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.

 

Breaking News: Newt Gingrich's campaign is about to implode

page: 16
59
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


If that's all you're seeing you're not paying attention. The actual info is inaccurate. And it was made up, completely, by known right wing media operatives and paid for and distributed by religious zealots who admit they did so without knowing if it's true.

Here's a concrete example:

In the film an anonymous reporter tell how they are scared for their life.

That anonymous reporter was the directors wife, who wasnt a report and who has since publicly said that she made that up, that no one actually had any reason to be afraid.

Why would a baptist minister ask his wife to lie, about being a reporter, about being scared for their life?

Why?

There's one example, but the whole entire thing is like that.

You can now no longer claim that you've only ever heard bad things about the people behind it.



edit on 19-1-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Everybody who is saying "This is it? This isnt a big deal."

Your overlooking the fact that this is either a MASSIVE story or nothing at all depending on what the MSM decides to do with it.

Its very simple. If ABC airs the interview, and make a big deal out of it, running it all night, making specials out of it and all that, then it will be a huge deal and Newt is done.

If the other networks pick it up and report it as breaking news and talk about it for hours, bring in their analysts and make it a huge deal, then Newt is done.

If ABC airs it, no one mentions it, no one cares to push the story on the MSM, then it means nothing.

People are overlooking the fact that the ball is in the MSM's court here they can sink Newt or keep him around.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
When Marianne cleaned out the house


There’s more to the story than you are hearing in the media. Marianne Gingrich is no innocent, and she was the one who broke the marriage and cleaned out the house, via Robert Costa via AP report from 1999 (h/t Burke):

Documents related to the divorce filed Friday in Cobb County Superior Court include a separation agreement signed by the couple and notarized in December 1987. There is no indication it was ever filed.

Gingrich’s divorce attorney, Thomas Browning, said Marianne Gingrich called her husband on his birthday in June 1987 to tell him she was leaving him. Gingrich, he said, came back to Georgia to find his home emptied out.

Browning said the pair maintained separate residences for six years before reconciling in late 1993 or early 1994.


legalinsurrection.com...

AP report from 1999
news.google.com...,6021695&dq=marianne+gingrich+furniture&hl=en

They had a six year separation?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 

That Rick Perry now endorses him does not instill confidence in his personal integrity and fundamental goodness either as a human being or the would-be leader of a nation and the "free world"..



edit on 19-1-2012 by NewAgeMan because: lol removed because none of it's really "funny", at all.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Perhaps Newt is a closet toker? He has relatives in the KKK? He thinks Reagan was a better actor than pres?


Hehe...still none of them are bad enough to have an impact, hehe...

Of course, his campaign is already doomed. At this point, they are really just trying to see who will be Romney's VP candidate. Which, in the en, won't matter, as Obama, the do-nothing President, will get re-elected anyhow.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
youtu.be...




edit on 023131p://bThursday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
This isn't going to damages Newt's career much. Remember, the republican party has a history of closeted gays exposed and affairs by evangelical politicians. On each occasion, support from social conservatives doesn't change at that much. It's amazing.... nobody seems to notice but Gingrich virtually ties with Romney at the moment, his support has grown and solidified. All this my guess comes from Palin, when she casually endorsed him on Fox the other day. I know there are alot of Paul supporters here, and I know that with Gingrich out of the way, it's a two man race again, with Paul as second, but Newt is not going away, and this story will not do him much damage.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
this newt guy is ridiculous, I can't believe a lot o people are willing to vote him after so many unscrupulous statements.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Non issue imo. newt wanted a open marriage, big deal..not my business and its not like overwhelming (unless he is of course trying to pretend he gives a rats arse about the sanctity of marriage nonsense).

He, as a republican "family values" guy shouldn't be even remotely in place for the nomination, but I guess the voters don't have any principles anyhow

The nomination will go to Romney. The question is, who will be his VP. I am suspecting he may bring on someone like Santorum, however, it would be tactically interesting if he invited Ron Paul.
The VP position is powerless, and so simply a vote getting position, however, it should not be underestimated the weight the position holds in regards to pushing people that were otherwise not interested into voting for the ticket (social liberal independents for instance)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You must be kidding?

He led the charge to have Clinton impeached over Monica.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
So Newt is a so called conservative with deep family values that has affairs and requests open marriage.... So what if Romney only pays 15% and represents the wealthy elite who care not at all for the working class...

These are perfect examples of Republican candidates and I doubt any of this hurts either of them.

As long as they continue the fight against the non-rich, non-white, non-U.S.... And stay strong in their pro-rich, pro-corporation, pro-war stance. They're golden. That's their base. Those devoid of empathy or conscience...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The nomination will go to Romney. The question is, who will be his VP. I am suspecting he may bring on someone like Santorum, however, it would be tactically interesting if he invited Ron Paul.


Are you predicting what I'm predicting?


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by hadriana
 


Its not how I personally choose to vote, but it's how most people tend to vote.



Well see - there ya go again.
I don't do it the way 'most people do it' and I won't.
I'm my own person with my own mind and I WILL stay that way.

And lately, I'm even more stubborn about that. Thanks to Anonymous, I now know that MOST PEOPLE might not even be MOST or PEOPLE. *THEY* might be manipulative bots. And who tells me what *MOST PEOPLE* think so that I should think that way too? You? I don't know if you are real or not. The Media? lol, I KNOW they manipulate stories.

One thing I know is my own mind, so I'm sticking with it. I'll write Ron Paul in if it comes to that.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

edit on 19-1-2012 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Like I said earlier, there's a greater chance of Paul being picked as the candidate (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%)

than Romney choosing him as a VP candidate (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 


That's complete silliness. History is why I say this, not "the media" etc.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by hadriana
 


That's complete silliness. History is why I say this, not "the media" etc.


Right. It's silliness to trust your own mind.
Right.

Because that's all I've been saying. I don't CARE to vote the way other people supposedly do -I dont' care who says that's the way most people do it - historically or NOT- I make my own decisions - I use my own knowledge of history and process, right and wrong. And it will stay that way.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You must be kidding?

He led the charge to have Clinton impeached over Monica.



Right, but its a non issue
What I mean by that is he is already, before this latest, accepted even though he is raw sewage in regards to his ethics..the voters are over that and will overlook everything, to include if he uses tranvestite prostitutes on a daily basis...aka, he can't get much lower than he already was..so this won't..make him sink even lower. he is at the bottom already.
so, non issue in regards to it effecting him. He is making headway not for his values, but for his toughguy talk and anger.
I will say something though...if through some strange miracle he is the nomination, it is pretty much game over until 2016. He appeals only to the pretty hard right wing, and even in their camp, the few with actual principles in their retoric they aren't thrilled about him.

So, Obama will win, but in 2004, Obama made a speech and won the 2008 election almost based on just that speech. I am more curious who will be the rising star from this that may give 16 a run for the money...I am eyeing huntsmen. I am not sure we heard the last of him...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The nomination will go to Romney. The question is, who will be his VP. I am suspecting he may bring on someone like Santorum, however, it would be tactically interesting if he invited Ron Paul.


Are you predicting what I'm predicting?


www.abovetopsecret.com...


At a glance, yes...it is a very interesting dynamic that shores up many things
tea party fiscal types for paul, anti war types for paul
moderate repubs and establishment gop for romney
both attract the wealthy

seems they tend to lock up all sides of the right and step pretty far into the independents also..this to me seems like a very strong ticket to go up against Obama..still not convinced they could win, but would certainly do better than any other senario I try to imagine with the current playing field. I think Romney would be wise to try and get that token spot for Paul and shore up an actual competitive campaign.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Nothing new here. His ex is not revealing any new and shocking information. She is still bitter and has not moved on with her own miserable life. Funny how she hung onto the Gingrich name for all of these years. She's just a user and a manipulator.

This will only make Newt stronger and I would like nothing more than to see Newt face Obama in a series of crippling debates. Obama would not stand a chance and he knows it.

I still don't know where to throw all of my support just yet. Paul is just to !@#$% up in regards to Foreign Policy, Romney is just a waffler and virtual RINO, Gingrich and Santorum..... Hmmm. Perry dropping out and endorsing Newt... Interesting... Is Perry hoping to ride along as a running mate?

It's getting crazy... So, who stands the best chance of squashing Obama and turning this nation's economy and govt. around?? Nail biter.....



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join