.

  By the way @Mimi, I grew up in the school sysems in Cherry Hill, NJ, which were extremely liberal, and I never knew any other classmates who truly believed in God. And ffrom the VERY beginning of my school experience in elementary school, I heard name calling of “gay,“ and ”***,“ ”******,” etc., this was back in the late 60‘s and early 70’s. And I came ffrom a home that my parents never talked about such things, and I never saw anything about it on tv back then. So, I had no CLUE what these words meant until much later! All I knew was that they were insults! For many years through elementary school I thought if someone was called “gay” it just meant they were extremely weird or something, nothing sexual. I was quite “innocent” and naive.

  My point in bringing this up that all the people constantly calling me and others these names were NEVER Chrstians or ANYONE who believed in God, or loving people. It was only later in my life when I meant TRUE Christians that showed me LOVE, and I have NEVER, honestly, have know someone who has truly experienced the love of Jesus Chrst in their loves, acepted Him as Lord 100%, surrendered everything to Him, and then bashed gay people in hate, calling them names such as I heard all through growing up, never. All of the names and meannes ha always been ffrom the non-religious, the opposite of what you say. Those who truly have know the love off God (not people who simply say they do, or don’t walk the walk) always love.

• Mother of Gay Son Asks Santorum & His Wife How to Handle Her ‘Sense of Guilt’ Over Supporting Him

  January 18, 2012 at 2:18pm

  No one is born gay, Mimi, according to the Bible. There is certainly no proof of this. And when people say stuff like, “Who would ever choose to be gay?” actually demean it! lol You know what I mean? it’s like they are saying, “If anyone had a CHOICE, they would NEVER choose such a thing!!!” Well, how do gay people feel about THAT? What would a black person say if like a white person would say the same thing??? “Who would ever choose to be black?” I can understand the minority status, or being abused and that sort of thing. But, where’s the “gay pride,“ or ”black pride” if anyone wanted to be the other? Of course no one wants to suffer discrimination, & anyone who cares about others would work to do something about that. Of course, with race its different because we ARE born that way, and there’s no morality involved. And that’s why its so INSULTING to see people who are invvolved with such an immorality as being in the same breath as racial issues! It must be so disgusting to biblical minority folks!

  Jesus even said to “love your enemies.” It’s true that extreme muslims put to death homosexuals. As Christians we are called to love everyone.

  Now, I don’t consider anyone who sins an “enemy!” To me an enemy is anyone who is against the good news of the gospel, sort off like the pharisees in the Bible, or those who will not forgive others. So, as a believer myself, I love everyone, including those who engage in sodomy, sexual perversions, or whateve

• Mother of Gay Son Asks Santorum & His Wife How to Handle Her ‘Sense of Guilt’ Over Supporting Him

  January 18, 2012 at 2:06pm

  In reply to another mimi.

  @Mimi, I can understand how you could come to that conclusion. The majority who dont understant the Bible correctly, which is most people, view this the same way. That’s why in Canada and other places the Bible, or portions off it, has actually been outlawed as :”hate speach,” for the way you are thinking.

  I’m sure you may have heard this before, “love the sinner but not the sin.” This isse seems to always come down to the deep rooted believe, of course, in whether homosexuality is something inherent in a person’s genes, and “innocent” in that the activity is something that is not a wrong act, or in any way a choice. Most people are a bit simple minded about this, because of course homosexual thoughts may not be “chosen” any more than a pedaphile waking up one morning and thinking, “hey, I think I’ll begin or choose to start to think about having sex with perteens,” after never having any thoughts about this before! If someone all the sudden, early in life, has a homosexual thought, it doesn‘t mean it’s in their genes. lol There’s no proof of that, even if they didn’t “choose” it! It may seem like an innocent thought, but its still sinful. And Christians believe in satan.

  I realize when you say something like this it’s labeled as “hate.” The funny thing is if a muslim told me if a muslim PEACEFULLY told me because I did not believe in Allah & his holy prophet Muhammed, I would not go to heaven, or be tortured or whatever, I would not get a

• Mother of Gay Son Asks Santorum & His Wife How to Handle Her ‘Sense of Guilt’ Over Supporting Him

  January 18, 2012 at 1:49pm

  When people make laws, or even amendments to the constitution that seem extremely “redundant,” there is a reaction within me, as with many of you, to see them as not only unnecessary, but wrong by that very reason! I mean, such as having to ever make a LAW to instruct a judge never to rule based on sharia law, or to base his or her rulings with sharia law in mind, actually using it to justify any action because it happens to be that individuals “religion,” to me seems utterly ridiculous! For, any judge foolish enough to believe in such a thing should not be a judge! But, thus lay the issue! You can’t impeach a judge for a crazy, insane ruling as you know, and they can stay on til death in the federal level! So, this creates this whole issue! What can the legislature do to prevent such rulings?

  So, how I see it is a matter of principle vs. practical application.We want to view everything as “absolute,“ such as ”no exceptions!” And that principle should apply to everything, and I agree with that in my soul as well! But, in the area of “practice,” and santorum tries to explain these situtions if anyone will listen to him when he does explain.. (and btw, I don’t alway “buy” or agree with his explanations, but sometimes they make some sense. but at least you people should LISTEN & not just all be about sound bites!) If judges are out of control w/ ruling on gay marriage in the control, the idea of a marriage amendment is one of pragmatism only.