lets get a feel for where the gop stands after tonights debate

Who won or appealed to you the most?

  • Paul

    Votes: 8 20.0%
  • Perry

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Newt

    Votes: 11 27.5%
  • Cain

    Votes: 7 17.5%
  • Romney

    Votes: 10 25.0%
  • Santorum

    Votes: 1 2.5%
  • Bachmann

    Votes: 1 2.5%

  • Total voters
    40
How do you rank them and who do you think won?

Newt by far outclassed and just whipped ass

Romney withstood the heat very well

Cain shot himself with the terrorism negotiating nonsense and couldn't articulate beyond 9-9-9

Santorum and Paul tie in my opinion

Perry just doesn't belong

Bachmann just go home



Thoughts?

Frank Luntz did 6 different focus groups that watched this debate and Newt Gingrich won it hands down.

Cain will be flaming out over his 999 plan-Rick-Perry could not buy the nomination right now--he looked childish in his attacks on Romney--(almost vicious)--and Romney as usual is considered too polished and rehearsed according to this group.

NEWT GINGRICH--wins--and frankly he has won most of the debates according to our board polling. Why the RNC is s..... reluctant to back Newt Gingrich is beyond rational comprehension.

Newt stated tonight that more money has come into his campaign in the last 4 days than in the entire previous month. So he is definitely on the move UP.
 
Last edited:
Newt did well last night....he seemed to understand that all the bickering does not help the party

He was perfectly willing to bicker, until it came time for the final one liner.
Have to agree with his slickness, even though he was served up some easy lobs.
Like I said before, Its just too bad Newty is such a scumbag in real life, he could have been a real candidate. Oh wait a minute, the media masters prefer scumbags as oppossed to decent people (like John McCain, Rick Perry or Herman Cain)... my mistake!
:lol:

All in all,
Does this mean that Newtered will replace (Mc)Cain as the king of jerry rigged phone polls by our warmonger media?

On the side, why do you have such obviously media driven "opinions" on GOP candidates who in a "party" that you openly despise and would never vote for in the first place?

I mean you are certainly free to share your opinions, but it just doesn't fit your persona...
Maybe you are logging in with the wrong sockpuppett?
:confused:

I can't understand Newt

He is very bright, witty and understands the political system. But for some reason, he can't keep the scumbag within him from coming out

Or is it just your relentless unforgiving judgmental attitude???

I don't see what you see in Newt.

Course I don't have a negative preconception about him ether.
 
Newt did well last night....he seemed to understand that all the bickering does not help the party

He was perfectly willing to bicker, until it came time for the final one liner.
Have to agree with his slickness, even though he was served up some easy lobs.
Like I said before, Its just too bad Newty is such a scumbag in real life, he could have been a real candidate. Oh wait a minute, the media masters prefer scumbags as oppossed to decent people (like John McCain, Rick Perry or Herman Cain)... my mistake!
:lol:

All in all,
Does this mean that Newtered will replace (Mc)Cain as the king of jerry rigged phone polls by our warmonger media?

On the side, why do you have such obviously media driven "opinions" on GOP candidates who in a "party" that you openly despise and would never vote for in the first place?

I mean you are certainly free to share your opinions, but it just doesn't fit your persona...
Maybe you are logging in with the wrong sockpuppett?
:confused:

I can't understand Newt

He is very bright, witty and understands the political system. But for some reason, he can't keep the scumbag within him from coming out


You're a confirmed Obamabot anyway--so your opinion of Newt Gingrich along with your comment tells me--that Newt Gingrich is the ONE Republican candidate that you FEAR MOST--and for good reason.

Newt Gingrich would kick a.... and take names up against Barack Obama in any debate and you know it.
 
Sure you do. Why not offer an answer as to what regulations you believe ought to be rescinded or revised? Oh, of course, no one has told you which regulation you should oppose yet.

1. Sarbanes-Oxley

2. Dodd-Frank


1. There are 11 titles and each title has several sections. Which title and which section do you find objectionalbe? Do you believe the regulations ought to be rescinded and Enron, Tyco and other public companies can act with impunity?

2. Do you believe Wall Street should be unregulated?

[1] Sarbanes Oxley
James Freeman: The Supreme Case Against Sarbanes-Oxley - WSJ.com


...Section 404 rules on "internal controls"
over bookkeeping are implemented. These rules are so onerous that companies have had to undertake exhaustive investigations of such minor issues as how many people should be required to authorize small customer refunds at a retail location.

...Section 404 is still consuming more than $2.3 million each year in direct compliance costs at the average company.

The SEC's survey shows the long-term burden on small companies is more than seven times that imposed on large firms relative to their assets ...

In the years since its passage, the country has experienced an historic drought of initial public offerings. Is Sarbox to blame? Many financial pundits say no, but the SEC survey results point in the other direction. When public companies are asked whether Section 404 has motivated them to consider going private, a full 70% of smaller firms say yes, and 44% of all public companies also say yes. ...

Has Sarbox driven businesses out of the country? Among foreign companies, a majority in the survey say that Section 404 has motivated them to consider de-listing from U.S. exchanges, and a staggering 77% of smaller foreign firms say that the law has motivated them to consider abandoning their American listings .

[Does SarbOx improve investor confidence? ] Investors have been skeptical about this political exercise from the beginning [...] 74% of SEC survey respondents say that Section 404 has had little or no impact on investor confidence in their companies.

...since the passage of Sarbox, U.S. firms reduced their investments in capital expenditures and research and development compared to firms in the U.K. and Canada.

"First, by increasing the role of independent directors in corporate governance and expanding/criminalizing their liability for corporate misdeeds, [Sarbox] discourages directors from approving risky investments that are costly to monitor." The same goes for senior managers.

“..risk of financial misstatements is directly related to the complexity of a firm's operations, the extent to which it relies on specialized knowledge, and the degree to which its organizational structure is decentralized."

Where these factors are more prevalent, compliance costs will increase. In short, national policy imposes a disproportionate burden on innovative companies that delegate responsibility to highly-trained scientists. ...

The Chilling Effect of SARBANES-OXLEY: Myth or Reality? - The CPA Journal
Independent auditors. The first two sections of SOX (Title I, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; and Title II, Auditor Independence) Of particular concern to companies preparing for an IPO are limitations on the amount of consulting services that auditors may perform for clients; requirements that nonaudit services must be approved by the company’s audit committee; and requirements that the CEO, controller, CFO, chief accounting officer, or any person in an equivalent position cannot have been employed by the auditing firm during the 12 months preceding the audit. Companies considering an IPO must be in compliance with these provisions at least 36 months prior to the IPO.

Corporate governance. The provisions of SOX Title III
... A 2004 study by the Institute of Internal Auditors on the effects of SOX on audit committees of non–publicly traded entities concluded that nonpublic companies could find it more difficult to recruit and retain qualified members to serve on audit committees.

Companies considering an IPO must have appropriate policies in place prior to the IPO. The SEC also is given the power to ban any individual from serving as an officer or director of a publicly traded company.

Corporate fraud and accountability. Titles VIII through XI of SOX deal with corporate fraud and accountability and white-collar crime. Title VIII imposes criminal penalties for destroying, altering, concealing, or falsifying records where the intent is to obstruct a federal investigation or a bankruptcy proceeding; makes debts incurred in violation of securities fraud law nondischargeable through bankruptcy; and extends the statute of limitations for private actions for securities fraud violation to not later than two years after discovery of the fraud or five years after the violation occurred.

[A prospective entrepreneur of a new business considering an Initial Public Offering to create a new publicly traded corporation, while certain that he would at all costs avoid any illegal activities, would realize that if he became the target of a "hot to trot" prosecutor, could well end up in prison and exhausted of personal assets. There is no statute of limitations on criminal "fraud"]

Internal controls. SOX section 404, which covers management assessment of internal controls, has probably received the most negative publicity, due to the additional compliance costs it implies.
In July 2004, Financial Executives International (FEI) surveyed 224 public companies with average revenues of $2.5 billion to determine estimates of the cost to comply with section 404. Results showed that the average total cost of compliance was estimated at $3.14 million per company, or 62% more than the $1.93 million estimate identified in FEI’s January 2004 survey.

... First-year compliance costs for companies with revenues of less than $1 billion were estimated at $1 million or less.
First-year compliance costs for companies with over $5 billion in revenue had increased from an estimated $4.6 million in the January 2004 survey to $8 million in the July 2004 survey. These costs may be viewed as a significant deterrent for a company considering an IPO.
Venture Capital and Technology IPOsAccording to the National Venture Capital Association, the number of venture-backed technology IPOs declined from 245 in 1999 to 28 in 2002. In 2003, the number of deals was up to 29, and in 2004 it climbed to 93.

...The number of technology IPOs took a freefall thereafter, falling to 77 in 2001 [from 900 in 1999 and 713 in 2000] and 71 in 2002. In 2003 they declined even further, to 20. There was a turnaround in 2004, with 88 technology IPOs. According to preliminary data from Venture One, there were 41 technology IPOs in 2005.

Costs and Consequences of SOX; The law firm of Foley & Lardner conducted studies in 2003 and 2004 on the impact of SOX. The survey found that the average annual cost of being a public (registered) company had nearly doubled following the enactment of SOX, from $1.3 million to almost $2.9 million for companies with revenues under $1 billion.

These costs represent continuing annual costs, exclusive of first-year costs to comply with the assessment of internal control systems. A significant portion of the increase was related to insurance for directors and officers (D&O). The study indicated that D&O insurance increased from an average of $329,000 a year pre-SOX to an average of $639,000 a year for 2002 fiscal years, and $850,000 annually for 2003 fiscal years.

As a consequence, there have been reports of companies that have delisted their securities or have elected to delay or cancel their IPOs. Of the 115 public company respondents to Foley & Lardner’s 2004 survey, 21% indicated that they were considering going private, 6% indicated they were considering selling the company, and 7% indicated they were considering merging with another company as a result of SOX requirements.
And the following most likely resulted from the passage of Sarbanes/Oxley:

WSJ - Deal Journal:
"2009 will go down as the year China ascended to the top of the IPO heap.

Businesses from the Middle Kingdom accounted for 183 deals in the year. The U.S.? Just 54.

Chinese companies alone sold $50.4 billion worth of shares, which accounted for 45% of the global IPO volume, according to data tracker Dealogic. The U.S.? $24 billion.

China International Capital finished as the top bookrunner globally–the first time a Chinese bank had done so. Prior to 2009, a Chinese bank had made the top 10 globally just once–China International Capital ranked ninth in 2000, according to Dealogic."
Below is (WSJ) Deal Journal’s graphic wrapping up the year in the IPO market:
IPOpromo_F.jpg


SOURCE


[2] Do I believe that Wall Street should be unregulated?
I believe Congress should regulate as little as is reasonable and prudent. Much of it was already in place if current law or regulations had been fully enforced, or politicians had not acted in contradiction to in-place regulations and law. Congress should never embark on regulation for political purposes. Those two guys (Dodd and Frank) had more to do with causing the recent financial crisis than any other two people because they promoted it as opposed to working to prevent it. They authored their bill to deflect blame. That is obvious, and for that reason it is not credible because in their legislation they totally ignored the conditions that forced the crisis.

I believe that Dodd-Frank was, first of all, a CYA exercise. It it weren't the "moral hazard" of the GSEs Fannie and Freddie and other too big to fail institutions would've been dealt with by removing the implied guarantee (backing) of gthe overnment, or they might have been broken up after the crisis so that the disparate parts didn't pose the same threat to financial stability as before. None of that was done. The private sector entities are even larger, due largely to actions by the Administration/Treasury.

In a recent article in the WSJ titled "The Dodd-Frank Layoffs" John Huntsman said:
"More than three years after the crisis and the accompanying bailouts, the six largest American financial institutions are significantly bigger than they were before the crisis, having been encouraged to snap up Bear Stearns and other competitors at bargain prices. These banks now have assets worth over 66% of gross domestic product—at least $9.4 trillion, up from 20% of GDP in the 1990s. There is no evidence that institutions of this size add sufficient value to offset the systemic risk they pose."
I don't know much about Tyco except that enforcement of then existing law could well been sufficient to deal with the criminal activity, which is what it was finally reduced to. But Enron was largely brought on by earlier regulation from legislation in the Clinton administration to make CEO compensation subject to US law by capping the expensing on that CEO compensation.
 
Last edited:
He is another McCain. A polished candidate with name recognition

Defend another candidate and explain how he can win the election

Considering the POS they'd be running against at least 4 of them could win.

But since it's not gonna be a fair election it's gonna be tough for anyone. The country is too divided. Too much cheating.

Btw, who actually believes Obama isn't campaigning.

The prick lies and cheats.

He doesn't believe in winning on his ideas because his ideas suck and he and everyone with half a brain realizes it now.

lol...so 4 of them could win but they wont because it will be unfair.

Fuck thats stupid

Whatever. I can imagine the squeals you'd be making if the shoe were on the other foot.

You'd better hope the GOP doesn't get in there and starts bring charges for election fraud against him. He can't lie his ass out of a jail sentence once he doesn't have Eric Holder to shield him.
 
Ok.......defend one of the other candidates

Not required your position was predicted several years ago.

As usual, the inability to say "I do not like Romney and think Blank is a better candidate" is underwhelming

Outside of Romney......who do you got?

Outside of your narrow view of our field we actually have 8 candidates who could beat Obama were they to win the nomination.

Outside Obama who you got?

Nuff said.....

Turned out Obama was enough....

Don't worry, history never repeats itself...ask stalwart Conservatives like McCain and Romney.....

:rofl:
 

Forum List

Back
Top