|misterbuns - 2012-01-11 |
Good thing New Gingrich is a fat old man who is going to die soon. He isn't going to like the future very much.
If only. Gingrich is wealthy enough that he won't die before his doctors have done every single thing they can to buy his worm-eaten body a few more minutes.
|Mother_Puncher - 2012-01-11 |
The real surprise here is that this jowly fat fuck is able to string together such a bigoted statement without having to stop and pull out pieces of his own face fat so he doesn't stumble over it as he flaps his hateful mouth. He looks like someone held a lighter up to the face of a wax statue of John Lithgow and punched it in the nose. I bet he has to sleep on his stomach to keep from drowning in a pool of his own loose face skin.
Newt Gingrich's face looks like a cheap Halloween mask that someone smacked against a wall for at least an hour.
Newt Gingrich's skull must have had creative differences with the rest of his face and left to start its own project.
Newt Gingrich looks like a jellyfish in an unconvincing wig.
Newt Gingrich's face is what happens when the Pilsbury Dough Boy rolls around in a pile of goat hair, melts partially, and becomes a deadite.
Newt Gingrich is the most consistently scummy man in American politics.
two related videos:
Demonius on his Tosh.0 Appearance
DwayneHollowayTV - How To Create A Killer In 3 Simple Steps
Newt Gingrich is basically the preppy version of these guys.
|Hooker - 2012-01-11 |
I can sum up the Republican nomination process:
Candidate 1: blarg
Candidate 2: blarg
Candidate 1: blarg.
Candidate 2: blarg!
Candidate 1: Blarg!
Candidate 2: Blarg!!
Candidate 1: Blarg!!!!!!!
Candidate 2: BLARG!!!!!!!
Candidate 1: BLAAAAAAAAARGG!!!!!!!!!!
Candidate 2: B! L! A! R! G!
Candidate 1: Fuck black people
Time to throw some hay-makers at the gay punching bag.
|Riskbreaker - 2012-01-11 |
Is it really that hard for the republican party to find a candidate that doesn't look like an extra for a zombie movie?
|Rodents of Unusual Size - 2012-01-12 |
It's not true, even though I just said it was true.
|kamlem - 2012-01-12 |
So the government shouldn't impose it's values on religion, but the government should pay religion to impose bigoted values on everyone else. Well, I'm convinced.
|StanleyPain - 2012-01-12 |
It's interesting how all these GOP cocksuckers keep repeating the mantra of "STATES RIGHTS" when it comes to virtually every issue under the sun, but yet, there definitely needs to be all KINDS of federal level legislation to stop the Gay Menace.
It's just to whip up their base. If their idea of States Rights goes through, all the discrimination against non-heterosexual white males they could dream of will happen overnight in most places.
If someone thinks that without the Civil Rights Act of 1964, racism would have ended by itself due to "market forces" or some other fairy tale, they're either trying to hide a desire to see Jim Crow return for as many minority groups as possible, or they're just mentally deficient. Or both.
|memedumpster - 2012-01-12 |
The Catholics in Louisville pulled this shit. Just another way to fuck children.
|Squeamish - 2012-01-12 |
The sad thing is that after the elections are done, this deflated Macy's day parade balloon of a man is going to rake in millions on the lecture/book-selling circuit.
|Prickly Pete - 2012-01-12 |
I may not be understanding real well bceause I'm not that smart, but, wouldn't saying, "Hey church, let gay couples adopt your kids or lose funding" realistically actually BE forcing them to shut down? I mean sure they "decide" to close down, but short of changing the doctrines of that church (and I'm sure the church goers would love that) it does seem like a force. Not that it wouldn't be a justifiable force, but a force all the same.
I may be wrong because that entails me agreeing with part of something New Gingrich said, and as little as I know about politics, I hear he's evil.
Being technically correct doesn't make his statement any less reprehensible.
AFAIK it's actually closer to how Newt described it. Mass. said: "if you want to provide adoption services, you have to allow gays to adopt," and the archbishop closed them in a huff.
Is it ok to have private, politically motivated adoption centers? I'd say no, but it's at least tolerable if they don't break laws. Here, the state stepped in to prevent that from happening.
In my view, you don't get a pass for shit like that because you believe it. You're accountable for them. That's not the big bad secularists trying to remove religion from the public sphere, it's caring people deciding in the absence of a fixed ideology that gays shouldn't be the new mixed-race couples, and at least in Massachusetts, they're winning.
They chose to close. If you ask me, they should close the diocese while they're at it.
If my religion demands I sacrifice hobos three times a year by the light of the moon then yes the government is forcing me to disobey the dictates of my religion with their archaic 'anti murder' laws.
And fuck Newt for making a bunch of homophobic, child-sacrificing crybabies look like the victim here. Thank god he's so unelectable.
There are a couple of subtleties I failed to mention. The diocese had placed kids with gay couples in the past, but had been slapped down by the Vatican for doing so. The bishop is probably not a clear bad guy here.
Also, it happened in Massachusetts, while Romney was governor, so that's probably why Newt's making a big deal about it.
They're not being forced. They could stay open if all those "charitable" Christian folk decided to donate to and fund the adoption services. What happened to these good Christian Republicans not wanting government services and promoting private charity?
Yeah. I haven't looked into any of this because I couldn't care less about MA adoption laws, but the girl kept talking about funding, and Newt's at least not stupid but didn't harp on legalities here, so I'm very lightly assuming that you can operate an adoption center without government funding, but the church decided to be a baby about not being funded by the government any more.
It was a few years ago. The agency's employees had no problem placing children with gay parents. Doing otherwise would have meant breaking Mass's anti-discrimination law. The Vatican caught wind, and not long after, four bishops in charge of the agency asked Romney to be exempted from the law. He said no. They also planned to mount a legal defense using money that would otherwise have gone to getting kids adopted. They employees threatened to leave en masse if that happened, and eventually the bishops pulled the plug.
By the way, they were spending roughly mil/yr in mostly government money to place 30 kids (out of hundreds more). Now, *I* don't see a problem with that, but it sure seems like Newt's abandoning his core "save money by fucking over the weak" Republican values here.
dunno why I said archbishop before. "my" diocese has one but I have no idea if Boston's does.
|smellslikefish - 2012-01-12 |
Why ask any politician what they think? Apparently "facts" don't exist.
|dairyqueenlatifah - 2012-01-12 |
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IS DISCRIMINATION!
| Register or login To Post a Comment|