I see so your psychology is no one is allowed to make an income at all?
You do realize he owned or was 1 of the principles of a corporation known as “Newt Inc “ and they were doing a million or more dollars a year so now thats not allowed? Only demoncrats are allowed to make money working for Uncle Sam?
I guess Boeing must fold up its blanket, an all the members of congress whose wives work in different companies have to quit?
Are you really that naive? Or just a democrat hiding in a conservative t-shirt????
http://www1.salon.com/news/1998/08/28news.html
lots there
For one thing, Gingrich pioneered a denial of adultery that some observers would later christen
“the Newt Defense”: Oral sex doesn’t count. In a revealing psychological portrait of the “inner”
Gingrich that appeared in Vanity Fair (September 1995), Gail Sheehy uncovered a woman, Anne Manning,
who had an affair in Washington in 1977 with a married Gingrich.
“We had oral sex,” Manning revealed. “He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say,
‘I never slept with her.’” She added that Gingrich threatened her: “If you ever tell anybody about this,
I’ll say you’re lying.”
I see so your psychology is no one is allowed to make an income at all?
You do realize he owned or was 1 of the principles of a corporation known as “Newt Inc “ and they were doing a million or more dollars a year so now thats not allowed? Only demoncrats are allowed to make money working for Uncle Sam?
I guess Boeing must fold up its blanket, an all the members of congress whose wives work in different companies have to quit?
Are you really that naive? Or just a democrat hiding in a conservative t-shirt????
Of course you are right. I stand corrected.
So lets try again under your concept of capitalism.
So under your concept of capitalism, it matters not how you make money so long as you make lots of money.
Sell dope, run abortion clinics, sell pornography, run a whore house...anything goes as long as it makes a lot of money.
The above examples are of course extreme but they make the point that it is important how one makes money and in politics telling the world you have one set of convictions while making money doing the opposite is not admirable.
You might read the post by jpsb. His post is much more convincing, reminds us of some facts, is logical and has none of the venom shown in yours, which is totally devoid of any facts or convictions of any kind.
As a matter of fact yours, if taken seriously, would reflect on all conservatives as it paints them as approving of any activity so long as it makes lots of money.
Maybe you are the anti conservative mole?