Will democrats led by Pelosi break the house rules on ethics just to "get Newt"?

[occupied]

You would think people would want to know what they were voting for. The same people have looney transvestites chasing down Obama's kindergarten records but they are seemingly disinterested in ethics violations by a man running to be their presidential nominee, lord help us.

LOL The phoney outrage is so yesterday.

Let me know when newt is responsible for killing americans like many democrats are.

Why dont you go tell the murdered mans wife it was for a greater cause in eliminating the second.

asswipe.

OK that made little sense, now why don't you want to know what Newt did before you vote for him?

 

[Sallow]

You would think people would want to know what they were voting for. The same people have looney transvestites chasing down Obama's kindergarten records but they are seemingly disinterested in ethics violations by a man running to be their presidential nominee, lord help us.

LOL The phoney outrage is so yesterday.

Let me know when newt is responsible for killing americans like many democrats are.

Why dont you go tell the murdered mans wife it was for a greater cause in eliminating the second.

asswipe.

As is yours..given the outcomes of 9/11 and Katrina.

 

[Truthmatters]

Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

 

[Jackson]

Pelosi pointed to the public records on Newt's ethics violations.

She doesn't NEED to use private info to show Newt's an ethically challenged scumbag. I wonder...what will his response be when someone brings up his first wife? Accuse THEM of serving their wives with divorce papers while she undergoes cancer treatment?

Newt is scum and that CONZ haven't dumped him yet shows how pathetic they have become.

We'll do this once again.

1. Wife never had cancer. It was a BENIGN tumor.

2. She wanted the divorce, she requested it.

3. Newt had divorced two women and we know nothing of THEIR backgrounds. I have more respect when a man will divorce instead of having numerous affairs while keeping their false marriage in tact publicly.

4. How many people in this country have divorced. A poor choice of a mate is just a sign immaturity.

5. If Newt is scum, then so are half of the population that divorces. The Dims that refuse to research shows just how pathetic they've become. Didn't mean to be rude, Just using your editorial words after you got your own facts wrong.

 

[Jackson]

Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

BBM...

A man who admits his mistakes has a lesser chance of repeating them than a presidemt who blames all others for the mistakes he has made and affected the country.

 

[Jarhead]

You would think people would want to know what they were voting for. The same people have looney transvestites chasing down Obama's kindergarten records but they are seemingly disinterested in ethics violations by a man running to be their presidential nominee, lord help us.

LOL The phoney outrage is so yesterday.

Let me know when newt is responsible for killing americans like many democrats are.

Why dont you go tell the murdered mans wife it was for a greater cause in eliminating the second.

asswipe.

OK that made little sense, now why don't you want to know what Newt did before you vote for him?

OK. Fair enough...

So let me ask you this....

During the Obama campaign, it was found that Obama had purchased a house/lot from Tony Resko. It was nothing of any consequence until the details were found out...
These are the basic details:

1) Tony Resko was found guilty of unethical business dealings and sent to jail
2) The property Obama bought from Resko was part of a larger plot of land.
3) The purchase price per suare foot for that partial lot was well below market value
4) Resko breaking up that plot of land into two smaller lots decreased the overall value of the plot of land.

Fox News questioned Bill Burton as to the details of the deal and Obamas relationship with Resko.

All Bil Burton would reveal and all the Obama camp would reveal was that nothing unethical was done.

So tell me.....why did you vote for Obama without knowing the details of why Resko, a now convicted felon, took a beating in a deal with Obama?

 

[occupied]

Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

BBM...

A man who admits his mistakes has a lesser chance of repeating them than a presidemt who blames all others for the mistakes he has made and affected the country.

Forgive and forget? Bullshit.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Did Newt personally profit from his violations or were they just mistakes?

 

[Jarhead]

Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday's vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

BBM...

A man who admits his mistakes has a lesser chance of repeating them than a presidemt who blames all others for the mistakes he has made and affected the country.

Forgive and forget? Bullshit.

So you never forgave Clinton for outright lying to congress?

 

[occupied]

LOL The phoney outrage is so yesterday.

Let me know when newt is responsible for killing americans like many democrats are.

Why dont you go tell the murdered mans wife it was for a greater cause in eliminating the second.

asswipe.

OK that made little sense, now why don't you want to know what Newt did before you vote for him?

OK. Fair enough...

So let me ask you this....

During the Obama campaign, it was found that Obama had purchased a house/lot from Tony Resko. It was nothing of any consequence until the details were found out...
These are the basic details:

1) Tony Resko was found guilty of unethical business dealings and sent to jail
2) The property Obama bought from Resko was part of a larger plot of land.
3) The purchase price per suare foot for that partial lot was well below market value
4) Resko breaking up that plot of land into two smaller lots decreased the overall value of the plot of land.

Fox News questioned Bill Burton as to the details of the deal and Obamas relationship with Resko.

All Bil Burton would reveal and all the Obama camp would reveal was that nothing unethical was done.

So tell me.....why did you vote for Obama without knowing the details of why Resko, a now convicted felon, took a beating in a deal with Obama?

Make another thread on Obama and maybe I will be along to comment. This thread is on Newt. So answer and quit trying to divert the discussion away from this uncomfortable question.

 

[Truthmatters]

LOL The phoney outrage is so yesterday.

Let me know when newt is responsible for killing americans like many democrats are.

Why dont you go tell the murdered mans wife it was for a greater cause in eliminating the second.

asswipe.

OK that made little sense, now why don't you want to know what Newt did before you vote for him?

OK. Fair enough...

So let me ask you this....

During the Obama campaign, it was found that Obama had purchased a house/lot from Tony Resko. It was nothing of any consequence until the details were found out...
These are the basic details:

1) Tony Resko was found guilty of unethical business dealings and sent to jail
2) The property Obama bought from Resko was part of a larger plot of land.
3) The purchase price per suare foot for that partial lot was well below market value
4) Resko breaking up that plot of land into two smaller lots decreased the overall value of the plot of land.

Fox News questioned Bill Burton as to the details of the deal and Obamas relationship with Resko.

All Bil Burton would reveal and all the Obama camp would reveal was that nothing unethical was done.

So tell me.....why did you vote for Obama without knowing the details of why Resko, a now convicted felon, took a beating in a deal with Obama?

Dude that one HAS been gone over.

Nothing illegal happened.

Newt broke the laws and had to end up admitting he had broken the laws AND lied to the people investigating it.


Rumor on your side.

GUILT and proof of it on this side.

The right holds others to higher standards than they do themselves

 

[occupied]

BBM...

A man who admits his mistakes has a lesser chance of repeating them than a presidemt who blames all others for the mistakes he has made and affected the country.

Forgive and forget? Bullshit.

So you never forgave Clinton for outright lying to congress?

I will never forgive that jackass for putting the democrats into a position of having to defend him.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats lying about a republican. What a surprise!

 

[Jarhead]

OK that made little sense, now why don't you want to know what Newt did before you vote for him?

OK. Fair enough...

So let me ask you this....

During the Obama campaign, it was found that Obama had purchased a house/lot from Tony Resko. It was nothing of any consequence until the details were found out...
These are the basic details:

1) Tony Resko was found guilty of unethical business dealings and sent to jail
2) The property Obama bought from Resko was part of a larger plot of land.
3) The purchase price per suare foot for that partial lot was well below market value
4) Resko breaking up that plot of land into two smaller lots decreased the overall value of the plot of land.

Fox News questioned Bill Burton as to the details of the deal and Obamas relationship with Resko.

All Bil Burton would reveal and all the Obama camp would reveal was that nothing unethical was done.

So tell me.....why did you vote for Obama without knowing the details of why Resko, a now convicted felon, took a beating in a deal with Obama?

Make another thread on Obama and maybe I will be along to comment. This thread is on Newt. So answer and quit trying to divert the discussion away from this uncomfortable question.

yo...

You made a comment and so I responded to the comment to see if you are a hypocrite or making a valid suggestion.

The fact that you opted to avoid answeriung the question pretty much answers my question.

 

[Jarhead]

OK that made little sense, now why don't you want to know what Newt did before you vote for him?

OK. Fair enough...

So let me ask you this....

During the Obama campaign, it was found that Obama had purchased a house/lot from Tony Resko. It was nothing of any consequence until the details were found out...
These are the basic details:

1) Tony Resko was found guilty of unethical business dealings and sent to jail
2) The property Obama bought from Resko was part of a larger plot of land.
3) The purchase price per suare foot for that partial lot was well below market value
4) Resko breaking up that plot of land into two smaller lots decreased the overall value of the plot of land.

Fox News questioned Bill Burton as to the details of the deal and Obamas relationship with Resko.

All Bil Burton would reveal and all the Obama camp would reveal was that nothing unethical was done.

So tell me.....why did you vote for Obama without knowing the details of why Resko, a now convicted felon, took a beating in a deal with Obama?

Dude that one HAS been gone over.

Nothing illegal happened.

Newt broke the laws and had to end up admitting he had broken the laws AND lied to the people investigating it.


Rumor on your side.

GUILT and proof of it on this side.

The right holds others to higher standards than they do themselves

Dudette,

Actually, we are not discussing "illegality"....we are discussing ethics.

We are comparing apples to apples.

You and the left are saying we should know about Newts "unethical" activity before we consider voting for him.

Well....you found out that what Obama and Resko did was not illegal....but there is a question of "ethics" abouyt the deal.

A real esttae investor does not INTENTIONALLY take a beating on a deal unless there is a greater un-obvious good in making the deal.

So the Obama campaign was asked to please explain the terms of the deal.....andf they refused as it was deemed as confidential...the sale was public, the price was public....but the other terms were kept as private.

And no one on trhe left cared...even though the man went to jail.

But you want us to care about Newt.

The hypocrisy is amusing

 

[occupied]

OK. Fair enough...

So let me ask you this....

During the Obama campaign, it was found that Obama had purchased a house/lot from Tony Resko. It was nothing of any consequence until the details were found out...
These are the basic details:

1) Tony Resko was found guilty of unethical business dealings and sent to jail
2) The property Obama bought from Resko was part of a larger plot of land.
3) The purchase price per suare foot for that partial lot was well below market value
4) Resko breaking up that plot of land into two smaller lots decreased the overall value of the plot of land.

Fox News questioned Bill Burton as to the details of the deal and Obamas relationship with Resko.

All Bil Burton would reveal and all the Obama camp would reveal was that nothing unethical was done.

So tell me.....why did you vote for Obama without knowing the details of why Resko, a now convicted felon, took a beating in a deal with Obama?

Make another thread on Obama and maybe I will be along to comment. This thread is on Newt. So answer and quit trying to divert the discussion away from this uncomfortable question.

yo...

You made a comment and so I responded to the comment to see if you are a hypocrite or making a valid suggestion.

The fact that you opted to avoid answeriung the question pretty much answers my question.

You feel smug because I refused to be derailed from the topic at hand? Not going to work, answer the question or let it drop I really do not care as I already know the answer.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

OK that made little sense, now why don't you want to know what Newt did before you vote for him?

OK. Fair enough...

So let me ask you this....

During the Obama campaign, it was found that Obama had purchased a house/lot from Tony Resko. It was nothing of any consequence until the details were found out...
These are the basic details:

1) Tony Resko was found guilty of unethical business dealings and sent to jail
2) The property Obama bought from Resko was part of a larger plot of land.
3) The purchase price per suare foot for that partial lot was well below market value
4) Resko breaking up that plot of land into two smaller lots decreased the overall value of the plot of land.

Fox News questioned Bill Burton as to the details of the deal and Obamas relationship with Resko.

All Bil Burton would reveal and all the Obama camp would reveal was that nothing unethical was done.

So tell me.....why did you vote for Obama without knowing the details of why Resko, a now convicted felon, took a beating in a deal with Obama?

Dude that one HAS been gone over.

Nothing illegal happened.

Newt broke the laws and had to end up admitting he had broken the laws AND lied to the people investigating it.


Rumor on your side.

GUILT and proof of it on this side.

The right holds others to higher standards than they do themselves

I asked you what laws he broke and was convicted on and you provided NOTHING. Because he didn't break any laws. Just one or two rules which he admitted to. Clinton lied to congress yet he did just fine in his second term (for the most part)
So what is your point?

 

[Jarhead]

Forgive and forget? Bullshit.

So you never forgave Clinton for outright lying to congress?

I will never forgive that jackass for putting the democrats into a position of having to defend him.

You wont forgive him for making other people do things that they personally opted to do?

I mean...really?

You hold CLINTON responsible for the democrats in congress defending his actions?

Heck...I hold congress responsible for that...and I hold clinton responsible for lying.

LMAO....personal responsibility is a non factor in the left way of thinking. It is pathetic.

 

[Jarhead]

Make another thread on Obama and maybe I will be along to comment. This thread is on Newt. So answer and quit trying to divert the discussion away from this uncomfortable question.

yo...

You made a comment and so I responded to the comment to see if you are a hypocrite or making a valid suggestion.

The fact that you opted to avoid answeriung the question pretty much answers my question.

You feel smug because I refused to be derailed from the topic at hand? Not going to work, answer the question or let it drop I really do not care as I already know the answer.

you made a comment.

I responded to the comment asking if you would do the same....

This is a debate board. When you make a suggestion, expect someone to debate the suggestion.

Or do what you are doing....avoid supporting your suggestion.

....and kiss your sorry ass credibility good by.

 

[rightwinger]

So what Newt is whining about is that it would be unethical for Pelosi to provide the details of his ethics violations

Shouldnt the American people know what the guy did before we vote for President? His hiding behind House confidentiality rules makes him sound like a criminal

Damn......are Republicans really this stupid?

They whine about the release of Obamas birth certificate and college transcripts but fight to conceal Gingrich's ethical violations