Braineack

iTrader: (62)

read about the case. then talk about it.

i like the parts where the course in question was approved by the ethic committee, the same committee that then turned around and said it was partisan; thus violating ethics.

There are two things he admits guilt on, and on a technicality, he was/is guilty of them. The one being submission of documents that "mislead the committee," which I guess technically he's correct of the guilt--go back and read up on it yourself, its stupid. The other was the misuse of tax-exemption, and only admitted guilt only after first arguing his case to no avail. And like I said, he was later cleared of any violations in which the IRS themselves, pretty much repeat verbatim the same argument Newt gave himself. The dude, decided to man up and accept the punishment, even though he knew he was at no fault and really didn't have the funds to pay the fine, and had to pay it installments.


so whatever. it's bogus anyways. honestly, we are talking about the misuse of tax-exemption to fund a class in which he did not get paid.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

Newt called them cannibals. Don't you think they would "Remove one to save the rest"? I understand I have very little basis for saying this (other than to continue to argue), but it seems VERY possible that in order to save face from the shitty midterm elections they may blame a specific person and remove them. Thus removing doubt from the party because "something" was done to fix the perceived "problem", even if it was unrelated to begin with.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Brainy, broski, I <3 you to death and all, but this calls for a cheap shot in response to that cheap shot.

Considering I apparently had to tell you that Gingrich admitted to this ---- and you weren't aware of that pretty important fact, telling me to go read about the case is perhaps a bit silly?

Seriously, I'm aware of it. If it was a Democrat-led battlefield, I'm 100% on board with you guys. But as soon as it's a bipartisan deal that something like 90% of the House supported - and some of the people who didn't support it said they only didn't support it because they thought it didn't go far enough....

I mean, I'm sorry man. But if Gingrich was a Democrat, I'd find it believable too - they turn on their own no issues. But Republicans don't really have a history of doing that without seriously compelling reasons behind it.

FRT! We just argue in here to argue, although might I recommend choosing Brainy for that? He's top tier to argue for arguing's sake in here. I'm in the same boat right now to argue for arguing's sake.

However, my argument goes back to one of the largest majority's of Congress I've ever heard of or seen agreed to this. It's literally unprecedented. To argue that his confession was fake, and that almost his entire own party would throw him under the bus instead of portraying it as a partisan issue and protecting him (Ring any bells? This is unbelievably out of character for the Republican party)...

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I find it unimportant; you didn't have to tell me. I find that he was cleared of any tax code violations more important to the story--regardless of admitting "guilt"

you've also said things like "he stole money from his own non-profits"...so I mean...


I still think my toyota logic was awesome.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

You find it unimportant that Gingrich confessed to crimes that we are arguing about right now?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

yep. and you find it unimportant that he was cleared of wrong doing.

And I'm sure you don't care the the guilt was that he signed an false document his lawyer gave him either...one of the two things he admits.


but no, he stole money from non-profits, that's what he did.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Ya got me bro. Ya done got me, 'd in one post.

Damnit Brainy, I surrender to your superior "arguing to argue" skills. Srsly, I got nothin' at that point if a confession means nada to you.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

the confession needs to fit the "crime."

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I'm not falling for that again Brainy. You got me once, I'm not going to fall for it twice :P.

(Edit) Damnit Brainy, two in one with a post. Nice ninja edits.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

im not even trolling dawg. i just dont think like you.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Aww, I know that you don't think like me, I mean, you somehow think I'm aligned with Democrats. But I still <3 you even though!

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

blaen99 - I think you are being too naive or too obtuse. Gingrich is a polarizing figure and led one of the biggest brinkmanship experiments in recent politics (the shutdown of the US govt). He was also involved in leading the Clinton/Lewinsky impeachment process.

There was a "coup" in place to unseat Gingrich by his fellow Republicans after the 1996 elections.


None of that is to say Gingrich was or was not railroaded, but people and corporations pay fines and settlements all the time based on calculated measures. "Yes, we will win this lawsuit. But, it will take 5 years and cost upwards of $500k in legal fees and untold hours wasted with no guarantee of getting your fees recouped. Alternatively, you could settle for $300k now and start moving on." I have no idea if that is the kind of thing involved in this case, but it happens (unfortunately) quite often.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

OH GREAT NOW SCRAPPY DOO IS TROLLING TOO. STOP ARGUING TO ARGUE YOU GUYS.



l

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Scrappy: This boils down to the argument of if Gingrich's confession was true or not.

We've hashed that one out pretty well in the above. Considering the circumstances, I find it extremely hard to believe the circumstances others are claiming were afoot. YMMV though, we could debate this for days. However, what it boils down to is even Brainy admits he's been found guilty of crimes.

The argument is not "Did he commit?" but "How much did he commit?"

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

i think if i can find a way to appreciate gearhead

brain can find a way to appreciate blaen

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

(Sent from phone via capitalism)

Not crimes, ethics violations. Hell, 90% of criminal cases are settled out of court..is that not the same thing?

Is he not actually the better man to throw in the towel and say fine what I did was wrong? And beat 74 other charges?

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

What is going on?


EDIT: Oh it's there now. You had a blank post before.

It is the same thing. It's all BS.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

That's not true, he didnt get ******** because "is" doesn't mean what you think "is" means, and he never paid a fine.