Eight GOP candidates met Tuesday for a debate sponsored by CNN, The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. The debate was held at Constitution Hall in Washington, DC. The focus was primarily national security and foreign policy.

Original Air Time: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 8pm ET on CNN

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

Here is the entire 90 minute debate video courtesy of MRCTV:

Report from CNN:

Washington (CNN) — A Republican presidential debate on Tuesday focused on national security issues exposed deep fault lines within the GOP over how to grapple with the nation’s challenges overseas.

The eight Republican candidates who took to the CNN debate stage in downtown Washington differed on a range of issues confronting the United States, including the war in Afghanistan, aid to Pakistan and cuts in defense spending.

The issue of illegal immigration also arose again as the newest Republican front-runner, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, called for a “humane” approach to immigration policy, a position at odds with many conservative activists who dominate key nominating contests in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida.

Gingrich stressed the importance of securing the United States border with Mexico and penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants.

But he expressed sympathy for people who entered the country illegally and since became contributing members of society.

“I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families which have been here a quarter-century,” Gingrich said. “And I am prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship, but finding a way to give them legality so as not to separate them from their families.”

The answer was reminiscent of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s response to a question about a 2001 bill he signed that granted in-state college tuition to the children of illegal immigrants.

In a September debate, Perry said Republicans who oppose the legislation “don’t have a heart” — and his standing in the polls plummeted in the following days.

The discussion was certainly lively between Ron Paul and most of the other candidates which made for some passionate debate. This debate was worth watching with a lot of extensive answers and substantive questions from moderator Wolf Blitzer.


  1. Seriously Ron Paul thinks that if we leave the radical muslims and terrorists alone they’ll leave us alone? that’s his plan? Go back to Texas and count your blessings that you were elected to any office at all…I wouldn’t even let you prescribe me cold medication with that level of critical thinking.

    • Well who do you think would be a good president? because other then RON PAUL, I don’t see any of the other candidates that will defend the consitution the right way.

      • dre, I don’t think Ron Paul would make a good president either. He could never get anyone in congress to go along with him. He would never be able to get any improvement other than getting rid of Obama care. The Same with Cain. The only one with presidential abilities left would be Newt. He has won every debate. He has always been the person in charge. Even the MC’s seem to respect him more than any other candidate. He has experience getting things through congress. Yes, he has made mistakes in his past, but everyone know that. Not one of the candidates are perfect. Newt’s pole rating continues to go up. He really has a great record when you compare all the good he has accomplished, to his mistakes. As the saying goes, a person who does nothing, makes no mistakes. Newt has had extreme liberal media coverage through his career. People are learning to ignore what they come up with. We will see what happens with the future “Mit picking”.

        None of the other candidates impress me.

        • newt talks alot but he doesnt want to cut spending,stop the patriot act{ which is very un-american to take away our civil liberties}. your not listening. ron paul is for us. the others are for themselves.

        • America is on life support the crash is looming. We all know this is true.

          Ron Paul is the only candidate who is different, he alone recognizes and confronts the facts and has a plan to regroup, strengthen and prepare America for the impending challenges that are ahead. We need to take a new direction one that leads to security and a President who recognizes the difference.

          RON PAUL 2012

          • Windisea
            The main place you are going wrong is: This is a REPUBLICAN primary. Ron Paul is a Liberitarian. In most cases, a Republican will vote for a Republican. You remind me of the person who said they would vote for Obama.

        • Of course Ron Paul is a better. You really think Newt’s record is consistent? Wow, Ron Paul has had a more consistent record than any other politician I know! You said he won’t be able to have Congress agree with him? He is part of Congress!!! I can’t believe you said that Newt has won every debate, ok I
          Ike the guy and some of his ideas, but Ron Paul has had a view that our founding fathers had–freedom

          • Ron Paul may have some good ideas (not all of them though), but he has no experience working with republicans. he isnt willing to compromise, even a little bit. that means he will get NOTHING done. this government was designed around compromise, and RP can’t do that. Romney has by far the best record of working across party lines to get things done. He also has the best record for economic turnaround. His entire living and livelihood have always been taking failing things and making them profitable. if he can do it with companies, olympics, and democratic states, he can do it with the country.

        • B Anderson
          Reality Check: Newt Gingrich and the president’s power … – fox19.com
          http://www.fox19.com/story/16115176/reality-check-newt-gingrichReality Check: Is Newt Gingrich right about the president’s power to assassinate?

          No, again Gingrich is wrong! Still your best candidate? Gingrich is a bad actor but you are moved by performance and swagger rather than substance! You cite “pole numbers rather than poll numbers. You are so grossly mis-informed about Newt’s history and false conservative principals that you sir should keep your thoughts to yourself rather than disclose how easy the leash is attached to the ring in your nose. Obama is sure to win with your help. Above and below are some facts on video, address the facts and tell me how you can possibly support Gingrich as a qualified candidate.

          One of Four videos.

          RON PAUL NOW!

      • Ron Paul is the only true sincere American on this panel. The rest of the candidates are hate mongers to try to sway the public.

      • @mark

        You would rather go in spend trillions of USD bankrupt our country and make 100x more enemies in the regionion at the same time leaving our country much more vulnerabl to attack.

        Its always going to be the place we are not looking that gets us, and having no money to protect our interests here at home is going to be our downfall.

        Ron Paul is the only one that has a clue up on that stage as to how to stabilize our country not just economically which also transfers into national security but also in keeping our people free and strong. If you continue to do things like the patriot act and war monger you make our country no better than any other dictators country. You don’t even see countries like china starting wars and stirring up the hornet nests around the world, they have enough money in reserve to cripple our country and yet our leaders blindly continue spending more and more each year.

        Wake up people.

    • This is not a war!!!
      Terrorism is a cat and mouse game. It is not a physical idea, it is all over the world including our own back yards. This is a waste of time and money. We need to concentrate on our own affairs, we are Broke and that ain’t no Joke. At home we can concentrate on our on weaknesses and strengthen those areas. Our security, borders, economy. But don’t forget our true and biggest problem, the corruption within our government. Once the corruption is eliminated from by Paul watch how fast everything else falls into place. Our number 1 issue should be the corruption within our Government. So many people buy into this Media Mumble Jumble. Please people don’t rely on the Media, do your own homework.
      Who are you for? The only other knowledgeable individual is Gingrich, don’t get me wrong he is smart as a whip, but true be known he is a lobbying bastard! We can’t trust that crook, period.

    • So what is your plan. Permanently suspend the Bill of Rights, permanently occupy half the world, and permanently run enormous deficits? Like Ron Paul said, this is a road to disaster. None of these guys other candidates will impress me until they can at least admit that reduced increases in spending are not cuts.

    • It is very difficult to admit when you have been drinking the corporatist KoolAid for decades like I did; but most Americans still fall for it. I had questions about Dr. Paul’s foreign policy too. So, I took the initiative to read “Foreign Policy of Freedom” and “Liberty Defined”. Once you realize the only ones being empowered by the status quo are politicians and corporations, you realize the only moral and practical choice is Dr. Ron Paul for President.

    • Ron Paul is so off the mark on this issue. Timothy McVey did not have an entire radical religious movement behind him when he committed his heinous crime as the very organized terrorists do. Ron Paul is definately a National Security risk.

      • I think you’re off the mark on this one, Roxiebell…

        Ron Paul simply illustrated that Timothy McVey fits the profile of any American citizen, and would lead to our rights being crippled.

        You can’t “profile” terrorists… that’s not realistic.

        Timothy McVey WAS a terrorist… being a terrorist doesn’t mean you need to have a radical religious movement behind you. What you’re implying is incorrect, and is the true security risk.

        Ron Paul is the only solid candidate on that stage – PERIOD.

        • Johnny, You are right that McVey did not have a group behind him. That fact also meant that the country did not need to gear up for war to protect ourselves. It is not a valid comparison.

      • Al-quaeda jihadists have officially and explicitly claimed their attacks on the west are accountable to the west, specifically the US, having a military presence in the holy land, Saudi Arabia. Their attacks are responsive. It’s counter-Islamic to allow foreign troops in the holy land.


        That’s a quick informational; otherwise read some Al-Jazeera to gain some perspective. Paul also brings it up at 82:45.

      • you are off on the question. its not about religion. it about our government. tim mcveigh hated our government because they are the terrorists, like taking `away our rights and freedom.

    • His plan is to stop occupying other countries with our armed forces and stop getting involved in nation building so the terrorists wont have a reason to bomb the US. Common sense not critical thinking.

    • The American people need to wake up and smell the latte (i would suggest DD instead of Starkbucks but that’s up to you). This whole business about Radical Islam. Look at history. The crusades were the radical Christians that did not even spare the Children and Women and the Islamic governments were the most civilized in that time. In fact, Mr. ex-Senator doesnt want to mention the fact that the crusaders killed ALL the JEWS…just like Mr. Hitler (a German Christian) did…..It was the muslims that protected the Jews during that time…

      Dont get me wrong, I am not suggesting that there aren’t crazy muslims around, but believe me that is a minority. However, someone in Iraq whose family was destroyed because of American invasion has a right to be angry against Americans….aren’t we upset at the Saudi hijackers (not Afghanis, not Iraqis and not Pakistanis) who attached us on 9/11?

      now go to your favorite coffee joint and inhale some and be fair in your analysis unless you want to vote for a war monger who will take America to the pits by waging another unjust war. I say Obama or Ron Paul. I am up for either as long as fascists such as Gingrich dont come near the white house…

    • as a muslim, ron paul is the only true president we would ever have. the only reason thr radicals hate us is because we OCCUPY other countries. its not our business to be in other countries. listen to what ron paul says.

      • If you are satisfied with the status quo vote for any candidate except RON PAUL. But if you want the creator of the status quo vote for Gingrich. Gingrich is counting on you, you are so easy to fool!

        Ron Paul 2012

    • Mark,

      You obviously don’t understand the Muslim religion. They are not allowed to, by god, to come to a non-threatening country in order to carry out acts of Jihad (defending the Muslim land and god from infidels). Not since 1924(?) has there been a Muslim who can declare an attack on another land in order to spread the Muslim land, the English killed the last known man.

  2. If we completely divested ourselves from Middle Eastern affairs (including turning our back on Israel, which shouldn’t and likely will not ever do, under any administration) it would only take a generation or two before these people forget that we exist, much less make a concerted effort to attack our homeland.

    They “hate” us because we make for a highly visible scapegoat/”villain” so that the peoples of those countries have a common enemy onto which they can project all of their hardships and tribulations, distracting them from the real problem which is their corrupt leadership and their exploitation of their own people. If America and the developed world left the region to its own devices, they would just go back to killing each other like they have for all of recorded history.

    The idea that the terrorists have smelt blood and will follow us home is just scare-tactic b.s. They’re playing “king-of-the-hill” for a relative $#!thole (which just so happens to be a place of primary holiness for the big 3 Abrahamic religions ).

    That said, I’m not convinced that we can afford to leave the area. Our economy is based on cheap energy, and when oil stops flowing because of political instability we are in for a world of hurt. In a way, the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts are about oil (and natural gas). Not in the sense that we are going in to steal it, but to insure against the possibility that production could drop significantly, especially with the increased demand for energy in developing China and other up-and-comer countries.

    The biggest threat to our way of life isn’t ever going to be a bunch of religious wackos flying planes into buildings. It is the end of cheap energy that we should be afraid of. Say what you want about their methods, but this is one thing that the American Neoconservative movement has gotten right: were energy production cut in half overnight with a commensurate rise in prices, it would be the end of America as we know it.

    • Arrowsmith, Sticking our head in the ground will not get them to stop attacking us. They hate us because we are friends to Israel. They know will will come to Israel’s defense. That hate goes back to Abraham (and I don’t mean Lincoln).

    • Not only will sticking our head in the sand NOT do anything but we only get 12 percent or of our oil from middle eastern countries. most of our oil comes from other places especially Canada and Mexico so you cant say that this war is about the “stability” of oil in the U.S we could easily get our oil from other places especially through our own production.

  3. “Mark”‘s comment is exactly why there’s little to no hope for the GOP this election. Ron Paul is saying that you can’t simply give a bunch of people the power to invade an entire nation personal privacy and property and limit the activities of a select group of people based on how they “look” as a mode of stopping a small group of radical terrorists. Did you know there’s this one guy in my city named “Mark” who punched this other guy. I think we should therefore cut off all the hands of people named “Mark” in order to assure safety. Sound like a plan?

    Plus Ron Paul is not saying to just let anyone with a bomb do anything they want, he’s saying we should shift our method of how we conceptualize security. Let the private airlines decide their own security measures. If a terrorist manages to get a bomb onto an airline like Continental in an actual free market, best believe Continental would crash as a company in an instant! It is therefore in the interests of private companies to seek out their own methods of private security, and the same goes for private individuals! This country would be much safer under Ron Paul’s theories.

    It amazes me that people like, well everyone on stage other than Paul, can criticize the Obama administration for forcibly taking tax money to provide for universal healthcare, when they support an administration that would forcibly take taxes for…..killing for democracy in Libya?!?!?!

    The most moral and practical progress comes when EVERYTHING is left in the hands of the individuals in a free market based on liberty of personhood and property. Ron Paul can’t get us there, but he can get us close.

    I seriously wonder if any of these neo-cons and religious fundamentalists have ever taken a philosophy class other than their Sunday school lessons….

    (And just for the record, if you examine the statistics, War spending and foreign military intervention hasn’t decreased under Democrat Presidents and Social Welfare/Taxes haven’t decreased under Republican Presidents.)

  4. Ron Paul is the only true presidential candidate. All of the other are just a bunch of thiefs and liars. And of course the middle-east doesn’t like the United States, who are we to decide how there country should be run. If why would stop bombing them, they might forgive us all the wrong with have done to their coutries. why is it that we have over 200 military bases in 150 countries. We no longer have the money to spend on the military industriel complex, it has to stop now. the only person who thinks logicilly is RON PAUL. All of the other candidates want to keep the wars going, want to keep bailing out the banks who have screwed the americain people, and are putting lots of your money in their pockets, not to be used for good, NO, only for there personnal, self-centered little person. That is why I will defend RON PAUL to the end. If he is not elected USA is going to go down. But don’t be mistaken it’s not the candiates that will suffer, it’s us, the americain people.

  5. Under the “trigger” spending cuts, defense spending will increase by 16% instead of 23% over the next ten years. Rick Perry thinks our soldiers will be at risk, and the Secretary of Defense should resign over that? It’s absurd to even call this a cut, let alone worry about how draconian it is. The fact that the Republican (other than Paul and maybe Huntsman and Bachmann) are crying wolf about something like this makes me wonder how far we should trust them that restricting civil liberties is necessary for the War On Terror. I’m afraid the War On Terror will just be an excuse for doing whatever they want and spending whatever they want.

  6. Mark, if they left you alone, wouldnt you leave them alone? Ron Paul is brilliant in his practical simplicity. Its all about preventing problems rather than responding to problems we create. We were attacked because we were messing around in their homeland. Instead of attacking them back, how about we just stop trying to run the world in the first place? Same goes for the failure of the drug war. Instead of outlawing drugs and then fighting drug outlaws, which, like alcohol prohibition, has failed miserably, how about we just let responsible adults make their own decisions about how they treat their bodies, as we do for alcohol and cigarettes? Then the drug cartels would go bankrupt, the violence on the border would vanish, trillions of dollars would be saved in law enforcement that could be put towards harm reduction and education, drugs would become safer as purity and dosage became formally regulated, and revenue could be raised through taxes to help eliminate the deficit.

    this is a highly intelligent nation. lets use our heads people.

    • @”think”

      “We were attacked because we were messing around in their homeland.”

      What?! WHAAAAAAAAAAAT??????????!!!!!!!!!

      They have been attacking the US since BEFORE we were a nation, and ever since. Why?

      Because the KORAN tells them to. Read it. It’s all there. They are not trying to hide it.

      • The amount of people killed by bee stings laps the number of people killed by “terrorists” many times over, how ever, I have never heard it brought up by our “leaders”. There are terrorists in this world along with countless other things to be afraid of. You are conditioned to be affraid in an effort to suppress human liberties. You are conditioned by the media to crave war, to be glued to your TV screens absorbing as much propaganda as possible. Love is the only way to peace and our country represents exactly what our ancestors created this country to escape. I love what this country could be. You and I are SOOOOO lucky to have been born here, we have opportunities that almost all of the worlds population couldn’t even conceive of.

        I won’t tell you who you should vote for, just do you’re research. Look for continuity, see how they voted in the past and cleanse yourself of concepts that do not strictly promote love.

        Aside from researching leaders, research how money is made. Research banks and other companies they are affiliated with. Research new amendments to our constitution, new bills, and acts. Ask yourself how these could be used for evil. Research the rise of dictators, steps they used to oppress a once free nation.

        “Why, oh why, didn’t I just take the blue pill”

        I will write Ron Paul on every ballot from now till the day I die, for he is the last person who has REAL freedom as the main concern

  7. Do you really think that they`re doing this to diverge the focus of their evil government. Please they are doing this because of an interventionist policy weve taken since WW2. The U.N. and the United States post WW2 foreign affairs have devastated our reputation and our economy. My deployment to Iraq has given me a first account of how we create these terrorists. We occupy their land, arrest every man in a village or town that is suspected, then we send them home. If China were to invade tomorow and do the same would you stand for it. The military is not an effective police force we are taught to fight and win military battles, we are not taught population control. We have spent to much money, lives, and time in a country that never needed us there in the first place. The terrorists and its factions hate the fact that we back israel which we never should have the 6 day war proved that they can handle themselves just fine. If wew had backed palestine the way we did israel do you not thi9nk the israeli would respond the same way as the arabic extremist has. In the end were in this because we continue to intervene. On the issue energy its quite simple we use no more that 15 percent of middle eastern oil. Open a free market in which we can create more energy at home. This would do 3 things increase employment increase energy independence and increase security. We do not need the middle east. The terrorists do not care about their country they only want to draw us into more war so that it is easier to kill us and give us the bad reputation and like fools we take the bait. The Soviet Union did the same with us during the cold war and spent all of their economy building weapons and funding wars. Its no surprise to me that they crumbled under their own weight and we will follow if this current trend continues.

  8. Mr. Stickney, You sound like Ron Paul is the only candidate that can save our country. Because of an attitude like this, our worst enemy will succeed in winning the election in 2012. Someone else made the comment that non of the other GOP candidates would up-hold the constitution. That is the statement of an angry person just because they see Ron Paul as the only one they will be happy with. While it is true that we have had leaders and government officials that are corrupt and working for their own interests on both sides of the parties, doesn’t mean that Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul is the only person that can change this country.
    Any one of our GOP candidates will be a far cry for the constitution compared with the leader we have now that wants to abolish it, and does everything possible to tear it down.
    With that said, if it is a long-shot for Paul to gain the nomination why would you take the time to go vote? If the GOP could get behind the front runner then this country could stand a much better chance of taking out the real problem that has destroyed our country. I am behind a candidate that I feel would be the best leader, but if it means that my candidate would not end up taking the entire prize of the presidency then I am willing to support the one that will. This is because we need to think past “who we most like” and strategically look at the whole picture (like generals do in a war situation, “to win” in the end). If we do not take out the one that is responsible for the continued downward spiral of destruction in America, then in the end we loose.
    Just saying, for all those that are in the race just to see their candidate win, stop and look at the big picture and the most important goal we have which is to take out the one that is truly hell bent on changing this country for the worst.

    • Are you reading what you wrote? You said anyone of the candidates is better than our current president. So how the Hell will me voting for Ron Paul bring our worst enemy as the winner of the 2012 election? Not trying to be a D*ck, but that absolutely made no sense. Getting on with it plain and simple I’m choosing the best candidate, PERIOD. I will never ever kiss the a$$ of others and follow the in crowd, because I feel my candidate won’t win. It’s people like you with that rational thinking that is messing up these elections. You can’t be a follower all your life, get a back bone, stop being a follower and start leading. We need change and I’m my own self, that is my I choose. Let’s be honest we are not going to stand up at the ballot booth and vote for 3 candidates…What are you talking about? Why in the world should I settle for second best, this not like the last election, the lesser of the evils. Paul is much higher on the polls now, he has a very big shot of winning the primaries. Our next president should be the most knowledgeable on all the issues, the one who has a track record of consistency, the one who has a solid foundation(The Constitution), the one that will attempt to resolve what I feel is the number one problem with this country. If we do not get a president in this country to eliminate all this corruption including the Fed, our government will continue to grow bigger and bigger. The bigger the government grows the longer individuals stay in Congress the more corruption will exist. Do you understand this is not like any other election that we’ve had in a long time. We are absolutely broke and you want to sit up here on these boards and debate about picking a mediocre president. You call me angry and yet the majority of these candidates want to go around the world and bully and torture countries and individuals to try to put a stop to Terrorism. Do you understand Terrorism is not a war, we will just stay overseas forever, we will surely be broke with that kind of attitude and will have the price tag of a bunch a dead troops on our hands. War is one thing, but this nonsense Cat and Mouse game we are playing with our troops is absolutely ridiculous. Everybody knows our last major war was WWII. And of course we should of went after Bin Ladin. You seem smart, you know we are broke and you still would allow all this nonsense to exist. I challenge you to look up all the candidates compare them and you pick the best one. I’m done with the Republicans and Democrats–Supercommittee saying they had a cat and dog fight trying to establish a plan for us, but failed to resolve. It’s all a game and you are part of the problem buying into their lies. Stop jibber jabbin and give me some facts so we can debate and reason and maybe figure out something here. You better wake up and smell the coffee, because you will have a rude awakening. Understand these other candidates can be worst than Obama.

    • Jan Barkes

      You know not what you speak! Ron Paul is fundamentally even radically different from all other GOP candidates. Find out why. It is your responsibility to know the difference! If you don’t recognize this or take the time to uncover the differences then you are personally responsible for participating in the demise of America. Your comments reveal the degree to which you are uninformed! You have outed yourself. It is imperative that you and others like you seek information now while there is still time to save America you must become an informed voter!


    • I completely agree with Jan the problem with Ron Paul is that he is not electable. PERIOD I don’t care if he can get past the primaries which he will not, His problem is that he cannot attract the swing voter NEVER will a swing voter vote for a Libertarian EVER PERIOD get over it! it is not going to happen ever! that cannot be emphasized enough, we will find ourselves in the same situation we are in now if we put ourselves behind someone that wont go anywhere. I like some of Ron’s plans he is sound in many aspects but I do not feel he will be forceful enough and strong enough as a leader. He is by far the most timid of all the candidates and wont get anything done if he is elected.

      • Reality Checker

        You are incorrect Ron Paul does attract Blue Republicans, (Democrats who are unhappy with Obama), and Independents there are Blue Republican groups on the internet and Facebook these are swing voters.

        Robin Koerner
        Publisher, WatchingAmerica.com

        If You Love Peace, Become a “Blue Republican” (Just for a Year)


        Blue Republican | Facebook
        http://www.facebook.com/bluerepublicanIndependents for Ron Paul


        Ron Paul Leads Obama Among Independents New … – MarketWatch

        Ron Paul Wins Independent Voters Poll

        News for independents for ron paul

        Ron Paul’s strategy for winning: Independent and cross-over voters

        Christian Science Monitor – 4 days ago
        With not a lot of enthusiasm for either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, Ron Paul may become increasingly attractive to independent and cross-over voters. …
        157 related articles

        Ron Paul 2012

        • Windisea,
          I am sorry but i don’t believe you, and throwing articles and web, and facebook pages does not count as evidence. just google “The Hollow Earth Society.”

          Something people forget is that just because there is an article or someone out there that believes it to be true does not mean that it is. Sorry its just reality

          Just another example, on average if you have 100 people in a room roughly 2 of them think they have been abducted by aliens….

          you could also Google “The flying spaghetti monster” and get similar results.

          • Reality Checker

            I view your comment as merely a useless attempt to denigrate the messenger in order to cast aspersions on valid submissions of evidence that there are, in fact, Independents and Democrats who will be voting for Ron Paul and only Ron Paul for the Republican nominee and for President.

            By using terms such as “throwing, when the correct term is posting or comment and by referencing “aliens, Hollow Earth Society and The flying spaghetti monster” your opinion loses any credibility and sinks to the level of a child trying to start a food fight in an elementary school cafeteria. Why then, would any thinking individual care about your opinion?

            My advice to you Reality Checker is to grow up, check the facts, post substantive material supporting any claims that you would like to add to the discussion and perhaps then you may influence someone to read, consider and discuss your opinion.


            Ron Paul 2012

  9. I am from Japan and I don’t have a right to vote because I am a greencard holder. However I watched all the debates so far and I’m looking for the strong leadership for America because America is Not strong both in National Security and economy, Japan becomes weaker because we live by trading with America and other countries. I totally against Ron Poul who just wanted to mess around with other candidates and I don’t understand why he is running with other Republicans! He has no principal what so ever. He thinks China is Not threat!? In order to have the strong economy, you need to deal with China who doesn’t have any law or regulation to follow and their interests are only money and power to destroy all the counties to have own empire ! Dealing with evil countries, America was so bless to have a land of liberty and freedom. We want America to exercise its power in the right way. Ron Poul sure never studies any foreign policy but only on the textbook!! Ron, you are absolutely wrong that you told in the debate that America is paying money to have all the U.S. soldiers in Japan??? You must be joking! We Japanese government is paying a trillion $$ from my taxes I paid in Japan to support them to stay in Japan. In fact Japan has the biggest U.S. bases in the world which means they will protect us? No!! Because you owe so much money to China, you can’t do anything to help us even Japan spent so much $$$ to have them stay!! We are supporting their families by using our taxes in Japan!! Ron, you should be out from this race and we need the leader who can fix the American economy first and only person who can do and proved many time to do it is MITT ROMNEY ! We, Japanese want Mitt to be the next President of the United States. He has the great leadership and has a higher moral than any other candidates! Gingridge is o. key but he does a sweet talk but he never have experience in economy and he is just another politician but No experience! WE WANT MITT ROMNEY FOR 2012!! THANK YOU! WE SUPPORT MITT FROM JAPAN!!

    • Seiko, I respect your opinion… However, having business experience doesn’t qualify you to be President. Actually, the most qualified person to help fix the economy would be Ron Paul. I say this, because he has a fundamental understanding of economic policy and market forces. Mitt Romney wants to increase military spending, and will most likely raise taxes on the American people, as well as importers (your countrymen). Don’t go with the HYPE, go with Ron Paul.

      Vote Ron Paul 2012.

      • I am sorry Johnny but delivering babies and being in congress is not good qualifications for economy building. Rons plans have no teeth in them. Mitt has an amazing understanding of the economy and how to get things going, just listen to all the debates few candidates have the understanding of what it takes for business to grow like Mitt does.

    • Seiko Tanner, Thank you for your input. I do not disagree with you, I just would like to let you know that Newt Gingrich does have business experience. He started and ran his own business when he was not holding an office in our country. While he was Speaker of the House, he balanced the US budget, and even began to pay some of the national debt. We would have continued a thriving economy if we had not been attacked. He is my choice.

      • Newt while in the House wrote bogus checks and resigned.
        Now he comes around and destroys the housing industry. He has accepted $1.6 million from Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae to influence Congress and turn the other cheek.
        Somebody should have given him a swift kick in the rear when he turned the other cheek. Newt is smart, but he is a crook and in no way should be trusted. Anybody who votes for him would not be well educated.
        Romney is a coward can’t even stand up for what he believes, his own Mormon religion. He was a no show at the First Federated Church in Des Moines, Iowa. Romney is a business man who gets a lot of support on his run for president from Banks, I seen it once I see lobbyist written all over this one. Look up Romney he changes his views to cater to the American people. Research his past interview and debates. He is a liar and would never uphold the truth, he’d be another lying Obama. Romney we are broke we can’t keep our troops all over the world.
        Our country is in no form to fight with China, you absolutely got to be kidding me. Paul knows the last major real war was WWII. Remember Pearl Harbor? That’s why we have the largest bases in Japan. For Heavens sake, the Japanese responsible for that war are probably all dead now. The Japanese children from that war are all grown up now and has a strong military and can defend for themselves. Why the hell are our troops still there? But let’s be real here you are just one voice and apparently you do not in any way shape or form speak for the entire country of Japan. Japan had a much solid base now and the Japanese people are getting sick and tired of the outdated American bases. Seiko has part of this wrong. Besides, keeping our troops in Japan is unwise and not in the United States best interest when China is around. Don’t forget North Korea, we made them mad. These countries could threaten to attack our homelands anytime, we need to beef up our security. Look it up, Ron Paul is correct once again, this is why he should be president. This man understands foreign policy and security so well. I personally think our stay poises a security threat on the US by staying in so many of these countries at once. Paul knows Bush made so many enemies we have to slowly build up our allies again and regain peace. We need to bring it back home and start to shrink govt and rebuild our security and troops. Ron Paul is the most consistent and knowledgeable of all the candidates. You say Japan pays for our troops, no we pay for our troops. If you pay anything it must be to our corrupt government getting richer by the minute. Average House member is a millionaire, average senate is a multimillionaire. If that is the case then that is why we stay overseas the countries keep adding to our government’s already fat pockets, what a bunch of crooks. If this true, I will look it up, you just educated me to why we continue to be stationed all over the world and I will thank-you.

        • Seiko Tanner, I would like to apologize for George Stickney’s comment. He is very rude. We do have a free country, and rude people get their say too. He is an embarrassment to himself and his country.

          • Seiko Tanner likes Romney because Seiko is Mormon, just google his name.

            Honestly, I don’t understand why Mitt Romney is running with Republicans. The Republican party 20 years ago would label him a Democrat. Even now I’m surprised he isn’t considered a slightly liberal centrist by most GOP members. It’s sad that liberal ideas have become so popular, but Republicans need to show the country that conservative ideas work. They have done this in the past and I don’t see why they can’t continue to do so in the future. Instead, Republicans are becoming increasingly liberal in order to curry favor with the media and the public. It’s a shame Romney is polling so highly and it’s a shame that such a large number of Republicans have shifted toward liberal ideologies and continue to support a candidate that strays from the conservative ideas the Republican party was founded on.

          • ET it obvious you are a little confused, being Liberal, and Conservative is an IDEOLOGY. Republican, and Democrat is a political PARTY. Those two things are extremely different when it comes to politics as a whole. There are Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats. Obviously as a whole MOST Democrats are Liberal and MOST Republicans are Conservative. Now most people believe Mitt is more of a Democrat because of Romney care while he was Governor. That is false, Democrats want to make health care a FEDERAL issue while Republicans think health care belongs to the STATES and that is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat. The Democrat President made healthcare Federal While Mitt took care of it in his State huge difference.

            AND Saying that Seiko just likes Mitt because he is mormon is unfair and uncalled for. That is like saying Obama is in office because everybody that is black voted for him when blacks only represent 12.6% of our racial demographic in America.

      • Windisea, That was rude and uncalled for. Seiko is a better person not being an American, and cheering on our elective process, that an American boo’ing someone. You may not like Newt, but take his advice and not embarrase yourself making negiative comments.

        • B Anderson

          Did you even read Seiko’s post? You are way too indoctrinated stop embarrassing yourself. He isn’t cheering on the elective process, he was stating his preference as a Japanese national, telling you who to vote for and why. Just be a good host and follow the lead. Meanwhile I’ll thumb down any post I disagree with and now I’m thumbing your ridiculous comment. America!

          Ron Paul 2012 National Sovereignty!

    • I guess Seiko Tanner’s father or grandfather was one of the soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army which invaded China and slaughtered Chinese during WWII. He called China an evil country and their interests are only money and power to destroy all the counties to have own empire. Seiko, when you make such an insane statement you have to show some proof. While what I know is merely 60 years ago even U.S. could not tolerate Japan’s atrocities of massively killing and raping civilians in almost every south Asian and southeast Asian countries and finally atomic bombed you guys. Those Japanese were killers and rapist. They even forced their own women to be army prostitutes. Please know that Japanese government or emperor never apologize for their fucked-up behaviors. And now you Japanese are paying money to U.S. armies to protect you guys? Wake up from your delusion! China has no interest to fight with you again. A lot of Chinese do hate because of you guys’ fault. But it does not mean that they wanner invade your country as civilized people, not like your guys. China wanner do business. They reason why China is increasing defense budget is just because she doesn’t feel safe considering U.S.’s huge military existence in Japan and South Korea, so close to China. Imagine what U.S. will think if China builds a military base in Cuba. So nowadays when U.S. and China are trying to trust each other, do business and make friends, please don’t make noise as a crying jealous baby seeking for affection from your U.S. daddy.

  10. The fact idea that only muslims are terrorist is just like hating blacks. There have been numerous terrorists who were not muslims. The idea of profiling is just a political form of racism. If we are truly to defend the constitution we have to treat all with equality. If the uslim in front of me recieves a “more sophisticated pat-down”(for lack of a better term) then me, the white guy behind me, and the black guy behind him should receive the same treatment. You are innocent until proven guilty. Ron Paul’s view completely destroys this.

    • Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual events from history. They actually happened! Do you remember?

      1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
      a. Superman
      b. Jay Leno
      c. Harry Potter
      d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

      2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
      a. Olga Corbett
      b. Sitting Bull
      c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
      a. Lost Norwegians
      b. Elvis
      c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      4. During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
      a. John Dillinger
      b. The King of Sweden
      c. The Boy Scouts
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
      a. A pizza delivery boy
      b. Pee Wee Herman
      c. Geraldo Rivera
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
      a. The Smurfs
      b. Davey Jones
      c. The Little Mermaid
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
      a. Captain Kidd
      b. Charles Lindberg
      c. Mother Teresa
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
      a. Scooby Doo
      b. The Tooth Fairy and The Sundance Kid
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
      a. Richard Simmons
      b. Grandma Moses
      c. Michael Jordan
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
      a. Mr. Rogers
      b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill’s women problems
      c. The World Wrestling Federation
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
      a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
      b. The Supreme Court of Florida
      c. Mr. Bean
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
      a. Enron
      b. The Lutheran Church
      c. The NFL
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
      a. Bonnie and Clyde
      b. Captain Kangaroo
      c. Billy Graham
      d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

      Nope, I really don’t see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling. Let’s send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves — if they have any such sense. As the writer of the award winning story “Forrest Gump” so aptly put it, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

      • I never said that Muslims have never done anything. I only say that it is wrong for the atheis down the street to party while the muslim downtown is being interrogated. I regret the losses of 9/11 but it still doesnt mean all muslims are bad. I know multiple muslims myself and they have insisted that the extremists actions are strictly forbidden in Islam

        • The kor an states that a mus lim can lie if it benefits Is lam. What else would you expect them to tell you and everybody else? When push comes to shove, or when they out number us, then you will see where their loyalty lies. If they turn on their brother it is grounds for dea th.

      • Let me just list these…
        Timothy McVeigh (Christian)
        Columbine shooters (whatever)
        Eric Rudolph (abortion clinic bomber)
        Ted Kazinski (unabomber)
        Ted Bundy (serial killer)
        Adolph Hitler (christian)
        Joseph Stalin (atheist)
        John Wayne Gacey (serial killer)
        Jim Jones (evangelist kool-aid killer)
        I think I made a point…there have been some pretty sick non-muslims out there.
        lets not forget the Norway shooter he was pro Israel and anti-muslim!

      • Um I think 12angrymen is just trying to prove a point that there is a clear pattern of violence against the US by muslim extremists. I don’t think he is saying that all muslims are a threat to the US the religion teaches to love others just like Christianity. However there is a point we are all missing.
        One of the safest airports in the world is the Ben Gurion International Airport in the MIDDLE EAST, one of the safest airports in the world is in the middle east really?? Yes it is GOOGLE it, one of the reasons it is so safe is not because they pat down every Man Woman and Child in the place it is because they PROFILE Every single person that walks in the door. OH yes I wrote the dirty word profile. They monitor everyone that comes in the building and profile them based on a point system if you are a certain race you get a few risk points if you look nervous and have an elevated heart rate you get more points. They have people in uniform and not in uniform monitoring and watching everyone, they focus on people with risk points and watch them very closely. They have cameras with programs that look for micro-expressions that can tell how people are feeling and if their purpose is to travel or something else. This much is very clear going after the bomb the person takes onto the plane is not going to work we have to go after the people with the bomb before they get on the plane and to do that we have to profile people of high risk thats all there is to it. there is no politically correct way to do security.

    • IamSparta, What you say would be wasting everyone’s time and resources. Example: If a white person robbed a bank, would it be logical to search all white, black, and monguloid suspects???


    I thought this was a fair debate. I am concerned over some of Ron Paul’s antiquated ideas, which seem better suited for bygone eras. Also, he doesn’t understand the importance of Israel. I think Paul posits some valid observations; however, having a bunch of different laws on various topics such as marriage and abortion from state to state doesn’t seem like it would help to unite anything.
    Another concern over Paul is that he seems impotent (not just in his political policies). When juxtaposed with Obama, Paul would not only look esthetically feeble, he would appear charismatically deficient. Also, though he doesn’t seem like an immoral individual, his positions and policies do not make me feel like he is particularly concerned with the moral implications that certain policies would have on society in general. Legalizing hard narcotics doesn’t seem like the morally right direction for the country and is just one reason that I question Paul’s judgment/ability to lead.
    Furthermore, I will not vote for any candidate that advocates abortion at any level (including leaving it for the states to decide). Therefore, if it were between Paul and Obama, I feel that I have no real choice and would most likely withhold my vote. I comprised my values once with John McCain and will refrain from that this time GOP!

    • So enlighten us on the importance of Israel… Oh are you referring to their anointed position at the right hand of the magical sky daddy? Give me a break! Talk about antiquated ideas! Any other notions from the Bronze Age you’re clinging to?

      Having a bunch of different laws on various topics is what the United States was founded on! Wow! The Constitution was the unifying piece and all other laws should be delegated to the states. That’s the whole point!

      It is also not the job of the government to protect us from ourselves. We can all see what a bang up job they’ve done of that so far! Personally, I don’t want you or anyone else deciding my “moral direction” as I’m certain we have some differing ideas.

      It is quite obvious that so many on here are very brainwashed by the magic box in their living rooms that it would be to everyone’s benefit if they simply not vote as they could not possibly do so intelligently.

      • Truth is never antiquated no matter how passe you might feel it be. Nevertheless, you are free to have your religion, whether it be science theory, Buddhism, or Christianity ect.

        love to you friend

        • Jethro

          1 “I thought this was a fair debate. I am concerned over some of Ron Paul’s antiquated ideas, which seem better suited for bygone eras”.

          2 “Truth is never antiquated no matter how passe you might feel it be”.

          Your statements, Right the second time!

          Ron Paul 2012

    • Jethro, I don’t think you have actually read and studied Dr. Paul’s positions on these issues. You really should do that. Read all his own position statements, not journalist reports about them, or voter-guide synopsis of them.

      One MAJOR misunderstanding – to Dr. Paul, while his own beliefs matter, they do not matter when it comes to determining the LEGALITY of a thing. That is a matter of law, not of beliefs. It does not matter what his view may be on the sense of having drug laws – the fact is that such laws are NOT LEGAL. Has anything in the US Constitution changed since the 18th and 21st amendments that relates to the issue of substance use/abuse? No. Therefore, any honest and thinking person has to admit that either the 18th amendment was actually NOT NECESSARY, or else drug laws today are entirely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It simply cannot be both ways at once. I, for one, do not believe that the entire country spent well over a year debating, passing, and ratifying an amendment giving the federal government a power that it already possessed, and a simple reading of the Constitution will back that up. If we needed it then (to make an anti-substance-use law), then we need it now (to do the same thing).

      Also, Dr. Paul has authored many bills in Congress aimed at ENDING abortion. Did you know that? Did you know that he was one of the first to do so after the Roe-v-Wade decision by the SCOTUS? Do you know that the Personhood USA movement is years behind Dr. Paul’s “Sanctity of Life” bill, which designated an unborn human as a “person”, entitled to full protection under the Constitution, from the MOMENT OF CONCEPTION? There are few politicians who are more staunchly anti-abortion than Dr. Paul. But Dr. Paul is honest and ethical enough to stand up and say “no matter what I believe, there is no clear provision for federal laws on this subject in the US Constitution, so we should not have such laws.” He further understands the tremendous difficulty (i.e. near futility) in trying to pass an anti-abortion Amendment, which is why he has crafted bills to yield the SAME EFFECT WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT. (see his “We the People Act” as well as the aforementioned “Sanctity of Life Act”).

      Dr. Paul is like a driver out on the highway in rural Montana who says “my Corvette will safely and comfortably do 120 mph on this road, and I would really like to do 120 mph on this road, but the state law says I can only do 75 mph so until I can find a way to get the law changed, I’ll have to continue to do only 75 mph.

      On the foreign policy front, I have a question for you. Have you thought about the ramifications of our new embassy city complex in Baghdad? It is the largest in the world, even bigger than Vatican City, and it is smack in the middle of a country where a great many of the local people do NOT want us. Would you be very surprised to see an Iraqi national bomb our embassy? Do you see the parallel to our general foreign policy of having armed forces in 2/3 of the other nations of the world?

      • Neville, Your speed limit example is cute, and close to Paul’s thought, but not exactly. I think Ron would not just increase the speed limit, He would eliminate it. Everyone should be able to go as fast as they want. That would cause many to have tragic accidents. I don’t think that is what we want. Another thought on Ron Paul; Most Democrats will vote for a Democrat. Most Republicans will vote for a Republican. So with Ron Paul being a
        Libertarian, It just does not seem logical that he is a viable canidate for the Republican Party.

        • My analogy may not be perfect, but it is not far off (by the way, Montana does have de facto unlimited rural highway speeds, even though they do have official posted limits). In my analogy, I would not be adverse to his waiting to lift the limit entirely, as I am confident that he would also require stringent personal-responsibility laws.

          Re. the “the Dems are for the Dems” idea, I really don’t think you’re right. There are many disaffected Democrats today. And there were many disaffected Republicans who voted for Obama. Are you following the polls coming out of Iowa? They show exactly the opposite of what you conjecture. Democrats are crossing over and independents are committing to Paul. I think that most of the rest of the GOP field is so insanely partisan that there is no chance they would bring over Dems and Independents. Ron Paul is the only one that I can see bring over any significant crossover vote, and that is what will be needed to sink Mr. Obama’s boat. (I have to say that I think Gary Johnson could bring significant crossover votes as well, but the national media has effectively marginalized him out of the discussion, which is a shame because he has a far better “Republican” track record than either of the other former governors, and would also really help to stir up the pot and get people really talking about issues instead of mostly just gang-bashing Mr. Obama.

    • Jethro, I get the impression that you sincerely wish to know the truth and vote for it. That is good, but unfortunately, the truth is not what you have been led to understand about the law or Ron Paul’s views regarding it. Please read the comment by Neville on this subject. I read through it and it appears to be correct.
      First, you stated:

      “having a bunch of different laws on various topics such as marriage and abortion from state to state doesn’t seem like it would help to unite anything.”

      Now why do you think that this would be bad? The USA is not (as many would have you believe) a melting pot where everybody ends up with the same ideas, nor is it a country where states should be forced into conformity with things outside the constitution. The USA is meant to be a federation of sovereign States unified under a single common law (the constitution). That does not mean that the States should have the same civil laws all around. So I am at a loss as to why you think that this would be a bad thing.
      Now next you said:

      “Another concern over Paul is that he seems impotent (not just in his political policies). When juxtaposed with Obama, Paul would not only look esthetically feeble, he would appear charismatically deficient.”

      Now, forgive me, but this seems totally unfounded, in-so-much as to have surpassed the ridiculous. What in the world does his level of esthetics and charisma have to do with his ability to lead our country? Obama, as you so eloquently pointed out, has plenty of both and happens to be, perhaps, the worst president in the history of this country. On the other hand, we have countless examples in history of people with less ability to draw popularity from personal charms having a much greater ability and willingness to do what is most needed. There are even examples in the Bible. Forgive me if I sound harsh, but I think that coming down on ANYBODY at all for such things is very shallow and short sided.
      Now, you said that you thought that legalizing strong narcotics is immoral. Well to that I have a couple things to say. Alcohol and cigarettes kill many more people than do the drugs that have been illegalized. Does that mean that they should be illegal too? I don’t think so. They are not immoral things. I got the impression that you were a Christian, so perhaps this will matter to you. The Bible never says anything about drugs, alcohol, or anything like them being wrong. It does say the getting drunk is wrong, but even Jesus was known to drink alcohol. He sad so himself. So I think there is no legitimate argument form a moral standpoint to say the drugs are wrong. However, as we both know, those things are very harmful to people. But, as Deacon pointed out, it is not the government’s job to protect us from ourselves. That is our job. But regardless of these things, take what Dr. Paul actually said in the debate. He said that the war on drugs has been entirely unsuccessful and has wasted countless tax payer dollars. That does become a moral issue because at this point, the government is wasting money that was entrusted to it for the purpose of furthering the interests of the country and not for the purpose of continuing a lost fight that was unlawful to begin with.
      And as to abortion, I do not understand how so many people come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is not against abortion. He has always been against abortion. He thinks of it as nothing less than murder, which is what it is, and he has always fought against it. Neville presented some more specific data on the subject, but the point is that you are misinformed if you think that Ron Paul “advocates abortion.” That is simply false.
      I know I have included some strong language, and I hope it is not offensive; I did not intend it to be so. I have spoken that which I believe to be true. I sincerely hope that you will change your mind concerning Ron Paul. He is not who you seem to believe him to be.

      P.S: Deacon, your opening paragraph seemed very atheistic. If that is your view of God, then I feel sorry for you. You have no idea what you are missing. And what you will miss ultimately if you continue in such a belief. God is not a myth; He is alive and powerful. And He will punish unbelief. But if it interests you, you should know that the Bible has been often confirmed in many historical things by Christian as well as atheist scholars. Do your research. The Bible is not false.

        • Actually, the word used is “pharmakia”, which has a very general meaning that includes using substances as medicine. The Apostle Shaul (aka Paul) recommended the naturally-occurring drug ethyl alcohol as medicine to Timothy, and also taught that self-control and moderation were to govern our behavior. Clearly, from the context of scripture, there is something different going on than a blanket ban of “drugs”.

  12. Loved it!
    This debate had the BEST questions- especially the last one. Having the contrasting viewpoints was extremely valuable for rounding out the conversations. The winners of this debate, in my opinion:

    Bachmann- she is extremely familiar with the current state of affairs. She was very straightforward and explained things concisely. Regarding Pakistan, she was very diplomatic, but said it all short of calling them a thuggish double-agent, which would be a concept the even Rick Perry could understand.

    Paul- Served his position well as the watchman on the tower regarding civil liberties.

    Gingrich- His “work smarter, not harder” approach to almost all the questions. Sum him up: “If we get rid of bottlenecks, there will be more than enough money and resources to make all our problems go away.”

    Romney- standing up for the idea of the US as the benevolent superpower as opposed to the false premise of shared world power.

    Huntsman- Calling a spade a spade in regards to the tug-o-war in the middle east being actually between China/Russia vs. the US. Somebody should have mentioned the fact that those Arab nations are all rabid dogs on leashes.

    Audience- What a brain trust that attended!

    Losers of the evening:

    Paul- It is naive in the extreme to assume that the ONLY reason that Muslim extremists target the US is because we meddle. Prader sums of the entire middle East situation well- “One side wants to kill the other. If Isreal out down there arms and called for peace, they would be destroyed overnight. If the Arab nations put down their arms and called for peace, there would be peace overnight.” Muslims are aggressors the world over, and they will not not stop until they have taken over the world. Period. Paul is right about what we can afford under the current paradigm, but as Gingrich pointed out, there are nothing but options everywhere. Paul is also incorrect in his assumption that all nations should have equal power and authority. Not so. History proves that there will always be a superpower. It will either be a benevolent leader (US) or a dictator (China).

    Huntsman- Came across as cynical and negative about the future.

    Perry- Seemed a little overwhelmed.

  13. At 22:16, Mitt Romney said that we can’t pull up stakes in Pakistan and leave after we’ve spent so much money there (or something to that effect). Unfortunately, you should NEVER make decisions based on sunk cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs). The money we’ve already spent is not recoverable and should NEVER be used as a basis for decisions. Decisions should be based on possible future costs and outcomes and whether ADDITIONAL money spent will achieve an outcome worth that amount of money.

  14. As much as these candidates are debating over and over again, how many of them can we actually trust and believe. I think all of them are just appeasing us, saying what we would like to hear and then once they are in office, they do whatever they want. We have this happened over and over and over and yet we still have not learned our lesson.
    With that said, Ron Paul may somewhat seem radical, makes more sense than all of them because he is not saying what we like to hear, but actually giving alternative view of solutions to all of our problems. Looking back at how our founding father built this country is not antiquate. It is the foundation of our constitution and our rights. Yes, Ron Paul does not “look” like a pretty president but he might just have the right idea, radical, different and it may actually work if we give it a chance.

    Please, people be more open minded rather than set in your ways and continue to follow the herd. Get the courage to stand up, listen with open ears, eyes, mind and heart to this new idea of something radical, and back to the foundation of what our founding fathers built.

  15. Did anyone hear Rick Perry at the middle of the debate? According to Perry, half of a trillion dollars is five hundred million dollars. America wants a president who can’t count, right? That’s a good thing, right?

  16. Ron Paul is the only SANE one in the bunch. Most Americans need a serious PARADIGM shift in their thinking. The US has been global imperialistic goons since the Spanish-American war. Read Smedley Butler, read Stephen Kinzer (Regime Change). Our CIA has wrought havoc, and blood. We go from one boogie man to the next e.g Communism to Terrorism. All the other candidates rest are corporate SCHILLS who want to perpetuate MSM lies. The Corps only want to MAXIMIZE profit, protect US petrodollar AND US dollar hegemony. Controlling resources of the World, finding new SLAVE labor (China), and protecting BANKING interests is what it’s all about. US taxpayers will foot the bill, whether it is overstretched global empire OR out of control BIG government. To Washington your just a NUMBER, if anyone seriously thinks ‘they’ care about you, needs therapy. Some people have ‘awaken’, will YOU !!!

  17. 12angrymen, my point was not that muslims have never done anything, it was that not every muslim the moment their born should have a camera up their faces all the time. It takes away our rights to privacy. Furthermore, you have only listed attacks caused by ,muslims yet I assure they are not the terrorists out there

  18. Targeting all Muslims in general is a form of racism. You should not be targeted and watched for your beliefs. We have the right to life, libery, and property. Watching people for being Muslim is not liberous.

  19. Newt Gingrich represents exactly what the Occupy Wall Street crowds are against. He has always been in the hip pockets of the big corporations–and now the corporate3-controlled media are getting behind him and anointing him the way they did McCain. Apparently, he wants to create a sub-class of stoop labors ineligible to citizenship—but he knows that arrangement will be short-lived as soon as it is challenged in the Supreme Court. For an old Plantation Politician, a sub-class of laborers sounds consistent with his historical self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement as a member of the elite class. Gingrich is a Fellow of the Council of Foreign Relations, an “open borders” think tank dedicated to the unilateral surrender of American sovereignty; they push for American leadership to achieve one-world government. Gingrich will also push for an amnesty for over 30 million illegal aliens–aliens who are taking our jobs and our tax money for their entitlements–and they send a god bit of their welfare checks home to relatives, causing an imbalance of payments. Illegal emigration to the U.S. is the bargaining chip of the international corporation–used to keep third-world governments happy. The U.S. is a safety valve to enable third-world oligarchs to get rid of potential third-world fomentation of revolution–and keep the “remittances” flowing back home to relatives. The tax-payers pick up the tab to keep good relations between American exported industry and their third-world host governments.

    • Russ Spencer, When did you find out what the OWS people wanted??? I never realized that they even knew. What facts are you basing Newt Gingrich’s connection to the New World Order? I think you have been reading too many leftist news articles. Why do you think there will be a lower class of people by giving illegal already in our country the ability to stay and earn citizenship? (if they wish). Wouldn’t that be better than what they have? I would like to point out that most states have a statute of limitation. The ones I know is; 4 years after discovery, or 20 years of non discovery. Newts’s suggestion of 25 years exceed that. (for consistent law abiding illegal.) I really don’t have an opinion on the immigration change he suggests, and I would not change my vote either way. In any case, it would have to go through congress. It would be decided at that time. I think the Democrats think Newt will win the election. That is why they keep fighting against him so fiercely.

    • Russ Spencer

      It’s nice to read your informed comments I hope it leads to more posts enlightening readers about the real Newt Gingrich!

      Ron Paul 2012

  20. For the last time why do so many of you trust Newt Ginrich? He resigned from the House umph years ago for writing bogus checks and he resigned.
    Now he’s one of the major reasons the housing industry is failing. Accepting $1.6 million to influence Congress and turn the other cheek.
    He is a lobbying crook and he can’t be trusted. Anybody who votes this clown in is clearly absolutely uneducated.
    This is the problem with America just relying on the Media and following the in crowd!!

    • You keep embarassing yourself. Please stop. Clinton was the one that started the housing problem. I remember the check incident. The banks gave congressment guarentted checks, then stopped the proactice with out telling them. Newt was not the only person caught in the situation. He did not resign due to that. You are wrong about Newt getting $1.6M. His business was hired to advise Sally/Freddy. His company gave advice and was paid for the service. Newt did not lobby for them…Lobbying is going before congressmen and trying to influence them to change law. That is not the same as a private company advising another private company. Please stop reading left leaning news papers. They can’t be trusted. Please read your last sentence.

    • Mr. Stickney,
      You keep insisting that anyone for Newt is just following the crowd and listening to the Media. The people that are serious about this election are researching and doing their homework. B. Anderson is right. Newt G. has never been a lobbyist. He ran a consulting business and was paid for that service. He was not in public office at the time.
      Each time I hear a negative on Newt, I research it. I do not blindly follow a candidate just because they rise in the polls. I also look at voting record, even for those candidates that I do not like. For those Ron Paul fans I would say that they need to get in touch with the campaign leaders and let them know that some of Paul’s problem is that he does not articulate his message well. I have read some of the comments stating what Paul believes. If these comment are correct, and Paul’s supporters have to keep telling others what he believes then it means that he is not getting his message out crystal clear in the debates where most people will hear what he says.

      • K-bow
        I have to acknowledge what Ron Paul admits. He is constantly self-critical in trying to improve getting his message out, but for myself and millions of supporters, his concise, and truthful message cuts through the rhetoric cleanly and simply, clearly heard through and above the muddled rhetorical fears, defenses and flowery presentations of old false idealism. It’s time to take care of our house now.
        RON PAUL 2012

  21. I don’t want Obama to win. I think the only GOP candidate to make that reality is Ron Paul. The other leading GOP candidates are too political – using rhetoric, charisma, and the media to gain popularity. They all basically have a similar message, just some of them say it better than the others or tailor their message to what’s popular at the time. However, unfortunately, in a general election Obama has superior rhetoric and media appeal than the field of GOP candidates. I think we (meaning most of America) can all agree that Obama doesn’t have great ideas or convictions, so why does he win elections? (see prior sentence for the answer).

    The only way to defeat rhetoric is to have truth, morality, and the law on your side. Paul has that. The other conservative candidates want to go in the right direction but they lack a fundamental understanding of conservative concepts and why they work. Without a candidate to choose from that has this strong conviction and understanding, the general election will become a charisma/popularity contest. One that GOP candidates are likely to lose to someone as political and charismatic as Obama. If Obama has to face Paul’s unwavering political convictions, morality, and adherence to the constitution, America will hopefully wise up and side with Ron Paul. I applaud Paul’s efforts in seeking the GOP nomination and serving our country.

  22. My biggest problem with Newt Gingrich is that he is an admitted, unrepentant, serial adulterer. If a man proves he cannot be trusted with that most sacred vow, and never admits that what he did was wrong, but asks the people to allow him to put it behind him and move on, then I would expect that man to behave the same way in the future – making promises, lying and breaking his promises, and later asking the country to ignore it because it is all “water under the bridge”.

    Unrepentant liars/adulterers are not fit for office.

    • As regarding Newt Gingrich, I think on many issues he is right on, but on a few key ones, he is wrong, and therefore will not have my support. I wholly agree with what Neville said, but some other things that came to my attention in this debate made me like him much less as a candidate (though I have always loved his style of debating =)).
      One thing that really disappointed me was that he claimed support of the USA Patriot Act (Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Now, if you just read the title, it sounds good, but anybody who spends 2 minutes reading up about it will discover that it is anything but patriotic and seems more designed to do away with as many civil liberties as possible within the cover of a single unconstitutional law. Newt’s support of this is nearly unforgivable in my eyes.
      Also, he seemed indisposed to end all of our illegal and unnecessary foreign wars which are killing our soldiers without reason, spending citizens money unlawfully, and inciting malice against our country worldwide without necessity. That is one of the biggest issues that I look at in a candidate. As Newt Gingrich appears to be in support of these wars, he will not find my support beneath him.

    • Neville, You must have missed the November 19th debate. It was not on TV. Newt Gindrich admitted his past faults. He stated his faith and repentance. If God forgives and paid for his sin, who are we to argue with that? However being a cheating, lying low down person has not kept a anyone out of the office yet. As far as the Mormon canidates not showing up. I do not know why they did not show. It could be because Mormonism is a secret society. They may have not wanted to disclose the Mormon beliefs and the Morman requirements, nor to air their sacred underware. (TIC)

      • In fact, I have not watched all of that “debate” (more of a discussion forum, really). I have watched some. My family has all watched it, and I asked my son about your statement. He said he specifically listened for what Gingrich would say about this topic and that he recalls him not saying anything about it. I guess I’ll have to watch it for myself.

        • I jut finished watching it I didn’t hear Gingrich say anything about it. If you have the time index into the video I’ll be glad to listten/watch again.

          • Neville, You need to watch the Iowa Church video again. I am not going to watch the entire Iowa Church discussion to get the exact times as you request. However I was very receptive of his answers to the personnel questions he was asked. I saw his answers are rooted in faith. I was not the only one that noticed his change from 20 years ago. It was even noted by news commentators on at least one major network. He is not longer the radical hot head he was. Even though I am not Catholic, and do not go along with a lot of their doctrine, I have respect for their belief. If you would like more about his conversion go to: http://www.gingrichproductions.com/reagan/newt-gingrich-why-i-became-catholic.html

            Hope this will answer your question…

    • Neville
      I agree and add that lying, cheating, low down sneaky two-faced Newt Gingrich will never get my vote no matter how he sweetens the deal. I am not stupid enough to believe his nature has changed no matter if he repented or not, he has to prove it and live it. That takes years. My Presidential candidate must be of the best character and have the soundest plan to lead. Ron Paul has lived and worked honorably for 30 years. He has never compromised.


  23. We are over-stretched militarily, and bankrupt. Oceans are a natural obstical especially with the #1 navy in the world. Bring our troops home would streaghthen our defence and cost a hell of a lot less money.

    • Shawn, Your statement indicates you have never been in the military. Oceans no longer protect us. Bringing troops home means no overseas staging areas. That is a military blunder…and how would bringing troops home strengthen them? With no defence, we have nothing to defend. Your saved dollars would be worthless.

      • Yes I was in the military. How do Oceans protect us? By being an obstical one would have to cross to get to us. When I say home I mean within the United States, not to disband them. And when I say over-stetched I mean like what happened to Hitler in Russia. Getting out of defending Afganistan, Pakastan, Iran, Iraq, Yemman, Korea, Italy, Germany, Syria, Libia, Isreal, etc. etc. Would mean we defend Less of an area you see? Think of the battle of Thermopylae 300 spartans against God knows how many Persians. More force per Sector. Did you misunderstand me or something?

        • Shawn, Having troops only within our US borders mean that every battle would be fought on our property. Every civilian killed or injured, or factory destroied would be one of ours. That just is not a good idea.

          • Shawn, The chief reason they hate us is because we are friends with, and would defend Israel. If we let them, they would attack no matter where our troops are. Their hate goes back to Abraham. (and I don’t mean Lincoln)

          • Shawn, Israel has enough sense not to use the nukes as first attack. Their enemies do not have that intelligence. If they get a nuke, they will use it. Also in order to keep correspondence clear, put the name who you are addressing as first word. Thanks

          • Shawn 2:02 comment. History tells us your thinking is incorrect, about them attacking because we were “over there”. Please research when our country was first established, they attacked us, and demanded tribute. We were not “over there”.

          • Shawn, 2:39 comment. Yes. You don’t understand their deep seated hate? They do not care about their own citizens. Their leaders have committed countless attrocities agaist their own.

          • Anderson `Well I believe you are wrong sir. I think our economy is threatening our national security and a war on “terrorism” is as futile as a war on “bad thinking”. As terrorism has been around since time began. But go on bahhing.

          • Shawn, Our main problem is spending money we don’t have. National defence is one of the duties of the president. It won’t be defunded. However there is room for savings. The decrease in the automatic increase of the defence budget should not affect the military, in spite of what the media wants us to believe… I must be going along. I hope anyone who reads this will think before they vote. Have a good evening…BA

  24. I would not worry about any canidate’s pet projects, or campaign promises, or major changes to the tax code. The only way any change can happen is to go through Congress. It would take a lot of convincing and time to get anything unusual into law. The Democrats are the only party that would put stupid procedures (like Obama Care and spending money we do not have) into law. Republicans have more smarts than that.

    Hope you had a good Thanksgiving!

    • B Anderson: Your point is the best point I’ve read. If a citizen fears the platform of a candidate, he/she needs to consider that there are checks and balances of power. The president is not a dictator. The president cannot pass laws without the Congress. None of the candidates can implement their full agenda without the support of the Congress, who we (the people) vote into and out of power. Too much naive fear-mongering on all the comments’ sections (not just here, I mean all over the Internet.)

  25. Chris: The president is not a dictator, but if the past 50 years are any indication, we are certainly moving in that direction. We need a president that reinforces the system of checks and balances not one that wants to ignore them.

    Fear-mongering and war-mongering is what these candidates are doing (with the exception of Ron Paul). All the candidates (besides Paul) agreed that it would be ok for the US to take action (military, or otherwise) against, the entire Middle East, China, Mexico, Venezuela, parts of Africa, and (most importantly) our own Citizens. That’s at least half the world! I don’t want to potentially piss off half the world. That will surely lead to increased terrorist attacks that the candidates (besides Paul) assured us we could look forward to in the future.

    Their only disagreement was on the scale of involvement and tactics to be used in this foreign meddling. However, they (meaning everyone but Ron Paul) did agree on a few items like using torture as an interrogation technique, assassinating US Citizens, and suspending or sacrificing the privacy rights of US Citizens in the name of National Defense.

    If one of these candidates achieves the presidency, I would hope that the constitutional series of checks and balances prevents them from instituting their radical, dangerous, and expensive foreign policies. However, we already have set a precedent that says it’s ok to ignore the constitution (the health-care bill being just one example of many). I’d feel much safer and secure with president like Ron Paul that wouldn’t pursue these reckless policies to begin with.

    I’m all for preventing terrorism and attacking terrorist groups, but let’s do it without sacrificing our individual liberties and do it in a way that sends a message to the rest of the world that we are just attacking terrorists: not nation building, not to control oil, the economies, or politics of other countries, not torturing, just stopping terrorists – period.

  26. I have no idea how Herman Cain is polling so high. He is clueless! Romney is a war monger. Santorum, a racist. I appreciate Gingrich’s immigration view…very balanced and compassionate. But Ron Paul is the only logical choice for president. Before you go discounting Dr. Paul’s foreign policy, you should take note that he received an enormous amount of support from the men and women of the armed services. His message resonates with those of us who wonder what the hell we are doing in all these unconstitutional wars! RON PAUL for PRESIDENT!

  27. Shawn of 2:39 comment, Oh man that was a knee slapper, stop, and think for a minute Shawn, you’re saying that, The religious group whose main weapon of terror is to blow them selves and everyone in the blast radius around them up, and calls this martyrdom, wouldn’t commit suicide, oh Jesus, I’ve heard some ignorant comments, but that takes the cake, and the ice cream, and the cherry with it. Oh just to back this up Mahmoud Im-a-nut-job, or Ahkmadinajhad, has stated, and I quote, “I would gladly sacrifice Tehran (that’s the capital of Iran, Shawn) for the destruction of Tel Aviv” (that’s the capital of Israel, Shawn). And lastly Shawn, No you are not formerly from the Military, because nobody in the Military says, “Yes, I was military!” they’d say, “bullsh**, I was in Army/Marines?Air Force/ Navy, give you their unit, place they were stationed, and most likely P.O.S, along with whether or not they saw any action. You sir, lied to us to gain credibility, and should not be trusted, stop watching MSN, and reading your New York Times, and get some real info, before you make a jackass out of yourself. And don’t go look up some unit to counter me, I called you on it, and if you were militarily trained, you’d take it like a man.

    • Devils in the Details, Thanks for your input. I could never prononce Iran’s leaders name, much less spell it.

    • Devil in the Details: I was in the 82nd Airborne. The leaders dont blow themselves up they get others to do it. Do you honestly think they have the technology to “put it in a breifcase” when its going to take years to make a “standard nuke”. They dont have the technology to reach us with a missle either. Why dont you do some research. Your just a sheeple who is willing to digest any and everthing the main stream media will tell you.

    • But if you wont listen to me maybe youll listen to Benjamin Franklin
      Those who would give up Essential Liberty
      to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
      deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    • And here is some additional information, plz try and think for yourself if you can.

      “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder
      interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in
      the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers
      in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the
      policy of the daily press. … They found it was only necessary to purchase the
      control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of
      the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for
      each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions
      of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national
      and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”
      — Oscar Callaway
      (1872-1947) U.S. Congressman, TX-D (1911-1917)

      “The whole profit of the issuance of money has provided the capital of
      the great banking business as it exists today. Starting with nothing
      whatever of their own, they have got the whole world into their debt
      irredeemably, by a trick.
      This money comes into existence every time the banks ‘lend’ and
      disappears every time the debt is repaid to them. So that if industry
      tries to repay, the money of the nation disappears. This is what makes
      prosperity so ‘dangerous’ as it destroys money just when it is most
      needed and precipitates a slump.
      There is nothing left now for us but to get ever deeper and deeper
      into debt to the banking system in order to provide the increasing
      amounts of money the nation requires for its expansion and growth.
      An honest money system is the only alternative.”
      — Frederick Soddy
      (1877-1956) British author, professor, Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1921

  28. B. Anderson,

    I read the page you linked at Gingrich Productions. It didn’t say anything about the issue of sin and repentance in general, and definitely did not address documented instances of lying and adultery. I did not support James Earl Carter in any of his bids for the presidency, but I do highly respect him for his honest and biblical public assessment of certain sin in his own life”
    ” I try not to commit a deliberate sin. I recognize that I’m going to do it anyhow, because I’m human and I’m tempted. And Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. Christ said, ‘I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.’
    “I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do–and I have done it–and God forgives me for it.”

    Newt Gingrich does not need to ask me or you for forgiveness for his acts of adultery. He needs to ask Marianne and Jackie, and his children. He needs to ask Callista forgiveness for involving her and ruining her life. Perhaps he has done that. If he has, then they are bound to forgive him (at least, if they want God to forgive them their own sins). As far as I know, he is not cheating on his current wife. He makes statements that sound like he has, indeed, had some major turnarounds in his life. But these particular sins were very public, committed by a very public figure held in a very high position of trust by a great many people. I believe he needs to pointedly address his violation of their trust – his deception and duplicity – in order for it to be properly put to rest.

    The fact is that Newt is now a serial liar and adulterer, a repeat offender who has created his own consequences. The main question for me is not “did he really deal with this with God and his victims?”, but rather “should I really trust this man in the future to yield great power in an honest and ethical manner?” As it stands right now, he has not said or done anything that would make me answer “Yes” to that question, and therefore I cannot possibly support him for the presidency.

    I had the same problem (among others) with John McCain, over his oath-breaking and adultery, and with Mike Huckabee over his lying about the budget and finances of Arkansas schools. Trust is a very VERY important think to have in/for a president, and I cannot see how I can or should trust a liar. This, just for the record, is also one of my big problems with Perry and Cain. Santorum stikes me as pretty honest and consistent but he is a whiner and self-aggrandizer. Romney and Huntsman are out, for me, because (again, among other things) they do not place their first allegiance to Yahweh, but to a man sitting in a temple office in SLC. Bachmann seems to, like Santorum, be honest and sincere, but she has political positions that are in violation of both the word and spirit of our Constitution. (technically, then, she has broken her oath of office but I think she doesn’t actually understand that – maybe I’m being too generous in that, I don’t know).

    • Neville, You have good points. None of our canadates are perfect, or fully qualiffied. We must decide who would be best for our county. That is what this is all about. A point of my belief; Jesus died for the sins of everyone, lost and saved. That is the Good News of the New Testament. Sin is no longer a factor to be saved. Sin has already been delt with. The sin debt has been paid in full. On the cross, Jesus said “It is finished” If a preson sins again (and we will) we will still be saved. If a person sins against another person, they should repent and ask forgiveness from that person, but repenting or not does not affect salvation. God does not always relieve us from the consequences of our sin.

      I have a lot of ideas that differ from many. Example; A politician that flip flops. In many instances, it tells me that the canadate has the ability to learn, or is able to change actions to the need of the time. I think that would be a positive.

    • Neville, Newt had to go through many lessons and take oaths to God and the Church, before he would have been accepted into the Catholic Church. When Newt said he converted, that was proof enough.

      • I don’t know what point you were trying to address. Perhaps you meant to reply to a different comment, and accidentally put it here. ??

        I will say that I don’t understand your notions of trust and trustworthiness. You stated earlier that it didn’t matter if Cain did all the things of which he’s been accused (which, of course, includes lying about them). You said that even if he did those things that you would still support him (behind Gingrich). I don’t see how anyone can support a leader that they can’t trust, and I don’t see how anyone can trust a leader that lied to them (and lied repeatedly), and I especially don’t see how anyone think a leader is trustworthy if that man has just been caught lying to his wife for 14 years. When you take positions like that, I think it shows that you steward your God-given gift of the vote using incredibly poor judgement. You are saying, in effect, “I don’t care how untrustworthy this person proves himself to be, I will nevertheless trust him to lead our country.” It makes no sense whatsoever.

  29. Shawn: I support ya brother.

    Do all you military guys actually think 911 was really a plot soley by osama bin ladin too? Do you really think those planes took those two buildings out completely all the way to the ground? Do you really think the fires in building 3 actually make it collapse when in the history of the world no steel building has ever collapsed from a fire? Do you guys really think it was right for the bush administration to cover up the pentagon lawn within a day or so of the plane hitting? What about the thermite on the steel??? There is more proof to prove it was a inside job then there is to prove it was not!!!!

    Wake up all you “military” guys, your all a bunch of pawns being used by our government to fight illegal wars for nothing more then $$$$ and you should be outraged.

    • Joe, you have been reading too many booger blogs. There have been documentaries on TV that explain the construction flaws of the twin towers. An additionl duty I had in the military was diaster prepardness. Blocking and covering a aircraft crash area is normal procedure. We may be pawns, but we are not stupid.

    • Joe, We know a Democrat by how they talk. In the last years they blame Clinton’s and Obama’s blunders on Bush. They are rude, use fictitious information as fact, and intrude in forums where they do not belong. I know it is futile to ask, but To all Democrats: Please have the courtesy not to interrupt a Republican forum.

      • B Anderson

        2012 Election Central is an open forum please have the courtesy to inform yourself properly before attempting to instruct others. You are embarrassing yourself again.

        Ron Paul 2012

    • Um Joe I hate to break it to you but 911 was not an inside job…..

      It doesn’t matter what “evidence” you have it just isn’t possible or probable that the government could have pulled this sort of thing off here is my main pieces of evidence.

      1) Only roughly twelve percent of US imported oil comes from the middle east specifically Iraq and Kuwait most of our oil comes from countries that are closer to us. So the claim that the government caused 911 to get oil and money is false.

      2) The amount of money and planning that it would take to pull off such a conspiracy would not just span that of President Bush’s Presidency but many of the previous ones as well. Meaning that everyone associated with the last couple presidents (cabinet and appointees for all) would have had to be in on it. As well as the heads of military and heads of congress do you have any idea how many people that is?? That is way to many people involved to fool an entire nation and the rest of the world. AND all these people would have to be influenced or under the leadership of someone else which brings us to another conspiracy…. ALIENS must have had control of all the people needed to pull this off.

      3) the amount of money that would have been spent to pull off a plan of this enormity would have been far greater than the cost of just drilling for our own oil here in the US we have more than enough oil not only off shore but inland as well. so claiming that we did it for the oil is just stupid

      The only other conspiracy I can think of that is even close to the enormity that this claim has is that there are actually people out there that think we didn’t go to the moon. Both of these conspiracies are comparable because of the amount of people and money and planning that it would involve to actually pull these things off.

      Now I have reviewed all the evidence for both sides of each of these arguments and I tend to think that the government was not founded to trick the people of the US. Occam’s Razor has play here, is it easier to assume that everyone the government for the past thirty or even forty years has been involved in an elaborate plan to get oil, or that some people don’t like us and planted a handful of people in our country let us train them how to fly planes and then slam them into our buildings…. you decide.

  30. B.Anderson,

    I am with you (to a degree) on the “flip-flop” thing. If a candidate changes their mind from a bad idea/position to a good idea/position, AND if it is apparent that he/she is not taking a “position of convenience”, THEN I will fully stand behind them as being smart enough and brave enough to say they were wrong and reverse their direction. Now, if they do it back and forth many times on that same issue, it is apparent to me that they are either 1) too easily swayed by the arguments of the day, or 2) taking positions of convenience and are, therefore, liars.

    I am also with you (100%) that God does not always relieve us from the consequences of our sin. In fact, it is often better that he does not, for while mercy is appreciated, pain is often a better teacher.

    On your other point, though, that repentance has nothing to do with salvation, I would have to take the exact opposite side in that debate. I would be happy to figure out a way to take this off-blog so we don’t irritate the others by turning this into a theological debate. But I would urge you to consider a few points. Jesus never told anyone anything like “your sins are forgiven; now go and live however you want.” What he told them was always more like “your sins are forgiven; now go and sin no more.” Since repentance means turning away from sin, it seems clear that Jesus was telling these people to repent.

    Scripture has some very harsh things to say about believers who turn their back on God and live an unrighteous lifestyle. It is pretty scare to think that, according to scripture, such people were better off NOT being saved from their sins, than they are having partaken of the Spirit of God and then turned away.
    I don’t like to quote standalone verses, since the Bible wasn’t written that way to start with and context is so important. But some sections of scripture that certainly got me to sit up and take notice are:

    Ezekiel 3
    Ezekiel 18
    Ezekiel 33

    Matthew 7

    Luke 12

    John 15

    Hebrews 6
    Hebrews 10

    2Peter 2

    By the way, I am enjoying all this discussion and, especially, the fact that most of it has been good solid adult discourse where we reason about our disagreements instead of turning juvenile and petty as so often seems to happen. Thank you.

    • Neville, I will try to keep this short, as I agree with you this is the wrong forum. Salvation is a gift from God, received by our decision to accept Jesus by faith. We do not earn it. There is nothing we can “DO” to get saved. By that belief, there is nothing we can “DO” to loose our salvation. Check out Hebrews. It says there is nothing a person, who has fallen away, can do to be (re)saved. The reason is that the person is still saved. The wages of sin is death. Jesus, in order to re-save someone, would have to die again. That is not going to happen. ALL sin has been delt with two thousand years ago. Jesus said “It is finished” at the cross. I take him at his word. That being said, we still need to deal with society. If we do someone wrong, we need to get it right with that person (repent). My using the repent word, may have thrown you off of my meaning. A Christian that sins, is still saved. I would recommend you GOOGLE Andrew Wommack. He teaches a lot of the things I believe. God Bless.

      • B.A., you weren’t wrong to use the word repent, but it doesn’t mean “get it right with that person (against whom you sinned)”. It means to turn away from, walk away from, or repudiate, the original action.

        Your Hebrews reference was from Hebrews 6, actually the same passage I referenced to support exactly the opposite conclusion. I agree that, read as a standalone passage, it could possibly be taken to mean that person is OSAS, but if read in the context of the other chapters I listed, I don’t see how anyone could come to that conclusion. I mean, if your interpretation was right, how could it be that such a person is described as better off to have never been saved in the first place?

        I learned long ago to heed Paul’s advice and to “be a Berean”, comparing all teacher’s teachings to the scripture itself. I will look up Wommack. I would like to challenge you to read all the (9) chapters I listed, together in one sitting, and see if you still come to the same conclusion.

        Back to the original topic (more or less): Have you seen the Nov. 14th piece that MSNBC did on Gingrich’s changing record?

        • Neville, No I have not seen the piece on Gingrich. I have been too busy eating turkey.

          In the Hebrews, and Paul’s other letters, you must be quick to keep things straight. Paul switches back and fourth talking about what happens under “Law” and what happens under “Grace”. That is why it seems to say just the opposite. (Seeing they will not see, hearing they will not hear) Under law, we have no hope. Under Grace we have eternal security. We must study to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. The dividing point is the cross. Jesus, in His ministry was talking as a Jew, to the Jews and before he died on the cross. After he died on the cross, everything changed. The New Will and Testament of Jesus became the “piority document” we go by. In order for a will to be in force, the owner must die. Grace became the way to salvation. Another example that most people miss, is The Sermon on the Mount. It sounds like Jesus was trying to get people to do good. That was not the point he was trying to make. He was trying to get the Jews to realize that no one could be that good. Jesus wanted everyone to know their lost condition, so they would realize that they need salvation throught Him. The point of the ‘Law” is to show us that we can never be good enough. For without law there is no sin.
          We have simular views on “Repent” Repent is an action verb. It does not mean just to stop what you are doing wrong, but to turn around and do good. If you told a lie about someone, you must stop lying, and tell the truth to everyone you told the lie to. Of course that is “work”. We know that works will not save us. So that indicates that repenting of wrong doing in society does not change our relationship with God. Grace seems to give permission to sin. It does the opposite. Instead of the law being something we MUST do, under grace, it becomes a natural way of life.

          I have only seen some of Andrew Wommack’s sermons, but the ones I have watched, he seemed right on.

          • Neville November 27, 2011 at 4:31 am,
            You are getting hung up on thinking forgiveing some one for a bad thing they did to you, or that you did to someone else will make you saved or not. It does not. it has nothing to do with being saved. Do you really think someone on this earth has the power, by not forgiving you, to keep you from being saved?? I don’t think so. God is the only one with that power. Neither can us not forgiving someone keep us from being saved. So this “forgiveness” issue on social problems is null and void. Christ paid for ALL SIN. Yours and the other guys. It is NOT an issue.

        • Neville, Let me paraphrase Hebrews: Hay People! You better come to Christ and be saved, because under law, you will be toast!

          • Neville Nov 26 11:31, There are two new commandments To love God, and your neighbor. We should do both.

            In Salvation: Forgiveness is what God did for us, when he died on the cross. Our sin debt was paid. Our sins have been taken from us as far as the east is to the west. God does not remember our sin. He paid our sin debt in full. Now that is security! We have been released from the bonds of guilt.

            In society: Forgiveness is a state of mind. In Luke, if someone does something against you, you are to confront him, and if he repents,(please notice the IF) you are to forgive him (70 X 7). Again that passage was talking to the Jews, during the time of law. Under grace, we forgive people with out them having to do anything. (notice NO IF) If we do not forgive someone in our heart, we re-live the hate over and over again. We are the one that ends up with the problem. If we rember that we did something wrong to another, we restle with guilt. God wants us free from guilt. We are to go and settle the matter immedietely. Don’t even take the time to pick up your purse. God’s wants us to have a full life. God sets us free from guilt so we can live the full life. If the person does not receive you, do not worry about it. God has already forgiven you.

            So, is forgiveness work? Yes. In society it is work. In salvation, Its God’s gift to us. It was His work.

            Many pastors want us to live in guilt. They think if they keep us in guilt it will keep them in power. They can tell you that you must never miss a service, and that tithing is a mandatory 10%. If you don’t you will lose fellowship with God. They tell us to come forward to receive forgiveness. These are lies that have dominated most of our churches. The fact is that we have been set free from guilt. We do not come forward to receive forgiveness. We have ALREADY been forgiven. You would say: Then what do we come forward to do?? The answer is: Because the wages of sin is death, but the Gift of God is eternal Life, we come forward to choose LIFE. (not forgiveness, as sin has already been paid in full by Christ) So the next time a pastor says come forward to receive forgiveness, challange him.

          • I see a couple of pretty big problems here.

            #1) You seem to be picking and choosing scripture to suit your goal. While Luke 17 does say “if he repents”, Matthew 18 (on the very same subject) never mentions a requirement of repentance at all. The only possible reconciliation of these two passages is if your offender’s repentance is sufficient, but not necessary, for your forgiveness of your offender (contrary to your explanation).

            #2) You answered me that for one person to forgive another is “work”. By your own arguments (e.g. repentance is not necessary for salvation because repentance is “work” and salvation is not by works), forgiveness of those who sin against you cannot be a requirement for your own salvation. However, Jesus says exactly the opposite in Matthew 11 (and alludes to it in Matthew 6), telling his disciples that if they do not forgive those who sin against them, that God will likewise not forgive them for their own sins. Thus, he tells us that forgiveness (BY us) is a requirement for forgiveness (TO us). And that, it turn, means that salvation does require a “work” (note: this is by your definition, not mine). Your interpretation of the role of repentance and of what is and isn’t “works” results in a direct contradiction of the teachings of the Messiah.

            I did browse Wommack, by the way, but not in much depth yet. What I did notice that was very surprising is that those who oppose him (it’s always the detractors who post the most stuff on the internet, of course) are not the Arminians as one would expect from what you have related of his teachings. Rather, it is the uber-Calvinists, who oppose him saying that he claims a gospel of grace and then teaches a gospel of works. Reading more on him should prove very interesting.

          • Neville November 27, 2011 at 4:31 am,

            You have seemed to miss the point. The time before Christ’s resurection, we were under LAW. Since (meaning time)Christ rose from the dead, we are no longer under Law. We are under grace. Jesus lived on earth under law. He was talking to Jews about the requirements of the Law. (Jesus had not died yet) So you need to realize grace had not come at that time. Mixing Law and Grace does not work. As you can see, mixing them makes scriptures seem to conflict. Remember If you are saved by grace, we are no longer under the law. So what ever was told to do under law is not valid under grace. That is what grace is about! You need to read my last blog carefully. Keeping Law and Grace seperate in you mind, it will make sense.

            If a friend gives you a life time pass to Disney World (DW), and you accept it, you should be very happy. Later you get into an argument with your friend. Time passes and you go to DW, go to the gate and try to pay, the attendant will tell you that the fee is already paid. You argue with the attendant, saying: but I am mad at so and so. The attendant will not care. Your way is prepaid for life. It does not matter who you are mad at or what you have done. Likewise, OSAS. Even though you have done something wrong, SO WHAT?? You are still saved.

            One web page for Andrew Wommack that I use is: http://www.awmi.net/tv/this_week. Enjoy.

          • Neville
            November 27, 2011 at 4:31 am

            Most of the detractors of Andrew Wommack are people that belive they can lose salvation by doing something. They are wrong. Just as I said in a previous blog, no one on earth has the power to make us lose salvation. That incudes ourselves. Only God has that power. The seeming conflict with Andrew Wommack’s detractors is; they do not understand that under grace, we still do works. However, we are doing works because we are new creatures in Christ. We are not doing works because of the law, but because we love Christ, and are wanting to do our best in love. The difference is attitude. In our motivation in works, we want to glorify Christ.

          • BA, I didn’t miss anything. Scripture MUST be internally consistent, even when it doesn’t seem to make sense or say what we would like. We must examine carefully to find out how to resolve apparent discrepancies, not ignore them. I have pointed out various contradictions in your positions, based on your own words, definitions, and provided scriptures. In response, you have created straw man arguments (e.g. that my not forgiving Billy Bob will keep Billy Bob from heaven, which is not something I ever said or intimated), and ignored very clear and weighty teachings from Jesus (e.g. if you do not forgive Billy Bob, God will not forgive you). Your support often falls back on an argument that, essentially, Jesus taught his followers a whole bunch of stuff that, on the day he died, suddenly became null and void. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He does not change. He does not lie. After he died, and after he arose, he told them “[Teach] them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” He did not qualify and say “observe only those things I have taught you in the last 50 days and ignore all the rest, especially those of you who are not actually Jews.”

          • Neville
            November 27, 2011 at 10:08 pm

            Would you believe that I wrote this rignt BEFORE I read your last blog? I knew what you were going to say before you said it.

            I want to convince you there is a vast difference from the time of Law and the time of Grace. Jesus taught during his ministry based on law, not grace. So His word seems to conflict with the letters of the New Testament. Let me explain: If you agree that we are saved by grace, not of works as James says, and we are forgiven, and our sins are paid unconditionally, you are getting closer to the Truth. Now compare that to the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus was alive, and the time was before His resurrection. Jesus taught his disciples (Jews) how to pray. In His teaching, He said to forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Now look closely at the order of forgiveness. It says that we are asking to be forgiven to the extent that we forgive. Did Jesus make a mistake? Did He get it backward? No, because that was the way it was under the law. We had to DO something to earn God’s favor. However after Christ’s resurrection, we no longer are under the law. So my point is that when Jesus taught on earth, he was teaching the Jews what the law said. The letters of the New Testament do not agree with what Jesus said, but that is not a mistake. Because after the resurrection grace became the way to salvation. So, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, is not between Mahachi and Matthew, but at the cross. Keeping that in mind, the scriptures will open up to you.

          • B. Anderson, since we’ve been asked to get back to the original topic(s) of the political discussion, I will write this and then you will have the last word. You are ignoring sound logic and reasoning, and the result is a perverted gospel. The idea that the Messiah would have spent a year and a half of ministry time preaching hard things that turned away even some of the most devout, but that those things were useless and wrong in the grand picture of eternity, well, it is simply heresy. You have either declined or just run out of time to respond to several points and direct challenges, but I point you back to another one of your own statements: “Only God has that power.”[to make us lose salvation.] and that is exactly what He warns us will happen. It is a requirement that the scriptures harmonize to be understood as teaching “one God, one faith, one baptism”, but many are willing to be told what to believe instead of studying for themselves. Your teachings render almost all of the Messiah’s teachings moot – teachings about money, obedience, holiness, personal responsibility, sin, etc. just go flying out the window. I don’t recall one place in the entire scripture where God wasted his time teaching something useless, and yet that is the essence of what you claim Jesus did.

            I will read your response to this, if you make one, but I will not respond further on this particular sub-topic. I will go back to addressing the pros and cons of various GOP presidential aspirants.

          • Neville,
            Again, I have foreseen what you were going to ask, and wrote this last night. Like you, I respect the forum as well, and this will be my last blog on the subject.

            I hate to use worldly comparison, but please give me liberty in this. In the” Music Man”, the flim flam salesman had a product that few wanted to buy, (band instruments). He knew it. He realized that he had to create a market for his goods. So he went through town telling people that they need something to “saaave” the children. Once he got the market, he then was able to sell the band instruments. That is what Jesus was doing. (TIC) In the Gospels, as you said, Jesus taught us many things about how we should live our lives. Remember he also said that he talked in a way that the lost could not understand. (Seeing they can not see, and hearing they can not hear). The Jews thought they had God in a box and could keep Him for themselves. They did not need a savior, because they were God’s chosen people. God realized that the Jews (and Gentiles) needed salvation. (Forgive me for being glib as I do have a deep respect for scripture) One of Jesus’ sale promotions was the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was telling the Jewish crowd to be good,… we must do this,,,we must do that, …and we must do this other thing…and another thing and so on. Cuz the Law said so, and we all know that if we don’t follow the law the boogy man will get you. It seemed on the surface His lesson was on social conduct. That would be what the lost would hear. (The hearers who do not hear) However, what Jesus was trying to convey, was that it is impossible for us to do ALL the things we must do to be good. The (Real) hearers of his Words, would think about it and realize how impossible it is to follow Jesus’ (on the surface) teaching. That was the lesson Jesus was teaching. It is IMPOSSIBLE for us to be good. Since no one is good, there is NO WAY to be saved under the law. Because the wages of sin is death mankind has no hope. Death seemed to be destined for mankind. Jesus wanted the Jews to realize the law they have been following all their life was useless to bring them to salvation. They needed to be brought down and be humbled. So Jesus created his market with his teaching in his ministry. Near the end of the written Gospel, He was ready to sell the people who now know they need salvation (his product eternal life.) Being serious now, Jesus loves mankind. He did his best to present his message to us that we need to be saved. He knew the wages of sin is death. Jesus also knew no man was good enough to fill the sin debt, except Him. So he knew he had to die to pay for the sins of the world. He instructed his disciples in how to carry on after he left the earth. It was up to them to tell the world that their sin debt would be paid in full by Jesus’ death. Jesus gave His life for us. Then his disciples duty was to tell the world the Good News that their sins were paid for by Jesus Christ. Please accept his gift.

            Now what is my point? Jesus came to save the world. Listen to his teaching, not just the surface words. Everyone’s sins are forgiven. To be saved, as Paul said; Believe in your heart in Jesus, confess with your lips He is Lord.

            To my original point in this blog. No one can say Jesus is Lord except he be led by God. Newt, when joining the Catholic Church, would have to confess that Jesus is Lord. So his conversion, must be true or not. Who are we to say. Windisea, I know you read this. You will never do as you are told. I told you not to read this, so you would. (He He He) Please, choose Life!

  31. Well it is pharmakia, and that is the word that is used in your example. My point was that the word “sorcery” is a bad choice, at least given all the things that sorcery connotes to us today.

  32. Whoever represents Thomas Jeffersan, Thomas Paine, and Ben Franklin the most is the one that i vote for.
    He was quoting ben franklin, “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” and everyone showed him off. what has this country come to? hating the fathers? “They didn’t make the constitution so that we could look at the weather”~Ron Paul.

    • Windisea, We all know you are not a Republican. You do not need to read answers to other’s comments. They were not to you. Matter of fact don’t you dare read any of my posts. I double dog dare you NOT to read my blogs. They are very personel. Read my blogs and get a Life.

      • B Anderson

        This is a public forum about the Election 2012—you need to stick with the Election.

        Maybe you support Obama.

        RON PAUL 2012

    • Windisea. The discussion I am having is about: Should we belive Newt’s conversion? I realize that it may be confusing.

  33. You know, I might just have realized what it is that I personally, love about Ron Paul. It is that he is not afraid. He has faith; and faith in the american people.

    Further, he seems to have faith in America.

    BTW, I am of no affiliation to any political group or party (or organized movement).
    …I too just love the PROMISE of America.

    • RSVetti,

      I agree – it is Dr. Paul’s bravery and willingness to stand alone when the crowd is sweeping away everyone else that sets him apart and makes him the best man on the stage. Now, that isn’t exactly the same thing as being the best candidate, but I do also believe he is the best candidate.

      The other candidates are [almost] entirely without character when it comes to issues that require them to choose between following the law or following what they think is “the way things should be done”. We simply do not have the option of making that choice.

      Setting up a faux bank for the purpose of printing fictitious money, borrowing that money from it, at interest, to “run the government”, is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution.

      “Executive orders” applied outside the Executive branch and carrying a force of law equivalent to acts of Congress, is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution.

      Prohibiting foods, drinks, or other substances to the people (from alcohol to raw milk to peyote) is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution (it was for a time, with respect to alcohol only, but is no longer).

      Assassination of U.S.A. citizens based on the opinion of the President, and without a jury trial (i.e. depriving them of life without due process of law) is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution.

      Searching and seizing property without due process and without a warrant is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution.

      Actions of military aggression toward another country, without the consent and declaration of war by our Congress, is nowhere authorized in our federal Constitution.

      Nearly everyone “on the stage” in the GOP nomination campaign is in favor of doing all those things. Some of them want to mix a bunch of it all up together, advocating the following actions against Iran: “maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable.

      If we wish to be a “shining city on a hill”, inspiring others to join in our exercise in self-governance, we must be honest and restrained to live by our own laws. We cannot be a nation built on the rule of law when we, as a nation, ignore our own laws. We have means provided to legally change even our most fundamental laws. The means and mechanisms are cumbersome and slow, on purpose, to ensure that such things do not happen frequently or lightly.

      The vision of our nation was one governed by clear laws, devised and revised by such good and honest men as the people chose to govern (and who would cease to govern when the people would so dictate). Our nation has started down the dangerous road of lawlessness (ignoring the law), discarding that original vision. Without a vision, we flounder. Without a vision, the people perish.

      I will never support a candidate solely because of the party label attached to their name. I am a past 2-time-chosen GOP state delegate, but do not always support the official GOP candidate (in fact, I did not in either of those 2 elections). I will not support pragmatism over the law, or try to game the system by voting for someone anointed as the “most electable” (what a foolish concept) instead of the most ethical and capable. I also realize that a President is intentionally limited in their powers (and for that, I am very glad), and therefore cannot make very many blanket promises about what they will change. That’s okay. I want a man who will do his [own, limited] job well, including doing his part to make sure that others in government limit their actions to their constitutional job description but fully exercise their responsibilities within those limits.

      • Neville,


        It seems to me that all of these rally cries for unilateral and unsanctioned rolls in leadership and CONTROL put us dangerously close to becoming that very thing which our main stream media, war propoganda, and ‘war efforts’ speak out against.

        This is very troubling to me and constitutes what I feel, may be one of the largest modern threats to our sovereignty as a country and our sanctity as a people with the inalienable right to persue happiness.

        I am further concerned that our freedom of speech is being written off for some type of noise pollution in many of these policies and actions that are so CRUCIAL to our way of life.

        To add to this list, I must also mention my discontent with some of the candidates defense of the Patriot Act. Bachman went so far as to define that those people accused of treason or committing acts of war should not have no quarter in regard to our civil rights and civil liberties.

        Well, my question is this: aren’t (or shouldn’t) we as citizens be eligible to those rights of due process until proven guilty? Because it seems that this is no longer the case…

        This is especially scary when hearing rumors of a US military forces being trained in Montana to face off against the american people for the first time in US history. This paired with our mutual agreements with Canada to lend military force in the event of civil disobedience.

        WOW. I say, this is something we really need to think about.
        I tell you, I fear like anyone the prospect of being unable to find a job and to support my family; but these conditions seem just a little bit more alarming…

      • Neville, B RSvetti

        So well-stated, Thank You! We can no longer compromise it’s too late!
        I am in a cast and cannot respond at length left-handed.

        RON PAUL 2012

  34. Amen.

    It seems to me that all of these rally cries for unilateral and unsanctioned rolls in leadership and CONTROL put us dangerously close to becoming that very thing which our main stream media, war propoganda, and ‘war efforts’ speak out against.

    This is very troubling to me and constitutes what I feel, may be one of the largest modern threats to our sovereignty as a country and our sanctity as a people with the inalienable right to persue happiness.

    I am further concerned that our freedom of speech is being written off for some type of noise pollution in many of these policies and actions that are so CRUCIAL to our way of life.

    To add to this list, I must also mention my discontent with some of the candidates defense of the Patriot Act. Bachman went so far as to define that those people accused of treason or committing acts of war should not have no quarter in regard to our civil rights and civil liberties.

    Well, my question is this: aren’t (or shouldn’t) we as citizens be eligible to those rights of due process until proven guilty? Because it seems that this is no longer the case…

    This is especially scary when hearing rumors of a US military forces being trained in Montana to face off against the american people for the first time in US history. This paired with our mutual agreements with Canada to lend military force in the event of civil disobedience.

    WOW. I say, this is something we really need to think about.
    I tell you, I fear like anyone the prospect of being unable to find a job and to support my family; but these conditions seem just a little bit more alarming…

  35. I wish Ron Paul would stop trying to be the nice guy and “man up.” He is way to trusting of high risk foreigners for anyone to every feel safe in the U.S. If he were to win (which he won’t) I would have to move out of the states

    • Brandon
      I have seen Ron Paul rear up, “man up”, and just slam candidates, moderator’s and news reporters such as Wolf Blitzer, while maintaining his dignity and very, very effectively setting the record straight. He is a contender when the need arises, this is important to me too, during the 2007-2008 debates this is what finally set me on course in finding out more about Ron Paul. I have no doubt that he would slam an enemy under attack and so importantly he would have the correct information unlike Bush and the infamous weapons of mass destruction.

      Ron Paul 2012

  36. Illegal Immigration = illegals that arrived after the year 2000/2001 NOT 25 years ago.
    the 11 million arrived in the last 10 years.

    AND children of illegals are also illegal

  37. B Anderson

    Newsflash: You are not god and this forum is for the election go to another site to preach!

    RON PAUL 2012

    Research Libertarianism it’s about individual choice man. Get over yourself.

  38. Windisea. I am not god? According to Mit and Huntsman’s religion I am. Republicans do not encourage liberal ideas of name calling and booing other’s ideas. How would you know if I was preaching? Your blogs have seemed to be very rude to Republicans and others who wrote comments in the forum. This is an open forum. Even though I wish you would keep from making rude comments, I will not tell you to stop blogging. You blindly follow Ron Paul. I have said many times Ron Paul has some good point, but his main problem is that he is not a Republican, and is running in a Republican election. That will make his chances of winning this primary slim to none. I would rather vote for a Republican who is experienced, and knowledgeable, who knows how to get bills passed in the House and Senate. Ron Paul has been controversial all his political life. Even though he introduces his pet bills, he knows they will never pass. That wastes time, and time is money.(Which we do not have).

    Many Congressmen put bills before Congress just so they can tell their electors that he is supporting such and such. However he really does not care about it, and does not work to get his bill on the floor for a vote. An example is; Senate S 334 and its House equivalent: HR 333. Both bills have many congressmen co-sponsoring them. These bills have to do with disabled career veteran benefits. It would end the offset of military retiree pay. Presently, a service member that receives retired pay, but has not had at least a full 20 years of ACTIVE duty, has his retiree pay reduced by the amount he receives from his veteran benefit. (He pays for his own VA benefit). The time a service member recuperates from an injury does not count as active duty time, only time in service. When the service member reaches 20 years in service, they are medically retired, with, or with out the request of the service member. That means he can never get 20 year of ACTIVE duty. This bill has been introduced on the first day of the legislative year, for years. Many Congressmen sign on as supporters. However they never bring it to a vote. They just want to tell veterans that they are “supporting” our disabled veterans. None do the leg work to get more support, nor bring it up for a vote. It is filed away in a sub committee for it to die, waiting for the year to end, so they can do it again next year.

    I want to vote for a person that will do the leg work and be a leader to improve our country and return us to a powerful and moral world power, UNDER GOD.

    • I am curious B Anderson what your obsession is with mormons and why you just throw anti-mormon stuff in your posts that have nothing to do with any of the topics we are discussing. Its comical and makes me wonder if you even actually know anything about the LDS faith or know any LDS people for that matter.

      • LDS MAN, Why do think what I say is anti Mormon? The anti Mormon is only in your mind, not mine. Some of my best friends and bunk mates were Mormon. We have had many discussions on beliefs. It is no more derogatory than talking about the separation of church and state, a Baptist doctrine. Which does not seem to bother anyone.

  39. B Anderson

    Ron Paul is a Republican who believes and follows the conservative libertarian philosophy. All other Republican candidates are Republicans who believe and follow the neo-conservative philosophy. Ron Paul is a Republican; Christian, brave, intelligent, experienced and true to his beliefs and uncompromising in the stand for our nation’s direction as tested and upheld by our constitution. As I informed you earlier, when you rudely told me your post’s are private, this is an open candidate forum.

    RON PAUL 2012

  40. B Anderson
    Newt Gingrich would have you believe he is the cookie. Ron Paul wouldn’t try to deceive, Christian, Republican, Conservative, Libertarian philosophical beliefs, bound by the Constitution, National Sovereignty and Liberty.


    RON PAUL 2012

  41. Did you see the O’Riley Factor and Hannady tonight? They agree with my opinion of Newt.

    Windisea. I Don’t understand your thinking. Newt is a Republican, running in a Republican primary. Ron Paul is a Libertarian running in a Republican primary. Ron just will not have the votes. Face it. I’m not saying it to mean he is a bad canidate, he just will not win.

  42. B Anderson

    Naturally they like Newt all three are neo-conservatives. If you are happy with the Bush-Obama years vote for any candidate, they all intend to follow the same road with tweaks, for a real change choose Ron Paul. Try Lou Dobbs or Judge Andrew Napolitano for a wider perspective.

    Ron Paul 2012

    • Andrew Napolitano’s brain should have its own Secret Service detail. This man needs to be in a position of official power in D.C. to restrain the government as was the original purpose of the US Constitution. I just don’t know whether I’d rather see him as CJ at the SCOTUS, or as Attorney General.

      At this link is a 36-minute speech that Judge Napolitano gave about 4 years ago at the “Reason in DC” conference. It is an historical look at violations of constitutional from almost the beginning of our republic. http://reason.tv/video/show/napolitano-at-reason-in-dc

      Here is a teaser intro to the speech:
      “In late October, Napolitano gave the keynote address at the conference Reason in DC, where he delivered a spellbinding speech that blended a masterful understanding of American history with a blazing outrage at the excesses of the new security state. “Who [is] the greatest violator of the Constitution?” asks Napolitano. “George W. Bush has shown less fidelity to the Constitution than any president since Abraham Lincoln.”

      Most, if not all, of the rest of the crop of GOP hopefuls have bright red pragmatism flowing through their veins. It is their guiding force, and any other principles they may espouse are in fact fully malleable under the hammer of pragmatism. They seem to change their stripes almost as often as they change their pinstripes. This, instead, is what I need to see in a federal leader:

      “No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” -Patrick Henry (channeling Ron Paul backward through history)

      THE ONE THING that most stands out about Ron Paul, and which many people ignorantly decry as a political negative, is that when he trumpets, it is not to say what he will do, but what he knows full well he CANNOT do. He actually believes (how DARE he!!) that he is not the political savior of our country, but that our country can still be saved by the men and women in power humbly restraining themselves to live under the law. Perhaps more than any other quote from the founding fathers, this one seems to embody Dr. Paul’s political philosophy:

      “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” -Thomas Jefferson

  43. B Anderson

    Whether a positive or negative response to a comment, this site wouldn’t exist without opinions and I will state mine whenever I care to. Seiko’s interest in our election was self-serving in supporting the candidate who would best serve his country’s interest, not mine. America!

    Ron Paul 2012 National Sovereignty

  44. There is a difference in stating an opinion, and belittling the person with the opinion.

    A person can have opinions on many subjects. On some he may have “liberal” ideas, some “conservative” and some on other name brand political idealism. Trying to label Newt, or anyone in one category and say that is what he is, would be inaccurate. The previous blogger said Newt is a neo conservative. However below are some of Newt’s statements of his standings. None of them are neo conservative ideas.

    Newt’s Principles to protect life and religious liberty

    1.Nominate conservative judges who are committed to upholding Constitutional limited government and understand that the role of the judges is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.
    2.Combat judicial activism by utilizing checks on judicial power Constitutionally available to the elected branches of government. (Read an extended white paper on restoring the proper role of the judicial branch here.)
    3.End taxpayer subsidies for abortion by repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, and reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortions overseas.
    4.Protect religious expression in the public square such as crosses, crèches and menorahs.
    5.Protect healthcare workers right to conscience by making sure they are not forced to participate in or refer procedures such as abortion.
    6.Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student.
    7.Protect the rights of teachers to use historical examples involving religion in their classroom. Nor should they be discouraged from answering questions about religion or discussing it objectively in the classroom.
    8.Protect the frail, infirm and the elderly from the state’s arbitrary decision to terminate life.

  45. I just heard on the news that Herman Cain is to have some sort of announcement in the short future. Of course, I have no idea what it could be about. However, I remember back before the first debate, I thought that a Cain/Gindrich or Grindrich/Cain team would be great. During that first debate, the candidates were asked, who of the people debating would you choose as Vice President. Cain chose Newt. I wonder if Newt would choose Herman. Them joining forces would put them close to, if not over, 50% in their ratings.

    • If Herman Cain ends his campaign, which is quite possible, it will either be because he is guilty of some of these sexual offenses including possibly adultery, or it will be because he is innocent but is sick and tired of being hounded. In either case, I can’t see why in the world he would want to link up on someone else’s ticket, or why they would even ask him. The whole idea makes no sense.

      For Gingrich in particular, it would be foolish. There are plenty of people who fall somewhere between you (okay with his past infidelities) and me (wary of him because of his past infidelities) who would quite possibly be swayed in the negative by his linking up with Cain and Cain’s similar baggage. Maybe there is some double-think value in that, but not to my way of thinking.

    • Also, Gingrich (although I don’t approve of him as a candidate) is far and away Cain’s intellectual superior. It would hurt Gingrich by association, and hurt Cain by making him look like an intentional foil for Gingrich (which is actually, truthfully, probably the only value he could add to the Gingrich campaign).

  46. I am not convince that the alligations against Cain are true. However, if true, it would not change my idea that he would be my second choice. As I said about Newt previously; Being a low down cheating no good so and so has never kept a person out of the White House yet. However the up comming announcement, if it is that he (Cain) is dropping out of the race, most of Cain’s supporters would go to Gindrich. That would put him (Newt) way up the pole. (flag pole bar graph I see locally, I know what a poll is) By the way, my thought about them joining forces was before the first debate. I understand I was unclear about the time of my thought. Neville is correct in his thinking that it would not help Newt as much now. But I think that Cain should announce his support of Newt, if he (Cain) drops out. An announcement of who is Vice President does not come until after this election anyway.

    • How can this be??? If the allegations are true, then it would make Cain a liar, pure and simple. How could you cast your vote for someone that just lied to you, his wife, and the rest of the country? How could you trust that person?

  47. The moderator constantly asks the candidates to answer the questions specifically, yet the candidates still continue to deliver the same empty slogans they spouted on the campaign trail.

    Moderator: “How does your economic plan to create jobs differ from the current administration?
    Candidate: “Americans need jobs. Iran must obey. Obama must go. Israel is our BFF.


    Mitt Romney won the game-show.
    Mitt Romney looks great on TV. He should be an actor.

    But in real-life, Ron Paul is the only politician worth voting for.

  48. Neo-Conservative:

    A devout vocal proponent of the conservative ideal of small government, low taxes, civil liberties, governed by the constitution who toss the ideal aside when it comes to private banking (the fed) and illegal taxation, in order to fund military spending, corporatism, entanglements with NATO, WTO, CFR and possibly theocratic rule. Allow the supplanting the constitution with the Patriot act. Believe it is okay to use force to tactically acquire every resource on the planet either through a client state system, or direct rule. Fringe groups (normally Christians) and secretive inner circles also believe that it is Americas divine right to do this. A neo-conservative will gnaw at the very soul of anyone who disagrees with him/her on moral issues, will fight life and limb against homosexuality and abortion because it is unchristian and “wrong” (i.e. he/she doesn’t agree with it) but will justify and attack, murder, torture and kill people in unconstitutional, undeclared war’s while engaging in an aggressive foreign policy of intervention, subversion, covert activities, economic sanctions, pre-emptive strikes and arrest without the right to trial.

    Neo-Consevatives are not put off by presidential candidates who lie and do not have the personal character, moral, religious code of conduct they claim to uphold, live by and sell their candidacy on, apparently the end justifies the means to these people.

    I continue to stand by Ron Paul for a real change back to a sound foundation of limited constitutional government.

  49. B Anderson and Neville,

    I really enjoyed your back and forth on biblical scripture. As an atheist, I had no idea that Christianity was so esoteric and legalistic. I think the two of you got a bit sidetracked, because the question should not be if God will forgive Newt for his infidelity, but if the American people should trust him with the presidency. I would like to read your views on this instead.


    • Keven,

      I think BA’s response to you was a bit on the snippy side, but on content I would have to agree with him. I think we’ve addressed that question pretty thoroughly. However, I will summarize our views: BA believes that Newt’s past is totally irrelevant and what matters is what he says he will do in the future (most, or all, of which, is in line with BA’s political leanings). I believe that Newt has not shown himself to be trustworthy, but he has certainly shown a past propensity to lie with aplomb, to change his stance on a great many issues, and (it appears to me) to do so based on how it benefits him politically. Therefore I do not trust him and I do not believe anyone should trust him. BA, if I have misconstrued your position, please speak up with a correction.

      However, if I did trust Gingrich to stick to his current positions, and to always tell the truth, I would most certainly NOT vote for him, as I believe that several of his current positions are unacceptable and in violation of the most basic law of our country.

      As to your initial comment, I have to agree with BA there as well. Religion can be esoteric and legalistic. Christianity, however, boils down to the process of becoming like Yeshua HaMeshiac (Yeshua the Messiah) (note: “christ is a transliteration of a generic Greek title meaning “annointed one”, just as “Baal” means the same as “Lord” or “Master” – hazards of translation). He promises, if we live under/submit-to his lordship and authority, he will transform us into his image. There are, however a great many “Christians” who believe that they can simply check certain items off a list, get their ticket to heaven punched, and then live however they wish with no eternal repercussions. That is both esoteric and legalistic, and totally antithetical to Christianity. The Apostle Shaul told his friends and fellow believers that while he knew he was a sinner, he desired to grow to be like Yeshua and encouraged them to imitate him as he imitated the Messiah. I want to see politicians like that – humble men (or women) who seek to emulate the most pure-hearted and ethical man who ever lived.

  50. Keven. I do not need to repeat my post. Your view of Religion is correct. However, Christians have been releaed from the law… there is a big difference. For your last question, I stated my opinion of Gindrich clearly in my posts. You may go back and read them.

  51. Thanks for your questions and comments. I believe that all the candidates have a “past”. Newt has had extensive scrutiny his whole career by the liberal media. Little, if anything “new” will be discovered for Newt. His “past” has already been considered, and his popularity seems to be increasing in spite of it. As you can see from Cain’s example, any winning candidate will be closely scrutinized. Even innuendo has damaged their popularity. My thought is that all the candidates are equally trustworthy. None of us have the facts to base ones integrity over another’s. Go back and read my post on past qualifications of presidents. I saw that today’s poll has Mit and Newt winning over Obama.

  52. Not that she didn’t already have several other problems, but Michelle Bachmann may have just ended her chances with serious constitutionalists (among which I count myself) by floating the idea of Marco Rubio as a VP choice. Rubio is a birthright citizen under the 14th amendment and SCOTUS decisions (see US v. Wong Kim Ark), but as his parents were not both citizens at the time of his birth he is not a natural-born citizen according to the US State Dept., our country’s founders, Vattel, John Bingham (author of 14th Amendment), and several SCOTUS decisions. This is exactly the problem that Mr. Obama has (forget the birth-certificate red herring), exactly the problem that Bobby Jindal has, and could even be a problem that Rick Santorum has (but his parents’ naturalization records have not been made public, so we don’t know). It is also the recently-discovered problem that Chester A. Arthur had, but which he covered up by lying about his father’s date of naturalization and then burning most of his presidential records when he left office.

    Going back to Bachmann, it irks me to no end to hear this kind of inconsistency coming from someone who wants to be the highest-profile protector of our Constitution.

  53. Mark Rubio not being a natural born citizen may need to be checked. I have not looked to see how old his parents were, nor do I have the through knowledge of our constitution in that matter. I do not think the constitution addresses the definition of natural born. I think that was left to later law to decide. I would think if his parents were born at least 5 years before the take over of Cuba (in the 60’s), both of his parents would have been US citizens. That would make Mark a natural born citizen.

    • BA,

      Fall of Cuba and exit from Cuba have nothing to do with it. Marco Rubio was born a citizen (and also a Cuban citizen, for that matter). His parents became citizens 4 years later.

      The Constitution makes it clear that being a citizen isn’t good enough to be President. The explicit definition of natural-born is more stringent, although you are correct that the definition isn’t spelled out in the Constitution (as is also the case with most terms used in our Constitution). The definition used by the writers of the constitution and the writers of the works that the constitution was based on, plus subsequent SCOTUS decisions, all make it clear that one must be born to then-current-citizen parents and be born under the authority and allegiance of only our country (exceptions made, of course, for the founders as none of them could have met the requirements without the waiver).

      Most of those sitting in positions of power in DC and the various States do not care about this. In 2008, we had a Nicaraguan national (not even a US citizen!) on the ballot in five states, with the blessing of those states’ election official boards. How NUTS is that?

      • Neville
        My thought is that the citizenship of pre 1959 Cubans gets a little fuzzy. Did the USA denounce the citizenship of all Cuban civilians, even though they were citizens at the time of the Castro take over? Did the Cuban citizens have to denounce their US citizenship? If so did the US recognize the denunciation? I really don’t know. I know we have wet/dry foot laws now. But, lets not get lost in another thread. If I really cared I would look it up for myself.

        • The Cuban Adjustment Act, and the current wet-foot/dry-foot policy have to do with being granted legal permanent resident status. They have nothing to do with US Citizenship. I’m not sure to what you refer when you talk about “Cuban citizens have[ing] to denounce their US citizenship.” At the time of the Castro revolution, Cuba had been recognized by the US as an independent country for over 50 years.

  54. I voted for Obama but greatly became disillusion for his false promises. I am a register Democrat but I will vote for Ran Paul if he wins the primary. I do not agree with all his ideology, but I know what I would be getting not like the other candidates that are hypocrites and flip floppers. Ron Paul has pointed out so many issues that are wrong in this beautiful country. Stating his point of view without caring what is popular at the moment but what is right and needed to strengthened our country know that is something I respect. finally a candidate with some honesty…Ron Paul 2012

  55. CSUstudent

    Lot’s of people are taking matters into their own hands! You can make a difference beginning with the primary.

    Brief article-good points.

    Democrats and Independents
    If You Love Peace, Become a “Blue Republican” (Just for a Year)
    Since you can’t change the Democrat ticket, why not act where you can make a positive change, by telling the Republican party where you really want it to go. I offer you a special moniker to set yourselves apart: the “Blue Republican.”

    Blue Republican | Facebook
    Blue Republican – We’re Democrats and Independents registering Republican to vote for Ron Paul! | Facebook.

    Ron Paul 2012!

  56. Gingrich Gets Worse Every Time You Look at Him-Tom Woods

    In a 2007 interview from Freddie Mac’s website floating around the Web right now, Gingrich says:

    Certainly there is a lot of debate today about the housing GSEs [Government Supported Enterprises — in this case, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac], but I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it’s clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace. Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that homeownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible. So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself.

    He adds, “I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism.” In other words, not conservative at all.

    Meanwhile, courtesy of Lew Rockwell’s Political Theatre, we read that evangelicals are flocking to Newt. Every four years the various evangelical leaders seek out a transparent fake they can have betray and exploit them, and apparently Newt’s the one for 2012.

    The Christian Case for Ron Paul: Tom Woods on Iowa Talk Radio (Steve Deace Show) ttp://youtu.be/sPqG3fiff1g

    Ron Paul’s Full Speech at the Value Voters Summit 2011 http://youtu.be/Wnj-5z9NJoY

  57. Wow! Did I just hear a black guy say he’d profile for terrorists?


    All these years and nothing learned?

    Hope he doesn’t get pulled over on the way home from the debate.


Comments are closed.