Another one bites the dust - Gingrich Working with Arms Dealers

http ://www.knowthelies.com/node/6844


DCBureau has learned that Gingrich was at the center of a U.S. Justice Department criminal investigation in the late 1990s for a scheme to shake down the arms dealer for a $10 million bribe in exchange for Gingrich using his influence as Speaker to get the Iraq arms embargo lifted so Soghanalian could collect $54 million from Saddam Hussein’s regime for weapons he had delivered during the Iran-Iraq War.


[video=youtube;rY0WxgSXdEE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE&ob=av3e[/video]

lol. It's turning out to be a great day for Newt Romney haters everywhere.

thats to bad republicans love f##ed up candidates. im sure this will only give him more street cred with the GOP

So, 2 decades ago, Newt Gingrich was involved in an investigation that turned up no prosecutions...

Guilt by association?

You keep this up deprave and I start digging up bullshit on RP and make your hair turn grey and fall out...

NLXSK1 said:

So, 2 decades ago, Newt Gingrich was involved in an investigation that turned up no prosecutions...

Guilt by association?

You keep this up deprave and I start digging up bullshit on RP and make your hair turn grey and fall out...

Click to expand...

lol go for it..this is legit, why are you in denial?

Newt Gingrich is associated with war profiteers, he works for them, I am not sure why it surprises you that he is also possibly involved with an Arms Dealer, he was investigated for it.

NLXSK1 said:

So, 2 decades ago, Newt Gingrich was involved in an investigation that turned up no prosecutions...

Guilt by association?

You keep this up deprave and I start digging up bullshit on RP and make your hair turn grey and fall out...

Click to expand...

Well I could write a book on why not to vote for Newt Gingrich. Most importantly, I would not vote for Newt because he has no values or principles. He does not stand for anything and is only running for President to gain power and to persuade and control people. This is obvious to anyone who has heard this man speak and really paid attention to what he is saying (or not saying).

-He claims to be the most nonpartisan, but this is because he molds his positions on issues to gain votes and doesn't stand by any principles.
-He took $1.6m that we know of from Fannie and Freddie Mac at the very time they were growing the housing bubble. (the same time Ron Paul was fighting and warning America)
-A true leader should lead by example. Newt divorced 2 wives when they were both sick. At the very time Newt was having an affair he was attacking Clinton for having an affair.
-Newts top contributors are the usual suspects, recently getting a $5m super pac fund from a Las Vegas billionaire casino profiteer.
-Newt promotes preemptive wars and deceptive foreign policies. (For example promoted the killing of Iranian scientist[citizens])
-Newt tells the minorities that they don't have a work ethic, and suggested a ridiculous children's janitor work program, then is confused as to why that is very offensive???
-Newt is just another politician, an Obama, a Romney, or a Santorum, who share one goal, the drive for power. If you listen to Ron Paul, you will see that he doesn't want power, he only wants to spread the message of freedom. Perhaps this is why the media questions Paul's seriousness of electability, because he does not sacrifice his principles and views in order to win the presidency. He tell us the truth.

In retrospect, I'm not sure working with arms dealers is a deal breaker for republican primary voters. Some of them might see that as a good thing.

who cares?

Deprave,

South Carolina didn't get your memo.

Hey, Newt might win the presidency ... But dont worry... Lifegoesonbrah...


He also managed to forge some pretty decent workfare legislation with President Clinton in the middle of an extremely partisan relationship with Congress.

He has shown that he can get shit done when the political system is mostly paralyzed.

Can Paul say the same thing?

NLXSK1 said:

Hey, Newt might win the presidency ... But dont worry... Lifegoesonbrah...


He also managed to forge some pretty decent workfare legislation with President Clinton in the middle of an extremely partisan relationship with Congress.

He has shown that he can get shit done when the political system is mostly paralyzed.

Can Paul say the same thing?

Click to expand...

It's a good thing elementary kids can't vote for him. He's the Marie Antoinette of congress. He'll let kids bring their own fucking cake to school, no freeloaders allowed. He will get rid child labor laws and make them earn their keep. Who needs to waste money on canaries when Mexicans sneak over the border and breed like rabbits. Gotta make some use for them somehow.

NLXSK1 said:

Hey, Newt might win the presidency ... But dont worry... Lifegoesonbrah...


He also managed to forge some pretty decent workfare legislation with President Clinton in the middle of an extremely partisan relationship with Congress.

He has shown that he can get shit done when the political system is mostly paralyzed.

Can Paul say the same thing?

Click to expand...

Well, If you consider "getting shit done" equivalent to compromising principles of the constitution to satisfy the left, then I would say he is a fairly fine candidate in that aspect. Why do you think Ron Paul adopts such passionate followers? He is a great leader and inspires millions of people to stand up against the hypocrisy of government. The neocons claim to want small government, yet promote high taxes for a massive military. The liberals say they promote social freedom, but imprison us by taking our money and giving it to other designated groups of people. The two main parties in America want big government. They want control. Libertarians want small government and maximum freedom, just as the founding fathers outlined. The constitution was designed solely to limit government and protect liberty.

lifegoesonbrah said:

Well, If you consider "getting shit done" equivalent to compromising principles of the constitution to satisfy the left, then I would say he is a fairly fine candidate in that aspect. Why do you think Ron Paul adopts such passionate followers? He is a great leader and inspires millions of people to stand up against the hypocrisy of government. The neocons claim to want small government, yet promote high taxes for a massive military. The liberals say they promote social freedom, but imprison us by taking our money and giving it to other designated groups of people. The two main parties in America want big government. They want control. Libertarians want small government and maximum freedom, just as the founding fathers outlined. The constitution was designed solely to limit government and protect liberty.

Click to expand...

The problem is that your brand of freedom is very strange. It gives corporations freedom to do whatever they want and gives us the freedom to work for them as indentured servants.

Dan Kone said:

The problem is that your brand of freedom is very strange. It gives corporations freedom to do whatever they want and gives us the freedom to work for them as indentured servants.

Click to expand...

Corporations are a socialist entity. I know they're not your form of socialism, but socialism none the less. A corporation isn't a free market tool. It's a corrupt government tool. Socialism doesn't mean the will of the people but the will of the government. What we have now is socialism dressed up like capitalism to try and fool us.

Dan Kone said:

The problem is that your brand of freedom is very strange. It gives corporations freedom to do whatever they want and gives us the freedom to work for them as indentured servants.

Click to expand...

and certain freedoms my wife currently possesses could be taken away based on who he would appoint to the SCOTUS.

man, even imagining a ronald presidency makes me chuckle a little inside.

Dan Kone said:

The problem is that your brand of freedom is very strange. It gives corporations freedom to do whatever they want and gives us the freedom to work for them as indentured servants.

Click to expand...

My brand of freedom is not strange, It is what our country was founded on! It is the idea of our founders. Today, we fear corporations because they have so much power and influence. It is not free capitalism that has made them excessively strong, the cause is government intervention and influence in politics. A free market system works wonderfully, because it causes free competition amongst businesses. The free market system is not necessarily good for business, as uninterrupted competition is the best for consumers because it keeps prices low and causes maximum efficiency. When government gets involved, that efficiency diminishes as you are breaking that consumer-producer link (housing, medical, education...). When you break that direct relationship between consumers and producers with government intervention, prices rise and inefficiencies occur.
Another problem is when you allow government to be persuaded to give favoritism to certain corporations by lobbyist (Gingrich, Santorum). Money in politics is bad and antithetical to a free market system. This is not what our founders envisioned as a free market. As a great man once said:
[h=6]“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” Lincoln[/h]

lifegoesonbrah said:

My brand of freedom is not strange, It is what our country was founded on! It is the idea of our founders. Today, we fear corporations because they have so much power and influence. It is not free capitalism that has made them excessively strong, the cause is government intervention and influence in politics. A free market system works wonderfully, because it causes free competition amongst businesses. The free market system is not necessarily good for business, as uninterrupted competition is the best for consumers because it keeps prices low and causes maximum efficiency. When government gets involved, that efficiency diminishes as you are breaking that consumer-producer link (housing, medical, education...). When you break that direct relationship between consumers and producers with government intervention, prices rise and inefficiencies occur.
Another problem is when you allow government to be persuaded to give favoritism to certain corporations by lobbyist (Gingrich, Santorum). Money in politics is bad and antithetical to a free market system. This is not what our founders envisioned as a free market. As a great man once said:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” Lincoln

Click to expand...

i would love for you to find me where in the constitution the founders specify that our economic system should follow a free-market, capitalist structure....

i'll be around...

Since the constitution is limitation of government, the absence of such words that would delegate power of the government to control the markets should indicate the fact that the intention was that of a free market system. Congress has power to regulate the economy as outlined under article 1 section 8. However, we should not have entities, such as the FDA, which prohibits entrance into the market and promotes monopolies. Free market capitalism is the American way, because any other economy would hinder our civil liberties. Thomas Jefferson speaking for the intentions of free markets:

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." – Thomas Jefferson (1801)

Canna Sylvan said:

Corporations are a socialist entity.

Click to expand...

I see. So the biggest problem with companies like Goldman Sachs and Walmart is they are too socialist. Gotcha.

You sure you know what socialism is?

I know they're not your form of socialism, but socialism none the less.

Click to expand...

And by my form of socialism, you of course mean the actual correct meaning of the word. Got it.

A corporation isn't a free market tool.

Click to expand...

Well I guess not. It's a business tool. It can be used for many purposes.

It's a corrupt government tool.

Click to expand...

ummm. ok. Care to explain that?

Socialism doesn't mean the will of the people but the will of the government.

Click to expand...

Well that depends on if we are using "my" (the correct) meaning of socialism, or your (false) definition of socialism. Since we are talking about business models here, I'm going with the original meaning of the word. By this definition all the workers of a corporation divide up the stock and all get to vote on how the corporation is run. That most definitely "mean the will of the people" as you say.

If we are going with a more broad definition of socialism then you'd be talking about corporations being run by all the people via representatives they elect to do so.

Either way, I don't really get your point here.

What we have now is socialism dressed up like capitalism to try and fool us.

Click to expand...

No. What we have now is corporatism dressed up like capitalism to try and fool us.

What ever you seem to think socialism means, I promise you it has nothing to do with wealthy elite business owners dictating laws and regulations to a government who represents their needs as corporations and billionaires over the will of the people.

Libertarian's solution to the problem which consists of getting rid of all the regulations so corporations can do what ever the hell they want at our expense. That doesn't seem particularly well thought out in my opinion.

UncleBuck said:

and certain freedoms my wife currently possesses could be taken away based on who he would appoint to the SCOTUS.

man, even imagining a ronald presidency makes me chuckle a little inside.

Click to expand...

You need to have the freedom to let Ron Paul decide what's best for your wife's health.