Monday evening marked the first time we were down to just five GOP candidates on the debate stage, this time in South Carolina. The debate was sponsored by Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and the South Carolina Republican Party. This event took place at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center.

Here is the entire debate video via YouTube:

Alternate full video link:

Original Air Time: Monday, January 16 at 9pm ET on Fox News

Participants: Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul

Report from Fox News:

The Republican candidates were returning to the campaign trail Tuesday slightly bruised but unbowed after a raucous debate that left Mitt Romney fielding attacks from the get-go and all five candidates earning wild reception from a fired-up audience that will be casting votes alongside fellow South Carolinians on Saturday.

Romney was put on defense out of the box at the Fox News/Wall Street Journal/South Carolina GOP debate — answering questions about his record at private venture firm, Bain Capital; distancing himself from super PAC ads against fellow candidates; defending his record as Massachusetts governor, and dodging demands that he release his tax records.

But Romney held his ground against the onslaught, saying he is proud of his record in business and as governor.

“We were fortunate to have an unemployment rate by the time I left office of 4.7 percent. Sounds pretty good today,” Romney said of his one-term leading Massachusetts. “And I was also proud of the fact that we balanced the budget every year I was in office. We reduced taxes 19 times, put in place a rainy day fund of over $2 billion by the time I left.”

Still, with his rivals running out of time to make the case they are a viable and “conservative” alternative to the front-runner, the attacks were fast and furious.

Rick Perry accused Bain of sweeping into Georgetown, S.C., and closing a steel mill.

“They picked that company over, and a lot of people lost jobs there,” Perry said.

Romney replied that Bain actually invested in two steel mills and invested for seven or eight years, but the mills closed because of actions beyond Bain’s control.

I thought each candidate did fairly well this time around. I think Mitt Romney stumbled a little bit since he was on the defense most of the evening but didn’t make any crucial gaffes. Gingrich was his usual feisty self while Santorum, Paul and Perry all attempted to capture the spotlight with some solid back-and-forth and mostly solid answers.


  1. Still the main media is doing a “black out” (near non-coverage) of Ron Paul — since his message of telling the Truth is the bane for the ones that want to control us. The only way the media can be forced to allot more time to the only Patriot running for the Presidency — Ron Paul — is for the bottom runners (Newt, Santorum and Perry) to end their petty selfishness of trying to be elected (since clearly they have no chance) and do what’s best for the country — drop out immediately after SC. Thus, Ron Paul’s message of Truth will have a near equal coverage NOW, and not later, when the inevitable one-on-one vs Mitt occurs.

    Also, Ron Paul should state the following (thus endearing himself even more to the American People): “Hey, I know I’m not a polished speaker — unlike my opponents, who sound like professional orators. But, I trust the people to decide for substance over fancy talk.”

    Worth remembering is that our Nation was designed to be the ideal Republic as described by Plato (the only fair government system that represents ALL the people — not most, or some — BUT ALL). And only Ron Paul stands for this.

    Seems newscasters need a refreshment course on Plato’s Republic. Over two eons later his tennents still hold true — but nearly all are ignorant as to why we are degrading further into a state of Government Tyranny!

    Plato paraphrased from Wiki to save space:

    Regimes that exist in reality and tend to degrade successively into each other: timocracy, oligarchy (also called plutocracy), democracy and tyranny (also called despotism).


    Socrates defines a timocracy as a government ruled by people who love honor and are selected according to the degree of honor they hold in society.


    These temptations create a confusion between economic status and honor which is responsible for the emergence of oligarchy. In Book VIII, Socrates suggests that wealth will not help a pilot to navigate his ship. This injustice divides the rich and the poor, thus creating an environment for criminals and beggars to emerge. The rich are constantly plotting against the poor and vice versa.


    As this socioeconomic divide grows, so do tensions between social classes. From the conflicts arising out of such tensions, democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it. The poor overthrow the inexperienced oligarchs and soon grant liberties and freedoms to citizens. A VISUALLY APPEALING DEMAGOGUE is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower class. However, with too much freedom, the people become drunk, and tyranny takes over.


    The excessive freedoms granted to the citizens of a democracy ultimately leads to a tyranny, the furthest regressed type of government. These freedoms divide the people into three socioeconomic classes: the dominating class, the elites and the commoners. Tensions between the dominating class and the elites cause the commoners to seek out protection of their democratic liberties. They invest all their power in their democratic demagogue, who, in turn, becomes corrupted by the power and becomes a tyrant with a small entourage of his supporters for protection and absolute control of his people.

    • Ron Paul supports anarchism that (from WikiPedia ) means “without rulers”:

      Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as “anarchists”, advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.

      There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism. Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists while some anarcho-communists are also individualists.

      Anarchism as a social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a mass social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents and individualists also participated in large anarchist organizations. Most anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism), while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.

      • Baloney — Ron Paul supports the constitutional Republic (limited government that respects the freedoms of individuals).

      • “M” — 40,000 New Laws for 2012 — was the heading the day before end of 2011.

        None of the Democrooks or the wannabe Republicons said a word of what this actually means!

        Only Ron Paul knew the meaning — 40,000 (forty thousand!) more new things the government prohibits you from having the freedom to do this year, and from now on!… (on top of the millions of other ones you are not allowed to do for the many decades such NEGATIVE Laws were passed in previous years)!

        Can anyone name a dozen notable Positive Laws passed in the last decade (meaning: Yes, we the US Government trust You, the US Citizen, to have the Freedom to do this….!) — I doubt it… but 40,000 MORE Negative FEDERAL Laws are in force this year — meaning NO — we, the Government will FORCE you, by penalty of Fines or Incarceration, YOU the US Citizen, in 40,000 new ways from exercising these particular freedoms!

        And these NEGATIVE Laws are a THOUSAND TIMES compounded on the State level, County, City, Burroughs, even neighborhoods!

        It is amazing that the supposedly erudite Media lack the education, or are simply told by their bosses, NOT to state what the Great Roman Cicero warned nearly 2000 years ago — The more Laws a Nation has, the less Justice the Citizens will have!(by inference — less Freedom)!

        That as of now we have lost most of our Liberty is obvious — since one can name Hundreds of Thousands of Negative Laws that The State tells us NOT TO DO upon penalty!
        And no-one can show Positive Laws passed that are even a minute fraction of this Travesty perpetrated by the Ones in Power against the American People!

        So, Ron Paul says: Respect the US Constitution! Which if anyone can remember is all about Positive Laws — You have the FREEDOM to do this, and this, and that….

        No one else is saying a word about his crucial issue!

        • Can anyone name a dozen notable Positive Laws passed in the last decade (meaning: Yes, we the US Government trust You, the US Citizen, to have the Freedom to do this….!) —

          How about the freedom to turn right on red after stop but even that came back to bit us in the a$$ after the government put in the red light cameras. A real cash cow for sure.
          All our money going out of our community and going to Australia.

        • Thanks for the insight, did not know this! Want change my vote, I’m still voting for Paul LOL. Seriously thanks, I did know about a few laws, but not this many. Geesh Oh Please. 🙁

    • Ron Paul is wayyy too passive in terms of foreign policy. He adopts the very SAME pacifist approach to radical individuals as Europe did back during the rise of Hitler. If Hitler didn’t bother them they didn’t bother him.
      He was given time to create influence and an army until such time he was capable of taking over. Someone said, “Why didn’t they stop Hitler before it turned into a war?”, the answer, we now know is “Ron Paul” pacifism. And the reality is, the next “Hitler” in Iran is a nuclear armed one. The “Ron Paul” reactive approach will result in America getting involved in cleaning up the mess, if not directly affected by a post nuclear holocaust. The penalty for inaction is astronomically high, a reality that Ron Paul is oblivious to. For this single reason, this irrationality should detour any rational individual from casting a vote for him.

      • Iran is not a nuclear[-weapon] power. Our own CIA, Secretary of Defense, and ex-COTJCOS, all indicate that this is the case or that the economic debt of the US is our greatest national security threat. Despite the US indignation over the bluster of the figurehead and about-to-be-out-of-office-anyway Ahmadinejad, Israel’s Minister of Defense says this “existential threat” stuff is bogus, the head of Israeli Intelligence agrees, and Netanyahu says Israel “does not need US troops … Israel can defend itself”. And multiple ex-hostages/diplomats who spent a year and a half under the fist of Islamic extremists in 1979/1980, say that we are unnecessarily escalating the situation, and that war with Iran is not inevitable.

        This rational individual will choose to listen to these real experts.

        • I completely agree. Also, I find it interesting that some people hear only what they want to hear. I would hardly call Ron Paul passive. Ron Paul is NOT opposed to having a war if necessary and he believes in a very strong defense. I think that our 900 military bases overseas make the U.S. extremely vulnerable here at home. The fact that Ron Paul gets the most contribution from military personnel, more than all the other candidates COMBINED, says something. If our own military felt it was important for us to be overseas, don’t you think they would be against Ron Paul? Personally I think that’s a pretty strong statement.

      • So saying that Paul wouldn’t oppose Hitler is rational? Ron Paul actually voted to go after Osama – is that pacifist? His view is about asking the congress before going to war- which is not pacifism, it is the proper way to go into war. Don’t forget he is the only one on the stage who actually served in the military.

        So please leave Hitler out of this.

        • George W. Bush did ask the Congress, twice, in joint sessions. Ron Paul still refuses to see that parallel between FDR’s asking the Congress and GWB’s asking the Congress. Seriously, he knew that both Iraq and Afghanistan were declared wars, but it was two wars he didn’t agree with, but doesn’t ever give a reason to not agree with them, or talk about the core causes of both.

          There are other times in US History that he can cite that do not parallel GWB, but he uses those as a comparison to a joint session, nationally televised, WIDE OPEN TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, and he knows that both were requests for a Declaration of War.

      • What about JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis? JFK did an excellent job not creating problems across the world. Applaud him and his team for a job well done.
        The question is who are we fighting and who is rising in power? North Korea has Nukes and we backed down due to China, now we talk again. China and Russia both said we are making matters worse in the Middle East. Israel has had nukes for decades. United Nations has accused Israel of over 30 war crimes. Israel will not sign treaty for nuclear inspections and Iran has had it’s facilities inspected by UN agencies. What in the world is going on and why is the Govt. not telling the American people who is compliant and who is not compliant to the treaty. Appears another provoked war on the way. We better look beyond Washington for answers. There is a lot of lying going on here and I don’t like it. I’ll stick with the only candidate telling the truth and not deceiving the American people. Thanks but no thanks. Besides look how many of the candidates are starting to say some of the things Paul has been saying for years, they didn’t think I caught that but I did 🙂 .

      • Actually after WWI the “winners” imposed crippling economic policies toward the Germans. Their entire western manufacturing sect was taken over by the French rendering the Germans unable to pay the war repairations unless they hyperinflated their currency to pay it off. So the Germans started to print money to devalue their currency so they could pay off the debt and normal citizens suffered tremenous poverty. Then Hitler comes along giving lively speaches and easy answers to a desperate people resulting in a slam dunk rise to power. So really Britan, France and America are responsible for creating the economic stryfe that led to the rise of the Nazis.

        Conversely after WWII we assisted Germany in rebuilding causing its economy to become the strongest in the EU today. True that it was through “nation building” but WWII would never have happened if we didn’t punish the losers of WWI.

        WWI itself was caused by a chain reaction starting with the assasination of an Arch Duke Ferdinand and the legal ramifications of far reaching international treaties.

      • You obviously know nothing about how Hitler rose to power. It was not a pacifist policy that emboldened Hitler, it was massive funding from the international banking cartel; mainly the U.S. and European super bankers. So when you understand that Hitler was created, and WWII was not an “accident”, that it was made to occur so that new policy could be implemented in the U.S. and other nations, and the United Nations could be formed. This is all public record, documented facts, there is no disputing the history here. You can follow the money, and find the source of your problem, or you can continue to blame radical islam, or Hezbullah, or Mumbo Jumbo. These terrorists are being FUNDED, you don’t attack them, you attack their FUNDING. If they didn’t have money, then we wouldn’t sell them our “used widow-makers.”

        • “You can follow the money, and find the source of your problem, or you can continue to blame radical Islam, or Hezbollah, or Mumbo Jumbo. These terrorists are being FUNDED, you don’t attack them, you attack their FUNDING. If they didn’t have money, then we wouldn’t sell them our “used widow-makers.”

          Now that I can drink to.

    • To assert that Ron Paul is the “only” Patriot is resentful. Every time I hear him talk about our enemies, like Osama Bin Laden, he wants to give them a trial. That is not a CONSERVATIVE position by an stretch of anyone’s imagination. He says we got into trouble by building bases overseas, but doesn’t explain exactly how that works.

      Does he not get that energy independence, OIL IN THE ME, is not what we should have to fight for, if we could get our own?

      Then he comes up with this idea of “Military” and “Defense” spending. His explanation just didn’t make sense. All Military Spending is the same and has to be re-appropriated every two years, but we can say one thing.

      If we didn’t have enemies,we wouldn’t need a Common Defense clause in the Constitution of the United States. I thought this guy was Constitutional, but he’s clueless on this matter. He sees absolutely no relationship of energy independence, and not ever having to go to war to defend our interests in the ME, because we can’t get our own. He then blames the US for the enemies we have in the ME, that are quite frankly due to a Monopoly called OPEC he speaks nothing of.

      • First of all, I think I would be remiss to not mention that our nation’s military members would be extremely disheartened to hear you say that their job is to protect oil in the middle east. There are, in fact, quite a few choice words I will omit indeed.

        Second, the overseas “military spending” that he’s talking about is the huge amount of cash that’s dumped into NON-middle east countries like Germany and Japan (check out his website, listen to the interviews, find out how much money is really spent, and you’d be surprised).

        Third, just because military appropriations are done so with a single bill, does not mean that it’s all the same. If the Joint Chiefs were told to let go of a few AORs, there would be plenty of money to build up defenses on American soil instead of BRACing near 100 military sites while 10 times that number are built overseas providing an influx of (American taxpayer) money to the countries whose borders they lie within.

        Finally, with regard to Dr. Paul’s constitutionality, explain to me how you think that providing EVERYONE with the right to a fair trial is NOT constitutional? We are Americans, not a vengeful mob. We do not need to resort to cheap, blood-drunk revenge to accomplish our aims. Due process and the Almighty will condemn and punish those who do us harm appropriately.

        I hope that you’ll do a little more research on Ron Paul’s ideas. His plan does not call for a complete abandon to protecting our interests but, rather, less waste in doing so. And OPEC … well. There’s one thing we agree on.

      • When threatening to invade another country our leaders should always consider 1) immediate loss of lives to our soldiers and allies’ soldiers 2) loss of lives to innocent civilians 3) future loss of lives to our allies and within our own borders, aka “blowback” (meaning domestic terrorism that wasn’t here before we invaded that country) 4) Our financial circumstances and can we afford the war, 5) can we come out of the war in short order (1-2 years opposed to staying indefinitely with no exit strategy as in Afghanistan).

        Ron Paul has addressed blowback many times and this is a valid subject with plenty of research to back it up (violence begets violence as they say). He has addressed the loss of lives to our soldiers and the millions of Iraqi civilians killed by our bombs and violence caused by our invasion (remember the civil war started AFTER we invaded). He has addressed for many years the financial cost of our wars around the world and how they have not created a more peaceful world. He has addressed the long drawn-out nature of the war. When Obama took credit for the withdrawl of troops from Iraq that was a joke because we were forced out.

        If you want to be energy independent then DO NOT guarantee gasoline and oil supplies to Israel in a state of emergency. That guarantees that US civilians will NOT have access to oil and gas if we run out after invading Iran. This policy is idiocy.

        One thing you clearly do not understand is the role of the media in the creation of our so-called enemies. Please review the early post-911 tapes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld using the word terrorist. Please review the media’s role in pushing the viewpoint that somehow Saddam Hussein was involved with Al Qaeda. Read the Bush memos about on torture and review how the media portrayed torture and WMDs. Please review how the Constitution and even International Law portrays torture.

        Some questions to ask yourself:
        Have we been consistently within the Constitution or even within the law when torturing prisoners in other countries? Is the reluctance to close Guantanamo tied to our need to feel that we have an enemy that is close to our borders?
        Why is it that there have been no real terrorist plots since 911 if the threat is so real and pervasive?

        The reality is that the FBI has had to bribe Muslims and others into committing terrorist acts in this country. These perps are given fake bombs and then when they are busted for attempting to carry out this crime the DHS declares there has been more great work in the “War on Terror.”

        Defense of the country deals with either 1) threats within our border that are from either without or within that threaten our national security or 2) threats from outside our borders that threaten our national security.

        This does mean expanding our access to resources in sovereign nations or expanding our empire. If you take the point of view that we should invade Iran to protect Israel then the question that needs to be asked is “how is allying ourselves with Israel benefiting our national security?”

      • @ Micky – Personally, I don’t care if you are offended, because you haven’t read the Constitution, you aren’t qualified to speak on matters of patriotism in my opinion. Ron Paul is the ONLY true patriot campaigning. Where do I start? He is the ONLY VETERAN (8 year Air Force) running, he is a Doctor and delivered over 4000 babies, 12 term U.S. Congressman, he recieved more donations from active duty military personel than ALL OTHER candidates AND the President combined in both 2008 and 2012 elections, he NEVER voted for a tax increase, he NEVER voted for a spending increase. Ron Paul is truly about defending this country, and the people of this country. He is the one who really wants to limit the role of the federal governement, and give the power back to the states to decide. He started all that talk 30 years ago! Watch the 1988 interview where Ron Paul tells America EXACTLY what is going to happen to our economy and civil libertys over the next 20 years, and why it is happening. He warned us of every bubble, every bad regulation, every bad deregulation, the Fed printing money, everything! Stop denying this man!

        • Yes, I would feel so comfortable with Paul as president. AT least the American people would know what the Hell is going on. Now with Obama and I’m sure a couple other candidates you have to do a lot more investigating and digging around for the truth, it shouldn’t be this way. It really isn’t fair, we pay a lot of money I think the American people are entitled to better services. I can’t wait to see how many more of the 40,000 laws going up for vote will be against us.

      • Mickey — I assert that from ALL the presidential candidates (including Obama) — Ron Paul is the only Patriot. Since the truth is usually bitter — it is resented.

    • They finally ask Congressman Paul his 2nd question of the night thirty minutes in…3rd question at 52 minutes, and then this long drawn out segment about foreign policy where everyone but Ron Paul and his supporters are basically cheering for death and war. We know that 80% of Americans are against the war. Why are 80% of the candidates FOR the war?

    • I’m simply disgusted with how much the corporate media is avoiding poor Ron Paul. He is the ONLY trustworthy candidate out there! I previously voted for Obama, but in many issues I stand with Paul! and I could vote for him in 2012, but I won’t vote for anyone else, so Republicans are dumb for loosing possible votes of independents like me. I mean, go ahead, chose Romney or another suit with a polished talk and good luck loosing in 2012. more power to you.

    • Another blatant attempt by the main media in last debate — CNN this time — to act as if Ron Paul does not exist. Took the booing of the audience to “alert” the “mediator” that Ron Paul was ignored in answering the abortion question.

      Afterwards, the main media devoted about 90% of their time covering the dog-and-pony show btw Romney and Newt, allotting another 9% on Santorum’s dares. Only 1% of airtime was given as: “Ron Paul did participate in the debate….”

      The transparency of this “black-out” by the main media (that can only be initiated by those controlling their respective news media networks, instructing their underling reporters NOT to mention Ron Paul’s name in any way) — has to have been noticed by now by the American people (since it has been in effect since day one)!

      Americans should be outraged by this inequity in media coverage — and ask these purveyors of partial coverage by sending tons of e-mails and millions of phone calls, asking them : “Give us the names of the people in charge that send you memos telling you NOT to mention Ron Paul in any way,…or look for another job!” So we know who actually controls the media in this country.

      One positive thing can be taken from this enforced main media “black-out”. Ron Paul’s Message of obeying the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, not the silky demagoguery offered by the rest — must be scaring the hell out of the puppet-masters — God forbid that the American People hear the Truth!

      Then, they may actually do something about it!

      • Go to 59:30 in video. The only idea he was expressing at the time was the Golden Rule for foreign policy. No one was booing before he mentioned the Golden Rule. The booing was clearly in response to Paul’s mentioning of the Golden Rule.

        • Ryan Belcher is absolutely correct. The booing started right after “Golden Rule” when Paul said “Maybe we should consider a Golden Rule in foreign policy – don’t do to other nations what we don’t want them to do to us.”

          Don’t bear false witness, BA!

          P.S. I know we seriously disagree on a lot (some things theological, and all things Newt), but I’m glad to see you back here.

          • Ron Paul was wrong in using the Golden Rule for his political gain. That is why HE was booed. The Golden Rule was not. No one should take scripture out of context.

          • Hogwash. Political gain? How can you be serious? Do you not think he knows full well that the GOP establishment and most national-level politicians oppose him and start spewing spittle all over the place whenever he articulates this position?

            Given that Yeshua himself gave us the “Golden Rule”, declaring it as the wrapping up of ALL “the law and the prophets”, and that Paul was offering up a question/suggestion for how to treat others, then exactly where is this taken “out of context”?

            I could infer from earlier postings of yours that you believe that the Golden Rule has no place in our lives today, as it was uttered prior to the Resurrection, and because it referred to “the law and the prophets”, but I really doubt that is where you’re heading on this, so please explain.

        • I think the people like the Golden Rule; they just don’t like it when it applies to foreign policy. It think they are a little confuse.

        • One thing the left doesn’t understand, and let’s face the truth. Paul gets a very high number of liberal and moderate voters that would vote for Obama if Paul is not nominated by the GOP. Now, that has to be something that Paul has seen. He will not win without the Conservative Base, but he refuses to reach out to the Conservatives that he claims to be most pure of.

      • No they weren’t, they were booing Ron Paul so it could be written up as such. That “far away” booing sound was exactly the same as the sound made when Ron Paul was first introduced. They were hiding in the back as a group so the wouldn’t be recognized or counted. Don’t you think their small noise being headlines is a bit odd? Other’s got loader boos and that was never mentioned. Newt got loader boos on SS = no, don’t touch it. Back and forth over SS, Newt drops back to don’t touch younger SS and gets applause.

    • The golden rule of do onto others as they do unto you is NOT a Christian idea. It is an eye for an eye. Someone hurts you- you hurt them back.

      I am not trying to offend any Christians here but Jesus was about forgiving ALL people even those who do wrong to you. So don’t say Paul is using/ flaunting scripture here. There is no room for forgiveness in the golden rule unless someone forgives you first.

      • Mark, sorry, I disagree with you. An eye for an eye was the Old Law. When Christ came, he introduced a New Law, a Higher Law, of which a part was the Golden Rule; turn the other cheek; if a man sue you for your coat, give him your cloak also. The Higher Law is a struggle for even the most sincere Christian to live in his/her personal life, much less apply it to international affairs. We’ve got a long way to go before we as a people can claim to be living the Higher Law.

      • Well if you would want someone to forgive you, let’s say for…I don’t know…killing hundres of thousands of innocent civilians and laying waste to their already pretty pathetic civilization over the course of the last 70 years…you should forgive them. Forgiveness is necessary for the violence to stop. Somebody has to be the bigger man here…is it going to be Iran? Iraq? Or the leaders of the free world? The United States of America. In fact, I don’t know that we can undo all the wrong we have done…but I do know it’s time to quit doing those wrongs, and bring whatever troops we have left back to secure our border, to prevent any more terrorists from getting in! If we want a safe America we need to protect America, not Israel! If these Christians believe a word the Bible says, it states clearly that Israel has God’s protection. They don’t need America! And if the Bible saying that isn’t enough proof for Christian Americans, or all Americans, we have the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu saying the exact same thing, “We have God’s protection, we don’t need America’s.” I think we all know who the clear choice for the republican nomination is, Ron Paul… I think the majority of opposition we are seeing is purchased by corporate America to further the agenda of corporate America. That agenda is to beat Ron Paul. It’s painfully obvious they are attacking this man without remorse, and calling in all their favors with the media. In this debate Paul was allowed to Speak for a total of less than 10 minutes, compare that to Romney with more than 30 minutes, Santorum with 25, Newt with a little less than 20, Perry 15… Why would four candidates, who don’t have the combined support that Ron Paul does among Americans, receive 95% of the debate time alotted, and Ron Paul, only receive 5% of the coverage? It’s not fair! Presidential elections aside, doesn’t anyone want a OBJECTIVE media? I’m tired of being told Ron Paul is unelectable every 10 minutes, or being told that Romney is a lock for the nomination! It’s not even close to the truth anymore! Americans are screaming, “we love Ron Paul.” and the media replies, “he is unelectable, shut up.” Why is the media pushing Romney so hard? The American people aren’t yelling, “we love Romney.” I am so disgusted that we have allowed the media to become this corrupt, as well as Washington, we have alot of hard work ahead if we are actually going to save this country. Electing Ron Paul is just one of many things we can do to start.

        • Electing Ron Paul is just one of many things we can do to start.

          As I see it the only problem Ron Paul would have is paying off the national debt. For sure it would not increase but 16 trillion could take some time. Again, the difficult he could do right away, the impossible takes a bit longer.

    • Take a look at Iran’s com pliancy to UN inspections to it’s Nuclear facility. How come Israel will not sign the treaty and comply? UN has claimed Israel to be an violation of 30 some war crimes.
      Why is Washington keeping this valuable information from us. I’ll stick with Ron Paul’s honesty on this one.

    • I can’t believe that received a boo, since polling shows that 80% of American’s agree with a “Golden Rule” foreign policy. In fact, the “Golden Rule” foreign policy used to be a huge part of the Republican platform. Ron Paul is not using the Golden Rule for personal political gain, he would use the golden rule for America’s gain. If you don’t want to gain personally, then don’t vote for Ron Paul. If you like bailing out the Euro, then don’t vote for Ron Paul. If you like Americans dying whilst commiting genocide in a holy war waged under a banner of Christianity, then don’t vote for Ron Paul. But if you love your hometown, if you love your country, if you love freedom, liberty and yourself, then VOTE RON PAUL!

  2. I’m still confused as to why people booed the Golden Rule. It makes our party look like a bunch of bloodthirsty rednecks. Embarrassing.

    • Yes, like when Gingrich said “”Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear idea about America’s enemies. Kill them.” … and the crowd CHEERED! This was, of course, the same crowd that BOOED ex-governor Romney when he said that he would have signed the NDAA “as written”. What a bunch of double-minded people.

      • Exactly. They’d cheer when Paul said we needed to end our unnecessary nation building and bring our troops home, but then cheer when Newt said he wanted to hunt down our enemies wherever they are. I’ve noticed this behavior in lots of people though. You can’t have it both ways. Either waste money, or don’t.

          • I agree, Ryan, that was a very large group of people assemble, and I think each group had its cheering section. Also, the NDAA has been represented to be a thinly veiled attempt to start putting Americans in prison for any little reason — that’s the serious mistrust issue we have with the Government, we suspect a conspiracy looms around every corner.

      • Uneducated individuals will typically follow the in crowd. Not trying to make fun but we better look beyond Washington and start searching for unbiased questions and answers! The information we are receiving is meant to deceive us. Remember Weapons of Mass Destruction in Saudi Arabia? Lies and more lies. We’re being fed a bunch of malarkey. Look at the US, we are the threat bullying all this countries around. I love democracy just like the next person, but we really have to ask ourselves is it in our best interest or theirs to force Democracy upon them? I can only imagine what devastation this must cause on their infrastructure and economy not to mention the death tolls. Civilians have been killing us cause we occupy their streets killing the innocent. If China occupied our streets killing our friends and family, we would not be taking that lightly. I have seen unarmed Iraqi-ans getting shot and killed not to mention the crude acts of violence, children deaths and rape victims. We should be over here people, Bin La din apprehended and then that should have been it. What went wrong we help Bin La-din back in the day then he attacks us? Something fishy with that entire story.

        • I wouldn’t say uneducated, I would say miseducated. People are still listening to mainstream media, and trusting in the information it is providing. I haven’t heard so much slander and bias towards any candidate in any election ever before. When the Media isn’t bashing Ron Paul, they are ignoring him, and ignoring the issues that Americans want to have discussed! Look at the data:

          Americans for immediate withdrawal from the middle east: 81%
          Americans for federal spending cuts: 87%
          Americans for federal tax cuts: 74%

          There are a number of other issues, but none as important to the American people as the war, and the economy which are both intertwined as Dr. Paul explains.
          Watch the 1988 video all over youtube where Ron Paul warns us about everything that is going to happen over the next 20 years.

          With Americans unified on these major issues, why can’t we back a candidate who agrees with us? Ron Paul!

          Juan Reynoso’s Blog –

          January 19th,2012
          Fellow Americans, I ask myself why Americans are not able to see, what is taken place in our country, base on my own research, I found that; today Americans are less political inform than 50 years ago, in effect political ignorance has grow and as a consequence, government power has mushroomed and become corrupt and inefficient. The average citizen comprehension of government function and responsibility, is very low; we are in a civic crisis, the citizens knowledge of information about public affairs must improve to avoid the continuation of this government corruption and deception.
          The question is, has America already reached the point at which elections are mere contests of demagoguery and bathos?. I hope not, even if many or most people know little of government, the people will be eager to learn; I think that we trust our government so much, that we neglected our civic responsibility, now that we are in this crisis, the people will learn and will be part of this revolution that will take our country back.
          I pray to God, to give us the wisdom to learn and work in unity to save our country.
          Please pass this on, Our Democratic Republic will died if we fail to educate ourselves

  3. I enjoyed the debate. I had some trouble initially streaming it last night, but eventually I found the right location that led me to it. I listened to the whole debate this morning.

    Bret did a great job of moderating it. The commentators at the conclusion of the debate were misleading about Santorum. Yes, Gingrich was the winner, Romney looked Presidential, Perry was good, Santorum was good, and Paul was horrible. The Twitter thing was completely misleading. As Mr. Roberts said, the whole Twitter thing is suspect as the majority of users are young people who tend to favor fringe-types, like Paul. Thus, they were supporting Paul over everyone else.

    I do not have a Twitter or Facebook account and have no intention of getting either. I have voted in every election, not just Presidential, since I became eligible in 1964, and expect to continue to vote until I am physically or mentally unable.

    Re the requirement to present a photo ID to vote, that is 100% right on. I could vote for two of my children in my local district if I had the mind to do so. They moved and have registered elsewhere but have never been removed from the local register. Now I understand how the “dead” can still vote. What a JOKE!

  4. The debates seem to get better as the candidates get more experience. Romney was good, but seemed not to dodge the darts thrown at him. Some stuck deep. Perry was at his best. Santorum did very well. Paul continued his political suicide. Gingrich won the debate, receiving a standing ovation.
    I agree with Joe Iandolo. The Ron Paul section of the Twitter poll was stuffed by Ron Paul’s followers. It was so obvious because he received no negative rating, even though he dodged some of his questions. Even so, Gingrich won that poll as well, for answering the most questions asked.

    • Actually in my opinion this debate was the best thing that ever happened to Ron Paul because he was booed. He’s not going to change his foreign policy to get votes. He’s on a mission to change the Republican Party. He’s made a lot of headway on fiscal issues, but very little headway on foreign policy.

      But I can’t think of single better catalyst for Republicans to rethink their stances on foreign policy than a bunch of SC Republicans booing the Golden Rule. Maybe even those people that booed will go home and realize that they just booed Jesus’ core philosophy.

        • I can see you don’t like Ron Paul. But I’m responding in hopes that you haven’t abandoned all sense of truth or logic?

          Sacrilegious is being irreverent to that which is sacred. In other words, Ron Paul would have been sacrilegious if he was insincere, making fun of the Golden Rule, rather than genuinely asking that people follow it with respect to foreign policy.

          Is that what you think (or you think the booers were thinking)? That Paul didn’t really mean we should follow the Golden Rule?

      • Ryan, wishful thinking. Americans love to fight. Just turn the History book back a page or two if you have any doubts.

  5. Ron Paul did not use the Golden Rule to get people to treat each other better, or to call them to salvation. He used it to try to persuade them to vote for him. That is sacrilegious.

    • He didn’t the GR to call them to salvation, I’ll give you that. But he did say we should treat other nations better, to stop bombing them and killing their citizens, right?

      How can you say he didn’t use the GR to get people to treat each other better?

      • Ron Paul, called the Republicans two faced hypocrites. They understood what he said and booed him. Is that plain enough?

        • Fair enough. Thanks for engaging me and coming around to the truth.

          I’ll admit that they were booing the application of the Golden Rule to foreign policy more so than the Golden Rule itself. Paul didn’t come out and call them hypocrites outright, but perhaps there’s some innuendo lurking in there somewhere.

          The question then is whether Jesus meant for the Golden Rule to apply to foreign countries. I Jesus connecting the GR with the parable of the good Samaritan makes it abundantly clear that is what he intended.

          Do you disagree?

          And more importantly, if someone shows you scripture that suggests you have a wrong position, is the correct response to boo that person?

        • Well, BA, that’s more or less true of the GOP as an entity and of many individuals in the GOP who claim to support the rule of law and then abandon it whenever the law becomes inconvenient. I’m not disagreeing with you here. I think that is a fair characterization of how they could have, and should have, taken his comment. And, as Gingrich likes to say, it’s not negative if you’re just telling the truth.

      • Except for one thing. If the Golden Rule was all it took, then there would be no need to support Defense Spending, as Ron Paul himself put it, would it? That is where he was off base. He knows it. His supporters know it. They just aren’t honest about it.

        • What Paul is trying to get at is why Islamic Fundamentalists want to attack us? If we want to defend ourselves against them then we need to understand their motivations. And BTW, Paul has said he’s for more defense spending here at home, but he sees our overseas ventures as making us less secure.

          The war hawks have created this narrative that they attack us because we’re rich and free. They said they attacked us because we have armies in their holy land. Which narrative is true?

          There’s a practical application of the Golden Rule here. Put yourselves in their shoes. If they were dropping bombs near where you live, overthrowing leaders in covert operations, detaining people indefinitely without trial because of suspicions, occupying countries around you, supplying arms to one group then another, supporting a regime and then destroying that same regime, denigrating your religion calling it backwards and barbaric, and having foreign troops/infidels in cities you consider sacred.

          You would want to attack them because they’re rich and free right?

          I’m not saying that’s how I see things or the way you should see things, but it is how they see things. And how you and I see things doesn’t affect their motivations.

          So applying the Golden Rule helps us to understand their motivations which is key to a strong defense. There’s a moral angle to it as well. Why did Gingrich call the Palestinians an “invented people?” It’s absurd as a historical statement. They’ve been living there for many centuries. It’s not good diplomacy if you’re looking for peace.

          But it makes us see them as less than human. They’re not really a people. We don’t have to consider what they would want.

          Well, Jesus says otherwise.

    • Anderson, you must be joking. The “Golden Rule” may also be used as a common colloquial American expression meaning treat other people as you would want them to treat you. Of course there could be a theological debate on the semantics of the exact wording but let’s be logical for a moment, please. The people in that room booed Ron Paul because they want to see America bomb other countries. Oh, not ALL other countries, of course, just the ones mainstream evangelical bigots consider to be a threat (read that as non-christian) like Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, China, North Korea, ect, ect. Look. There is a historical reason WHY the world trade center buildings in New York were attacked! (don’t misread that, it was a terrible attack on or sovereignty that should be dealt with but, as Dr. Paul mentioned, it took 10 years to do so; THAT is the real travesty) American foreign policy is misguided, reckless, and must be changed. If even for a little while just to reel in spending (on overseas bases that have little to no added value to the defense effort). Diplomacy won’t always work. You know it, I know it, Ron Paul knows it. But! Ron Paul IS NOT calling for a weak military that won’t defend American lives and interests. He just recognizes that those goals are not being met at present.

  6. Jesus used the Golden Rule to give instruction on how people are to react to people. It is a personal relationship. Nation to nation is not a personal relationship. It is wrong to claim the right to use scripture for your own purpose. Even Satan recognizes that. In the Bible, a person was invoking God’s authority. Satan replied in Acts 19:15 “And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?” It goes back to my statement that Ron Paul was sacrilegious in trying to use scripture for his own gain. He was wrong and was booed for it.

      • Do you think Ron Paul used the Golden Rule the way Jesus intended? I do not. Ron Paul use it to belittle the Bible believing people of South Carolina. They understood exactly what he said, and booed him (not the scripture)for it. Do you think Ron Paul used the Golden Rule when he made his statement? How about his negative TV spots? Jesus cast out the money changers who defied the Temple. Do you think Jesus was wrong?

        • I don’t think Paul was belittling the scriptural golden rule. I think he got booed because too many people think it’s impractical to apply the golden rule in international situations where foreign entities have their hearts set on destroying us. Until Paul makes a plainer, more convincing argument that it really is reaction to our actions that is the cause of all this hatred for us, he’s not going to get anywhere with the Golden Rule application, and I don’t think he can make that argument because it simply is a flawed argument. I think he would be better off to just admit they hate us, but there’s a better way to defend ourselves against their hatred — and having 900 bases in over 100 countries and fighting simultaneous wars is not the best way to do that.

        • Yes, Ron Paul did use it the way Jesus intended. Let me explain it real simply since you are obviously confused. In Mathew 7:12, Jesus says “treat others the way you wish to be treated.” Now examine the context of this statement. Jesus is addressing a group of people. And what is a nation? You guessed it; it is a large group of people. So Paul’s reference to what Jesus said is in no way belittling bible-believers. Rather, Paul’s reference is a reminder of how a nation is to act toward other nations. Now whether or not Paul used this reference for his own personal gain does not dispute the fact that it is true. Next time, be careful not to take holy scripture out of context as is has obviously created a lot of confusion on this post.

    • The Jesus you speak was not about all these glorified wars either and yet Constantine and many others to follow basically threatened many individuals to follow his cause. “You can side with the enemy and end up in eternal hell or side with us and have eternal life in the heavens. A lot of leaders use this tactic to manipulate and scare people into following their causes and not to side with the enemy’s evilness. Heck from the results Constantine was able to build an empire of glorified temples and started this entire Christian up rise. Christianity was founded on the principles of a type of genocide so to speak. The Jesus you speak was simple and was about teaching for the people, not about what is in it for me type mentality. The majority of candidates appear to have the attitude me, myself, and I and I will throw you a bone to shut you up, like an Obama type attitude. As far as that fact goes the last several presidents for the last 40 so years have been abusing power and disobeying the Law which they all took an oath to uphold. They should all be prosecuted and that ain’t no lie. Ron Paul is clearing stating real solid truths that everybody overlooks the Fed, this corruption, the wars, etc. etc. People call Ron Paul a wacko because of his ideas based on solid facts…. And yet we believe the bible which there isn’t one piece of hard evidential proof that any of the events took place. Paul constantly states this is our government and it should be working for us not against us….And that my friend is the facts and yet we sit back and ridicule the guy and do nothing. We are far away from the government truly working for us and we will continue to slide further and further until it is too late. I don’t know about you, I’d rather have someone fighting for us and to veto nonsense bills than to get suckered into this Political mumble jumble and another president pass bogus bills!

      • Ron Paul forgets one main thing about the duties of President. The job includes providing for the national defense. Closing the staging points (military bases) for the US military would destabilize the world. All the other Republican candidates understand this and would keep our military strong to preserve our country and constitution. With Ron Paul, we would lose our country. With out a country, what good is the constitution?

        George Stickney indicates that Constantine was able to build an empire because he was a Christian. He did not. Constantine built an empire from his religion. His religion was a political power. Religion is NOT Christianity. Many lost people think it is. George also states that there is no proof that Jesus is the Christ. He is wrong. I will try to keep this short. We know the only way to prove Jesus is the Christ is for someone to die, come back from the dead, and tell us about it. That seems to be impossible. In this and many other countries, a court can decide cases upon circumstantial and eye witness accounts. In the Old Testament it took two or three eye witnesses to condemn a man to death. With that basis look at the proof:
        I think, therefore I am. There is life at the birth/conception of a child. That proves life on earth. If there is life, it had to come from somewhere. Jesus lived on earth, and that fact was recorded in secular history. Jesus told us about life and salvation. Jesus died on the cross. He came back from the dead and was seen (after his death) by over 500 witnesses. Jesus told them everything he said was true. No other religion has that proof. Proof enough to win in court to condemn a person. How much proof do you need to choose life?

        • BA, spreading our resources too thin around the world is inherently UNstable. Babylon fell. Rome fell. Ottoman Empire fell. Great Britain shriveled. The USSR crumbled (because we forced it to spread its resources too thin, although we did it by saddling ourselves with onerous debt). Learn, and live.

        • Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
          First of all that’s is not what I’m getting at, heck I don’t even think Constantine was Christian. All I’m saying is, he defeated the enemies and became ruler of the Roman empire. Constantine built all those expensive temples from blood money and thus began the Christian up rise. Proof of Jesus the Christ, yeah D.A. keep telling yourself that, that is not true. Goodness sake even history books are shaky let alone the Bible… If there was solid evidence, don’t you think History books would be carrying stories about the Bible throughout? The good thing about it is, we as people can choose our religions and beliefs how we want and that alone should not be the argument especially if we are good wholesome beings. I have my faith as well, but you are missing the point. The current events can be argued more favorable than something that happened thousands of years ago. Step out side the box. I’ve had the pleasure to work with several churches and basically it is a job. I’m not going to get into all the fights that occurred in some of these institutions. I’ve had some church leaders tell me to view these as stories for the common well being of man kind. Don’t get me wrong the Bible is a very good tool, but you try to argue and ask about it’s truth….It’s basically an open-ended discussion. Ron Paul is stating facts and arguing about real truths known to man, how does that make him nuts? Why is people calling him a nut for keeping it real and yet we can parade around unproven Bible stories like they are real? Then is it safe to state that we all must be nuts!

      • George, unless you introduce the elements of greed and/or fear you are beating a dead horse. Now the frontrunner wants to rebuild the navy and add 100,000 to out military.
        Guess he intends to borrow another trillion from China to do this but the greedy defense contractors back him all the way to the bank and the voters give him a standing “O” out of fear. The man who can play the fear and greed cards best wins every time. Sorry Ron Paul but that’s the way it works. I will still vote for you though.

        • So true, you are absolutely correct! What the hell was I thinking, better yet what the heck is everyone else thinking? Just like you that will not influence my vote in anyway. Thanks 🙂

  7. Thanks so much for this site. It’s a great resource and you get the videos up quickly. It’s nice to have one go-to with all the debates without looking all over YouTube.

  8. I really enjoyed the answer/dodge o-meter that they brought out during the post debate analysis. Only two things would make me happier:
    1) A real time graphic that displayed the results while the candidates were speaking. I would love to see a candidate actually answer a question when they saw their graph growing red, or a competitor pointing to the graphic and saying ‘here’s what America thinks of your answer senator/ governor/ Mr. speaker’.
    2) An analysis of the truthfulness of the candidates’ statements when they differed on points of fact, rather than discussions about who seemed to have won. When websites like, Politico, or do this, they are so easily dismissed as the machinations of the left wing media. If Fox news were willing to do this, it would carry a lot of weight with the conservative voter. I’d love to see these things scored more like a football game and less like a figure skating contest.

    • keven, that would only be fair if the tweeters were representative of the population at large, which I don’t believe they are. It’s too easy for one candidate’s supporters to gang-up and dominate. For example, I don’t tweet, so I couldn’t respond. I definitely didn’t agree with most of the tweet assessments. To me they weren’t an indication of whether the candidate was answering or dodging the question, but whether the tweeter “liked” the response. That’s a big difference.

      • Actually, Marlene, you could have easily responded. The live feed page had the real-time Dodge/Answer meters (they look like speedometers in cars) and had buttons beneath each candidate’s meter where you could click “Dodge” or “Answer”.

  9. As a student of law, I think that Paul is like a rhino. He can shoot out devestating ads whenever he needs them, he can raise a couple million whenever he needs it, and he can bang out his point very well. I watched this live on the Fox website that had a neat feature sponsered by Twitter where you could click on buttons and vote on whether or not the candidate was answering the question. In the final results, the reporter said that Paul was the frontrunner in thos polls almost all night, he was only booed once, and then came back and was cheered. Also, I have studied all of the candidates, and it looks like that Paul is the most Consitutionally close to what the founders had originally wanted. A lot of people are saying that the Constitution is outdated, but its not; it was made to control something that doesn’t change: human nature, and I think that Paul is most agreeing with that. Plus, he has (in my opinion) the best faith that I would want our president to have: he is a Baptist. Overall, he has my vote. BTW, no, I am not working for Ron Paul, I’m just a kid who’s passionate about politics.

  10. Ron Paul misquoted the “Golden Rule”. He formulated it as a negative – “Do NOT do unto others” – when it is positive – “DO unto others”.

  11. How the hell does fox news get the coverage on these debates. There the worst news channel on tv. They dont report news they create it…..

  12. There is only one winner on stage, I heard the boos when Ron Paul’s name was first mentioned. These same people will no-doubt boo for his remarks. Don’t count them, they are not for the constitution.

    Again the monitor is leading the nominees as to what can be talked about. That is not what I want to hear, I want to hear the stance on issues each nominee conceders important, not answer the monitor’s questions. The questions were net even the same for each. Nobody spoke on issues only. Filing income taxes, what does that have to do with issues? That should be settled in court before any voting. Where is the Constitution in these questions? Ron Paul’s immediately brought up Constitutional issues. Santorum talked well and smashed Romney. Super Pacs should not be allowed. Perry was right on the State deciding issues not D.C. Question should be directed to Twitter, that’s a bad joke, emails should be sent directly and a conversation should be real time. Romney did say government was getting too big with Obama. Perry is protecting Voter ID, so is Paul. Paul was being ignored in the questions. The only things other’s were being applauded for were Paul’s stances on issues.

    Santorum is correct in unemployment, so is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is still being ignored and we are 1/3 of the way through the debate. It’s the monitors directing the questions that are keeping Ron Paul out. That’s Fox News for you. Ron Paul got a question (one of many) and he was applauded on every point about military and defense spending. The others just can’t beat his man. Again, all the applause from any candidate was mirroring Ron Paul’s stances. Amazing Paul was not asked any of these questions. One monitor mainly is asking Ron Paul any questions and they are not on issues, Ron Paul changes the question around and gets applause. Newt is right about unions paying too much for menial jobs, younger students would work for much less.

    Paul question; The quest was incorrect, Paul corrected it, he knows what actually happend. Again there was a technical glitch, these glitches seem to happen only during Paul’s responses, in all three debates. This one was for over five minutes, while the video re-buffered. At five minutes I backed the video up to the 1/2 way point, it looked like it would never re-buffer on it’s own. That means I had to listen to Newt again about food stamps, an applause that every candidate should have gotten because they all would have agreed, not just Newt.

    The question was again incorrect and Ron Paul corrected again and the monitor quickly changed to Newt who bombed out until he stated the obvious. Back to Paul, here is the “golden rule” the boos were the same people and volume as in the beginning. At the end of his answer he got big applause. Romney, answering his question attacked Obama over Afgan and got applause. These questions are loaded for applause except for Paul, who must correct the monitor. Perry uses another stance of Paul’s in stopping foreign aid and protecting Israel. He attacks Obama over the urinating on our enemies and gets applause. Paul agrees and gets applause. there is a group against Romany also but he gets applause against the NDAA. Santorum gets a technical glitch at 2:38 it continues until 2:47 when an alert appeared about an error that occurred, please try again at 3/4. Paul explains the difference between the Taliban and al Qaida and gets another big applause. Romney approves the NDAA and gets booed. Romney agrees with Paul and gets applause. Paul says the Patriot Act is wrong, the NDAA is wrong, give facts and gets big applause. House market to Santorum, cut the the taxes, cut regulations, gets applause. Romney, Raise age for SS? Yes. Lower inflation rates for medicare, repeal ObamaCare gets applause. He’s following Paul’s stance on these issues. Santorum on SS, lower benefits for people making over 1M, Newt = no, don’t touch it. Back and forth over SS, Newt drops back to don’t touch younger SS.
    Romney on SS, tax free own account if you want to. Break to see our votes, we don’t see them.

    Romney agrees on SS, Paul is not asked. Gun laws, Romney goes for Pro Gun for 2nd Amendment. No new laws against Obama. Aludes to Perry again. Santorum on guns, for 2nd Amendment. Member of NRA (bad). Paul on guns, should be left up to the State, no tort laws, gets applause. Newt, One Child as in China, is against abortion. Romney on Super Pact on Newt, agrees they are not accurate and should be changed. Romany say end Super Pacs, people should donate to candidates directly, get applause. Perry on boarder, flipped to adding to protecting secure borders get applause. Newt, No Child Left Behind, against it, reduce Dept. of Education it should be controlled by states, applause. END No questions to Paul in last 1/4 of debate.

    Paul won because the applause came from agreeing with his stance on issues. This was not shown in the debate, it’s the monitors fault, monitors with the question is not a good way to go.

    • That’s why Paul missed an excellent opportunity by not participating in the Huckabee forum. Each candidate had the same amount of time, and if he had been in, it would have been 10 minutes, one-on-one with the people of South Carolina asking questions specifically intended for that candidate. Then a 1-minute speech at the end. By choosing not to attend, he lost a really good chance to fully express his views without any influence by monitors.

    • Fellow Americans, thanks to the Tea Party, the American youth and Ron Paul, we can see that many courageous individuals are awakening to a reality, that our only choice to take our country back, is going to be by electing statesman, true Americans that will place our Constitution, our sovereignty, the rule of law and the economic and welfare of Americans first. Our loyalty is to our country the USA, not to any political party or organization, we are Americans and our duty is to stand for America.

  13. I think B Anderson is a perfect example of why this country is the way it is. I don’t even know where to begin with how wrong you are about nearly everything… not wrong as in differing opinions than mine, but wrong as is a blatant disregard for FACTS!

    First off, how is the golden rule strictly Christian scripture? Sooooo Jesus was the first person in the history of man kind to suggest we treat other the way we want to be treated? And Ron Paul used it as political gain how?

    Gah, I’m not even going to get into it… I hope you actually are the 13 year old you sounds like and will in no way effect the direction of OUR Nation…

    One last thing, I am a 2 time combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan (US Marine Infantryman), anyone who thinks the Taliban is a threat to American is dead wrong. We used them to defeat the Russians (indirectly via weapons and money and directly with direct-action AMERICAN forces fighting side-by-side with them). Ron Paul is ABSOLUTELY correct in saying the Taliban is ONLY opposed to foreign occupation.

    Iran is compliant with all UN treaties regarding their weapons and plants, UNLIKE Israel, who does whatever they please. Israel themselves says Iran is not a threat, and American war mongering is making things exponentially worse. We are catering to a complex set in motion right before our eyes, and we have somehow developed this bloodlust… Any man who can stand in front of a group of people, and push for the killing of others is called an Imam, or a terrorist by most uneducated Americans… Watch this debate, and listen to these mindless suits talk about the killing of humans as if they don’t deserve the title… LOOK IN THE FREAKING MIRROR AMERICA! WE ARE THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL THAT WE NOW DEAL WITH!

    But you sheep just soak it in… a man chants kill and the people cheer… WTF happened to us. THAT is sacrilegious B Anderson.

    Read All The Shah’s Men, or Blowback, or The Silence of the Rational Center, or War is a Racket, or the THOUSANDS of other books that explain, in detail, how failed american foreign policy is the reason we are despised in the world… and rightfully so. Main stream media, your history/civics texts, and your government have been lying to the dumbing American population for decades… Lies my Teacher Told Me… another amazing book you should read.

    If you hate reading, I would love to talk to anyone about my experiences in war, the PTSD I get to battle through college with, the amount of money being made my corporations whom only profit from war time, my dead friends, my right arm I cant raise above my head (Taliban IED), and the glory the idiots somehow think veterans attain… and Even after all of this, I dont hate the Taliban. In fact, I empathize with them..


    The golden rule.

    If they came to my back yard, I’d fight them too.

    The enemy, or terrorists are strictly terms of perspective. War is not glorious, and I long for the day the term becomes obsolete. I beg of everyone I talk politics with to become as informed as possible… Once you have started that journey, one candidate becomes painfully obvious. RON PAUL.

    And THAT is why us Paul supporters are so passionate.

    As a Veteran, I don’t want your yellow ribbons, or need your thanks. As a Veteran, I need you to be an informed member of society, so tomorrow can be better than today. Yesterday I was clever, so I tried to change world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.

    • Mike

      I am humbled by your eloquence…..and if they came to my backyard I too would fight them, but until then…..a Wise Leader and Honor, Bravery and the “The Golden Rule”

      Ron Paul!

    • Mike, yes, there is a big difference between our political ideas. You would let the enemy get to your back yard. I would not.

      • Well said, Mike. As a fellow veteran of Afghanistan, I agree with your assessment of the situation there and battle next to you in the search for the informed American citizen.

        Anderson, can you actually answer for any of what he’s presented? Or are you content with nonsensical quips of rhetoric?

        • I have over 20 years of military service, and over 15 years of volunteer years as a military retiree. My time included war service. I have had plenty of time to mature in my political ideas. Ron Paul is not a leader. He has never accomplished anything in his political career. As others have said, his foreign policy is dangerous. I will not vote for him, and I advise others not to waste their vote on him. I have doubts of the facts Ron Paul’s followers present, as most are unfounded, or half truths. I doubt that Ron Paul mental and physical health will allow him to serve as president. To say that Israel defending itself from incoming rockets is causing trouble?? Come on. Get your facts straight. It is frustrating to try to answer foolish comments by Ron Paul blind followers. It is a waste of my time.

          • “I have doubts of the facts Ron Paul’s followers present, as most are unfounded, or half truths”

            If you have doubts about things that I have presented, I would appreciate it if you would lay them out explicitly. If I’m wrong, I want to know that. If I’m right, I want you to know that.

          • Yeah will at least we don’t believe the answer to the 16 trillion dollar debt is more of the same. The frontrunner wants to run up the tab with China even higher in rebuilding the navy and hire 100,000 more government workers.

          • How is Ron Paul’s national defense weak? Why is it that he doubles donations from active duty military compared to all other candidates combined?

            And I’d like to point out in another comment you called our foreign bases “Staging areas.” Staging areas for what? Our own demise? That implies we are all over the world for offensive operations… Military over extension leads to nation debt, which inevitably leads to the end of that nation… there are NUMEROUS examples in history where this has been the case.

            He isn’t calling for a smaller or a less equipped military, just staying out of things that aren’t our business… We’ve fallen into this idea that its ok to start wars based solely out of speculation. After 9/11 Paul voted for the authority to go after Bin Laden, but was against the Afghan nation building. Lobbyists from various conglomerates and companies pushed for an extend occupation of the country, and then led the fear mongering which resulted in the illegal invasion of Iraq… Haliburton is my favorite example… you can only get a true sense of how utterly IMMENSE this companies waste is. They built KFC’s Cinnabons, Pizza huts, among other things in military bases within Iraq… why? So the Army can get fatter than it already is? (Remember, I am a former Marine… this is a joke) Or how about the private contracting firms which get paid millions to to the same job a US Marine does for $25,000 a year? Wheres the honor in that? These wars are wrong, illegal, immoral, and if you color yourself a “Christian” (which i’m not sure if you do or not since you seem to be so well versed in other forms of acceptable knowledge…. *sarcasm*) you should realize this, and be against the nation building and insane military spending…

            BUT, since you really have no idea what is actually happening, and have accepted the sheet over your eyes as reality my comments are in vain. I just want YOU to know that your lack of worldly knowledge effects us all. And in my opinion, Ignorant Americans are a much bigger threat than the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Iran, or just the Islamic nation in general (which you have wrongfully demonized) to our “national security” and the world COMBINED!

            I know you disagree with that, because you are severely uneducated (a generalization I feel safe in making) But read those books I said to earlier… then walk up to a mirror, call yourself a reformed IDIOT, and reply on here and apologize TO THE WORLD. We are all humans for crying out loud… and in our own words it implies EVERY man has UNALIENABLE rights.

            But since you consider us a “Christian Nation” I guess it makes sense we are insanely hypocritical. I’m sorry but just so there is no confusion: I hate you B Anderson, and i still stand firm in my previous statement. It is people like you who are to blame for the current state of things.

            end of rant.

            • Pentagon report says U.S. pays $400/gal for gas in Afghanistan

              Just though I’d add a little fuel to the fire Mike.

        • Yeah but fear is even stronger than greed when it comes to politics and presents a big opportunity to pluck the dumb taxpayers like a goose. Get a standing “O” for doing it too

      • You completely missed the point of that… Honestly, I didn’t expect you to get it. And whats the “I would not” business? are you going to grab a gun and come out to the front lines with me? Of course you’re not, because you are just another ill-advised POG with a bloodlust.

        If seen enough death in my life… and I lose sleep over knowing it was all for money, and I was once foolish enough to think otherwise.

        Please… I am begging you… Become an informed member of society. You don’t even have to vote for Paul. If you were privy to the wealth of knowledge and experience I have been fortunate enough to attain (via circumstance and my own prerogative) and you still wanted the status quo establishment candidate, then I would be fine with that… But I assure you, you wouldn’t.

        • “the status quo establishment candidate,”

          We sure have a lot to pick from as it seems like a win, win, win etc, etc.

          We got all “Leaders” and only one follower when it comes to the Constitution Of The United States anyhow.

    • Wow, we have here an American citizen and soldier, who did his duty to his country, was permanently disabled for it, and still is rational enough to speak the truth to power! Listen to your troops America, they want to come home! Let our boys come home! Think it over for a decade, if you still hate for no reason, we will talk about it then.

  14. Are people really that stupid in thinking they attack us becasue of our freedom? America has been bombing the shit out the middle east for decades of course there pissed and looking for ways to get back at us….

    • Are you kidding Scott? They attack us for no reason at all! They are totally irrational! They just hijack random planes and fly them into buildings because that is all they know! America never did anything to anyone! America can do whatever it wants to! The whole reason they attacked us was because we are free! It has nothing to do with the fact we have been involved with their internal political affairs since the 50’s. Let me explain this in a way you will understand, the playground. If you want to make friends on the playground at school, you walk up to random kids and you punch them…then they will like you out of fear and never try to get revenge. If you go around being nice to all the kids, they will follow you home and beat you up. It’s common sense, there is no such thing as revenge! People just do vile things for no conveivable reason! Speaking of vile things, I wonder how Mitt Romney is doing right now?

      • I wonder how Mitt Romney is doing right now?

        I think his net worth is over $250 million if that answers your question. For him to get it someone had to lose it unless he has the printing press.

  15. A lot of what some of these candidates are saying Paul has been saying for the last 30 years; Smaller govt, keep the Fed out of our business, let the free market work itself. So tell me why Ron Paul is a nut job? His Economics is sound, his business is solid. I think people are so accustomed to the way the media and politicians have deceived us that when someone comes along with a radical new approach to these wars that have not benefit us and most causing more harm than good…We immediately think this guys nuts, he’s going to get us killed. Some one had mentioned that we are going too fast and not actually taking time with an open mind and listening. Just a thought

  16. These candidates appear to be learning as they go along. Wait a minute let me see, Obama is learning as he goes through years of presidency. I’ll go with overall knowledge and experience in Law, Economics, Politics or Business over the less experienced in these fields. I’ll stick with Paul he is the most consistent and has a diverse knowledge of all issues and fundamentals of government. These candidates are taking some of Paul’s ideas including the Constitution and new ideas all the time. Don’t get me wrong I like new ideas just kind of scares me that this presidency could possibly result in another learn as you go type job.

  17. I had to watch the debate on re-run, but I thought it was an excellent debate. I thought Romney did very well defending himself, and don’t have any doubts that he can handle whatever the Dems/Obama throw his way. I thought each of the candidates had their excellent moments, and there were no serious missteps, which proves again that any one of them is a drastic improvement over Obama. My favorite has been Romney for some time, and nothing I saw tonite is cause for me to change my mind. My 2nd choice is Paul — not because of how he does in debates, but because I have read a significant amount of his written word on his policies. After that it’s Santorum, then Perry, then Gingrich. I did think Gingrich was spot-on several times, but he just has too much baggage, and I do not approve of his scorched-earth attitude these last few weeks — he seems to be saying that if he’s not the nominee, then there will not be a Republican in the White House. Now in this debate he did seem to have softened a bit in that stance, so we’ll see if that proves to be true. Just my two-cents worth.

    • Marlene, why don’t you tell us what you like about Mitt Romney? He is basically repeating everything Ron Paul says, except he wants more war and Paul wants less war. So should I assume that you are for the endless bloodshed in the middle east? Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about withdrawal which is what 80% of the American people want…so tell me, why is it that 80% of the candidates are for the war? Sounds like the candidates aren’t exactly representing the American people. I don’t care if his name is Chuck Norris, I am voting for the ANTI WAR candidate, like the other 80% of Americans who are tired of death and destruction.

      • He is basically repeating everything Ron Paul says, except he wants more war

        How about rebuilding the navy and adding 100,000 more troops if he can get China to lend us the money to do it with. Sounds to me like more debt and a bigger government.

  18. Congress man Paul brings up an excellent point on spending more money on defence then on continued wars, and fund bases around the world. This is something non of the other candidates or the media seem to understand. Further more his statement on wanting to bring more bases back to America is the best thing for the economy. We have all these soldiers around the world blustering the economy of foreign nations. Bring the bases back to the States and fill them with soldiers who will pump massive amounts of money to the local markets will help the economy out immensely.

  19. Several people have spoken of the “Golden Rule” as if it originated with Christ. In fact, Jesus was quoting the great Hillel, who gave it and said Upon this hang the Law and the Prophets. Actually, I doubt that Hillel originated the idea; he was probably quoting the sages who preceded him. The Law means the first five books – Gensis through Deuteronomy. The Prophets means all those books by or attributed to Prophets:Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.

    Jesus said he came to FULFILL the Law; he never claimed to destroy the Law. So when we start thinking that the NT is the only guide to Judaeo-Christianity, we must bear in mind that Jesus was a Jew, and so were all the Apostles. We cannot understand the NT without a thorough grounding in the Old, from which the NT came.

    • “If you’re thinking about voting for anybody other than Ron Paul, you need to have your head examined.”

      I don’t think I can go along with that. If you are a defense contractor or you are 0ne 0f the 50,000 DOD civilians who have plush over seas jobs, you would be crazy to vote for Ron Paul. Then we have all the welfare & food stamp people who will vote Obama.

      No I see a lot of people out there who would be crazy to vote for Ron Paul.

  20. Gingrich states Obama is the Food Stamp President, well guess what, that’s because of the wave on illegal immigrants who get food stamps at the state level.

    I am sure the percentage of unemployed Americans getting food stamps is lower than the illegals getting food stamps. if Gingrich were president he would be the food stamp president too.

  21. B.Anderson(noun) – a control freak who believes that any nation on Earth that is not militarily forced to do America/British/Israel’s unethical bidding is a “destabilized region”

    James(noun) – a patient individual, still waiting to see an Anti-RonPaul comment that does not include an exact propaganda slogan that has been used for hundreds of years by war-mongering conquest-driven guys who can’t get laid.

    Sorry if your World-Domination fantasies are being “destabilized”

    • James’ comment:
      Another example of Ron Paul’s followers made up “facts”. Jzames needs to realize he turns people off by such comments, and hurts his cause.

      • Haha. Actually my comment was pretty brutal. I even had to apologize for it at the end. I feel bad pwning someone this hard, but hey.. if you want to be a war-monger.. then you better get used to it.

        Despite the elderly conservatives in these debate audiences, who clap endlessly for any word spoken by any candidate (and starting to resemble the personality-cults of Obama’s supporters), War and Nation-Building are still increasingly unpopular with the general public. So I can see why you post so much. Bit easier than in real-life.

        Why do you bring up “facts” when everyone reading these forums know your posts contain nothing of the kind, but mere outdated war slogans?

        You even state “Ron Paul’s followers” showing your ignorance of how politics work. See, let me break it down for you sonny boy. (Even though you’re obviously just an older low-IQ guy) But you’re still just a naive grasshoppa. Politicians represent the people, hence Ron Paul is a follower of my policies. Not the other way around. But like every diligent voter, your knowledge of basic politics is brazenly absent.

        • “Ron Paul is a follower of my policies. Not the other way around.”

          You are right James and I’ve heard him say as much on more than one occasion.

        • James- “I feel bad pwning someone this hard, but hey…”

          Some advice for you James: If you want an ounce of respect concerning politics, you should probably save the video “gamer” terminology for World of Warcraft.

          James- “Why do you bring up “facts”…”

          Some advice for you James: Facts are good, try them, you may like them!

          I could endlessly pick apart your poorly spelled and punctuated, ineloquent excuse for political commentary but I will sum up your political prowess in one word…erroneus!

    • James, I have to say that I think that was totally uncalled for.

      B. Anderson, I’d still like it if you would supply some examples.

      • Neville, You asked what I disagree with you? For one thinking that Ron Paul would make a good president. Second, that it is possible to “work” for or loose God’s gift of life. I will vote for the person I think is the best qualified and experienced candidate. Newt Gingrich. He is the only one with a successful political leadership record. Even with his baggage, he still is the best choice. My vote will be this Saturday. All of Ron Paul’s supporters have not changed my mind. Their ranting has made me realize that I am making the best choice. No need to reply, as my mind is made up. Nice talking with you. BA

        • BA,

          You keep zigging and zagging all over the place in your conversations. That is part of the reason it is so hard to keep up a conversation with you. My request was not for examples where you and I disagree. It was clearly and specifically in response to the comment wherein you said:

          “I have doubts of the facts Ron Paul’s followers present, as most are unfounded, or half truths. I doubt that Ron Paul mental and physical health will allow him to serve as president. To say that Israel defending itself from incoming rockets is causing trouble?? Come on. Get your facts straight. It is frustrating to try to answer foolish comments by Ron Paul blind followers. It is a waste of my time.”

          I asked for specific examples, for my edification. Then you come back changing the words of my request, and you answer a question I did not ask. Your first example does not address a statement of fact at all, but rather addresses my opinion (which was never stated to be anything other than that). Your second example is from our theological hijacking of a political thread, and has nothing to do with following or supporting Ron Paul. (you also mischaracterized my position in the first half of your statement. If you are convinced that Newt Gingrich is the best qualified and most Godly-honoring candidate (I noted that you didn’t say that last part) then you should ABSOLUTELY vote for him. If your choice is because you believe he is simply the most likely to win, then that is pragmatism, which has no place in the voting booth, especially for a Christian. Per John Quincy Adams: “Duty is ours, results are God’s.”

          You also implied that statements (mine, perhaps) of Ron Paul’s health were unfounded or half-truths. I have, indeed, made such statements. I do so because people who can’t or won’t bother to research for themselves make statements along the lines of “he’s too old and frail and probably won’t live through his term”. The only reason anyone would say that is if they are ignorant of easily accessible facts to the contrary. I agree with you that some RP supporters (like some Perry or Gingrich or Romney or Santorum or XYZ supporters) spout off with supposed facts that are really unsupported. I maintain that I don’t make things up. It seemed that you MIGHT be saying that I did make things up, so I asked for examples to evaluate whether I was guilty of your accusation. If you will stick to the topic, I will be happy to have that discussion – it has nothing to do with RP or NG or anybody else, it is simply a matter of personal ethics.

          • the most likely to win,

            That’s how most of them vote and if said person doesn’t win they lie about who they voted for. Just try to find one person that voted for Nixon, lol.

        • Consider your last couple of lines: “No need to reply, as my mind is made up. Nice talking with you. BA”

          It comes across as, essentially, “I’m going to take my bat and ball and go home. So there.”

        • Newt Gingrich. AKA Mr. Family Values. Well if you cheat on your wife you would cheat on your business partner and a partner like that we can do without. This guy has done nothing but suck off of the taxpayers his whole career.

  22. After much delay the United States opened its new $700 million embassy in Iraq on Monday, inaugurating the largest — and most expensive — embassy ever built.

    And we borrowed the money from China to do it.

    Thirsty for more? Vote for anybody but Ron Paul and you’ll get it

  23. Billy,…That really puts it in perspective about the military spending, doesn’t it? How many families could have retained their homes with that much money being poured into our economy here at home? How many mouths would that have fed?

    I think that you will be pleasantly surprised to know that nowadays, there are more whites on food stamps than blacks and hispanics together. The state of our economy is so bad that people, no matter what color of skin, are losing their jobs, homes and lives as we all suffer together. Your comment seemed a bit biased against immigrants.

    One thing that has not been mentioned was the fact that dead silence followed Paul’s comment on bringing the tax burden to zero. Perhaps people don’t really like the idea of not paying any taxes? Or possibly they don’t know what to make of his ‘radical’ idea. Since the federal income tax was only to be a temporary tax to help the nation pay for and recover from WWI, and was to be dropped upon recovery of the economy and it still has yet to be dropped, I would think that would be a no-brainer. Repeal the 16th amendment and end income taxes. Taxes, according to the original constitution, are only to be collected from the states, not individuals. The citizens of those states with income taxes are being taxed twice for the same income. That should be illegal and, without the 16th amendment, it is. But for some reason, no one has mentioned this. Why?

    • “One thing that has not been mentioned was the fact that dead silence followed Paul’s comment on bringing the tax burden to zero.”

      Ah, that is because everyone knows the difficult (job creation) Ron Paul can do right away. The impossible (zero income tax) might take just a bit longer.

        • “If anyone else gets the nomination, I’ll vote Colbert.”

          Gee from reading most of these posts I thought Ron Paul was the only game in town

    • “Perhaps people don’t really like the idea of not paying any taxes?”

      Ron Paul isn’t saying we shouldn’t pay ANY taxes…he is saying that we shouldn’t pay a direct tax on our income. Do you know how many taxes there are? Sales tax, gas tax, liquor tax, tobacco tax, death tax, inheritence tax, social security tax, medicare tax, etx…the list goes on. There are literally hundreds of taxes. Ron Paul wants to do away with ONE of those taxes…which would free up 35% of your income immediatley, maybe if the crowd understood that, they would have cheered. What doesn’t make any sense to me is the tea party started over the income tax, the IRS and the Fed…why would any tea party supporter back anyone but Ron Paul?

      • “why would any tea party supporter back anyone but Ron Paul?”

        His age, his looks, the way he delivers his message, and most of all his foreign policy.

        The frontrunners usually look and act like some slick used car salesman.

  24. Romney has trillions that he and Bushes Stole from Americans……
    see: Romney LIES…. see this video by Americans
    who lost their jobs due to Romney

    See these videos that show you the TRUE Romney that he does not want you to know about.

    If WE do VOTE for Ron Paul we will be a better country and will survive the evil that has over taken us. If we vote for any other candidate…… we are getting more of the SAME! Get the EVIL out of Washington!

  25. Romney, “We all would like super-PACs to disappear.” Coming from the guy who received more lobbyist campaign funds than all other candidates and Obama combined!

  26. Monday evening marked the first time we were down to just five GOP candidates so how come the other 4 are not part of this blog???????

    Come on guys, put one up so we can knock him down.

  27. WARNING – Mitt Romney is backed by wallstreet. Mitt Romney has recieved more campaign funding from PACs and lobbyists than all other candidates AND the President combined! If you actually want change in Washington, violently oppose Romney’s campaign today! Ron Paul is our last chance to mend our shredded constitution and restore the Republic! Vote for freedom! Vote for liberty! Vote for justice! Vote for Ron Paul 2012!

    • Mitt Romney is backed by Wall Street.

      I’d say a good investment for them at this point in time anyhow. (he is out in front)

      • One of the best things I like about Mitt is his property. I really like his Ski Resort, excuse me ski lodge he sold. Man I can’t wait to see what his new house will look like when he demolishes his $12 million dollar house. As far as voting, I’ll stick with Paul!

  28. Oh and by the way, we know that Romneys support is manufactured by the media…we know that 75% of Americans support Ron Paul…and we know if you aren’t with us, you’re with them! There is a clear dividing issue here, and that is this governments unwillingness to listen to the American people! Americans want out of the war, we are still in it! The governement is sending a clear message, that it has grown beyond our control! Regardless of what the American people want, our goverment is doing the opposite! Hold them accountable! Elect Ron Paul to bring an end to our massive federal government and return the power to the states and the people where it should be!

    • Oh and by the way, we know that Romney’s support is manufactured by the media..

      Why not, he spends the most on adds there now doesn’t he?

    • Just to help, please try to keep facts straight, here is the latest poll:

      2012 Republican Presidential Nomination Rasmussen Reports Romney 30, Gingrich 27, Santorum 15, Paul 13, Perry 4 Romney +3

      • Rasmussen Reports Romney 30, Gingrich 27, Santorum 15, Paul 13, Perry 4 Romney +3

        Just goes to show you there are a lot more horses rear ends than there are horses.

        Helps explain the 16 trillion dollar debt and the condition of the country though. The worse you treat them the better they like you for sure.

  29. Ron Paul FTW…he is the only one who truly supports the constitution and wants to repair the country in an honest manner.

  30. This debate shows that most candidates will never answer any question directly, but use the answer time to speak premeditated stances on their views.

    Anyways Ron Paul rules… it is shameful how little time is given to him by the scums in the media

  31. OK…..Romney made money from the BAILOUTS…..Santorum supported the NDAA bill….Newt made money from Freddie Mac,the choice should be clear! Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate worth voting for! That’s why CNN won’t give him any time! The establishment is scared!!

  32. wow! no minoritys in south carolina? the only black guy i saw at the debate was one of the guys asking hte question.. everyone in the audience was white? ???

  33. It certainly was not pacifism that swung the door open for hitler and the nazis. World war II Was all about money. The international banking cartel clearly provided the funding “to get it going”. In doing so they used the German bankers as buffers. There have been many reports of hitler not getting funding in time. He clearly was not in control. He he were then he would have taken over the Swiss banks with all of that power. The goal was to recoup the patent investments made during the 20’s and to make an enormous profit and to expand the war industry. Pacifism did not start the war, far from it. It was always greed. This, Ron Paul understands. He is a professor in a room full of kindergarten kids. Its become embarrassing.

  34. That’s why I do not like that Iowa and New Hampshire goes 1st. This entire voting process is set up for favoritism. What is the history behind Iowa and New Hampshire going first which both are predominantly white/Caucasian in each state?

    • The Controlled Media is making a mockery of these debates — doing their best to ignore or minimize Ron Paul by directing idiotic questions for him alone!

      Tonight’s debate is a great example of this perfidy! The dog-and-pony show of Mitt & Newt, and the little mutt snapping at their Achilles’s heels — inconsequential Santorum — all these three little mice got to respond on a VERY CRUCIAL QUESTION that has been eroding our Nation for decades: Illegal Immigration! But not Ron Paul — he was asked an idiotic question instead: If he’d agree to some kind of Swamp Protection Law in FL Everglades!?!?!?

      What arrogance the main media has, that they can SLAP the American People on the face by saying this was an equitable debate! Do they think us this stupid — not to see their agenda and thus resent them!?

      A TRUE debate is when a questions is asked, and ALL candidates are given equal time to respond to said question — THIS WAS NOT THE CASE in Florida tonight!

      Shame on the “mediators” — they’ve exposed themselves for what they are (marionettes who’s strings are pulled by those controlling the main media)!

    • Obama — the next new host of Family Feud (can anyone give a total count of the women he kissed after his Misstate of the Union)?

      Afterwards — Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels neutered in a very diplomatic way all the demagoguery Little Hussein parroted!

      Not strong enough for me — but still kudos to Mitch!

  35. Anderson South Carolina is an gorgeous place to check-out, to dwell in or to go on getaway. It supplies significant to medium temperature ranges along with truly low housing expenditures. It has a inhabitants of just through 2500 citizens and an regular of 18 minutes to show results commute. In addition to that there are loads of engaging facts that comprise its record. There are info and trivia of Anderson and the environment in the vicinity. The crime rate there is also awfully lower.

Comments are closed.