It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Newt Gingrich Staff Blocking the Truth from Getting Out

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Tonight I took the initiative to look at Newt's Facebook page and see whether he has a lot of supporters. He's about 60,000 supporters short of Ron Paul.

I also wanted to know what his supporters say and believe in. Many seem to support him wholeheartedly, but there were maybe two or three posts that put Newt in a bad light. In my opinion these people posed perfectly acceptable questions. They expressed their dissatisfaction with Newt's views on certain topics, but did so in a respectful way.

I decided to add my 2 cents to it. I figured some of his supporters need a reality check. I'm doing them (and this country) a favor, right? I basically said that I find it quite ironic that Herman Cain was pushed down for his extramarital affairs, yet in his place people have erected Newt Gingrich, a man who himself has had some extramarital affairs. Newt has also flip-flopped on many issues, and basically took bribes. Now that Herman Cain is endorsing Newt and Newt is promising Cain the Vice Presidency, we know exactly where Herman Cain really stands (as if we needed the help).

I posted my comment and a few minutes later went back to refresh to see if anyone else had said anything new. To my surprise I found my comment missing from his page, and where it used to be, another poster said something to the effect of "It's not nice to remove comments, Newt". Next thing I know, her comment goes missing too!
I couldn't re-post my comment, because it seems they have blocked me from doing so.


I guess I can't blame them for censoring people from speaking the truth about the real Newt Gingrich on his own Facebook page (which can be found here: Newt Gingrich Facebook Page ) After all, they ARE trying to get him elected. The truth certainly wouldn't do that. Since I'm blocked, maybe you guys want to voice your opinions if you're bored enough to do so. I'm not encouraging bad behavior, disrespectful language or anything of the sort,.... just promoting truth about a candidate who's victory may be a threat to our futures.




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
They really are haha i just tried as well as i just saw about 3 others get deleted. they are on their game though because the comments dont last for more than a few minutes. The elite are running out of pawns so they have to step it up



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Yeah, you said it best, the truth couldn't get him elected. Maybe I'll make a video with a guy fawks mask on advocating a coordinated attack on a certain date on Newts page. Just for the lulz. #opWakeUpFigNewtons maybe. Technically you can't make an anon video supporting a certain candidate(well, you can say whatever you want in the video, it is just accepted policy that you can't promote any candidate or else you get flame, you can however attack anyone if you list your grievances in a non partisan fashion), so it would not not be promotion for Paul specifically, but possibly just advocating a mass posting of videos about a wide range off issues on Newts' Wall. Sounds fun to me.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Hmmm, interesting. Have you looked into why obama still hasn't released his school/college transcripts yet? What's he hiding? Why hasn't he released his medical history? Other Presidents have, what's he hiding? Why hasn't anyone that knew him in school stepped forward with some story of obama? Someone blocking the truth on obama?
It's funny how everyone elses lives running against obama get put under a microscope, well everyone but obama himself guess he gets another free ride from the press.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CREAM
Yeah, you said it best, the truth couldn't get him elected. Maybe I'll make a video with a guy fawks mask on advocating a coordinated attack on a certain date on Newts page. Just for the lulz. #opWakeUpFigNewtons maybe. Technically you can't make an anon video supporting a certain candidate(well, you can say whatever you want in the video, it is just accepted policy that you can't promote any candidate or else you get flame, you can however attack anyone if you list your grievances in a non partisan fashion), so it would not not be promotion for Paul specifically, but possibly just advocating a mass posting of videos about a wide range off issues on Newts' Wall. Sounds fun to me.


It does sound like fun. Like I said, I wouldn't really want it to be an all-out vicious attack, just the sharing of some facts if you know what I mean.
Although I'd love to turn people on to Ron Paul, I'd want to keep this all about the Newt facts, so that the truth alone eliminates him from a victory. I think that by blasting the page with Ron Paul support will actually make people want to run away from him, afraid of the Ron Paul supporters steam-rolling them over. It makes me sad when people don't research the candidates they plan to vote for, and are willing to compromise their values. Some people are -praying- for his victory, for God's sake!



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
Hmmm, interesting. Have you looked into why obama still hasn't released his school/college transcripts yet?


Perhaps he is waiting for previous Presidents to release theirs!


What's he hiding? Why hasn't he released his medical history? Other Presidents have,


Have they? So how about showing us the last 5 presidents medical histories, school/college transcripts.... if you are unable to were you just telling another lie?


Why hasn't anyone that knew him in school stepped forward with some story of obama?


They have, why tell lies about that?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


Do you think if you Posted a Negative Comment about Ron Paul on his Facebook Page the same thing would happen to it there ? I doubt it , a TRUTHFUL Man that has Nothing to Hide can Face Criticism with a Reasonable Mind and Debate it . In Gingrich's case , the Man has Too Many Skeleton's in his Closet to even Consider Defending , hence , his Minons Cover for him .........



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Perhaps it wouldn't be so practical to just delete comments, if we gathered a flash mob and flooded his page with comments. Corruption must be exposed. Not only is he an insider, lobbying bastard who's made bank off his [masters'] exploitations & treated his wives as disposable playthings; but now he's actually in a position to become president and serve his oligarchs to the further-est extent.

I'll give him one thing --- he's rhetorically sound. Says some convincing things policy-wise. But when you look into his record and realize it's far more tainted than Herman Cains' and other politicians; just unacceptable. He's ideological garbage in comparison to Ron Paul and morally abhorrent on multiple fronts.

This censorship of his page only further proves the points we've been making; and solidifies the [factual] allegations.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
Hmmm, interesting. Have you looked into why obama still hasn't released his school/college transcripts yet? What's he hiding? Why hasn't he released his medical history? Other Presidents have, what's he hiding? Why hasn't anyone that knew him in school stepped forward with some story of obama? Someone blocking the truth on obama?
It's funny how everyone elses lives running against obama get put under a microscope, well everyone but obama himself guess he gets another free ride from the press.


That has nothing to do with this thread, make your own thread if you want to talk about it. Plus I dislike Newt for the same reasons I dislike Obama, both spineless flip floppers. Criticism of Newt here does not mean we all support Obama either...



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


Do you think if you Posted a Negative Comment about Ron Paul on his Facebook Page the same thing would happen to it there ? I doubt it , a TRUTHFUL Man that has Nothing to Hide can Face Criticism with a Reasonable Mind and Debate it . In Gingrich's case , the Man has Too Many Skeleton's in his Closet to even Consider Defending , hence , his Minons Cover for him .........


Ya know, I do check his page from time to time and I have yet to see any negative comments on Ron Paul's web page. Maybe they are there, but never while I'm looking at it. While browsing Newt's, I found at least three before they got rid of them, fast. I wonder if they work through the night deleting comments. It must be really hard work and maybe a little demoralizing as well when you read so many negative things about your candidate. Think he goes through staff pretty quick?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu
Perhaps it wouldn't be so practical to just delete comments, if we gathered a flash mob and flooded his page with comments. Corruption must be exposed. Not only is he an insider, lobbying bastard who's made bank off his [masters'] exploitations & treated his wives as disposable playthings; but now he's actually in a position to become president and serve his oligarchs to the further-est extent.

I'll give him one thing --- he's rhetorically sound. Says some convincing things policy-wise. But when you look into his record and realize it's far more tainted than Herman Cains' and other politicians; just unacceptable. He's ideological garbage in comparison to Ron Paul and morally abhorrent on multiple fronts.

This censorship of his page only further proves the points we've been making; and solidifies the [factual] allegations.


I couldn't agree with you more. That's how I feel about it too. I know it's Facebook and I know it's there to promote himself,.... but censoring people and not allowing them to ask perfectly good questions is just not right. Nobody was using foul language, just expressing their distaste for his views. If he had any decency, he/his staff would defend his position instead of deleting questions that might make him look bad. It is highly deceitful to censor the truth.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


Gingrich's Life in Politics is an Open Book for Anyone to Read . His Character Deficiencies are Selfevident to anyone who Researches him . An Opportunist, Flip Floper, Greedy , Selfcentered Hedonist . A Man like that could Never be trusted with absolute Power ..........



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I heard the other night two similar questions posed on CNN by a guest:
  • Why would voters who abandoned Cain over extramarital affairs support Newt with his poor history in that area?
  • Why would those who supported Cain as an outsider now flock to the "ultimate insider"?

The answer to both is obviously: because that's not why they supported him in the first place.

Politics likes to analyze the thought processes of the voters, constantly coming up with ideas of why the voters voted a certain way. In the vast majority of the cases, they get it wrong. So here, I am going to give you the thought process of someone who initially supported Cain and now supports Gingrich... me. Because after all is said and done, 10,000 psychoanalysts can analyze every move I make and still not know exactly what's in my head.

I supported Cain because of his conservative, business-friendly policies. As a previous CEO (and a successful one at that), the assumption was that he had the knowledge of business to fix the economy. After all, he has created more jobs in his life than probably every President that has served during that time all together.

I left Cain because of his inability (or unwillingness) to give specific answers to specific questions on his policies. He is very good at explaining the methods used to make an analysis, but apparently either cannot or will not give solid answers, preferring to play around the edges in this theoretical world. A President must be able to make decisions and stand behind them.

I support Gingrich because he was Speaker when the budget was balanced under Bill Clinton. He has historically been small business friendly, and his track record shows a steady conservative center tempered by deep thought and, on occasion, reversals of specifics when confronted with factual information. His soiled past is a good example of this steadfastness: he was accused of 84 ethics charges, removed from his speakership by the rest of Congress, fined an unprecedented $300,000, and left office. Now, decades later, Newt is the front-runner for the GOP nomination for President, paid the fine out of his own personal funds despite being offered loans by pundits, has gotten 83 of those 84 charges dropped, has been declared innocent of any tax-related wrongdoing by the IRS. In short, the man was railroaded because his moral center was at odds with the majority of Congress, and yet he appears to have maintained his core principles throughout.

Now, after seeing what the Congress has managed to do (raise taxes, raise unemployment, increase regulation of small business, lower production, create a massive trade imbalance, and generally point fingers of blame in every direction except at themselves), it seems obvious to me that we were far better off when Newt was heavily involved in the Congress. So why not make him President? He can do no worse than the buffoon in the office now.

So far as his Facebook page... come on. This isn't a policy debate; it is a point of contact. Of course they don't want negative information on their page! If you want to ask a question, send it in to one of the many debates being held that use social networking questions. Oh, and I have to mention that his opponent, Barack Obama, still sends me campaign e-mails asking for input... as long as I send them money first and don't dare disagree with any of their policies. That seems at least just as dark as deleting unflattering comments and questions off of Facebook.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Found this on President Clintons medical records.
articles.latimes.com...

This on President Bush's
www.nytimes.com...

Found this on President Bush's college transcripts.
www.eduinreview.com...

And found this on obama.
www.eduinreview.com...
michellemalkin.com...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


O.K. I'd say that was a good answer and clarifies some things for me. I respect your choice even though I wouldn't find myself voting for him.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I support Gingrich because he was Speaker when the budget was balanced under Bill Clinton.


The budget was not balanced under Clinton, that was just number twisting DC magic.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by CREAM

According to your source (which is a blog incidentally):

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
Source: rtr.org...

Let's see where we are now:

The shortfall registered $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2011, up from $1.29 trillion in 2010 and the second-highest on record, according to Treasury Department data issued today in Washington. It reached $1.42 trillion in 2009, the highest ever. The September gap widened to $64.6 billion from $34.6 billion in the same month last year.
Source; www.bloomberg.com...

I'll take $16.5B as opposed to $1420B, $1290B, and $1300B any day.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Newt has the business ethics of an Enron CEO. He has the moral fiber of a Clinton. He is about as conservative as Romney (care). He has the record of a Pelosi, and the looks of a Catholic Priest.
Yeah, we need him to straighten out the country.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

Your whole post is opinion. Here are some facts:

Newt has the business ethics of an Enron CEO.


Sunday, October 11, 1998; Page A13

The House ethics committee dropped the three remaining ethics charges against Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) yesterday, despite finding that Gingrich repeatedly violated one rule by using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda.

The ethics panel decided to take no further action because there is no evidence that "Rule 45" violations are continuing in the speaker's office, a post Gingrich has held since 1995. Consultant Jeffrey Eisenach's work took place while Gingrich was the GOP minority whip in 1990-91.
Source: www.washingtonpost.com...


On July 7, 2004, Lay was indicted by a grand jury on 11 counts of securities fraud and related charges. On January 31, 2006, following four and a half years of preparation by government prosecutors, Lay's and Skilling's trial began in Houston. Lay was found guilty on May 25, 2006, of 10 counts against him; the judge dismissed the 11th. Because each count carried a maximum 5- to 10-year sentence, legal experts said Lay could have faced 20 to 30 years in prison.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...


He has the moral fiber of a Clinton.


"You adamantly oppose gay rights... but you've also been married three times and admitted to having an affair with your current wife while you were still married to your second," Isabel Friedman, president of the Penn Democrats, asked Gingrich after a speech at the University of Pennsylvania, according to Politico. "As a successful politician who's considering running for president, who would set the bar for moral conduct and be the voice of the American people, how do you reconcile this hypocritical interpretation of the religious values that you so vigorously defend?"

...

"I've had a life which, on occasion, has had problems," Gingrich said. "I believe in a forgiving God, and the American people will have to decide whether that's their primary concern. If the primary concern of the American people is my past, my candidacy would be irrelevant. If the primary concern of the American people is the future... that's a debate I'll be happy to have with your candidate or any other candidate if I decide to run."
Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...


"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

With those words, President Clinton didn't just dig himself a hole, he stole a backhoe, dug a really deep hole, drove the backhoe into the hole, wired the backhoe with explosives and blew it up. Strenuously denying his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky at a January press conference, Clinton was later impeached by the House of Representatives for lying about the matter under oath.
Source: www.time.com...


He is about as conservative as Romney (care).

With the recent deviations in the definition of "conservative", this entire simile becomes a matter of opinion.


He has the record of a Pelosi

On what issues? I could fill three forums with comparisons showing the two dissimilar.


and the looks of a Catholic Priest.

This one is not even worth refuting, save to ask for one clarification: are you saying Newt is physically unattractive, or are you accusing him of pedophilia on the basis if his physical appearance?

I'll be happy to debate Spkr. Gingrich's positions, history, and politics with you, but I'll need something more than opinions and wordplay.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Which Newt do you want to debate?
The one that thinks the government should take action on climate change?
The one that asked his wife to sign a divorce agreement while she was recovering from cancer surgery? I wonder if she was aware of his 6 year affair at the time?



Gingrich had a six-year affair with his third wife while he was still married to his second. He had an affair with his second wife while he was still married to his first wife. And as we previously reported, during his 1974 campaign, a former aide described "approaching a car with Gingrich's daughters in hand, only to find the candidate with a woman, her head buried in his lap." Another former aide alleged that Gingrich had attempted to seduce her, Chaz Reinhold-style, after the death of a relative.

motherjones.com...

Or, the Newt that took over 1.6 million from Freddie Mac, even though he was not registered as a lobbyist? Let's not nitpick, surely Freddie Mac needs an "historian"....

Or, the Newt that wants to require you to purchase health insurance? Make more than 50k, post a bond or purchase health insurance.

I could go on. If you cannot determine this man's character, with the history HE has? You have a problem with deductive reasoning, sir. He is arrogant, unethical, immoral, and BAD for America. There is nothing to debate.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join