Politics

Debate Recap: Gingrich Takes Heat for Saying Some Illegals Should Be Allowed to Stay

GOP CNN Debate November 2011

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Republican presidential hopefuls warned in near unanimity against deep cuts in the nation’s defense budget Tuesday night, assailing President Barack Obama in campaign debate but disagreeing over the extent of reductions the Pentagon should absorb to reduce deficits and repair the frail U.S. economy.

The debate ranged widely, from Iran’s threat to develop a nuclear weapon to the anti-terror Patriot Act, the war in Afghanistan, U.S-Pakistan relations and illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. across the Mexican border. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said some should be allowed to stay, drawing fire from rivals Mitt Romney and Michele Bachman.

On defense spending, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney said nearly $1 trillion in cuts are on the horizon for the Pentagon over the next decade, noting that is the same as the costs for the nation’s new health care law. He blamed Obama for that, adding, “We need to protect America and protect our troops and our military and stop the idea of Obamacare.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry was harshly critical of the magnitude of potential cuts saying the Obama administration’s Pentagon chief had called them irresponsible. “If Leon Panetta is an honorable man, he should resign in protest,” Perry said.

Neither Perry nor Romney specified if they support any cuts in the Pentagon’s accounts, but Gingrich and Jon Huntsman, one-time ambassador to China, both indicated the topic should be on the table as budget-cutters look for savings.

“It’s clear that there are some things you can do to defense that are less expensive,” said Gingrich.

Only Rep. Ron Paul of Texas sounded unperturbed, saying that despite ominous talk, lawmakers are considering only reductions in future military growth, not actual cuts.

In a race constantly in flux, the former House speaker has recently emerged as Romney’s principal rival atop the public opinion polls. As he looked around him, he saw other rivals who once held that position – Bachmann, Perry and businessman Herman Cain among them.

They and the other GOP would-be commanders-in-chief made their points in a national security debate a mere six weeks before the Iowa caucuses begin the formal competition for delegates to next summer’s National Republican Convention. The venerable DAR Constitution Hall was the site – a few blocks from the White House and as close as most if not all of the GOP hopefuls are likely to get.

GOP Foreign Policy Debate

On immigration, Gingrich said that while some who are in the country illegally should be forced to leave the country, that wasn’t true for all of them.

“If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don‘t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out,” he said.

Romney and Minnesota Rep. Bachmann strongly differed.

She said, “I don’t agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that, in effect is amnesty.”

Neither the format nor the moderator permitted all eight candidates to answer any one question, producing a somewhat disjointed event in which there was relatively little back-and-forth among the rivals.

Syria was one exception – Perry saying he supported a no-fly zone over the nation where President Bashir Assad’s forces are using force to quell protests, and Romney saying now is not the time.

The focus on defense cuts came one day after Congress’ supercommittee failed to reach agreement on a plan to reduce red ink by $1.2 trillion over the next decade, an outcome that threatens to trigger a similar amount in automatic spending cuts beginning in 2013.

The Pentagon’s share of those reductions would be about $500 billion, an amount that would come on top of Obama’s own plan to trim military costs by about $450 billion.

Romney did not distinguish between the two categories when he accused Obama of targeting the Pentagon for debilitating reductions.

“They’re cutting a trillion out of the defense budget, which just happens to equal the trillion dollars that they’re putting into Obamacare,” he said. He said such a Pentagon reduction would crimp weapons acquisition and other critical defense needs.

Several Republicans spoke up strongly for the anti-terror Patriot Act, saying it should be extended or perhaps strengthened to help identify and capture those who would attack the United States.

Only Rep. Paul among the eight presidential hopefuls dissented, arguing that the law is “unpatriotic because it undermines our liberties.”

Gingrich jumped at that. “That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans,” the former House speaker said. “I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.”

Neither Gingrich nor any other Republican mentioned that Obama, like President George W. Bush before him, signed legislation extending the Patriot Act. He did so while traveling in Europe last May, putting him name on a four-year extension of the law that gives the government sweeping powers to search records and conduct wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists.

Asked about the same general topic, Bachmann said Obama has “essentially handed over our investigation of terrorists to the” American Civil Liberties Union. “Our CIA has no ability to investigate,” she said. Bachmann did not cite any examples to buttress either of her claims.

On other issues, Cain seemed to sidestep when asked if he would help Israel attack Iran in the event the Islamic regime acquired nuclear weapons. He said he would want to know what the plan was and have an understanding of its chance of success.

Gingrich said he would bomb Iran only as a last resort and with a goal of bringing about the downfall of the government.

There was disagreement when it came to the war in Afghanistan.

Former Utah Gov. Huntsman said it was time for the United States to withdraw nearly all its troops.

Romney said top generals disagreed with that and asked Huntsman if he was talking about a withdrawal beginning immediately.

“Did you hear what I said?” Huntsman asked across the debate stage, noting that under the Constitution the president is commander in chief. A few moments later, referring to Vietnam, he said a president had listened to the generals in 1967, and the outcome was not in the interests of the United States.

Comments (218)

1 2 3 4
  • Baddoggy
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:38am

    No Newt for me now. Screw that. No amnesty. Send them all back and make them come in LEGALLY. Bullcrap we cant send them all back. If you start putting people in jao; for hiring them, shut down emergency rooms to free medical care, stop allowing them to attend our schools and lock them up for a long time when you catch them to deter them from making any money, they will self deport.

    Too many weak tea liberal thinking minds in here that think they are compassionate conservatives.. We either have laws or we dont. We either have borders or we dont. make up your mind. grow some balls!

    Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • Okie from Muskogee
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:52am

      Rush Limbaugh agrees with Ron Paul and Senator Rand Paul that there is no “cuts” from the super committee sequestration. 

      http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/11/22/rush-limbaugh-agrees-with-ron-paul-on-defense-cuts/

      Spending 100 now and planning on spending 200 next year and then lowering the planned amount to 150 is not a cut! 

      This should show how clueless the other candidates who said they were cuts actually are!!!! …..

      Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
    • Founding Father2
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 3:02am

      We don’t have to send them back. Cut off the magnets and use E-Verify and they will go home because there is no work. As for breaking up families, they can take them with them. Give them a voucher to return after they go home first, but don‘t give them a special path that legals don’t have.

      Here is the whole debate if you missed it: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/nov/gop_debate_12.html

      Report Post »  
    • WarVet
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 4:28am

      Baddoggy,
      I agree with you, I too am tired of this crap! Why should we keep people here that illegally subverted the law and sucked up our tax dollars for years in schools, welfare, medical and legal assistance!
      1. We need to get the border fence done ASAP and mine it with anti-personnel mines!
      2. We need to have large fines and/or put people in jail for hiring ILLEGAL personnel!
      3. We need to start rounding up the rest that haven’t left and ship them back across the border (including anchor babies – their parents weren’t legal neither are they!!!) Lets keep families together!
      4. Change the legal immigrant number coming into the USA from 1 million or more to the 250K that it was suppose to be originally! And make sure we pick the people that have the skill we need first!
      5. Finger print, photograph and get DNA of all legal immigrants that are given green cards and put that into a nation wide database that the police (ICE, FBI etc..) can access to make sure they don’t disappear into the US!
      These progressives like Newt are killing the US they all need to be removed from both parties!!!
      Almost all the 545 people in Washington need to be removed and replaced with people who care more about America than themselves!!! Get your act together people of America or you will all be slaves and will not see freedom again in your life time!!! As for me I will go down fighting to the end!!! God Bless America!!!

      Report Post » WarVet  
    • realindependent
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 4:56am

      Let me just say………FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!

      your candidates are horrible and will lose badly……

      Report Post » realindependent  
    • THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 5:01am

      @ WARVET
      I salute you SIR!

      Report Post » THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE  
    • Stuck_in_CA
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 6:00am

      Me too… Newt, you just lost me. This country could go a long way toward improving the job situation, as well as the budget deficits at ALL levels of government, if the immigration laws would be STRICTLY enforced:
      Alabama’s immigration law resulting in lower unemployment rate
      http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/alabama-s-immigration-law-resulting-lower-unemployment-rate?CID=examiner_alerts_article
      Allowing lawbreakers to skate, only encourages MORE lawbreaking.

      Report Post » Stuck_in_CA  
    • loriann12
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 6:27am

      I heard cuts this morning (not the whole thing, and apparently the videos didn’t translate). He said if they have a math degree or higher education degree, he’s for them staying. Not too many Mexicans here illegally have high degrees. If you just came here to cut my grass or work “the jobs that Americans won’t work” (which I don’t think they actually exist with unemployment this high), then you’re outta here.

      Report Post »  
    • KTsayz
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:54am

      And what was his point about having kids and grandkids here? If the ‘grandfather’ came here illegally, his kids and grandkids ARE NOT CITIZENS OF AMERICA!! Newt believes the ‘anchor baby’ baloney. Only citizens or those here legally can lay claim that their children are citizens of the United States. But Newt thinks the way he does because he is a ‘futurist’. Futurists believe in a world without borders! YUCK! I like our borders. Newt would force the North American Union on us – an EU style union with a new Constitution that would encompass the USA, Canada and Mexico. Newt is the most dangerous of all the candidates running and people better wake up to that fact.

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 9:56am

      Excellent article about all: “The GOP debate: The Constitution versus national security”

      http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stimulus/2011/nov/22/gop-debate-constitution-versus-national-security/

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 9:59am

      It all started with Newt Gingrich’s flip-flop on the so-called “Patriot” Act.

      In the past, Newt Gingrich has admitted just how dangerous this bill is – but during tonight’s debate, Speaker Gingrich took it as an opportunity to go on the attack! What the heck?!?!?

      Report Post »  
    • YoungBloodNews
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 10:01am

      Im glad so many are waking up to the HACK that is NEWT….

      Keep some here, really????? Have you even been to big cities (check out Springfield, VA right outside of DC). THEY (Illegals) set up their own communities, stores with only spanish, they refuse to integrate, fly the mex flag high and proud…. SURE Newts, let’s make them citizens even though they DONT support this countries beliefs, Constitution, or founding fathers….

      What about the PEOPLE who are following the rules trying to attain citizenship (which is tough and takes time)????? Your endorsement of their ILLEGAL behavior is SICK.

      Report Post » YoungBloodNews  
    • YoungBloodNews
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 10:08am

      @LORI

      Simple sheep go BAA BAA BAA, the CLIPS you viewed failed to show Newt saying: if they had been here for years then why ‘uproot them’…. Hey, maybe next time WATCH THE WHOLE THING BEFORE COMMENTING – it just shows YOUR ignorance (knowledge is power, claim AS MUCH AS YOU CAN). Im not trying to be nasty, many apologies if it comes across like that. Im just tired of people not grasping the entire picture (and this has a lot to do with life/politics/faith/etc.. not just last nights debate).

      Report Post » YoungBloodNews  
    • JRook
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 10:42am

      The only smart thing said about immigration was by Mitt when he indicated that one of the primary causes is the companies or small businessmen who hire them. There should be a $250,000 fine per occurrence for any company, large, medium or small that hires an illegal alien. That includes the Texas rancher, the Scottsdale landscaper, the Walmart cleanup company. And the crap about we can’t check their status is nonsense. The mere question will scare half of them away, and the indication you will check their SS# or validate their Green card will get rid of the rest. Most of the companies who hire them know exactly what they are doing and why. And the why is the exploitation of them as workers, paying them cash at a rate under the minimum wage. So these companies are also tax cheats. They are not capitalists, they are not great businessmen. They are just another group of cheats and criminals.

      Report Post »  
    • bhohater
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 11:17am

      A better idea is to just invade Mexico, wipe out the drug-cartels that are more a clear and present danger to our national security than the Taliban, then kick out their corrupt government and set up a democracy. What would be so different than what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? Except that the citizens of Mexico would welcome our troops with open arms. All the illegals who are mostly nothing but refugees could then return to their own country without fear of being murdered in their homes. Who would lift a finger to stop us? Russia? The UN? The answer is that no one would. Why should we care what they think because they hate us anyway.

      Report Post » bhohater  
    • southernORcobra
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 11:35am

      yep used to be thrilled about newt not anymore now it’s just cain for me

      Report Post »  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:00pm

      Although now I’m somewhat ashamed to admit it but I was actually considering Newt as an alternative to Dr. Paul since Newt was adopting so many of Dr. Paul’s positions and expounding upon them in a more articulate manner. However, after hearing Newt’s position on the Patriot Act and his support for Amnesty there’s no way I’d consider him. It’s going to be Dr. Paul 2012 or bust. No way will I remotely consider another Neo-con. I broke down and did it in the past two elections but no way in 2012.

      Maybe Beck is right about Obama in 2012. We have a major problem in the Republican Party. I simply didn’t realize that it was this bad but I simply don’t have common ground with the front runners on foreign policy, the Patriot Act, and Amnesty. Big problems.

      It‘s rather funny that Newt has all this mistrust for Big Gov’t but when it comes to the Patriot Act he puts full faith and credit in Big Gov‘t’s ability to carry it out without trampling upon our Liberty… Hmmmm makes you sort of wonder doesn’t it. Just say no to the Republican establishment! We don‘t want your Big Gov’t.. Take it and shove it where…

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • Constantine Ivanov
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:04pm

      To BADDOGGY:
      “No Newt for me now. Screw that. No amnesty. Send them all back and make them come in LEGALLY.” you said

      Sounds great. One problem, though:
      in our country, with our legal system that reminds end-stage-cancer metastases, you simply can’t put 12-to-14 million of illegals into railroad cars and relocate them in one night, as Stalin did with some nationalities in the USSR.
      Therefore, your good desire is nothing but an empty “air shaking.” I translate from my Russian mother-tongue: YOUR DESIRE IS UNREALISTIC. Even though I share your desire, by the way.

      So, Newt, unfortunately, is a lot more realistic.
      Moreover, he understands (unlike you and your like-minded friends) the political and economical consequences of any attempts to implement such a desire as yours.
      It will be not only 10xOWS, it will be a Civil War or at least riots, in comparison with which the Los Angeles riots 1992 will look like childish games.
      We are seriously ill: all our problems didn’t occur at once; they were growing since we misunderstood and mismanaged the consequences of mass movements of late 1950s-1970s.

      Report Post » Constantine Ivanov  
    • Constantine Ivanov
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:10pm

      To BADDOGGY:
      “No Newt for me now. Screw that. No amnesty. Send them all back and make them come in LEGALLY.” you said

      Sounds great. One problem, though:
      in our country, with our legal system that reminds end-stage-cancer metastases, you simply can’t put 12-to-14 million of illegals into railroad cars and relocate them in one night, as Stalin did with some nationalities in the USSR.
      Therefore, your good desire is nothing but an empty “air shaking.” I translate from my Russian mother-tongue: YOUR DESIRE IS UNREALISTIC. Even though I share your desire, by the way.

      So, Newt, unfortunately, is a lot more realistic.
      Moreover, he understands (unlike you and your like-minded friends) the political and economical consequences of any attempts to implement such a desire as yours.
      It will be not only 10xOWS, it will be a Civil War or at least riots, in comparison with which the Los Angeles riots 1992 will look like childish games.
      We are seriously ill: all our problems didn’t occur at once; they were growing since we misunderstood and mismanaged the consequences of mass movements of late 1950s-1970s.

      Report Post » Constantine Ivanov  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:13pm

      YoungBloodNews
      Posted on November 22, 2011 at 11:01pm
      Friend, its not ‘the jews’, the nasty nature of our past is more rooted in the, – gasp…. should I say it…. the vatican…. I dont expect many to read this comment and most will dismiss it, but I have history AND current POPE statements to back my claim….. What do YOU have to back yours?

      **No I am not Jewish, I am a Calvinist-Methodist and have Scottish heritage – no ties to the ‘holy land’…

      I assume you intended this for me? I’d love to have a debate with you on the side. I personally feel that we are dealing with little satan and big satan here with the vatican being the former.. lol

      techengineer11@gmail.com Look forward to exchanging some ideas with you.

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • LOTO
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:44pm

      @WARVET
      Gordon Liddy has a much simpler solution.
      Mandatory jail time for any CEO or employer employing illegals.
      Know whos blowing your leaves!

      Report Post » LOTO  
    • slr4528
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:45pm

      I am surprised that the Tea Party did not know Gingrich’s views on immigrations. His record is as clear as day. He strongly supported Amnesty in 1986 with the Reagan Bill. He also has supported other amnesty legislation as well. GIngrich to me is no different than GWB, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Gingrich would approach illegal immigration just like GWB and John McCain. He will spend his time working on amnesty legislation like they did back in 2006 and he will not place much efforts on truly enforcing the borders.

      All I will say is that the Tea Party people really need to research Gingrich’s voting record and read his books. Gingrich has always been a big proponent of the National Healthcare individual mandate. In the past year he has reversed his stance due to the election. Gingrich also has a record of being a proponent of cap and trade and green solutions. Gingrich also was one of the few Republicans who voted for the creation of the Department of Education. Gingrich was a huge proponent of NAFTA…there are so many things on his voting record that are contrary to the Tea Party agenda.

      Gingrich’s life long career as a politician and a Washington Insider should disqualify as far as I am concerned to be president. Gingrich profited quite handsomely from BIG Government. Do you actually think that he will be the one to institute Insider Trade Laws for Congress or curb the number of Lobbyists on capital hill?-I don’t think so.

      Report Post »  
    • Constantine Ivanov
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:45pm

      To BADDOGGY and others:
      While I am not an adherent of the idea “send them out at once” (simply because it;s unrealistic), I nevertheless do have some firm conditions to propose to help solving the illegal problem.
      1. Check IDs and reporting to INS must be mandatory. All that Political Correctness crap should be annihilated.
      2. INS must be severely fined for NON-DEPORTING illegals with infringing activity. Those who must be sent to prisons should work off their prison maintenance. No free taxpayers money to convicted illegals.
      3. No cash work should be allowed to illegals, because nobody pays taxes from cash.

      Report Post » Constantine Ivanov  
    • slr4528
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:08pm

      CONSTANTINE IVANOV

      I completely disagree with the argument that we can’t afford to send 11 million of the illegals back. What has been happening over the past few decades is that you had politicians waving around the idea of amnesty which in turn encourages illegals to stay in the country and it also encourages more illegals to enter the country in hopes of an amnesty bill.

      I agree 1000% with Romney. There should be harsh penalties for employers that hire illegals and E-Verify should be used by all employers. If we cut off all the magnets like the majority of other countries in the world then the illegals would leave on their own. Their families could leave together and go back to their country of origin.

      Illegal immigration is placing a huge burden on our legal system,healthcare systems and education systems. The services and freebies alone are busting the budgets of local and state governments as well as the Federal government. Many of the illegals make money under the table and send the bulk of their funds back home to family in their native country. How does that benefit the U.S?

      We need a leader who will enforce immigration law-PERIOD!
      We need a leader who will fight for the rights of LEGAL U.S. citizens and not the rights for ILLEGAL Immigrants.

      I have also heard the argument that the GOP will lose the hispanic vote if they are tough on immigration. I disagree with that assumption. Recent reports show many legal hispanics want immigration laws enforced.

      Report Post »  
    • A Conservatarian
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:52pm

      I agree with Baddoggy too Constantine, if realistic means unconstitutional, illegal =’s illegal and the breaking of laws should not be encouraged or rewarded. But, no ‘seems’ anywhere in your post and it was forceful! :D lol just joshin’ you again, Happy Thanksgiving.

      Report Post » A Conservatarian  
    • lylejk
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:55pm

      I agree with you 100% Baddoggy. Newt will do whatever it takes to win just like Romney. I said this on a latter post but what part of illegal don’t these idiotic politicians understand? Still, this one issue isn’t the one that causes me to stand against Gingrich; it’s his authoring and passing both NAFTA and GATT. :)

      Report Post » lylejk  
    • GeoffTN
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 3:18pm

      Long thread; I got banned from freerepublic for commenting on immigration. Conservatives, you need to realize something very critical; if we do not get a republican in office who can make FUNCTIONAL policy, we are going to get Obama’s legacy. Any GOP winner are going to have to deal with the destruction of the last four years; immigration policy is one that the Democrats are are counting on using against us and also make a winning strategy, despite the fact that many Hispanics are conservative. If we alienate these voters, we will LIVE with Democrats in charge forever. Literally.

      The Mexican and HIspanic people are not YOUR enemy. The real enemy is the federalization of so much of our national policy, which in turn creates dependency. Getting the individual state’s authority back in control, and then begin working to create policy that fits each state, is a top priority. The cancer that needs to be cut out is letting the liberals dictate policy ideas. They are organized, they are funded, they are willing – and on many issues they are wrong.

      Gingrich may be too much of an insider, I agree. I also think he is one of the most intelligent thinkers in politics. FUNCTIONAL ideas are ones that work; we cannot fairly ask for a conservative version of Obama who opposes the Constitution and Bill of Rights from the other direction. Enforce the laws on books, give the states the autonomy to discern what they need themselves, and work toward realistic answers to these huge proble

      Report Post »  
    • DrFrost
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 4:13pm

      If someone has been here for decades and is a contributing member of our society, I’m also hesitant to send them home. At the same time, it is wrong to not punish the crime. There has to be a way to both punish the crime and still recognize what they’ve contributed over the years. Something like:

      1) For these people, meeting the qualifications (long history in the US, family here who are citizens, no criminal record, etc.) we could make them permanent green card holders with the stipulation that, due to their immigration violations they cannot become citizens without returning to their own country and beginning the immigration process from scratch. This punishes the crime without discounting what they’ve contributed over the years.
      2) Pass e-verify and put heavy penalties on businesses that hire illegal aliens.
      3) Remove the magnets like free emergency room health care and citizenship to all those born within our shores.
      4) Reform the immagration process so that smart, hard working people that love our culture, that want to embrace our values can more easily come to our country.

      Report Post »  
    • Fly on the Wall
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 10:10pm

      So, have some of you folks finally realized that this line up of “would be’s” has too many negatives? Several are just plain incompetent, several are in it just to sell books and raise their speaking fees, and some have policies that change with the wind. Not much to choose from, is there?

      Report Post »  
    • Constantine Ivanov
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 5:12pm

      To “A CONSERVATARIAN”:
      “if realistic means unconstitutional” you started.
      No, my dear “A CONSERVATARIAN”, as I told you previously, you, as many Americans, often use words with no ties to their etymology and their meaning.
      REALISTIC means DOABLE. REALIZABLE, ACHIEVABLE.
      You, such a fervent defender of the Constitution, misread the Constitution again.
      The Constitution is not a Criminal Code.
      Yes, illegal is illegal, which obviously means a break of the Law.
      But the punishment for this particular break is (more precisely – should be) determined by a particular clause of the Criminal Code.
      And as I said and repeat, there is no way that the deportation of all illegals will occur in our country under any American President, no matter – Republican, Conservative or Democrat.
      You want to bet? If you want to make me rich, please make a bet. Let’s say, $10,000,000, OK?
      I am not afraid to bet.
      That’s what REALISTIC means. You should buy English dictionaries published before God created Liberals.

      Report Post » Constantine Ivanov  
    • grassroots
      Posted on November 27, 2011 at 1:22pm

      Sorry to hear there is no Newt for you! Newt is honest and straight forward. He is right and do you honestly think that anyone else running for the nomination doesn’t feel the same way Newt feels!! Everybody else tells you what you want to hear! I thought anyone by now would have learned that lesson. So it is refreshing to have someone tell you the truth. Our government is about to collapse and people need to pay close attention and think before they make the wrong decision. Newt I am 100% + for you.

      Report Post »  
  • snooop1e
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:12am

    I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH NEWT. We can’t just deport 12 million people. It won‘t work and it wouldn’t be right. If you have been here for more than 10 years and you have been working and paying taxes and obeying the law I say you can stay. Newts plan is predicated on closing the border FIRST…..and locking it down tight (stopping the flow of illegals). Until we do that, we can’t even begin to look at how to deal with the 12 million illegals that are already here.

    Report Post » snooop1e  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:26am

      A STUPID Liberal argument that does not hold water. Of course you can deport them! What part of illegal do you not understand. We are over run with illegals you dumbass. Put them on the next bus to Mexico or wherever they came from and let them come in the front door like a LEGAL person does.

      Newt shot himself in the foot. I for one am sick of ilegals sucking down our resources and trying to turn our country into Mexico. Wake up stupid!

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • Miami
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 3:28am

      Baddoggy

      We’re over run with Stupid people, I’d keep hard working illegal over OWS airbags

      Report Post » Miami  
    • Miami
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 3:42am

      What’s even better, lets start prosecuting people for treason, starting with all those who are working to overthrow Government outside our political structure.

      Report Post » Miami  
    • THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 4:11am

      Hey flea bag‘ why can’t we deport them? who told you that?msnbc? If we quit spending 100′s of billions on ungodly wars we sure could afford to send them packing to wherever they came from.

      Report Post » THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE  
    • loriann12
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 6:33am

      I heard a caller on Bill Bennett this morning with a good point. Newt is talking about people who came here in the 80′s, who have been here for 20 years. He’s also talking about people with degrees, not the guy who does your yard work. We need them only if they contribute to society. If they’re here and sucking off the teat of the government handouts, they more than likely don’t have a degree. And I don’t care if the lawn guy or manual laborer has a family. Don’t split them up, send them all home.

      Report Post »  
    • countryfirst
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:43am

      I agree with Newt to a curtain degree, the federal Government screwed this up to begin with. Now let the states take care of it. And the state that has the most liberal beliefs will get most of the illegal’s. And when it all comes crashing in the end. They will simply move back to their place of birth. We will have to reverse the damage one state at a time

      Report Post » countryfirst  
    • trench99
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:55am

      Exactly how have these illegals been paying taxes? They work under the table or with fake IDs, they milk our welfare systems, they take jobs from your neighbors, they buy their food with govt food stamps, and send their money home to mexico or stash it. They do not go to the local florist, they do not invest in America, so where do you get the idea that besides sneaking here they’ve been a benefit? Round em out & put em out!!!! Allow citizen militias to escort them out if need be.

      Report Post »  
    • Windwalker
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:57am

      Like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich is going to learn the hard way, watch his GOP rating standard take a dive. You appease the existing horrendous illegal immigration problem in ANY WAY we have in the U.S., i.e. in the case of Perry, granting in state tuition to illegals, and with Gingrich giving some kind of “legal” status (another word for amnesty) to illegal aliens with longevity here is going to doom his hope of candidacy for president. Interesting….Newt calls for anyone being here 25 years, and the first thing witnessed in one of these posts is anyone here 10 years. If this kind of avenue is allowed to foster, years will be a mute factor, it will be wittled down to other flimsy qualifying factors to grant illegals the right to permanent residency or citizenship. Everyone of these candidates need to get their heads wrapped around the fact that illegal alien immigration is a VERY sore spot with American citizens in every state in the U.S. As a current presidential candidate, you even hint that you endorse any kind of amnesty in any way shape or form, you had better revisit the planks in your platform.

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 9:17am

      Cut all benefits for illegals, close the border — keep the border open “one way” so illegals can leave!

      Report Post »  
    • crackerone
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 10:03am

      How can you be paying taxes for 25 years on a made up SSN#? Why weren’t they kicked out 24 years ago? Start with B O ‘s brother and keep the line moving!

      Report Post »  
    • slr4528
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:09pm

      SNOOP1E

      I completely disagree with the argument that we can’t afford to send 11 million of the illegals back. What has been happening over the past few decades is that you had politicians waving around the idea of amnesty which in turn encourages illegals to stay in the country and it also encourages more illegals to enter the country in hopes of an amnesty bill.

      I agree 1000% with Romney. There should be harsh penalties for employers that hire illegals and E-Verify should be used by all employers. If we cut off all the magnets like the majority of other countries in the world then the illegals would leave on their own. Their families could leave together and go back to their country of origin.

      Illegal immigration is placing a huge burden on our legal system,healthcare systems and education systems. The services and freebies alone are busting the budgets of local and state governments as well as the Federal government. Many of the illegals make money under the table and send the bulk of their funds back home to family in their native country. How does that benefit the U.S?

      We need a leader who will enforce immigration law-PERIOD!
      We need a leader who will fight for the rights of LEGAL U.S. citizens and not the rights for ILLEGAL Immigrants.

      I have also heard the argument that the GOP will lose the hispanic vote if they are tough on immigration. I disagree with that assumption. Recent reports show many legal hispanics want immigration laws enforced.

      Report Post »  
    • David
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:26pm

      Part of the problem I have with what Newt said is that it was the same sort of appeal that “big government” liberals use to appeal to people in supporting their policies. And this is why many conservatives didn’t appreciate what Governor Perry said as well, not simply for the idea, or the policy itself, but the sentiment, or “appeal” behind it, or supporting it.

      I realize many conservatives believe in “right and wrong” and strong moral values, such as loving God and others, as I do, and doing right to all, treating others with kindness and respect. But the issue for conservatives always is when the appeal to compassion towards others involves the government’s involvment fulfilling the love and compassion, not simply encouraging all to love and treat others kindly without involving the government. The government’s job is to make sure we are safe. This idea that the government takes on the form of a “human,” or some spiritual being, such as a god, in distributing goodness to the world, is a myth, for there is no “government.” It’s just a bunch of buildings paid by money taken from others simply to ensure the safety and security for those who its being taken from. In other words, “the government” is the people who’s money is being taken from them to help keep them safe, gurding their liberties. It’s like paying for a security guard, and somehow feeling he’s responsible to also protect the entire world. As a Christian, that is your duty to do your best

      Report Post » David  
    • David
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:36pm

      … to do your best to help everyone, if possible, with God’s help. But, you are only paying your “security guard” to protect YOU, not the whole world. You don’t have enough money to pay him to protect everyone in the world. If you did, then maybe in strategic ways you could pay him to help all. But if you had that much money to pay him to do that, why could not you do it yourself privately, or hire people on your own? Compasion is not compasion if it’s “forced.” You can’t say “American is a compassionate nation” if the government spends a lot of money helping people with this and that if they got the money from taking it from people by force, for if anyone doesn’t pay, they go to jail. Any money given to anyone is stolen money, and therefore, not compassionate. Robinhood took back the money and goods which were stolen from them by the Nottingham Sherriff. For right or wrong, he felt justify in raiding the castle, by force, to take what belonged to the people, their hard earned belongings which were taking from them as taxes. He never stole simply because some people made more money than others. For, where could you ever draw the lone with something like that? It could only be settled if everyone had the exact same amount, regardly of how much they endeavored to work hard to earn it.

      Report Post » David  
    • David
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:47pm

      What does all of this have to do with Newt and his stance on this issue? For it is the same mentality, appealing to what is “humane.” people who have been in government for a long time, as their life long thing, tend to think of it, as I was saying, as some sort of “enterprise,” or system of distribution of everything that is fair and right in the world. Government is needed to decide disputes, but only to avoid serious harm to individuals. It would be best to use other means to avoid using the government for disputes, such as clergy, or fair minded people to judge. People could agree to the decision which would be rendered.

      The border issue doesn’t have to be that complicated. I get the feeling that those who side with illegal immigrants not needing to go home, or receiving some form of amnesty, do so on these sort of “compassionate” grounds. Yet, it’s this sort of sentiment in itself which is the very magnet which draws people to such a country. And of course, the response to that by many would be, “Of course.” And to be proud of that. To see the people of the USA accpeting anyone who wants to come into the USA by any means, regardly of their capacity of earning a living, or situation.. In fact, the less desirable the people’s situation, the more compassion, right? it’s understandable. I feel this way towards others. The problem, though, is that, again, it creates a situation. I mean, if you feel, “If it were me, I’d want to risk my life and

      Report Post » David  
    • David
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:55pm

      Don’t any of you people understand any of this? So many feel conservatives are, frankly, prejudice against those of a different race, or culture, or who speak a different language, even if they may say different. And honestly, as we know abput liberals, the reason many of them feel this way is because they are themselves, secretly, or at least harbor, or have felt some feelings as this. Yet, I believe, at least for me, even if it were WASP’s sneaking across the border, who speak perfect English, it still would not be acceptable. But honestly, there are some (liberals) who feel that conservatives wouldn’t mind that, because they do believe the issues is a racial one, as they see things. i think it’s because they must be privately that way themselves in some way. I think liberals honestly don’t “get” the whole “big government” thing, or the other ideas, or think that it MUST be the reason why it’s so offensive to conservatives, not the “illegal” part. Many of them have this philosophy, if you ask them about their own politicians, and their dishonesty, “Well, they all do it,” so as to accept the fact their own are crooked! But simply saying “it’s just how everyone is,” almost as if they are themselves as well, at least at times, or can see maybe in that position how they could be. Yet, even though i’m not naive, and realize all the corruption going on, i don’t believe “everyone is,” at least not everyone to real extent, such as people like santorum,

      Report Post » David  
    • David
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 5:17pm

      As for immigrants, even possibly legal ones, and different languages than english, i think the main concern with others, and i could be wrong. but it is with me, so i’m thinking this could be the same with others… that it’s not so much with others speaking different languages in itself. there are, for instance, countries in europe, who have a part of the country speak one language, and another part another. yet, they still manage to not be divided. a good example of a country speaking 2 languages and it does seem to create a cultural difference is actually canada, although in some ways it is united. but, i believe for years they have talked about separating the french part! and my point is that it’s been more than simply the language. it’s as if the people see themselves as also “different,” hisotrically, etc. and that is what i am trying to say. america has always been seen as a “melting pot.” this means, in my opinion, that to be america, unlike living in england, ireland, germany, or the netherlands, countries of my heritage, you “mix” with others from different heritages, and there also (i feel) an interest with it. so, i may have italian friends, or polish friends, but there’s a unity in that we all believe in the constitution of the USA, and what it stands for! and the english language is not seen as ‘the enemy,” or anything to be feared, but part of the culture of america, with even different words than England has. Anyone who chooses to not p

      Report Post » David  
    • David
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 5:24pm

      If anyopne doesn’t want to participate with “the American conversation,” it’s hisotry, constituion, etc. yet simply comes here for a job, I feel it would be important for that person to understand why thi country, unlike the one the person came from, and most likely the reason the person left, has afforded them more opportunities, by learning its history. this is important if you want to live in the USA, especially if bearing any children. I say all this because when Newt simply says “let them stay,” it misses the whole idea of people coming here in a way which goes not justr thru some red tape process, but thru a way where people can pledge their allegiance to the USA. Do these “non-citizens” but legal do this? Newt seems to be so compassionate, yet skips this whole idea of people coming here to learn the language. And it’s not that hard. I lived in the Netherlands for a few months. if you actually are forced to interact among people who only speak english, you learn fast. yet if people come here and are led to think that spanish is an additional american language, they will never learn english. but again, it’s much more than a language. language can create a cultural barrier, which people never ctually learn, or mingle in with the new nation. it’s as if they are still from the other country, just visiting, yet just hear to make money. and this is true even with people being here 25 or 30 years. Newt seems ignorant of this mentality. he acts as if ‘

      Report Post » David  
    • David
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 5:34pm

      The way Newt puts it he makes the typical conservative American think that these illegals are like the immigrants of old, even the ones being here 25 years, and now speak English fluently, are patriotic citizens, and the only difference is that they just happened to illegally enter the country. but it’s more than this. I sort of equate it to a couple never having legally married. haha sure, they may live together, and get along fine because they have some common interests. but there’s no real commitment to the country. there’s no “pledge.” there’s no deep desire to really learn about the other. it’s almost as if, say, if the USA, for whatgever reason, went under, and mexico or another nation offered actually more jobs than the USA. (ok, not ever likely, but just go with it) this person would be SO happy, and leave in a second! because the loyalty has only been to this factor, NEVER to the country! THIS is why you want to be “humane,” right, because we have jobs and that country doesn’t? But this person isn’t loyal! Understand? That‘s what people aren’t getting. And as for splitting up families, and “the party of the family,” oh, give me a break! i HATE this kind of reasoning! i can just see someone in germany in the 30‘s and 40’s saying to a jewish family, “we don’t want to break up your family. we are compassionate.” oh, brother. i think to stay alive the family would gladly split apart the members, i mean, if that was the only option of

      Report Post » David  
    • David
      Posted on November 24, 2011 at 5:43pm

      “The party of the family.” Give me a break! You can see there is not enough space they give me on here to explain about all of this! I can’t believe all these “conservatives.” And I can’t believe I was such a huge supporter of Sara Palin, and when people spoke about her as someone who wasn’t very intelligent, I was so defensive of her. If she comes out an supports Newt, and she’s supposed to be an ultra-conservative, and leader of the tea party movement? What in the world is happening? of course, she did campaign for McCain. But, I always felt she only did that as a kind gesture because he chose her as VP, not because she seriously believed in all of his policies.

      Again, I am all for immigrants of all races and situations to come to the USA, if they are for the constitution, and willing to support the USA. Heck, I‘ll even trade many Americans for them who don’t support the USA! :-) As for splitting up the family, how are they even paying taxes if they don’t have an S.S.I. #? And Newt continuing brining up going to church made me sick too, and I am a believer in Jesus. What does that have to do with anything? Most latin people go to church on sundays. That’s probably where many are hiding, or being housed, during the week for goodness sake! lol

      Report Post » David  
  • West Coast Patriot
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:49am

    Paul was the strongest candidate on stage tonight, just like every other debate when he was allowed to talk. He stands with the Constitution and the American people against the establishment. Go Ron Paul.

    Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • gogogoff
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:59am

      Paul looked like a FOOL, Romney and Newt (who I don’t support) schooled him, I LOVED Newts line, YOU WANT ISRAEL TO USE NUKES?????

      Report Post »  
    • Miami
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:08am

      Only if you’re planning on living in a bomb shelter

      Report Post » Miami  
    • snooop1e
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:08am

      Ron Paul is living in a parallel universe. He consistently whines about not following the constitution but he never puts forth anything close to a plan. I worked with guys like that in the military, they were constantly whining about how screwed up things were but they never came up with any solutions. Ron Pauls reason for not continuing the Patriot Act was Timothy Mc Veigh, really? Ron Paul appeals to people who put a lot of time and effort into being angry and very little (if any) time and effort into coming up with solutions. His solution to everything is do nothing. I am so over his constant whining and utter lack of anything close to a coherant solution…….

      Report Post » snooop1e  
    • A Conservatarian
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:58am

      My comments to you Snoop1e are in brackets.

      SNOOOP1E
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:08am
      Ron Paul is living in a parallel universe [With the rest of reality as opposed to your own universe]. He consistently whines about not following the constitution [It's not whining to say over and over we're not following it] but he never puts forth anything close to a plan [Yes forget that whole plan to slash $1 Trillion per year that no other candidate comes close to matching]. I worked with guys like that in the military, they were constantly whining about how screwed up things were but they never came up with any solutions [that's why Paul receives more donations from the military than all other candidates combined]. Ron Pauls reason for not continuing the Patriot Act was Timothy Mc Veigh, really [and that line about how it undermines our liberties, like suspending habeas corpus]? Ron Paul appeals to people who put a lot of time and effort into being angry and very little (if any) time and effort into coming up with solutions [refer to the $1 trillion per year plan and every founding father Ron Paul agrees with that you do not agree with]. His solution to everything is do nothing [this statement offers a dialectic of extremes that makes no sense without examples]. I am so over his constant whining and utter lack of anything close to a coherant solution [Like your entire post]…….

      Report Post » A Conservatarian  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 3:56am

      OK Snoopy, you deserve one of these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0&feature=youtu.be

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
  • Micmac
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:48am

    Bachman would do better if she didn’t talk so passively. She needs to show some grit. She needs more presence.

    Ron Paul is so correct on many things, but he is scary on worldly subjects.

    As a conservative and living in California where caucasians are now a minority I also agree with Newt about the people that really have been here for a long long time. I know some of these people and their families and it does make sense. But newer ones have to absolutely go. Frankly, if Newt was to win the nomination (not likely), it could help bring in minority votes. Gotta vote for the candidate who is the most conservative that can win.

    Cain is too green, but talks a great talk when he’s on a subject he is familiar with.

    I also agree with other posts on other threads that say that the Dumbocraps want Romney to win.

    NoBama 2012
    Reboot Washington

    Report Post »  
    • Miami
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:10am

      I would put Ron Paul in charge of winding down the fed

      Report Post » Miami  
    • Micmac
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:14am

      Or Bachmann – it’s on her hit list.

      Report Post »  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 3:58am

      Then vote for him.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 4:05am

      He’s only scary to you because the media has told you to be scared of him…learn the constitution and he won’t seem far out there to you.

      Report Post » THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE  
    • loriann12
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 6:44am

      I’m not afraid of Ron Paul, but I am afraid of his zombies. They are angry all the time, cut every other candidate to shreds in the hopes that Paul will be the last man standing and sound as if he’s the ONLY one they would ever vote for. What if he doesn’t get the nomination? Will they write him in? That would be a sure vote for Obama. As for the military voting for him, that’s from the media. Where’s the proof? And does the military have time to research the real facts or are they going on what other people say? I was far too busy in the military to pay close attention to politics.

      Report Post »  
    • KTsayz
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:13am

      @Loriann12 I think you’d be a bit perturbed if you were constantly called names and your candidate was given only 89 seconds of time to speak during a 2 hour debate. Or if the candidate you supported was blacked out every time he/she won a straw poll.
      Remember the Ames poll? All the MSM, including Fox, kept saying the top tier was Romney, Perry and Bachmann, completely disregarding the fact that Ron Paul won 2nd place in Ames.
      I do agree that there are some out there who sound completely irrational, but are they really Ron Paul supporters or plants? With so many trolls on the internet, the best way to judge a true Ron Paul supporter is when they try to correct misrepresentations of Paul’s positions. Those are his true supporters.

      Report Post »  
    • P8riot
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 11:06am

      Romney is the only individual candidate that consistently beats Obummer in the polls. Why would the democrats want to be beat?

      Report Post » P8riot  
  • Miami
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:46am

    No heat he’s right, there’s no way to deport 12 to 14 Million people.

    Report Post » Miami  
    • Miami
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:06am

      Get rid of the hard criminal first, working down to productive hardworking families who are other that boarder jumping or overstaying their visa are law abiding people. Give them a resident status but not citizenship nor path to citizenship. If they where minors (under 13) when they entered they should have to earn their citizenship.

      They must learn English!

      I’m Cuban my parents learn the language, they came in the front door. We were fleeing a Communist dictator and they still played by the rules. My father was thrown in to a labor camp for 18 months for putting his name on the list to leave Cuba and mom got 13 months in a prison.

      Use the FRONT door

      Report Post » Miami  
    • Cuthalu
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 4:20am

      Wrong, let them self deport. Take away all the goodies progressives pile on them and see them go running back to where they came from.

      Report Post »  
  • conservativewoman
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:40am

    My family has been terribly affected by illegal immigration (we live in California), but one day when my battery died while parked in front of my bank, no one would give me a jump. Several citizens just ignored me. Two very nice hispanic men ( who I suspected were illegal) came to my rescue.

    They are not all bad people, and I still feel strongly against amnesty, but we should try to deport in a humane way.

    Report Post » conservativewoman  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:29am

      They comme here, suck up jobs, take our tax dollars and want to change our land to theirs. Tell me why i should be kind to someone who wold break into my house and start taking my stuff… Let me come to your house and take some of your money and you be nice to me about it, then I will agree with you. Wake up!

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 9:55am

      @BADDOGGY
      You live in a world of make believe. Alabama and Georgia suffered badly from it’s hard line approach to illegal farm workers when it found out that no “real Americans” want to do the work they were doing. Crops rotted in the field. Google “crops rotting in field”, this isn‘t a ’lame stream’ media propaganda story, it’s very real to the farmers who lost real money. Get rid of 12 million people and you’ll see our economy tank worse than it is. You can’t solve very complicated issues like this with simple ideological solutions.

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
    • colt1860
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 5:59pm

      @SimpleTruths Let the crops of those businesses rot the first year. They hired the illegal workers, they must carry the burden of their decisions also. I guarantee you, that the next year many of these owners will have a better offer available for Americans to accept.

      Alabama reaps huge rewards from immigration enforcement bill.
      http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-charleston-sc/alabama-reaps-huge-rewards-from-immigration-enforcement-bill#ixzz1eZXa5l44

      Report Post »  
  • 0ld5t0ner
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:28am

    I’ve read so much in the past three years, much on Glenn Becks advice. Day in and day out Glenn talks and cajoles and pleads for us to wake up and vote for a candidate just like Ron Paul. But not Ron Paul. Does the constitution mean something or not. Freedom means something. Liberty means something. God gave us president Obama To give understanding. If you give up Liberty for safety, you get the Government taking away your stuff and selling it to the highest bidder for smoking a weed. You get someone grabbing your balls or feeling up your wife and kidd so you can fly somewhere on thanksgiving. There was truly only one person on that stage that sounded like a Founder. And I‘m sorry Glenn it was’nt Mrs. Bachman. It was Ron Paul.

    Report Post »  
    • THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 4:19am

      Your completely right, If he really believed what he espouses he would be campaining for Dr Ron Paul, It just goes to show what a moron he is. IF YOU WANT THE Constitution first YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT the only canidate among them that does that. I guess he doesnt mind the U.S becoming the united nations like he flaps his fat gums about.

      Report Post » THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE  
    • Libertarian
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:45pm

      I absolutely agree! I have felt the same way, i sat and listened to Mr. Beck talk about the constitution and the founders for a couple years. I read the founders words, read the federalist papers, the commentaries of J. Story, John Locke’s 3 important books, some Blackstone a little Montesquieu, the heritage guide to the Constitution, Common Sense, The Glorious Cause, auto bio of Jefferson, J. Adams and B. Franklin – basically everything I could get my hands on in relation to the founders and that era. Yet he doesn’t support the only constitutionalist ie founding father-esque person up there. I don’t understand, it is like he was roped and pulled back into the status-quo bandwagon.

      I feel let down by you Mr. Beck.

      Report Post » Libertarian  
  • Robert999
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:27am

    Newt’s lead will disappear when conservatives find out what he said about amnesty for some illegal immigrants. Who will pick up the lead now?

    Report Post »  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 4:14am

      Have you really looked at Ron Paul? I believe he won the debate by pointing out all the Unconstitutional views of most of the other candidates. Paul believes like our Founding Fathers in his view of Liberty and Constitutional principles. I find it frightening that there are so many that have fallen away from believing in those principles anymore. Our country is in such a mess financially right now that I do not see how we will survive it. I cannot see any plan given from these so called Conservative front runners to take care of the biggest National Security threat that exsists, which is the fact that we are BROKE. If we collapse financially, it is check mate. We lose our freedoms that many have died for in our history. The only path is to turn back to the principles set forth in our Constitution to fix this country. If we do not, then Liberty will be lost forever.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • Robert999
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 5:11am

      I like a lot of Paul’s positions, but I really question some of his views on foreign relations and the military, and also on the Patriot Act and giving civil rights to people the authorities think might be terrorists. I’ll take another look at him. I don’t want it to happen, but it looks to me like Romney will be the GOP candidate. Which means 4 more years of Obama.

      Report Post »  
  • Founding Father2
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:18am

    Michele Bachmann was right to say Gingrich was soft on immigration. For his help on amnesty-like and other programs like it he is not a conservative: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/nov/bachmann_newt_soft_immigration.html

    Report Post »  
  • paperpushermj
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:18am

    Come on People….Some of them are real keepers……. you don’t throw them all Back

    Report Post » paperpushermj  
  • Founding Father2
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:16am

    If you haven’t seen the whole debate: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/nov/gop_debate_12.html

    Report Post »  
  • NEAF
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:52am

    I dont support amnesty, but lets use common sense. Not an easy or/and convinient fix. Politics faults!

    Report Post » NEAF  
    • colt1860
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:59am

      Newt said we would “separate” their families. NEWS FLASH NEWT! When that man decided to illegally cross an international border and leave his mother, father, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, cousin, grandma, grandpa, dog, cat, cow, son, daughter, wife, house, car, and toothbrush behind, HE DECIDED TO BE SEPARATED from his family by HIS OWN CHOICE. He knew what risks and consequences to expect. Why should we bear the burden and responsibility of his actions? You might have a reasonable point, but you fail to note that we’re talking about millions, not about the exception of few and rare individuals, MILLIONS. Secure our borders, foremost, and end all benefits and special rights to illegal aliens and their anchor babies.

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:15am

      @NEAF Yes. Definitely Politics fault. I’d say Progressives in both parties. They created this mess and these incentives for them to come here, and stay here. Free Education, healthcare, free lunch, housing, food stamps, free Govment cheese, social security, jobs, driver’s license, birthright citizenship, instate tuition, lower standards for schools to accommodate bilingual foreign students, special rights, affirmative action, court system, civil rights, unique school courses just for them, right to protest in public, right to petition OUR Government, opportunity to take advantage of a civilized society not of their own, federal grants, chance to abuse the land and other resources of others, Govment loans, bank accounts, bank loans, car loans, etc. It has all built up to this massive and disturbing mess, FOR US AMERICANS. They? They are just fine, living off the secured Liberties and blessing of others! They create their own radio stations, restaurants, TV shows, food marts and never want to learn or speak English in our towns. They do not assimilate, and arrogantly spout their national pride on our soil. And we secure their illegal behavior by granting their kids citizenship, though both parents be subject to a foreign jurisdiction. They, not all, but many, bring their traditions, customs, crimes, music and religion; and change or corrupt ours to accommodate their own. I am TEA and do not want another regular Politician. Enough with the politics of old.

      Report Post »  
    • HunterCurt
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 10:20am

      Gingrich never said illegal immigrants couldn’t be deported, he said he didn’t think they were going to be deported; and he’s right. As soon as you start rounding up illegals the news media will focus all the coverage on those who have been here 20 or 30 years and how their families are being torn apart. Moderates will cave in to the image of those enforcing the law as cruel and heartless and demand that the deportations be stopped. The left will join with the moderates to establish a “path to citizenship” creating millions of new Democrat voters. Gingrich’s plan simply recognizes the reality of the situation to achieve control of immigration. His whole plan is to gain complete control of the border, establish a reliable verification system for those who are here legally, simplify legal immigration, impose severe employer sanctions for hiring illegals, and provide a way for those who have established deep ties to their community to become legal guest workers but never citizens.

      Gingrich’s plan follows Churchill’s example of making any compromise needed to get his own way. He gets control of the border, deports the unproductive who came for the handouts, keeps those who will make a positive contribution to the community, denies the left a new voting base, focuses legal immigration on people we need, allows the moderates to feel like they have been reasonable and compassionate all while leaving the left looking like radical extremists.

      Sounds like a good

      Report Post »  
  • Founding Father2
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:48am

    Here is the whole debate if you missed it: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/nov/gop_debate_12.html

    Report Post »  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:44am

    OBAMA
    Ron Paul
    ACLU
    same ideology

    Report Post »  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:55am

      Paul won this debate hands down. I have been looking at other blogs and some liberal blogs and he is getting praised in a lot of areas. Sorry Gary, you are going to lose. You might as well face the fact that Paul is in the race to win.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • colt1860
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:59am

      Oh. I don‘t think they’d like his kind:

      “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.

      It is God Who gave us life. As He is free, so are those He created in His image. Our rights to life and liberty are inalienable.

      I’m running for President of the United States because I believe that our traditions and way of life are under attack from an out-of-control federal government and reckless politicians who show no regard for what our Founders entrusted to our protection.

      America became the greatest nation in human history because a dedicated band of Patriots believed their God-given rights were worth fighting for, even if it meant challenging the world’s most powerful nation in what many deemed a “hopeless” cause.

      Being free meant so much to our forefathers that they put everything on the line – and thousands sacrificed their lives – to give the promise of liberty to not only their children and grandchildren, but to generations they knew they would never even meet.

      Their courage and determination guaranteed they would defy the odds and achieve victory.”

      http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/

      Report Post »  
    • THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 4:25am

      Tampon
      bubonic plague
      gary m
      aids
      syphilis

      Report Post » THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 4:29am

      Colt, I believe that everyone should follow that link and read everyword in Pauls statement.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • KTsayz
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:17am

      Thanks for the link, Colt. I’ll spread it far and wide!

      Report Post »  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:43am

    THE ACLU trained Barrack Obama!

    Report Post »  
  • C.Gallicchio
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:31am

    As for the total of questions asked/answered with rebuttals the results = Cain-8,Perry-14,Romney-10,Newt-12,Huntsman-8,Bachmann-10,Santorium-8,Paul-10. There was some moments in the debate that I noticed Romney sweating and attacking down to the other candidates. Over all my take on the debate is that Paul,Huntsman and Bachmann came out more ahead then they started. While Perry,Cain,and Santorium remained the same . I felt that Romney perhaps lost the most in the flip-flop he was having with Newt on the immigration issue.

    Report Post »  
    • C.Gallicchio
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:39am

      add-on : sorry forgot about Newt, Newt as always a good debater, but lost a little in some areas and gained in others so i would say a wash for him, no gain .

      Report Post »  
    • slr4528
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 1:28pm

      Romney didn’t flip flop on Immigration. In MA he vetoed instate tuition and he also gave the police the authority to enforce immigration. More propaganda or are Romney’s competitors going to release an edited video to propagate their propaganda.

      Newt has a very solid record in his support for amnesty. He was a heavy proponent of Reagan’s amnesty law in 86 and he worked with Heritage on Amnesty legislation. If he were president he would be just like GWB and spend all of his efforts on amnesty law and minimal effort on enforcing the border and upholding immigration law.

      Report Post »  
  • pwatkins
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:18am

    Newt as always did well, Bachman and Perry both did well, although slightly differing opinions. Santorum is well informed and I would have to say did pretty well also. The others are saying what they think their supporters want to hear and of course their supporters are going to like that.
    They all differ from Obama bc he tells his supporters what he wants to hear bc he is going to do what he wants come “H*ll(hale) or high water.”

    Report Post »  
  • YoungBloodNews
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:09am

    No man escapes when freedom fails,
    All GOOD men rot in filthy jails,
    And those who cried: appease, appease…
    Were HUNG by those they tried to please.

    Report Post » YoungBloodNews  
  • colt1860
    Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:05am

    So, only one candidate proposed real spending cuts. Hmm…

    Report Post »  
  • circleDwagons
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 11:58pm

    once again Paul does well and is very strong, Cain was also strong. Cain / Paul 2012

    Report Post » circleDwagons  
  • lukerw
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 11:58pm

    They really try to cut Bachmann out the picture :)

    Report Post » lukerw  
  • jmiller_42
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 11:58pm

    Best two lines of the debate were when

    1. Paul referenced the founders and said that it is not worth giving up our freedom for security.

    2. When Paul laughed at all these other puppets wringing their hands over the super committee’s failure. “They aren’t cutting anything out of anything” He will be right, they won’t even end up cutting the proposed increases.

    Again, no other candidate has come up with a plan to balance the budget while they are in office. That should tell you something.

    Report Post » jmiller_42  
  • davuf
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 11:49pm

    I’m getting sick of all of these candidates. The more they talk the more I think that none of them are qualified for the position. Is this really the best we could do?

    Report Post »  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 10:01am

      That’s what happens when you have 16 sides of every issue, each with it’s own version of a purity test. No one person can pass them all and you end up with mush. Way to go team!

      OBAMA WINS.

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
  • gogogoff
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 11:47pm

    Wow what a load of crap, Vietnam was ran as a political war, much like Obama runs his, and from the sounds John would run his, if they listened to the PEOPLE ON THE GROUND we could have won, but we played with our hands tied behind our backs.

    Report Post »  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:15am

      Yup — Huntsman was wrong again.

      Report Post »  
    • Micmac
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:12am

      Vietnam was a political war, plain and simple. Just study the attacks we did on the Ho Chin Min Trail and then stopping them long enuf for the NVA to ship weapons, troops and supplies south…thank you LBJ….NOT!

      As a participant of the student strikes at that time this OWS thing bears no resemblance to what transpired in the 60′s.

      NoBama 2012
      Reboot Washington

      Report Post »  
  • Hickory
    Posted on November 22, 2011 at 11:46pm

    Newt did well. Romney was flat. Herman did well. Bachmann did well. Perry did ok. The others should have stayed home.

    Report Post » Hickory  
    • hucksqr
      Posted on November 23, 2011 at 12:19am

      Herman did well? He sidestepped every question it seemed. The guy has no clue about anything that is going on. His pat answer is “Well I would have to go to the experts so they can tell me what to do”. Every one of them up there are running on basically the same platform Obama is running on, which is to say “More big government, more big spending, more big borrowing, and no more liberty for you and your family”., other than Ron Paul. He’s is the only one that is getting it. I am less safe because of our idiotic foreign policy, our need to meddle with everything, and our disbelief that our debt habit is going to destroy our Country. Iran doesn’t need to worry about nuking us, we’re killing ourselves just fine, and they know it.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love