Posted on 12/08/2011 7:44:01 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
I will have to dig around for the video I watched, but I am absolutely positive I heard it, and played it repeatedly too, since I’m a slow typist :) and transcribed it in a post I made while listening.
I’m sorry but just because he was hired by Freddie Mac for $1.5million during the run up in the housing bubble to give them historical advice does not mean he’s an insider on the take. Right?
People aren’t listening to M Bachmann because she has dishonestly attacked (in Order) Palin, Perry, Cain & Gingrich. She has been unrelenting negative about other conservatives in the race and while she is good on the issues she is a lousy candidate in terms of appealing to voters.
Her campaign behavior identifies her as a attention grubbing POS.
I really do not know yet whom I will side with. But I would not go vote Obama, the worst of all evils, as they say. Why would I vote for someone who has shown his lackadaisical attitude as our country keeps falling into more economic decline because of Gigantic government failure while holding a deaf ear to her people? In stead O & C decide to give a humanity lesson to the world on the treatment of a select group of people-the gay community-who already fall under the Human Rights of ALL people. And Hillary starts a Global Fund with our $3 Million hard earned dollars to spearhead? Who oversees that money and how is it used?
If they are truly insiders they have to know all, it is what they are being paid to know; they have years of being in the know, to not know. They hire or recrute friends to "listen" for them. Who then can we trust to hold to the best interests of the American people, not to party politics in winning the next election, not to "unto" themselves. They just seem to build up their portfolios while we continue to lose ours. Even after being under investigation for connections to various troubled govt agencies of which they have advisory connections with. I think that is where Bachmann and even Pelosi seem to suggest.
#25 and Define “take”..lol
Every man or woman for themselves..it is not about being buddies with the opponent. Who’s Huntsman?
I do know it wasn’t the Glen Beck interview. Brief clip on you tube maybe.
Anyhoo — given her poll numbers it’s probably not important.
It’s Romney who worries me. :(
I just drove though MA and can at least say their gas prices are way lower [ 3.18 ] just off 95, than my NE state.
You might want to read this book first. You can likely count on one hand all the politicians in D.C. that don't indulge in some type of financial advantage commonly found in their position of power and influence. There are many legal (or rather, not "illegal") ways politicians have to scam the system. The whole political system has been corrupted in one way or another. 
Ok, took me a while but I have found an example of Bachmann saying Newt Gingrich is “on the take.” It’s between 6:00 and 7:00 on the video here: http://republicanredefined.com/2011/12/06/bachmann-romney-and-gingrich-are-father-and-grandfather-of-obamacare/
She’s talking with Megyn Kelly on Fox here — I heard her use the phrase somewhere else on the same day. I suspect someone advised her not to use “on the take” because it’s commonly understood to refer to bribery or other political corruption. But she was definitely saying it that day!
Wow..you are dedicated. Thanks for the follow up!
I liked the father and grandfather of ObamaCare.
Romney and his VC's made money, lost money--that's life-you win some, you lose some. VC's are a select group of investors who know the score, know the people involved, have capital to invest, and know the risk. They know not to invest more than they can afford to lose. VC's are not naive investors. They write it off as losses. If start-ups, then there were few employees who also knew the risk of companies they join hoping to strike it rich by being bought.
Newt influenced a government sector through historical data, his own through decades of working on the Hill. Whether they took his advice or not, he was also a private businessman making a living. Anything government touches seems bent over to fail, but all the taxpayers pick up the tab; not just a few investors who are making adventurous moves with their own money. Everyone suffers. The 1% just are more able to weather the storm
No one had predicted the crash in the telecom sector which was never bailed out, never asked to be and still struggle along with all the smaller equipment makers to this day. But most in this industry have stayed out the course to remain inventive and move through R&D into newer technology.
Newt, if he was as good as he claims to be and expert on the workings of the government should Bush became concerned but the Democrats believed everyone should own a home and would always have a job to go to, A more short term mentality. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd to me were always in the know--it was their business to know being involved up close and personal. I still believe they realized, were worried and played it out into Oct 2008 when there only a few weeks before, people were saying something was about to happen; but no one know what. Coincidental before an election? I won't ever believe they did not know. They were to prepared to protect themselves from the fallout. Bush was set up as a patsy, they had played him before; knew it would be bad, but perhaps not this bad but if luck had it; they would with the help of their buddies in the media,spin and win the next election working off the crisis they had permitted to happen.
I believe right now we need to change the direction of our questions to the candidates and move into National Security--this drone business is what spy novels are made of.
Correction..Newt should have been concerned just like Bush in expressing concern..
Sorry
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.