Video: Watch the full Iowa Thanksgiving Family Forum

Saturday afternoon, six GOP candidates participated in the Thanksgiving Family Forum which focused primarily on social issues surrounding the 2012 election. The forum was sponsored by The Family Leader and took place at the First Federated Church in Des Moines, Iowa. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman were also invited, however, both declined to attend.

Original Event Date: Saturday, November 19, 2011

Participants: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Santorum

Here is the entire video of the forum, moderated by pollster Frank Luntz. The actual candidate forum begins at about 30 minutes in if you jump ahead.

Report from the Des Moines Register:

Six Republicans vying to be their party’s nominee for president in 2012 met across a Thanksgiving dinner table on Saturday night for an unconventional discussion of their views and policy proposals.

The Thanksgiving Family Forum, held in a Des Moines church in front of some 2,500 social and religious conservatives, was an unusually freewheeling and philosophical discussion, touching on issues of morality, liberty and personal responsibility as well as hot-button issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.

Forum moderator Frank Luntz, the famed Republican message guru, challenged candidates Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum with mostly open-ended questions, and didn’t hesitate to press them on particulars.

In a question about the 10th Amendment — a GOP favorite that leaves to the states powers not specifically given to the federal government — Luntz asked whether states could “tell the federal government no” on issues of morality. He directed the question initially to Cain, who is black, and referred to state segregation laws that were dismantled only through federal action.

Was the federal government justified in imposing a morally just law — ending segregation — on the states, even if it perhaps exceeded the 10th Amendment?

For Cain, the answer was something of a qualified yes: “The states can’t say no to the federal government if they’re wrong,” he said.

But Paul, the most libertarian-leaning of the Republicans in the field, immediately jumped in to disagree.

“The states definitely have a right to be wrong,” he said. “The states are supposed to correct it. But there are limits. That’s why we have a Constitution.”

The discussion was lively at times. Overall, Luntz did a decent job moderating the discussion and posed some provocative questions.

  • ryan

    These people are crazy.

    • 12AngryMen

      Crazy like the Founding Fathers. This group is amazing!

      Conservatism vs libertarianism- now that is a debate worth having since both sides bring real value to the discussion.

      • 1_NotAngryNotRetardedGuy

        “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the
        Christian religion.” -John Adams

        “The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
        enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a
        contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy in fact,
        constitute the real Anti-Christ.” -Thomas Jefferon

        “The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in
        pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.” -Thomas Paine

        “We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition … In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.” -George Washington

        • ClassicallyLiberal

          Taking quotes out of Historical context does not advance any debate.
          If the progressives, that maintain a stanglehold on education, admired the Founders, these Great Men would not be strangers to American Citizens, as they are now.

          The only time the left quotes the Founders is when they use out-of-context fragments to make their point.

          Otherwise, the left maligns, mocks and/or ignores the Founders.

          • Warren2012

            These assertions are absolutely ridiculous. None of the above quotes are taken out of context. Did you fail American history? Or are you simply choosing to ignore the fact that Thomas Jefferson advocated intensely for the total separation of church and state.

            In addition, there’s a reason why effectively 100% of American Historians at our nation’s top universities are very liberal. It’s because the left wing far more accurately represents the true intentions of our founding fathers than the right wing. Their years and years of research on this topic and the general consensus they have cannot be argued with. They know more about this than you, you are evidently incorrect.

        • 12AngryMen

          Nice try on the John Adams quote. Here are some context and facts that are slightly inconvenient:

          Two mistakes here. First- that is part of a line from the Treaty of Tripoli, not a John Adams quote.

          “The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:
          The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 25
          Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:
          The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 26
          Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.”

          http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125

          Do NOT try to use the Founding Fathers to further your liberal propaganda.

          • 1_NotAngryNotRetardedGuy

            I’m not a liberal at all. I just don’t pretend that the founding fathers agreed with everything I think to suit my lack of knowledge like you do. Also, I find it hilariously hypocritical that you’re angry that I would try to falsely use the founding fathers to push my political ideology. The founding fathers (who wrote the constitution) specifically required the separation of church and state… both for freedom OF religion, and freedom FROM religion. I do not dispute that Christianity is the predominate religion in our country, but we’re talking politics here, not religion… they really ought to be separate from each other, per the wishes of our founding fathers.

          • 12AngryMen

            @1_NotAngryNotRetardedGuy

            Oh my, don’t tell me you have fallen for the “separation of church and state” thing?

            ” The phrase “separation of church and state” comes especially from the 1500s, and was a product of the Reformation in Europe.
            In the fourth century A.D., the government took control of the church and began to establish specific doctrinal tenets by law, making the church an official organ of government and using coercion and brutal penalties against those who did not submit to government-established theology. That abhorrent practice predominated until some religious leaders began to oppose it in the 1300s. Eventually, over a span of two-and-a-half centuries, numerous individuals in different nations across Europe raised their voice against the government union of church and state. After all, God Himself had separated the two institutions, placing Moses over civil affairs and Aaron over spiritual ones; and when King Uzziah tried to combine the two functions in 2 Chronicles 26, God Himself struck him down, thus reaffirming the institutional separation He had established. (Those European leaders and their followers who objected to many of the unBiblical operations of both the state and the state-established and state-run church became known as “Dissenters”.)
            The first recorded usage of the separation phrase occurred during the reign of King Henry VIII of England. Henry had sought a divorce, but when the church rightly denied it, Henry established his own government-run church and awarded himself the divorce. The Parliament also passed laws decreeing who could and could not participate in the Lord’s Supper and other sacraments, even deciding who could and could not preach the Gospel. The Rev. Richard Hooker objected, and is credited with being the first to use the separation phrase, demanding that the government stay out of what was rightly the church’s jurisdiction.
            Since those who came to America afterwards were largely Dissenters and generally held the same view as their Dissenting leaders in Europe, the separation phrase was widely used in America for the next century-and-a-half, especially in objecting to British attempts to establish official theology or British-run churches in America.
            The most frequently referenced American source for the contemporary usage of the separation phrase today is an 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, in which he assured them that because of “the wall of separation between church and state” the government would not interfere with or inhibit their religious practices or expressions, whether occurring in private or public. But in 1947, the Supreme Court reversed the traditional use of this phrase, for the first time allowing the government to interfere with and even prohibit religious practices and expressions, especially when occurring in public – a complete reversal of the historic meaning of the phrase and its usage both by Jefferson and those in previous centuries. Consequently, the modern application of this phase bears nearly no resemblance to either its historical or Biblical origins.”

            http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=100766#Church and State

          • Babylon Drifter

            I think you do not understand the phrase, “separation of Church and State” and it is not a one way street. The fact that you are regurgitating what someone on a website wrote is proof of that.

            Separation of Church and State does not solely mean that government cannot regulate religion in what it practices but that neither can regulate one another. The church shouldn’t have a say in government affairs and vice versa. This is how our founding fathers have always wanted it and if they wanted a theocracy then they would have established this country as is. As Washington stated earlier, “We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition … In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”

            Religious institutions, in his time, were always fast to side with authoritarian governments. Religion does not offer liberty, it offers bondage through the chains of faith. This is why our country was founded upon a separation of church and state. You cannot mix the two together simply because they work off of separate principles. Why would anyone think mixing the two together would be a good idea?

          • notateapartier

            You should try to find a more reputable source. Wallbuilders and its founder, David Barton both have highly suspect reputations. While Mr. Barton paints himself as a “historian”, his education goes as far as a B.A. from Oral Roberts University and an honorary Ph.D from the unaccredited Pensacola Christian Collage. Here’s what one former Senator had to say about him:

            In 1995, Republican Senator Arlen Specter wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy that many of Barton’s arguments “range from the technical to the absurd’ and that they “proceed from flawed and highly selective readings of both text and history.” Specter went on to state that Barton’s “pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let alone disproving, were it not for the fact that it is taken so very seriously by so many people.”

            Although his official biography describes him as “an expert in historical and constitutional issues.”, Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and critics dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history. His research has been described as flawed by many historians, who dismiss his work as that of “a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible”

        • ~JL

          Even ‘useful idiots’ can look up what you posted and clearly see that they are more progressive democrat lies.

          The American people are fed up with the PC~BS and lies, period.

          Anyone can also read all the Founding Fathers’ Charters of Liberty and Freedom from beginning to end and clearly see that our country’s foundation is built on the morals, ethics, principles and values of the Judea-Christain beliefs.

          “The only important difference between Nazi-ism, Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, and Liberalism is the spelling; and that the last group hasn’t got the brains to figure it out.” ~Bill Vance 

          • OneNonBeliever

            @~JL We were founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic? Which one? You act like this is one thing. The ethics of the Jewish tradition are vastly different from the Christian tradition. Within each of those two groups are a vast array of beliefs and interpretations. It is especially because of these vast differences in ethics and moral opinion that our forefathers gave us, the people, the right to decide for ourselves how religion plays into our lives. Look at the original colonies and settlers and it is easy to see how differently they each viewed the roles of religion, morality, and government- from the Quakers to the Presbyters, from Jamestown to the utopian Georgia experiment. Our founding fathers knew (many through personal experience), that if government power was given preferentially to one religious sect over another, that it would certainly result in wars among factions for control.

            The “Judeo/Christian” ethic argument is just a slick repackaging of the “Christian Nation” argument. It’s an easy distortion to preach from the pulpit, where the message is received by converts who eagerly want to believe in a Christian nation. It’s a lie though, because there is no such singular ethic.

        • jim

          hello. It is now easy to see from these quotes that this country was NOT founded as christain. I am a christsain who agrees. What God has set as an example is the christain/kindly monarchy. Look at your “elected” governement. It cannot do anything but steal and pay for itself. Now they found out that they can just “borrow” to pay for themsleves and their whims of supposed kindness to the “poor” little guys. I don’t know how to make a revolution to a kindly and generous monarchy, where everyone must pay for what they have and strive to be their best, where families take care of their poor themselves and only ask for help from their neighbors. where the church is who helps me when I need it. A sainly hero of chattnooga old started a hospital and school for disabled children WITHOUT the help of obabm,a and those in government who “care for the poor”. He is a true hero, mr siskin. Everyone else like me are full of hot AIR>>>

        • asdf

          You must be retarded…maybe not angry but certainly retarded. Go occupy something…

      • Tamra

        Love your comment!

    • mark

      that’s an understatement. so, was this a Christian’s only debate? did they not invite the Mormons? sad times we live in.

      • ClassicallyLiberal

        Do you honestly think Romney was not invited?

      • LuluBelle

        Yes, they did invite Romney and Huntsman and they both declined. I believe THEIR religion does not permit them to attend other churches.

        • sackets

          You clearly, don’t know what you are talking about, but it’s OK, I’m sure you’ve just been misinformed. Mormons can go wherever they please. Their religion did not prevent them in any way from attending the debate.

      • Nate

        They invited Mitt Romney but he declined. Please get your facts right

      • Bev

        Mormonism is Christian. These guys sure made themselves look like good ol’ holy-cow good guys. Don’t let a woman make a decision to abort, but it’s ok to slaughter millions of people around the world in the name of their self-righteousnes.

        • jim

          Have you ever studied even briefly the mormon religion? take a looka nd you will clearly see that Mormonsim is not christain at all. not even close. it’s some far out space age religion. Anyway, I love the mormon people. WEvery one I have met is kind, generous and moral. I love them dearly, theyy just don;t know how much the god who formed the universe loves them…..

          • Lindsay

            YOU know NOTHING about Mormons. You clearly don’t know the name of our faith (The Church of JESUS CHRIST of latter-day Saints) and haven’t even read a single page of the book of mormon (or the Bible, which we believe in BTW). Our entire religion is Christ-centered. Our meetings, our scriptures, and our lives revolve around our Savior, Jesus Christ who died for us all. Anyone who says we aren’t Christians is ignorant, biased, or only listens to angry anti-Mormon bigots. “Space age religion?” Our church has been restored from the way Jesus Christ ran his ministry when he walked on the earth. Our church is patterned after the Bible. There’s nothing “space age” about it. The official website is lds.org. Go educate yourself before you spout your bigotry! I know God loves me and everyone else.

          • Bob Jones

            Bigot- a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.

            The word “bigot” depends on how you define the word “intolerant”. But if it means “to disagree”, then everyone is a bigot if they hold to any belief system! That would make all Mormons bigots too.

            And to Joseph Smith and all of his followers, read Revelation 22:19
            “And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
            OR
            Deuteronomy 4:2 “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.”
            Deuteronomy 12:32 “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.”

          • Bob Jones

            My Mormon friend, please prove that the Bible has been adjusted grealy. I challenge you with the fact that it is far more accurately transmitted than any other book from its time, or even many after its time. Try reading, among many others, “the new evidence that demands a verdict” to find chapter after chapter of historical proof. The Bible has always proven correct when tested with archaeological discoveries as well. And, if you think that the Bible has been adjusted greatly over time, you really shouldn’t believe that it is the Word of God. In which case you have just proven that you really do have a different faith than Bible believing Christians.

            Regarding your definition of bigot as someone who is “prejudiced”, I looked it up as:
            “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.”
            This is clearly not the case. There is both knowledge and reason involved in making a distinction between a religion started by a known huckster and a Book tested time and time again through centuries of Jewish history and completed by our Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

            Perhaps the problem is that you don’t know enough about the history of your own church? After all, it seems like mormonism is trying to clean up its act and become more mainstream by identifying with more traditional Biblical teaching. If you look back only to the 70’s, Mormonism started going against the teachings of its earliest leadership and getting rid of the things that were hardest to justify. Many Christian churches try to do this today, for example, by accepting atheist societal values rather than believing in scripture, but it is a man-centered religion, not a GOD centered one.

            The Mormon church’s current strategy faces a dilemna- if you say that everything about the mormon faith is true to the original Christian church (of the Bible) then you have no need for extra books from Joseph Smith or anyone else, so your church becomes the same as the church of the Bible. You lose your separate identity as “Mormons”. So you must somehow distinguish yourself, or fade into oblivion. The BIble says that Only teaching built on the solid rock of Jesus Christ will survive the fire when Christ returns. (1 Cor 3:15)

            So it comes down to this: If your church is preaching Christ crucified for salvation, I personally have no problem with what they do- in fact, I commend you for it. But if you add or subtract to that beyond what is in the Bible (and make it part of our faith, not just your practice), you are breaking the commands of God in the Bible, and you are on dangerous ground.

            Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be afraid, rightly dividing the Word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15)

        • Windisea

          B ANDERSON

          You are wrong again, this site is an open election forum not a Republican forum, check the facts.

          RON PAUL NOW

    • http://paulbeyer@blogspot.com Pbizzel

      Crazy? What is your definition of “Crazy”?? I have a feeling your answer will not be in line with the Webster’s Dictionary 11th edition. Here is bit of advice for you…before you begin labeling people, start with asking them a question to understand their beliefs. Calling someone a name will not win a debate, in fact it will call you out for the imbecile you probably are…not labeling you yet…just so you know.

    • gew

      yep, but they seem to meet the needs of about 50% of American people….why I really
      don’t understand….Bella wouldn’t get help in the future if her family cannot afford her
      care…I’m starting to see this with my health care….

    • http://na Roxiebell

      Santorum nailed it when he said liberalism has seeped into society over the decades and has “liberally” (pun intended) corrupted this country. Its everywhere, in the news, media, in entertainment, in publications, music and especially in our Government and courts. Its like the freaking “blob” and its literally “eating” us alive. Most Americans don’t even realize it since we are “fed” a daily dose of liberal, PC & socialist propaganda on a 24/7 basis in subtle and “not so” sutble ways that we’ve almost become numb to it. When the Gay rights issue is put to a vote its always voted DOWN by “the people” and then overturned by liberal judges who shred our Constitution.

      Libs ratcheted up their harrassment after 9/11 which was a “wake up” call for many, if not most, Americans and social-ist Dems and progressive libs went rabid on the patriotic population with the non-stop “ad nauseam” attacks on the previous Administration and just about “everything” that was American.

      A Harry Truman quote of “if you can’t convince them, confuse them” is what the Libs have done, confuse & “incite” the population, DIVIDE and CONQUER is their battle cry, its so blatant its ridiculous and if we don’t come together as in UNITED WE STAND (against liberals & progressives) then we will surely FALL!!

      Anyone of these GOP candidates is 1000 times better then Obama or any current Democrat in Government.

      • Noah Rosenblatt

        You are actually going to get me started on the gay rights issue? By the 14th amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clearly indicates that all citizens are guaranteed equal protection of the right life and liberty. Marriage from a legal standpoint is a right of the people. That means that everyone, straight people and gay people, should be guaranteed the equal right to get married. If a gay couple goes into a church, ask to get married, and the priest says no, then there is nothing wrong because that is purely the religious form of marriage and is up to the priest’s own religious beliefs. Legally however, there is absolutely no reason why gay people should not be allowed to get married. They are equal people to everyone else. Being born gay means that it is not their choice to be gay (in the vast majority of cases), so why should we have the right to other people how to live their lives?

        • B Anderson

          Gay people have always had the same rights as everyone else. You don’t seem to understand that. Everyone has the same right to be single, or to marry the opposite sex. Gay people do not want to have equal rights. They want permission to do wrong. They want to destroy the family and the morals of our country. Gays do have the right to leave and find a country that will put up with their way of life. For them to destroy the family unit of our country tramples on the rights of the moral citizens.

          • Kate

            *Giggle* Are you insane? How does the decision of a gay person to marry destroy YOUR personal moral belief system at all? Are they forcing you to be gay? Are they forcing you to have ANYTHING to do with them, at ALL? No, and no. Children have been raised by homosexual couples and have turned out perfectly normal. Allowing homosexuals to marry will not destroy ANYTHING except maybe the comfort zone of close minded people such as yourself. How is something THEY do trampling on other people’s rights? In fact the VERY opposite is true: YOUR BELIEF, YOUR OPINION is trampling on THEIR rights.

            And please, don’t bother quoting the Bible and most especially the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as some sort of proof that gay marriage will destroy the world. Sodom and Gomorrah is completely taken out of context and is not actually about homosexuality at all. And the same book (Leviticus) that condemns lesbians also endorses giving the husband the right to MURDER his wife if he discovers she wasn’t a virgin when she married him.

            You people exemplify everything that is wrong with extreme Christianity today in that it’s actually NOTHING like what Jesus teaches. You believe you are a better person than a gay dude wanting to get married, but trust me, you are not. You are the one limiting his freedom, not the other way around. Disgusting.

          • B Anderson

            I hope you have read Roxiebell’s reply. Can’t you understand what marrage is? It is joining two people, and they come one. In order to be married the marrage must be consummated. Can a same sex couple be consummathed??? It is impossible. They would not be married, no matter how much they fight society to reconize it.

            That you bring up Old Testament doctrine, shows me you have completly missed the point of Christianiy. No one is good enough to be saved. Jesus came, and preached to the Jew first then the Gentiles, saying He knows we are unable to be prefect. Even Bill Meyer said; the Sermon on the Mount…Who can do that??? He got the point Jesus was trying to make. No one can be perfect. Jesus paid our sin debt on the cross for ALL the people on earth, Saint and lost alike. That is the Good News of the Bible. Your sins ARE forgiven. (not will be.) All we need to do is accept Jesus by faith and acknowledge Him as Lord. Jesus did ask that we Love the Lord and our neighbor. God’s law is no longer written in stone that we must follow..It now is written in our hearts. We follow his lead because we want to follow His example. We still must get along with society (love thy neighbor) If we fail to follow society’s law, we still must face the consequences. Society’s consequences are temporary. God’s is eternal.

          • B Anderson

            Kate, to answer your first question. Yes, the Gays are trying to force their ways upon me. They are fighting tooth and nail by bringing their immoral ideas into my home (TV) and into our society. They want me, my family and friends to accept their ways. If they make it legal, it does not make it right. In your heart you know I’m right.

          • Noah Rosenblatt

            Marriage does not have to be consummated. That may be your religious belief that a religious marriage must be consummated, but a legal marriage is signing a legal document and receiving the same rights as any other married couple. You can restrict gays from your religious beliefs if you really want to, but you can’t restrict them in a legal sense.

          • B Anderson

            Noah Rosenblatt re: November 26, 2011 at 4:07 pm, Sorry Noah, You are wrong again. The courts DO make decisions on consummation. In deciding an anulment, that is the first question the judge asks. By the way…Christianaty is not “my” religion. Religion is trying to reach God. Christianity is God reaching us. Are you a Jew, or is it that your linage have Jews in it? Claiming to be a Jew is stating you have made a covenant with God. Your blogs indicate otherwise.

          • Noah Rosenblatt

            Just so you know, I am a secular jew. Being jewish can mean observing that religion or descending from the Judeans a long, long time ago. My rabbi does not even believe in a god. In my synagogue, it does not matter if you believe in a god or not; you are just supposed to be a good person.

      • notateapartier

        Well, Roxie, you are right about one thing; the right for a couple, gay or not, to marry should never be put forth to a vote. The interest of a minority should never be decided by the majority. This is why in 1967 the Supreme Court made the decision to finally end race based restrictions on marriage. If this had been put to a popular vote, well, it is likely that mixed race marriages would still be illegal in some states.

    • Windisea

      RON PAUL 2012

    • Carrierre

      I agree, crazy and scary by their shinning ignorance of the actual problems: war, health-care, jobs, globalization. Christ, gay-rights and abortions can wait. Besides, do they really think possible to rule the country by going back centuries old in time? Does this make sense???? They scare me; and one of these morons is going to be elected no matter what. Scary, scary. Obama was right, it’s going to get worse before to get better.

  • Jud

    Put Ron Paul’s name on here as a participant.

    • Trish

      His name is on top. I was there and it was a great event. :)

  • roy l houpt jr

    I am part of the 9-11 truth movement, and until we have a real debate about that day, we will not restore America.
    Greed has taken over America.
    Greed for power, both the republican and democratic parties
    are equally responsible when it comes to greed.
    Greed for money, corporations shun American labor for cheap foreign labor. With the exception of Ron Paul, I would not vote for any of these other candidates, who are running
    for POTUS.

    • reality

      ron paul seems to know the constitution best and it should be followed. regarding justification for war, well if we are attacked or threatened with eminent attack fine but 911 probably involved the Arab nation as well as other nations but i do believe some in our government had ulterior motives to be directly involved in 911 so… there is no justification for the undeclared wars of vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, joining with the evil UN in Libya, a potential preemptive attack on Iran…(Israel can handle Iran and will do so if they believe Iran is a threat to them…) the federal reserve wants entrance into Iran to over take their money as they have in America and that is the only real reason for the US to attack Iran… if only Americans would do some research and educate themselves about our constitution and the tax code and the real responsibilities of the branches of the government, the supreme court, the states rights… our constitution is based not on the bible directly but on biblical principles… where do you think the criminal laws came from: murder, robbery… from the ten commandments… please folks educate yourselves. i dont completely agree with Ron Paul but i think he is more on the ball than others in general…pray folks this is no joke and all of us will be effected by the wrong person in office…

  • ryan

    Since we are talking about the bible and Newt talking about if you don’t work you don’t eat….those are not the value of Jesus Christ. Wasn’t it Jesus that feed the masses? Jesus didn’t say, “Go get a job, losers?” did he? These people are all hypocritics- big time.

    • American Ritual

      You have no idea what Jesus said or did.

    • 12AngryMen

      Look, Troll. Jesus fed them once to teach them about divinity and symbolism. When they kept coming back for free food, He DID NOT KEEP FEEDING THEM! Instead, he taught them about what? That’s right- personal responsibility.

    • B Anderson

      Ryan,
      Jesus did not say this, Paul did.
      2 Thessalonians 3:10 King James Version
      10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

      **********
      The Republicans want every able bodied person to be productive and have a full life. They do not want our government getting in the way needlessly.

      • jesus

        The responsibility that is taking care of one another. Not through Jesus but through HIS TEACHINGS about love. Jesus would NOT let someone starve because they could not work. You are sadly mistaken and brainwashed by the word of man powdered over the word of God. But the word of God is so clear there is no excuse. It is our responsibility to be as a shepard and feed those who can not feed themselves. It is not THIS government’s responsibility and we don’t need our government to make us take care of others.

      • Corbin

        As a christian I am horrified at the responses to this post, which all do not reflect biblical principals and virtues that Jesus DID preach and also lower themselves to the point of character assassination. How can you call yourselves Christians? Read your bible.

    • Sue

      Jesus did feed the masses however He also taught to TEACH a man to fish rather than GIVE him a fish.Personal responsibility and hard work. The straight and narrow rather than the wide and easy. Therefore, the message of “Go get a job” is one that many of us feel is the road, not only to their own personal salvation but to the country’s benefit as a whole.

      I believe you meant to say hypocrites–and I Disagree….

      • Bev

        Yeah…I like the way the Newt boy said that the Occupiers are just lazy, filthy slobs who should take a bath and get a job. Maybe if there were jobs to be had, most of them would be working. Where are all those jobs that those rich folk were creating since they don’t have to pay taxes?? Many of the Occupiers are working folk, who are in the streets protesting for fairness in government and banking practices. If fatboy Newt cared, maybe he would have spoken to some of the protesters and found out why they’re out there. It’s also funny that they assume that only Democrats are in the streets. Lots of Republicans are out of work too. They’ll find out at election time.

    • reality

      ryan, Jesus fed those folks cause they were listening to Him teach and they had been without food because of the distance from their homes and Jesus didnt want them to pass out from hunger on the way home.This has nothing to do with biblical teaching of 2 thess 3:10’if anyone WONT work neither shall he eat’ this quote is for those who can work but refuse to and expect and even demand that other folks provide for his lazy self… do some research and before making a comment.

    • Bev

      If any of these clowns had a brain of their own they wouldn’t need to drag up alleged quotes from the bible or anywhere else. None of them had the balls…or brains to have a decent or direct answer to a question; they skirted the issues and basically said their god was directing them. I guess Perry’s god tells him to electricute hundreds of prisoners. Makes him feel like a Christian!

      • Bob Jones

        Bev, I think you may be letting your deep-seated liberal bias affect your assessment of the debate. While it is true that some of the candidates skirted the truth on some of the questions, there was much greater depth of history, philosophy, logic, theology, and even political strategy presented in this debate than any of the secular debates–a point well made by the moderator up front. I am glad that you tuned in to watch this debate because I think it will show you what you have been missing by drinking the worldly kool-aid. I think that it honored God to see Christians pursue the truth in politics rather than the stylized lies of the satanic world system. I have not had a reason to have much respect for any of these politicans until seeing them in this debate and how they courageously took a swing at questions that required them to take a moral and intellectual stance and could potentially ruin their reputation with moderate fence sitters who are brainwashed by our ohhh so liberal culture and media.

  • ryan

    All the concern for unborn children, how sad it is that they don’t care about the children’s needs once they are born to parents that cannot afford them. More drivel from these moronic hypocritics.

    • Josh

      haha @Ryan you just contradicted yourself, the post above you were talking about Jesus feeding the masses to make it sound like government should take care of us, then said if a baby cant be taken care of lets kill them… so since you want/need the government to take care of you OR if not you other should we kill them? Makes no since. btw Jesus didnt follow the masses taken care of them, they went off to take care of themselves, and he didnt take from rich to feed them God provided… it was a miracle to show the power of God and the love of God

    • 12AngryMen

      Your logic is ridiculous.

      First- to assume that because the topic addressed the unborn DOSE NOT imply they don’t care about the child’s needs after they are born.

      Second- The waiting list for couples looking to adopt is miles long. There are no such thing as unwanted children.

      • Josh

        are you aiming the comment at me or ryan? Because you replied to my commend

        • 12AngryMen

          My reply was to the troll ryan, as was yours. When comments appear flush, they are both responses to the same comment.

          • Corbin

            Again with the name calling and character assassination. Thanks for representing Christianity well. Here’s a hint. When you lower yourself to the point of name-calling, it tells everyone you have nothing of substance to say.

          • 12AngryMen

            @Corbin

            Do you know what a “troll” is? It is term used to describe people that post comments for the sole purpose of being antagonistic, distracting, controversial, etc. Their comments are not sincere attempts at discussion, but rather incendiary statements meant to spur contention.

            The comments from this ryan make it clear that he was on this thread specifically to troll them. Labeling a poster as a “troll” is hardly name-calling. And as for character assassination- what the heck are you referring to? Are you suggesting that I tried to conjure up some scandal from circumstantial evidence in this poster’s past?

            Please try not to be so sensitive to people standing up for what they believe. Don’t forget that conflict is healthy- contention is evil.

      • gew

        Tell that to the kids in foster care that feel abandon…I know people that work with foster care
        families and the unadopted kids…very sad…

        • 12AngryMen

          Yes- my friend Joe grew up as a ward of the state and was adopted by his best friend’s mom when he was 18. He is married with kids and has a successful career helping other children in foster care.

          Did he have hard times? Of course.

          But the pro-choice crowd tries to use foster care horrors as a valid reason to abort people. Since birth rate is unrelated to foster care populations, your argument is tantamount to saying that it would be more humane to euthanize foster care kids or any other kids in hard living situations.

          Tell that to Joe. He would not like it, and neither do I.

      • Bev

        There is such a thing as unwanted children. There are millions of unwanted children in this country. Many are living with their parents. The parents were too Christian and thought they would go to hell if they had an abortion, so they brought many unwanted children into the world. These are the ones who are unfed, uneducated, beat, raped, and abused an many ways. Until women wise up and take control of their decision making the paternalistic society will hold them down. Religion is used to impose guilt. Religion is the root of all evil. People need to educate themselves and trust their own intelligent decisions.

        • B Anderson

          Bev, I think parents should have the right to have an abortion. Once they have the child and do not want to raise it, the parents can choose to be aborted. (Let the child live)

    • Tony

      “All the concern for unborn children, how sad it is that they don’t care about the children’s needs once they are born to parents that cannot afford them. More drivel from these moronic hypocritics.”
      ————————————————————————————————-
      Ryan,
      They are more than willing to address the children’s needs, but they have to be born in order to have needs.

      As citizens, we are guaranteed Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,(In that order), because without “Life”, “Liberty”, and “the pursuit of happiness” are pretty much worthless.

      What good is Liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you’re dead?

    • Bev

      Amen! Ryan. I guess they need all the little Christian soldiers for future wars.

  • Henrik Heldahl

    These people are crazy! =S

    • ClassicallyLiberal

      King George, III, said the same thing.

      • Henrik Heldahl

        what?!

  • stacy

    Its about DOING for yourself ryan! WISE UP!

  • stacy

    Ahem…HEY RYAN…its called if you want to have children…THEN PREPARE AND BE ABLE TO AFFORD THEM….IT IS NOT UP TO THE TAX PAYER TO RAISE, FEED AND HOUSE THEM! YOUR AN IDIOT!

    • 1_NotAngryNotRetardedGuy

      “You’re” an idiot. If I didn’t tell you, you wouldn’t know.

      • gew

        hahaahahahaha, so true!

    • Bev

      Ahem, Stacy! It’s called “Choice”…having abortion legally available. Get it?

      • Xennon

        Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t having intercourse or not having intercourse a “Choice”? Isn’t the primary purpose of having intercourse for the procreation of children? Also, aren’t the majority of us aware that if you have intercourse that there is a chance one may become pregnant or be impregnated?

        When you engage in intercourse you take upon yourself the possibility of procreating a child. Even if you choose to use protection you are accepting this as a likely possibility. There is no 100% guarantee from any of the contraceptives even if you get “fixed”.

        If you don’t want to be pregnant or get someone pregnant choose instead to “not” have intercourse but don’t slaughter an innocent child.

      • Barn

        So Bev, you evidently (from your posts) believe that your crotch is some orgasmic playground with no thought of being responsible, and you then have the choice of aborting all of your mistakes. Giving you this “choice” is like allowing unemployment benefits for 99 weeks; simply another way of degrading society.
        Xennon is absolutely right, intercourse is not a right it is a responsibility, which is a word most of the liberals here need to learn. Life should be held more dearly than “oops, had sex last night, I better set up an appointment to take care of my little mistake”.

  • stacy

    right..so paul has been in office for 30 plus years leeching off the tax payer but he is the ONLY one who is so different! my ass! wise up!

    • Nathan

      What’s your point here? Being in Congress = leeching of the tax payer? Only if you’re not doing your job, which is to represent your constituents, promote the best interests of the country, and uphold the Constitution. Congress has only become so disreputable because we keep electing so many dishonorable people.

      • 1_NotAngryNotRetardedGuy

        Ron Paul is sane (and the only one in this discussion who is). Stacy is obtuse. Just my $0.02.

    • Christian

      Wake up Stacy and please dont be so goshdarn ignorant. CONGRESSMAN PAUL HAS SPONSORED BILL AFTER BILL IN HIS 30 YEARS TO DECREASE CONGRESSIONAL PAY.

      HE ALSO, AS A STRICT LIBERTARIAN, HAS NEVER ACCEPTED THE LUCRATIVE PENSION PLAN PROGRAM THAT ALL CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.

      I PLEAD you to research ALL of these candidates instead of MINDLESSLY following Fox’s MSNBC’s, CNN’s or CBS’s talking points.

      My unborn grandchildren and the future grandchildren of American BEG you to get yourself better informed before you go to the polls with incompetence such as that which you portrayed with that comment about Paul’s “leeaching.” With all due respect you sounded highly unintelligent with that one since everyone knows better that Dr Paul’s record is available to the public.

      • George Stickney

        Right on!!

  • JK

    Actually, “if you don’t work, you don’t eat” is Jesus’ value system.
    2 Thessalonians 3:10

    These candidates don’t want to stop helping people who need help. They want to give States more control in the welfare system, which will more easily stop waste and fraud in the system, which will allow for helping more people who need help.

  • Doug

    There is a fundamental problem with creating an artificial “war” with Wall Street and that is that Wall Street and Main Street act in harmony (both run in the same direction). Sure there are a few CEO’s that are over compensated, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. When financial (and Wall Street) are making money, jobs are created. When Main Street is doing poorly, so will Wall Street. What is needed is to have LEADERSHIP to LEAD and to stop the “blame game”. Obama is not capable of leading or creating a plan. He is only capable of blaming someone (Wall Street, greed, Bush, the Republicans, the wars, his father…). Time for a grown-up to be in the White House.

  • http://www.capdiabeticprogram.com/1028 Nehemiah

    You’re extremely good at expressing your ignorance Ryan; Scripture (Specifically the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John gives us only two instances of JESUS feeding the masses. . .(and neither instance was because they were poor) now where would you be Ryan if during your entire life, you only had two meals? Newt was absolutely correct; Scripture indeed declares that if a(able bodied) person won’t work he ought to not eat. Further JESUS never sanctioned Government feeding anybody; in fact Government Welfare, as we know it today, is never sanctioned in all of Scripture.
    BTW, did you ever read in Scripture where the unborn John the Baptist dance in his Mother’s womb when a pregnant virgin named Mary entered John’s mother home? Or what was GOD saying about the unborn when HE declared that HE knew Jeremiah while Jerry was still in his mother womb?

    • Chronic Ironic

      As I recall, Jesus took a few handouts himself. And he certainly wasn’t a free-market capitalist. Paul, who, not being the son of God, seems to have a few flaws in his thinking, might have been in agreement with Newt Gingrich. Christ was not.

      “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal”–Matthew 6.19

      “Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.”–Matthew 19.21-22

      If you want to follow Christ, his commandment is clear. Sell all you have and give it to the poor. The young man in this gospel can’t bring himself to do it. Most of us can’t. Nevertheless, that is Christ’s word. Let’s not pretend that these hypocrites speak for God.

      While I think Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum are deeply misguided in their understanding of the Scripture, I do believe they are genuine in their religious beliefs. The rest of them are lying to you. How you can look at a callous, soulless, manipulative political villain like Newt Gingrich and see any relation to Jesus Christ is beyond me.

      • Bob Jones

        Chronic,
        Are you saying that Jesus is asking everyone to sell all they have and go into ministry? If we look at other verses, His Word also tells us to stay in our vocation when called if it is still possible to follow God (1 Cor 7) and we are told whatever we do, do it for the Glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). If every single person that came to faith in Christ gave up everything to the poor and went into ministry, there would be no tithe to support the church, there would be no place for Christians to come together to worship, no one to support missions, there would be no homes for Christians to fellowship in or home school their children, or even provide a warm roof over those childrens’ heads. I think that Jesus knows that this young man in Matthew 19 has set the joy of his heart on his worldly material wealth, and Jesus knowing precisely the man’s idol seeks to set him free, so he goes directly for the idol that is holding this man in bondage and keeping him from making Jesus his Lord.
        We all have many heart idols, and I think you are right that materialism is a sin that all humans struggle with, some more than others (1 Cor 10:13). But I don’t think that it is consistent with scripture to say that all Christians, if we want to follow Christ, need to sell everything we own. I think that we need to give up everything we own to God, i.e. acknowledge that everything we own is from God and belongs to God. And we need to check our heart (and keep checking) to make sure that idolatry of material things isn’t there, and ask for God’s help in that area. Giving up material wealth is a wonderful freeing activity because we are trusting in God for provision rather than the things of this world. And He does call those of us in the Body of Christ to share with those who are in need (Romans 12:13), an area where we unfortunately often fall short of even worldly charity organizations.
        To summarize what I am concerned about in the comment, there may be some who God has called to give up everything for their own sake, to be freed from heart idolatry; and there are those who He has given the gift of generosity for the sake of showing to the world His glory in providing for their every need and the Body of Christ through them; but let’s also consider what Christ says by comparing scripture with scripture (2 Tim 2:15) to see the big picture of what Christ is saying to this particular man in this particular case of ministry.

        • B Anderson

          Thanks Bob Jones, Chronic Ironic
          needed that. I would like to add that Jesus’ ministry was during the time of “Law”. He was speaking to a certain Jew who was subject to the “law”. The man thought that he could “do” something for salvation. Jesus knew the man’s heart and told him what he wanted to hear. Trying to make a point under the law you must be perfect. Bill Myer’s statement a while ago said: The Sermon on the Mount…Who can do that? Bill Myer got the point Jesus was trying to convey. No one can be perfect. Jesus died on the cross and paid for the sins of the World. Because He paid our sin debt, to be saved, we only need to accept him as God and confess him as Lord. Sin has already been delt with. We call that grace. We no longer are under the “law” We are free to follow him. Jesus did give us two thing to follow. To love God, and our neighbor. We must remember to love our neighbor. Being a drain on our neighbor is not in keeping with loving our neighbor. It is a two way street. We help each other, not just take. In that mind set, it is easy to understand why Gindrich past is no longer a problem. If Jesus forgave him, who are we to throw stones? If you haven’t noticed. He has matured. The Bible says no one can say Jesus is Lord except he be saved. I can only accept Newt at his word. If you watched the last debate, he acknoledged his faith.

  • Luis

    Simple question… under Obama, are you better off that you were when he took office…?

    He had TOTAL power his first two years (control of a democratic House and Senate) and what did he do about the N.1 priority, the job situation? nothing! the N.2 priority, the job situation? nothing!… the N.3 priority, the job situation? nothing!!!!

    He has failed!

    It is time for someone else…. and any of these people in the deabte tonight are a million times better than Obama.

    Carter part II (Obama) needs to go! next…..

  • Larz Lenzen

    @ryan:

    Get a Bible. Read your Bible.
    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”
    It is to be deduced from scripture that the Apostle is talking about those who are able, not the disabled. Christians are the most charitable people on the Earth.

    • Shawn

      Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would bborrow of thee turn not thou away.

    • Chronic Ironic

      Stop quoting this line out of context. Look at the complete picture of what Paul is saying here.

      “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.” 2 Thessalonians 3.6-15

      He’s warning his Christian brothers against the dangers of idleness, that it can lead to meddling in the affairs of others, engaging in gossip, and other similarly destructive behaviors. This passage is about maintaining one’s mental health and productivity, not condemning welfare or charity, which, according to the King James Cambridge Edition you quote above, Paul considered to be a greater virtue than faith and hope. Note that Paul does not define being idle as not having a job. He simply wants everyone to be at work, to be productive in some way. If you bothered to visit the local OWS movement near you, you wouldn’t see much idleness. People are engaged in all sorts of productive activities. Indeed, I imagine there’s more idleness in the surrounding office buildings where people are “busy” playing solitaire on their computers. Just because the occupiers are not earning a paycheck, doesn’t mean Paul would disapprove of their activities. Paul didn’t earn a paycheck either.

      Most importantly, Paul reminds us at the end not to view the idle as enemies. They are our brothers. Reacting to idle members of these early Christian communities with hate would only have caused these already vulnerable societies even more trouble. Paul certainly wasn’t suggesting that you let the idle members of the community starve. He wasn’t saying, “Take a bath, then get a job.” At its most severe, it’s a tactic that’s intended to inspire change, similar to sending a child to bed without supper. It’s not a social philosophy.

      There are four applicants for every available job in America right now. You can’t get around those numbers. 75% of the currently unemployed will remain unemployed until new jobs are created and that isn’t happening. You can fairly criticize the Obama Administration or House Republicans (or the Bush Administration that set all of this at work) for this sorry state of affairs, but you can’t criticize the victims of the economic collapse. Christians are charitable people. But there’s little sign of that in this debate or in this discussion forum.

      • B Anderson

        To: Chronic Ironic, Ref your quote from the Bible, are you saying St. Paul is calling the OWS people busybodies?

    • Samuel

      The Gov’t has been on welfare ever since taxes were invented so it is their duty to assist those who are in need if they are also being assisted.

  • Allison

    Frank Lutz was the WORST moderator.

    • fluter

      Allison your’re an idiot. He was the best one out of all the debates. He pretty much let everyone answer the same question. Get your head out of your a$$.

    • ClassicallyLiberal

      Let me guess, you hate all things on the Right?

  • jrmetalman

    Christ, also wrote the old testament with his father through the holy spirits inspiration. Adam and Eve tended the garden and after sinning they were told all their labors would be harder and the benefits less enjoyable. That being said, if you don’t work you don’t eat is appropriate! Their is no free lunch without a miracle from Christ. The rest of the world struggles day to day just to survive, not so here. Poverty in this country allows for two cars, air conditioning, flat screen televisions etc. etc.. There is no reason to abort in this country. President Obama is to be credited with 44 million people receiving food stamps. So the federal government will feed the poor, along with countless charitable donations.

  • Andrew

    Wow. I almost fell asleep in the first pointless 37 minutes. – The majority of Americans, including the “invisible vote” (swinger voters, independents), are not right-wing. The only one I see up there that can challenge Obama is Ron Paul. His views maybe too true to be mainstream, but energizing the base doesn’t amount to crap. It was apparent in 2008 and it is still true now. Most the big electorial states lean blue. Newt, Michelle, Santorum, and Perry will never win the General Election. Cain will fail on his face soon enough. Paul is the only one I see up there that can appeal to the the moderate/ moderate-left and bring it home in November. However, ultimately it is up to the electorate… do we want to be a wellfare state, or a true free-market republic?

    • George Stickney

      I agree, Ron Paul makes the most sense. He is so consistent it ain’t funny.

  • Richard Clark

    Tragic and sad how people think they know what Jesus is like. Jesus is GOD what is written in what we call the “old Testament” is as much the word of Jesus as what is written in the “New Testament” all is inspired by GOD and is beneficial for teaching reproving and setting things straight. God spoke and told us that children are a blessing from him. Who are we to decide we should kill that baby because we are poor.

    • B Anderson

      The New and Old Testaments are God’s last will and testament to us. In that light, both testaments would be legal documents, but the New Testament would have authority over the original will. In order for a will to be in force the originator would have to die. That is what happened. All Christians are in God’s will.

  • dennis

    I am trying to watch this without judgement, yet I keep hearing words of judgement from the panel. I wonder why the two Mormon candidates are not present…were they not invited, if so, was that due to their professed faith? Did they simply opt out?

    • ClassicallyLiberal

      If you watched it, you would know they declined the invitation.
      It appears judgement is your middle name.

  • Donald Waters

    Ron paul finally gets the respect he needs. I hope he wins

    • Tony

      Now we can only pray that he gets the testicle transplant that he needs so he will have the balls to bomb Iran if he gets elected.

  • mainhoon

    Absolutely amazing. This is USA?

  • B Anderson

    I have watched all the debates so far. I wish they would put name plates on the table for people who don’t know whos is who.

    Ron Paul has some good points, but he is an isolationist. Isolation worked at the time the constitution was written, as the oceans protected us from other nations. No longer. The terriorist HAVE declared war on us. We can’t just sit back and let them overtake us. In the 70’s there was a saying “what if someone gave a war and no one came?” The answer is; genocide. Ron Paul would let us be unprepared. We would be attacked and overtaken by a nucular bomb owning nation. I think we should take action to prevent such attacks. We need to be prepared when it happens.

    Newt has baggage, but we all know that, so the news media bringing incidents up would not be news. It would not affect his support. As many commentators have said, he is the smartest person in the room. He has experience. He knows who’s who. It may be his time to lead our country. He would win any debate against Obama, easily. Could he win against Obama? We still have a year to educate the voters. Lets hope we can learn who is the better leader.

    • 12AngryMen

      “Isolation worked at the time the constitution was written, as the oceans protected us from other nations.”

      Actually, not even back then. Check out the Barbary Powers conflict. From BEFORE we were even an independent nation, our merchants and sailors were attacked by Muslim (Musselmen) pirates who said that the Koran instructed them to attack and enslave Christians wherever they could be found. We had to pay tribute to them for years until we could afford to finally build a navy to go kick their trash to get them off our backs. This is where the Marine anthem gets the line “to the shores of Tripoli.”

      Funny how none of this is taught in public schools anymore.

      • B Anderson

        Thanks 12Angrymen,
        Yes, I knew the pirates were Muslem. The problem of pirates was taught in my public school (1950-60’s), but they did not say who the pirates were. I learned that later. However, at the time of the constitution, we were able to fight them off because we were thousands of miles from their supply country. The distance is no longer protecting us. We should be prepared for our own protection. The US not reconizing that they declared war on us is to our determent. (I wish this had a spell checker!)

    • Shawn

      And Who on this earth has the capability of getting past our missile defense systems? Not to mention our Navy. Iran? PLEASE!!Russia? Come on! China? They have 1 aircraft carrier!!!This country would NEVER be unprepared Ron Paul or not… Dont be a fool….

      • ClassicallyLiberal

        Did you know of the recent agreement with Russia regarding our defense system?

      • Tony

        Weapons do you no good if you don’t have a leader that will use them.

    • Nathan

      It’s not isolationism, it’s non-interventionism. Isolationism typically refers to limiting trade with other countries.

      I get where you’re coming from, in that chemical, nuclear and biological weapons pose a kind of threat that is difficult to meet with Paul’s sort of non-interventionism. But there’s a flip side, which is that the interventionist policies don’t work either. It’s not easy to install friendly, peaceful governments in the places that we’ve invaded, and even if we succeed the terrorists will always have other unstable countries to work in. After Iran, do we invade Somalia? Besides that, the wars kill so many civilians that we risk creating new enemies to replace the dead ones, and cost so much that our economy may collapse under the weight of debt.

      What Bush and the neocon wing of the GOP proposed after 9/11 is that we must leave our enemies nowhere to hide. That sounds good, but there are big risks to policing the world. The first risk is that we won’t be able to do it successfully. The second risk is that the cost will bankrupt us. The third risk is that the growth of a police state will eventually threaten our liberties even if we are somewhat more safe from terrorists. This looks just as dangerous to me as non-interventionism.

      I think the war on terror is comparable to the drug war, in that we’re indisputably fighting a dangerous evil, but the means employed to fight it create their own problems.

    • No welfare

      Who doesn’t have baggage? Completely inapproriate of Frank the No Moderator Luntz. What condescension.

  • Andrew

    As a seasoned service memember with multiple combat deployments, I would like to point out a thing or two. – Terrorism is a tactic. Heck, America practically invented it. No amount of money, bombs, or precious lives can make this tactic go away. It is an act of despiration. Do you purpose that we stamp out despiration? If you think we could ever be over taken by these terrorist I suggest you see a medical professional. Overtaken by a nuclear bomb (singular) nation? The United States has enough nuclear weapons to literally destroy the earth eight(8) times over. Not even The CCCP “USSR” had the amount of nuclear weapsons they claimed. The United States spends more on “defense” that the entire world combined. Why? Do we plan on invading ALL countries? In the mean while, we are borrowing 44% of that.
    I believe that what Ron Paul has said (rightfully so) that you can cut military spending with reducing real defense. I have been in the military eleven years and I can attest to that.
    This great nation is going broke beyond repair and it will take drastic measures to save it. People which believe such absurities are leading us down the path of so many empires. And where are they now?
    I think the real problem here is a lack of education and/or understanding. I think Ben Franklin said it best with “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
    deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    Good grief this country has gone insaine!

    • Shawn

      As a fellow Service member I have to say AMEN Brother,
      I trust you’re backing Ron Paul as I am!!!!!

      • 1_NotAngryNotRetardedGuy

        As a fellow American (non-service member) I have to say AMEN Brother. Ron Paul’s certainly got my vote.

    • 12AngryMen

      You are correct that terrorism is a tactic, but it is only one of many that are being employed by jihadists.

      Their goal is nothing short of enslavement and destruction, as is commanded in the Koran for their salvation. Their other tactics are other forms of subversion and stratagem from within the institutions themselves: mass immigration and polygamist baby factories, forming isolated communities where they rule with Sharia law in the US and elsewhere, fueling culture wars to degrade the values that make us strong or at least resistant, intimidation of outspoken activists- especially jews.

      Does anyone understand what the intention was, as least, in trying to “police the world?” Not that it was done well or justly in all cases, but listen to this first before you chose which engagements to judge:

      Why are 3rd world countries so labeled? It has NOTHING to do with the development level of a nation. It is a classification referring to this paradigm: There is Russia/China. There is the West. Then there are all the pawns in between used by both (3rd world countries.)

      Since jihadists also hate Russia/China, one would have ask why we are the first targets? There are a lot of answers to that, but “over-meddling” in not one of them.

      The chess board is much more complex that it looks. Enemies within and out, but who are the puppet masters?

  • B Anderson

    Andres,
    God Bless all Vets!!(I have 20+ years of military service, 18+ active duty.)

    Don’t forget about 9-11? We were not prepared. We are more prepared now, but not to the point of being able to stop every attack. To isolate ourselves as Ron Paul wants, would invite more such attacks.

    • Shawn

      Watch Ron Paul’s “What If” Speech on youtube it may change you’re mind brother!!!

    • Andrew

      B Anderson, one of the reasons Osama cited for attacking us was because of the presence of our troops on the arabian peninsula, muslim land. What would we say if Muslim soldiers came and occupied Texas, we would be mad!

      By not intervening and getting in every-bodies business, we wouldn’t be hated so much! Who hates Switzerland? NOBODY! Why? Because they remain neutral and as a consequence they are doing well, wealthy, and industrious.

      America needs to follow that same path.

      • 12AngryMen

        Yes, Switzerland. Maybe the Muslims have left them alone, right? Wrong- they have all but tried to take over. Just do a search for “Switzerland muslims” and see what is going on there. Is that really what you would have for the US?

        • Kate

          I live in Switzerland. Nothing is being “taken over”. It’s a beautiful country and a beautiful place to live and watching these debates makes me infinitely happy that I am here and not in the US. But, at any rate, more to your point, according to Wikipedia, Muslims made up around 5% of the population here in 2009 (and many are considered more moderate than anything else). Rest assured we are not being taken over by crazy terrorists :)

      • B Anderson

        Andrew: Then why do they have sleeper cells in America???

    • Charlie

      Evil will always exist. We will never be able to stop every attack. To grow the government endlessly (which is what wars always do) in hopes of perfect security is foolish. The George Washington/ Ron Paul foreign policy still works. Respond when attacked, avoid entangling alliances, NO NATION BUILDING. END THE INTERNATIONAL WELFARE. The open southern border and our insane debt is a greater threat than Iran could ever be. North Korea has nukes and as time goes on they will get easier to make. Non-proliferation has and is doomed to fail.

    • John S

      Anderson, you are mistaken. Dr. Paul is a non-interventionist. He is not an isolationist. They are two totally different concepts.

      Dr. Paul, in this debate, clearly mentioned his reasoning and justification for war: DECLARATION BY CONGRESS. He never said not to wage wars; he just said it is unwise to butt into other people’s internal matters (Like Iran in 1950s, Venezuela, Panama, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan in 1980s).

      Dr. Paul actually voted FOR the war on Afghanistan to go after Osama Bin Laden. So, how can you call him an isolationist? He just says the President should follow the rule of law and get Congress’ approval to go to war (Which never happened since WW2) if there really is a clear and present danger to America’s sovereignty.

      Like Andrew said, terrorism is a tactic used by desperate people; it does not confine to geographical boundaries where a conventional military can rush in and clean up. And, by the way, read the 9/11 investigative report. It clearly outlines the reasons for the attacks. It was blowback for American bases in Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia, and our unwavering support to Israel against Palestine. Those were the 2 main reasons given. So, the 9/11 attacks happened for specific reasons, and not random or unprovoked. Dr. Paul drew a lot of ridicule by speaking this truth (which, by the way, even CIA agrees with Dr. Paul on).

      But, the truth hurts. America does get into other nations for corporate interests precisely because congress and people are kept in the dark and bypassed in declaring wars unconstitutionally.

      • reality

        you know this is where i disagree with Ron Paul… i believe Osama is not the only perpetrator of 911… certain factions in our government were… as in pearl harbor it is historic fact FDR knew well in advance of the attack planned and recently i read where it is thought he probably had a hand in the planning… why? so the American people would believe there would be justification to get involved in the european conflict… building 7 contained documents some folks in high places didnt want found and also to go into iraq and then afghanistan is for ulterior motives… why then if the muslims are our sole enemy are we allowing and welcoming them into American and even the courts are permitting Sharia Law to function … why the hell are our military being killed, maimed, wounded… if we are suddenly friends with the “moderate muslims” who have the same koran as the “terrorist, radical muslims?” I dont buy it… there is a crook in the wood pile and lots of money too…

    • roy l houpt jr

      I have to tell my friend. that 9/11 was not an act of terrorist from a far off land. No! It was planned and
      carried out by certain people in the US government. Namely,
      Rummy, Cheney, and W.
      The proof is simple, Tower 7. Some facts, relating to Building 7 which makes up part of the WTC Complex.
      Building 7, better known as the Solomon Bank Building housed many government offices, namely that of the Defense
      Dept. and the Treasury Dept.
      Building 7 was 47 stories in height, and had 24 load bearing columns ( From it’s base to the pent house ) to support it’s construction.
      Building 7 fell in under 7 seconds, at approx. 5:20 Pm. eastern time on 9/11/2001. The 9/11 commission did not
      mention Building 7, because it would have given away the truth concerning Building 7. And the entire event called 9/11.
      Building 7 was located approx. 100 yards from Building 1 and 2, which were hit by 2 separate planes. Building 7 was hit by falling debris from Buildings 1 and 2, and was not hit by ANY planes. The falling debris blew out windows that were facing in the direction of Buildings 1 and 2, and caused random office fires. We were told that these random office fires caused Building 7 to fall in under 7 seconds. If a few random office fires caused Building 7 to fall, well then I am going to start my own demolition company. That’s right start a few office fires and wait several hours and the concrete with reinforced steel will fall into it’s own foot print.
      Building 7 came down because it was brought down by a controlled demolition program. This type demolition takes weeks, if not months to setup. It simply can not be done
      in several hours.
      Who was in charge of the security company that over saw
      security at the WTC. It was Marvin Bush, President George
      W. Bush younger BROTHER. I would like to know how demolition charges enter the Buildings of 1, 2. and 7, without WTC security knowing about it?
      Why building 7? The backup computers for the Pentagon were located in Building 7. On 9/10 Rummy told Americans that 2 trillion dollars were missing from the Defense dept.
      The area that was hit at the Pentagon stored the primary computers for finances, and they were destroyed. Just a
      coincidence, two locations destroyed on the very same day
      housing computers that stored the same evidence.
      You can disagree with me all you want, wave the Flag, and say God Bless America. America is no. one. it doesn’t change the facts concerning Building 7. Better yet
      Check out whatreallyhappened.com and ae911truth.org. Please think, your future depends on it.

      • Tony

        Another PaulBot that took too many bong hits.

      • Windisea

        roy l houpt jr

        WTC building 7: I agree with you that legitimate questions and facts have not been satisfactorily investigated or answered.

        I add that America’s elected representatives who support or enact legislation that circumvents, negates, undermines or supplants our Constitution might not be very invested or interested in having these questions answered.

        Why? Perhaps, The United States of America was effectively overthrown on 911. What if the enemy who overthrew America is not another nation or religion. If not, who or what entities are better off today than they were in 2001? Are covert activities limited only to governments or terrorist groups? Could other groups use and benefit from terrorist acts? Do corporate globalist companies swear to uphold the Constitution of The United States, do they swear allegiance with any sovereign nation? Did the American people lose freedom and prosperity after 911, was the constitution effectively usurped and supplanted after 911 by the patriot act? Does The United States of America still stand without an effective Constitution?

        Ron Paul 2012 Constitutionalist, National Sovereignty

  • Heidi

    I think the reason why Huntsman and Romney didn’t participate is because their religious views regard churches to be sacred, and not a place for debate and arguing. They should be places of peace and worship.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is all about family values, the sanctity of life, and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman that God has ordained.

    • ClassicallyLiberal

      Do you know the History of your own Country? It does not appear that you do.

  • http://n/a stephen

    The founding fathers wrote “All men are created equal,” yet most of them owned slaves. It’s almost as hypocritical as the Republican candidates who have been through multiple marriages and had affairs speak of protecting marriage. It’s not a wonder they all seem to want to get back to the founding fathers values: SAY ONE THING. DO ANOTHER…

    • reality

      I read an article about the founders having slaves and it indicated something to the effect they did not agree with slavery but the slavery thing was prior to them forming the constitution… sorry i cant recall the article but i am sure a google search will bring up the accurate info.

  • Shawn

    But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

    Ron Paul 2012!!!

    • reality

      yeah, and? We need to speak out against evil and do what is right to end it… we are not rugs to be walked on. You are right we are to love and to love includes praying for those in positions of authority over us… but if they are wrong, we are to confront them with it too.

  • Shawn

    Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).
    Ron Paul 2012

  • Anth Bukovec

    i was happy with this debate because it was one of the first fairly moderated debates of all of them to each canidate. esspecially when it allowed choices to answer certian topics.

  • jesus

    did anyone else notice the fart at 2:23:50 ? am i hearing things?

  • No welfare

    Frank Luntz needs to look for another job. The candidates don’t have to bear their souls & ask forgiveness in order for Frank to fulfill his fantasy of being Dr. Phil. This was a public event assembling in a sanctuary, which is quite different from having a regular WORSHIP service.(And having the ‘internet cafe mom sitting behing you with her low cleavage costume was in poor taste.) And the candidates should not have to hear your public rebuke of them for enthusiastically DISAGREEING with their opponents, especially when it was intended only for Perry. Pressing the candidates to talk of their failures is what I would expect from a goon – but then again IF you had started with your failures I wouldn’t have minded.

  • Charlie

    This debate was wonderful! We got to see hearts of these candidates. We saw who has personal depth (Cain, Bachmen, Santorum, and Paul), who’s too cowardly to show (Romney and Huntsman), and who’s shallow (Perry). Ron Paul has the best grasp of the constitution and why it works, but the worst communication skills. It will be interesting to see how this affects the polls in Iowa.

    • Barn

      You left out Newt…..what about Newt?

      • Noah Rosenblatt

        That’s because Newt is a whack job. Well, they all are, but he is the biggest asshole of them all. I would say he is actually comparable to Stalin. Bachmann is also a whack job, but that I think is because she is so unintelligent. Santorum is a pussy, Perry is a legal retard, Cain sounds like the rent is too damn high guy, Ron Paul is the intellectual godfather of my butthole, Romney is not terrible, but not great, and huntsman i don’t mind because he’s a moderate, but he can’t speak at all.

  • Just Me

    I am not a religious person and find it really offensive for people to make comments or insinuate that you can not be a good person unless you are religious. I live my life with high standards and do not feel I need a set of lore to instruct me what is right and wrong.

    As far as religion in Gov., it is a public official’s job to not be religious in matters of public office (note: This does not mean they can not personally be religious). When you approach a problem in Gov you are supposed to come with a clear, open mind and calculate the best answer to the situation for the people you represent as a whole. This means your opinion is only one in a mass of the people you represent. So if you try to make your judgment based on bible or any other religion, including atheism, you will then misrepresent and discriminate.

    On Newt’s comment about an Atheist president, you don’t lead on your own. You have a cabinet, family, advisors, and all the people you represent to help you make the best judgment! Maybe your issue is you try to do it alone and you don’t listen to the people I listed above.

    Someplace the concept of “representative” has been lost in politics.

    • reality

      then you are offended by the teachings of Jesus… There is none righteous no not one. We are born sinners by nature because of Adam so we need a change of nature which is the only thing that makes us acceptable and good enough in Gods eyes.

      • Just Me

        This comes with me “not being religious”. The teaching of many religions I find are offensive in many ways but as long as people don’t harm others and don’t bother me with it I could care less what they believe.

  • J Manis

    This debate seemed to carry an energy within the crowd that is pushing for a sort of theocracy. They want things to return to a time in this country when people seemed to be living according to Christian beliefs and had a sense of “common good” as was the comment. This is definitely NOT the way to win an election in 2012. Half of the country is already deciding against voting republican because they fear this imposition of values. “A house divided against itself shall not stand,” and “If they do not receive you in that city, wipe the dust from your feet.” The bible never says that people MUST conform. Salvation is a take it or leave it offer. A theocracy does not work for the good of humanity in modern societies because it is oppressive to those who don’t share the same view. Let the people decide, and simply be forgiving of those who choose to live differently than you do.

    • 12AngryMen

      Values are not oppressive. Lack of values is what leads to enslavement.

      “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
      — Benjamin Franklin

    • reality

      in one way you are right. but the facts are without God and us following His direction we will just have more of the same… and this country is in big trouble as it the entire earth… of course we are not going to get better but worse and this earth is going to be destroyed … read the bible for this info and the book of revelation about the end times… horrible…

  • Chris

    I tried to watch this, but Michelle was talking when I was able to tune in and it immediately turned me off to the whole thing.

    I do not care for that woman’s way to speaking.

    What I do care for – http://www.nationalsponsor.com – for articles on interesting political happenings. For instance, there is an article on the build up of China’s navy that is quite interesting and they even include a 30 minute video of two experts of world politics and armaments discussing the topic for those that are truly interested in knowing what is happening in the world. It is truly fascinating stuff.

    • 12AngryMen

      Please explain to me what it is about Bachmann that is offensive. I have yet to hear any valid criticism.

      If it is her Minnesota accent, that happens to be endearing to me. She seems well-spoken to me.

      • Noah Rosenblatt

        She does not know how to answer questions. All she ever says is “Look, I’m a mom. Obamacare is bad. It’s because of President Obama’s failed policies that I want to get the gas prices below two dollars a gallon because I don’t care about the environment. Oh, and I don’t believe in evolution. Don’t vote for me, vote against Obama.”

        Crazy whack job, she is. Gas prices should be raised to force people to conserve, as well as increase the demand for energy efficient cars, like all-electric cars.

  • http://indie-voice.com indie-voice.com

    This was scary, and not in a good way.

    Did I actually watch 3000 people transition from crying about soldiers dying in reckless wars to a standing ovation for invading Iran within the span of 5 minutes?

    Ron Paul is the only dude who isn’t completely nuts – yet he’s the one the other Republicans think is crazy. The peace candidate is the “crazy” one.

    Good grief.

    • reality

      we dont need to invade Iran anymore than we were justified in going into Iraq and afghanistan but the ignorant American public is listening to the lies or exaggerations of the threat of Iran… if Iran were the threat it is said to be, Israel would let them know in no uncertain terms… please Our biggest threat is the ignorance and gullibility of the American people who arent doing some research and using their minds to see the implications of evidence… how the heck did pearl harbor happen? FDR let and possibly planned the attack killing our military in order to justify to the unknowing American people that we had to get involved in the conflict in europe. Why not be truthful and let congress declare war… lies lies and more lies is what is being exposed yet we still have ignorant Americans…

  • Patricia

    Well Iwas unable to tune in last night and thought I would read the comments to see If I could geln wht happened.

    NOTHING!

    these comments tell me nothing but a bunch of people fighting over the Bible.

    The whole Bible is the Word of God. sometimes it seeems contrdictory, but that is us, not the Bible.

    the idea of Farnk Luntz being a poor moderator is ludicrous. I have seen him at work.

    Now does any one have anything to say about the forum (btw, not a debate, maybe that is the problem with Mr. Luntz.) that could give me a clue?

    • Just Me

      so you criticize others that spent time to watch the debate because they didn’t repeat the debate in the comments?!?!
      Also you argue with people about topics you have no idea about like if he is/is not a good moderator before even watching….

      Anyone have a black kettle for this pot.

  • John-Luc

    This has been the best debate- or should I say discussion- between the candidates that has been orchestrated. It is a shame Mitt Romney was not present, however that left more time for articulation of every candidate’s answer. I’m surprised to say this but Rick Santorum presented his best to this forum. I would have appreciated it if Herman Cain elaborated more on one or two of the answers he provided and that Michele Bachmann stayed on topic. Ron Paul and Rick Perry did well and Newt Gingrich classically, as he usually does, ended the show with an intelligent and significant response to viewers.

    I am so glad to be a witness to this electoral process at this point in time. The stakes are high and the U.S stands on the precipice of transforming dramatically for the worse should the voters dismiss this election’s importance.

    • B Anderson

      Thanks, Well said.

  • Jenjen

    Why didn’t Mitt Romney show up? Certainly he’s a Mormon and may not agree on the finer aspects of God and religion, but most certainly, he would have an opinion on abortion, homosexuality, church and state, morality, and just about any other issue that would be discussed in this forum.

    If I were Romney, I would have boldly showed up and my strategy would have been the typical, to demonstrate how much we agree on. I mean other than Christ, the Bible, Joseph Smith, polygamy, and the Native Americans, I’m sure Christians would find they have much common ground with Mormons, especially as far as morality is concerned. And in a nation like this one where no religion, not even Atheism, is supposed to be given any legislated advantage or hindrance, despite the fact that Atheism is given every advantage in complete violation of the First Amendment every single time we favor the clause “separation of church and state” over the actual words of the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

    Atheists love to quote the first part of the First Amendment while omitting that key second part. Then they say that their faith is not a religion so that it’s not obvious that every time you rule against all theistic religions, you are ruling in favor of the Atheistic religions. (At least Dawkins, who lives in England and doesn’t have to worry about the wording of the First Amendment will admit the truth. Dawkins himself claims to be a “religious nonbeliever.”)

    And I say “Atheistic religions,” as in plural, because not every Atheistic group believes the same thing. Communist Russia thought it was okay to kill theists to accomplish their goals of national Atheism. U.S. Atheists don’t usually hold that extreme a view. Some Atheists actually do believe that there is inherent rights and wrongs while others, like Nietzsche, believe that right and wrong is only in the conscience of the beholder. Although, with the way many of them speak, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did secretly hold such extreme views about Theism as the Communist nations demonstrated.

    • 12AngryMen

      I am unsure of the reasons, but I did hear one report that he had a family event? Anyway- it probably has more to do with:

      1)He has been ON FIRE in all of the debates, so why risk messing up a winning streak?
      2)He has been trying to limit his exposure to avoid voter apathy during the long election year ahead.
      3)He may have thought that this debate would give the left too much ammunition in the general election, which it probably has for many of these candidates. (Not that he doesn’t agree, but I already know that his tactic is to keep things super-professional until he is IN the White House. Maybe not as satisfying for the conservatives, but I really do trust him to be bold once he gets there, if he gets there.)

    • Just Me

      OK, I think this is a common misconception of non-religious people vs Atheism. I am not religious but I also do not agree with the majority of Atheist views just the same as I do not agree with a bunch of other religions. Make no mistake Atheism is a religion in itself and should not effect government just the same as any other religion.

  • http://paulitics.us Paul Coonan

    Separation has already been seriously crossed in the last decade, and is largely unknown. Contracted through FEMA/DHS, it is estimated around 5000 pastors and spiritual leaders, in the time of a declared state of emergency, are required to be the voice of the government where the government will tell the leaders what to tell their followers, to even include giving up guns and encouraging people to be passive and do what the government says.

  • http://paulitics.us Paul Coonan

    Gingrich just completely lost any shred of respect left of me. In reference to OWS, he spoke like a Fox drone, and presented the extremely marginalized view presented solely by Fox News/NY Post. I managed a McD a few years back. The store I worked in got an average of 2 applications a month before the economy fell of the cliff at the end of 2008. Starting Jan 1, 2009, my store received and average of 40 applications a week. About half were laid off construction workers who once worked for $24 to $30 and hour, who came in literally begging for a minimum wage job.

    So, to simply just say, “Go get a job,” is a fallacy that hold no water. Simply looking for work does not create jobs. The jobs are not there.

  • http://paulitics.us Paul Coonan

    I will tell you my number reason I do not support Bachmann. She was a lawyer for the IRS. Number 2, she believes, as most the candidates do, to continue the expansion of the US empire where we already have 900+ bases in over 130 countries.

  • http://paulitics.us Paul Coonan

    I tend to believe Mitt has issue with stepping foot into a non-mormon church.

    • Just Me

      I use to date a Mormon years ago and they are separationist for most part. Not allowed much interaction with other religions so this may have some conflict with their belief system to be here. This is one of my problems with religion, intolerance.

      • 12AngryMen

        Romney and Huntsman’s lack of attendance has nothing to do with it being held in a non-mormon church. Mormons are not separatists.

        Mormons study and even attend other religions and churches. The LDS church has published a great book called “Religions of the World: A Latter-Day Saint View” which is extremely respectful of all religions.

        The eleventh article of faith: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

        In my community (in California), the Catholics and LDS team up for service projects and community choirs all the time. The same with the Baptists and the LDS members.

        • reality

          they should have attended as this was not a service but a building to hold a discussion so if they are serious to run for president they should have attended. come on grow the heck up candidates, romney and huntsman

        • Just Me

          the Mormon I use to date a long long time ago.
          1. Had to tell her father I was Morman unless he would have immediately dismissed me
          2. She was not able to tell her friends I was not Mormon
          3. She was in constant fear of people finding out I was not religious

          She was a great girl but this is what ended up ending us. This does not look to me as “respectful of all religions”

          • ok

            basing one experience with an old girlfriend isn’t really grounds for judging what a whole religion teaches, my fiance and I are Mormon and after church today we went with her family to their non-Mormon christian church and it wasn’t a big deal. Sorry that someone made a big deal out of it in your past but the church never speaks out against other churches.

      • Bob Jones

        You need to really think about what you are saying before you start throwing around words like “intolerance”. What exactly do you mean by that? Because most atheists that I know are extremely intolerant of religion. To the point that they would try to ban it from anywhere in public, they would require that the tax money of a majority of people who disagree with them go towards brainwashing their children with atheist pre-suppositions, and they would make sure that in the public media )including scientific publications) only their own views are heard and any dissenting views are not only squashed, but the people holding them are removed from any position to have influence.

        Moreover, if you think about it, intolerance in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, if you said that you are intolerant of child molesters, would it be a bad thing? For Christians, intolerance of sin is not an intolerance of people- it is an intolerance for anything that which is profane. In fact, our society requires a certain degree of intolerance to function properly. Almost every job and position of influence and importance has requirements that could be considered intolerant.

        You might even consider Christians to be more tolerant than others because they love the sinner and hate the sin. They are willing to overlook someone’s sin and see the soul that God created beautifully that has been shipwrecked by the sin that came into the world. Christians, more than anyone in this world, have to kneel before God and acknowledge their own personal sin, and the fact that without God’s redemption, we would all be guilty before a God who will not tolerate anything but perfect justice. But God is also merciful, and the grace of His salvation is so great that it is enough to overcome anything that we could have done in our life. In a sense, that is the ultimate tolerance-to love unconditionally and offer us a chance for reconciliation with Him. Yes, that is what Christ holds out- a chance for reconciliation of rebel sinners with a perfectly just God. He does not put any conditions on it except that you must repent of sin and accept Jesus as your Lord and savior. For the serial killer or rapist, or simply the thief on the cross next to Jesus, I don’t know what could be more sweet, and more tolerant, than a God willing to pardon a piece of dust who he formed, breathed life into, gave the freedom to make moral choices, and who had rebelled against Him as God. But don’t be mistaken, this tolerance is only for a time. Justice must be done because God’s attribute are immutable. For Him to be perfectly Holy He has to demand perfect justice. If He didn’t, he wouldn’t be consistent, and He wouldn’t be God. Give your life to Him today while you have the opportunity, before it is too late. I promise you that you will have a new reason for living, a God who is glorious and worthy of our worship, a new hope and a joy that surpasses all understanding.

  • Big papa

    Greed what is it. Is greed a family who works 10 to 14 hour days 7 days a week save and invest ther money end up with a few million to retire on. Is that greed or is it greed for a teacher or government worker who spends all there money demand pay and retirment higher than the people paying the taxes. Lets look at a master teacher making $90,000.00 a year when they retire at 90% of base pay now with intrest at 1% we have to have at least $81,000,000 to cover their retirment. Talk about greed. Some of the cheapest people I know are democrats. They cheat on their taxes they expect others to drive and spend their gas money on them. They don’t want to spend money on the fire department yet they demand fire protection. Envey is a sin.

  • Barbara

    This was a wonderful debate. It is too bad all debates are not lead by Dr. Luntz. Extra time for answers from candidates is so important.
    After watching tonight’s debate I only wish they all could be members of the next Republican cabinet with one of the 6 here tonight as president of the USA in 2012. I would however, exclude two of 7 candidates from the cabinet or as President. Those two would be Perry and Romney.
    I would exclude Romney because I believe he flip-flops. He tells each of his audiences what THEY want to hear. He is not consistent like Ron Paul.
    I would not consider Perry because of his connection and background to the drug companies. He wants all teen girls to have the Gardisil immunizations. This is disastrous protection for our teens. I can’t imagine what his motive would be for his actions. This country cannot live on drugs. Drugs do not cure, only the body cures.

    One other point I want to make about these debates. I have never heard any questions asked about our chemtrails in the sky. You know the stream of “smoke” that leaves an endless stream across the entire sky? Do your research. I have. It is not pretty.

  • FATHER OF 7 KNIGHTS

    Does anyone know what was happening at the 2:57:32 mark, just before the video ended??? (You may have to turn up the volume to hear)

  • Aram

    Cain is clueless,romney is a obama copy, gingrich just needs more money from the lobby.ONLY RON PAUL has the integrity, competence (he has a degree in economics) and honesty to save this country.As a physician, Paul routinely lowered fees or worked for free .
    ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON
    PAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUL
    2012

  • Penny

    I am curious as to why the two Mormons running, Romney and Huntsman, declined this debate. Curious as to if their religion allowed them to participate in such a forum and if not, how would they proceed to tackle these topics if nominated?

    • Just Me

      Do you think the rest of the candidates would have gone if it where in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque … This about that when you ask this question as well.

      • reality

        if we have a muslim running for president of the us something is wrong…

        • Just Me

          Why is it an issue for a Muslim to run for president. The hatred for Muslims from Christians throughout history is an issue that has caused so much death and suffering maybe it would be good for a Muslim to become President to try to get everyone to stop hating each other for a belief that is so close in it’s base they would probably be best friends.

  • Noah Rosenblatt

    These people absolutely cannot be president. The first amendment to the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This explicitly indicates the separation of church and state. The United States is a secularist country only. These people actually think that everyone in this country is a christian. I personally am a jew with no faith in a god. I am friends with christians, hindus, sikhs, muslims, agnostics, and atheists. We all get along because we understand that religion should not conflict with politics.

    • reality

      separation of church and state was only in a letter and is not a part of any founding document of the usa… get an education. dont believe in God if you choose but this country was founded on biblical principles, it does not require every citizen to be a Christian but to obey the laws such as: not to murder, steal, commit adultery… if you have a problem obeying laws like this then you got a problem

      • Noah Rosenblatt

        Are you saying that my quote directly from the first amendment is not actually part of the constitution? Do you actually think that most of our founding fathers believed in a religion? George Washington would go to church just for show and leave early because he didn’t care about that pointless stuff. Get it through your head. Christianity is not the only religion with those “biblical principles” you talk about. You do not need any religion to believe in good morals.

    • B Anderson

      You need to read the constitution’s sentence carefully. It says that the government may not start it own religion. It says nothing about seperation of church and state. Seperation of church and state was a Baptist doctrine. (By the way, the Baptist founded Rhode Island.) The media has re-written history to try to say the founding fathers were not Christian. This is not true. In fact most of the signers of the constitution were pastors and church leaders. God is given credit in our constitution. That should indicate that the founding fathers wanted us to be a Godly nation.

      • Noah Rosenblatt

        The first amendment indicates that the government is forbidden to recognize any religion. If you actually think that most of the founding fathers would be religious today, then you are certainly mistaken. People like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington could not care less about their religions. They went to church for show. If they were around today, they would understand that culture has to adapt to modern times. Just because the founding fathers wrote something with a religious twist back then does mean that it stands for today. In today’s world, the majority of well-educated people understand that modern science is the explanation for any phenomenon observed. In the past, they did not have the science that we have today to explain many things, so they had to invent a god to answer everything. Get with today’s America! The most advanced and progressive states, such as California and New York, happen to be the most Democratic states.

        • B Anderson

          You need to read my 2 am post that is above yours. You are wrong in your opinion that science disproves God created the universe. In fact todays science has proven that every other theory is not true. As the saying goes; I don’t have enought faith to be an atheist.

          • Noah Rosenblatt

            I am absolutely not an atheist. That is the religious belief that their is no god. I believe that society should adapt to modern times. Science is the new religion. Humans and other animals are no different. We all evolved from a common ancestor. Whether you believe in evolution or not, it happens. No god created humans as special beings. Our ancestors were just naturally selected to eventually become as intelligent over other animals as we are today.

          • B Anderson

            Noah, You say you are not an atheist, then deny that God made us special. That is an oxymoron statement. Mankind trusting itself (science) is not a new religion. It has been around almost from the beginning of time. God is in modern times as well as from the beginning. He will be in the future… Thinking that all life evolved from a common ancestor still leaves the question…where did the original ancestor come from??? Evolution would require changes to take place gradually to make different types of animals. If that were true there would not be just dogs and cats, but there would be “dats” as well. Science has proved that there has been no such transition. There goes your theory. God made man, and breathed the breath of life into him. Making us special. For you to deny your heritage does not change the facts. Weather you believe in God or not, does not change that He Is. It only keeps you from His gift of eternal life with him.

          • Bob Jones

            Noah, you have been drinking the Kool-aid pretty heavily buddy.
            Let us look at a few of your statements and see where you have been brainwashed by a postmodern educational system.
            1. “You do not need any religion to believe in good morals.” If man evolved by a process of random chance, why do you even mention the word morality? Without God, who has the authority to claim morality? You? Me? the government? Hitler? I don’t think you realize that your sense of morality comes from inside. You were created in God’s image. God is a moral being. He made you to have a conscience and gave you reason and emotion to be able to obey His law and revel in His glory. Without God, we would not even have the concept of morality. In a truly evolutionary world with no creator, everything would already be determined by probabalistic mechanisms and morality would not have any meaning or purpose. Scientists know this fact and try really hard to prove that our sense of morality somehow came about by survival of the fittest in communities. But if a trained and objective scientists looks at the original manuscripts with a fine toothed comb, there is no solid proof for their conjecture.
            2. “Society should adapt to modern times”. I think you mean to say that religion should adapt to modern times here, right? What you are talking about is called a pre-supposition. In the current times, much of culture has been affected by an idea called postmodernism. The media, art, politics, schooling, science and everything else outside of the Bible has been affected by postmodernism and humanism. This worldly philosophical view makes certain pre-suppositions that are not pre-suppositions in the Bile. For example, they presuppose that the material world is all that exists. They also put man at the center of everything in the universe rather than God. Now, it makes no sense for Christians to adopt this worldview, even though many churches have adopted it and have corrupted their theology. My friend, philosophies change from century to century and age to age. There have been some weirder ones and some better ones throughout history. But the Word of God remains the same. And God Himself is unchangeable. So there is no need for Christianity to change the pre-suppositions that it is based on to match those of the world. If it did so, it would deny the truth that God and Christ have taught us about the world and its creation and the purpose behind all things (to bring Glory to God). That is precisely what makes Jesus such a powerful and radical leader- he is the ultimate rebel for all times against satan’s worldly system and He stands for what is pure and true and good. Don’t let a cheap Kool-aid philosophy system substitute for the real thing.
            3. “We get along because we understand that religion should not conflict with politics”. Noah, this is a common fallacy put forth by the Kool-aid Co. to keep Christians and other religious people from being able to play an active role in the leadership of this country. It is essentially equivalent to me saying that “atheism should not be part of politics”. Think about it-atheism is the belief that there is no God. Why should that have any more favor at the political table than the belief in a God? It sounds like establishment of an official government religion (atheism) to me. You see, by taking the stand against religion, the government is getting involved in religion, even if it is only to say that they do not believe in religion. And that did not work for the founding fathers and does not work for the majority of Americans today except a select few who think they are better than others because they got an “education” at a liberal school in a liberal city such as New York or San Francisco. Here is the reason why: because politics involves everything about our lives- it involves where tax money goes, it involves whether abortion is legal, it involves whether marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, it involves how much brainwashing the government gets to do to our kids in school with sex education and rainbow propaganda. To say that religion should not conflict with politics is to be ignorant of how democracy works. But I am not surprised Noah, because if you have been drinking the Kool-aid, I know that you have been taught by arrogant self-interested liberals that they know best how to run other peoples’ lives and that a bunch of country bumpkin uneducated conservatives should not be allowed to vote or have influence in politics because their beliefs are all wrong. That is called disenfranchisement and it was done by whites to blacks with impunity for many centuries.
            in this country

            Noah, I have a PhD in chemistry and I have lived in California, Florida, Maryland, and North Carolina. I have been with wealthy, poor, black, white, went to school with immigrants and raised by parents who came from New York to the deep south to make a living. I have lived in other countries and speak several languages. I find your commentary about Christians to be disturbing because you show an extreme ignorance of the Bible (have you actually sat down and read it with an open mind?), of history, and of government; and you fail to understand the very basic premise of the good news that Jesus brings, which is that we people are sinners and not Gods. If anyone knows that, it should be those with a Jewish background like yourself. The Torah predicts and points to Christ continously and shows the problem of man’s sin and the need for God’s redemption. It is really a pity that you don’t have a more open mind. Perhaps you should be a little more “tolerant” of other beliefs than your own? Your attitude and that of your buddies at Kool-aid Co. is profane and vile, and if left unchecked, when your generation become those leaders of great importance and influence with age, it will bring this great country down to a smoldering dust heap. We reap what we sow. If you sow the seeds of rebellion against God, you will pay the price. I say this not in jest but to warn you that you will regret your behavior, and if there is any chance that you might turn from your folly, do it now. I can tell you from personal experience as a repented sinner that there is great hope and joy in knowing God!

          • B Anderson

            Bob Jones. WOW! I wish I had said that!! God Bless.

  • Roy

    ABO!!!!! Anybody But Obama!!!!! Great presentation! So much more revealing than the other boring stupid debates.

    Note to you conservatives out there: Stop beating each other up over petty details and focus on why our vision is good and essential and Obamas socialist agenda is fatal to prosperity, freedoms and the very lives of Americans.

    • reality

      problem is some are clones of Obamas agenda… (dems and repubs)

  • Corbin

    Here’s my thing. You watch this debate and all you see are six politicians who clearly are not strong Christians, if they are christians at all. Herman Cain doesn’t respect women (there is plenty of evidence to support this); Newt Gingrich made millions of dollars lobbying against peoples interests for large corporations and on top of that is clearly an unlikeable jerk, as every comment he makes has a condescending tone; Michele Bachman believes we should be torturing people so how does that fit into christianity among many other things she says; Rick perry, is corrupt I can say this with confidence as he has been my governor in Texas for a long time now, and Rick Santorum is not electable so might as well not even go there; That leaves us with Ron Paul who comes across as the only one on the stage who isn’t completely corrupt

    • Just Me

      Rick Santorum is not electable so might as well not even go there, This is not a valid argument. I agree he is not electable but I think he deserves the same respect as others to explain why in your own words.

      “Ron Paul who comes across as the only one on the stage who isn’t completely corrupt”, so he is only partially corrupt?

  • George Stickney

    This debate was a little extreme, I agree in faith but not to this point. I needed more solid issues to be debated. I agree with the user about boredom in the 1st 37 minutes that had nothing to do with our government. You can be an atheist and still be an honest, knowledgeable, strong, Constitutional driven president to get us out of this mess we are in.

    Ginrich is smart but he is a lobbyist–getting paid hundreds of thousands, think that one was $300,000 to advice Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac. He got paid to keep Congress hush hush to what was really going on. I think there were other account of him lobbying also. For that alone this man can not be trusted.

    Obama is weak, I didn’t like Bush or agree with him that much, but a least when he had an agenda he went for it. Obama is passive accept for this ridiculous Obama care he keeps trying to push. Nice political move to get our troops out of Iraq by January, what a liar. Obama said his first agenda would be to get the troops out 4 years ago, Ron Paul said this 4 years ago; that Obama would not be able to get the troops out for at least 16 months. Once again Ron Paul said our Fed would keep increasing our deficit and sure enough. Obama also accepted money from one of those big medical companies before he became president to look the other way. Interesting, another lobbyist.

    Romney, a strong candidate would of should up tonight, regardless of his religious Mormon background. What does he have to hide, he’s out in my opinion. He is a coward, how could we possibly trust this man. He has changed his views on abortion 3 times to cater to the American people.

    Perry is another head case, he is a bully. He will make more enemies in more countries than few like Bush. Perry is ignorant, all about me me me. We should be a team, what the hell is he doing in Texas? Giving company deals to move into his state? That doesn’t do anything for the country. Be careful of this man, it’s all about what’s in it for me. This guy get detracted and confused too easy. I don’t trust this man, he seems sneaky.

    Cain’s inexperience in politics shows in the debates. He will continue to waste money. He is highly behind torturing enemies, Water boarding is light drowning. Hello? Bottom line-it is torture! Did some marines get in major trouble for taking pics of enemy troops. He’ll keep wasting money fighting nonsense wars. Fighting terrorists is a while goose chase, a dog chasing his tail. I saw an interview with him, he kept going back and forth that he was for abortion, then he said he was against. The interview even confused the host, I needed an aspirin after that. 999 glad not to hear this nonsense plan again. 999 would hurt the middle class who don’t save alot and large families-NO credits and deductibles-YIKES!! He just recently changed some of his plan to assisted low income families since sales tax would increase on everything including food.

    Bachman? We know, we know you are going to appeal Obama care. Hello?, Bachman all the candidates up here will appeal Obama care.

    Santorum is wack, he just follows others. He would not be a strong leader. He wanted to increase the debt ceiling? Good-bye USA! Oh this guy gonna get us in a whole world of trouble. He got confused and said that Obama’s Stimulus package failed. The increase in jobs was a little less than actually estimated so he thought it was a loss in jobs when it was just lower that what was originally estimated. Okay, you can run our country, what a wack job. He is clueless about how to get us out of the hole. I would trust this guy even with a calculator.

    Then there’s up an behold Ron Paul, Mr. Consistency. He schooled Bernanke on the value of a coin vs paper money. How can a wack job like Bernanke make more money, more debt. Paul said we’d be more into debt 4 years ago. He said Obama would not be able to get the troops out 4 years if Obama would become president. He has a foundation the Constitution, no other candidate possess this strong values as Paul. We don’t need a bunch of bible thumping candidates, we need a candidate to have faith yet have strong Constitutional values. Paul says shrink the government like a few other have said, but I trust him more. Eliminate income tax and paid the govt through Excise, tariff taxes. He said eliminate The dept of Education which isn’t doing a damn thing. Interesting that the average Congress member is a millionaire and Senate is a multimillionaire. Paul refuses medicare and buying into a pension plan that we would pay for him to use, he believes it is hypocritical. I agree with him we fight Nonsense wars, the last real war was World War II, Duh! He would save us lots of money and slowly get us out of debt.

    I challenge everybody out there to do your research, don’t just rely on these debates. I’m not a Democrat, A Republican, Libertarian, or another party, I’m the 1% that is party-less. I’m just in search of a candidate that has a strong knowledge of all the issues and most importantly someone we can trust. I’ve done extensive research on all the candidates and Ron Paul out shines the rest. I don’t agree with all his issues, but this man never changes his thoughts and ideas. He appears to be solid, strong, knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hardly every see him get shut down in any debate or interview. And I was trying to figure out why is this, because he tells us the truth. Don’t take my word for it–DO YOUR HOMEWORK PEOPLE!! I pray we as Americans will take our time and really study and research the candidates and the current president to see which individual will get us out of this hole we have dug ourselves into.

    • Just Me

      I agree with the majority of your comments.

      correction: Newt’s up to 1.6million disclosed last I checked from Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac.

      Santorum wanting to increase debt ceiling was a smart move. We do need to get our funds under control today but volunteering to go bankrupt is not a smart thing to do. This would hurt everyone in the economy. I think now that we have a buffer make some process and amendments that make raising the debt ceiling more of an automated process that immediately in acts cuts when it is applied. Make the first cut congresses paycheck and bet they find a plan tomorrow to fix it.

      • reality

        any candidate who wants to increase the debt ceiling is completely ignorant of the facts of the tax code and the reality of the unconstitutionality of the federal reserve. go to http://www.devvy.com thats d e v v y you will be shocked to find out facts that will enlighten the darkness we think is true… boy have we been hoodwinked, robbed blind, screwed, blued and tattooed.

        • Just Me

          If we did not increase the debt ceiling as it has been done many many many times in past the last time we would have defaulted in a short time or had to cut so drastic so fast we would have collapsed into another recession. That is fact by numbers not belief.

          I do not like raising the debt ceiling overall but that is something that comes with time to get us back on track to reduce our deficit.

      • George Stickney

        Increasing the debt ceiling? Really? Let’s give these deranged lunatics more of our hard darn money to spend. Don’t let these baffling idiot fool you as to the reasons why they increase the debt ceiling, they like to spend then overspend. I’d be curious to know if they add raises and/or bonuses to those figures. I disagree with the debt ceiling increases when there are a lot of bogus programs that could be cut and government can shrink in size. What about all the Dumb wars, the last real war WWII and of course we should have went after Bin La din, but that’s where I would have drawn the line. The Government should not be this big, the bigger the more corruption, and boy is this government corrupt. Man why should government tell me I need a new low-flow flush system for my toilet? Are we that stupid that government has to interfere with our lives this much? Man, I have to flush 3 – 5 times somedays, is that saving me money? One flush with the old system did the trick. Like I said too many people with too much times on their hands trying to make and regulate BULLshizel nonsense laws! You all can say what you like, but these are some of the reasons I support Ron Paul. I hope everyone does there Homework and don’t really on the lying media who’s all part of this big corrupt game they are playing with us. I challenge everyone to go outside this comfort zone and really research all of these candidates, we don’t want anymore;lobbyists, cheats, liars or corruption. We need Change big time.

    • B Anderson

      A lobbyist and an advisior is not the same thing. A Lobbyist talks to Congress to change laws. Newt did not do that while he was not in office. He advised private companies, not Congress. Are you trying to say Newt was wrong in getting a job when he was not in office? Do you think he should have camped out on Wallstreet and demand people support him? Come on, get a life.

      • George Stickney

        Let’s get something straight, I do have a life. Do you understand what’s even happening here? Newt got a lot of money to be an advisor??? Please, let me take out my violin as he tries to deny this. He got lots of money $300,000 now I hear it’s up to $1.6 million or so. He DID NOT get this money to advise but to turn the other cheek from the frauds and corruption within the housing industry. Newt being a man of power influenced and persuaded lots of individuals in Congress to also look the other way. That my friend is a lobbyist!! Dag, please DO NOT show your ignorance on this matter and do your homework. Do you remember Newt and his fraudulent checking and bank schemes 20 years ago while in the House? Please don’t forget that! This man is intelligent, but not that intelligent. He resigned then 20 years ago, now he shows back here to run for President and everybody forgets all of what he committed while in the House. The bottom line is Newt is a thief and in no way can can ever should be trusted!!! If people vote this joke in the White House then they are the ones that should get a life, not me. These Democrats and Republicans are playing games with us, they make us believe they are having a cat and dog fight for our benefit, Please it’s a BIG game. This is why all parties fear Ron Paul, because his goal is different, he’s here to break up these little games. Why do you think the media will not televise Ron Paul that much? I’m gonna leave this open for your to think about that. Don’t just talk to talk, really think about that question. So, next time you try to insult me you better bring facts about a candidate and not that crook.

        • B Anderson

          Please, it seems you are basing your opinion on liberal news. Did you ever think that they may have twisted the story? Newt advising private companies via his private company is not the same as going to Congress and trying to get laws changed (loby). Can’t you understand the difference? It is vastly different. Newt did not receive the money. His company did. I understand he had several other advisors in his company. So you caliming Newt got the money is jus not true. Newt has had many years for main stream media to nit pick everything he has done. You divide how many items he has done and balance them to the years of his service, you will understand he has a great record. A person who does nothing will do do wrong. Newt is not perfect, but he has a very good record of getting thing done. He has been able to work in Congress and get bills passed. Now compare that to Obama’s record. He has had just a few years in office. But look at the damage he has done to this country.

  • Tamra

    I am amazed and stunned at the amount of “opinions, and words of pure hate”. It amused me to see persons referred to as “morons or stupid” all the while the person slinging the insult couldn’t spell as well as a 5th grader. Debate is good, and I am with Cain all the way, I just hope the establishment doesn’t have their way and take out the only real reformer that is currently in the race. I am neither Repub. or Dem., I vote the best option available to me. Americans are hurting that is clear, and 4 more years of Obama will be the death of this great nation. God Bless you all, and God Bless America

    • George Stickney

      Cain’s 999 plan will hurt the Middle Class, working families who can’t really save and large families. Keep in mind he’s talking about no credits and no more deductions. No more breaks for having children or owning a home. Food will be taxed along with regular merchandise. Cain recently had to adjust this plan after heavy criticism to cater to lower income families. Wouldn’t he have thought of that? That shows me he forgot where he came from and he has his own separate agenda that differs from the majority of Americans. Cain does not have enough political background to become president. I hear a lot of talk from him, but no real solutions. A while back Cain was just replying his 999 plan for everything, just like Bachman replying that’s why she is going to get rid of Obama care. Cain doesn’t have enough understanding of foreign policies. Bush made many enemies we have to create peace on the other hand keep our military strong to stand against bullies interfering with our well being or the world’s well being. We are broke and wasting so much money on bogus wars and keeping our troops stationed in various locations around the world. Paul is talking about eliminate income tax, shrinking government, decreasing bogus programs and seizing all this excessive spending. Think about that, that would be like a raise for everyone to spend in stores, boosting the economy. He speaks to pay for a small government by excise, tariff taxes, and similar taxes of the like. What does spelling have to do with anything? Really? Who here is some type of english major? If everyone here was infront of a podium, you wouldn’t know who could spell or couldn’t spell, therefore that is irrelevant. My goal on these forums is to educate get educated so we can figure out who is really the best candidate for presidency. I like to talk and read facts on these forums. As long as I gets me pointt acrost who reeally caress. I does’nt have timee to goi back two proofe reed :P

      • B Anderson

        George, I agree with some of your opinions. However on the 9-9-9 plan increasing how much a person rich or poor pays… Not so. What you do not realize is there are hidden taxes on our everyday products (food for example) that you do not see. Removing the hidden tax, and adding the 9% would be less that what is paid today.

        Cain nor Ryan would not be a good choice for president, in my opinion, because I do not think they could get bills through congress. Fearing any canadate’s tax change would be baseless, as they could never get them through congress.

  • http://facebook Grayce M. Jones

    CANNOT HEAR THE THING. NO VOLUME ON IT. AND MY COMPUTER VOLUME IS UP AS FAR AS IT WILL GO. WHAT A CROCK!!!!

  • Chris (CA)

    Does everyone watch the debate or listen to the news with one primary objective? Namely — “I need to name one or two things I dislike about the candidate or I need to find a contradiction in their statements or record.”

    If that is your approach to electing someone, you may as well not vote at all. No person on the planet is perfect. Ironically, when someone is very firm in their convictions people label it “extreme”.

    Forget the media. Forget your fear. Vote for who you think will both annihilate Obama in the debates and who will start a dialogue nationwide that gets people focusing on the right things.

    • Just Me

      I do not look for things I disagree with but the issue is I agree with very little from most of the candidates.

      “extreme” is going above and beyond even your parties values to an area that even their highest respected party members have said would be ludicrous.

      I am not looking for someone to take over Obama, I am looking for the best candidate and I include Obama in the mix.

      • George Stickney

        Totally agree, Just Me! Several people are good at debating, but talk can be cheap. We are looking for a president with excellent morals and honesty. We should not be looking for a president just for talk. I know a lot of people good at talking, but in reality they are full of…u know what;) Our country is in deep distress, we need an intelligent, knowledgeable, honest individual that has a solid foundation to help us overcome this mess.

        • Just Me

          Really wish we would get rid of the party system and have every man for himself. That way people wouldn’t blindly follow someone just because they are part of the same party.

          This would also make people think for them self and not have to side on issues in fear of being abandoned from their party.

          Think this would encourage people to be better because they don’t have followers by default.

          • George Stickney

            U hit the nail on the head with this statement. I dislike this entire party system and the game the Republicans and Democrats play at our expense!

  • Chris (CA)

    Although Ron Paul is my 3rd or 4th choice, he scores major points with me when he points out the flaws in the Department of Education.

    The curriculum in public schools and 4 year colleges prepare most graduates for little more than entry-level, “no skills required” customer service positions or logistics.

  • Samuel

    These people are crazy. God didn’t give us this land. We stole it by killing millions of Natives. Also the “Christian Founding Fathers” theme is a MYTH. Such a view of American history is completely contrary to known facts. The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

    • 12AngryMen

      Nice try on the deism theory.

      If you REALLY want to know the truth:

      John Adams- “The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.”

      John Quincy Adams- “The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth.”

      Samuel Adams- “I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.”

      http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

      The list goes on and on. Just WHICH founding fathers were you referring to? Hmmm?

      • Samuel

        The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was “not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” . This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims– they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

        • 12AngryMen

          Dear Samuel,

          How about a little thing we like to call “historical fact.”

          “What is the origin of the phrase “America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion”? What does it mean?
          This quote comes from a line in the Treaty of Tripoli from 1797. While this line is regularly invoked by critics in a futile attempt to prove that America never was a Christian nation, this line is only a small incomplete portion of the full quote. It is taken from a 1797 treaty approved by America in the midst of our first War on Terror against Islamic terrorism. In it, the Muslims acknowledged that America was a Christian nation, and America reminded the Muslims that we were not a European Christian nation with an inherent hostility against Muslims – that is, that we were not a European, Middle-Ages type of Christian nation.

          Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:
          The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 25
          Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:
          The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 26
          Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.”

          http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125

    • Just Me

      It’s religions, they make it up as they go no matter how much they have to stomp on facts or history.

      Will do some searching but do you know of any reliable resources about founding fathers and Deism?

  • http://www.floor-apps.com DenofYork

    Heard this morning…

    JESUS plus nothing equals Everything!

    • Just Me

      Everything = NULL/NULL

      This can not be computed so it must be false.

  • Dan(KC)

    This is just amazing that all of them are trying to make themselves holier than the others. What a bunch of lip service while they line their pockets with money. Each of them achieved millions while being the lackey of corporations and banks. Cain made his in business with a salary in excess of 400 times that of the lowest employee, and he calls himself a Christian.

  • Scott

    A great reference to Jesus’ stance on politics (if any) is Tim Keller’s sermon “Arguing About Politics”.

    It really is an awesome sermon about where Jesus stands on these issues, I invite anyone to listen to it.

    It’s located here at this url: http://sermons2.redeemer.com/sermons/arguing-about-politics

  • Pam Heckert

    If the first speaker from the audience, a senior citizen, is such a devout believer, why couldn’t he have REMOVED his infernal baseball CAP in the Lord’s House??!!

    • reality

      your idea is based on religion not Christianity. Jesus came for sinners, prostitutes,thieves,… Jesus didnt tell anyone they had to remove their hat… He isnt religious He is real. removing the hat is suppose to indicate submission to someone over you , someone in authority and respect however to not remove his hat does not qualify him for hell, it just seems to indicate he wasnt taught this politeness at home…

      • Scott

        Amen, reality. It’s about time I saw another christian on these comments that sees that the religious people were the very people Jesus was against. They were all about some strict rules and Jesus came to set sinners free! People who the pharisees would not allow in their temples.. He tore the veil and made us “baseball cap-wearing sinners” clean so that children, priests, prostitutes and thieves could have access to the love that is God.

  • SbMcG

    It’s hilarious watching our weak, penniless, powerless little 21%’s (liberals) squirm knowing that they let a clueless moron lead their allegorical ongoing angry gay parade and the other 79% of us are about to shut down the parade route and clean up the poop.

  • John Caulfeild

    The biggest problem we have with congress is we cannot replace them easily. Some are in congress for years and years. They chair all committees .
    Let’s have term limits which makes all congressmen do their job rather than campaign.

    • reality

      i read a sticker on someones car: congress should have 2 terms, one in jail… (i dont remember the first part but i do like the last part… JAIL)

    • Just Me

      Congress should be easily fired by it’s manager, the people! This was the original intent but with all things power corrupts and we now have a congress that acts like the gov that our founders left to form this nation.

  • Don From Oregon

    You know what? I came here to find a transcript of the forum, because having watched all of the debates so far, I am trying to see all the shifting patterns of the Debaters. I am still looking for a transcript if anyone knows where to find it. But I will also tell you this- I am really sick of Commenter’s blathering about “hateful” trolls and blasting others ideologies while calling people silly, juvenile names. That is one reason why I would never vote for Gingrich, because he basically made a mockery of the church last night by calling people names. I see no reason to continually demean people, but you obviously feel no remorse in making fun of others regardless of the fact we are talking about about people. So- if you can tell me where to find a transcript, I would be obliged, but in the meantime, if you truly believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion, then suck it up and act like adults, otherwise shut the heck up. Bring something useful to the table instead of hatred and imbecility

  • Mark

    That Jesus song and video gave me MORE disgust and anger than Tomorrow Belongs To Me in CABARET.
    You sick and pathetic HATERS who think 9/11 happened to JUST YOU!
    You spit on people with AIDS and LGBT Americans. NO WONDER NO network would air this RUBBISH!

    • Roy

      Golly Mark, sorry it made you so upset (sniffle) Your next President was in that group of candidates! By the way we don’t spit on anybody. The “Occupy Wherever” dirtbags do though, along with rape, assault, murder and arson. I suppose you aren’t disgusted by them however, only those who subscribe to the religion based on an individual whose main message was 1. Love God and 2. Love your neighbor….. My what a horrible religion! Sorry, but certain actions, sexual and otherwise are forbidden by our Creator and we reserve the right (under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution)to speak out (without any physical assault of anykind) about immoral behavior especially when it affects the morals of society in general and our childrem in particular. And golly Mark, we do not intend to be silenced. I’m sorry if that upsets you. (sniffle, sniffle)

  • Mark

    It’s NO WONDER even hateful Pat Robertson who blamed Katrina on gays, told the GOP to TONE IT DOWN or you won’t get elected.

  • Zed

    Hey, while you were all busy arguing inaccuracies and calling each other names while refusing to remove the stick from your own eye, did anyone notice that the video doesn’t seem to be working? I’m busy working three jobs and selling my plasma just to live in a crappy apartment and pay off my college loans while you debate out of context quotes and seem generally divorced from the reality many of us Americans have to live in, and i would like to use the little free time I have to see the debates by people who might also be divorced from reality, yet still might be elected to be our next president.

    I am a big fan of this site, so could the moderators please help me find a working video to watch? I’m sure this one worked yesterday, but I was working, and am about to go to work again, so all help is appreciated, thanks.

    • reality

      i found it by googling: thanksgiving family forum then selecting the option that said: view entire video. worked fine for me.

  • Samuel

    (1)This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world. ~ John Adams
    (2)And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ~ Thomas Jefferson
    (3)Some books against Deism fell into my hands. It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.~ Ben Franklin
    (4) Lighthouses are more helpful than churches ~ Ben Franklin
    (5)What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith ~ Thomas Paine
    (6)Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects. ~ James Madison

  • L. Young

    If these so-called Christians REALLY do support our troops, they would support the ONLY candidate on the stage that the overwhelming majority of our troops support with their votes and their hard earned money! Ron Paul TRULY does support our troops with more than just Empty words and only our Brave Military is able to recognize this? The Pro-War establishmenthorsecrap mentality served by the remaining GOP candidates has been Proven WRONG!

    Jesus’ ministry was healing and teaching about God’s Kingdom, spreading Peace,Love, Forgiveness!
    Matthew 23:36-40

    Pre-Emptive Wars are the reason we have MORE terrorists and hatred towards Americans! Our Shadow Government, those in Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergs, Trilateral and all the Stink Tanks KNOW how to provoke the tribal groups in the ME and have Deliberately put our troops in this situation; did we NOT learn Anything from the failure of the Soviets in Afghanistan when we were aiding Bin Laden? Violence begets violence, doesn’t solve any problems! After 10 long years of wars in the Middle East, what have we gained as a nation? MORE ENEMIES that Hate us, over 8,500 dead and 45,000 maimed veterens and MORE DEBT than we can possible pay for generations! Google “Project for a New American Century” this has been going on for years!

    Only Dr. Ron Paul, with God’s blessings can begin to restore and repair our nation; all of the other GOP candidates will continue the Bush/Obama Foreign Policy that created the collosal mess we are in now! and Congress needs a serious ENEMA, CLEAN HOUSE and abolish the Lobbyists and big money interests that Congress represents. Why are there so many Lifetime members of Congress (47%) who are Millionaires? Pelosi is worth $35 MILLION! How do they even think of justifying a raise since 2007? Better yet, when our Congress sends the military anywhere, an Automatic Pay Freeze should take effect throughout the Entire Government, including and especially the Pentagon! We hear the word “sacrifice” constantly, but WHERE is the Sacrifice from our leaders?

    • reality

      i agree with you but disagree on some points with Paul. Abortion for example should not be sanctioned by our federal or state government … it is murder. so far as war is concerned i disagree with him in the respect that i believe 911 was in part along with arab and other nations an inside job and i wouldnt be surprised if the arab nations are not thrilled with our attacking their countries… of course some of their leaders need a bullet between their eyes but then again look at lybia, with the evil UN the USA goes in and helps the revolters and then they choose to have Sharia law… wtf is the sense of sacrificing our military for that? I love the understanding Paul has of the constitution and agree not so much with the auditing of the fed but i want to see the fed evicted yesterday and real money being used … under the care of true Americans who will follow the US constitution.

    • Windisea

      L Young

      I agree with you! So well stated!

      Ron Paul Now!

  • sackets

    Romney and Huntsman did not show up because it was a trap. Anyone who actually believes that mormonism somehow prevented them from participating is flat out wrong. This was an event set up by evangelical churches. Any time Romney or Huntsman spoke they would have been booed. I’m not saying that the whole crowd would be anti-mormon, but you can guarantee there would be many there, and they would be loud.
    Maybe they should have taken the challenge on, but if you can’t see why they avoided this debate, than you underesimate the hate that exists for mormons.

  • L. Young

    Matthew 7:15-17 “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are revening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree bingeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.”
    I personally could NEVER vote for Gingrich who committed adultry TWICE; was charged with 80 Ethic violations while Speaker of the House, not to mention all his other baggage; a Conservative he is NOT! Romney is another Obama, Flip-flopper, has to consult his lawyers before making a decision and his message changes to fit his audience. Cain, former Federal Reserve CEO who claims to be an outsider, HAHAHA, in addition to his other baggage still being brought to light. Perry, he can’t debate among the GOP, Obama would chew him up and spit him out, not to mention his visit at Bilderberg!
    The reason that the MSM is doing their best to minimize, marginalize, scorn, ignore Ron Paul is because HE is NOT a CFR approved candidate! The International Elitist Corporations and Bankers, the Military Industrial Complex and the Big Pharma do NOT want Ron Paul to become POTUS because they will have the most to lose while the American citizens will regain our country and restore the balance.

    • B Anderson

      L Young, we can tell by the fruit you bear, that you are the false prophet in sheep’s clothing.

      To complain about someone making mistakes in their life. Let the person without sin cast the first stone. This discussion is to help us decide which person is best, not who is perfect. A person who does nothing makes no mistakes. Every canidate has been busy working in our government and living their personal life. Mistakes will be made. We will try to make the best decision.

      • Windisea

        B Anderson

        L Young is pointing out serious and dangerous flaws about Gingrich and the weaknesses of Cain, Perry and Romney. This is the time to address these matters and assess and judge the importance of the candidates past allegiances, associations, deeds, weaknesses, behavior and errors in character to determine if a candidate is truly trustworthy and qualified to lead America to restore the power to the people in 2012. It is also true that Ron Paul is the enemy of the establishment because he will act to restore power to the people and strengthen and restore America.

  • Roy

    OMG….what an absolutely insane discussion….blatant lies from the left (typical and expected) and lack of focus and conviction from the right (also typical) How about somebody focus on the real world ramifications of continuing the socialist/immoral slide we are on to the promise of a culturally united, moral, virtuous and prosperous nation rising on all fronts based on freedom, individuality and free markets tempered with Christian virtues. We have been far from perfect but will we attempted to be virtuous we were headed in the right direction at least…causing the greatest rise of Human Rights worldwide. Leftist anti-religous policies and ideas will “progress” us back to poverty and death. There IS good and evil. And the left is the face of evil, Period.

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      You are a lunatic. Leftists such as myself are not anti-religious, but pro-secularist. Just because someone does not have the same religion as you or no religion at all does not mean that that person is the face of evil. Let’s not pretend like the church isn’t an evil scam. Very simply in terms of economics why liberalism is more intelligent, wealthy people should be taxed a greater percentage than less fortunate people because they will not be hurt by the taxation, but the government will generate revenue, allowing it to spend more. After all, government spending does have a greater multiplier effect than decreasing taxes in order to increase aggregate demand. In terms of social issues, most conservatives are evil because of many reasons, such as wanting to prevent gay people from having the same rights as everyone else, and also letting poor people suffer without any reasonable healthcare with support for pre-existing conditions. Basically, Republicans are just mean.

      • Roy

        the lefts ultimate aim is not humanitarian….its dicatorial…progressives, socialists, communists, NAZIs(National Socialist Party) are just degrees of the same evil all ultimately progressing to the same sad end for mankind…death, degradation and suffering and loss of freedom. Notice who is pulling for the next Holocaust…Islamofacists, socialists, commies and the American left…including some of Barrys weatherman pals. I predict the end of Israel if Barry gets relected along with any hope of economic recovery for America…but we’ll have Obama care!
        You sir are a moron with blinders on. Wake the F&^$k up before its too late. You’ve been brainwashed by public education, pop culture and public eduation proaganda centers.

        Who is John Galt?

      • B Anderson

        Noah Rosenblatt We would not mind if secular ideas did not infringe on other’s rights. The liberals have been busy destroying religious freedoms that this country has been founded upon. To say the Church is an evil scam show you do not know who Jesus is. Evil is the opposite of Jesus. Taxing the rich more that the poor is being done. However overtaxing the rich keeps everyone from prospering. Taxing more does not get the government more money. Getting a larger piece of a small pie is much less that getting a small piece of a large pie. The less tax we have the larger the pie. You don’t realize that gay people have the same right as everyone else. They have the right to marry the opposite sex, just as everyone else has. Why should we give them additional rights. That would be wrong. The point you miss is that the liberals do not care about the gay’s “rights”. They just want to destroy the morals our country is based upon. If the liberals cared about the gay’s status, they would remove the prejudice against the single person. As I said in another post. This discussion is to help the Republican voters decide who the next president is to be. You are in the wrong forum.

        • Noah Rosenblatt

          First off, the republican voters should decide to vote for Barack Obama. Anyway, secular ideas do not infringe on anyone else’s rights. I am the biggest supporter of religious freedom. I just do not want it mixing with the government at all. This means that the government should not recognize any religion, grant any subsidies, or tax breaks. “Getting a larger piece of a small pie is much less that getting a small piece of a large pie.” This is only your interpretation. The greater piece would be the one with a greater area, which could be from either pie, but that is a calculus problem and you people are against science. On your comment about gay rights, why should the only right of the people to marry be with the opposite sex? When we tell our children that, we only foster feelings of discrimination towards gay people. Gay people are guaranteed the same exact rights as everyone else by the fourteenth amendment. Marriage is a right of the people, all the people. Just because your religion does not allow homosexual marriage does not mean that that should veto a secular issue. Legal marriage should not at all be based on religious morals.

          • B Anderson

            Noah. Please be advised Obama is not a canadate in the Republican primary. That is what is being voted upon in this election. So neither Democrats nor Republicans can vote for him.

            The pie would be much larger if the government would take less money from the private sector. The private sector is the only part of the ecomony that grows the pie. If the government takes more, the pie grows smaller. If the government takes less, the pie get bigger, and everybody is better off. We would be able to pay our bill AND get rid of the national debt. That is basic economics. Something many people need to realize. Rich people do not keep their money in a matress. They may put it in a bank. A bank will lend it to others…that produces jobs. A rich man may put his money in savings, or CD’ or stocks. All would create jobs. A rich man may spend his money. That also creates jobs. If you take a rich man’s money away by tax. There is less money for him to invest or spend. That causes fewer jobs. More people would be out of work. There would be fewer people paying taxes. There would be fewer people for the government to tax. The government would go broke. So taxing the rich more only destroys our country.

            You thinking that religious/non profit institutions should be taxed? They are not profit making. They normally rely on volunteer worker and donated money. The people that run and work the institutions alread pay their taxes. To tax the organazation would be double taxation for the volunteers. Such institutions support the needs of society. They have soup kitchens, disaster relief and so on. To tax them would deny the needy from their needs. Is that what you want?

            As far as lowering morality being religious. Sorry, but non religious countries have laws agaist same sex marrage too. Some people believe that man is born with a sin nature. If that is true, would it be right to legalize murder, theft and so on, After all, many people murder and steel. Shouldn’t they have the right to do it?? People with normal intelligence do not think so.

          • Noah Rosenblatt

            If the government takes less, then cannot spend as much. If the government spends 1000 dollars, it helps the economy more than if the government lets someone keep an extra 1000 dollars. It’s simple economics. The multiplier effect exists whether you believe in it or not.

            Rich people do not just make jobs by having money. Very rich millionaires or even billionaires get that rich by investing in stocks of companies. That is not a great source of job creation. Rich people want to get richer. They don’t care about making jobs. The government should tax the return on shares greatly because it hardly affects the rich. With that extra money, the government can spend it, helping out the less fortunate people. We cannot rely on the rich to make the poor have better lives. If the government does not help out the less-fortunate, then what is the point of government?

  • Roy

    ABO!…if we lose to Barry….we are toast. In the event we can make a comeback(still have somewhat legitimate elections)…hopefully Senator Rubio will be ready.

  • Samuel

    We’ve gone back and forth between republican and democrat presidents for our ENTIRE HISTORY – how about time for REAL CHANGE by voting for the ONLY candidate who has a 30 year consistent voting record to back up his PRINCIPLES.

    I mean Romney? Really? Another mainstream, protect the status quo republican? That’s where people are leaning? You think he’s getting the independent vote? or any from the left?

    “You get the government you deserve.”

    IF people STILL haven’t wised up to stop voting for the “lesser of 2 evils”, to start voting your principles, and stop being spood-fed information from biased media outlets – we’d be much better off.

    I think it’s all the old people, set in their ways – that is holding back the revolutionary tide of personal liberty that is approaching.

    Stop trying to tell adult people how to behave in the bedroom. (crazy religious freaks)
    Stop trying to get the president to dictate morality from the oval office. (same group)
    Stop being AFRAID! afraid of iran, afraid of terrorists, afraid of jobs going overseas, afraid of kids doing drugs or getting pregnant – BACK OFF – liberty goes both ways – for you with your beliefs and other people with their own.

    When you make your decision (on who to vote for) from a position of FEAR – it’s not an inspired decision and it won’t be for an inspired candidate. And what kind of example are you setting for your kids?

    You think the founding fathers broke off from England out of Fear?
    You think the founders chose the 1st President from a place of fear?
    Were the great moments from Martin Luther King or Ronald Reagan fear-based moments?

    LEARN YOUR LESSON. I thought we learn history so we don’t repeat it?

    We are an INSPIRED nation. While our gov-led education system has our academics playing catch up with the rest of the world – WE LEAD IN CONFIDENCE. Be American. BE confident. Then make your decision.

  • Roy

    I am John Galt.
    I am on Strike. See ya sucker. Good freakin’ luck.

  • Hoelscher

    I must have missed it? Luntz did not discuss the FACT the Federal Reserve is a private entity controlled by ??? outside of the USA, and outside of the Constitution. The majority of this “discussion” was a farce. Luntz opened with an individual that requested just one thing from Luntz/the candidates, and they failed to deliver. Most of what was covered in this debate, should have been part to a church meeting, NOT a “debate” for POTUS.

    • Just Me

      Think the fact they mentioned no gotcha questions or anything that would make candidates look bad at start implied this would not be talked about even though more people care about this then “What is something you had to overcome in your past”.

  • Bill

    I think these candidates are in league with satan

  • Greg

    rofl at 2:24:17 when Santorum is talking, who farted? its hillarious!

    • B Anderson

      Gregg, You show your childishness when you bring up such. Everyone is human, every one passes gas some time in their life. So What?? To think it is funny just belittles you. Get off of it.

  • RICH

    GO CAIN!

  • http://www.ronpaul2012.com Patrick

    Notice that neo-con fascist Luntz didn’t shake Ron Paul’s hand? He’s scum.

  • Daniel

    Nevermind. Delete that comment moderator. Maybe just habit.

  • Roy

    Hello again moron…we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights” is among the most important phrases ever…its effect is that our rights do not depend on any man, government or political system or group. If there is no Creator the all bets are off…why do you think the left is apoplectic over Christianity…it stand in the way of Statism(dictators, socialists, commies, Islamofacists, NAZIs ect) There are 2 choices….increasing freedom or increasing control. Wise up. We are in the grip of the leftists increasing control. Congratulations asshole.

  • Roy

    Please excuse the un-Christianlike names I called you…I’m fairly new at this…I used to be like you…brainwashed. Its hard to change…you almost need a 12 step program to lift the grip of liberalism….it just makes you feel so wonderful supposedly caring about the poor while supporting a system that eventually destroys the entire weath of a nation. Get a freakin’ clue dude. Learn some REAL critical thinking skills and realize you have been hoodwinked by the progressive establishment. Open your mind.

  • Tony

    Fellow Conservatives,
    Speaker Gingrich will effectively “Newter” Obama, anytime, anyplace. The relentless onslaught of attacks by the state controlled media, the complacent-conservative media (i.e. Krauthammer Stoddard, Etc.) and the Obamabot-Borg commenting on these articles, demonstrates that we finally have the right candidate. They bring up all of Newt’s negatives and act like that’s what concerns them, and therefore they project the notion that the Republican primary voters should be concerned about the same. Newt’s negatives is not what they are concerned about, it is his positives. They have seen this man in action before, and the idea that this man could steal the hearts and minds of Americans and create a sequel to the 1994 Republican Revolution, frightens them to death, because this time it will be a political revolution on steroids. When Newt led Republicans in taking control of the house and senate in 1994, there were members of the concerned media that actually cried on the set, were lost for words, or looked like they needed a laxative. In 1994, Democrat Bill Clinton was President, but a lot of conservative progress was made because the people were behind The Contract with America. Bill Clinton compromised and was able to also take part of the credit, which he should. Then Bush43 gets elected, and slowly but surely Republicans in the house and senate abandon their conservative resolve because they were falling for the lies of the media who said that the people no longer supported a conservative agenda. To top it off, Bush43 was not an effective leader of the Republican party, and did not steer the party back on track. However, the people still wanted the same things they wanted in 1994, and in 2006 fired Republicans in the house and senate for abandoning what they were sent there to do. The people are again hungry for the same kind of conservative change as they were in 1994, and more so, as demonstrated by the Tea Party movement and the 2010 fall elections with Republicans reclaiming control of the house. Speaker Gingrich, and his new 21st Century Contract with America, are resonating with the people just as in 1994. The difference is, this time he is running for President, but he still will have the ability to get new and existing Republican house and senate candidates to sign on to the new contract and once again nationalize the house and senate elections. The end result will be a landslide victory for Republicans in the white-house, house and senate. Now you will have an energized Republican party with a mandate, being led by a strong and charismatic leader in the white-house. Newt will have vested interest in keeping the party in line, because he is the author of the plan and will want to see it succeed. If you haven’t checked out the speakers 21st Century Contract with America, You should, at www(dot)newt(dot)org. There you will find the answer to two questions, why You should be voting for Newt, and why the left and the status-quo right is scared to death of him. If implemented, the contract will reverse decades of damage the left has done to this country. Finally, always question the motives of the media, and do not be led by them! Do not let them choose our nominee! What some of the media are saying about Newt’s chances for the nomination and the presidency, is only true if we believe them and let them steer us. Despite Newt’s flaws, he is by far the most qualified person to lead this country, and The 21st Century Contract with America is the most common-sense well-thought-out plan of all the candidates.

    Regards,
    Tony

    • Roy

      Tony…keep up the good work!

    • Windisea

      Tony
      I don’t believe you nor do I trust Newt’s intentions. The status quo is 100% behind Newt because he is one of them. Gingrich, ambitious member of the CFR is an agent and proponent for global government. Not national sovereignty!
      Newt Gingrich helped pass NAFTA, GATT, the WTO and he himself wrote that the world should be border-less with one government.? Don’t forget that Newt supported Dede Scozzafava (an ultra leftist running as a Republican) over the Tea Party candidate in New York in 2010. Gingrich is an agent of the elite establishment not the people. A vote for Gingrich is exactly what the establishment want in order to cement the power they have now.
      Gingrich is smart enough to be dangerous to people who are not skeptical enough to look into his past associations. Gingrich is a very experienced politician and he is perhaps one of the smartest ones to come around in a while. He knows exactly what to say to appeal to Republicans and he is doing it flawlessly But it is his past deeds and associations not his words that reveal the truth of what he is really about.

      The Real Newt Gingrich part 3
      http://youtu.be/exs41FdfqpY

      Ron Paul 2012 the constitutions most stalwart defender and candidate for the People!

  • http://www.shaneau.com chanan nikolaos

    I’m so impressed with the practical intelligence of Newt Gingrich, who has grown wiser with age, yet look at his record of accomplishment. Who understands the principles of the Reagan Revolution ( Ronald Reagan being my Uncle, through Jane Wyman), brought them to good use with his retaking the majority of the Congress in the early nineties and therefore limiting the globalist liberalism that Clinton could bring to America. He really is Mr Free Enterpris In fact I would venture to say that we have found our candidate, who is smarter than Obama, who understands what America is really about, who believes in a strong defense against Iran, is pro-life, and is a fiscal conservative and indeed – a constitutional conservative. I believe this is the turning point when Newt Gingrich will beat the slick and insincere Romney first as practise material for then beating Obama, and thus bringing Free Enterprise to 21st Century America, a new revivified Contract with America! http://www.newt.org Stanford University Supporters of Newt Gingrich for President 2012!!!

  • Yohon

    Since 1913 (98 years) we all have been enslaved with illegal income taxes!! There is NO LAW we have to pay them. Along with illegal income taxes The Federal Reserve is a SCAM created by foreign bankers on U.S. soil which is NOT part of the U.S. Federal Government!!

    Guess what else? JFK ended The Federal Reserve 5 months before his murder Executive Order 11110 http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

    Recently people including former IRS agents have been found NOT GUILTY of either failing to file or not paying income taxes. How can this be? No juries asked to see the law before!! See Aaron Russo’s America: Freedom to Fascism http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

    JFK really tried to warn us of untold EVIL!!! Why were you(we) never taught this speech in school, and who had the power to suppress it. JFK BEGGED THE MEDIA TO ALERT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, “THE MEDIA DID NOT”

    The President Who Told The TRUTH
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE

    • Roy

      WTF?! What is interesting and maybe scary…is that members of these secret organizations are supposedly bitter enemies and 180 degrees opposite each other politically…is this real? What else is going on that we need to know about?

    • Windisea

      Yohon

      I appreciate the videos especially Aaron Russo’s America Freedom to Fascism. I’m sharing it. Thanks for posting. The JFK video about shutting out the Fed is definitely worth some thought.

      Ron Paul 2012

  • Anna

    What is this American fixation with the Founding Fathers? How are they still relevant, in a society that is so completely different from the one they experienced? I think you can respect and take pride in your history, and still evolve in a way that is natural for any modern nation. I think you can honor your constitution, and still recognize that it may not be perfect.

    This will be a very interesting election. I’ll bet my money on Obama.

    • B Anderson

      Our founding fathers set up the constitution and wanted to keep our people free to life liberty and the persuit of happiness. They established our work ethic. To waver from their foundation would destroy the prosperity we have. We would be a third world country (or would have no country at all) if we diviated from their leadership. I just can’t understand how anyone can not understand that. Obama has worked to eleminate freedom to thrive. Liberal ideas conflict with the freedom set fourth by our founding fathers. Obama is not even a choice in this Republican election. You are in the wrong forum.

    • B Anderson

      Anna, Your question tells me that you are searching for something more. An orphan who never knew his parents is lost. He wonders through life with no purpose or meaning. He has no hope, no reason to live. He has an emptiness that can’t be filled. He does not know who he is. No foster parents can fill that need. What a retched way to live. However, a child who has been raised by his parents and has been taught who he is, and that there is a God in Heaven, has a healthy lifestyle. He knows the blood flowing through him comes from his father, and his fathers before him. He has roots. He has hope for tomorrow. Our country is like that. Our forefathers had deep roots in faith. They had the were-with-all to know to create a country that is based on God, life, and liberty, and hope for the future. Those are deep roots. If we try to change or forget who we are, our country will be ripped from the soil and perish So what’s the bid deal about our forefathers? EVERYTHING! It is our heritage. It is our life. In “Fiddler on the Roof”, Topol said something like; Tradition, it lets us know who we are and what God want us to be.

  • B Anderson

    Well said Tony!

  • Tyler

    @ the people who say the Founders weren’t Christian:
    http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm

    Quotes from them proving otherwise.

  • Bob

    Ron Paul is the only decent, honest, and intelligent man full of integrity out of these jokers…I will vote for only RON PAUL! These other guys are creeps…

  • Roy

    was killed

  • Roy

    B…..thanks for responding….I’m tired of stating what should be obvious to a properly educated American…but not an indoctorinated lefty

  • http://N/A Ed Craft

    Anyone that thinks the United States is not founded on Christian principles is both ignorant of our history and a liar. That goes for John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or anyone else false claims are attributed to.

  • Dan

    This is a question to any person that wishes to answer. I do not believe that any one faith is the truth and therefore why should certain faiths be pushed onto the public instead of others? That is something I gathered that might happen, from this debate. Please keep your responses civil. Thank you.

    • B Anderson

      AB, I know you only asked this question because you think that it is impossible to “prove” that there is a God. In our society we must have a witness in order to provide information that will be accepted. The only way to prove Christiany is a valid religion someone must die and come back to life and tell us about it. That someone is Chirst Jesus. He died, came back and was seen by over 500 withmesses. He told us that what he had said was true. How much more information do you need to satisfy your craving to know God? You can accept Him or reject Him. God’s nature is not to force himself upon us. It is a personal decision. We who know Christ need no more proof that he is real. He lives in us. No other religion can claim such proof of returning from the dead.

  • Roy

    Can Ron Paul beat Barry O.? I agree he is probably the one with the most integrity…but my immpression is that Rick Santorum and Michelle Backman are people of integrity as well. It sad but maybe a sign of the times that the best people do not seem to have the best chance to get elected. I hope I’m wrong. The future of America is in the balance.

  • AB

    these candidates have all disqualified themselves from the presidency. This is a disgusting display of sucking up to Christian fundamentalists. our country is secular, not religious. Everyone at this debate should drop out immediately.

  • http://N/A Ed Craft

    Two of the candidates, like Obama, make claims to be Christians. Like Obama, they are lying, deliberately. No Mormon is a Christian, they are a cult by every definition of what a cultist is. Notice that both Huntsman and Romney were both absent when the debate was held in a Christian setting on the 19th.

    Christian conclude that Jesus Christ is in fact God Almighty, in the flesh. This is made graphically clear in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, who wrote Revelation. Both Romney and Huntsman believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers and that all men work to Godhood or by their own works become God’s. (Nothing could be more Anti-Christ besides evil Islam)The latter accepts Jesus as merely a prophet and a lesser one than the idiot Muhammed.

    By being stupid we allowed the lunatic left to place a Muslim thug in our White House because he merely said he is a Christian but no one exposed his being taught in the same Madrassas as Bin Ladden, his various homosexual trysts (at least three) And no one one the News blasts this evil piece of trash for attending Mosques but never a Church.

    Will we let the GOP pick Romney as our candidate or will we pair Cain and Romney? Remember the idiot Obama insulted our only real allie in the M.E., Israel. So it is safe to saf on foreign affairs this loser deserves the dunce hat and a prison cell. Where are the criminal charges for High Treason? He has clearly commited it several times. Wake up people this is the main concern for you address this instead of the silliness.

    • Dan

      What makes you “right” though in regards to your faith? Why couldn’t Muslims be “right”? Why couldn’t any other faith be “right”?

    • Adit

      I believe that you are false and do not have the ability to support your own comment.

    • B Anderson

      Being a Christian, unfortunately, is not a requirement for political office. We had a Christian in the 1970’s. It did not seem to work out for us. Be comforted that God does use non-Christians, as well as Christians that seem to have fallen away. They can do his bidding without knowing it. We must decide who is the most qualified person for our next president. All of the candidates have certain good and bad points. None are perfect. Which one would be able to promote positive changes in our country? Who is the one that can get laws through congress? Basing your choice in that manner may make it easier to choose our candidate.

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      You are completely racist against muslims. I, a jew, am friends with many muslims. We put behind the religious pasts of ancestors and get along by only believing in science. Science is an amazing religion. I suggest you study it.

      • B Anderson

        To believe it is safe to have Muslim friends is like a turkey loving its owners. They want to kill you.

        By the way, race has nothing to do with religion. Why are you bringing in the race card??? As far as having science as a religion. I would rather worship the GOD that created science.

  • http://N/A Ed Craft

    AB your remarks are so utterly stupid and uninformed they defy even common sense. Be advised the Landmark case of The Church Of the Holy Trinity VS The Federal Government established that we are not only “A religious people” but we are in fact “A Christian Nation”. The chief Justice who wrote the opinion in this case spent his remaining years lecturing that “Freedom of Religion” only applied to Christians period. He went on to specify that it did not extend to Muslims, Confusicists, Hindus,Budhists or any other inferior belief system.

    The mountain of evidence proving these facts was so extensive it could not be overturned despite at least five reviews, each of which had to conclude that this current law stands. And AB, this is current law, so if you do not appreciate the prosperity that Christianity has brought this country leave us and shut up your statements are unfounded and insulting to every man that has died for our Christian heritage.All of our rights are endowed by our creator and his name is Jesus the Christ or Yeshua ha Mashiach.

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      Why do you have the right to call another religion inferior. I guarantee every religion is equally stupid.

  • http://N/A Ed Craft

    The Bible is our only rule of Faith, and there is only one Faith…Christianity. Every thing other than this are tales told by idiots. Judaism being the exception.

    • Dan

      How can you prove that Christianity is the only faith?

  • http://N/A Ed Craft

    Roy, there is only one Faith it is Christian. Out of all the inferior belief systems ever devised by mortals none of them had a founder that proclaimed himself to be God! None of these idiot systems like Islam and New Age counterfeits put their reality on the line by saying: “No man comes to the Father but by me.” Jesuse boldly put Christianity on a collision course with all the crap the world has or will come up with by making this courageous decree. He could only do this because he is the Adoni, Elohanu and Ha Shem of Judaism. Only God himslf could pay the price of sin that put all of us under a death sentence. This is perfect justice that we are guilty of the penalty of breaking the Law. Perfect love is his willing to become a man and die for us even though he was sinless.

    The law says “Thou shalt not bear false witness. Have you ever told a lie, even a little one? Then that makes you a liar. We could go down the line and site just ten commandments but if you fail any one of them you are guilty of breaking them all even murder. Men need a savior to live and not die. Jesus is that Savior.

    • Dan

      Just because a man said that he is the son of god isn’t proof that what he is saying is true. I’m wondering if you can incontrovertibly prove that christianity is the one true religion.

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      I am pretty sure that a sexist, homophobic, anti-scientific religion like christianity cannot possibly be the one true religion. You are free to believe in whatever jesus zombie you want to, but do not infringe on anyone else’s own beliefs or lack of beliefs.

  • Roy

    What comment of mine leads you believe I think differently…I don’t recall saying anything to create your response.

  • Roy

    Cannot prove it DAN….thats why they call it FAITH.

  • Dan

    Exactly. So do you believe that Christianity is the only true religion?

  • Adit

    Ron Paul is right about everything related to faith and religion. The government shouldn’t be involved in people’s faith because that hinders personal liberty. To the people who say that Christianity is the only faith there is are total idiots. I am a Nepali-American. I am a Hindu and I am also influenced by Buddhism. But the two main teachings of every religion are doing good and refraining from the bad including Islam. It is the extremists that interpret the religion in different ways that can influence others in a positive or a negative manner. It is not right for people or the government to judge about other peoples’ religions. Everyone should be free to practice their own.

    • Bob Jones

      Does Hinduism say that it is good to call people “total idiots”? Notice that Jesus went for the heart issues rather than making personal attacks. Perhaps you could learn from Him?

  • Roy

    Yes I do. However in America people are given the right to believe and practice their own religions or no religion at all. The left however is engaged in an ever increasing effort to destroy Christianity and Judaism and force those values and virtues from the public square and culture…because they stand in the way of moral relativism…essentially the “if it feels good” do it and everthing goes….as long as it is “cool” within the current secular, intellectual elitist crowd.
    If I thought all the other religions were also the true religions then that would be stupid, illogical and indicate lack of FAITH.

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      I am a jew, yet I think every religion, including judaism, should be destroyed in legal terms. The government, by the first amendment, is completely and only secular. And by the way, judaism is obviously a superior religion to christianity. Just at look at how hated judaism has always been for thousands of years, yet our superior culture, which is now modernly secular judaism, has allowed natural selection to take effect. Whether you believe it or not, evolution still happens. Religion will eventually be wiped from the legal system because it is unfavorable for survival.

  • Roy

    Quiz: Who said “America is great because America is good; when America ceases to be good America will cease to be great”
    On his tour of America he also noticed and commented on the deep and sincere CHRISTIAN FAITH exhibited around the country. He pointed out that unlike where he came from Americans really believed what they preached….as opposed to using religion and attending church as a purely social show. Did you know that bible teaching in SCHOOLS was everywhere in Americas beginnings. In fact the first book published and widely distributed by the United states GOVERNMENT was the Christian bible. Our legal system has its roots in the 10 commandments of the bible…you know..Don’t kill, steal ect….But no…we were never a Christian nation…give me a break

  • CrazyUncleRonnie12

    Does it get better than the first 40 minutes? Cause I am struggling to keep watching. I sought this out personally trying to seek information, not to post my opinion on a forum. But, I don’t want to hear the ramblings about their personal beliefs of God… I don’t think it is the most important topic today.

  • Roy

    Adit….do you not believe that Hindu (your religion) is the true religion? If not why follow it. In America we are free to believe our religion is the true religion…but everyone is free to chose whatever religion they want or no religion at all (unlike Islamic countries…in fact they KILL those who are of other religions or even bring in a bible to their fucked up countries)…that is freedom OF religion. What the left is fighting for is freedom FROM religion…especially Christianity….taking it completely out of our culture and undermining it at every turn…now THAT is infringing on our right…to freedom of our religion.
    IF the lefties can remove Christianity and God then that cancells out the phase in the Declaration….”We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights among them LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS(PROPERTY). Then our rights can be determined by MEN who would be allowed to take away these rights at their whim when in power. THAT is the ultimate goal of the lefty elite dickheads. We WILL fight to preserve those rights….too many brave service men and women have given their Lives to ensure them. We do not intend to let them be taken and the sacrafices of those brave fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters be wasted. We also intend to ensure America is free for our children and grandchildren through many, many generations. Any one who doesn’t like that is free to go to any other fucked up little country he wants and enjoy whatever they offer.

    • Adit

      Roy.. I am just a sophomore in a University so I might not have the conversational abilities of other people in this forum. I meant to comment on Ed Craft’s post but I commented on yours by mistake. I am a Hindu but I am not highly religious. I even attended church for a year so I do have influences from other religions as well. Its not just Christianity that the Muslim extremists are in war with. Hindus have been in a war with Muslims for centuries. Muslims have lost their families as well along with Hindus who have lost theirs. But that doesn’t give me a right to judge another Muslim who is in one of my classes. American Muslims suffer due to the actions of Muslim extremists that intend to kill our people.

      About the real subject:
      I believe that people should have a fear of something in their lives. Belonging to a faith creates the fear that there is someone above who is judging us and has power over our lives. It prevents people from doing wrong things. So faith has to be brought back to people’s lives but it is not the role of the government. I don’t think that the government has taken away our religious rights.

      I believe that Ron Paul is the best candidate for the presidency. He is well educated and doesn’t seem to be bought by the wealthy. He also is a firm believer in the United States constitution.

      • B Anderson

        Adit, You have hit upon a vast differance between Christianity and other religions. Other religions put fear of judgement upon people. They are under bondage to their church leaders. They Must be good, Attend their services, pay thite, kineel/stand up/sit down, and keep proving their goodness. In Christianity, we are released from that bondage. Weknow we are sinners, but our sin has been delt with by Jesus. We are free indeed. We can live a full life knowing Christ loves us not matter what.

  • Roy

    Adit…sorry about the language…I was a US Marine back in the day…and old ways of expressing one self can be hard to change…especially when confronted with stupidity or threats to our freedoms or way of life. We DO have an absolute right to defend our rights and way of life…after all our Creator endowed us with that right. We are right…you are F.U.B.A.R.

  • Roy

    Of course in America you have the absolute right to be F.U.B.A.R. We see it a million times over everyday all over America. Free to be right…free to be wrong…free to be successful…free to fail…just don’t infringe on others rights or my right to be any of those things

  • Dan

    And that’s why it’s so important to make sure that the separation of church and state stays as it is or at least bring it back to state level Roy. People was founded on Christian beliefs but the founding fathers also made sure to keep the church and the state separate because they didn’t want a theocracy. They wanted a democracy.

    • Roy

      Depends what you mean by “separation of church and state”. As you stated the founders absolutely did not want a theocracy….the original immigrants to America were escaping just that in England and Europe. However…Ben Franklin, when asked if there was an American religion answered affirmatively, yes there is but it did not infringe on peoples beliefs…and he gave if memory serves 5 elements of the American religion…which were completely non-demominational. I don’t remember all 5 elements but a couple of them are: 1. There is a supreme being who holds us accountable for our actions 2. He is active in the world 3. He is the source of our unalienable rights (as opposed to rights established by a dictator of other form of government who can take those rights away at their whim)
      Ben Franklin, Goerge Washington and others held that we could not hold on to our republic and our rights without God and a belief in God…whatever your concept of a God. I’ll see if I can locate Franklins exact words regarding the American religion but the founders relied upon “Providence” or God to guide them and it beyond reason to say God should be removed from all aspects of our Goverment of culture.

  • Roy

    Franklin did have a problem with some aspects of organized religion and felt that it should take a more active part in good works…living up to its tenents…helping the poor ect. In fact while believing in God, he had a distain for church going and believed that possibly it was a waste of time when that time could be spent in the exercise of the practical good works instead of going to church to show everyone how religious you are. In fact he stated that lighthouses were more valuable than churches…they had a practical purpose. He believed in God, and that he should be worshiped and we would be judged by that God but believed in exercising VIRTUES mercy, compassion ect. would please God and the best way to exercise your religion.
    George Washington believed that America could not persist if we lost God. Hm-m-m…where are we headed? All that said…they did not believe that Government should force people into a religion or its practice rather that a good people of conscience were PERSONALLY responsible and FREE to exercise their religious tenents…or not. Your choice…your consequences.

  • Roy

    Sure WARREN2012 lets defer to the intellectual elite of our universities becuase they are smarter and know better than the rest of us. Sure, defer to a group that “collectively” hate America, push anti-capitalist, anti-religious, pro-marxist, pro moral relativism crap. case in point…Professor Peter Singer head of the Philosphy Department of Princeton defines human life when one can have a sense or awareness of tomorrow and yesterday which doen’t occur until around 2 years of age…which could justify “abortion” until that age. The leftist intellectual elite are the problem…not the solution. Many also believe that the best thing that can happen is a virulent virus that wipes out all but a small portion of human life…stated as low as 350,000 people. Hell yeah follow those educated morons….:useful idiots” as Lenin called them. Wake the f up. Follow those that advocate death and loss of human free will or God forbid follow the one whose rpimary message was love for your fellow man. Your choice…your consequences.

  • Linda

    Isn’t it interesting that both Romney and Huntsman, both Mormons, didn’t attend the Thanksgiving Forum, although both were invited? Is it forbidden by the Mormon church to go into another place of worship other than the Mormon church? And if either were to become President, how would that affect their presidency and social & political obligations? For instance, would they never be able to attend an event held in a church? Would either uphold the National Day of Prayer?

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      Let’s hope they wouldn’t uphold the national day of prayer because that is unconstitutional. It is respecting an established religion.

  • Roy

    Noah…you obviously do not believe in any everlasting truths, virtues or morals…but rely on whatever the current culture(group think) provides instead of really thinking for yourself, Pointing out New York and the laughably insane California(going down the tubes) as positive examples is unbelievable. Congratulations…you’ve made my point all by yourself and I need not add to that. Good luck you’ll need it. I’ll pray for you Noah. Better start building your own Ark.

    Argueing with idiots is getting rather tedious…I’m done…and I’m not going to waste anymore time in unproductive pursuits…rather play with my family…it’s been fun sort of…see ya…

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      You are just so wrong. It’s like talking to a wall. You do not need a religion in order to have good virtues and morals. I have no idea what everlasting truths are, but they sound rather un-scientific, which means they are erroneous.

  • Percival

    Just toss religion in there and we get a thread ten at least ten times as long as any other thread from pre-existing debates? Anybody else find that funny? What a distraction. Stop arguing with each other and focus on issues. There is one creator of this earth, its more than six billion inhabitants, and the entire universe for all we know. Everything we see and know originated from the same cause and that’s all there is to it. There is no one god, your god, or my god. Just one cause, to be good. And to create a higher standard for all of humanity, for life after we leave this world.

  • http://www.generationrevival.com Steve

    Well, you are right to some extent Percival. However, the purpose of life is not about being good. Good deeds doesn’t really hold much weight when your dead. The reality of things is that our universe was created with a purpose by an intential God. Things aren’t just a random conglomeration of atoms and molecules. Everything was created with a purpose and an intention.

    The real question that everything comes down to is “how does one reconcile themselves to God?” And just about every religion out there will tell you that you can somehow earn you way into reconciliation through praying, fasting, good works, going to church, and all kinds of other junk.

    However, my question is that if God is a Holy God that is perfect in every way, why do people seem to think that they can become perfect through just living a good life? It’s absolutely absurd. In order to be reconciled to a perfect and Holy God, one must become perfect, and this is a mere impossibility for us humans. It’s not something that we can just do on our own.

    This is why I don’t follow any religion. I follow Jesus. He’s the one that took the sin of the world upon Himself so that we might be reconciled to a pure and Holy God. And its not just a figment of my imagination, I know He’s real because I feel His presence, hear His voice and have seen the masses healed in His name.

    I’ve also asked Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists what their experience is with their gods and still haven’t met one that has had any interaction with their gods. And usually anyone that has had some sort of “spiritual” experience with some other god will usually fall down and start shrieking during our prayer meetings because the demons behind their gods usually can’t take the presence of the real God. So I mean I’m no genius, but can someone please explain to me how Jesus is not Lord when we see people with demons from false gods tremble in fear, the sick healed, and even people raised from the dead in His name?

    And can everyone stop politicizing God? I mean come on. He really could care less. Things either line up with His Word or they don’t. It doesn’t matter if you are Democrat or Republican. Every one is held to the same standard.

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      I am not a religious jew, but I at least appreciate how jews do not think that other gods do not exist, but just do not worship other gods. We are tolerant of all religions and most of us believe that the government should be completely free of any religious recognition because each person should be given equal representation. There are people of many religions in this country, and even more without a religion (such as myself, although I am culturally a jew), so we cannot have anything to do with a god in the government because that does not represent everyone equally. Many people believe in a god, many in a different god, some in multiple gods, and many in none at all. Also, if we want to be a great nation, we have to adapt to modern times. Natural selection exists on the political level as well. We need to be a nation of science.

  • http://na Roxiebell

    Kate said in response to*Giggle*….. “Are you insane? How does the decision of a gay person to marry destroy YOUR personal moral belief system at all? Are they forcing you to be gay? Are they forcing you to have ANYTHING to do with them, at ALL? No, and no.”

    **********************
    I’m no bible thumper so my opinion has nothing to do with religion but “HELL YEAH” the leftist progressives that push the gay marraige agenda are “forcing” gays on the public by forcing the legalization of gay marraige. Every State where “the people” have a chance to vote its not only a vote of “NO” but Hell NO & then liberal judges overturn the will of the people so damned straight liberal leftist progressives are forcing gays on us.

    The issue is literally batting ZERO with the majority of people/voters but it doesn’t matter to the tyrannical libs.

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      Judges overturn those votes because preventing gays from marrying in a legal (not necessarily religious) sense is horribly wrong.

      • Bob Jones

        Noah,
        Marriage was created by God and defined as between a man and a woman. I think the problem is that liberals want to take what God created and say that it is what the secular world defines it as rather than what the Bible clearly defines. Although most Christians would say that homosexual activities are clearly a sin, I do not think that they would say that two men or two women should not have the right in this country to get a legal contract saying that they are making a commitment to be lifetime partners. But don’t be confused, that does not constitute marriage or any of the great things that are associated with marriage as God defines it in the Bible. We must be careful not to limit freedoms, including the right to do what you want in your own home or the right to express your faith in God in public. The problem is that most liberals are very intolerant of ideas other than their own, so Christian worship and belief needs to be protected by the law from militant homosexual sinners and left-wing fascists and PC police. Marriage is one institution that needs to be protected. The right to pray in schools is another, and teaching creation alongside evolution as an alternative viewpoint is yet another.

        • Noah Rosenblatt

          You are just so wrong. Creation should not be taught alongside evolution because creation is a religious belief while evolution by natural selection is an irrefutable scientific theory. If you think creation should be taught in the classroom, shouldn’t other religious origin stories be taught as well. What if multiple gods created the humans? That is just as valid as one god. The beautiful thing about evolution is that whether you believe in it or not, it happens anyway.

          Students are allowed to pray in school. It is just not allowed to be organized by the school because schools are run by the state. Organizing prayer in school is respecting an established religion, which is unconstitutional, so is not allowed.

          We cannot define a legal marriage based on what you think a god said. That is your right to not recognize a religious marriage between homosexuals, but it is not your right to discriminate what the proper marriage is legally.

  • Roy

    f ‘em in the arse

  • Roy

    Science is merely our feeble attempt to understand Gods creation. He wants us to use the brain the gave us and to appreciate the incredible complexity of the universe but the thought that we could ever be all knowing is, frankly, nuts. What we do with the knowledge we do obtain is the question…good or evil…massage and grow our egos and pride or humbly thank him for the wonder of it all and the ultimate puzzle to occupy our searching minds.

    Lord forgive me for my impatience with fools and my previous statement…Let them see the light and stop a philosophy that ultimately results in a worldwide Holocaust that will make what the NAZIs, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, Castro and Stalin look like childs play. Give them eyes and an open mind and heart so they may see.

  • Katie

    Wow.

    Are watching this I realized how absolutely disgusting republican views can be. How dare they think that their beliefs are so superior that can can dictate other people’s lives who simply aren’t Christian. A women has every right to decide what to do with HER OWN body, a person has a right to choose who THEY want to marry. None of these personal decisions ever even impose on a Christian’s life! The only reason they give a damn is because they want to feel like they’re doing something so they can get to heaven. What gives these people the authority to to control the lives of the non religious? All individuals have a right to choice and to exercise their beliefs and I pray that these freedoms that ALL deserve will never be taken away.

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      so true

    • B Anderson

      We believe every person, Christian nor not, has the right to decide what they do with their own body. We also believe we do not have the right to decide what happens to another’s body without due process. You decide to make a baby. (We call that your choice.) That is another body, it is not yours. Most women who aborted their child realize the wrong of it after the baby is killed. They live in guilt the rest of their life. Living in guilt is a terrible way to live. Think about it.

  • http://2012ElectionCentral Kody

    It was a wonderful forum. I really appreciate getting to know more about the candidates and their views on issues that I believe are the most important. Thank you for putting this together. I hope and pray that we will make a real change in this country which turns us back to the Lord. God Bless America!(please)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Psalm 33:12

  • Roy

    What can be more disgusting than killing innocent children. Cutting them into pieces or sucking thier brains out just before birth to kill and enable easier passage from the vaginal canal. You heartless liberals have been responsible for Americas Holocaust (killing 50 million+!!!! babies since 1973 and Roe v Wade) And counting. If this persists then the American leeft will be responsible for more deaths than the NAZIs, Mao, Stalin, Che, Pol Pot and Castro combined… before 2050…. Abortion is cold blooded MURDER by the one person who should care for them the most…thier mother. By the way…progressive moron…the lefts hero and founder of PLANNED PARENTHOOD was a racist who promoted the program of eugenics…proposed sterilization of blacks, people of low IQ, people who had disabilities or criminal records as a method of creating a super race. The NAZIs later studied this program and adopted it(documented in thier writings) …and the rest is history. There is much, much more but the bottom line is that the left is the philosophy of death. Even now Blacks now abort 45-50 % of thier children. How tragic and sad. Leftists…responsible for 250 million killed since Marx…and counting (add 1-2 million more deaths per year for the ban of DDT to eradicate Malaria…again mostly children. Evil personified.

    • Roy

      Somehow you will rationalize all the above..instead of questioning you indoctorination by liberal education, pop culture and media…and getting together with your fellow progressive patting each other on the back congratulating yourselfs how brilliant you all are and how stupid those who would preserve life are. Hell… how many of you would like to adopt eugenics so that everyone thought JUST LIKE YOU?!
      PROGRESSIVISM….resulting in Regression into a world where the new feudal Lords (Communists, Atheists, Radical Environmentalists, Pseudo-Intellectuals/Scientists hold themselves as the new Gods regulating the lives of the rif-raf peons, serfs…creating the new down trodden. The good news is eventually mans inate desire for freedom will depose the new Elite feudal lords. Since 1776 that became inevitable when men decided to test whether man could govern himself instead of a King dictating from his throne. Freedom…Good……Statism…Bad. God endows us with unalienable right which no man can take away…unless we let them. With freedom comes responsibility however..and lefties want no moral code…except one that serves thier purposes.

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      You should notice how you are born on your birthday, not your conception day. By the fourteenth amendment, all citizens must be given equal protection, but you are not a citizen until you are born or naturalized in the United States. I am not saying that you should not feel bad if you abort a fetus, but it is the right of the parents. I also find it sexist how you say mothers should care about their children the most. Fathers should equally care about their children. There really is not difference between males and females. Biologically, we are exactly the same species (although we are all different, and gene pools that never mix may eventually evolve into new species), and thus have the same potential for an intelligent brain.

      • Roy

        Oh Noah…God help you…your philosphy and response is so very lame…I mean it…may God help you, your sickness is astonishing…..whew! Doesn’t it bother you that the line of thought you follow, brought to its logical conclusion means suffering and death to 100s of millions more people? Or is it more important to your ego that you can never admit maybe there is a better way? Or is it that people are of no more consequence than a virus? Or have you gone so far as the others of your ilk that believe and wish a virus should proagate worldwide in order to bring the human population down to 350,000 or wipe humans out completely (to save the earth) Or merely to have us return to the days when we lived in caves? That…really there is no morality, good or evil. And what defines good and evil? A philosophy of life? Or human suffering and death? Or could it be that a philosophy that at least holds the hope out for and preaches for life and love realizing that given we are human… we will never in this life achieve anything close perfection. I believe there are two main directions we can follow. One holds the hope and promise of life…the other death. You believe in science…and it appears you may have an excellent capacity for logical thought…USE IT! Use it to question the validity of your beliefs, use it to look at history, writings(all sides) and extrapolation to determine where it leads. Use your abilities to question and hypothicate and observe the two directions JUST AS RIGOROUSLY AND HONESTLY AS YOU WOULD A SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM. All the time answering for your self…where are we headed…what end point would match your ideal and will your philosophy get us there or at least in that direction based on history and logical inference and honest unbiased observation. Do they still teach an honest Scientific Method? God and science are not in an arguement. It is Gods creation we are studying and it is indeed wonderous and it should be a lifelong challenge and source of joy. No human has the capacity to know it all…all we can do is do an honest and wonderous investigation, ever expanding our knowledge and understanding. Lose the ego and become a better man. And contribute to mankind. And the direction man follows. If you care.

      • B Anderson

        Noah, If we believe that a person is not a citizen until its birth day, and we can kill a baby legally before he is a citizen. Does that mean we can kill any non-citizen and get away with it??

        • Noah Rosenblatt

          You are right. I used a poor choice of words. I meant that all citizens have the right to privacy. Part of the right to privacy is the being able to make your own decisions.

          • B Anderson

            Noah, What about NON citizens?? My point was; a person, citizen or not, no matter how old, has a right to live. To kill any one, citizen or not, with out due process, is murder. Liberals making murder leagal is still wrong.

  • B Anderson

    It is heart breaking to know that there are so many people who do not know the God who made them. They have no respect for His gift of life. To them it is foolishness. They refuse to understand. I pray we elect a man that knows whose he is.

    • http://2012ElectionCentral Kody

      AMEN to that B. Anderson! Also pray for those who don’t know Him that they would come to know and love the one true God who more than deserves our all for His glory. Happy blessed Thanksgiving to you and yours.

      • Roy

        Kody et al…Happy Thanksgiving…Oh boy! Almost Turkey time!

      • B Anderson

        Thanks, Same blessing to you. I had a great day with God, family and friends.
        God Bless BA

  • Roy

    Thanks all for the interesting posts. I’m not typically involved in these things. Made me think some. God bless you all and your families and have a Merry and Blessed Christmas.

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      Did you ever think that maybe not everyone is a christian and does not celebrate christmas?

      • B Anderson

        Noah, so we should not wish you well??? Christmas is a national holiday. If we wished someone a happy Thangsgiving, would it insult some one from another country?

        • Noah Rosenblatt

          Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday, it is an American holiday. Christmas is a religious holiday upheld by only some of the MANY religions in this country. Just so you know, there are no national holidays. The right to make official holidays is reserved to the states. Unfortunately, I believe every state does recognize christmas as a state holiday, but that is unconstitutional because that is respecting an established religion.

          • B Anderson

            You need to get your history straight. Thangsgiving is a time to pause and thank God for our blessings. It think that makes it a religious holiday.

          • Noah Rosenblatt

            Legally, there cannot be any religious holidays. Once again, it is respecting an established religion, which is against the constitution.

  • Roy

    We’ll then I guess it doesn’t apply to you. Maybe everyone should be a Christian. I would have wished you a Happy Hanukkah but you have rejected that religion as well. I wish enlightenment and salvation for you….and for the world.

  • Roy

    Mr. Bob Jones….I loved your post. Very well thought out and expressed. Much more civilized than I tend to be. Thanks for your contribution. In Facebook terms this would be a definite “Like”. I’m happy to see that being highly educated doesn’t have to result in a liberal/anti-God indoctorination. Maybe dealing with real science instead of studying under Princetons Peter Singer(Philosophy Department head) who makes an arguement under his Utilitarian philosophy for abortion up to 2 years of age. If that is what progressivism tends toward…I don’t want any part of it and the very idea enrages me. Nothing but pure evil can result. My heart breaks at the thought that such ideas could be considered in America. And we are supposed to revere someone just because he he holds a high position at one of the top educational institutions in the world? I don’t think so.

  • Roy

    What is so bizzare that I just can’t believe it…is that there are so many liberal Jews. Are you not aware that the far left is anti-semetic (Jews) and anti- Israel ….joining with Palestinians and Arab Terrorists? I love the fact that after being subjected to unspeakable acts over centuries the Jews finally got their Jewish nation back and with extreme bravery defend it against all odds. I respect those Jews who fight that fight. Their opponents are liars and they are evil. I also appreciate the wonderful gifts God has given his chosen people…they have made contributions at a rate and significance far in excess of their numerical representation. Amazing!
    However, I wonder if the liberal Jews have some kind of self destructive gene or guilt complex over because of their overabundance of gifts that results in them denying their religion, supporting the very people who would kill them. Look at who is joining forces to attack Israel and Jews(Lefties and radical moslems) and who supports and loves Israel and Jews everywhere(American Christian Conservatives) and ask yourself…why am I suicidal?

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      I am jewish and have relatives in Israel. What we liberal jews support is the emergence of Israel as the great secular nation that it is. Israel has no official religion. If you ever travel to Israel, you will find that most of the jews there are non-religious. Also, the muslims there get along fine with the jews because they are Israelis, not jews and muslims. We as Americans should be advocating for the acceptance of the Palestinians as part of a secular state that is equally theirs.

  • Bob Jones

    Noah, I think you need to watch this debate:
    http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/11/video-watch-the-full-iowa-thanksgiving-family-forum/
    Get some popcorn and beer and enjoy!

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      No beer. I’m 17

  • Bob Jones

    “the muslimsther get along fine with the jews because they are Israelis, not jews and muslims”

    Um, Noah, time to stop smoking the weed bro. You are starting to contradict what you said in the same sentence!

  • Roy

    My previous statement stands…you sir are a suicidal moron. maybe the Jews wouldn’t have been the worlds most long lasting pitiful victims if it combined bravery and faith at the same time…for once. On the otherhand maybe, with all that is wonderful about Jews…they are doomed to fight against their own greatness in God and suffer the consequences.

    By the way, all your Godless church requires is that you be a “good person” Where do you think we get our comcepts of Good and evil…..just make’em up randomly….who decides….if no God why not if I decide as Peter Singer does that killing babies up to 2 years of age is justifiable abortion….that everyone accepts moral relativity….I decide what is moral…and my idea of morality is just as valid as yours and I decide that it is moral and natural to have sex with children as NAMBLA(National Association of Man Boy Love) does. Lack of Gods moral code, and commandments including the 2 that Jesus left us in the New Testament, absense of which, relies on imperfect, selfish man to his own devices….the eventual decisions on morality decided by who is stronger. With God every human has certain rights that are unalienable…LIFE….LIBERTY….PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS(PROPERTY)….an excellent start for any society….God given rights and a moral code…instructions as how to treat one another…

    By the way…it is stupid for a Christian to be anti Jew since our Lord Jesus Christ was born Jewish.

    And while everyone wants Jews and Arabs/palestinians to live in Peace….its the intractability of the Isalmists and their teachings of “kill the jews/Infidels”(teaching in their schools to their children so the hate passes from generation to generation) and calling for another Holocaust….”wiping Israel off the map” that is the barrier…Israel gave up Gaza in order to promote the peace process and what did they get? Hundreds…thousands of rockets pointed at their schools….I don’t know your side always seems to have children taking it in the ass…one way or another…despicable….the ultimate evil

    I’m done talking to you, you are freakin’ hopeless…You probably wouldn’t recognise Gods work…even if it was brought down to you from a mountain written on stone tablets.

    We are reaping what you assholes have sown. Good freakin’ luck…not

  • RSvetti

    My dapologies if this subject has been broached in the comments; feeling at the moment, too short on time to read through them all (I’ve been watching 12 or so hours of debates in order to catch up)…

    …but did anyone happen to catch the last 5 or so seconds of this video wherebye a security guard is heard suggesting the “nightstick option” to another man?

    Is anyone else disturbed by this?

    (Just seems to me that if the assailant was peaceful enough to be having a.. conversation with the security guard, this suggestion might be considered an AGGRIVATED ESCALATION OF AGGRESSION by the authority having jurisdiction? I couldn’t make out what the ‘assailant’ was talking about …and wonder why he wasn’t heard out. BTW, did anybody feel that Ron Paul got sufficient air time to address the FED as requested by ‘the people’ [as promised]?)

    Just when when I was beginning to feel a bit better about the future of this country…

  • Windisea

    The Establishment Pushes Their Last Presidential Hopeful; Can’t top Ron Paul
    freedomofspeechrealized.webs.com

    RON PAUL 2012

  • Roy

    CAN HE WIN?????!!!! We gotta get rid of Barry O…..I think we are passing up a critical and golden chance in 2012….but nobody seems to have the beans! TRAGIC! Four more years and we are relegated to the trash heap of history….we need to hit the streets! BUT….in a sane manner not like the violent, drug using, raping, property destroying “OCCUPIERS OF WHAT EVER”. We need to be the adults but adults that organize into a force greater than the Occupiers and greater than the tea party previously did and actually have a COHESIVE MESSAGE that makes sense and offers a sane alternative to the anti American, anti capitalist, anti business, anti bank, anti God, anti producer/acheivment of the dirtbag occupiers, arsonists. Peaceful but persistant in enough numbers and we can make a difference. Do it or lose America forever.

    • RSvetti

      Geez Roy…
      Do you really still buy into all the crap propaganda?

      Whether some of it is true or not, don’t EVER forget who puts it out and what they push for.

      Also try to remember that not all things that people put out there are true (even if those people might think that they are true).

      This is how we can begin to take back America (and then may even hold on to it if we ever do).

      Wake up watchman! We must do ALL that we can for any of this to happen. Hope is the first requirement.

  • Roy

    It is a struggle of Good vs Evil.

  • OneNonBeliever

    Santorum, Bachman, Cain, and for some odd reason Gingrich(why he has the audacity to speak on such things is beyond belief) keep trying to say morality is the reason and standard for laws. But whose morality do we choose? Which holy book, and which interpretation, and what about those who believe it is immoral to follow such decrees? This is exactly why the founding fathers gave us religious freedom, but not a religious government. They knew that if laws were decided based solely on what one group declares is moral, then there would, by definition, be another group seeking to overthrow the first group. They knew this because that is what had happened in the societies they came from. They also saw it in the diversity of beliefs among the colonies. Each group had a different idea of what morality is and how religious belief interacts with law and public life.

    And which individual should we trust with such authority? No one. Moral behavior is NOT the realm of government, and does not originate with government (sorry, Santorum). Moral instruction originates (even biblically) from the primary guardianship and then secondarily from our small social circles (especially organizations like church, girl scouts etc). It is up to the leaders of these organizations (especially the family) to speak up and make its voice known- to bring instruction to the young. But, the government should not be involved in deciding issues of morality. If there is a failure of morality, it is because of the failure of family and of our immediate role models to communicate morality. Not because government hasn’t been involved enough.

    Laws are there to keep people from harming, or infringing on the rights, of others. If a law cannot achieve this goal, then it has no right to be on the books.

  • OneNonBeliever

    The idea of using congress or the president abolishing courts is frightening. We vote on our the president and the legislature. They are both our representatives. As such, they are by definition, biased and politicized. The judiciary is supposed to be unbiased. They are not our representatives, but impartial ears whose job it is to arbitrate between two opposing arguments. By voting on them, we compromise their integrity. By imposing term limits, we compromise their integrity. By abolishing this court and that court, we compromise their integrity. Now, I know the courts are not perfectly impartial, but doing the things I just listed will quickly further corrupt them. If you do these things, then justices will begin to make their decisions not based on the cases presented to them and what sort of impact their decisions will make on further laws. Instead, they will begin to make decisions based on political motivations and personal preservation. Imagine you have a republican congress and they abolish a certain court because they do not like their decisions (it may sound nice when your side has the ability to do it). Then the Democrats come in power, reinstate them, and abolish and intimidate courts who have not sided with them. Back and forth, back and forth. This would force courts to make their decisions based on who was in power, and not based on the case presented to them. Imagine if justices had to spend their time fund raising and campaigning, what a nightmare!!!

    Look at the super committee recently created to help decide how to trim our spending. It is clear to all Americans that our government finances are in chaos. We desperately need to reduce our spending. The task of this bipartisan committee was to find areas we could do that. They couldn’t do it. They were, due to their political affiliations, motivated by re-election and indebted to those who paid for their campaigns, unable to come together and reach an agreement. It was too political. Imagine such a political, partisan realm being introduced into the courts! It would be devastating.

    • RSvetti

      I agree with some of what you say and wonder about the motivations for removing certain circuits.

      I do have to correct you however on your closing statements. Though this seems to be the general consensus about the super committee, do have to add that they were only charged with the mission of cutting PROPOSED SPENDING.

      No actual cuts…

      Vote Ron Paul if you want to see real cuts, real freedom, real American Policy (as defined by our mission documents).

      • OneNonBeliever

        @RSvetti, I forgot about that point, that it wasn’t even real cuts they were going for- just cuts on future spending.

        I couldn’t agree more that the other candidates only represent the same establishment- especially Gingrich. Gingrich is a powerful speaker but he’s not going to cut the funds of those who have helped him maintain power, or his friends in the health care lobby. Ron Paul has my vote through and through.

  • Roy

    While our constitutional republic absolutely does not “establish” any one religion and guarantees the right to the practice of any religion with the exception for those “religions” that infringe on the basic God given rights of others, life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness(property) (i.e. the practice of human sacrafice because it definately infringes on the right to life) the basis for our laws are the Judean/Christian religion and tradition. The evidence for this is plentiful, even “carved in stone” as the 10 Commandments as well as the words of the founders are present on Memorials and in court rooms(being removed by morons) and the opening of sessions of Congress is preceded by prayer and the graves of our soldiers typically will be marked by a cross. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right OF religion not the right FROM religion…in other words you do not have the right to restrict others practice of religion including displys of faith. If you do not like it simply ignore it as I do displays of devil worship or Islamic displays. They certainly do not affect my belief system. I know, I know…we should remove the 10 commandments, after all they prohibit such things as “killing” and doinking your neighbors wife, coveting his stuff and stealing along with showing respect to your Father and Mother, pure evil to be sure, but maybe preferable to “kill the infidel”. Then there is the two “greatest commandments” given by Jesus “Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself” Oh, my! How awful!

    Regarding the courts…when a court flaunts the constitution and the rule of law it jepordizes its legitimacy and the offending judge should be sanctioned and the possibility of removal should be considered when in blatant disregard for the law of the land…after all it is the job of the judge to uphold the constitution, period. That is the essence of his/her job…if you don’t do your job you’re fired!

    • OneNonBeliever

      Again, Roy, you did not answer either of the questions I raised. Which interpretation of the “Judeo/Christian” ethic do you choose from. You have a huge range to select from- from the most conservative Amish, or Westboro side or to the most liberal gay-affirming traditions or Unitarians. The basis for our laws is reason, not religion. Yes, it is undeniable that many of our founders had strong personal faiths. But it is also equally true that many of them did not, and that many were deists (who believed in a “creator” concept but not the Christian one). The fact that our declaration say creator and not “Jesus” or “Yahweh” is paramount.

      We are explicitly given the right to personal religion, and that includes traditions that are not informed by the “Judeo/Christian” ethic. No where does the constitution guarantee the right to impose your selected ethic. You are trying to impose your inference against the explicit rights of every citizen. Again, you are missing the difference between civil observation and law. Yes, Christians should have the right to congregate and express their views, but they have equal authority to do so as someone who is Hindu, a Scientologist, Atheist etc. When public or government funds/land/language/representatives are involved it must be careful not to give one religious expression favor over another. A freedom either has to be applied equally (such as all religions being able to put up their symbols in public space) or excluded completely. You cannot pick and choose which private traditions get their views expressed through public venues and which get excluded.

      As for your 10 commandments, it’s funny that Christians love to try to say our law is based off the Judeo/Christian ethic. It is not. First, our law is based off of Greco/Roman traditions- plainly evidenced by the imitation of their government, language, and architecture. Second, how many of the 10 commandments are upheld by our laws? Two. Do not kill (even though capitol punishment is somehow a favorite of Christians), and do not steal. we are free to covet our neighbors wife, even to sleep with her and have orgies if we care to. We can lie (except under oath but that is for rule of law not religion), we can disrespect our elders, we can commit adultery, we can have other gods, we can have idols. Did the Judeo/Christian ethic have influence? Clearly. Is it the basis of our laws? No. The fact that we have abolished slavery, racism, and have given women equal protection and liberty is a reflection that our values do not come from the Bible, but are a result of the evolution of societal values.

      Finally, once more I have to say that moral instruction belongs in the family and societal structures, but is not appropriate for government interference. Laws are there to protect people from harm and to prevent others from imposing on their liberties. If the only basis for a law is because of a singular religious view, then it has no basis for becoming a law. Our laws must protect people from all views, and walks of life equally.

  • OneNonBeliever

    @1:55 Ron Paul, laughing, says “Doctors are still polling higher than the politicians.” But if more people in Washington were there out of principle- if more of them were there to stand for something- in short, if more politicians behaved like Ron Paul, then we would once again consider politicians great statesmen, worthy of honor and respect.

    I don’t agree with everything Ron says, but at least I know the areas I disagree on. With the other candidates, few of them will take a stand on anything and their position changes daily and depending on who asks them and which audience is listening. Who knows what they actually think and what they actually intend on doing. If they were honest and forthcoming, like Paul is, I am sure I would find much more that I would disagree with than with Paul’s positions. They just play games and politics as usual.

    • Roy

      Can Ron Paul WIN???!!! I would vote for him if it ment Barry would be sent packing ( to Chicago or Hawaii or Kenya…whatever)…and to think he is guaranteed a handsome retirement for life after the damage he has done. Gr-r-r-r

      • OneNonBeliever

        Yes he can win. In fact, out of the GOP candidates, he is the one most likely to gain the support of the independents and moderate democrats. For example, many of the Occupy movement are staunch Ron Paul supporters. Watch CNN and MSNBC clips on Youtube and you will see many of the left saying they could vote for him but believe he cannot win his own party. If he can win the Republican vote, he will win. Many polls have shown Paul leading over a head-to-head match up against Obama.

        • Noah Rosenblatt

          That’s so erroneous. The only one who has any chance of beating Obama is Romney. Unfortunately, Romney will win the nomination, so I ask all of you to make sure that everyone you know votes. Democrats need to start voting. There are way more Democrats than Republicans, it’s just not all Democrats vote, but all Republicans vote. Reelect Obama. The man is a genius.

          • OneNonBeliever

            Actually, I think Romney would play into the hands of Obama. It’s clear that campaign Obama is vastly different from President Obama, but Romney can’t say anything about that because campaign Romney is vastly different from campaign Romney. Also Romney is big government, big spending, big corporation, big health care just like O. The areas where Obama could be most vulnerable are the same places Romney is vulnerable, so he can’t be effective in driving home why he’s a better choice than Obama. I’m not so sure Romney will win the nomination, it seems the Republican base feels like “anybody but Romney.” Romney has been slowly and steadily losing supporters, and Paul has been gaining them at the same slow and steady. The remaining voters have been running around between first Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, and now Gingrich. But those voters are basically anti-Romney.

            Not to mention, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, and Romney have each only won one state straw poll, Perry has 2, Cain 9 and, Paul has 10 (including the critical Cali).

            I think the one thing that can be said is nobody has it in the bag. (ps. I voted for Romney in 2008)

          • RSvetti

            Noah Rosenblatt:

            Though I can seen what might make you think that (GOP straw polls and such), this is strongly disagree.

            This, because there have been several polls of a similar nature showing that Ron Paul will conclusively (thus far anyway) take the cake from Obama.

            Knowing this, you might consider reading again the above post and then thinking about what that sign down on wall street is suggesting.

            …nevermind that the media have not been listing Ron Paul as contender in the polls (irregardless his top rankings).

  • Roy

    AND…the most important advice yet…”never fart in a wetsuit”
    ‘nough said.

  • Roy

    I’ve come to the conclusion that given the responses…even from those leaning right or libertarian that there is NO HOPE. Maybe I’ll move to Chile or Costa Rica…Chile is heading in the right direction and Costa Rica has excellent surf and they welcome Americans with $$$. Merry CHRISTMAS….everyone! Hopefully someday you will “get it” bye, bye!

    And you’ve been communicating with my Austrailian Shepherd…named Roy….he is smarter than any of us.

  • Bob Jones

    Get the facts straight folks. For example, the sixth commandment is thou shall not murder (kill unlawfully), not thou shall not kill. There is a huge difference, which you will understand if you take the time to read the Bible.
    Or, take your so-called “evolution of social values” that lead improved treatment of women and abolishing slavery and racism. If you look at scripture, Jesus Christ treated women, other races than the Jews, and slaves with way more respect than the Jewish society of that time. Christianity also puts an emphasis on the value of those who are rejected by society- the weak, poor, lame, sick, etc. When Jesus first taught all of this, it was revolutionary and it was part of what got Him killed (along with claiming to be the Son of God). Jesus influence and the teaching of the scripture are behind the idea that all people are created with basic fundamental rights, including the right to worship whatever God you want to worship. God Himself allowed evil in the world when He allowed us the choice to worship Him or to reject Him as God. The only thing that you are missing here is that you think that freedom of religion means “freedom not to worship any God” but you do not realize that all men worship; if you do not worship God, you worship yourself, or beauty, sensuality, humanity, mother nature, whatever it might be (usually yourself though in my experience).

    • OneNonBeliever

      Again, my point has little to do with the things you are talking about. If I worship myself, or King Juju the pink singing tree frog of Sri Lanka makes no difference (as a side note you perceive me worshiping myself like I perceive you talking to an imaginary friend- let’s just agree to disagree on that) The main point is that in a pluralistic society as ours and one that had the first truly secular government in history, no religion gets special treatment- even if it has more adherents today or when it was founded. If special religious claims of morality are the only argument, then the there is no basis for a law. Such morality is the duty of its adherents to spread socially, through speaking out and awareness, but not through legislative acts. This is exactly how Jesus behaved. How many laws did Jesus seek to reform? Which forms of government did he overthrow? None. He left Roman law (as morally depraved as Christians say the Romans were) as it was and sought not to change laws- but humanity’s hearts and minds. The only things he threw out were the religious laws and religious law makers. So, I don’t see why Christians get so active politically, because it certainly isn’t WWJD.

      There’s no doubt that the teachings of Jesus have some really good things to say about human nature- but so do Buddha, Confucius, the Hindu scriptures and Aesop’s fables. I don’t have to believe in their being literally true to allow them to shape my understanding for the betterment of myself and society. But, the bible (including the New Testament) does more to subjugate women and to treat them like property than it does to elevate them. Racism, or racial mistreatment, also have a firm footing in the NT. The fact that Christians today regard slavery immoral is a credit to the growth of humanity- not the bible. Simply comparing NT treatment of women and races to the OT is not sufficient. We are talking about the “revelation of god’s morality” here. God could have easily commanded racial and gender equality but he was too busy worrying about the kinds of spots and blemishes the animals had that were being burnt for his pleasure.

      No, Jesus did not give us freedom of religious choice, he is the one who introduced the concept of hell for non-belief. Christ didn’t teach about fundamental human rights, that was an outgrowth of the Age of Reason.

      All this is to point out that our morality does not just originate from one source, nor does anybody have the right to impose their specific moral views on someone else. Christians can’t even decide amongst themselves what is moral and what is not, so don’t expect a pluralistic society to adopt the views of one sub-segment of that group.

  • OneNonBeliever

    LOL. Cain says the common good “levels the playing field so everyone can be treated equally, fairly, and with respect.”

    I was waiting for him to cough and under his breath say “unless you’re gay”

  • Bob Jones

    Your statements have an element of truth but an element of deception. Let’s go through them one by one to find out the errors:

    Your Comment: Again, my point has little to do with the things you are talking about. If I worship myself, or King Juju the pink singing tree frog of Sri Lanka makes no difference (as a side note you perceive me worshiping myself like I perceive you talking to an imaginary friend- let’s just agree to disagree on that) The main point is that in a pluralistic society as ours and one that had the first truly secular government in history, no religion gets special treatment- even if it has more adherents today or when it was founded.

    Reply: Actually, who you worship makes every difference. The Bible says “choose for yourself this day who you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15) Who you worship has everything to do with how you spend your time, money, beliefs about charity, beliefs about sexuality, and on and on. You will find that typically you put your time and money and effort most in where you worship. As a non-believer, you may not understand that because in postmodern Christian churches there has been a decoupling of faith and living. Church is something that people do as a cultural event on Sunday and the rest of the week they live as an atheist. So you do not see the connection between worship and every aspect of their life. But for true believers our entire life is rooted in Christ and in the teaching of the Bible.

    Your Comment: If special religious claims of morality are the only argument, then the there is no basis for a law. Such morality is the duty of its adherents to spread socially, through speaking out and awareness, but not through legislative acts. This is exactly how Jesus behaved. How many laws did Jesus seek to reform? Which forms of government did he overthrow? None. He left Roman law (as morally depraved as Christians say the Romans were) as it was and sought not to change laws- but humanity’s hearts and minds. The only things he threw out were the religious laws and religious law makers. So, I don’t see why Christians get so active politically, because it certainly isn’t WWJD.

    Reply: You can’t separate a person’s presuppositions from their politics. As an atheist, you have certain presuppositions (faith) that are different than mine. For example, you believe that there is nothing beyond the physical world, i.e. if you can see taste touch feel hear or measure it with some scientific instrument, that it does not exist. You might try to say that politics and religion should be completely separate because it allows for your own personal presuppositions of atheism to be used as the sole presuppositions in the political arena. This is a very deceptive tactic used by atheists in the areas of science, politics and law in this country. I do not know if this was or was not the intention of the few of the founding fathers that were atheists or deists, but what I do know is this: you are trying to put Christian faith into a box that is bounded by atheistic presuppositions, and then you are trying to get Christians to agree to this. A true Christian will never agree with you, although a Christian who does not understand what they are doing may (such as Francis Collins, for example, who tries to reconcile scripture with science by explaining the Bible from science rather than the other way around). The right thing to do, for a Christian, is to put politics, law, history, etc. into a box that is bounded by Christian presuppositions. And yes, I am sure that we will simply have to agree to disagree over this point. But you should realize, if you don’t already, the full implications of what you are asking Christians to do (and equivocally that we aren’t asking any more of you than you are of us when we participate in politics) by your worldview and commentary. A real-life example of this is in public schools. You would say that teaching creationism is not allowed because it is “religious” and therefore “establishment of religion” but teaching of homosexual sex acts is “ok” because it is “not religious”. If you apply what i have shown you above, you will see that you are asking for the government to establish a religion of atheism by taking this stance.

    Your Comment: This is exactly how Jesus behaved. How many laws did Jesus seek to reform? Which forms of government did he overthrow? None. He left Roman law (as morally depraved as Christians say the Romans were) as it was and sought not to change laws- but humanity’s hearts and minds. There’s no doubt that the teachings of Jesus have some really good things to say about human nature- but so do Buddha, Confucius, the Hindu scriptures and Aesop’s fables. I don’t have to believe in their being literally true to allow them to shape my understanding for the betterment of myself and society.

    Reply: As a non-Christian, you are trying to use the Bible to prove a point. But if you do not believe what the Bible says, why are you even bringing it up? You take this stance of complete freedom to use and disgard what you want as needed for your argument. But that is not the case in reality. Jesus did not give the option of partially believing in Him, or even believing that he was a great teacher or moral man. The things that He said indicated clearly that He is the Son of God. If you don’t believe that, then you would have to say that His teaching is inconsistent with who He said He was. You would have to say that He was a liar. And we shouldn’t be saying that a liar was a great moral teacher. Or else, you might say that He was a lunatic. But again, who would want to say that a lunatic is a great moral teacher? Your warped version of the truth allows you to believe that somehow there are all of these great teachers who all conflict and contradict with each other. As a sinner, we search for a way to reconcile all of them because we don’t want to deal with the fact that one of them is right and the rest are wrong. If this is true, it means that we have to submit ourselves to one as Lord, and as sinners, we don’t want to do that naturally. Only the Holy Spirit can show you the error of your thinking- I can explain it to you as best as possible to try to help remove the stumbling blocks, but if you don’t want to believe, you will keep putting more in the way and we can keep going back and forth ad nauseum. It’s like the saying about the scientists and philosophers who are trying to get to the top of the mountain, who persevere through many challenges and seemingly impossible gaps, then get to the top and find sitting on the other side the theologians, saying welcome to the debate, what took you so long? To equate the Bible with Aesop’s fables is to show your complete and utter ignorance of the power of God’s Word. “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12.

    Your Commment: I don’t have to believe in their being literally true to allow them to shape my understanding for the betterment of myself and society. But, the Bible (including the New Testament) does more to subjugate women and to treat them like property than it does to elevate them. Racism, or racial mistreatment, also have a firm footing in the NT. The fact that Christians today regard slavery immoral is a credit to the growth of humanity- not the bible. Simply comparing NT treatment of women and races to the OT is not sufficient. We are talking about the “revelation of god’s morality” here. God could have easily commanded racial and gender equality but he was too busy worrying about the kinds of spots and blemishes the animals had that were being burnt for his pleasure.

    Reply:
    1. Well actually, you do have to believe in the Bible being true in order for it to shape you. That is one of the basic tenets of scripture- that you are changed by your faith in God. “And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” 2 Cor 3:18
    2. There is NO scriptural basis for men subjugating women and treating them like property. The Jewish society may have, but the many rules made up by that society were not always based on scripture, and that was a big part of why Jesus came and challenged the Jewish leaders. Look at examples of how Jesus respected his mother, or other women, to see how women should be treated. Look at examples of how Paul treats women, examples of female believers in the NT church, and you will find that women in the Bible are treated with equal value in God’s eyes. Look at what Paul says about women’s roles, and you will see that women are to be cherished. Perhaps the most important point comes from the OT Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”If God created us male and female in His own image, he is clearly giving equal value to both. This does NOT mean that he is giving them equal roles. Value and roles are two different things. Jesus has equal value with the Father, but He has a different role. No one would consider Jesus subjugated for having stepped up on the cross and giving His life in obedience to the Father’s will. We can all agree that it only enhanced Jesus and the Father’s glory (We can have a whole different discussion about this topic in a different thread).
    3. Racism in the New Testament? Can you point out the specific examples that you are talking about? God makes it clear that believers are believers. He values all equally. The Body of Christ is made up of all who put their faith in Him. I don’t see how you can get racism out of this unless you warp the scriptures. I realize that many churches did do this to justify racism, but what sinner do does not change what God has said.
    4.:”God could have easily commanded racial and gender equality but he was too busy worrying about the kinds of spots and blemishes the animals had that were being burnt for his pleasure.” The words “command racial and gender equality” sound like a line from a California textbook. You are expecting God to work in the same way as the modern day liberal movement? He teaches throughout the Bible, from the very creation and throughout the Torah: 1. Who He is, 2. What we have done and 3. What He expects of us. God never states that men and women should have equal roles. In your confused human value system, you may think that equal roles are good, but I would wholeheartedly say that I favor God’s teaching and for some very good reasons. I love my wife, but I would not want us both to have the same role. She feels the same way. But this gets to a more serious issue that you don’t understand about Christianity. God created us differently. Yes, equal but different! The postmodern movement tries to turn this truth on its head by saying that men and women are completely equal in value and in role. But I would argue that everything from scripture to biology negates that lie. You can hold to it if you like, but don’t expect to be on moral or logical high ground with it. I would say that you have quite a bit of conjecture to be making up in order to support it (which, by the way, is something that our liberal court system is great at doing). You see, God is a God of differences. When He created the world, he didn’t make it all one amorphous blob. He created trees and mountains and water and swamps and all that good stuff that atheists like to call “Mother Nature” for lack of a better explanation for how such amazing creation came about. But it is precisely the differences, the contrasts, that make creation so beautiful. And the same is true for a man and woman, and even more so when they are united as one in marriage, which is God’s plan for marriage. That, by the way, is part of the reason behind why homosexual marriage is wrong. (The other part goes back to the above quote about man being created male and female in God’s image.)

    Your Comment: No, Jesus did not give us freedom of religious choice, he is the one who introduced the concept of hell for non-belief. Christ didn’t teach about fundamental human rights, that was an outgrowth of the Age of Reason.

    Reply: You have a choice. It does not mean that you do not have consequences for your choice. God does not say that we go to hell because we do not believe. He says that we go to hell because of our sin. We are saved by grace, through faith. Grace is something free, unmerited favor. You can’t say that we have lack of choice because we have lack of grace. As the creator, all value rests in God when He put His spirit into us- we were inanimate (without soul) before that point-it is God’s choice. “The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7 Your problem is that you question a God who created you as if he were a human being, but you don’t realize that the situation is like the potter and the clay. “When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?” Romans 9:21 And yes, the Bible and Christ teach about fundamental human rights, but you do not see it because you ignore whatever includes God in the equation. You see, fundamental human rights come from God, and with a proper understanding of God and the Word, fundamental human rights are a logical conclusion. But to value them over the value of God would miss the point. Let’s look at one example to help you see. The Jewish leaders are about to stone a woman for adultery. Jesus stops them and says “let he who has no sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7) Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7, where the witnesses of a crime are to start the execution. Only those who were not guilty of the same sin could participate. While this says a lot about the Pharisees, it also says a lot about our own hearts. It means that before we judge others, we had better make sure that we deal with our own sin before God first. And this woman was most certainly given the chance to have a fair trial by God in the story. This is why I say that theological issues (such as sin) are completely interwoven with political and governmental ones to the point that they are inseparable. If you are not a Christian, you might think that a person can be tried for something like “teaching his children to hate homosexual acts” without a fair trial. You might even think that his judges could be those caught up in the act of homosexual sin. But clearly God is saying here that a good judge is one who has gotten his own heart straight before God. And that all takes a knowledge of God’s teaching in His Word, a proper heart attitude before God, and applying it to His life in prayer and practice.

    Your comment: All this is to point out that our morality does not just originate from one source, nor does anybody have the right to impose their specific moral views on someone else. Christians can’t even decide amongst themselves what is moral and what is not, so don’t expect a pluralistic society to adopt the views of one sub-segment of that group.

    Reply:
    1. Morality comes from God. Anything else is a lie or deception. (That does not mean that God always gets the credit from society for having written the law on our hearts.) If no one has the right to impose moral views on anyone else, we would be living in anarchy right now. I don’t think you understand the basic underpinnings of our country’s own governmental system or any country’s system for that matter.
    2. When you say that Christians can’t decide amongst themselves what is moral and what is not, you are taking the view of the uninformed. If you simply read the Bible and use it as your guide, it will be very clear to you that there are only some Christians who are following it. The rest have either added to it, taken away from it, or changed it to agree with postmodern humanistic “age of enlightment, reason, whatever you want to call it” values. They have caved in to the pressure from inside and outside to change their presupposition from faith in God to faith in nothing beyond the material world.(See “How Shall We Then Live” by Dr. Francis Schaeffer, an excellent historical commentary on this that will set straight all of the revisionist history that you were taught by a liberal public school system) Churches that do not believe in the Bible attempt to explain miracles scientifically rather than just believing. They attempt to explain things like gender confusion and homosexuality by taking verses out of context. In some ways it is better to be an atheist than someone who says they are a Christian but has to change what scripture says,or agree with only part of the Bible, in order to believe it. There is only one true church, the Body of Christ, and all true believers make up that church, and all true believers will be in agreement about basic moral teachings of scripture. I can’t tell you who the true believers are, only God knows our hearts, but I can say that He gave you a brain and a heart, so get a Bible and get to work using them! As for expecting our society to agree with everything that God says, that is never going to happen, and I think we can both agree on it. Man has rejected the truth for a lie (2 Thes 2) and throughout scripture God commands Christians to obey worldly governments despite this fact. Christians are to live in the world, not be of the world. God does not say NOT to get involved in politics, but His top priority is issues of the heart, not taxes. That is why He says give to Caesar what is his and give to God what is God’s. (Matthew 22:21) Ultimately, for a time, the prince of this world is satan, but His time is coming due. So it doesn’t surprise me to see a government that makes laws that have nothing to do with God’s Word or people who hate God more than ever. That is why it is so important that Christians focus on teaching and preaching the problem of sin and the work of Christ on the Cross. Having said that, if we don’t stand up in public, including our workplace, courts, politics, etc. for the name of Christ, those who hate the light that He represents will try to take away all freedom to worship Him. “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19) So we had better continue to run the race, pressing on for the prize in Christ Jesus (Php 3:14), in every aspect of our lives- church, politics, etc. As John Piper likes to say, “when the motor of my mind is in neutral, the hum of the gears is (God’s Word)”.

    • OneNonBeliever

      You assume things about me you can’t possibly know, and which are actually very wrong. I was a Christian for 25 years and not too long ago, I would have written the stuff you wrote above. I went to the top academic Christian college in the country and I studied the Bible there. I know what you’re going to say, but you’ll have to believe me when I say I didn’t just read it with my mind but I also had an open heart to scripture. I was as completely devoted to my faith as anybody could be.

      The main question I’ve asked is whose version of religion, scripture, and morality should we accept when considering public laws and education? You clearly believe that your version of Christianity is the right one and dismiss everybody else’s as some form of apostasy. You want us to teach your version of “truth” at the exclusion of everyone else’s, including that of science. First, scientific discoveries or religiously neutral and are simply descriptions of reality as it can be observed. Sometimes scientific discoveries have implications about specific interpretations of specific faiths (for example heliocentricity), but they are not religious in nature. The hole, and hypocrisy, of your argument becomes immediately apparent when you substitute the Qur’an and Muslim faith for any time you mention Bible, Scripture, or Christian. You would rightly be offended if they tried to throw out our laws or education based on their theology. But, you ask everyone else to allow an exception for you. If you want to teach such things, you are free to in your home, churches, or in private schools – but you don’t get public money to preach your private faith. Another example is the Amish. They believe the use of electricity and many modern developments are immoral. Does that mean you should not be allowed to type on the computer we are communicating through? Should they be able to use public funds to teach their world view to your child? Obviously, no. Under our constitution, they have the freedom to form their society as they see fit, but they cannot impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

      You suggest I am arguing for anarchy. Far from it. We have the constitution. We have thousands upon thousands of laws that govern our lives (for example which side of the street we can drive on). These restrictions are good for the preservation of society. But, when the only argument is a religiously motivated one, it cannot become law (or should be thrown out by the judiciary for being an unconstitutional law). For example, working on Sunday. The only reason for banning people from working on Sunday would be a religious one, and therefore should be thrown out as a law. People are allowed to not work on Sunday, or create a society or subsection of society that will permit their belief. But, you do not have the authority under the constitution to tell Walmart they must close their doors every Sunday.

      If you cannot see how someone can gain moral wisdom and insight from reading something like Aesop’s fables without believing in it’s veracity, then that’s your short-sightedness, not mine. I could gain wisdom from reading a Harry Potter book, because it is not about the truth of the story being read, but what understanding of human nature I can gain from my own thought processes.

      I never said women were identical to men. They are not. But they should be accorded equal freedoms as us. They should be allowed to vote, own land, choose their own vocation or to stay at home. That is the inalienable right of any human. But the Bible denies women the right to divorce, sets the price a father can sell his daughter into forced servitude- including sexual slavery, allows men beat their wives, treats them legally as property, lists them among the spoils of war, denies them the right to speak up in church, forces them to learn at home from their husbands, denies them the ability to have authority over any man, denies them the right to teach, makes them subjugated to will of their husband (with no exception given for abuse) and more. There are more subtle forms of discrimination, such as only tracking lineage through men, or not counting females in population tallies. If you wish to discriminate against women, then there is ample support to be found in the Bible. You may say that such interpretations are not the “correct” ones, but it has taken us millennia to shake such ideas. Only within the last century or so, have women really been allowed normal human freedoms equal to their phallus bearing counterparts.

      • OneNonBeliever

        … I almost forgot, women were forced to marry their rapists, and were to be stoned to death if their rapists were not caught and they were not married. Rape was considered a woman’s disgrace not a violence perpetrated against them.

  • Bob Jones

    Noah,
    Please share with me the irrefutable proof that evolution is more than a theory.
    And since you said it happens whether we believe it or not, please give me one example of proof that it happened.
    I have a PhD in chemistry and I have been in the field ovr 15 years. Despite reading a lot on the subject, I have not seen any proof yet. If anything, it seems like science shows that it can not happen rather than proof that it did.

  • Roy

    @ Bob Jones…you hit a grans slam….again, dude. You obviously just didn’t start thinking about these issues just recently….who are you? It hasn’t been a long time for me and I like being exposed to well thought out arguements. Even the arguements I don’t agree with.

    It sadens me that the supposedly “open mind” and tolerance of the liberal or atheiest is so invested in destroying the greatest…and only hope for the human race. I hope they are listening with an open mind and open heart…but I don’t really hold out much hope for that. You(we) are probably wasting our time on these hard core anti-christs. But maybe that has been foretold and cannot be changed…at least not by us. Maybe an INDIVIDUAL will be influenced. After all salvation is NOT Obamas “Collective Salvation” but an individuals PERSONAL relationship with God.

    I wasn’t going to continue to add this discussion but felt compelled by your comments to let you know they are appreciated and added to this conservative Christians thinking process in a positive way.

    @ Noah…I hope you’ve been paying attention. Hopefully you will discover that at 17 years old you may not have all the answers…there may be hope for you yet…but it will take a direct divine intervention in your life. Don’t know why Gods chosen people insist on rejecting Him in favor of wandering, lost in the wilderness, through out history. Can we hypothecate that this tendency may have something to do with the struggles of the Jewish people throughout history, continuing through today and into the foreseeable future? Just sayin’.
    Also you say Barry O. is a genious…and he very well have a high IQ….however…is he wise? Are policies wise? Or moral? We probably disagree completely on these questions.

  • Bob Jones

    OneNonBeliever, were your parents missionaries in Russia? Just curious.

    • OneNonBeliever

      No Russian missionaries here.

  • Bob Jones

    Hey Noah, I’m glad that we have young folks like you who are engaging in politics and cilized debate. I bet your parents are proud of you.

    I have a song for you that expresses the gospel that you might like. It is by Shai Linne, a rapper. You can see his blog here: http://lyricaltheology.blogspot.com/

    The song is called “In Adam All Die”

    Chorus
    We’re cursed from our birth, sinning from the beginning
    The womb to the tomb, depraved to the grave
    Astray every day, every breath brings death
    In Adam all die, In Adam all die

    We’re rebels like the devil, scheming like demons
    Prideful with our idols, disgusting with our lusting
    Twisted and sin-sick, selfish and helpless
    In Adam all die, In Adam all die

    Verse 1

    Everybody knows that they’re guilty
    Our conscience condemns us, shows us we’re filthy
    Truth be told, we really have no answers
    For why we fall short of our own moral standards
    The evidence for God is simply bountiful
    And it’s illogical to think we won’t be held accountable
    A universal day of judgment approaches
    Any rational notion of justice would presuppose this
    And deep down inside, everybody knows this
    But we disregard it because our deeds are atrocious
    We prefer the vicious, our words are malicious
    Our slurs pernicious, we find the absurd delicious
    Depraved in our appetites- the things we crave are lacking light
    Because sin’s got us enslaved and shackled tight
    And if we are to understand the fruit
    We need to go back and examine the root

    Chorus

    Verse 2

    The world we live in wasn’t always like this
    The early days had perfect righteousness and bright bliss
    Man and woman under God-ruled government at first
    Bubbling with mirth, immersed in loving with no hurts
    God gave what theologians call the covenant of works
    Forbidden fruit- the day you eat of it you’ll be cursed
    Husband wasn’t alert; wife lacked discernment
    Entrapped by the serpent and that was the first sin
    The consequences were monumental
    In fact, I’m not convinced they had a clue of what they’d gotten into
    Their eyes were opened more- truth in the lies
    To their surprise, they didn’t get the prize they were hoping for
    They see their nakedness and now regret it
    They tried to cover their guilt and then blame shift- how pathetic
    And it’s a true story- you want some evidence?
    We’ve been doing the same thing ever since

    Chorus

    Verse 3

    We talk Adam and Eve, cats think we’re “throwed off”, really
    They don’t think it relates to thugs in North Philly
    But it’s like Switchfoot said- we were meant to live
    But in the garden Adam was our representative
    So when the Judge executed the sentence
    Adam’s guilt was imputed to his descendents
    Global calamity
    Major debt, pain, regret, the reign of death- total depravity
    And yes, I’m aware that cats were not there
    Which opens the door to charges of “that’s not fair”
    But God is not subject to fallen notions of fairness
    Besides, when it comes to God’s glory, most could care less
    We can’t measure how we chase sand treasures
    And banned pleasures- similar to our ancestors
    So instead of saying if you were there what you would do
    Seek your refuge in Adam number two

    Chorus

  • shanna

    I think Dr. Ron **THE BOSS** Paul is the hardest worker of them all. He is like a lazer that destroys Evil.

  • Bob Jones

    Roy, I agree that this has been a great forum for debate. Usually the comments online completely lack substance and are personal attacks. I have to give these folks credit for sticking in there to get so deep into the real issues. I agree that it could be that we are wasting time explaining scripture to people who God has not chosen, but it is impossible to know. I guess we all pitch in somewhere, and efficiency and strategy are good but sometimes God leads in a different direction. That is why I have been praying for these folks and the nuggets of God’s Word that we have had a chance to present here. The answers are really for anyone who is reading this blog who might be undecided or wavering in their faith because of the deception of satan and the lies of the flesh. After all, if we don’t praise God, the rocks will cry out! (Luke 19:40)

    When I first became a Christian in 2000, I was a teaching assistant in the chemistry PhD program. I remember an undergraduate student who told me that she was raised a Christian but was having serious doubts because her professors were giving her all of this so-called scientific evidence for evolution and old earth. I decided that I had to study hard to understand whether I should believe in evolution and if it agreed with what God says in the Bible, and to be prepared to make a defense for the hope that I had in Christ (1 Peter 3:15- note it is supposed to be with gentleness and respect. I think I still need work on this part!) Although our public school system will not tell kids this, I found in my research that there are many Christian men in history whom God has given tremendous insight into science, philosophy and law. When we engage in apologetics, we are standing on their shoulders today. There are also some great defenders of the faith who are currently serving God in the public arena; one of them is Ravi Zacharias, http://www.rzim.org/ . God has given him and his colleagues great wisdom for apologetics. His motto is “helping the thinker believe; helping the believer think”. The other book that had a great impact on my life was “The Gospel Primer” by Pastor Milton Vincent. Although it is not a big production, it contains the most solid scriptural exposition of the gospel that I have ever seen. There are many other great Christian leaders who I don’t have space to mention, and each of them has something to contribute to our personal theology. I guess God doesn’t give anyone a monopoly on spiritual gifts! Well, all the glory belongs to God. And I am glad this dialogue has encouraged you- it has been encouraging to me too to see other Christians reaching out to share the words of life.

  • Bob Jones

    To OneNonBeliever
    Your comment: You assume things about me you can’t possibly know, and which are actually very wrong. I was a Christian for 25 years and not too long ago, I would have written the stuff you wrote above. I went to the top academic Christian college in the country and I studied the Bible there. I know what you’re going to say, but you’ll have to believe me when I say I didn’t just read it with my mind but I also had an open heart to scripture. I was as completely devoted to my faith as anybody could be.

    Reply: First of all, I’m sorry if I have offended you. I will try not to make assumptions in my further replies. I’m sad to hear that you once professed faith in Christ and now you are not walking with Him. I am not a Christian counselor, so I don’t know the best things to say to someone who has back slidden. I really hope and pray that God will bring you back into the sheepfold. I do know that God is sovereign over all things, and if He has given you saving faith, he will be faithful to bring you through to the end. (1 Cor 1:9)

    Your comment: The main question I’ve asked is whose version of religion, scripture, and morality should we accept when considering public laws and education?

    Reply: I think the problem is that we have gone from thinking that it is ok for everyone to have their own opinion, to thinking that therefore everyone is right and no one is wrong. The postmodern philosophy of relativism is a curse that afflicts the educational system in this country to this day. We would all be the better if we taught our children that there are other alternative worldviews. And if we taught them to argue in public debate based on values, based on utility, based on logic, etc. rather than based on political correctness and shutting down opponents because their value comes from a religious view rather than a worldly one. That is supposed to be what democracy is about.

    Having said that, there is no place that I have found in the Bible that says that democracy is the best governmental system, so I don’t believe by default that USA or our government is the best in the world. I am not saying that I am not patriotic to our country, just that I don’t automatically assume that the way we have done or currently do things in America is the best way. I am a citizen of heaven first before being a citizen of USA. I love to support my country and neighbors to the extent that it doesn’t ask me to violate God’s law. That was an easy thing to do 20 years ago, but some of the injunctions being ordered by liberal courts these days are making it more and more difficult. These courts are supposed to make wise choices for but too often they use abuse their authority to legislate the whim of a specific minority that they favor, such as homosexual activists, for example, in California, even when the popular vote goes against them. If it comes down to public laws and school teaching being based on their values or mine, of course I want mine and they want theirs. Basically they are asking me to give up my value stance in favor of their value stance so that I will pay taxes to support public schools that will teach my kids their values. And if I don’t do that, they are accusing me of violating this concept of separation of church and state that liberals are now re-defining to mean pretty much any public display of Christian faith (someone in Wash Post recently said that the cross should be banned in public because it is brutal. but I didn’t hear them complaining about kids walking around with spikes and chains that symbolize torture- it’s clear that their motive is to try to prevent the name of Christ from being mentioned in public).

    I don’t think that liberals are taking the establishment clause in context. The founding fathers came from a Europe where the Catholic church had oppressed true believers in the reformation for a long time. They wanted to make sure that Christians here would be free to worship or not worship as they believed, and would not be subject to a papacy or other type of dictatorial religious regime. For me, it means to prevent the establishment of an official government religion, not to ban the cross on a military monument or the ten commandments in a court room, or a time for students of any faith to pray before starting classes. To be honest, if you want to use politically correct language that liberals love to invent (and has so much in common with the red guard in China- have you ever studied that event- it smacks of the current liberal media and militant homosexual movement in this country?) what you are asking seems to be intolerant towards those who believe in God. But then again, it is easy to call others intolerant so long as they are being intolerant against something that you value.

    Your comment: You clearly believe that your version of Christianity is the right one and dismiss everybody else’s as some form of apostasy. You want us to teach your version of “truth” at the exclusion of everyone else’s, including that of science.

    Reply: As I mentioned, postmodernism is the cause behind a lot of wrong beliefs in the modern age. I believe that there are universal truths. I believe in rationality and the ability to reason. I believe that God gave us a brain, among other things, so that when we hear and read His Word, we will understand it. I believe that if you read the Bible and compare scripture with scripture, there is only one way to interpret the main ideas. Granted, there are plenty of places where people have minor differences because not everything has been revealed or some historical information is unclear, such as end times etc., but the message of creation, of sin, of redemption through Christ, and Christ’s return, are agreed upon as clear by all true believers. And it is clear that the entire OT anticipates the coming of a Messiah and God’s plan for redemption and salvation. If you sit down with a well translated Bible such as NASB or ESV and you read through the verses where a backslidden church would use to support homosexual sin or female pastors in their theological statement, you will find that there is simply no way to logically justify their conclusion. You should agree with this because you pointed out below how you think the Bible is “out of date” in regard to women’s roles in society. It is blatantly clear that these churches are trying to use scripture to justify the currently popular views of sinful man, and are picking and choosing rather than reading the Bible as a whole, in the proper historical context.

    When I first got saved from reading the Bible, I came from a very sinful background (adultery, foul mouth, disrespect to parents, and much worse unmentionable) and I read the whole Bible twice. GOd showed me that it is consistent throughout and it was very easy for me to see the difference between those who were teaching from their own opinion and those who were looking at the verses one by one and comparing them to other scriptures to make sure that they were being consistent. Thi doesn’t mean that I didn’t have questions or doubts, but God gave me the Holy Spirit to show me the truth. If you don’t have the Holy Spirit, you probably will be confused by all of these other teachings because even though you have the ability to reason, you do not have the desire to please God. God commands us to “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15 If you have His Spirit, you will seek to do what His Word says, and He will illuminate for you as you read and pray.

    Your comment: First, scientific discoveries or religiously neutral and are simply descriptions of reality as it can be observed. Sometimes scientific discoveries have implications about specific interpretations of specific faiths (for example heliocentricity), but they are not religious in nature.

    Reply: As a scientist and also a Christian, this is a subject near and dear to my heart. I do the scientific process every day in the research lab. I have published over 20 scientific papers, two book chapters, etc. so I know something about the scientific world. I hate to say this about my colleagues, but scientists are just as confused as anyone else in this world. They have marital problems, struggles with pride and substance abuse, etc. What I am trying to say is that morally, science does not do anything for them. And while they are great at running a western blot or mass spectrometer, I certainly would not want them at the helm of our government making laws. My colleagues are very opinionated and think that they know more than others who are not scientists simply because they are scientists. Many of them were good students and excelled in school, so they have a superiority complex. Others think that because they have studied one subject so hard and understand it so well that they have the right to be an expert on all other subjects, including those which they know nothing about. I admit that I sometimes fall into this trap myself! But as I get older I am seeing how much there is to learn besides science. Most of my colleagues will stretch the truth as much as needed to get a publication or grant money, so it doesn’t surprise me if they come up with stuff like the Miller-Urey experiment and then print it in every single elementary school textbook to try to brainwash young impressionable children into believing that science has solved all of the great mysteries of the world, including creation and the existence of God. Science to me is just a tool. Intrinsically it is not good or bad. It depends on how you use it. But to many young people, the word science automatically means something good, for which they hold high respect. Part of this has to do with the goal of science to make man live forever, to be like God, and part has to do with professors who have influence through teaching classes, who pump up science to be more than it really is, because like used car salesmen they need to justify what they do in order to feel valuable in life. For Christians, value comes from God, not from our career. As someone on the inside who sees the face of science after the makeup comes off, I can assure you that science has no monopoly on the truth and should be treated just as skeptically as any other system of thought. That is why, as I said previously, science should fall under the authority scripture, not the other way around.

    Your comment: The hole, and hypocrisy, of your argument becomes immediately apparent when you substitute the Qur’an and Muslim faith for any time you mention Bible, Scripture, or Christian. You would rightly be offended if they tried to throw out our laws or education based on their theology. But, you ask everyone else to allow an exception for you. If you want to teach such things, you are free to in your home, churches, or in private schools – but you don’t get public money to preach your private faith. Another example is the Amish. They believe the use of electricity and many modern developments are immoral. Does that mean you should not be allowed to type on the computer we are communicating through? Should they be able to use public funds to teach their world view to your child? Obviously, no. Under our constitution, they have the freedom to form their society as they see fit, but they cannot impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

    Reply: Actually, I have no problem if we teach kids in school a balanced and unbiased perspective on religion (doubt that is possible with current liberal regime). I took a lot of religion classes on buddhism, hinduism and christianity in college as an agnostic. There isn’t time to teach every single religion ever known to man, but certainly some of the major ones in a comparative religion class would be a good start. I wouldn’t be a big fan of teaching kids militant islamic teachings, or mormon teachings that Jesus is on a planet in outer space, but it wouldn’t mess them up any worse than “bobby has two daddies”.

    I don’t think that Christians are asking for an exception to get their way with others, I think that they are are asking not to be excluded because they are Christian. I don’t think that Christians want to be relegated to live separate lives as the Amish becauseof their beliefs- they want to be in the world but not of the world. You say that we should not get public money to teach private faith, but liberals are asking for public money all the time to teach private faith. THey do when they support abortion clinics, they do when they use student funds for the school’s LGBT club, and they do when they use teachers’ union funds to support left leaning atheist politicians for office. I personally think that we should be able to opt out of the public school system completely, take our tax dollars that are going to fund all of these liberal programs such as teaching kids homosexual sex education in elementary school, and put them towards home schooling our kids with the truth from God’s Word. Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. Proverbs 22:6. I think that you are misunderstanding using public funds for things related to religion (such as a statue with a cross) for “imposing your religious viws on us”. They are not the same thing. If they are, then you are imposing your atheistic view on me every single time that you exclude religion from a publically funded event/work/show/etc. If you don’t think that excluding something can be as important as including something, try telling that to Joe Paterno.

    Your comment: You suggest I am arguing for anarchy. Far from it. We have the constitution. We have thousands upon thousands of laws that govern our lives (for example which side of the street we can drive on). These restrictions are good for the preservation of society. But, when the only argument is a religiously motivated one, it cannot become law (or should be thrown out by the judiciary for being an unconstitutional law). For example, working on Sunday. The only reason for banning people from working on Sunday would be a religious one, and therefore should be thrown out as a law. People are allowed to not work on Sunday, or create a society or subsection of society that will permit their belief. But, you do not have the authority under the constitution to tell Walmart they must close their doors every Sunday.

    Reply: First of all, I don’t think there is anything wrong with working on Sunday. Jesus says that the sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath. (Mark 2:27) It is a great day to spend worshiping the Lord and focusing on Him, because after all we don’t spend enough time throughout the week due to work distractions; but whoever made that law was adding something to scripture (we talked about this in a previous comment). But I do think that while God has given the government authority, He has also given it a responsibility to do what is right. And that involves moral interpretion. Otherwise, yes, you will have anarchy. Allowing child pornography is not right, nor is allowing gay parades with groups that support child molestation dressed as clowns going around giving children free gifts with their contact information. It doesn’t take knowing the Bible for someone to know that these folks are corrupted by their fleshly lust, yet liberals would argue that we can’t impose moral values on this situation because it is intolerant of those who are “different”. but what it really is doing is being intolerant of those who are normal for the sake of a few sick perverts. That is anarchy, and it is a danger to a civil society, even an atheist one. And I should put in a plug for the Bible as the best reference that we have for moral law. If you were to remove all of the advances in our society based on the moral law of the Bible, we would not be typing these messages today- we would still be having gladiator fights and slavery.

    Your comment: If you cannot see how someone can gain moral wisdom and insight from reading something like Aesop’s fables without believing in it’s veracity, then that’s your short-sightedness, not mine. I could gain wisdom from reading a Harry Potter book, because it is not about the truth of the story being read, but what understanding of human nature I can gain from my own thought processes.

    Reply: I am not challenging the fact that you can learn from readng fables. I am saying that the Word of God is our guide for life and Aesop’s fables is in a completely different league. It doesn’t mean that we can’t learn from other things, but if they contradict scripture, scripture will always prove to be right. Solomon talks about how there are always books being written but there is no new idea under the sun. Books are great, I’ve read plenty in my lifetime, but I just don’t put academic learning and worldly clever philosophies at the priority level of scripture.

    Your comment: I never said women were identical to men. They are not. But they should be accorded equal freedoms as us. They should be allowed to vote, own land, choose their own vocation or to stay at home. That is the inalienable right of any human. But the Bible denies women the right to divorce, sets the price a father can sell his daughter into forced servitude- including sexual slavery, allows men beat their wives, treats them legally as property, lists them among the spoils of war, denies them the right to speak up in church, forces them to learn at home from their husbands, denies them the ability to have authority over any man, denies them the right to teach, makes them subjugated to will of their husband (with no exception given for abuse) and more. There are more subtle forms of discrimination, such as only tracking lineage through men, or not counting females in population tallies. If you wish to discriminate against women, then there is ample support to be found in the Bible.

    Reply: Please give verses for these claims. I don’t doubt that the Hebrews had subtle forms of discrimination and were a male-dominated society. Most of this is stuff that you need to read in the context of the entire Bible and history/culture in order to understand correctly, you can’t just pick and choose sentences. We can discuss them one-by-one and put in context each verse.

    The stuff about women being subjugated to husbands and no authority over men is easy to answer without looking up the verses. Women are to be submissive to husbands in Christ and husbands are to love their wives sacrificially as Christ loved the church.(Eph 5) The idea is that women’s role is to submit to their husbands so long as their husband is submitting to Christ. Husbands role is to literally lay down their own life to love their wife spiritually, similar to how Christ did for the church. There are many, many books written on this but I would recommend that you check out “mark of a man” by Elizabeth Elliott. I have never seen a better book that explains what is it to be a man from a biblical perspective. There is also a very long book written on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper that is available free online as a PDF. I don’t have space to go into all of the great teachings that come to mind from scripture right this moment, but I would be glad to dialogue more if you like. Basically, the confusion about male and female roles has caused many of the core problems in our society. My wife and I live according to the biblical teachings and when she stopped working we had an amazing improvement in our relationship. She has a PhD too, by the way, which defies the stereotype of an uneducated hillbilly bumpkin that I mentioned in a previous post. The better education a woman has, the more prepared she is as a wife, mother, home-schooler and home-maker. And there is no Biblical basis for women not getting an education or not working a job so long as it doesn’t interfere with their role as a wife and mother. In fact, the Proverbs 32 woman is very industrious in the market and people know this and she is praised for it. The problem with our society is that vocations in the workplace are valued over the vocation of being a mother and home maker because workplace vocations earn money and that is seen as valuable and powerful. Yet any man whose wife is at home can tell you that the role of a woman in the home is far, far, more valuable than any job that she could get. They estimated the monetary value at 150k per year but I think that you can’t put a monetary value on spiritual matters. Whether to work in the workplace or at home is the choice of a woman and her husband, but I can tell you that all the women I know doing it absolutely love it and wouldn’t have it any other way. By contrast, many of the women I know in the workplace who have neglected their family life are having marital problems and are unhappy that they don’t get to spend more time raising their children.

    The part about women being in authority over men, you are probably taking out of context. It is saying that women should not have authority in the church for teaching. Men are called to take the initiative to teach and lead in the church. You are probably implying that submission is a less valuable role than leadership, but all of these things are understood through Christ’s example. He submitted the Father, yet that didn’t make HIm any less valuable- actually it served to increase His glory. You are confusing “position” with “value”. You might be doing this because in our world, a person’s position in an organization sometimes indicates their value to the organization. But in Biblical terms, position does not indicate value, it simply indicates differentation in role. As I mentioned in a previous post, God is a God of differences. If everything was an amorphous blob, this world would not be as amazing as God has created it with differences.

    Comment: You may say that such interpretations are not the “correct” ones, but it has taken us millennia to shake such ideas. Only within the last century or so, have women really been allowed normal human freedoms equal to their phallus bearing counterparts.

    Reply: I am not disputing that women have more freedom today than ever before. In fact, all people have more freedom today than ever before. But there are some things you need to think about:
    1. The fact that women in the past were not given freedom does not indicate that the Bible is responsible for that. You seem to be assigning responsibility to the Bible for something that was actually the responsibility of sinful man.
    2. Man is becoming more and more wicked. So while we are gaining freedom of action, we are actually losing freedom of will. We are all a slave to something- either slave to sin or slave to God. (John 8:34) Only the truth can set you free (John 8:32). What this means is that there is actually significantly more freedom in Christ than as an unsaved sinner who is captive to satan and the flesh. You see, as a Christian, I do not have the same value system as an atheist that says that “more freedom of behavior is always necessarily better”. I would argue that there are times where freedom is not good. For example, a kid crossing the road by himself vs. holding his mother’s hand. but my point is not about women’s right to vote, etc. but about the typical worldly value of freedom of behavior without boundary, which assumes that freedom of behavior is something that is aways good in itself. I would prefer to subjugate myself to Christ in order to gain freedom from the sinful desires that ensnare me, “because He is gentle and lowly in heart, and I will find rest for my soul.” (Matt 11:29) Perhaps the worst tyrant to be enslaved to is your own sinful desire, which ultimately results in spiritual and physical death! The Bible says “Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” (James 1:15)

    We are hardly scratching the surface on some of these topics, there are so many more scriptures to share and deep profound revelation of scripture on some of these topics. It is so refreshing to hear the Word of God because you know the truth when you hear it, and it is like eating whole oats vs. the refined white flour of the worldly ways of thinking. It’s just good solid and filling. I really enjoy thinking through how what God has said applies to our lives and politics in our country. It is amazing how much insight and wisdom He has given us in scripture! Thanks again for all of your good discussions.

    • OneNonBeliever

      @BobJones,

      Once again, it comes down to whose version of morality do you choose. This is not a post-modern question, but one our forefathers themselves asked. This is the specific reason why we are a secular government that provides the freedom for its citizens to answer that question for themselves. This arrangement is the reason religion absolutely flourishes in the States. Our forefathers knew that answering such a question is impossible, and warned about the dangers of sectarianism. If you look at the history of the various colonies, from the Quakers to the Presbyters, Jamestown to the Utopian experiment of Georgia, our various colonies had vastly different ideas on the role of morality and religion in society. Our forefathers wisely decided to allow US, we the people, to choose and define our morality for ourselves and not to decide moral positions through government. The purpose of our laws is not to create moral people. Far from it. The purpose of our laws is to protect our personal freedoms and liberties- and to prevent people from imposing on those liberties. Thomas Jefferson wrote “the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” The purpose of law is to create social order, but not to create “moral” individuals.

      It is up to you and I to develop those things. As I have said many times already, it is up to society to care for the moral upbringing of an individual. Most importantly, this begins in the home, then to small groups and associations (like church or girl scouts etc). But, it is an impossible task for government to select which sect of a particular faith has the proper notion of morality. Should your wife have to wear a burqa because one segment of our population thinks that is the moral behavior of women? Should you have to unplug your computer and end our conversation because one section of population believes electricity is immoral? Those people who believe such things are allowed the freedom to live according to their beliefs, but it is not the role of legislation to decide whose version of morality to choose. Thomas Jefferson said, “I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” Finally, once more I repeat I think it is instructive that Christ himself never sought to set up laws and government, but in fact overthrew established laws of morality. His focus was on the heart of the individual and not on the power of a religious organization.

      As I have stated many times already, I believe moral instruction is very important. I would love to see a focus on ethics in the classroom. I also would love to see the focus on developing critical thinking and debate skills instead of the wrote factual recitation method we see in our schools. I too, dislike much of the PC movement. I think it’s a waste of time to dress things up with fancy words to try and put a protective hedge around everyone so that nobody’s feelings get hurt. People get too easily offended. The one thing I do like about the PC movement, however, is the emphasis on trying to understand someone’s way of life who is different from your own- to honor somebody who has different experiences and traditions from your own. If we all truly embraced this, I do think life would improve for everyone.

      You said, “I do think that while God has given the government authority, He has also given it a responsibility to do what is right. And that involves moral interpretion. Otherwise, yes, you will have anarchy.” I disagree. Our government is a great example of how that is not true. The government has given great power to our organizations to decide for themselves the rules and regulations it deems as prerequisite for membership. So, if a church decides that you cannot be a member if you work on sunday, or if a woman doesn’t cover her head, or if you sprinkle a child instead of immersing it (etc.), they are free to do so. The only time government oversees doctrinal issues, is when a person’s liberties are being infringed upon by the organization. One absurdly obvious example is human sacrifice. Government doesn’t allow this even if it is part of a religious creed or observance. Even then, they don’t ban the organization that promotes such practices, but only bans the behavior. Again we can look to the various organizations of our colonies and settlers to see how they had social order (and not anarchy), while yet having vastly different views of morality and organizational roles and laws.

      You said, “I don’t think that Christians want to be relegated to live separate lives as the Amish becauseof their beliefs.” True, few people want to be outcasts. Most people want others to share their world view. But, it is not the role of government to make it easy to carry out a specific world view. The more radical a world view, or the further it is from the values of a current society as a whole, the more difficult it will be for that group to be fully immersed in society. That’s the way it is. The Amish, for example, are free to live their lives how they see fit, but it is not our responsibility to make sure it’s easy for them to fit in with everyone else. Christ himself said that you will be outcasts for your beliefs. That you will be ridiculed and abused. But, that you were to take up your cross and follow him and to go the extra mile when people persecute you. I don’t think mainstream Christianity will be on the outer fringe of society in anytime soon. The vast majority of our population consider themselves Christians (though you and I know that what there’s a wide spectrum of what that actually means). But, the more extreme one sect’s position is compared to that of society, the more it will naturally be on the outskirts of society. To conclude, it is the responsibility of an individual to figure how to make their worldview work within society, not government’s.

      The point of my comments on the bible and women’s roles (and slavery) within society is to highlight that your values as a Christian are strongly shaped by society, even when such teachings fly in direct opposition to what your holy books actually say. But, as I’ve already spent plenty of time today on this discussion, I will have to postpone the lion’s share of that argument for another time.

  • Windisea

    What if Christianity actually teaches Peace and not preventive wars of aggression……….
    Ron Paul 2012 Peace and prosperity

  • Lindsay

    @ Bob Jones

    You forgot an important part of the definition of a bigot. It is a “prejudiced” person who is intolerant of others ideas…not just someone who disagrees. I’m just trying to stand up for my religion as one centered around the faith of Jesus Christ. The scriptures you were referring to were not about the Book of Mormon (which actually reiterates the Bible). They were referring to the centuries of clergymen who added to and took away from the Bible. It is a historical fact that the Bible is not in its pure form. It has been adjusted from one version to another. It is a fact. I’m not going to get into a big debate b/c I have more important things to do with my time. Bottom line: Mormons are Christians. If you want to know what we believe, study our doctrine, attend our services, and read the Book of Mormon instead of listening to prejudiced anti-Mormons. If you still can’t see we’re Christians after all that……

  • Royboy

    @ LINDSAY…I am one who fully recognises that Mormons are Christians. I have not reviewed the previous arguements in this debate, but I know enough from my reading and more instructive from the Mormons I have known over the last 50 years. As a former Catholic but Still a Christian (a better one in my opinion) I appreciate the individuals right to an honest search for Christ and to worship as they decide. I also look to the “fruits” of that religion. In other words what kind of life a person or family lives and how closely it comes to the virtues that should flow from a true Christian belief. While I cannot agree with some major tenets of Mormonism and in all likelyhood never will …my personal experience with the virtues generally practiced by my Mormon freinds are highly moral, excellent examples of family values (none practiced polygamy) and had very practical and admirable traditions of hard work, love for others and self sufficency …that they passed to their children. Many who call themselves Christians could certainly take a lesson from Mormons who live in such a way. Christ seems to be central to their beliefs. Seems pretty Christian to me.

  • Lindsay

    @Royboy Thank you for your respect for my beliefs. It’s disheartening that I have tried my whole life to exemplify Christ and live His teachings and then to constantly hear people tell me I am NOT a Christian. It’s a statement stemming from ignorance, hate, or fear and it isn’t true. Mormons are Christians (although I’m sure not every member of our faith acts like it!) It’s refreshing to hear someone who isn’t closed minded and spouting something they heard on an anti-Mormon blog rant. :) I have respect for others’ beliefs, Christian or not, and I wish more people were tolerant and respectful to people whose beliefs differ from their own…like you. Thank you.

  • Roy

    @ Lindsay…a lack of tolerance and respect for anothers honestly held beliefs would seem to me a violation of the second part of the “Greatest Commandment” that is… love your Neighbor as yourself….the first part of the greatest commandment being …love God…with your whole heart, mind…ect
    I have not always been so tolerant…being an imperfect human it is work and takes persistance to make attitude corrections based on the teaching of Christ. It is a constant struggle to remind oneself to remember, with humility, that I do not have all the answers and attempting to live up to the example of Jesus is a life long pursuit. Those who stand in judgement and condemn others for their honestly held beliefs based on love are guilty of excessive pride and lacking in humility. Pride was the downfall of Lucifer and we know how that turned out.
    anyway…
    We are entering my favorite religious season!….the birth of Jesus and the true hope he brought to all who would hear his message. I wish you and yours a Very Merry Christmas!

  • Bob Jones

    Love God does not mean love sin or love deception or love lies. You are mixing postmodern thinking in with Biblical teaching. The Bible says that God hates sin. Does that make God intolerant??? It is not wrong to hate something that is wrong- it is commanded! This is a free country, believe what you want, but if your faith is irrational, don’t call me intolerant for disagreeing with you about it!

    And Paul says that if you boast in anything, boast in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ! Does that make him proud??? You are trying to take a biblical virtue of humility and turn it on its head to use it against what the Bible teaches about believing only scripture and not false prophets. That is very sneaky, and that is the same tactic that satan used when he tempted Jesus Christ (Matthew 4).

    Yes, of course Christian actions are important, but they come out of a changed heart in obedience to God, not out of one’s own goodness. “It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” Romans 9:16 You will see fruit in those who truly believe, but it is not so simple to just look at what someone does and judge them by that. Only God sees the heart. And only God knows who has acknowledged that “All my righteousness is like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64) before Him, and who has truly believed that when Christ went on the cross, he took the punishment for our sins upon Him. If you don’t believe that, you are not a Christian, no matter what great works you do for others. Because God gave His only son, and you have turned Him down and told God that you will earn your own righteousness instead of taking His precious and free gift. What did He give His son for if you could get to heaven on your own work??? What a waste of the earthly life of Someone of infinite value!

    In short, a works centered faith puts the cart before the horse. You can’t look for the fruit of someone’s faith if they don’t first have the correct understanding of what it is to put faith in God. If you don’t study the Bible to find out who God is and what He has said about man, and what Jesus Christ has done for us, how will you know what you are believing in???

    Are you believing in what a preacher or friend told you? Or just what you personally think? Who is to decide??? Scripture is solid rock, everything else is shifting sand. (Matthew 7:24-27)

  • Roy

    @ Bob Jones…I hope people appreciate the schooling you are giving us. Are you a long time Biblical/Philosophy scholar? You have given me a lot to think about. Some of it may be uncomfortable and I will not just accept what you say without a thorough investigation. Understand my faith is a recently renewed faith and I didn’t get it all right the first time either. I’ve been pretty comfortable with my opinions thus far this time. Oh well, back to work. Food for thought. I certainly do not have all the answers. I do try to understand within my capabilities. Merry Christmas!

  • Lindsay

    @ Bob Jones. Wow! I’ve never heard such judgy, put-words-in-my-mouth person! You know nothing about the Mormon faith. It is centered around the belief that through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for us, we have the opportunity to be saved (here’s the catch), IF and after all we can do. We believe in mercy AND good works. Something many Christians believe in. We don’t believe we’ll all be saved because some people will not use our Lord’s gift and repent. There are so many mistakes in your thinking, but the main reason I chimed in on this discussion is because I want people to understand that we believe in the Bible, but first and foremost, Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas.

  • Lindsay

    IF you truly are a religious scholar of some sort, I would encourage you to actually read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover before you judge our religion. I’m afraid you’ve been ill-informed about us on many counts, though I agree with most of your thoughts on Christ. Until you read our doctrine, you will never fully understand what we believe, no matter how many other books, blogs, or newspaper articles, or even historical documents you read. “By their fruits shall ye know them.” Read it, then you can continue your criticisms. It’s as simple as that.

  • Roy

    @ Lindsay….Bob Jones seems to be a very intelligent guy with well thought out points…but if his aim is to convince others his tone will serve to turn some people off…kind of defeating the purpose. I can read his comments and see the potential value and the need for me to consider what he says…however, it is not my specific religion being attacked. Attacking puts people on the defensive and reasoned thinking stops. I realize my education in Christianity is far from complete…I’m still trying to get the basics taken care of.
    Lindsay…try not to get upset. Take what others say …or leave it…its a free country.
    Christ our savior is born…..Glory to God in the highest! Merry Christmas all!

  • Windisea

    Roy

    That was a very insightful and kind comment, I admire you for expressing it so well.

  • Roy

    Windisea…thanks a lot…I confess that in my case being kind is not always easy…gotta work at it.
    With a screen name of Windisea, you wouldn’t be from the Wind’n’Sea, LaJolla, San Diego area? Surfer? Used to be a hangout of mine as a teen (long freakin’ time ago) Fond memories.

  • Windisea

    Roy

    The name is a play on my first name and middle initial. I surfed a bit as teen at Redondo and Huntington Beach CA but never there. Yes, I have good memories too….

    Merry Christmas

  • Johan

    The reason, I believe, that the country has stepped away from “Christian Values” is because so many people, especially recently, have used the Bible in a way that it was not intended and that has caused people to decide that they no longer wished to be associated with the radical sect of Christianity. For instance, “man shall not sleep with man” is located in the Old Testament. Some people who want to call themselves Christians are using this quote to try and tell the rest of us that it is against Christian beliefs for two men to have sexual relations with each other. This is not true. The Old Testament is the “Jewish” book. When Jesus came to this Earth he got into a lot of trouble with the leaders of the Jewish faith because what he was telling people was that what the leaders were teaching (the Old Testament) was not true. Jesus was telling people that God was a loving and forgiving being, not the God being portrayed in the Old Testament, the God that the leaders of the Jewish faith would like you to believe is being represented, simply for the fact that they were trying to control, via fear, their “sheep”. We need to get back to the loving God, the one Jesus came here to tell us about, and stop accepting the behavior of those who wish to use the Bible for its unintended purpose.

    • Noah Rosenblatt

      So it is the jews’ fault again for something unimportant? While I am only of jewish descent and do not actually believe in religion, I can still tell that judaism is at least less unintelligent than christianity. If there were a god, it would seem too idealistic that he or she is so loving and forgiving. Sometimes, heinous acts just cannot be forgiven. Ferdinand and Isabela cannot be forgiven for the inquisition where they persecuted so many jews and muslims, the nazis cannot be forgiven for destroying so many jews, gays, gypsies, and jehova’s witnesses, and the admissions board at columbia university cannot be forgiven for rejecting Richard Feynman’s application because he was jewish. There may never come a day where you understand that worshipping one person such as jesus is absurd, but I can hope that in the foreseeable future, most people will realize that religion is simply outdated science. This social natural selection will happen regardless of what you believe.

  • reality

    i think so too but i also think there was a lot of hollywood, pretending, make believe,… on the part of the speakers. lots of ignorance too of the constitution and the role of the branches of government and why we are in undeclared wars,… i also didnt hear any constitutional and factual info about the tax code which would reveal a truth many Americans would be delighted to hear but would greatly tic off the politicians who profit from the crooked tax system. Perrys flat tax and Cains 9 9 9 are nothing more than a different name for more of the same robbing from wage earners… Americans havent been taught this in school cause the crooks own the education system…

  • Noah Rosenblatt

    How will limiting liberty help families?

  • Windisea

    Bill Cammack

    I enjoyed your perspective and commentary I hope you are not really done!
    Good music too.

    RON PAUL 2012