• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says

I haven't heard them spend much time on these issues but, hey we've only had 342 debates so far..................

The REAL debate is Gingrich (hopefully) vs Obama

First issue...Gingrich's women vs Obama's Solyndra scandal....20.5 Billion dollars in "green energy" loans going to Obama supporters
 
How many candidates for President have we ever had that has had 3 wives? Ha,ha, I think his record speaks for itself, he is a womanizer, and a mean spirited one, to boot!

I say, "bring him on" - we'll have a heyday exposing all his warts.

What are you going to "expose" that is not already common knowledge?
 
What are you going to "expose" that is not already common knowledge?

You know, I really don't know of anything. I don't. But I was confused when Pelosi said tonight she knew something that would prohibit Newt from winning. I think she should have had to answer what, but while pressed, she refused. So, whiile I give it no credence (as in accpeting that is without a doubt true) until she does, I am curious.
 
The REAL debate is Gingrich (hopefully) vs Obama

First issue...Gingrich's women vs Obama's Solyndra scandal....20.5 Billion dollars in "green energy" loans going to Obama supporters

Gingrich's $1.6 million contract with Freddie Mac would probably be a better analogy.
 
Gingrich's $1.6 million contract with Freddie Mac would probably be a better analogy.

How so? Gingrich signed a contract and worked for the money. BUT, somehow Solyndra's contract got modified so a Billionaire Campaign Bundler for Obama ended up ahead of the taxpayers for getting money back from the bankruptcy. How'd that happen?
 
How so? Gingrich signed a contract and worked for the money. BUT, somehow Solyndra's contract got modified so a Billionaire Campaign Bundler for Obama ended up ahead of the taxpayers for getting money back from the bankruptcy. How'd that happen?

This White House had turned graft into an art form. Give money by the billions to millionaires and political cronies - and the environmentalists cheer you for it!
 
This White House had turned graft into an art form. Give money by the billions to millionaires and political cronies - and the environmentalists cheer you for it!

That's one of the reasons the "Stimulus" failed so miserably, but we're still stuck with the bill. I can't think of a better reason to dump Obama come November.
 
How so? Gingrich signed a contract and worked for the money. BUT, somehow Solyndra's contract got modified so a Billionaire Campaign Bundler for Obama ended up ahead of the taxpayers for getting money back from the bankruptcy. How'd that happen?

Not exactly true. Solydra's contract was approved, and then AFTER the fact, there was request by a campaign donor to crack down on imports of Chinese solar panels. There was no request to approve or alter the Soyndra contract.
 
Not exactly true. Solydra's contract was approved, and then AFTER the fact, there was request by a campaign donor to crack down on imports of Chinese solar panels. There was no request to approve or alter the Soyndra contract.

somehow Solyndra's contract got modified so a Billionaire Campaign Bundler for Obama ended up ahead of the taxpayers for getting money back from the bankruptcy.

That's what I said, care to address it?

Solyndra Funds Mostly Lost to Taxpayers, Chu Tells Lawmakers

November 17, 2011, 4:32 PM EST

By Jim Snyder and Brian Wingfield

(Updates with comment from Representative Scalise in 11th paragraph.)

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Energy Secretary Steven Chu told lawmakers he was responsible for the $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to Solyndra LLC and said he doubted much of the money would be recovered after the company’s bankruptcy.

Chu, who once predicted the California maker of solar panels would be a “shared success story,” testified today before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee investigating the Energy Department’s reasons for backing Solyndra and providing refinancing as it slid toward collapse.

“Was there incompetence?” Chu said. “Was there any influence of a political nature? So I would say no. It is extremely unfortunate what has happened to Solyndra.”

Asked how much of the taxpayer funding invested in Solyndra may be recovered, Chu, 63, said, “I’m anticipating not very much.”

“Red flags” about the company’s prospects were “either ignored or minimized by senior officials” in the Obama administration, Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the Energy Committee, told Chu.

Representative Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, asked who would be paid first as money is recouped from the sale of Solyndra’s assets.

“Does the taxpayer have first dibs?” Scalise said.

“After restructuring? No,” Chu responded.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ly-lost-to-taxpayers-chu-tells-lawmakers.html

I didn't make myself very clear, but this is what I was talking about.

It appears to me Obama lacks the moral character to be President, but that didn't stop him.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I did address. Your statement was incorrect.

As you can see by the article I posted Steven Chus says the contract was "restructured" putting an Obama Billionaire Bundlers ahead of the taxpayers.
 
As you can see by the article I posted Steven Chus says the contract was "restructured" putting an Obama Billionaire Bundlers ahead of the taxpayers.

Well, again, there is nothing in the article that establishes a connection between the contract change and the campaign donor. From a business perspective there is a very good reason why they might have wanted to subordinate the government interest. It makes private investment more attractive.

OTOH, we know for a fact that Gingrich accepted $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, and if you believe he was paid $1.6 million for "historian services" I've got some swamp land I'd like to sell you.
 
Well, again, there is nothing in the article that establishes a connection between the contract change and the campaign donor. From a business perspective there is a very good reason why they might have wanted to subordinate the government interest. It makes private investment more attractive.

OTOH, we know for a fact that Gingrich accepted $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, and if you believe he was paid $1.6 million for "historian services" I've got some swamp land I'd like to sell you.

So you think they will post that on the internet and say "hey look at us, we're ripping off the taxpayers"? Really? I really don't want your swamp land, sorry you got taken in.

While from Solyndra's Perspective, there is a very good reason why they might have wanted to subordinate the government interest. Why on Earth would Chu do it?
 
Last edited:
Dems were fine with Clinton having an affair.
 
Dems were fine with Clinton having an affair.

That's a silly generalization.

Some were fine with it. Some thought it was awful, but disagreed about what should be done about it.

On the other hand, most Republicans were outraged about Clinton having an affair. So I can just as easily turn that on you and ask you why they tolerate Gingrich now.

Back and forth we go.
 
Dems were fine with Clinton having an affair.

Fine? I wouldn't exactly say that. However, there is a difference. Neither Clinton nor democrats run around being hypocrital about affairs and wrongly asserting what family values really are. Newt threw a lot of stones, and republicans maintain more than anyone that these things matter. I have to accept that if this is a republcian or conservative value, then it matters. If it isn't, they shoudl stop spouting it as one so much. Am I wrong about that?
 
Fine? I wouldn't exactly say that. However, there is a difference. Neither Clinton nor democrats run around being hypocrital about affairs and wrongly asserting what family values really are. Newt threw a lot of stones, and republicans maintain more than anyone that these things matter. I have to accept that if this is a republcian or conservative value, then it matters. If it isn't, they shoudl stop spouting it as one so much. Am I wrong about that?

Whoa. Clinton LIED about his affair(s), and still does.

Not buying the "Newt threw a lot of stones" crap either. Newt feels that family values are important. So does Clinton. That they themselves have sinned is not uncommon. What is absurd is the continued double standard of the left, such as you illustrate.
 
Whoa. Clinton LIED about his affair(s), and still does.

So it's perfectly fine to cheat on your wife as long as you don't lie about it?

(What about lying to your wife?)

You STILL haven't answered the simple questions: are cheating and lying wrong? And I know why you are afraid to answer.

Not buying the "Newt threw a lot of stones" crap either. Newt feels that family values are important. So does Clinton. That they themselves have sinned is not uncommon.

The difference is that Newt bashes others for sinning. He should STFU about it, dont' you think?
 
Whoa. Clinton LIED about his affair(s), and still does.

Not buying the "Newt threw a lot of stones" crap either. Newt feels that family values are important. So does Clinton. That they themselves have sinned is not uncommon. What is absurd is the continued double standard of the left, such as you illustrate.

Yes, Clinton lied. And as Dole voter, I don't approve. But frankly, if you don't know Newt threw stones, you either have no knowledge of newt, or your memory is selective.
 
The difference is that Newt bashes others for sinning. He should STFU about it, dont' you think?

You continue with, the Newt bashing and Newt will continue with, the bit of wine, women and song.

Don't bother me and I'm as sure as hell....it won't bother Newt

Where the beer flows like wine and the women flock...well you get the idea

 
You continue with, the Newt bashing and Newt will continue with, the bit of wine, women and song.

Don't bother me and I'm as sure as hell....it won't bother Newt

Where the beer flows like wine and the women flock...well you get the idea


You're making about as much sense today as you usually do.
 
So you think they will post that on the internet and say "hey look at us, we're ripping off the taxpayers"? Really? I really don't want your swamp land, sorry you got taken in.

While from Solyndra's Perspective, there is a very good reason why they might have wanted to subordinate the government interest. Why on Earth would Chu do it?

Hmm, well I guess I'm not too convinced by the argument that it might have been improper ... but there's no evidence to that effect.

Why might Chu have agreed to it? The purpose of the loan guarantee was to spur Solyndra's business. One way to do that is to make them more attractive to private investment.
 
Back
Top Bottom