This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

And it's NEWT for the score!

 
The politically correct don't like inconvenient facts!

22 comments:

NewGuy said...

I still consider myself "undecided" kn the primaries...but, it's pretty much between Mitt and Newt in my mind.

I would like to see the others drop out so that we can have a head - to -head choice for the rest of the primary season ...(I discount Ron Paul - I see NO chance for him to become president)

Blogger said...

Ditto!

Sarkazein said...

Ditto!

Johnny rico said...

Yes but Ron Paul has the best plan for America - lower taxes, get out of foreign affairs, and kick illegal aliens out. What more could you ask for!

Mitt also has no chance to be President because many conservative minded conservatives such as me won't vote for a RINO like him.

Blogger said...

Rush Limbaugh, admitted to jumping out of his chair on several occasions while watching.

“It was everything that the establishment Republicans don’t want to hear and don’t want to see,” he said.

He added: “Obama doesn’t stand a prayer, if Newt were the nominee . . . in the debates.” Newsmax.com:

guy faulkes said...

Juan Williams, Bob Beckle, and Combs serve the same function on Fos as Jack does here. It is much easier to articulate sound opinions when you get to bounce them off the ramblings of the left.

Sarkazein said...

One of things I fear from Newt would be Obama inviting him to the White House for a beer and a movie or one of the Obama parties. Newt could develop a man-crush on Obama like he did Bill Clinton.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

Newt balanced the budget.

Your partisan games are ruining my country.

With all due respect, Newt's words have more value than yours.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

The liberal media really wants Romney. What more do you need to know?

Multiple people on this conservative blog are telling you, flat out, that they will not vote for Romney. I know you favor the establishment guy, but the simple fact is that Gingrich is smarter than Obama, and he thinks very quickly on his feet. If your partisan buddies don't keep him from the nomination, he will crush Obama in the debates. If Romney wins the primaries, turnout will be anemic and not only will he lose, there is a good chance Congress will swing back to Obama's side.

You have got to get over Gingrich's unwillingness to walk in ideological lockstep with your partisan program, and give the man the opportunity to win in a landslide.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- I thought Newt was a Republican. You should be glad if Romney wins the primary. Then you can vote for Obama like you promised. I would have no problem voting for Newt in the general election. But, he had a man-crush on Bill Clinton and spent time on a love-seat with Pelosi. Bi-political is the same thing as bi-sexual. Once you've crossed that line...

Sarkazein said...

" I know you favor the establishment guy..."-MikeD

So far I had written I was supporting Cain in this primary, until he suspended. I wrote of my support of Santorum after that.
How is your extreme dislike of Romney not partisan? How is your strong support on Newt, an Olde Guard Republican war horse, not partisan. I think the word partisan is quite flexible in your mind as is your "core" beliefs.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- How does one develop a man-crush on a credibly accused rapist, convicted liar, molester, like Bill Clinton? One's judgement could be in question.
Did Newt spend time on the love-seat with Pelosi for cash? Did he spout the man-made global warming hoax to be allowed a slug off the government (Pelosi) teet (Fannie/Freddie)?

Johnny Rico said...

Sarks comment is interesting. Well Mike D, how about that man crush? LOL!

Mike D. said...

Rico,

Some posts cannot be dignified with a response. The terms "credibly" and "man-crush" both appear in his comment. This is just plain silly.

Plus, Sark's cliched jargon is morphing into something befitting of a socialist. Next thing you know, he'll be talking about the "military/industrial complex" and "social justice".

guy faulkes said...

Why do you not think the term credibly accused rapist, molester , and liar is not accurate, MikeD?

Mike D. said...

Guy,

Although the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that a person is innocent until proven guilty, the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments have been used, as a continuity of legal intent, to solidify the concept of 'presumption of innocence' in the United States.

I do not recall that "credibly accused" means anything at all in a real sense.

Anyway, I was not talking about that sentence. I was talking about the evolution of Sark's rhetoric. When we get too accustomed to falling back on cliches in our political speech, we lose sight of how silly it may begin to sound. Following the term "man-crush" with the word "credibly", in my opinion, fits into this category.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- If someone you hold to be credible told you the babysitter you were interviewing is a child molester but has never been legally charged with the crime, would you trust the accused child molester with the safety of your children? Or would you say, "Although the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that a person is innocent until proven guilty, the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments have been used, as a continuity of legal intent, to solidify the concept of 'presumption of innocence' in the United States."

Sarkazein said...

Mike D- My two reasons given as to why I have not expressed support for Newt are "partisan" in what way?

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- Instead of the term "man-crush", if that makes you uncomfortable, how about- mesmerized by?

Sarkazein said...

Not my word (mesmerized) by the way.

guy faulkes said...

I would think that credibly accused would fit in the same category as articulate suspicion or probable cause. It is difficult to see how the rule of law could work without any of them. Just because any of them exist, does not mean there has been any crime committed or any particular person is guilty. This where the trial and innocent until proven guilty come in.

Sarkazein said...

To be fair, will CNN's opening question to Obama in the Presidential debates be about Larry Sinclair and the time Obama spent with him in the back of the limo doing blow and cocaine?