Lets see.. A Republican President Abraham Lincoln went to war and freed the slaves. The Republicans fought for equal rights for blacks in the 60's fighting the Democrats all the way. Now the way to keep the black man down is to keep him dependent on the master. The dems have figured the best way to do that. Give them entitlements, Foodstamps, welfare, and all the handouts you can imagine so the black man has no way of improving his situation. On top of that dismantle the black family. And to further accomplish that the Dems call the Republicans racists because the republicans don't want to give handouts they want to make the blacks self sufficient and not have to rely on the GOVT. The real racists are the Dems and history has proven it by the actions of the Dems. Wake up Black America and realize that the Dems are keeping you down and they are the true racists.

When Obama Loses the election it will be Bush's fault as well...LMAO.....
I can't believe I just typed lmao but it is funny that all of his problems are Bush's fault.

Romney has a problem and its not Newt. He needs to answer questions directly and stop trying to be politically correct. What Newt is doing right is he at least acknowledges his faults and is turning them into positives. Like him or not he is taking sensitive issues and turning them into positives for him. Also when it comes to the General Election and when Obama starts slamming his opponent with Lies and Half Truths do you want Romney with his cheesy grin to respond or do you want Newt with his (I won't take this crap) attitude responding. Personally I want the fire Newt has to go after Obama. Romney is not a fighter like Newt. Santorum could be a sleeper because he is a fighter but he does not have the delivery of Newt. Ron Paul has great Ideas and I think his ideas would run circles around Obama but I'm not sure how he would respond to Obama and his attacks....

The situation in the 90's with Newt and his Ethics Violation accusations is that it was becoming a distraction and the Republicans wanted them behind them even if they weren't true. What they should have done is stood by Newt because eventually he was cleared of all of them. What the main stream media wants us to remember was he was under investigation for ethics violations. Not that he was cleared. His biggest fault is he cheated on his wife. I would say that most Presidents probably fall in this category but just haven't been caught...

I think that Newt is being cast as a person who is corrupt and has ethics problems. What I see is the dems trying to take out the most effective person against there plans. The 1990 Republicans were the same thing. Newt challenged the status quo. And the Republicans did not like that. remember that out of all the 85 ethics violation charges 84 were thrown out with no validity. Which means that the dems were throwing everything at Newt they could to try and take the pressure off of Clinton. The one thing that did stick on Newt was proven to be false a year later by the IRS. Everyone called Reagan the Teflon President I believe Newt is the Teflon Candidate...

We as Americans need to wise up. The Media and the establishments of Dems and GOP's have been picking our presidents or at least influencing us with who they want to be president. Ron Pauls Ideas are highly conservative. The biggest argument is his foreign policy. That is the only difference in opinion that we can argue. Do you want to keep fighting wars and being a police state for the world. He is not an isolationist like the media wants us to believe. I know he would have no problem going to war or attacking another country as long as we have a declaration of war from congress. He will attack in the framework of the constitution. The other GOP's a valid point when saying that if IRAN gets a nuke they might use it because of there religion. But I say that Akmadinijad and the mulas are very much willing to have there minions commit suicide but they aren't. If they are responsible for a nuke going off we will level them and kill them. They do not want to lose the power they have. And I understand that many people do not want to take that chance but in reality its none of our business until they do. What is the use of being the police of the world when we can't afford it. At some point we will be forced to pull back because financially we can't afford it. Take the surveys that put you in a category. I always considered myself a Reagan Conservative but I find myself agreeing with the libertarian view. Small Government and Fiscal Conservatism and a constitutionalist.

Now just think about a General Election. Ron Paul would attract the Liberal Anti war Vote, Most Independents because they are fed up with the status Quo and now 40% of the country say they are independents. And the conservative vote, why because the alternative is Obama. Obama is beatable on multiple levels.

I have replied with honest accounting principals. I hope you aren't calling me a mormon since I have proven your flaws. I am far from any denomination. In fact I don't believe in any religion. I do believe in God just not mans version. You are obviously flawed in your world perspective.

You still make no sense. Money borrowed shows up as debt whether you spend it or not. If you barrow $100 and don't spend it 2 things happen. you have $100 in debt and $100 in cash assets. They cancel each other out. The problem is you most likely will be paying 5% to 15% or higher interest on the money borrowed that you are sitting on which makes no financial sense.

There is no convincing me erroneously that a company has more value than it does by increasing debt. The buyer can't be cheated by your train of thought. If the buyer does not do his do diligence then it is his own fault for buying a company that has high debt. The fact remains that a seller has an obligation to disclose everything about his company. He can not hide debt. I will tell you that early in my career a seller hid some vital information to me and I sued and won more than what he saved trying to fraud me. The fact remains that all debt and liabilities have to be revealed. Once you know those factors you can weigh them against net revenue and assets. I'm not sure how to cheat a buyer and convince him a company has more value by increasing debt. This notion still makes no sense. And when you use the word "MOST" saying that most of Bains companies went bust after they were sold. The fact is few of the companies went bust compared to the ones that succeeded.

And understand I am not a Romney Backer. He does not convey the conservative pricipals I am looking for in a Candidate.

What you are trying to say might make sense to people not in business. I have been part of large scale mergers and have bought and sold a large companies as well. 1st when I look at a company to buy I look at revenue margins, gross and net. Then I look at NET worth. The way to understand NET worth is take all debt and liabilities and subtract it from revenue and assets. If it is a company that has stock or doesn't have stock is irrelevant. If the company has debt but just spreads it around doesn't matter either it all adds up in the debt column. If a company hides debt from a buyer in any way would be fraud and that is the last thing a seller wants. If a company is failing or has to high debt most buyers will stay away from purchasing them unless they specialize in turning companies around. Right now I happen to work for a company that specializes in turning companies around. The project that I am currently involved in bought a company that was losing a million dollars a year. We bought and merged another small company that complimented our business during our down months to level out revenue. in our second year we finally made a profit not much but we did make a profit. We did it by eliminating some positions and combining production from 2 locations to 1 location. We did eliminate jobs but we also saved a company from going out of business which the net jobs saved was 50+. We are getting ready to buy and merge another small complimentary company that will increase our profitability.