Following the first successful Huckabee Presidential Forum on December 3rd, later tonight we'll witness a second incarnation of the event held in South Carolina. The broadcast will not be live but will rather be a pre-recorded replay of the event which happens around noon on Saturday. There will not be an official live stream from Fox News but I'd wager that a bootleg stream will popup before the show airs.
Full Video: Watch The entire Huckabee Forum 2: South Carolina Undecided
Air Time: Saturday, January 14 at 8pm ET on Fox News
Participants: Romney, Huntsman, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry (Ron Paul decided not to attend)
Report from Examiner.com:
This Saturday, January 14, 2012, Fox “news” will air a prerecorded forum/debate moderated by former Governor Mike Huckabee who has his own show on Fox “News” called “Huckabee”. Congressman Tim Scott (R-SC) will join Huckabee and will also offer questions.
The forum/debate will be held at the Sottile Theatre, 44 George Street at the College of Charleston, and will start at 12:00pm ET, Saturday, January 14. 2012, but it will not be aired live. It will air on the Fox “News” channel that night at 8:00pm ET prerecorded, in order to edit the forum/debate where needed.
Doors will open at 10:30 am, with seating on a first-come, first-served basis.
The reports concerning Ron Paul's attendance have been mixed. Paul was indeed invited to attend, as he attended the first Huckabee forum, however, reports indicate he has chosen not to attend this time around for an unspecified reason. That is the latest information I can find, please leave a comment with link if there is confirmation that Paul will attend the forum.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- fox debate january 14
- huckabee forum 1/14/12
- mike huckabee forum live
- GOP debate 1/14/12
- january 14th debate
- mike huckabee show january 14 2012
- mike huckabee show forum
- huckabee forum live stream
- fox huckabee debate live stream
- ron paul huckabee forum south carolina
- debate 1/14/2012
- Huckabee GOP forum from South Carolina tonight at 8pm ET on Fox News
I sure hope he attends, I want to hear more of what he has to say.
Same here. BUT I have been looking and I can't find even the "Taped" Debate ,anywhere. No Listings and not on Fox like it said.
Is this going to be the same format as the previous one. I thought it was excellent and a good contrast to the other debates.
I REALLY want to hear Ron Paul speak. I dont think this will be a fair forum without his presence. I truly hope he is there!
I would imagine Paul is not attending this "show" because it is not airing LIVE. Paul has experience with sensorship of his comments before. This "show" will be Edited. God, they would have a hay day with that, and there is no telling what they would have him saying, or possibly omitting him all togther. Best case would be that his words of wisdom would never be aired but would end up on the cutting room floor.
That was my first thought. What more could they ask Paul that hasn't already been asked. He doesn't change his answers, so we know his answers to the questions asked of the others.
Just by Ron Paul being there , makes them talk about real topics.
I saw a reporter ask Ron Paul "Why do you sound like the other candidates now". When she should of asked him , Why are all the other Candidates sounding Like Ron Paul? Clearly because they want to look like they would deal with issues that Ron Paul has shown Voters are intrested in! But ,Unlike Ron Paul ,they will not act on what they promise. Now , even Obama is saying things you have heard from Ron Paul.
Do Politicians think the public is that stupid?
To answer your question, yes… yes they do… They are not trying to hide what they are doing, and the people applaud… Look at the NDAA law…
I think that is a very good point .
It will not be edited. Why start trouble? That is what the Paul campaign is about and he is not going anywhere but an exit door.
Really? Did you read the article? Let me see if I can help.
"The forum/debate will be held at the Sottile Theatre, 44 George Street at the College of Charleston, and will start at 12:00pm ET, Saturday, January 14. 2012, but it will not be aired live. It will air on the Fox “News” channel that night at 8:00pm ET prerecorded, in order to edit the forum/debate where needed."
NOTICE LAST LINE PLEASE. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a quote from the shaded area of THIS article.
Nearly every major news source has openly admitted unfair and intentional bias against Dr. Paul in some form. Paul supporters are not unilaterally sore losers as many love to suggest. We are prepared accept any result as long as it is based on his own merits and not due to interference.
I don't know why Ron Paul is complaining it's newt Gingrich thats getting the unfair treatment why about 2 wks ago when Mitt romeny was winning Iowa and then New Hamshire they said we have to vent people even if it means bringing up bad things get it out in the open so Newt Gingirch brins up stuff about how many people did newt gingirch really employee and the timeline from when he worked at vent capitol and everyone gets mad at him all the media saying oh that is a no no but it's okay if they go after newt gingrich because he's the one with the baggage. if anyone is getting the unfair treatment it's newt Gingrich you watch if he wins south Carolina Carl rove and the rest of the news media will be all over it.
If Ron Paul goes, so goes the country.
If they don't have Buddy Roemer it is a debate that avoids the 1 issue that they all avoid-CORRUPTION
If Perry is allowed to be there, it is totally unfair that Buddy Roemer is NOT allowed. I am not watching.
Who in heck is Buddy Roemer?
The fact you know Perry and Not Roemer is a shamre, since Gov. Roemer is the second most qualified candidate to be President — after Ron Paul.
UMM! NO! Why should we know who that is??? Can you name all 50 governors in the US…NOPE! He isn't a candidate, he isn't on my TV every 5 minutes, and although you may think he is "qualified" to be president he will not be on the ballot! SO it doesn't matter! I had never heard his name until I watched the New Hampshire primary, and he got negitive 1% in that state! Nobody I was with knew either and no news reporter ever told us! So Thank You hansa for the info, don't shame us for not knowing…I wish I didn't know your beloved Ron Paul either, but he WILL BE on the ballot! I hope you and all of his supporters are very sure you know about foreign policy and how bad and how fast things can happen!
Text NEWT to 59769. By signing up, link to Newt-2012 mobile website, get info to share, talking points, reminders on election day, polls and surveys, give feedback to the campaign, learn how to volunteer in your area, make calls from home by signing up to the from home call system…. etc etc. Be sure to check out the link in the welcome message… And suggestions always welcome!
Your not carrying the water bucket for the "Angry little Muffin man"
now are you!
Do you have any toll-free numbers I can call… and stay on the line
In 2008, I got really tired of getting all the POTUS campaign phone calls, so one time when I got an Obama call, I just started talking to the guy about everything I could think of, asking him questions, etc. After a while, he asked me if I supported the campaign. I said "No". He asked why I was still on the phone with him. I said "Because the Obama campaign is paying for this call, and I'm trying to sap him of every penny I possibly can." The guy said "That's just sick" and hung up.
BAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That is halarious!!! I can't wait for his people to start calling me!!!!!
thats hilarius
I agree with you Lynn, Paul knows how the media loves to spin, I support his protest (if thats what it is) due to the fact it is not live.
Ditto!
The last debate on Huckabee they played games with the microphones it seemed (like they would do on the Fox debates in the 2008 election). This way, Paul couldn't hear them well and he would look crazy and/or like an old deaf guy.
FOX CANNOT BE TRUSTED. I am a very close follower of the pre selection and am amazed that in the land of the free, home of the brave that Fox News can be so overtly anti-Ron Paul. It is disgraceful and I understand totally why he would not want to participate. If it was live he would, but he knows what they would do to him in the editing room. I hope for your countries sake that the viewers of Fox have identified this bias and vote against prostitutes to special interest groups and the Gordon Geckos of the world. You need to support a true defender of the Constitution, liberty, free enterprise and a sound currency to be respected throughout the world. (The USD is laughable- Good for travelers like me though!) Your country needs servants of the people NOT servants of Rupert Murdoch and Goldman Sacks. You deserve it. Good luck.
Kevin from Australia
Thank you for your good will. Today those of us participating on forums like this are a minority, 'the land of the free and home of the brave' is just a forgotten old-fashioned notion, a fantasy that grandpa concocted. The majority in the U.S. are so complacent and self-indulgent they can't bothered to spare even 5 minutes of free time to be informed or check up on our representatives, so the servants run the show and are master of the sheeple. It's a steep uphill battle, yet I keep on walking and talking a and writing, working for freedom and honor in America again.
I support Ron Paul.
I have travelled to your great country 7 times in the last 15 years and if you don't get Ron Paul as President and a Gold backed currency you are going to be a third world country. The USD is becoming toilet paper as it is printed by the trillions. Ron Paul is the only one who sees this. if he doesn't win, you better buy gold and silver or you will loose your wealth through inflation. Great for the resource rich Australia, but I care about liberty in the most powerful country in the world. If you don't wake up then China will be the new superpower and you will be the tourist destination of the world much like Bali at the moment.
Why would he waste two hours of his precious time to listen to a bunch of idiots agree on everything. Last debate he got like 90 seconds total, I wouldn't go either.
I totally agree with you. I have heard that Dr. Paul is going home to TX for the weekend (unconfirmed). He deserves a little R&R before blazing ahead in SC and VA, etc. I also agree that Rep. Paul has never been given the real opportunity to speak at these "debates" and "forums".
Does anybody where the primary election will be held at in Washington, D.C.? I would like to know ahead of schedule.
You can look here http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/
Or maybe Paul thought, f#$k Huck, Im going to watch the playoffs.
I'll drink to that
Thank you Ron Paul , I've learned more from you and Peter Schiff than all my college professor's put together
Huckabee has stated that because of Dr Ron Paul's foriegn policies that he was not qualified to be president. Why would he want to attend such a bias debate?
Ron Paul and a growing number of Americans do not trust Huckabee and fox news to be fair in the nomination process.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT OUR CANDIDATES HAVE TO
SAY ABOUT UN AGENDA 21. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I
FEEL IS VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY AND CERTAINLY
FOR ALL OF OUR FREEDOMS. I THINK THE WHOLE COUNTRY
SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS AGENDA 21 AND NOBODY MENTIONS IT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
Sustainable Growth (trading flourish), no poverty, no threats to the Environmen (of which we live in an off), Developement while protecting the environment for the generations to come…
Ooooh, the Horror! What a dystopia!
Unsustainable (shortsighted) growth (wars over the limited resources), increased poverty, undrinkable water, unbreathable air, no wild animals or plants, no real possibilities for your offspring to survive (illness peak)…
- Heaven! We are Free! NOT Dangerous for any country…
If you want us to look into whatever it is you feel is so important it warrants the Caps Lock key, then I'd suggest either telling us what it is or linking us to somewhere that will.
UN AGENDA 21
JUST ENTER THIS IN YOUR SEARCH BAR AND SEE
WHAT ALL COMES UP. JUST READ AND SPREAD THE
WORD - THERE IS A VIDEO ON YOU TUBE WHERE
YOU HEAR THESE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THEIR
GOALS AND PLANS. I KNEW THIS IN SOME SHAPE
WAS COMING - JUST DID NOT KNOW IT HAD ALREADY
GOTTEN TO THIS POINT.
I'd like to hear what Dr. Paul has to say , but I can also understand why he doesn't want to waste his time with these dopes. Its likely that Fox and Huck will likely "edit" and misrepresent what take place, especially if Ron slams these jokers. I cannot wait for the Virginia GOP debates where only the the candidates on the official ballot participate.
When Huckabee insults him consistently on not being non electable I wouldn't attend either. Huckabee is trying to manipulate the race by trying his darndest to get a evangelical middle east aggresive nominee. He interprets the book of revelation as for a distant genration not the generation to which it was spoken. He believes in backing Israel at any cost. Paul doesn't fit that bill so he cuts him down every chance he gets. Anybody with any brains needs to disavow all of Huckabee's commentary. It's that end time prophetical outlook of his that fuels his thinking.. Ironically the Lord tells us work things out in a civil manner but Huckabee and all the other candiadates would start a war with Iran in a NY minute, thinking their doing the Lord's work . This type of thinking will be our demise as well as Israels.
Fox has proven they do not have integrity so it really is best he doesn't attend if they are going to "edit" the discussion. They would cast Ron Paul in the worst possible light. Snakes! None of the candidates should have agreed to this nonsense.
this is a waste of time…after hundreds of debates? not sure of the numbers all we are going to hear is the "Angry Little Muffin Man" Newt bash the other candidates. And I don't think Perry should even be
there…He has stepped in "it" so many times no one
could pull him out if they wanted to!
Being from the Houston area, I really don't think he is
one I would want to see making the BIG decisions…
Ron Paul needs to be there! Maybe Huck needs to talk with him again. (Maybe Paul is Tebowing tonight though at 8PM since the game starts then!) Anyway, Ron Paul is the man we need in the White House to restore our confidence in government! A man who says what he means and means what he says! (Kind of like Huck) Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!
Watch Fox religously but have to agree with those comments regarding Ron Paul. What don't these media people get? They are sooooo bent on pre-selecting who they and their bosses decide should be elected they can't hear the real message.
No wonder he is not going. Not only will he only get 90 seconds total speaking time like the NH debate but Fox will edit his responses. This is nonsense. I used to enjoy watching Fox but no more. Shame on you!
I've also noticed the others trying to sound more like Ron Paul. I won't be fooled by them. They don't have the record to back it up, Paul does. My first thought after hearing 1/14/12 debate will be taped and Shmuckabee will be the host was that they will edit to BUTCHER Ron Paul. Smart move on his part to not partake in giving them the opportunity to make him something he's not.
Ron Paul 2012!
I will vote for him whether or not he's on the ballot. I'm choosing a president, not a party. "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
The people will have to take charge and create fair and open debates forums ourselves.
I choose President Ron Paul
Actually, in the last debate Ron Paul had PLENTY of time to speak, a lot more than the 90 seconds at a previous debate. In fact, he declined the opportunity to speak about his racist comments in his own newsletters-apparently they were newsletters that he neither wrote nor read. He didn't want to speak about them because it's something that happened 20 years ago, never mind that he had no problem speaking about his military service that happened about half a century ago. He's just another phone politician. Don't even get started on his double-standards on inserting pet earmarks into spending bills, voting against them, then accepting those handouts. He's a bloody hypocrite.
Ron Paul has addressed the newsletters dozens of times in almost every medium available. Newspapers, magazines and websites have all written extensively about he neither wrote nor knew about the writing of these newsletters till well after their publication. CNN recently edited an interview with him to make it look like he flipped out when they asked him about the newsletters, when in reality he answered them multiple times without them listening to him. He has consciously made the decision to turn his response to these questions into a short, simple explanation that people can understand (since it's somehow possible that this many people either fail to understand his response or just choose to ignore it). As for the "double-standards on inserting pet earmarks into spending bills, voting against them, then accepting those handouts", most people don't understand how this function of government works. Ron Paul believe (correctly) in the specific allocation of the budget. He believes that Congress should read, debate and vote on everything that they spend money on rather other politicians getting to decide what to spend money on without discussion. The decision about what to spend money on should rest in the legislative branch of the government instead of the executive. Additionally, while Ron Paul doesn't believe in excessive spending or raising taxes, and will vote accordingly, he understands his role as a representative of the area that elected him. Representing the wishes of his constituents within the budget that was decided upon isn't hypocritical. He's doing his job as a representative despite the fact that he disagrees with the spending bill on principle. Also, don't use the phrase "bloody." It never sounds as cool as anybody thinks it does.
When the media keeps bringing up the same thing over and over again after the candidate already addressed it, what do you think the candidate should do? The mainstream media is trying to make something out of 6 lines out of a newsletter, not written by Dr. Paul, that came out over 20 years ago. If that's the only thing they could come up with, I think there will be no problems for the candidate
) A former staffer who spent 10 years with Ron Paul said there's not a racist bone in his body. Many of his policies would have a greater benefit for minorities. It's a non-issue. When you've already addressed something mulitple times it's time to move on. How many times does he need to give the same answer? If I asked you the same question over and over again, at what point does it just become rude? At what point do you tell me to take a hike? 
)
Bill the problem I have with what was printed in those news letters was that most of it was true. However; I don't think Ron Paul had any more to do with the contents than the man who's signature appears on your social security check.
Well Billy, I guess I don't see it the same way, but that's ok
No doubt the "offending" lines appeared in the newsletters. I just don't see it as a problem.
One, everyone pretty much agrees that he likely wasn't aware of it. It could be argued that he should have, but everyone makes mistakes. He was juggling a lot of things at the time and it slipped by him. After all it was a total of what, six lines out of 100's of newsletters?
Two, no one who knows him has come forward and accused him of being a racist. If anything his policies could be said to benefit minorities even more.
Paul's character is more important to me than something some racist ghost writer wrote in one of his newsletters. If this is the most they can come up with (and I'm sure a lot of people are digging hard now
) then I'm not worried about it. The other candidates have much more serious baggage attached to them!
We do agree that the lines in the news letter are not a problem but for different reasons in a way. You don't want to admit that for the most part they are true but we both agree Ron Paul had little to do with them.
As best I remember the news letter stated something like blacks can run faster than whites, criminals in DC are 95% black, the war on drugs is way too expensive and big money people hide their assets off shore.
Sorry Bill but I see no problem with any of those lines. I'll be watching the playoffs this weekend again but I just don't think I'm going to see any white player chase down a black one and catch him. Think I saw a number like 56 whites in a DC jail and 1065 blacks. That's about 95% or close enough. The war on drugs is a joke as it is the drug lords that pay the special interests groups to keep the stuff illegal just like the bootleggers did back in the days of prohibition. As for the money….hell any shyster and his brother can get your cash if you are dumb enough to put it in a US account. (I mean real money, not chump change)
No one changes they're view at this point, they might add to it given the chance as politicians do. But, seriously at this point, it's like killing a dead horse. If you don't know what the candidates stand for by now, maybe you shouldn't vote.
Ron Paul is a fool. A freak of nature like Obama. He is getting the druggies vote because he wants to legalize marijuana and release those from prison who were convicted of dealing. Ron Paul supporters belong in a mental institution.
What is wrong with just having states to take care of it, that is what Ron Paul is saying, marijuana does have some medical benefits, and should be used under the council of a doctor. Those who were in prison were arrested for possession or dealing as you said, but there was a much bigger problem with use after the drug cartels started to lobby the Government to put restrictions on drugs. I won't use drugs, never will.
Ron Paul 2012!!! Ron Paul is not a fool, nor a puppet.
Do you broadcast FOX News from your basement? Because regardless if you support his message or not, that sentence has no bases, value or any substance. You need to think independently and stop getting your feed from such mainstream media, not because they're "evil" but because the simply fact that these are private entities that have their own political agenda, and if you can't recognize that, then you are part of the problem. Consider for a second, that I might have a chance of being half right before frantically answering with an even worse and out-of-touch statement.
If Ron Paul cannot handle Fox News, then he is not fit to be president. What would he do when he faces terrorists? Pardon them?
Fox news cant handle the truth coming out of ron pauls mouth. am i right?
http://www.youtube.com/ronpaul#p/a/f/0/GR4WYqabTxU
Nice, Medley. Nice.
I agree! If grumpy old man Ron Paul can't handle the media than he is obviously the weaker candidate. To all you Ron Paul supporters stop shoving SPAM down people throats!!!
So when the other candidates chose not to show up in the past debates I guess they are the weaker too.
What "handling" are you insinuating? The candidates don't enter into negotiation with the film editors at Fox News. Isn't choosing not to attend the same thing as "handling Fox News"? There's a difference in choosing not to take part in a biased debate and showing your weakness by not being able to handle the media.
No, only a Mississippi Governor can do that!
Comments like Medley 70B are completely idiotic and based on ignorance. Ron Paul supporters are some of the most intelligent individuals I know. They are more apt to do research and actually read books to learn than any group of supporters I've met. Medley's comment was a response based completely on ignorance. He has probably never done a dimes worth of research on Dr. Paul. Typical of the 65 year old and older crew. A complete and utter moron. God Bless Ron Paul supporters and their ability to do their homework before making their final political decision. If only the rest were a part of such a simple concepy.
Paul has certainly brought some creative tension to the Republican platform this year, and for that my hat's off to him and his supporters!
But NEWT is the only true conservative (not Romney obviously) that can has the intellectual firepower and charisma to take out Obama. Ron Paul, as most of you know, is a pure libertarian and does not reflect what most conservatives in this country are looking for, and he is just not electable.
But I am agreed that Ron Paul is not getting the coverage and respect he deserves from what I have seen on Fox lately. But on some of the independent news outlets from PBS I am seeing Paul getting more equal attention and coverage.
Gingrich and Paul are the only ones bringing fresh ideas and solutions to the campaign. Paul just doesn't have the debating skills to take on Obama, where Newt undoubtedly does.
Has to be Newt in November!
If I had to guess, I'd guess you are a "Reagan conservative", as Gingrich and Santorum certainly claim to be. If that is the case, then surely you know of this quote:
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" -Ronald Reagan, 1975
Newt Gingrich isn't even as much of a conservative as he was in 1995. http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/20/sobriety-test this is an article that Reason magazine wrote in 95 about a huge midterm election that put lots of republicans into office (very similar to the most recent midterm election.) The major talking points for these "true conservatives" are the same crazy ideas that Ron Paul talks about today. A flat tax, ending income redistribution, cuts to actual spending instead of projected spending (This one was supported by Newt in 1995 but not in 2012), half a trillion in spending cuts, entitlement reform, increasing retirement age, and ending over-regulation. Sounds a lot like libertarian leaning classic conservative values to me.
There is no conspiracy, Paul chose not to be there. The fact is Ron Paul is a nutcase. Yes he makes some valid claims, but overall if he were president, especially following Obama, we would become a 3rd world country. The scary thing is these empty bowls of mush young people are enamored with him, no fault of theirs, they just don't understand the true consequences of elections. If Texas believes he should be a congressman, it speaks very loudly of their ability to produce a valid individual for nomination.
After our economy collapses we WILL be a 3rd world country! He is the ONLY candidate who's going to address this! These candidates tell us all these things they'll do, but they don't say how they will PAY for it. Paul has a plan that will work! If we don't take drastic measures soon, it will be to late!
http://www.rightspeak.net/2012/01/live-feed-tonight-huckabee-forum-2.html
I found a live stream online.
A debate without Ron Paul would be like watching a group of Obamas argue with themselves. Most of his supporters are voting for him regardless of what the outcome of any nomination is so it really doesn't matter. The GOP should know that Ron Paul is their only chance at Obama - anyone else is just handing Obama the win on a silver platter.
Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks on Ron Paul, such as "he is nuts" or "he is crazy", why do you not do some research, learn his political views, and then use logic and argue against them if so you choose. Your ignorance only becomes more salient when you resort to these ad hominem attacks.
No point in watching unless Ron Paul is speaking. The rest are just part of the lip service show
I trust that Ron made the right decision. His track record proves he does 99.99% of the time. I am standing fast with Mr. Paul. Will do a write in for him in the unlikely event he is not nominated for the Republican Candidate. What this shows me is that Ron Paul is tired of the "mickey mouse" political events that don't really prove anything. I believe he is strategically spending the supporter's money wisely. Just like he will do for our Country when elected President of The United States of America.
I like the debates when the public ask the questions instead of the media. I wish all debates was done by the public.
WOW!!! This was just taken over by Ron Paul people! I'll give you people credit…you do LOVE your candidate! I am all for sticking by the people you love so I won't knock that, but you really think he shouldn't go to the debate because they will "edit him out"…Don't you know that THEY KNOW that his people would make that such a big deal that there is NO WAY they would even think about it! This is worse than pulling out a gender or race card! It's like you guys almost know the way he talks about foreign policy is maybe "over the top" and so you guys are coming up with conspiracy theories! Yall lighten up! No matter which candidate gets this part of the race…we are still on the SAME TEAM! No OBAMA!
There have been cases of media bias against Dr. Paul that have been documented consistently and are still being documented. Hardly anybody thinks they will "edit him out" but they will probably shorten some answers for length or potentially remove some of the shorter or in their opinion less consequential comments. There isn't some covert conspiracy against Dr. Paul. They just really don't like him and are IMHO incapable of separating their personal opinions from their fair representation of all points of view. His opinions are frequently framed as "crazy" "wacky" or even "over the top" as you point out, but they are opinions that are held by a statistically significant portion of the country consistently over a sustained period of time. Many of the policies (even foreign aid) were at one point both commonly held and in many ways active policy of the times. As for foreign policy, it isn't "over the top" think that a congress of elected officials debating and voting on whether or not to go to war is a better idea than one man making the decision without any sort of vote at all. The president doesn't get to make that call. Ron Paul could be a James Bond villain set on the complete destruction of the world, but as long as the power to use military force was with congress then he's essentially powerless. Obama has greatly challenged the scope of which the president can use force without congressional approval, but Ron Paul would attempt to scale back the power that the executive branch has. He also only supports the use of force for the defense of our nation or our interests overseas. He puts this simply to contrast the huge scope of military force being used by Obama, but don't misinterpret that to mean he will never attempt to go to war with anyone ever under any circumstances.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQzluYtzNAY The scenario in this clip is very similar to the one we're in currently with Iran in addition to rescuing fishermen. If the intelligence suggests it's in our national interest and congress approves then he would move in quickly get it done and get out. That sounds like more decisive, rational foreign policy than I've seen in a while. Ensuring that any act of war be done with congressional approval, limiting the scope of the executive branch to use force, and quickly and decisively take action and come home. This isn't intended to be spam, but an opportunity comes up to be able to try to clearly articulate Dr. Paul's stance (because it so frequently isn't) then I have to take it.
hes a nut he beleives that 9/11 was a inside job and a conspiracy even after osama came out on televeision an said that they were responsible for it all. he thinks the governemnt had something to do with it. so thats why he gets edited people just shake there head and he tells half truths about things to.
I am probably going to regret putting it this bluntly, but you are the one who made the statement…
In the immortal words of Joe Wilson(R-SC), "You lie!"
If you have done any research of your own, you know that Paul has *never* said he thought 9/11 was an "inside job", or even a "conspiracy". He has, however, called for a more thorough investigation, just as have members of the 9/11 Commission and many others. When the members of the august body tasked with investigating the attach say it needs more investigation, then perhaps, just perhaps, people should listen.
What Paul actually says is even more despicable than claiming 9-11 was an inside job, when he says that the United States brought 9-11 upon itself and was deserving of the devastation. Some of his comments border on treason. Unfortunately we don't enforce treasonous acts any longer in our country, or we'd have taken action with the current administration.
It's Paul's off the wall comments like this that cause his credibility and mental stability to come under question.
Dr. James, now you are the one telling the lie. I believe know full well that Dr. Paul did not, ever, say that the United States was deserving of the devastation of 9/11. He said, and the Commission and the CIA both concurred, that our own past actions had consequences ("blowback") and that we have to realize that this affects or even is "the reason they hate us" (as many people put it). He very clearly said that the terrorists were responsible for their actions and had to be held accountable for it, and voted to authorize military action to apprehend those responsible. But he never said that we deserved to have property destroyed or people killed. It is your (and others') off the wall comments like this that impugn a good man trying to have an honest discussion.
@me—Thank you sooo much for taking the time to write that much in such a classy way! I really hate how nasty these things can get. I will say that the things that I have always liked about Paul is that he wants to kinda stay out of everyone else's business and not start "dumb wars"…..With that said though, it FREAKS me out because he says things like he would move back in the Strait of Hormuz. That we can't just go around putting sanctions on people. Iran isn't a joke or a country you can even attempt to play nice with. Putting harsh pressure on them is the only thing that works. Now they have vowed to get us back because they think we killed their scientist….The thing is, Ron Paul does have some interesting economic policy ideas, but he would have to have congress help with that and in 30 years he has only been able to pass 1 thing and it had to do with a road or bridge or that may not be right but it's close. What he could do however on his 1st day in office is bring home all of our military from around the world. I wonder if that includes Guam? It's a US territory, but I lived there for a while and learned a lot about why that tiny island is critical to our safety! I have NO PROBLEM with ending the war we are in and taking some of their money as payment for helping them fight it to help us pay off our debt. ANYWAY These are my concerns…if you see this post and have any answers I'd really love to learn them. Thanks! ~Josie
Are you trying to say the other members of congress who were "effective" in passing their legislation and running up a 16 billion dollar debt were in some way good for this country? Maybe Ron Paul, being a doctor remembered the phrase: "do no harm".
Actually it is over 16 TRILLION (not billion) if they raise the debt ceiling again…and they will. BUT WHAT???? I don't really know where you got that from? I was just saying that because we "saved" Iraq from Saddam and then rebuilt the place to make it way better using OUR money when they have PLENTY of their own, I think we should have taken some of theirs to pay us back. When we did all of that mess in Libya, We should have gotten some of there money. Same now with Afghan…..And if you think that is aweful then just think about what all we could be paying back to China if we had done that. OR we could have worked out an oil agreement with Iraq? I mean they would have GLADLY done it! We honestly helped them a lot. reguardless of what the media says. But do I think we should have done all we did…NOPE!
Physicians take the Hippocratic Oath, not the oath of Wicca, "do no harm." Well unless he's a Witch Doctor, which wouldn't surprise me.
Do you really fear Iran? There is no PROOF that they're developing a nuclear weapon. It's been repeated so many times in the news media by people stating an OPINION that people believe it.
Here's a link for you to take a look at about the repeated statement that was alledged to President Ahmadinejad of Iran- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-iran-has-threatended-launch-/
Why do we need to fear Iran? The facts speak for themselves. Even if for the sake of argument they were trying to develop a nuclear weapon, they would not be the only Muslim country that has them(Pakistan has them now). They understand that use of a nuclear weapon against us (or Israel) would only have one result… their destruction. Israel has at least a 100 nuclear weapons now (some believe as high as 400) and the means to deliver them. The United States has over 5000!
Ron Paul has stated that he believes in a strong national defense. I have no doubt that he would act quickly and decisively if we were ever attacked. Our current armanent is a deterrent against other countries attacking us.
Terrorism is a separate issue. If we are attacked by terrorists our focus should be on tracking down those terrorists responsible… NOT getting bogged down in a foreign country where we end up in nation-building like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul voted in favor of going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. He DIDN'T support the nation-building that followed. Now that Bin Laden is dead (along with much of the top leadership of Al Qaeda), the Taliban government that supported him is out of power, why are we still in Afghanistan? Most politicians it seems would argue that it's in our national interest. Is it really? Can any rational person not think that a massive military presence in another country wouldn't be considered a provokation by anyone? How would WE feel? Ron Paul states (rightly I believe) that we should respect other countries sovereignty just as we expect (and demand) the same respect. Do you think this policy would make it more or LESS likely we need to go to war?
Ron Paul believes in defending our country, but being cautious when it comes to foreign intervention. He believes that the Constitution requires a declaration of war from Congress for very good reasons. To prevent us from rushing in unless a real threat exists that can be shown to a majority of Congress. He believes that ONE man should not have the POWER to take our country to war. Are these not things that the majority of Americans believe also?
Americans react to the elements of fear and greed. In war many must die so a few can become rich. Iran is every politicians dream (well almost as Ron Paul is an exception). An easy sell on fear (nuclear Iran) and greed (oil).
See Bill…I don't think you understood that YES I was asking a real question with real concern. I THOUGHT I did that in a nice way so for you to come back at me with the kind of "smart butt" wording I don't think was called for but that is my opinion and I do have several questions about what you just wrote but that's why I addressed my comment to the other person I was talking with before because he/she was able to talk politics without acting like a know it all! And SIR…If you are not aware by now that Ahmadinejad is a crazy psycho mad man that will do what he says ANYWAY he possibly can you are very wrong. Even if it isn't a nuclear weapon…they could just start car bombing everywhere and still hurt a lot of people. I also don't want to go to ANYMORE wars that we do not have to go into and I think coming out of Afghanistan is great! But how you feel about our alliance with Israel??? If something happened there it is our duty to help them. It isn't even a discussion. I don't know what Paul would do, but I know A LOT of this country would go crazy if we didn't help! Ok well you have a blessed day! AND REMEMBER…everybody here wants to see Obama out of office! We are on the same team at the end of the day so don't act ugly to people in here!
Josie,
" Ahmadinejad is a crazy psycho mad man that will do what he says ANYWAY he possibly can you are very wrong"
Ahmadinejad may be a crazy psycho. He may be cold and calculating. I can't diagnose him. But if you think that he runs Iran, or even the military or the RG, then you are mistaken. He is not-so-gradually being left out in the cold by Khameini and the other council leaders. Ahmadinejad is a "democratic face", an effective figurehead rendered largely impotent by the Iranian constitution, except that he does get to be in the public eye. The problem is that his mouth has become a loose cannon, and his rhetoric has distanced him from the real power in the country. He has only about a year left in his position, weak as it is, and then he is not allowed to serve again, even via rigged elections.
Josie I did nothing more than reply to the thread (you realize it's an open thread that anyone can respond too?)… if you want to read something into it thats not there then that's your problem
) So much gets lost in the "written" word and you should realize that 
Please try to read with more of an "open" mind 
And by the way… YOU are stating OPINION's (not facts) that can't be proven and in a very rude way yourself. I didn't insult you. I didn't call you a "smart butt" or a "know it all". I simply tried to answer your questions and in thanks you insulted me
) Go take a look in the mirror. You've already made up your mind. You have beliefs that aren't even subject to "discussion". Tell me who appointed you an expert 
) No discussion even 
) If you don't want to have a discussion then why are you even posting here? If you want to debate people then provide FACTS to backup your positions or at least support someone having a different opinion. Lets compare backgrounds… I bet I have a lot more DIRECT experience with terrorism than you do!
I answered your question with as many facts as I could dig up to reassure you. It really sounds like you've already made up your mind about certain things and no amount of facts will convince you otherwise
)
How many rights are you personally willing to give up in return for the "illusion" of security? Do you believe that violating due process and a persons 4th Amendment rights are okay as long it's for "our" security? All the other candidates do. How many members of your family are you willing to sacrifice fighting a country that hasn't attacked us? In our legal system do we convict people because they "think" about doing something? Or do we only punish people who have actually committed a crime?
You fear terrorists and car bombs and the "wrong" people having nuclear weapons. We all do including Ron Paul. The differences are in what we think we should do about it. I happen to think that Ron Paul has the right idea. A strong national defense to act as a deterrent and willingness to go after those responsible for acts of terrorism.
Unlike you, I don't see getting rid of Obama as the primary goal. I see SAVING our country as the primary goal. We are on the path to war and economic collapse with any candidate other than Paul. This is what I believe and I can articulate this position. Look at where Paul is in the polls… there are a significant number of people who feel the same way. Based on what you're writing I suspect you've already made up your mind… as have I. Time will tell who is right.
I think Dr. James may have heard Ron Paul say something like 9/11 goes beyond the religious and American way of like issues. That there are some Americans who would resent a foreign power if they were to set up military bases here as it might be seen as an occupation. (With 900 US bases on foreign soil it is possible a few just might think like a few Americans would)
Now I myself would welcome say China to spend a few trillion dollars and set up a base in every state so long as they used America union labor and made in USA hardware. Then after they went broke we (the USA) could loan them the money to keep the bases operational and run up a huge debt to us
"in 30 years he has only been able to pass 1 thing and it had to do with a road or bridge or that may not be right but it's close." Those were your words not mine. Had the rest of congress had the same record we would not be any 16 trillion in debt for sure.
If Ron Paul should be elected as next President I really should be happy not upset.Just have to keep up with knowledge that Armagedon is right around corner.This will mean that my time to be with the Lord is about to take place.
Armageddon is indeed right around corner for sure as evidenced by the 16 trillion dollar debt.
Thus far I have heard only one candidate that intends to do anything about it like on day one. The rest all have 10 year + plans that take effect long after they have rewarded those who put them in power and it ain't the voters who will be rewarded.
HEHE!!!
I gotta remember that one!!!!
Ron Paul is too wise to be fooled by these "editing" jokers. Ron Paul 2012!
If MSM doesn't wise up and report news rather than create it, they're gonna lose lots of valuable viewers/contributors.
All of your reasonings are valid on why Dr. Paul was not in attendance. My thought is that he went back to Texas to hear and be present when he won the Texas Straw Poll. Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul definitely should be in the debate, but if he has chosen not to attend, or has a commitment he feels is more important, then I'm disappointed. As for the editing — I think Huckabee is as hateful towards Romney as he is towards Paul. Huckabee got into the 2008 campaign for the sole purpose of keeping Romney from getting the nomination. So if there is editing to be done that makes any candidate look bad, Romney is as likely as Paul to be the victim.
I'd like to see a one-on-one Lincoln style debate between Paul and Romney, as it looks like it's narrowing down to a 2-horse race.
I think a prerecorded debate hosted by Fox and Mike Huckabee, both who openly display their animosity towards Ron Paul and his supporters, would likely be an unfair event with his presence. Provide no room for editing by the neocons.
FOX NEWS IS PART OF THE MSM…THEY HAVE SHOWN LATELY THAT THEY ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE…..TO MANY LIBERAL VIEWPOINTS TAKEN AND NOT CHALLENGED BY THE 'CONSERVATIVE' HOST…YOU DECIDE