Gingrich is scum.

Because "The Newtster" is a rapidly rising threat and the libs are on the attack. They fear Newt. Newt and Paul have bigger balls than Usama but they know Paul can not beat Usama. Newt can and they will try to crucify him.

 

Edit: Gingrich only admitted the wrongs he has been caught on. He has yet to admit the greedy self centered criminal that he is. He needs a few sessions with a good prison phsychologist/

 

Newt's own party has no love for him anymore than the Democrats do. Ron Paul has a better chance of becoming president than Newt Gingrich. And so far the primary results are proof of that. Gingrich is yesterdays news that won't go away.

 

I can not vote for Paul and there is one reason. His stance on the Sarbanes Oxley act. I spent months going over and discussing it with my wife and it is one of the better regs out there. He wants to repeal it. NO< NO>

 

I wasn't suggesting Paul had any viable chance of getting elected. I was just emphasizing how unlikely it is Gingrich would even get nominated.

 

Many are sick of Obama and I mean sick. Many moderates are fed up as well.

We need someone who can get Obama out that has the balls to lead. Don't ask for someone to please give something back but actually empower the Generals to blow the (*)(*)(*)(*) thing up before it hits the ground.

We know who is on top in the Obama bed I tell you that much.

Obama is a chicken (*)(*)(*)(*) that can not admit that there are reasons things happen that he was ignorant of. Why is the Cuba prison still open?

 

I'm not that familiar with the act, but apparently Gingrich is against it, too.

Wiki details Ron Paul's and others criticisms of this act.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Congressman Ron Paul and others such as former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have contended that SOX was an unnecessary and costly government intrusion into corporate management that places U.S. corporations at a competitive disadvantage with foreign firms, driving businesses out of the United States. In an April 14, 2005 speech before the U.S. House of Representatives, Paul stated, "These regulations are damaging American capital markets by providing an incentive for small US firms and foreign firms to deregister from US stock exchanges. According to a study by a researcher at the Wharton Business School, the number of American companies deregistering from public stock exchanges nearly tripled during the year after Sarbanes–Oxley became law, while the New York Stock Exchange had only 10 new foreign listings in all of 2004. The reluctance of small businesses and foreign firms to register on American stock exchanges is easily understood when one considers the costs Sarbanes–Oxley imposes on businesses. According to a survey by Korn/Ferry International, Sarbanes–Oxley cost Fortune 500 companies an average of $5.1 million in compliance expenses in 2004, while a study by the law firm of Foley and Lardner found the Act increased costs associated with being a publicly held company by 130 percent." [42]

A research study published by Joseph Piotroski of Stanford University and Suraj Srinivasan of Harvard Business School titled "Regulation and Bonding: Sarbanes Oxley Act and the Flow of International Listings" in the Journal of Accounting Research in 2008 found that following the act's passage, smaller international companies were more likely to list in stock exchanges in the U.K. rather than U.S. stock exchanges.[25]

During the financial crisis of 2007-2010, critics blamed Sarbanes–Oxley for the low number of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) on American stock exchanges during 2008. In November 2008, Newt Gingrich and co-author David W. Kralik called on Congress to repeal Sarbanes–Oxley.[43]

A December 21, 2008 Wall St. Journal editorial stated, "The new laws and regulations have neither prevented frauds nor instituted fairness. But they have managed to kill the creation of new public companies in the U.S., cripple the venture capital business, and damage entrepreneurship. According to the National Venture Capital Association, in all of 2008 there have been just six companies that have gone public. Compare that with 269 IPOs in 1999, 272 in 1996, and 365 in 1986."

Hoover's IPO Scorecard notes 31 IPOs in 2008.[44]

The editorial concludes that: "For all of this, we can first thank Sarbanes–Oxley. Cooked up in the wake of accounting scandals earlier this decade, it has essentially killed the creation of new public companies in America, hamstrung the NYSE and Nasdaq (while making the London Stock Exchange rich), and cost U.S. industry more than $200 billion by some estimates." [45]

A 2012 Wall St. Journal editorial stated, "One reason the U.S. economy isn't creating enough jobs is that it's not creating enough employers... For the third year in a row the world's leading exchange for new stock offerings was located not in New York, but in Hong Kong... Given that the U.S. is still home to the world's largest economy, there's no reason it shouldn't have the most vibrant equity markets—unless regulation is holding back the creation of new public companies. On that score it's getting harder for backers of the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting law to explain away each disappointing year since its 2002 enactment as some kind of temporary or unrelated setback."[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes–Oxley_Act

 

This is the attitude in politics that makes me sick. Its party first, country second, and everything else comes last. People who vote party lines regardless of who is on the ticket is probably making the most ignorant decision they can make when it comes to voting.

Gingrich might sound great in a 20 second soundbite, but the man puts his foot in his mouth every other week. There is nothing admirable about the man. Everything he says is riddled with racism, empty promises, and an ego that is bigger than his fat head. Gingrich would be a worse president than George Bush.

 

Look I have no party allegiance. I have voted for plenty of conservative (D) in my life.

Hey he will be the one.

 

SOB. SOX makes the CEO responsible for what he signs off on and it deters things like Enron.

I need to rethink this. Obama has got to go though. I guess I could just hate him less than Obama. I am sick of compromising; I really am.

Okay water under the bridge I am 100% for the Newtster.

 

Gingrich gives the appearance of being a congenital liar; his ex-wife comes out swinging and catches him off guard and in keeping with tradition, he refuses to acknowledge his errors.

His credibility with voters will be sharply reduced because of his inability to tell the truth. In all honesty, I don't think he'd recognize the truth if he tripped over it.

The republicans may as well sit out this election.

 

What racist comments has Gingrich made?

 

So when he wins Saturday you going to eat your words?

 

He is a White Republican he must be racist and anyone who votes for him is racist as well. Didn't they tell you that in the Guberment schools? All whites are racist unless they vote (D) all the time and republicans are responsible for all racism in the world. Get that through your skull or the libs will preform a post puberty abortion on you.

 

Scummy right wing people's scummy behavior is overlooked by republicans when the scum they're overlooking are right wingers. The words hypocrisy and republican can be used interchangeably. It's very bad (they'll cackle) when a dem gets a lube job and lies about it (to his first, only and current wife), but right wing scum are excused no matter how many wives they cheat on (even IF that same right wing scum is leading the wolf pack crying "Impeach, Impeach he lied!...family values, family values"!)
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the republican party (party of the rich conservative hypocrites).

 

So when he abuses his power again, are you going to eat your words? Just imagine an egomaniac criminal like Newt with the power of the presidency to use at will. How many times must he be thrown out of office before he will finally go away. (*)(*)(*)(*) people, get a clue.


Oh that's right. He's sorry for being such a scumbag and promises not to do that again. Buuuawwhhahahahahaha.

 

Why do you care Obama has done plenty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...nstitutional/2012/01/05/gIQAnWRfdP_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...itage-scholar/2012/01/04/gIQAxUV5aP_blog.html

The senate rejected. Who controls that?

And he is incompetent "Gun Runner" and "Fast and Furious" Yep he lost control of those.

(*)(*)(*)(*) I forgot none of this is his fault.

 

No, no, no. You are right. Don't take my post as defending Democrats. They are just Republicans spelled Democrats. None of them care about you, except for the power of your vote and your tax money. Otherwise you are just a little pawn in their game. Unless too many people figure it out, then we shall see martial law.

 

So how many times are you allowed to cheat on your wiveS in the "family values" crowd these days? More or less than the Newtster?

 

I suppose that when you can dupe that many women (or voters) you must be a real leader!

 

Good answer!

 

Where's his executive experience that's so important when it comes to Obama (who'll have 4 years as POTUS)

 

Republicans will overlook everything about this guy, won't they? Ugliness notwithstanding.

 

Absolutely we need to put people to work, but the AMERICAN people not Mexican invaders. We have 8 million illegal aliens working, while we have 14 million (govt figure) Americans unemployed. Get the illegals out, fill their jobs with unemployed Americans and we've reduced most of our unemployment right there.

Then there's work visas. Last I heard Obama was issuing 150,000 of them a month. What for ? For votes for him. Stop issuing those d-mn things and our unemployment could go to near zero.

 

I watched him...and he said this; “I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office.”

I've often wondered how someone like Newt could seek nomination of the family values, sanctity of marriage party with a straight face. And now we have it, straight from Newt's own mouth. As it turns out, "decent" people won't run...so we get Newt instead.

That explains that. Now I'd like to know why people that say they support family values and the sanctity of marriage would give a standing ovation to such an affront to those values?