Key Moments in the South Carolina GOP Debate
- Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:31am by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
WASHINGTON (AP) — Some notable moments from the Republican presidential hopefuls’ debate Monday in Myrtle Beach, S.C.:
___
From the frontrunner:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney used the debate to defend his record as a venture capitalist. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, Romney’s rivals, have portrayed him as a corporate fat cat whose company, Bain Capital, made a fortune while thousands of employees lost their jobs.
Asked whether the results of Bain’s successes show a flaw in the business model or are just the rough and tumble of capitalism, Romney said he believes free enterprise works and ultimately improves the economy.
“Every time we invested, we tried to grow an enterprise, add jobs to make it more successful,” Romney said. “The record is pretty darn good.”
___
Releasing tax forms:
Romney said he’d be “happy” to release his tax forms and suggested he would do so around April if he is the party’s presidential nominee.
“I’ve heard enough from folks saying, ‘Look, let’s see your tax records.‘ I have nothing in them that suggests there’s any problem and I’m happy to do so,” Romney said.
“If I become our nominee, and what’s happened in history is people have released them in about April of the coming year, and that’s probably what I would do.”
Perry called on Romney to release his tax forms soon, as other candidates had. The public, Perry added, has a right to know how Romney earned his money, adding “We can’t fire our nominee in September. We need to know now.”
___
Gingrich on his positive campaign promise:
Romney’s super PAC spent more than $3 million in attack ads, which Gingrich said left him the option to either “unilaterally disarm” and leave the race or “at least bring up your competitor’s record.”
Asked why he was criticizing Romney’s success in a way that Democrats might, Gingrich replied:
“I don’t think Republicans should allow themselves to automatically be intimidated because every time you raise a question somebody yells, ‘You are doing something the Democrats will do.’”
___
Sharp disagreements over indefinite detention:
President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow indefinite detention of some terror suspects. Many civil liberties activists believe the law is unconstitutional.
Romney said he would have signed the law and insisted it was “appropriate” to detain American members of al-Qaida. Romney called membership in the group “treason” and said the U.S. government has the right to impose indefinite detention.
Santorum said a U.S. citizen who is detained as an enemy combatant should have the right to a lawyer and to appeal their case before a federal court.
Paul said holding American citizens indefinitely is a breach of the U.S. judicial system.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 701 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 538 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 357 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 274 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (243)
whatthehellbook
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:33amRon Paul is consistent & honest and has my vote. I’m hoping for a strong finish in South Carolina and polls seem to show him surging somewhat. He did great in the debate tonight, again, and more Republicans need to consider him as a serious candidate.
http://www.whatthehellbook.com/2012/01/05/fired-for-not-believing-in-hell/
http://www.whatthehellbook.com/the-book/
Report Post »NOTAMUSHROOM
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 5:34amI‘m beginning to think you’re right. He‘d dessimate the Federal government and I think that’s what we all want. For that matter, so would Romney, since he clearly has no problem shutting down inefficient, unionized, profit sucking losers like those who populate our Federal government now. Oh the joy of seeing all those overpaid, pension-fat, tax-dollar pork-fed public employees hit the pavement!
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 6:48ami just want to ask you Paul bashers an honest question….
When the SHTF and the dollar collapses and we have NO money to pay our troops or even get our troops home from the 130 countries they are located, then what are you geniuses going to do?
You think it won’t happen” Then you are a fool. We will be BROKE and without a DEFENSE..Answer the question you numbskulls!
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:03amI take it you had no problem with the “0%” tax rate???
I mean come on??
I’m all for lower taxes, but this was a bogus response and purely about reeling in some votes.
Obviously there needs to something coming in to sustain us. Our defense alone, which Paul doesn’t want to cut, cost 600 billion. Cut out the waste and you’re still in the hundreds of billions just for defense. Where does that money come from?
JJ Coolay
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:07amIt was a goofy answer and one he didn’t think very hard about.
Report Post »greensteam
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:38amBaddoggy your suggesting that if the dollar collapses we would leave our troops overseas cause we couldnt afford to get them home. lol. thats funny. maybe ron paul would do that. i could believe he could do that by the way he talks.
Report Post »LIBSALWAYSLIE
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:01amhis foreign policy ruins him as a serious choice. Too bad.
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:18amRand Paul‘s father will always have my deepest respect but Rand’s father is philosophically a pure libertarian which is way too extreme and doesn’t work…but he does have some great points which I love. I hope he gets enough votes to get some of those great points into the Republican platform at the convention.
Report Post »Obeckian1984
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:19amif you want to hear the truth
http://www.infowars.com/all-ron-paul-south-carolina-fox-debate-highlights/
what about Ron Paul‘s positions don’t we like ?
Report Post »dthomps6
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:50amRon Paul needs to be the next administration’s czar to dismantle departments. Wouldn’t that be fun.
Report Post »PA PATRIOT
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:54am@ Obeckian
Report Post »Great link …Thanks
thegrassroots
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:58amWHAT Is In Romney‘s Tax Forms That Romney Doesn’t Want America To Know?
Romney‘s sounding too much like BHO and BHO’ birth certificate — Which Could Be A Fake! AND, What About BHO’s School Records? Etc? BHO WAS NOT VETTED!
RELEASE The Tax Forms, Romney! America Needs To See Them NOW!
DON‘T Be Drink’n and Believe’n The Romney Kool-Aid, America!
DON‘T Let Romney Get Away With Be’n Another BHO!
DON’T Let Romney Get Away With: “Slip‘n and Slide’n, Peep‘n and Hide’n!”
DEMAND THAT ROMNEY ANSWER! OR ELSE, ROMNEY’S OUT!
Report Post »thegrassroots
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:13amRon Paul’s “golden rule” comment, was Ron Paul apologizing for America. Not Acceptable!
“Don’t Tread On Me” American Patriots DO NOT Apologize For America!
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:26amThe Grass roots,
Romney has shown his tax returns when he ran for governor, so this is really no big deal. He probably doesn’t pay an income tax and he probably only pays a capital gains tax. His tax returns will also probably show the significant amount of money he donates to charity. If I were him, I would wait to release them until he is the nominee.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason why Romney is hesitating on releasing his tax forms now, is because if he is the nominee and if Axelrod and Obama make a big deal about Romney releasing his tax forms then Romney will say..”I have no problem releasing my tax forms as well as my college transcripts so Mr. President wouldn’t you agree that the American people have every right to see all of the relevant information before they make the decision as to who would be the best president?”
It is called leverage people, and it is about time that someone in the GOP uses their brains to flip this issue around on the president.
Report Post »genY27
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:01amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_9TplOWgQZI
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:06amJJ Coolay
Report Post »So did the Federal Government do before 1913? INCOME TAX was 0%
recoveringneocon
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:09amMaybe this can clear up some questions.
PAUL’S PRO-AMERICA FOREIGN POLICY
* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.
* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.
* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.
* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.
* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.
* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.
* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.
* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.
* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.
* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.
As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected
Report Post »thegrassroots
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:09am@slr4528
America Has The Right To Have Current and Valid Info and NOW. “Probably” Isn’t Good Enough!
And, implying an alleged “leverage” tool DOES NOT TRUMP America’s RIGHT TO KNOW Who Romney Really Is!
You, SLR4528, Are Merely A Pourer Of The Romney KoolAid — A Romney Minion and Lemming.
You Romneys ARE DOING What The BHOs Did And Still Do — You Brush Off Questions With A Dust Cloud Of “Fluff” And Sweep Them Under A Rug! NOT ACCEPTABLE!
Cough Up The Tax Forms, Romney! AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW! AMERICA HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW AND NOW!
Report Post »drphil69
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:30am@Baddoggy -
BE PREPARED. Food, guns, ammo, water purification, fuel, seeds; the knowledge, skill, and will to use all.
Paul can‘t save us from what’s coming. None of them can. It’s too late, and a majority of Americans are asleep. BE PREPARED (or die).
Report Post »Dcjones
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:38amYou would think that all of these media outlets and Repub establishment would want to embrace Ron Paul’s supporters. But they try to outcast him and them. This is a HUGE mistake. Fox’s rating will go down because of this. Also Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity’s ratings have already dropped precipitously because of the RP bashing. About 1/3 have dropped for Rush and 1/4 dropped for Sean. Levin has lost about 1/3 of his listeners as well he has gone absolute bonkers against RP…
They should embrace these RP supporters because they come from all political spectrums.They are a lot of economic types that like his economic policy, they are Libertarians that like his freedom messages, they are mostly Republicans that like his small gov. message and low taxes, they are also liberals that like his foreign policy, and finally a lot of people like him because he is a “non political” type of politician that basically stands on principle.
Like it or not he gets a lot of support from all political areas and these people are young and enthusiastic. The establishment needs his supporters. And yet I read these comments and watch the Fox news debate and get turned off from these groups (like fox and rebub. establishment) that I used to be so fond of.
They can either embrace Ron Paul’s supporters or hand the election back to Obama, your choice…
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:10amSorry you mcmormon freaks and ronpaulcrazies
Gingrich won hands down. He was brilliant and clearly is our generations Reagan
Newt destroyed Paul and reduced Mitt to his odd st-st-stuttering he does when he’s lying
Report Post »Economist
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:16amdcjones,
I aggree, I think the Republican party is now crippled and will lose since they have outcast Ron Pauls supporters. The era of Neocon Conservs. is comming to a close. The party has split. It is do or die right now. and all Fox news wants to do is to sideline them?? Makes no sense at all.
Ron Paul has about 15% to 20% support right now. Do you think they are going away? No they will not come back to the establisment unless it changes.
Fox news debate last night basically ignored the man in second place for the first 40 minutes, and when they “BOTHERED” to ask him a question they spoke to him with venomous and blatant disdain giving him 30 second responses and basically spit in his face. They will regret this treatment and so will the GOP.
Report Post »KwajKid81
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:19amI don’t know how anyone can take him seriously? Outside of a few key issues, he is a baffoon. He has such a limited scope and vision that once you get outside of his key talking points he makes ridiculous statements (0% tax rate), rambles, and divulges his narrow perspective. I like some of his positions, but overall completely unelectable.
Report Post »Economist
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:27amkwaj,
I can aggree with you, he is not that well spoken. But I have been reading his economic articles for about 12 years, way before he was a candidate and well known. The man is a genius. You should read some of his stuff. Hardly anything gets out thru the MSM.
He is the only one that truly knows how to get out of the economic crises. The zero “income” tax rate is what the original constitution set in place. Mostly for the purpose of an income tax is in direct conflict with a free society. It invites the Gov into your life. It also lets them play class warefare and give out benefits to specific group. All societies with income taxes will desolve into totalitarianism evenutally. Excise and consumtion taxes are the way to go and promote freedom.
If you discredit him, I suggest you inform yourself before posting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3SOlXxUBLk
http://www.safehaven.com/author/262/ron-paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOs1m5QqaHg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Report Post »AhLeahIris
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:29amUh-oh… Are conservatives revolting against Romney-love? http://wp.me/p1HGwx-23p
Report Post »thegrassroots
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:37am@dcjones
Ron Paul‘s supporters do not speak well for Ron Paul’s leadership abilities. When disagreed with, RP’s supporters resort to either belligerence or nonsensical, baseless statements such as yours.
Likewise, the current potus is only capable of inspiring his minions and lemmings to aspire to being their lowest low.
Neither Is Worthy Of Living In America’s White House!
Report Post »theaveng
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:38amCBS: Ron Paul more likely to defeat Obama, then Romney, because Paul has the support of blacks and young people. If election were held today:
Paul:47%. Obama: 45%. Romney: 44%
Don’t Listen to War Propaganda (Iraq & Iran War Lies)
Report Post »3-MINUTE
VIDEO –
http://youtu.be/8KiRAMvAlpQ
“Observe good faith and justice toward all….. Permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations [Iran], and passionate attachments for others [Israel], should be excluded. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.” – George Washington
Economist
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:48amWow grassroots,
Have you seen some of the vitrial on this site toward RP supporters? I think its the pot calling kettle black here.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:57amRomney or Paul? You decide:
Ron Paul moves into 2nd place nationally 1/15/2012
Washington-Post/ABC News National Poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_011512.html
Report Post »Dcjones
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:59amGrassroots,
So you are saying that all the Ron Paul haters are “not belligerent”? They never call him names? Dude, there are going to be smart Ron Paul supporters and dumb supporters, just like there are smart Romney supporters and dumb ignorant Romney supporters. Same with every candidate. You can not lump everybody together and think that all of Ron Pauls supporters can be grouped into one type of person? That is ridiculous. But you can not argue that they are being ostracized from the GOP. I think what RP says makes a lot of sense. I am not belligerent or call people names. I like to post my views as an educated person that will further discussion and hopefully help people see my point of view. I think it is a little pot calling kettle black if you ask me about who is calling names.
Report Post »TheWholeTruth
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:06pmJJ COOLAY We DON‘T need a tax on our ’income’ (wages made through labor. aka a JOB) Here’s some information you should research: http://www.devvy.com/notax.html There are plenty of other sources that generates revenue to the Government.
Next: What part of ROMNEY IS FOR THE NDAA don’t people understand? It doesn’t say “American Al Qaeda members” anywhere IN that bill. To be a member of such a group is treason, and the Constitution has a remedy for that; it’s called a TRIAL with 2 witnesses to the OVERT act or a confession in court (public.) The journalist who is suing Obama over the Act is correct. Everything he does in his job, under the NDAA, makes him a ‘terrorist.’ (By the Acts own wording.) He states that he must have contact and meet with these people in order to tell their philosophy to the public. His articles could be seen as ‘aiding the enemy.’ I PRAY he wins and the Act is deemed null and void but, guess who is hearing the case? The big “O.s” judge. He appointed her. Goodie.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:12pmNewt Calls Due Process “Legal Mumbo Jumbo”
Title says it all. Happened on Hannity post-debate show when talking about Ron Paul’s answers about OBL.
Lot’s of activity on Twitter.
Report Post »TheWholeTruth
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:16pmECONOMIST You’re correct in your assertion that the GOP is committing suicide by disenfranchising Paul supporters. They need to think about this. RP has the largest percentage of Independents at this time. Independents make up 40% of the registered voters according to reports. The GOP NEEDS those votes to win any election just as much as the Democrats do. Should it come down to it, RP supporters will, for the most part, vote for him no matter what, either 3rd party or write-in. Some, okay most, criticize this. One of the establishments biggest radio host, Mark Levin stated in an interview that if RP won the Rep nomination he, himself, would vote for/ write-in another person. People shouldn’t scream then when RP supporters say the same. We will, as everyone should, vote their conscience and NOT the party line.
Report Post »thegrassroots
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:48pm@ economist
Of course you believe you need to defend your peeps! However and Seriously, take better notice of how the RPs react when faced with opposition.
Their behaviors are typical of how lib-lemmings react when Cornered and Exposed, and Opposed — which number them among the Intellectually Challenged and Immature Occupants of Planet Earth.
RP supporters are revealing a severe lacking in Ron Paul’s ability to lead and inspire folks to aspire to being their best selves. You might want to do the research before you speak!
Report Post »thegrassroots
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:12pm@dcjones
“Ron Paul Haters?” A bit over the top, don’t you think?
Disagreeing With Someone, Opposing Someone Doesn’t Equal Hating Someone.
Your Knee Jerk, Over Reaction is helping to prove my point. Thank You!
Report Post »rosecityken
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:58pmwell then there is 2 votes for obama, because all you both are doing is splitting the republican vote. I agree with some of his policy ideas…the fed…foreign aid etc. but being anti war at the sake of being anti war is liberal, not conservative. wanting to adopt a golden rule with people who have sworn to kill us, because their religion is telling them to, is naive at best. And could you both please explain to me who we have been “constantly bombing”? his foreign policy ideas are off base with the republican base. Explain to me how he brings the republican party together? and wins the nomination?especially the majority of them that believe that we should confront the worlds problems not “ bring our troops home and save the money”. for the sake of saving money. Is it a coincidence that ron paul supporters are the same age group as the “occupy” protesters? I dont think so…they are young people , who dont have jobs, kids, mortgages..etc. real life hasnt kicked them in the teeth yet. ron paul vs. obama = 4 more years of obama….dont think so…please enlighten me how paul isnt going to do WORSE than mccain in 08′ .
Report Post »mawmawsandra
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:09pmI was very upset with the way Fox did the debates. They intentionally put Perry and Paul on the end, and didn’ ask them as many questions as the 3 in the middle. Juan Williams made me want to turn the tv off when he was trying to make Newt look like a raciest. I am so glad he got booed, and Newt got a standing ovation. I believe the establishment is scared of Paul getting the nomination, because he never gets equal time in these debates.
Report Post »tryingtostaypositive
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:33pmI think Ron Paul did better in the debate this time because they actually gave him more than a tenth of a second to speak. But I gotta say, regardless of how well this one went, it’s still only one debate, and the same issues that have concerned me all along still do. Mitt Romney is a snake-oil salesman; probably a good guy in private life, and a natural leader for sure, but I’m not buying his tainted product – too much of the liberal mixed in. Newt Gingrich is amusing, highly intelligent, one hell of a debater, but he supports the kind of thinking that’s been trying to take down this country for decades (Progressivism) – and he isn’t afraid to talk about it, either, which tells me he’s ever so slightly contemptuous of the “average” American in thinking they’re missing his true motives (most smart people make that same mistake). Rick Perry is a good man, but his stand on illegals in our country is very, very disturbing. Rick Santorum – reminds me of a kid running for President of the Senior Class. Ron Paul – the guy is living in the wrong century and scares me, even though he’s so right about so many things. So. Bottom line? Whichever one of them gets the nomination, gets my vote. Because none are as inherently evil and wrong-thinking as Juan and Eva Peron…er, I mean Barack and Michele Obama and their hoard of un-American government minions. Let’s get them out in 2012, then deal with who should get in next in 2016.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:36pmGrassroots, Paul is speaking like a Christian should, and you bash him for that? If that is so, you are no Christian and I do not take anything you say seriously. As far as I am concerned, Paul is the only true Christian in the race.
Report Post »Vindex.Dogood
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:16pmThis was a hit piece on Ron Paul. The Blaze should be ashamed! Only those that are easily deceived would see it otherwise.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:24pmKnow what WWII Nazi soldiers had on the face of their belt buckles?
“God is with us”
I kid you not.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/1069962/
—————-
Was Jesus booed in the SC debate? yep
Debate reaction on the Robert Scott Bell Show 1/17/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=zk8p9zBoYmY#t=390s
Report Post »dbonnie24
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:26pmThe winner of the debate by a landslide was Newt Gingrich!!! He has won just about every debate. He’s cool under fire, which is what we need as OUR next president. He will bury Odummer on any debate they have. He’s the stronest and most brilliant candidate we have running. He can give Ron Paul a job in the administration closing down the FED. We NEED to defeat Obastard!! That should be OUR primary objective. We can’t split our vote and let another McCain (Romney) win the nomination. Let’s start to turn OUR country around and get behind Newt!!!!
Report Post »http://www.newt.org
Vindex.Dogood
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:41pmDBONNIE24, I understand your desire to remove from office one of the worst presidents this country has ever had but you should not compromise American values in doing so. Gingrich a Globalist in conservative’s clothing. Watch this video. It’s time the deception of America stops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWPz1Qdq1uI
Report Post »brittdd
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 6:03pmWhat was the first thing to happen in Iraq when we pulled our troops out? They went back to fighting among themselves, Something they have been doing for thousands of years unless someone comes along and sticks their nose in their business.
Report Post »schlitten15
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:23pmRon Paul scares me.
Report Post »Protoham
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 11:46am@ Baddoggie
We are already broke. What else would you call 15 Trillion dollars in debt?
The only Candidate on that stage to balance the budget in decades is Newt Gringrich. The only one! Talk is cheap, but action speak louder than words.
Report Post »Buddynoel
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:16amWhat I saw was this:
Report Post »Republicans actually had heard a nominee for their party deliver something worth a standing ovation. Exciting them to vote might work better than depressing them with reasons to not vote at all.
Miami
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:31amNo matter how the mainstream media portray these candidates they are all good men and would do a much better job than the present Occupier of the White House. Yes I called him an Occupier, he sure not governing.
What was it they called it, leading from behind…?
As a racer I don’t believe that is possible.
Report Post »Ruby in FL
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 5:31amThat Standing Ovation (never seen before in a debate, according to Frank Lunz) was for
Report Post »NEWT GINGRICH
Newt 2012 ! !
TRUTHandFREEDOM
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 5:51amI saw something revealing and questionable. Gingrich chose Andrew Jackson as a positive example this time. Jackson was a government expander. A government job builder. An opponent of the National Bank, not because it was a government bank, but because it was 4/5 privately owned & influential in partnering with private industry & assisting private sector employment. Jackson wanted a different bank, run by Democrats. He wanted government jobs that would be dependent on Democrat Party success . Read “A Patriot’s History of the United States”. Add the Trail of Tears & pro slavery advocacy of the Democrat party at the time …. I wonder why Gingrich called himself Wilsonian, raved MANY times about FDR as the best president of the 20th century & NOW holds up Jackson! These are ALL HUGE government power builders. = Government set price fixing with jail time attached to non adherance! A Gold ownership ban! Opposition to the founding principle of people born with predetermined rights! Military & post office segregation. Internment camps! They were nothing like conservatives, founders or true Republicans!
I’m looking for Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Lincoln, … not Jackson, Wilson & FDR! He says a lot of conservative things and then holds up the worst people as being examples.
Report Post »TRUTHandFREEDOM
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 6:28amI ran out of comment space on the last post, but I just have to say that it disturbs me that all of Gingrich’s heroes seem to be BIG BIG government Democrats and he enjoys honoring them at the same time that he is making conservative statements. There are far better examples and far better principles of governing than the examples he holds up and I wonder why, if he wants to make conservative points, he bypasses conservative and founding heroes to bring up these people who, like Obama saw the Constitution as an obstacle until they just decided to stop reading it and the Declaration of Independence! Gingrich does this when he‘s running for President and when he’s not. Something s really fishy there.
Report Post »bhohater
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:06amWhile watching the debate I kept having this vision of a newspaper headline which read; OBAMA WINS SECOND TERM!!!.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:10amIf it was possible to “Frankenstien” together a candidate from bits and pieces of all these men, we would have one heck of a candidate.
Report Post »Freedomluver
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:15am@Miami
I’m sorry, but I have to disagree.
Good men don’t spit on the Bill of Rights like Romney and Santorum did last night by refusing to condemn the NDAA that stomps on the 6th amendment.
Good men speak out against unconstitutional actions such as the molestations handed out by the TSA without probable cause…in direct violation of the 4th amendment.
Good men don’t align their foreign policy with the likes of Obama, the Democrats, and the CFR, while rebuking the wisdom of Jefferson, Washington, and Adams.
Ron Paul is the unique exception.
Report Post »Stuck_in_CA
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:11amI always learn something when Newt speaks. He’s interesting to listen to. He has ideas. Ideas are a basis for moving forward and correcting the course this country is on.
Report Post »But, without a CONSERVATIVE House AND Senate, any president could go astray. A president Newt (or anyone) must be held in check by Congress.
Newt always kicks butt in debates. Sorry Glenn, Fox News, Washington elites, ruling class — I LIKE NEWT.
UnreconstructedLibertarian
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:46am@TRUTHandFREEDOM
I also wouldn’t want another president like Jackson. But neither should we want another president like Lincoln. There was nothing right about Jackson’s “Trail of Tears”, but at least he tried to move them alive. Lincoln began the campaign of extermination of the native americans to get his Transcontinental Railroad built. Most of the departments of government we’d like to see disappear: Agriculture, Education, IRS, etc were either established by Lincoln or the immediate Radical Republican administrations. Lincoln was the first president to enact an income tax directly collected by the Federal Government, in violation of the Constitution.
The NDAA is nothing but a re-institution of Lincoln’s measures against northern, non-combatants within the Union who happened to disagree with his policies. Further, if you research Lincoln’s cabinet and military – you’ll find more actual socialists on a percentage basis that Obama has ever had.
Let me explain it to you like this. Newt was in South Carolina – of course he‘s going to use the name of the south’s favorite “big government” type. I’ll assure you that everywhere else above the Mason Dixon – he’ll be using the name of Lincoln with mythological reverence. Lincoln expanded his notion of “big government” at the expense of 680,000 American men.
The legends of both Jackson and Lincoln are insidious attempts to convince us against our constitutional foundings.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:14amThis is what I’d like to see happen: Trump enters the race late as a democratic candidate. He won’t enter as a independent because Paul will have already done that and it would make no sense to split votes with a non-democrat against Obama.
With Trump on the dems side, there will be a viable choice to those voters who feel betrayed by Obama but won’t vote for a republican.
Trump steals (spreads the wealth of the democratic electorate) enough votes from Obama to secure a republican to win the election.
Trump then admits that it was his plan all along not to win, but to bullseye Obama. Result: Republicans oust Marxism and it is proven once again that age and experience “trumps” youth and arrogance.
It would be icing on the cake (for me) if either Newt or Santorum wins the presidency.
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 6:43amObama’s campaign slogan… Leading from behind, Reggie Loves behind that is….
Report Post »TeamAmerica76
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:07amIran is viewed as a threat because they are a threat to Israel, not directly to us. Unless they develop the world’s largest rubber band, how are they going to get it anywhere close to US soil? Netanyahu has actually come out and said Israel doesn’t need US money or troops, they just need the US to stop getting in their way. Ron Paul has said that Israel views Iran as a threat, it is their decision, not ours, on whether or not to take military action against them. If Israel needs our help at that point, their leads can speak with our Congress and ask them to VOTE to go to war with Iran. If Congress were to do this, Ron Paul will respect Congress’ decision and fight the war to win, not continue it indefinitely under the guise of “police action”. If you can’t behind an idea like that, then you obviously think you know what’s best for Israel better than its own leaders.
Report Post »Freedomluver
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:04amThe really frightening aspect of of this foreign policy discussion going on within the GOP is the ones who oppose Ron Paul’s position, find themselves in basic agreement with Obama, the Democrats, and the CFR, and at complete odds with Jefferson, Washington, and J. Q. Adams.
How on earth this basic fact does not wake them from their slumber is beyond comprehension.
The main stream media feeds them lies and distortions, while creating Boogie Men…and they blindly gobble it up!
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq…right?
*shakes head*
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:23amA couple of dozen ways…not counting your giant rubber band….
to name a few
Commercial Airliner, Private Contractor Airline, Container Ship, Oil Tanker….
But that’s only if they actually wana get it to us directly….They could set it off on Saudi’s oil feilds…That would hurt us real bad…They could set it off next a carrier group….Thats a lot of lives and equipment lost…A LOT….they could give it to anyone of the many terror groups they already support…….You think airport security is bad now? That happens you’ll be lucky if you can fly naked….
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:29amI agree that Iran is a long way from developing launch to impact ballistic nuclear missles. But, think suit case nuclear bomb carried across the US/Mexico border by a suicide bomber. Iran’s development of nuclear weapons does carry a direct threat to the US.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:35amFREEDOMLUVER
And yes there were, and probably still are WMD in Iraq…they found lots of burned up nerve gas and anthrax, 2 mobile processing facilities that were destroyed by the Iraqi’s themselves (act of fear or were they like the defecting Nazi scientists?), and the rest is buried in the desert somewhere…He probably didn’t have a nuke, I’ll give you that, but he had the stuff to make a dirty bomb….As far as I’m concerned the others stuff is way way worse anywase…You ever seen video’s of what some of the more nasty nerve gas does? I have…. You ever read any of the storries about the old **** in WWI? The new stuff makes that look like pepper spray bud…..and good Ole Saddam had lots of it.
Dude how the hell can you say no WMDs? He gassed the Kurds once already….Or I guess you don’t categorize highly toxic gasses that kill indiscriminately in the most horrible way imaginable a WMD?
You wana say going into Iraq was a bad idea? Fine, you can say that all by itself and be right…But don’t start that ********* WMD argument cause it makes you look like an idiot….one who pulls the lines for “this war is lost” Reid, and Obama….
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:57amIran is not a direct threat to the U.S.??? See what happens when (not if) they start producing nuclear weapons and close the Strait of Hormuz….cut off 1/3rd of the world’s oil supply and see the resulting jump in oil prices that would destroy the extremely fragile economies of the western world (which is their stated intent to begin with). Iran is a direct threat to CIVILIZATION!
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:05pmNote to DISMAYED VETERAN: Iran currently has ballistic missiles of their own (built there) which are capable of carrying a small nuke (Hiroshima sized) to anywhere in the middle east and can also hit Europe. It has also been noted that a sneak attack on the eastern or western coast of the U.S. would be possible right now with the Iranians loading a camoflaged Scud launcher (the Scud is also nuclear capable) on an Iranian cargo ship and launching the missile a hundred miles or so off the coast, aimed at New York or Washington City….or L.A..The attack would be a suicide mission, but what else is new?
Report Post »CptStubbing
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:34pm@ eagle2715 You have very good points, and I appreciate your analysis. Many people say things like they don’t have gas or they can’t get here, but clearly they could. However, if Iran wants a Nuclear weapon, there really isn’t a whole lot we can do about it. We can’t go to war with Iran. Even if we tried bombing them it would be futile. The facilities they would use to create the bomb would be deep underground, if they aren’t already. A ground game would be suicide and worse than all of our previous wars put together. The Persian people are passionate, and the only thing they hate more than there government, would be an invading force. Iraq had a population of 32 million with only a percentage of the population being against the Invasion. Iran has 72 million all willing to fight and die to protect their homeland.
Iran also has some of the holiest sites in Islam. An attack on Iran would look like an attack on Islam itself. Now instead of fighting 72 million Persians, you are fighting 1.2 billion Muslims. All of them backed by the Chinese and Russian Military.
America is going to have to figure out how to play nice in the Middle East.
Report Post »CptStubbing
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:49pm(hate worse than their* government)
@ Schwehr, I am sick of people thinking it’s okay to kill people in another country, because the price of gas will go up. The world will not end if the price of gas goes, up. Attacking Iran, because the price of gas might go up. will more likely lead to the world to ending.
For those of you who call Paul supporters conspiracy nuts, listen to yourselves.
“If Iran has a nuke, they will support terrorists to nuke us.”
“If Iran has a nuke they will ship it over on a boat and have a ballistic missile hit us. “
“If Iran has a nuke they will destroy Israel.”
“Iran is enriching uranium they have a nuke now. “
“Iran is planning a global caliphate based on some obscure Islamic principle most Muslims don’t even acknowledge.”
As long as you people keep talking about this Muslim conspiracy and the Iranian conspiracy, you have no right to call into question another person’s legitimate concern for your conspiracy theories leading us into WWIII.
Report Post »flntlok1949
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:37pmRIGHT F’ing ON! War between Israel and Iran would be short and sweet. I don’t believe Iran has allies in the immediate area who will wish to upset their economies by joining in. However, if the “Allies” of either side feel the need to intervene, It could be WW3 – and nobody wants that! If Israel is attacked, and they want our help, we are obligated by treaty to go to their aide. If they attack first it’s on their shoulders – unless Iran does have some allies willing to butt in! Regardless, it is still up to Congress to declare war. I don‘t believe Paul see’s as being Constitutional, the power recently given Presidents to unilaterally send troops where the President deems it necessary!
Report Post »Daddymac10
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:02amonly 34 more debates to go. Thank God Ron Paul retire this year. He’s too old and his foreign policy is loved by many who wanna destroy us. I wonder who his cult followers will vote for in 2016??
Report Post »thriceconcussed
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:59amYou jackboots will have all dissenters in camps by then.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 6:51amRAND Paul…same Constitutional loving man…just younger. hahahahaha.
Report Post »The Revolution will not end. You cannot squash liberty and freedom you commie awipe!!
Freedomluver
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 8:53am@Daddymac10
Based on what you posted, it sounds like your idea of a good foreign policy is much closer to Obama‘s and the CFR’s, than Ron Paul’s and the founding fathers.
Hhhhhmmmm.
Think about it.
Report Post »TeamAmerica76
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:55am@Voice_ofFreedom
If you want to attack Ron Paul’s foreign policy, you should focus on convincing his supporters that “900 bases in 130 countries” and billion dollar embassies filled with “defense” contractors is not wasteful. You need to convince them that nation building efforts in regions of the world where the people would rather join the ranks of Al Queda instead of letting us change their government isn’t wasteful and pointless. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink. People in the Middle East aren’t drinking. You’re point about more people being unemployed is a losing one. Almost every dollar of Paul’s proposed cuts is saved by not having to fund as many foreign bases. The personnel themselves are to be stationed on US soil, not told they can’t be part of the military anymore. This brings more money home to be spent in the US economy. Do you really think he would have the support from military men and women he does if they thought they would lose their jobs?
Report Post »RiseLiberty
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:14amGet real. No sitting president is going to close down 900 bases worldwide. Even Ron Paul. He might close down 50, to appease his rabid supporters, but all 900? Never happen. Like obama promised his support base he would close gitmo. Never did. With no forward military presense in key countries, you cannot pre-empt a terrorist attack before that attack is upon us and no president in their right mind would hamstring the pentagon in such a way. There is a reason Paul is alone on his isolationist theories. This isnt 1860. It’s 2012 and facing the kind of enemy we are fighting, you cannot tell the American people, “oh, let’s just be nice and not meddle, and they will leave us alone.”. This shows a staggering lack of understanding of the nature of the enemy. Ron Paul has good ideas regarding the economy, the federal reserve, income taxes… But NOT foreign policy. Never.
Report Post »Freedomluver
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:08am@RiseLiberty
So basically, you find yourself more closely aligned with the foreign policy of Obama, the Democrats, and the CFR, than Ron Paul, Jefferson, Washington, and Adams….correct?
Hhhhhmmm.
Think about it.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:27amFREEDOMLUVER
I‘ll give you Jefferson even though it’s a stretch…But Washington and Adams? HAH! You need to go read a few more books man….Ron Paul is definitely not in agreement with them, especially with Adams…..
Report Post »Voice_ofFreedom
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:45am900 bases in 130 countries and you are going to bring them all home and house them where? and what are they going to do all day? You speak about how big and out of control our military spending is but if you don’t cut any people how much money are you really going to save? It‘s idiotic the way you seem to think if they are closer to home they suddenly don’t cost money anymore? That’s the real problem with Ron Paul. He speaks as if everything is going to be rainbows and good times as soon as he gets in. Congress will go along with whatever Paul wants to do and nothing negative will happen as a result. We can bring all our troops home and not fire or lay off a single one of them. I‘ll be honest with you though I don’t know why the troops are supporting Ron Paul. I could guess but, why? Just because they are troops doesn’t mean they will always agree with the rest of us. They are more than entitled to their opinions and to support the candidate of their choice just as the rest of us are. Let Ron Paul come out with some numbers and some duties for the newly repatriated troops that would require a workforce of that size and maybe I’ll rethink this point. But your argument that “they wouldn’t vote for him if he was going to lay them off” is stupid. These people fight and put their lives on the line for America daily, and you think they are afraid of being fired and selfish enough to change their votes on that line? I think I speak for many people when I say
Report Post »Voice_ofFreedom
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:47amscrew you.
Ran out of room there but it worked out nicely :)
PointBreak
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:51amBetween his face, his mouth and the definition of his last name – Santorum’s presence at the debates still perplexes me. Gingrich is completely inexplicable – the guy is an indefensible bastard. Romney is a bigger democrat than 10 Obamas combined. Love or hate Ron Paul, from where I‘m sitting he’s the only candidate not trying to hide anything through doublespeak and subterfuge. It gets him in trouble but at least he’s honest about it. If here were like the rest of the dais when asked something he knew was going to be unpopular he’d misdirect with a jab at an opponent or talk in a circle until the moderators gave up.
I’ve been a republican my whole life, and will continue to be one until I die, but there is no way I can conscionably vote for any of the choices the GOP is giving me other than RP. Like Bush and McCain, Romney is just another donkey in elephant’s clothing. I’m not falling for it again.
Also, what Ron said about the 2nd Amendment tonight was the most republican thing that’s ever been said at a debate EVER.
Report Post »KwajKid81
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:15amWow – I still do not see how any conservative can take Paul seriously. He has a solid platform on a couple key issues, but outside of that, he is a baffoon. 0% tax rate? If they had started on the other end and he went first, he would have given another number, but as it went down the line everyone was trying to “one up” the next guy so he says 0%. Complete lack of credibility as a serious candidate. He will get ripped to shreds over his inability to articulate his views in a professional manner.
Report Post »CptStubbing
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:11pmRon Paul has advocated a 0% tax rate for years. Income tax only accounts for 1/3, if that, of all government income. Cutting our spending back to 2006 levels and dropping our income tax to 0% will not hurt revenues. It would allow everyone to have more money in their pockets to spend on products and boost the economy.
For those of you who say we like roads and other government programs, you need to realize you already pay for those through excise taxes. Taxes on gas pays for your roads. Taxes imposed on airlines pays for air traffic controllers. Payroll taxes pay for entitlements. Most people with city water pay for it through a water bill. Police and fire are paid through city taxes and property taxes. Schools are funded through local taxes as well. A federal income tax is not needed. The original purpose for a federal income tax was to pay down debt from wars. Please don’t buy into this thought that the government can do a better job with your money than you can.
Report Post »Jackie Rogers, Jr.
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:51amHey, what’s going on with the lay out of this particular story? Comments going all the way across the screen. Story summaries underneath everything else and on my left side of the screen.
Report Post »No, No, No. This is all wrong. BLAZE, STOP MESSING WITH MY HEAD!
pamela kay
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:47amTSUNANI-22, thanks for the Romney info on who has contributed to his campoaign. To me that says allot. No wonder the main stream media hasn’t crusified him, they are waiting to drop the bomb after he gets the nomination. Hopefully he won’t. Newts baggage is no surprise and is old news, we don’t need the progressives coming out with surprises. Who ever gets it we all need to support him. We have to get Obama OUT. From there we will have to continue to hold whoever gets the nomination accountable. That is if we can win. For that matter if Obama allows us to have an election. Thanks again for the info.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:01amYou’re very welcome.
Report Post »richk28
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:24amI personally thought this was one of the best debates yet
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:34amAgreed….Everyone had some great lines…and great points…..
Though I didn’t like the back and forth between Santorum and Romney….Santorum’s final point about Romney not going against the PACs should have been made much earlier….not 5 minutes after the cat fight….
Report Post »Simonne
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 5:44amI personally thought this was the worse debate as it was too rowdy. I felt like I was in a bar room. I was happy the way Romney responded to Newt on the super pac as Newt was so sanctimonious & his ads were so false. Newt is always guilty of what he accuses another person of.
Report Post »mawmawsandra
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:02pmI thought it was one of the worse debates. They intentionally put Perry and Paul on the end. They asked more questions of the 3 other men. They had then consistently attacking each other. I think they made a mockery of the Republican candidates. I wasn’t expecting Fox to do this. They now have stooped as low as the rest of the media. The only part of the debate that I like was when Gengrich put Juan Williams in his place.
Report Post »lylejk
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:17amRomney played it way too safe. We need a bold leader and he’s not it. Gingrich, you can say won the debate no doubt, but he more then insured the passage of both NAFTA and GATT which pretty much destroyed our way of life, so I will never vote for this neocon; indeed, I’ll vote 3rd party if he gets the nod. Paul’s domestic ideas I like, but his goofy foriegn policy statements are loser to me. Perry is just way too week to even be considered but at least someone told him where the debate was to be held (sort of an inside joke for those in the know; lol). Santorum, overall, did better then Romney (which is not saying much) and, of this bunch, is the one I guess I will support. Still sad that the GOP’s giving us folk that nobody want to support again. :)
Report Post »pamela kay
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:25amLYLEJK, Please reconsider any third party vote unless you want Obama to remain our president.
Report Post »lylejk
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:38amI can’t for Gingrich Pamela. I personally see the effects of his actions all around me. I can pinch my nose for Romney or Perry but Gingrich I can never vote for period. If you only heard the sucking sound that I’ve heard because of NAFTA/GATT and you will see how dispicable a man I see Gingrich is. We were fine without these unfair trade agreements; stiving in fact. Look what happen to the Automobile industry in Detroit. Look what happened to the textile industry in my home state in Alabama. Look who we now have trade deficits with. Sorry, that was Gingrich’s doing; not him alone of course, but he was one of the heads that pushed it during a quiet Christmas period those many years ago; sound familiar? I actually agree with Paul on the Income Tax by the way. Before we even had an income tax, the government was funded by both tariffs and other fees. Right now, that will never happen, but maybe with the right folk in power, we can have such a limited government once again. I just wish Paul would be real w.r.t. to Iran though. I do like what he had to say about bringing our troops back home and F the rest of the world, but I do have to add after we take care of Iran. Iran is such an evil entity that we pretty much have no choice. Iran‘s worse then Hussein’s Iraq ever could be. I hate even to have to be the world’s police force, but Iran can not be left alone to do their own whim. :)
Report Post »thriceconcussed
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:04amYou’d rather march across the world instilling your ideas at gunpoint, like a nation of new age inquisitors?
Report Post »RojBlake
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 6:09amNAFTA is “free trade” which Ron Paul avidly supports, Santorum was part of the same congress..on the Senate Side.
Just saying you shold pick your facts & battles a little more carefully. Back in the 90′s the media made it their “Purpose in Life” to destroy Gingrich because he was one of the most effective Speakers in US History.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:11pmRick Perry Draws Ire From Turkey After Saying Country Ruled By ‘Islamic Terrorists’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0…n_1210272.html
Report Post »lylejk
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:24pmSantorum wasn’t in charge of his folk at the time; Gingrich was. There are consequences for being the leader. Again, I don’t like any of these guys. Only two I can even think of supporting (Paul and Santorum) but Paul just doesn’t work for me because of his hands off stance with Iran; this country, again, is so evil that it can’t be allowed to get a nuke period. That leaves Santorum; not my first pick by any stretch (Cain was, but only because Sarah decided to not run). Still, if Santorum drops out, I won’t even vote in the Primaries and will either vote for the GOP nominee or a third party if Gingrich gets the nod. You all are not going to change my mind on this one. I’m quite the independent and wish we had a viable third party but the Dems and Reps kept that from being the case here, but still, as a voter, I can choose to vote whoever I see fit and won’t vote for those who I believe responsible for our current morass. You all can if you will; your choice. Isn’t free will grand? :)
Report Post »TeamAmerica76
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:14amA couple of quick things…
1) Why is the media so inclined to believe the race for the nomination is over if Romney wins SC? As far as I’m concerned, there are still 47 other states left, why don’t we get any say? If he wasn’t touted as the winner after so few states, the process could actually work and I would have more than 1 person to vote for on my primary ballot.
2) Do the debate moderators and political commentators in general insist on listening to each other only instead of doing any research? Case in point, and the one that was most easily noticeable, was the one about Ron Paul scaling back military funding. The question involved a gross over generalization of comments made by others who are against his policy, not what I have heard him say over and over again in debates and found on his website and in several other interviews during my own personal research of the candidates. I don‘t think it serves us well to have the questions asked of the candidates reflect the moderator’s opinion as in the above case and with nearly all of questions asked of the candidates about their “attacks” on Romney and Bain.
P.S. Perry is really the only one I have seen actually attack Bain, the others simply want to see proof of the jobs Romney claims to have created. Then again, I‘m not generally subjected the usual political ads since my state’s opinion seems not to matter in the nomination race anyway. (Sucks to have a late primary)
Report Post »Voice_ofFreedom
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:14amPersonally I’m tired of Mitt and the establishment repubs parroting the same stuff over and over whenever Bain Capital comes up. That sometimes businesses fail and there’s nothing you can do about it. The truth of the matter is that the problem that Perry and Gingrich have with Bain, and Romney’s time there, is the way in which they closed those businesses. They invested in one case $5 million, and came out of the whole deal after the company had failed with $100 million. It was mentioned right in the debate if anyone questions my source. It’s just sad the idea that someone can buy into a company, gut the resources and crank up their debt, to put a coin in the investor’s pocket. Then the company of course fails and everyone loses their jobs. Another thing that’s getting on my nerves with Romney is that he and others keep giving him credit for jobs that were created long after his involvement with companies like staples.
Report Post »RejectFalseIcons
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:08amThe problem with Newt is that he’s a liberal. Let’s stop beating around the bush here. This man is a dyed in the wool LBJ liberal. Romney is a moderate democrat who keeps the R next to his name because that’s what businessmen are supposed to do.
Perry is also a tax-n-spender. If you like things as they are now, vote for Perry.
Santorum is off his rocker and will plunge this country into World War 3. You want four more years of the bush administration? Nominate this crooked looter.
Remember, it took Carter to get us Reagan. Reagan was an anti-government anti-establishment that most wrote off early in the nomination process as crazy. He ended the cold war not by entering into more proxy wars, but through reasonable and respectful conversation with Gorbachev (well, that and a huge arms race).
Don’t reject the anti-government, anti-establishment candidate because the media tells you to. Look at the facts and the records of the candidates. Ask yourself not what you want, but what you want for your children. Then decide with your own gift of reason, the single greatest gift given to you by your creator. I know the candidate that my reasoning tells me will usher in prosperity for my children. Do you?
Report Post »Voice_ofFreedom
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:34amSurprise surprise a Ron Paul supporter thinks everyone else sucks. I don’t think Ron Paul is too far right wing. I think he’s a complete moron. If he were in charge in Reagan’s day the Cold War would have a very different ending. You think he’d really green light the arms race on our side? No chance. Listening to him try to deflect criticism of his plan to cut “military spending” he clearly fails to understand that even cutting spending on the military overseas, still cuts military jobs and adds to unemployment as the questioner pointed out. Personally i was very impressed with the man on the end of the moderator table there. He asked some good questions that we haven’t heard before. Though I am disappointed in myself that I can’t remember his name at the moment…feel free to add it anyone who happens to know.
DRSAVAGE24
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:56amSounds like you’re looking at the military as a jobs program now? Instead of what it is intended to be, which is national defense. No, Ron Paul was crystal clear on this issue. He’s in favor of a strong national defense, but he doesn’t believe in militarism (i.e. having 900 bases in over 130 countries). He also mentioned how the embassy in Iraq is bigger than the Vatican. If you fail to miss his point, that there is a difference between defense spending and military spending, then that’s your problem.
Freedom is the greatest gift given to us by our Creator. Only one candidate in this race has a consistent record of defending that, regardless of what you believe about his foreign policy. A few years from now it won’t matter if any of these other guys are president, we won‘t be able to afford fighting all these wars because we’re $15 trillion in debt and growing. None of the other candidates will even make a dent in that. Ron Paul’s bold plan is to cut $1 trillion in real dollars first year, balance the budget by year 3. Think he won’t keep his word? The guy’s entire career is about consistency and integrity. He’d abolish 5 departments, including department of education. Our DEBT is the greatest threat to our national security, not Iran or Al-Qaeda. Once you realize that fact, Ron Paul will be the clear choice to face Obama.
Report Post »rdjones
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:10amOh you paulies are getting sneaky and making up more crap then anyone I have ever seen..
WE are on to you.
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:14amWhat did Reagan think?
“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
– Ronald Reagan
Report Post »joel228
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:05amGingrich got great applause for saying that only the elite are opposed to making money. Does that apply to his opposition to Bain Capital making money. Can you say hypocrite?
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:13amWhat I heard was Romney wishing that McCain / Feingold campaign rules should be repealed so that the most money can buy the election unfettered. That comment should be the nail in the coffin for Romney because he painted himself as an elitist RINO, but I expect it will be glazed over by the fraudcast media because it fails to suit their agenda.
Or did you miss that one?
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:32amTSUNAMI-22
I glazed over that by my own Error….My wife pointed the same thing out about 30 seconds after the fact…Your both spot on….
Not to mention he came across looking shading how he dodged the taxes stuff….He seemed like he wanted the 3 months to pay someone to hide what he felt needed hiding….another observation from my wife….
Report Post »Voice_ofFreedom
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:37am@Tsunami 22 It’s even funnier when you look at the fact that McCain endorsed Romney.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:50am@ Voice_ofFreedom
@Tsunami 22 It’s even funnier when you look at the fact that McCain endorsed Romney.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lmao……you know, I never even thought of that ! You’re right !
Good lord.
Report Post »DRSAVAGE24
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:01amI’m not a Romney supporter, but I thought his comments about campaign finance were spot on. These arguments about Super PACs and whether they speak for the campaign or not and whether the candidate can repudiate them is a big sideshow. Let’s send the money directly to the candidates, full disclosure where it came from, and let the candidates decide what the ads are. Chances are you’ll have a cleaner campaign because the candidates will have to take responsibility for any lies that are in their ads. Gotta love Ron Paul, who puts out some of the best ads just eviscerating the other candidates on their records, not all this peripheral garbage, and those are from his campaign, not some big money Super PAC. The reason Newt, Perry, et al. have to attack Romney for Bain Capital is because they can’t attack his record because they have similar records that he can expose in front of a national audience.
The sooner the big government ankle biters Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum get out of this race, the sooner we can take off the gloves and let real conservatism battle liberalism. We all know whose side establishment talk radio will take, don’t they? They’ll all side with Romney, even though he is the father of Obamacare. Perhaps it’s just as well, they will forever destroy their credibility with the American conservative movement.
Report Post »pwatkins
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:57amGingrich won of course
Report Post »Perry..terrific job
Santorum..really well tonight
Romney..proved he is way too moderate to get this country back on track and gets beat up by the candidates below him, so how can he beat Obama under that pressure…I guess he needs time to look over those taxes before making them public, if he ever does. If he manages to win with the help of his superpacs they will probably reject him showing his taxes like the left protected Obama anyway.
Ron Paul..he is a smart but a ramblin’ man…I think he is as confused as the left.
Good debate…one of the best and most honest for those that the media says is unelectable.
pamela kay
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:30amPWATKINS, I pretty much agree with you. I do think that we will be stuck with Romney. Newt will be the only possible chance to win a debate with the well groomed and polished Obama.
Report Post »DaveOregon
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:38amAgree too – Paul looked like he was off his meds more then usual tonight. Perry got some good licks in, but he’s worse at being smooth in his delivery then Bush. Does not mean he was not right – just awkward. DARN GLAD HUNTSMAN IS GONE! Saved a lot of time spent on a low level liberal Rhino. Gingrich was right and took Juan Williams to task on that black unemployment schtick! Loved that one.
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 9:18amNewt is absolutely no conservative, he is a Washington insider who spent his life in academia and making money from Washington’s big government. Gingrich just knows what to blather on about and he knows how to throw out the red meat to excite the far right. Newt is an opportunistic fraud.
Report Post »Nagesh
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:37amNewt is clearly emerging as the best man who can lead this nation. I loved his fire, conviction, and confidence. I would love a Newt/West ticket! These two I can trust, without ANY doubt!!
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:40amI’ll second that notion with a side of thumbs up.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:45amagreed!
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:58amThe problem I see with Newt is that he comes off reeking as a shill for the Republican party.
I like a lot of his ideas, but I think he has so much baggage that he might only get the conservative vote. I think he would get more moderate voters then Santorum would, but the media has so much ammo on Newt that it would be hard enough to combat it against a normal candidate, much less against a media that is in the tank for Obama.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:06am@ ModerationIsBest
I like a lot of his ideas, but I think he has so much baggage that he might only get the conservative vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Would you feel it would be appropriate if someone declined to hire you for a job because of your baggage?
No offense, but the baggage thing is so 6 months ago, and it wasn’t relative then, either.
Report Post »RejectFalseIcons
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:07amThe problem with Newt is that he’s a liberal. Let’s stop beating around the bush here. This man is a dyed in the wool LBJ liberal. Romney is a moderate democrat who keeps the R next to his name because that’s what businessmen are supposed to do.
Perry is also a tax-n-spender. If you like things as they are now, vote for Perry.
Santorum is off his rocker and will plunge this country into World War 3. You want four more years of the bush administration? Nominate this crooked looter.
Remember, it took Carter to get us Reagan. Reagan was an anti-government anti-establishment that most wrote off early in the nomination process as crazy. He ended the cold war not by entering into more proxy wars, but through reasonable and respectful conversation with Gorbachev (well, that and a huge arms race).
Don’t reject the anti-government, anti-establishment candidate because the media tells you to. Look at the facts and the records of the candidates. Ask yourself not what you want, but what you want for your children. Then decide with your own gift of reason, the single greatest gift given to you by your creator. I know the candidate that my reasoning tells me will usher in prosperity for my children. Do you?
Report Post »READRIGHTHERE
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:09amHe has proven only one thing tonight. He is a polished communicator. But he started out whining and had to dig out of that hole. He is so wrong on the Romney superpac issue, and the Bain capital issue, yet he refuses to abandon his line of attack. (Definition of insanity: pursuing the same course while expecting different results.)
And unfortunately his political record proves he can’t be trusted farther than he can be thrown. He has managed to elevate the conversation, and he needs to be thanked, but a pat on the back should suffice, giving this weasel the highest office in the land would makes us out to be insane instead. Obama has only beaten Hillary, the Philandering moron with the 400.00 haircut, and John McCain in a debate. Tell me again why we need to worry about who can out debate him? Every blazer could out debate Obama, you just have to unplug his teleprompter.
Report Post »pamela kay
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:31amCount me in too NAGESH.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:37amMy biggest thing with newt is he strikes me as self absorbed and pretty much a douche….A lot like Obama…He lost me with his temper tantrum after Iowa….
Report Post »thriceconcussed
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:09amYou people deserve the Nazism you’re begging for. America is full of idiots, all they need to solidify you sheeple’s resolve is a Reichstagg fire.
Report Post »nanzofsc
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:54amI third that! What a great ticket – Newt/West!! I will be voting for the only man who can stand up to Obama!
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:04pmNewt calling the violation of civil rights “mumbo jumbo” and West voting to take your rights with the antiPatriot act and NDAA — Yep, you deserve the politicians you vote for.
Read UN Agenda 21 and learn to recognize a PROGRESSIVE REPUBLICAN.
I’m voting to KEEP the Constitution — only choice is Ron Paul.
Report Post »IndependentProud_2B_AMERICAN
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 5:51pmI totally agree that Newt and West are the real deal. Let‘s put aside looking for the ’“ideal” conservative, that I hear everyone craving for, and consider someone who is less moderate, and more experienced in the politics of our government and winning, for the cause of our American Democracy.
Report Post »I am a naturalized citizen, who came to the U.S. through Ellis Island and realized the dream, and now I want all my children and grandchildren to have the same opportunity. Quit the “in” fighting and let’s support the best combo to Beat OBAMA. Period!!
marion
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:28amOf course the winner got the first standing ovation in the history of any presidential debate and the strongest debater because of the things he knows and has done, Newt all the way.
Mitt actually admitted to conducting a monopoly on his paper business, buying both companies within miles of each other and closing one of them down. It was nice that the one he closed was a union papermill, but it was still a lot of lost jobs to corner a market.
Ron kind of looked like most of his ideas in one big package, kind of amazing how much hanging a person will do to themselves if given enough time. It’s weird, he can say three things and two of them are way out to lunch even if that one thing you agree with equals them in weight. Kind of a compact Bill Clinton on steroids with his no boots on ground to bomb Bosnia so no bodies come home.
Rick Santorum did OK, but he still seems a little light in his convictions and maybe a little light on his speaking ability.
Rick Perry is a great Governor, but I don’t really think he is presidential yet, either.
Give me Newt over Mitt every time, Mitt seems to have things to hide, or else he has a continence problem and isnt’ thinking quite as clearly as he should.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:40amMitt was a stuttering fool as he always is, You cant hide that anymore
Who he h3ll put this video together? TPM?
Newt got a standing ovation and your idioti hightlights are obviously designed to leave out the fact Newt stole the show, He clearly is our generations Reagan
Report Post »READRIGHTHERE
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:02am@ Marion
Why do you or anyone else believe that any company owes their workers a job? A monopoly? In an industry that was contracting he combined companies, eliminated waste and saved jobs. The ones that lost their jobs, according to his statement did so because they refused the opportunity to continue working in their local industry because they couldn’t maintain their union standing. Hello?This is what we have been looking for in a Presidential nominee. Someone who actually knows what he is doing and not just what he is saying.
@nips
Romney was attacked from all sides (literally as he was stuck in the middle) and they came after him with fangs drawn. He was still standing when it was over. He was put on the spot more than anyone else and I perceive a pattern of his being extremely careful in what he says, ergo the hesitation and occasional stutter. As to the hunting he admits he is not a pro but enjoys the sport. Good enough for me, whether he was on the prowl for moose or elk, or varmints. Besides the last time we had a rifle toting member of the administration he shot his buddy. There are worse things to worry than whether a Texan can out hunt a New Englander. I sure as freak not voting for a man who wants to give college educations to illegal aliens just because he enjoys firearm sports.
Report Post »rdjones
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:18am@Marion, you seemed to nail that all completly.
Careful, the paulies are knee deep around here saying even worse things tonight.
I think thay meet with the left journolist people so that can make crap up on the fly.
Report Post »mharry860
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:25amWow, there are a lot of trolls on here. So Glenn is right, this is a success.
Report Post »TeaPartyForRomney
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:24amIf you haven’t seen the whole debate, here it is: http://url2it.com/lhfa
I think all the candidates had a great night tonight and if anyone will benefit, maybe Gingrich by 3-5 points, but nothing large enough to change the race. Most likely Romney will still win SC and then FL.
Time will only tell.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:42amRomney was a stuttering fool as he always is, Tonight he was even worse trying to explain his Huntin’ and why he wont release his records like everyone else
Report Post »dbonnie24
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 4:40pmThe question is will we finally get behind the most knowledgable and best candidate which is Newt Gingrich!!! He won this debate in a landslde. He will do the same to Odumbell in any debate, and will win the election in a landslide. We must get together and stand behind OUR best candidate!!!
Report Post »He is Newt Gingrich!!! http://www.newt.org
m14kid
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:12amOf course they don’t show the part where the crowd cheers Paul after some war mongers boo him. Watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v8qtZ3I5AM&sns=fb
Report Post »Sam Brown
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:10amRomney killed any chance I would vote for him when he backed Obamas bill that allows arrest of Americans and no trial. We have rights to a fair trial as Americans, the idea that he supports taking our constitutional rights away offends me.
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:14amHow did Romney vote on that??? He isn’t in Congress or in the Senate??? Besides Obama signed another page that day that he couldn‘t do that to American’s.. Because I grilled my Senator good about it and it was he that told me that!
Report Post »DRSAVAGE24
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:06amRomney didn’t vote for it, but he supported it when asked about it in the debate tonight. Your senator is artfully lying to you, I’m afraid. My congressman sent out an email lying to me as well. This NDAA does allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process. Obama’s signing statement holds no water. He said even though I have the power to do it, I won’t do it. Then why, according to Democrats, did he insist that he be allowed to indefinitely detain American citizens? Why did the Senate fail to pass Dianne Feinstein’s amendments explicitly protecting American citizens from this law? Our criminal government is lying to us and that includes Democrats and Republicans.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:42amGingrich = knocked it out of the park
Santorum = painted Romney into a checkmate position
Perry = good answers on border fence
Romney = on the defense all night
Paul = Ramblin’ Ron strikes again with a plethora of awesome, unbelievable harangues that he managed to irk out in one breath, period, no double-space next sentences.
Gingrich kicked ass !
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:52amGingrich did lick a$$. He also would kick Obama’s a$$ in a debate. Question is could he kick Obama’s as in the general election?
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:04amPainted Romney into a checkmate position??
Report Post »I don’t know what you mean by that? Should Romney pack up camp and go home? Because that’s what being in checkmate would mean, yet, he’s won 2 primaries and is in position to win the next 2 (SC and FL) and put this race to bed real quick.
circleDwagons
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:10amginrich should stick to confronting the media, that get’s him much applause. he however did admit that the US wasted billions on pakistan. mark one for Paul.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:22am@ JJ Coolay
Painted Romney into a checkmate position??
Report Post »I don’t know what you mean by that? Should Romney pack up camp and go home? Because that’s what being in checkmate would mean, yet, he’s won 2 primaries and is in position to win the next 2 (SC and FL) and put this race to bed real quick.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Santorum painted Romney into a corner when they were discussing voting rights with regards to felons. You could tell by the look on Santorum’s face that no matter what answer Romney gave that Romney was going to lose at that question. Santorum laid the trap and Romney sprung it flawlessly.
Atomic
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:39amNewt won the debate by a much larger margin than he normally wins them. Lots of cheers, standing O’s, it wasn’t close at all.
Santorum and Perry did well.
Paul continues to hurt himself badly whenever he talks about foreign policy, especially terrorism. I see it as a shame, ’cause he is very good on everything else.
Romney got ruffed up a few times. His painting of his assault weapons ban as “pro-2nd amendment” showed what type of a rino/faker we’re dealing with. Santorums smack down of Romney on his felon voting pac ad and Paul comparing Chinese dissidents with terrorists were maybe the worst moments of the night, but Romney had a few of them.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:51amI liked the look on Romneys face and his stuttering when asked about releasing his taxes. He is hiding something, buying time to fix it.
Who funds him? 10 percent from small individual contributions, the rest from Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, HIG Capital, Barclays, Kirkland & Ellis, Bank of America, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, EMC Corp, JPMorgan Chase.
Goldman Sachs backs Obama also.
I just cannot trust this guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcAYJqG0NEI
On Fox and Rush they were saying that Romney will need to move more to the right to get the votes. I say if any candidate has to move to the center, left or right in order to get your vote, they are lying to you.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:58am@ West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:51am
I liked the look on Romneys face and his stuttering when asked about releasing his taxes. He is hiding something, buying time to fix it.
Who funds him?
Report Post »~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In case you didn’t see this – Romney’s campaign contributors: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/presenting-mitt-romneys-top-campaign-contributors
TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:02am@ ShyLow
tsunami-22 is gay for gingrich…I don‘t like to use such tactics but I’m so tired of the Alinsky style attacks on Paul
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If being “gay for Gingrich” defines me as pointing out the obvious intellectually and historically accurate superiority of Newt, then I’m to be considered the biggest fa&&ot of all time.
Satisfied, cretin?
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:17amTsunami, . “In 2009, Credit Suisse settled on charges that it violated sanctions regulating financial transactions with IRAN!! The charges included “stripping”, the practice of removing the identity and origin of funds used in transactions. Credit Suisse employees stripped the identities of Iranian banks enabling funds to be transferred to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and the Aerospace Industries Organization, entities respectively involved in the production of nuclear weapons and long range missiles!!”
And Dr. Paul’s top 10:
US Army $78,056
US Navy $56,769
US Air Force $55,405
Google Inc $52,801
Microsoft Corp $47,923
US Postal Service $26,591
Hewlett-Packard $25,318
Lockheed Martin $23,425
Cisco Systems $23,007
Boeing Co $22,434
Verizon Communications $19,944
Much better company.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:26amWEST COAST PATRIOT
By no means do I intend this to diminish the other branches…
But do you notice how the USMC isn’t there?….
Nuff said…..
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:40amNewt‘s applause’s weren‘t’ geared directly at him…They were sparked by anti-Obama, anti-socialism, anti-status quo….Those lines were great ones but would have garnered the same applause regardless who said them……That will be/has been Newts downfall…
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:39amWhat was up with that crowd tonight?
Do they think people turn into these debates to hear the crowd cheer and clap? It started to remind me of the state of the union address where the trained seals clap and bark after every remark.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:44amThat‘s because Ron Paul wasn’t getting what Gingrich was with regards to accolades. Heck, even Frank Luntz admitted Gingrich dominated.
I don’t blame you for being irritated.
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:55amThe crowd was amped up, because the candidates had some fire in their bellies for a change, and they were firing bullets instead of b b’s.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:58amHas nothing to do with who the clapping was for.
I couldn’t hear what was being said at times because the crowd was so loud and I got tired of the candidates continually having to stop mid-sentence to allow the crowd to interject their voice into the debate.
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:14amwrong! The campaign is all in the front rows. That’s a big crowd in the front. They try to cheer and boo as loud because they are closer to the mic. I’ve been to these events. Trust me, it‘s all staged when the audience claps and boo’s except for the ones in the farther back.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:34amSeems there are alot of sad Romney and Ron Paul supporters here
Yeah oRomney was a big fail and Paul a complete nutjob
Gingrich won handsdown He clearly is the only one that can unite us .against the horrors of Obama
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:21amTwitter was part of this debate and the twitter polls showed that Paul won the debate with Gingrich a close second.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:29amWEST COAST PATRIOT
….and Paul supporters are notorious for manipulating digital media and polls in their benefit….Twitter doesn’t mean #*$^…..
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 2:44amWEST COAST PATRIOT
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2NsXQcBtOQ&feature=related
DRSAVAGE24
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:16amIs there proof that Paul supporters manipulate those results? I mean, I hear it on establishment talk radio all the time, but it’s just an accusation without any proof or evidence.
Seems to me that for some reason it’s considered a negative to have enthusiastic supporters. Wasn’t it great when the Tea Party was so enthusiastic about opposing Obamacare and all the Democrat spending? Establishment talk radio sure loved that. Now that it’s Ron Paul doing it (RP was the Tea Party before Rick Santelli ever had his rant), somehow that’s to be dismissed and even ridiculed. Do any of you ever bother to ask why Paul’s supporters are so fired up about him? As a former anti-Paul person, that’s what I started doing in 2008. Why the hell are these people so enthused about this guy? So I did some research, listened to his message, and was converted to a loyal supporter.
Yeah, maybe Paul’s people believe so strongly in him that they all go and vote in the poll at the end. So what? Why don’t Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum’s fired up, enthusiastic supporters jump on there to vote for them? Nothing is stopping them. Oh, wait, these guys represent the status quo so no one is really excited about them, whereas Ron Paul is a clear and present threat to the status quo and the party establishment. Hence, he has supporters who would run through a brick wall for him.
Report Post »Babeuf
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 5:41amOfficial twitter reaction thread for SC Fox News debate 1/16/12
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?351830-Official-twitter-reaction-thread-for-SC-Fox-News-debate-1-16-12&s=ffe45256a277ff7fa2a0a7670488d242
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:14amDRSAVAGE24
The fact that every time one of these non-scientific polls is conducted Paul scores 3 to 4 times what he ends up with in the final vote…….Drudge’s stuff had him at 30% almost in Iowa, 40% in NH, and according to twitter last night he might as well already be the nominee, even though a large chunk of the REPUBLICAN party wants nothing to do with him…..(don’t forget the last 2 votes include more than just republican voters……)
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:00pm@MODERATION
Ahhh, you a jewel of denial.
“I couldn’t hear”
LOLOLOLOL
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:03pmEdit:
You are a “jewel of denial”
Report Post »johnpaulkuchtajr
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:37amBain Capital is all smoke and mirrors.
If Bain is a bad bunch of cats, why did the Obammie administration use them as consultants when doing the GM bailout? Yeah, they must know their trade.
At any rate, discussion of Bain allows the candidates to avoid hard questions that hard-nosed bastards like me would ask each candidate about the Muslim Brotherhood’s pervasive rise within the Obammie administration, etc., etc. That‘s the kind of question the Republicrats don’t want to have asked because they want some of that Saudi campaign cash too!
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 12:59amMost of the Republicans, particularly Gingrich, Santorum and Perry have no problem with either Questions about the Muslim Brotherhood or going after the crazy sob’s
Report Post »mharry860
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 1:23amYour information is out of date, Bain had nothing to do with the bailouts.
Report Post »delawarebill
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 3:09pmNot that I’m a Romney supporter (I’m not, I find him to be nearly as liberal as Obama, just not as consistent) but I would like to point out that Bain Capital had NOTHING to do with the GM bailout. It was a different company called Bain Securities or something… I had heard it tied in as well, not the same company though.
Report Post »