en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/4197431 Comments by glenthomasshow http://tv.breitbart.com/liberal-hate-high-school-teacher-refuses-to-accept-mlk-award-from-paul-ryan/#IDComment276219006 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. Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:48:57 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/liberal-hate-high-school-teacher-refuses-to-accept-mlk-award-from-paul-ryan/#IDComment276219006 http://tv.breitbart.com/obama-bush-is-food-stamp-president-not-me/#IDComment275967986 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. Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:09:25 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/obama-bush-is-food-stamp-president-not-me/#IDComment275967986 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9SFAVLO0&show_article=1#IDComment273145288 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.... Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:36:41 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9SFAVLO0&show_article=1#IDComment273145288 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ea0a270b659c4d892693ae6b96cf3a4f.7a1&show_article=1#IDComment272272046 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... Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:41:31 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ea0a270b659c4d892693ae6b96cf3a4f.7a1&show_article=1#IDComment272272046 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ea0a270b659c4d892693ae6b96cf3a4f.7a1&show_article=1#IDComment272198072 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... Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:53:36 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ea0a270b659c4d892693ae6b96cf3a4f.7a1&show_article=1#IDComment272198072 http://tv.breitbart.com/paul-claims-victory-for-the-cause-of-liberty/#IDComment261469795 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. Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:45:00 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/paul-claims-victory-for-the-cause-of-liberty/#IDComment261469795 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-i-like-being-able-to-fire-people-who-provide-services-to-me/#IDComment260529864 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. Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:08:36 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-i-like-being-able-to-fire-people-who-provide-services-to-me/#IDComment260529864 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-i-like-being-able-to-fire-people-who-provide-services-to-me/#IDComment260510802 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. Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:42:27 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-i-like-being-able-to-fire-people-who-provide-services-to-me/#IDComment260510802 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-i-like-being-able-to-fire-people-who-provide-services-to-me/#IDComment259743323 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. Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:44:09 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-i-like-being-able-to-fire-people-who-provide-services-to-me/#IDComment259743323 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-i-like-being-able-to-fire-people-who-provide-services-to-me/#IDComment259688675 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. Mon, 9 Jan 2012 18:24:03 +0000 http://tv.breitbart.com/romney-i-like-being-able-to-fire-people-who-provide-services-to-me/#IDComment259688675 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9S2LJT02&show_article=1#IDComment256186278 Ricks voting record might be used as an issue but the reality is that all politicians make concessions on their votes. If a politician voted NO on every issue they didn't completely agree with we would have every congressman voting NO on everything. The more intelligent voters in the country will see through this ploy of negative adds on Rick. His job as congressman was to bring home as much money from Washington he could to support local projects, and he did a good job doing just that. The problem with earmarks is the abuse that has recently been seen as in the case with Obama Care. Many congressman were promised earmarks that were ridiculous just to secure the vote for Obama Care. Most knew voting for this bill would be the downfall of there political career. But they were promised many things under the table that swayed there vote. Line Item Vetoing will be a key way to get the federal budget under control. For those of you who think Rick Santorum does not have a chance you need to think twice. If you have any intelligence you need to see through the spin on his voting record and also realize he has enough honesty to admit he was wrong or regrets some of his votes. The one area I would be concerned is if he voted for something that was against his principals because an earmark was attached to it for him. That would go against Reagan Conservative Principals. And that is what this country is looking for in a candidate and what this country needs to get back on track... Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:23:54 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9S2LJT02&show_article=1#IDComment256186278 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9S2UEFG1&show_article=1#IDComment256151642 Remember that the establishment did not back Ronald Reagan. And he ended up being one of the greatest Presidents of all time. Rick Santorum is in a similar position. Rick is the closest thing we have to a Reagan Conservative. He has conservative values and principals that he will weigh all his decisions against. His conservative principals are what makes him closest to a Reagan conservative we have. His one weakness is name recognition. His strengths far out weigh his weakness because in do time his name will be recognized. He is very confrontational and will not back down from a fight with Obama. We know exactly where he stands on all issues. We know what he will fight for as President. When listening to Rush and Hannity one of the biggest most frequent questions they were being asked is why hasn't Santorum caught on. He does great in the debates and has a great plan and ideas. Rush had the best answer and that is he does not have the name recognition. Rick does not have bad baggage to eat him up. He might have some baggage but it won't take him down. The biggest baggage might be he is inexperienced... All I have to say to that is "And Obama has More experience?" That will not be an effective argument against Rick. Rick might be the diamond in the rough that the Conservatives are looking for. And as far as being able to beat Obama. Mickey Mouse could be put on the Ballot against Obama and win. Obama is beatable. Rick Santorum winning the GOP nomination means Obama will have to run on his record. And if that's what Obama has to do he is finished as President. Rick could be the teflon candidate. Negative adds on him won't be possible. The negative adds on Romney, Gingrich or Paul will be so great that they will take away from the conservative message. Rick could be the answer.... Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:31:17 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9S2UEFG1&show_article=1#IDComment256151642 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9S2TOAG1&show_article=1#IDComment256134118 Remember that the establishment did not back Ronald Reagan. And he ended up being one of the greatest Presidents of all time. Rick Santorum is in a similar position. Rick is the closest thing we have to a Reagan Conservative. He has conservative values and principals that he will weigh all his decisions against. His conservative principals are what makes him closest to a Reagan conservative we have. His one weakness is name recognition. His strengths far out weigh his weakness because in do time his name will be recognized. He is very confrontational and will not back down from a fight with Obama. We know exactly where he stands on all issues. We know what he will fight for as President. When listening to Rush and Hannity one of the biggest most frequent questions they were being asked is why hasn't Santorum caught on. He does great in the debates and has a great plan and ideas. Rush had the best answer and that is he does not have the name recognition. Rick does not have bad baggage to eat him up. He might have some baggage but it won't take him down. The biggest baggage might be he is inexperienced... All I have to say to that is "And Obama has More experience?" That will not be an effective argument against Rick. Rick might be the diamond in the rough that the Conservatives are looking for. And as far as being able to beat Obama. Mickey Mouse could be put on the Ballot against Obama and win. Obama is beatable. Rick Santorum winning the GOP nomination means Obama will have to run on his record. And if that's what Obama has to do he is finished as President. Rick could be the teflon candidate. Negative adds on him won't be possible. The negative adds on Romney, Gingrich or Paul will be so great that they will take away from the conservative message. Rick could be the answer.... Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:05:00 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9S2TOAG1&show_article=1#IDComment256134118 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9S2NE3G0&show_article=1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#IDComment256090440 As a Conservative Independent/ Reagan Conservative not wanting to associate myself with the GOP establishment, I have a hard time backing Mitt Romney. He gives me the feeling that he feels he is entitled to the GOP nomination. The GOP and Media establishment also espouses the same sentiment. The GOP establishment believes a true Reagan Conservative can't win the General Election. This is the main reason that the establishment is backing Mitt Romney. They feel His campaign has the money to beat Obama and he can cross political lines and make concessions which will keep the liberals happy. Although I think he would be better then Obama I don't think he will make the conservative base happy. And if his deals and concessions to the democrats don't get the country moving in the right direction fast enough we will have another 1 term president with no results and the country in a worse position then it is now. And most importantly the Country will be more upset with the GOP again.... Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:58:55 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9S2NE3G0&show_article=1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#IDComment256090440