But Toyota had to pay a $16.375M NHTSA Fine

your logic, not mine.

They paid a fine, so they must be guilty. Even though they were cleared of wrong doing and have still yet to recover the funds.

And? What relevance does any of this have to Newt's theft, Brainy?

Or is this an argument where Toyota had to pay a large fine because their vehicles were stealing money from their owners?

you get the revelence, you just choose to play dumb...

No, really. I have no ------- clue what has any relevance to Newt admitting he broke laws to a committee and then somehow jumping to Toyota's vehicles having a design flaw.

(BTW, FRT: Welcome to politics. We love our trolling, I'm sorry, arguing to argue.)

Here's your clue, blean.

I see what Brain is getting at.

I'm looking and can't find any real evidence Newt admitted to breaking laws which resulted in a 300k fine. I do however see that he had been fined 300k.

So...Brain's argument is that Toyota made a car with a defect, and had to pay a fine because of it?

Dude. Check my link in a previous post that gives you full detail, including Newt's confession. Post 1097

He faced 75 ethics charges and only one took.

The charge was about how he financed his "Renewing American Civilization" class at Kent state by using a tax-exempt status, arguing it was partison class--thus forfieting tax-exeption.

He agreed to pay the fine, like many people do, to just get it over with.

3.5 years later, the IRS claims he violated no tax laws.


But, since he paid a fine, you state he's guilty of a crime.


I use that same logic to say that toyotas do accelerate on their own. I get to that conclusion by using your logic.

Toyota gets fined 16.375 million dollars. Pays. and then is later found innocent of all charges and there is no fault.

but since they paid a fine, the cars really DO self-accelerate.

Brain, seriously bro.

Let me quote you something reallll quick here...It's already been linked and you could read it for yourself.

It's not "Did he violate" or "They set him up" or anything else.

He admitted to it, dude. And it was not "just one charge" that he admitted to.

No it's okay. write your own history--that's what democrats do.

LOL well looks like the people trying to hang him got hung themselves. It seems to me he just accepted it to get it over with faster. In the end no one really knows, but the circumstances around it sure make it look like he was a scape goat.

Brainy, you are more closely aligned to Democrats than I am sweetie. We've been over this.

And, so are you saying that Gingrich was lying when he admitted to violating multiple laws? Seriously, I'm just going by what the guy said himself here.

Trust me bro, if they are from WA and in congress/the Senate, they are full on scumbag.

Do you not thing it's possible that he decided to admit to something that didn't happen, rather then have the investigation go on for longer and in the end probably hurt him more even if he didn't do it? And obviously now he can't just say he admitted to something he didn't do, then he would look even worse. The only thing he can do is continue to say yes he did it, and say he is sorry.

I'm not saying I believe one way or the other, he probably has done something illegal or shady whether it was this or not. But find me a politician who hasn't.

Sure. Ron Paul.

And here's a second. Rand Paul.

Ron Paul I'm SURE has done shady stuff. You don't get that far without making sacrifices.

Well, if you want to accuse Ron Paul of doing shady stuff, the onus is on you to prove it FRT.

It's impossible to disprove the statement "Ron Paul has done shady stuff.", it's only possible to prove it.

I still haven't seen any empirical evidence that Newt has done anything.

Anyways I'm not here to prove that he has done something, I'm just here to say it's obvious that all politicians need to make certain decisions. I'm not against shady stuff, I think to a certain extent it needs to be done. But when it gets out of hand, and becomes only for personal benefit I have an issue.

Someone's own words isn't sufficient evidence for you?

I mean, I'm sorry man, but the argument of "He admitted it just to get it over with!" sounds like a conspiracy theory. That's like me saying "Well, Brainy said I'm a Democrat, but didn't really mean it."

P.S. Brainy, I know you really didn't mean it, you don't seriously make cheap shots like that <3

Well yea if all I said was he "admitted it but didn't mean it" then maybe. But if you look at all the other BS going on at that time regarding the party then it makes a bit more sense that he might have been set up the bomb.

See, this is where the recursion starts to make my brain hurt.

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that Gingrich lied about lying to the ethics commission about lying about finances.

Honestly, I'd be probably believing it if it was Democrat, but it was bipartisan. Look at some of the....recent "stellar" GOP examples. They don't abandon their own without a really good reason.