http://www.asianhairandbeauty.com/category/asian-women-hair-styles/women-long-asian-hair-styles/
The best I can do for you, Brush. Not top quality, I’m afraid.
You’re starting pit threads with no more than a link and a “deserves to be Pitted!”
They’re tepid OPs, barely even heated enough for MPSIMS. If I didn’t see your name at the top of them, I would think they had been authored by Big T.
I don’t understand why you’re even bothering. Obviously, it’s not because you’re pissed off at the subject, so there must be some other reason to be doing this every three or six days. Are you a moron, a numbskull, a dipshit? An attention whore (Look At Me!!!), a Pit thread whore (Obviously, I’m important, look at all the responses I get to my Pit threads.), a random dweeb who can’t be bothered to marshal facts, reasons, and invective to tell the rest of us why he’s (not) pissed off?
This thread, starting with “Is this some kind of Pokemon challenge?” and continuing on through the Korean hair fetishist, made me laugh so hard that I actually had to get up and leave the coffee shop for a minute because I was disturbing people.
Carry on.
Can we pick multiple choices on this poll?
Does this mean that this time he will divorce wife #3 before he starts banging the intern?
So what? BFD. If I want to start a thread because someone annoys me I will. Maybe I’ll do it more often just to annoy you because you annoy me.
Come up with your own fucking thread. What, are you jealous?
I can’t think of a bigger waste of time than explaining why Newt Gingrich pisses me off. He can do it in his own words which is what the link is for.
And then, out of nowhere comes “the brush” who manages to bring a whole new level of entertainment to the Pit. The thread was worth it just for that.
So shove it!
That is in fact what the article is referring to; they’re counting his three marriages as “non adultery pledges” and counting this as #4.
So to his credit, so far, he’s batting .500. He’s only broken two of his pledges!
I should point out that Euphonius Polemic knocked this out of the park in Post 2. If the Democrats raise Gingrich’s appalling personal ethics, the Republicans WILL turn it around and try to paint Obama as a bad family man. I’d bet money on it, and I’d bet money it will work on a lot of people. EP is not making a joke; it’s been done. In 2004 the Democrats ran a war hero (John Kerry) against a guy who, shall we say, put some effort into avoiding wartime service (George Bush) and successfully painted Kerry as a bad soldier.
I’m not sure what twist they’ll put on Obama to make him seem like a bad family man. Phony rumours perhaps, but that doesn’t seem nearly devious enough.
They’ll pay some poor white gal to come forward and claim that Barack fathered her child. That way they appeal to all sorts of bigots, idiots, morons and suckers (ie most Republicans.)
As for Newt…he won’t be able to keep it in his pants. That’s a foregone conclusion.
Why hire a gal when you can hire a guy?
You should be ashamed of yourself, taking cheap pot shots at the man who stands between us and Auschwitz.
Good call.
Because then you can’t call him a deadbeat dad. Duh.
I presume that Gingrich signed it to offer those voters on the far right who are uncomfortable with voting for a filanderer the excuse to feel ok about voting for him over Romney.
Sure, we all know it ain’t worth the paper it’s signed on, but we can pretend it means something. After all, redemption is what Jesus was all about, yes? 
I don’t think we’ll be able to lay this controversy to rest until we’ve seen the long form certificate.
Swiftboating.
Please show me any “family values” Republican that is pro-Newt.
Does anybody have a video of Newt Gingrich combing his hair?
+3, actually, since he’s done them three times…
Seriously, it had been my impression that the prior three no-adultery pledges referred to in the article were marriage vows.
Don’t you mean carving?
Oh, come on! This whole pantomime is designed as a cover for Newt’s endorsement by Bob VanderPlaats and his merry band of holier-than-thou proto-Christians. It is all a show because our boy Newt has VanderPlaats in his pocket. Newt owns VanderPlaats because Newt provided the substantial amount of the funding for VanderPlaats’ campaign to remove the three state supreme court justices who were up for retention in the 2010 election. That campaign had everything to do with the Iowa court’s unanimous rejection of our own VanderPlaats, et al, inspired Defense of Marriage statute. All Newt has to do to get the endorsement, which will butter a lot of parsnips with Iowa Republican Caucus goers, is to make some sort of noise that can be construed as a concurrence in the Great Monogamous-Heterosexual-No Abortion Ever Pledge that the missionary society wing of the local Republican Party has already extracted from the likes of Representative Bachman and former Senator Oily Discharge.
The question remains, however, why no one has held Newt down and actually tattooed the word ”Corrupt” across his forehead.