Given the success of the first Huckabee Presidential Forum back on December 3rd, it seems we'll be treated to a second installment running up to the South Carolina primary. Note that this event will be taped during the day on Saturday and aired later Saturday evening on the Huckabee program on Fox News. There will be no live stream or viewing at 8pm ET on the internet. If you miss it we'll have the full video after it airs.
Air Time: Saturday, January 14 at 8pm ET on Fox News
Participants: Romney, Huntsman, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry (Unofficial list)
Ron Paul could not attend.
Press release via FITSNews:
Congressman Tim Scott (R-SC) will join Governor Mike Huckabee for “Huckabee Forum 2: South Carolina Undecided”, featuring GOP Presidential candidates on January 14 at 12 pm at Sottile Theatre, 44 George Street at the College of Charleston. The Forum, which will air on Governor Huckabee’s Fox News Show, will allow undecided voters the opportunity to ask questions of each of the Presidential candidates. Voters can submit their questions by emailing [email protected].
“It is decision time in South Carolina,” said Congressman Scott. “Voters are making their final judgments and will coalesce behind a conservative candidate who will defeat President Obama in November. This Forum will be a tremendous help in making that decision.”
The Forum will begin at 12:00 pm. Doors will open at 10:30 am, with seating on a first-come, first-served basis.
“Our country is ready for a new beginning,” said Congressman Scott. “This Forum gives South Carolina voters the opportunity to actively participate in that process, and make sure we get it right – as we have done in every Presidential election since choosing Ronald Reagan in 1980.”
The first Huckabee forum featured 1-on-1 interviews with each candidate being questioned by 3 state Attorneys General and the response was quite positive. The candidates were forced to elaborate their answers and were not given the the opportunity to duck many questions.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- huckabee forum 2
- huckabee forum south carolina
- huckabee debate jan 14
- huckabee forum 2: south carolina undecided
- january 14 republican debate
- huckabee south carolina forum
- huckabee forum 2: south carolina
- huckabee forum 2 ron paul
- huckabee debate january 14
- huckabee forum charleston
- huckabee forum jan 14
- huckabee south carolina
Congressman Tim Scott should endorse Ron Paul for President after this 2nd Huckabee Forum. Tim, like Ron Paul, has been a "lone voice" in opposing the Unconstitutional Powers of BOTH President Obama and the Congress. He's even gone as far as calling for Obama's Impeachment. Tim. It's time to let the "Heart you have for America and for the Constitution" be your Guide as to your endorsement.
Why don't you have Buddy Roemer in the debate.The fact that he is kept out confirms the system is corrupt.I thought Huckabee was a straight shooter. Roemer and Perry are equal for all intents and purposes
buddy who?
I wholeheartedly agree with Darryl.
Mitt Romney Quotes
"This is a global effort we're going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It's more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die."
"We will strengthen our security by building missile defense, restoring our military might, and standing by and strengthening our intelligence officers."
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney fielded a question on the National Defense Authorization Act amendment at a December 11, 2011 town hall meeting with voters in Hudson, NH. "Let me take a look at the particular authorization," Romney said, suggesting he had not yet heard about an issue that has been in making headlines for weeks now.
National Defense Authorization Act
Allows indefinite detention of US Citizens without trial or attorney
John McCain and Lindsey Graham wrote the bill.
Obama signed the NDAA bill on Sat. Dec. 31, 2011
John McCain supports Mitt Romney.
I put 2 and 2 together!
"On our watch, the conversation with a would-be suicide bomber will not begin with the words, 'You have the right to remain silent"
"We should double Guantanamo!"
Nov. 12 at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Mitt Romney said in the debate that he supported the order by President Barack Obama that authorized the killing overseas of an American citizen suspected of terrorist activity. Romney said it “absolutely” is appropriate for the president to issue such an order.
He said he too would work covertly to “encourage” Iranian dissidents. Romney said it would be “unacceptable” for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that he’d order a military strike as a last resort.
Mitt Romney said that if he were president he would propose creating a global trade body that would be of a "higher-standard" than the World Trade Organization.
"Corporations are people, my friend," he said. "Of course they are!"
"If you don’t like my answer, you can go vote for someone else."
Watchwords for Mitt: Global, global trade body, corporations, military strikes, covert, killing Americans citizen SUSPECTS is appropriate, double Guantanamo, my watch will not begin with the words, 'You have the right to remain silent"
My favorite Mitt quote. "If you don’t like my answer, you can go vote for someone else."
and I for one will do just that, even if it means a write in vote.
I put 2 and 2 together,
Mitt Romney is the status quo.
RON PAUL IS FOR THE PEOPLE! 2012!
What does RON PAUL have in common with these President's,
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush?
They all placed second in the New Hampshire primary!
ONWARD RON PAUL 2012!
Buddy Roemer should be included in the debates. He is the only candidate who has been a governor and a congressman. Presidential elections should be about ideas and what is good for the country.
Of the people, by the people and for the people. Those who own and control the media and news services care nothing about the people.
Paul doesn't stand a chance in the general up against BO. His ideology is too left. Also, no one wants a 78 year old STARTING his four years in the WH. C'mon. His national defense stance is also a no win. I just hope he gets out when he should and tell his "paulies" to get in line behind our Republican candidate. Romney or Gingrich…either. We all want BO out and I'll check the box of whoever has the "R" after their name on the ballot.
OK Debra
Which one should we "get behind"?
Romney?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE
Or Gingrich?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY
.
He is what things break down to. Romney stated in NH that he will, "insist on a military so powerful, no one would ever think of challenging it." Which clearly translates to further expansion of the military industrial complex and the US Empire. Gingrich feels essentially the same way. Santorum says we shouldn't have taken the troops out of Iraq yet, and even wants to bomb Iran right now. Huntsman wants to pull of the middle east and concentrate on China.
Ron Paul is the only candidate advocating peace time, which is something we have not seen for generations.
So it comes down to more war, or no war.
It is no coincidence that Ron Paul's number one contributor is active military. In fact, Ron Paul has received more contributions from active military than all other candidates combined including Obama. There is a very clear message there hidden in plain site.
Paul Coonan
Well said Paul. The only candidate (including Obama) for peace is Ron Paul. It's extremely disturbing that so many citizens, even though unhappy with the status-quo, will still vote for more of the same.
Ron Paul has said that it is acceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. That is the same road to peace taken by Chamberlain, but with potentially greater consequences.
Allowing radical Islamists the opportunity to use nuclear weapons to ___DO WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY PROMISED TO DO_____ is utterly foolish. I can't believe I am writing this about any humanoid, but Obama would be preferable to Paul for the sole reason of Iran. Nuclear Warfare trumps all other issues.
Paul Coonan'
Peace is a good thing, but we have radical islam here. You can't always just hope for peace and have it. Paul will only defend this country if they come with declared war to this country. If we wait for that, they would wipe us out. In this day and time how can you not want a powerful military?
"but we have radical islam here" Really? Where is 'here?'
"If we wait for that, they would wipe us out." There are many acts that constitute an act of war. A country does not have to officially declare war against the US. The President of the US jumping without declaring war, or asking for Congress to come to a decision is illegal. To say the President's authority to jump into a war is from the UN is treasonous. The only ones encouraging the expansion of the military are the ones whose pockets get filled by those who profit from war, and those profits are your tax dollars. Anyone who blindly believes the fear-mongering propaganda will remain a fool in fear. A country that rules it's people through the means of fear are tyrannical.
"In this day and time how can you not want a powerful military?" We already have the most powerful military and spend more of our GDP on the military than the next 10 top spending countries combined. And people wonder why this nation is broke? More war will solve the our economic problems?
This nation is spending too much of OUR money in making more enemies than it is spending on it's own people on it's own soil.
Top contributor to Obama in 2008, Goldman Sachs
Top contributor to Romney in 2011, Godman Sachs
Top contributor to Ron Paul in 2011, active military. In fact, Ron Paul has received twice the contributions from active military than all the other candidates combined including Obama.
Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate. ACTIVE military are his number one campaign contributors. Since these active military have seen the other side that most Americans will never see, I take great respect in their message of support for an anti-war president.
As a result, I say, no, we do not need to expand the American Empire. The troops want to come home and who am I to tell them no? I do not fall for the dog and pony show fear mongering.
We have 2 countries north and south that we do not need to fear, and 2 vast oceans on the other 2 sides. If we cant see someone coming to attack us, then this Empire is a failure anyway.
Lets also look at 2 other things regarding specifically Romney and Gingrich.
Romney's number one campaign contributor is Goldman Sachs, which is and was Obama's number one campaign contributor. Romney is being characterized as the "white Obama" and is the pure establishment pick. If you feel the status quo is just fine, Romney is your choice or may as well just vote for Obama for a 2nd term.
Gingrich, the 'former Speaker of the House.' Gingrich was drummed out of the seat by his own party after 84 ethics violations reports that were settled out of court for over $300,000 out of his personal pocket, leaving the details of the ethics violations details out of public record, since there were no hearings. Not only did Gingrich step down as Speaker of the House, he resigned from Congress in whole. So if you want a clearly corrupt politician as a potential president, then Gingrich is your choice.
Ron Paul cannot be corrupted. He cannot and will not ever be bought by special interest or lobby groups. He is the only candidate that truly represents we the people.
Ron Paul is not establishment which is why the corporate owned media does everything they can to marginalize and discredit Ron Paul, because he is a threat to the currently propped up status quo of the super-rich.
Anything as important as a presidential debate that is not live and being produce by Fox is absolutely dangerous. I don't know the real reason yet why Ron Paul is not going to be in this, but I would bet my money on the reason is based on the fact that this will not be live, which leaves the debate completely open to editing by Fox's spin doctor editors. I feel that is a smart move.
This debate should be completely discredited. It should be live or nothing.
well Newt'ethics violations is public records, look it up,all 84 charges brought on by the democrats where all dropped by no evidence, on nov. 5 1998 Newt stepped down as speaker, the 300k you are refering to was a fine to pay the cost of the democrats ethics committee investigation only, the courts even said that no laws were violated, so get your facts right
Thanks Fred,
It is good to hear facts for a change. As we all can see, the RP followers just want to put out garbage against the Republicans running for president. They refuse to check out Paul's record of accomplishing nothing in his enitre career. A vote for RP is a vote against the next president.
You have no problem in pointing out negatives. Regarding Gingrich leaving Congress, I will look into it a bit deeper. The public doesn't always get all the story. I am still wondering why Romney took all the computers and records of his governorship in Massachusetts.
It is fair to say that Gingrich did a lot of good when speaker. He beat all odds and balanced the budget. He can do it again. It is also a good thing that he worked well with the opposing party. They listened to him. Do you really think the opposition in Washington will listen to Ron Paul?
For Ron Paul not to show up for a debate with the rest of the candidates is not a good thing for him.
"Do you really think the opposition in Washington will listen to Ron Paul? For Ron Paul not to show up for a debate with the rest of the candidates is not a good thing for him."
Any smart public figure knows it is best to not be on a mainstream media outlet unless it is live. Otherwise the editors often take things out of context to conform to their own agenda.
Will Congress listen to Paul? They wont have a choice!
Ron Paul has been ignored for way to long. Here is Ron Paul addressing Congress in 2002 telling 10 years exactly where this country was going. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvlUx5ECD2w
Paul Coonan,
In one of your comments in responding to me, you asked where radical islam is. It is off the topic of this blog (even though it is something that Ron Paul doesn't really acknowledge as a threat), but I have to wonder if you are kidding, as you seem informed.
We have muslim brother hood all over! They are in most high government positions in this administration. I think you know this. Don't make an argument in their defense that they are "peaceful". Their positions here are gaining power and promoting their agenda, which is against our constitution and our American way of life. So, as you pride yourself on being acutely aware of this political process, then you are also aware that if you google CAIR in the USA, you will find the answer to your question, "Where is radical islam here (in the USA)."
I could not leave that question unanswered.
yes there are radicals in every state, not just radical Islamists. There are Black Panthers, Neo-Nazis, extreme communist groups as well as radical white supremisists groups and that is only a handful. What a diverse country this is! I am afraid black supremisists, nazis, or communists are going to take over this country? No way! Just as radical islamists will not take over this country!
There are radicals everywhere, but what I was referring to in my past question asking you where the radical islamists are, I was referring to the context in which I took your statement, which to me, indicated radical islamists were perfroming jihad in the USA since 9/11.
You sound like an Islamaphobe. Get back in touch with me when the radical islamists in the USA start to pull off suicide bombings in the US.
Personally I am more afraid of our government than anything else. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears its' people, there is liberty.
No, I am not afraid of the fact there are radical islamists in this country, who are peaceful. Who am I to tell them how they should think. If they are peaceful, they have every right in the world to think what they want. That is what this country was founded on.
No, I am not afraid, because I was able to snap out of the fear mongering control the government uses against us. If we the people do not fear for our lives, then we will no longer be dependent on the overgrown government control freaks that depend on us to be dependent on them.
More and more people are waking up everyday and seeing the fear mongering for the propaganda that it is. So our federal government is beginning to panic, so sign the indefinite detention bill that allows for military use on US citizens on US soil (Posse Comitatus has been overturned), detention that only requires a person to be accused. Obama made a signing statement stating he is reluctantly signing the bill into but promises he would never use new power on US citizens.
So then, something the mainstream has had no coverage, and still very few people know about is the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”
So, no, Obama didn't lie in his signing statement if this new bill gets rammed through like the NDAA did.
Once again, no, I do not fear peaceful radical islamists in the USA, just as I don't fear gays. I fear our government as I watch history repeat itself and what a country I once knew transform into what we were taught in school was very bad.
The pivotal issues are the ballooning federal budget and increasingly arbitrary federal regulations. On these issues, not only is it crazy to call Paul a leftist, but he is actually the only real conservative. Show me another candidate's plan to actually cut federal spending!
Besides that, Paul would actually have a good chance in the general election. He has more support than anyone else among independents, and it's not close. A lot of people who don't normally vote would come out to vote for him. And conservatives would vote for him because they hate Obama. This talk that he's unelectable is just so much wind from the usual sources of hot air.
Michael Scheuer, the CIA’s former agent charged with tracking Osama bin Laden, endorsed Ron Paul in a Sunday column he published on his website.
In the piece, Scheuer said: “Electing anyone but Ron Paul will further increase the already strong chances of widespread Islamist-conducted violence inside the United States.”
You are completly wrong.
According to this, Ron Paul is NOT participating. WHY??? It says he "can't attend." What does that mean? He was not ALLOWED to attend?
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/mike-huckabee-hosts-gop-candidates-in-south-carolina-town-hall-forum_b106375
Also, the day before there is another SC forum and Ron Paul is NOT INVITED!!! It is being broadcast by an Evangelical radio station.
http://www.wyff4.com/r/30187414/detail.html
Something is not realy clean in this matter!
I had to chuckle when the Congressman Scott said that this forum was seeking the conservative alternative to Obama.Who,except for possibly Gingrich,could debate Obama well enough with a record of conservative principles and even he has made blunders.So,considering that all the people running for President have made blunders,including the opposition,we must look for ,as the Congressman said,a conservative alternative.There isn't much of a choice because the entire make-up of the new U.S. population,as from 30 years ago,has changed.Conservatives can't win in our new country!Reagan,though he had charisma,which is sorely lacking with this group,would ,in my opinion,not even be nominated in this day and age.No.I'm afraid those days are gone,as Ann Coulter has already surmised.Still,I think when debates are between Obama and ? and push comes to shove for our survival in this terror-filled world,Newt is the man for the job.I don't know who will win the nomination,but I do know who will win the general election with one simple move and may win without even doing that.
johnnyangel10
I could see your point that Gingrich would possibly do well debating Obama - that is, IF Newt Gingrich was actually a Conservative. However, debating well and having charisma DOES NOT a Conservative make…
WRONG. GINGRICH IS A CONSERVATIVE. You need to read his books. For your information, Reagan, whom no one would argue is conservative, was into the CFR and the Trilateral Commission. If you want a link, I have it. It can be googled easily. Many top influential leaders are wrapped up in the Global one world government, you just don't know it. Gingrich would be for turning this country around.
k-bow
"Loose Cannon" Gingrich wouldn't support Gingrich if Gingrich knew what Gingrich was doing…
I don't like the fact that FOX will be "taping and airing later." Fox has a history of edits that change context to what they want to lead people to hear and believe. The editors of Fox are "psychological spin doctors."
Fox seams to act in dislike of Ron Paul. FOX will lose audience and trust with this move.
FOX hates Ron Paul. If you will remember during the last Primary race, there was a FOX NEWS Debate and they had a live poll following the debate to allow the viewers to voice their opinion as to who they felt won the debate. Fox had a ticker on the screen showing the votes LIVE as they were streaming in. Ron Paul's numbers were off the charts! Guess what happened? FOX took down the live poll, declared John McCain the WINNER, even though he was clearly not even CLOSE to winning, and no mention was ever made of Ron Paul after that. That was the last day I watched FNC.
Yeah, and in the last cycle they also excluded him from a critical debate right before the New Hampshire primary.
Worse yet, when they re-aired a debate where he was included, they edited out his best answer! Supposedly the debate was edited for time, but one Ron Paul answer (after which the crowd cheered wildly) was the only thing removed…
Fox absolutely has it in for Paul.
I don't watch Fox anymore either. I rely on my computer only. Fox is definitely in the tank for Romney. Mr. Coonan is correct that the media, Fox included, are psychological spin doctors.
Personally, I watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC to see what is being spewed. Most of my news comes from internet alternatives. What a contrast. When a person steps out of the mainstream propaganda, they finally see it for what it is. It is like being snapped out of a hypnotic state.
[...] [...]
When the banks were bailed out the government bought up all these bad mortgages that were bundled together. Why then are houses still being foreclosed on? It appears to me that they got the bail out money, and they are still getting paid on these bad mortgages and selling the properties they foreclose on aren't they getting paid twice on the same note?
I am sick and tired about hearing about a Reagan conservative, when Reagan said never attack another republican. I am tired of republicans fueling the democrats with questions instead of telling me how they as a party is going to remove Obama. Talking about a liberal republican from Mass. or an isolasiont or anything that doesn't address defeating Obama is a waste of energy and money
Paul Coonan said: "He is what things break down to. Romney stated in NH that he will, "insist on a military so powerful, no one would ever think of challenging it." Which clearly translates to further expansion of the military industrial complex and the US Empire." Whether Paul and his supporters want to admit it or not, what diffused the Cuban missile crisis was our military might, and Kennedy's willingness to use it and his ability to convince Kruschev that he would indeed use it. If Kennedy hadn't stood his ground, and had the might to back it up, we'd all be speaking Russian. A powerful military doesn't mean expansion of an American empire - it simply means being able to say, convincingly, don't mess with me!
Marlene
"what diffused the Cuban missile crisis was our military might, and Kennedy's willingness to use it and his ability to convince Khrushchev that he would indeed use it. If Kennedy hadn't stood his ground, and had the might to back it up, we'd all be speaking Russian.
A powerful military doesn't mean expansion of an American empire – it simply means being able to say, convincingly, don't mess with me!"
Well said! That is exactly Ron Paul's message and I agree!
Strong defense not endless pre-emptive conflicts and the man who bravely stands his ground. Now that is honorable!
Ron Paul 2012!
Marlene
I don't mean to be condescending, but what exactly were you taught in High School? If anything, Marlene, we all should be watching as "History Repeats Itself" by comparing what the United States did in Cuba, with what we're about to do in Iran.
First of all, the Cuban Missile Crisis "evolved" from President Kennedy's unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro via the Bay of Pigs Invasion. After the Bay of Pigs Invasion failed, the Soviet Union came to Cuba's aid and secretly began to build bases in Cuba for a number of medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles with the ability to strike most of the continental United States. Thus, the Cuban Missile Crisis was born.
The United States considered attacking Cuba via air and sea, and settled on a military "quarantine" of Cuba. The Kennedy Administration announced that it would not permit offensive weapons to be delivered to Cuba and demanded that the Soviets dismantle the missile bases already under construction or completed in Cuba and remove all offensive weapons. The Kennedy administration held only a "slim hope" that the Kremlin would agree to their demands, and expected a military confrontation. On the Soviet side, Premier Nikita Khrushchev wrote in a letter to Kennedy that his quarantine of "navigation in international waters and air space" constituted "an act of AGGRESSION propelling humankind into the abyss of a world nuclear-missile war".
The Soviets "publicly" balked at the US demands, but "in secret" back-channel communications initiated a proposal to resolve the crisis. The confrontation ended, when President John F. Kennedy and United Nations Secretary-General U Thant reached a "public AND secret" agreement with Khrushchev. "PUBLICLY", the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a US public declaration and agreement NEVER to invade Cuba. "SECRETLY", the US agreed that it would dismantle all US-built Thor and Jupiter Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (Nuclear) deployed in Turkey.
The "Glaring" Examples of the "failure and success" of President Kennedy's Foreign Policy during the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis should be a LESSON for ALL OF US when it comes to Foreign Policy. Ron Paul "emphasized" this during the debates, that a President should ALWAYS "Talk" to Foreign Leaders FIRST, before we even THINK of using Military Force.
President Kennedy did it "backwards" and also Unconstitutionally. He Invaded FIRST, "without the consent of the People" (by Declaring War) and after the Invasion failed, he was then "forced" to "make-a-secret-deal" with the Soviets to PREVENT a Nuclear War, which avoided embarrassment to him, publicly.
Ron Paul "emphasizes" that the Proper and "Constitutional" approach to our Foreign Policy should ALWAYS be Diplomacy FIRST! Then, if that fails and our National Security is "Threatened", bring it to the Congress (We The People) and have Congress decide whether or not to "Declare War" because of the Threat against our National Security.
Tell me, Marlene. Why should We-the-People be "settling" for ANYTHING LESS than our Leaders doing what our Constitution instructs them to do? We should be LEARNING from the "mistakes" we've made, instead of continuing the "mistakes". Keep an eye on Iran. History will soon repeat itself again. Ron Paul 2012…
I agree Gary — but the sad fact is, some Republicans are so narrow-minded in their view that if the candidate doesn't fit their mold exactly, then they can't support that person. I was taught in High School by a great teacher (way back during the Goldwater/Johnson campaign) that the proper way to approach an election is to identify the 10 or so key issues, identify where the candidates stand on each of those issues, and go with the candidate who fits more of them than the others. I'm so sick of hearing that Romney is not a conservative. Well, just what does it take to be a conservative. I thought it was Right to Live — check, Romney is for a Constitutional Amendment defining life as beginning at conception. For the Defense of Marriage - check, Romney is for a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and he certainly will instruct his Justice Dept to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. I guess if you are also against discrimination of gays, you aren't conservative enough. What difference does it make if the President thinks evolution or creation is the way we came to be? That's already happened. The only issue is what is taught in schools, and that should be a local issue - check, Romney is for getting rid of the Dept of Education and putting control of schools back into local hands. What difference does it make if the President believes the garbage about global warming? The issue is, will our President put America first - check, Romney will put America first. He will not institute "green" laws that will be detrimental to our economy, so he definitely is not a front soldier for that cause. I think I've said enough for one post - I may get banned for such long posts.
Marlene
Romney is a "Money Guy" - a Wall Street Financier.
Politically, he's a "Flip-Flopping" Liberal/Moderate who has now "Flipped" to being a Conservative when he saw the People starting to "rebel" against the Government. That's called "Political Expediency"!
He has ABSOLUTELY ZERO "Experience" in Foreign Policy. He has NEVER "Served" in the Military. His sons didn't sign up to join the Military. He's an unabashed PLUTOCRAT!
WHO CARES what he says he's FOR or AGAINST! It's all "stuff" that Conservative/Republicans "want-to-hear". Geeesh!
The Democrats WANT Romney to be the nominee. Obama will "slaughter" him in a debate. The Media will absolutely "tear him apart". Why do you think he doesn't do "Interviews" with the Main Stream Media?
Ron Paul is the ONLY Candidate who can BEAT Obama. Why? Because Ron Paul will Debate by "Defending the Constitution"! Obama wouldn't have a Prayer…
May I point out that in the 60's, we thought that Kennedy's presidency would be run by the Catholic Church
Thank you Marlene, in the 60's I was a democrat, now a registered republican. With that I guess I have changed my mind. Reagan said he did not leave the Dems they left him. I think todays decision says that Gingrich, Perry, and others have failed to have an organized system and they can't participate in Virginia's forum. Isn't it more of a concern that the other candidates have failed to manage their agenda more important than what happened at Bain Capital after 1999, when Mitt had left?
This debate should be completely discredited. It should be live or nothing.
Anything as important as a presidential debate that is not live and being produce by Fox is absolutely dangerous. I don't know the real reason yet why Ron Paul is not going to be in this, but I would bet my money on the reason is based on the fact that this will not be live, which leaves the debate completely open to editing by Fox's spin doctor editors. I feel that is a smart move.
Here is my wager on this pre-recorded debate.
Anyone who is not Romney will be slaughtered by Fox, especially after all the editing.
This will be one of the biggest horse and pony shows yet to come in this race.
Paul Coonan
Two good points! Presidential debates should always be broadcast live to prohibit even the question of editing fraud. I would like to know if they take public funds, if so a citizen authority board should be developed to create unbiased debate rules and monitor every debate!
Although I haven't read Ron Paul's reason yet, I agree it is the kind of smart decision that he would make based on what I have seen him do in the past.
[...] 14, 2012 8pm ET on Fox News (taped broadcast) Location: Sottile Theatre at the College of Charleston, South Carolina Sponsor: [...]
newt and ron paul ticket i would get behind, as long as romney isnt the gop canidate im happy
chris
A Newt/Paul ticket sounds like "Fantasy Politics" to me. It would never happen.
Why is it that no one seems to ask Rick Santorum or the others why voted for, or support, the Patriot Act, or similar bills, which nullifly most of our Bill of Rights?
Why do most approve and support gun control?
Ron Paul has never supported either of these Constitution busters. He has my vote, hands down!
Those questions are never asked by establishment journalist because the establishment media is part of the globalist agenda and to say the that our freedoms and liberties are being taking away one amendment at a time are considered "conspiracy theories" and anyone who believes that giving up liberty for freedom is supposed to be a good thing.
The mainstream media are far from being real journalists anymore. They have to follow a higher agenda if they want to keep their jobs.
Why is it that a large percentage of voters believe that Romney could defeat Obama? Was Romney able to defeat Mccain in the last GOP race?? Did McCain defeat Obama in the last Presidental Election? Were people so wrong four years ago? Has Romney improved his ablities or positions so much in the last four years?? I just don't get it! I't doesn't add up!!
Mike, you are so right, if Romney couldn't beat McCain four years ago, then how can he beat Obama now,thats why so much money is being givin to Romney campaign by the liberal left, to loose to Obama, they know Romney can't beat Obama
By this same token, How many years now has Ron Paul ran? How many times has he failed? Why is he still taking votes from those that can make a difference? If everyone that got behind McCain gets behind Romney then we stand a chance of outing Obama. Obama got a lot of votes four years ago from the black community and from people sick of Bush. How are they going to vote now?
PROVEN FRAUD! The MEDIA LIES and they do it in a way to make Ron Paul look "unelectable".
Watch: (Jesse Benton: Ron Paul Is the Best Choice for the American People )[at 2:38] On the screen , in ONE shot , you see 50 Delegates ,when only 40 Exsist ,TOTAL from the 2 elections. And in Later Vids , they show Romney's? Delegates number go even Higher.
I found a vid from before the First NH polls closed (not the 2 itty bitty midnight ones ,but the main ones ,so before any numbers came in) and they showed 40 delegates ALREADY.
This is Vote Fixing , especially when the asked people , later , who they voted for and a Ron Paul supporter said she voted for romney because Ron Paul was unelectable and she didn't wan't to waste her vote. You will hear Negative Key words Connected to Paul. This is Criminal and it is Brainwashing the sheeple. It is Subliminal Messaging , which IS Illegal.
RON Paul has as much chance of being elected as Jon Hunstman-none. As always, Republican's never miss an opportunity to commit party suicide and weaken the nominee. Newt, Perry and Santorum will cannabalize Romney and do all of the hard work for Obama and the DNC-insuring Obama's re-election. People always vote for the politician that promises the most "free stuff", Obama is the all time king of "free stuff", re-distributing wealth from the successful to the parasitic entitlement class and dividing America into camps that hate one another, using the age old tactic of divide and conquer. And exploding the public sector(government) unions, benefits and pensions. 50% of all Americans pay no income taxes and Obama has those parasities in his hip pocket-they will never vote to lose their "freestuff" the other 50% provides for them. Republicans have once again blown a prime opportunity by taking their eye off the prize-the incompetence, in-experience and oral failure of the Obama policies which ere all implemented in return for party loyalty, votes and retention of political power-at the expense of the taxpayer!!!!
To Paul Coonan, I resect your views on Ron Paul as we should. However,where did YOU get this information on Gingrich if it was never published? I would really like to view the source for myself.It's a strong accusation and deserves to be read and evaluated for the merit. If it is true, why haven't any of the other candidates also mentioned it? That would be enough to discredit him completely!
looks like paul coonan ain't telling you the whole truth i replied to his comment above, Newt's violations is all public records, look it up for yourself, the reason why the other candidates don't mention it is because the democrats dropped their charges, the reason was no evidence.
Wikipedia.
"Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term as speaker. After extensive investigation and negotiation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was sanctioned $300,000 by a 395–28 House vote. It was the first time in history a speaker was disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.[63]"
Google "gingrich resigns as speaker" and you will find 1.7 million results as well that explain the story.
Paul Coonan, all 84 ethics violations by the Democrat led ethics committee where dropped peroid.,the reason, no evidence of wrong doing by Gingrich was found that means he didn't do anything wrong, even the courts said that Gingrich never broke any laws,Gingrich denied the last charge that he misused tax-exempt donations but agreed to the reprimand instead of draging it out further,Gingrich agreed to the 300k just to get the sh$t over with, why don't you tell the people how Gingrich paid the fine,well i will,the democrats said he could use campaign funds to pay the cost of the ethics committee's expences, Newt paid the fines with his own money and he borrowed money from a friend Bob Doyle, do you no why the investagation wa so intensive because it was led by all democrats, and at the end no wrong was done by Newt, you can word it how you want to Paul but facts are facts, INNOCENCE.
If the 84 ethics charges were dropped, that does not mean Gingrich did no wrong, that is politics. Politicians get away with anything we let them get away with.
When Bush Jr. published his memoirs, something that was glazed over by the mainstream media, Bush pretty much had to cancel his European book tour or he may have never come back, "Such an investigation would be mandatory under Switzerland's international obligations if President Bush entered the country," Amnesty said.
It added: "Anywhere in the world that he travels, President Bush could face investigation and potential prosecution for his responsibility for torture and other crimes in international law, particularly in any of the 147 countries that are party to the UN convention against torture."
To this day, Bush Jr. is not immune.
Because we the people do not hold our elected officials accountable for their actions even with potential charges of war crimes and treason, does this mean they are not guilty?
What I have not been able to find, and this is an important fact, maybe you can help out with it, is, if Gingrich was not guilty of any ethics violations, why was he drummed out of the Speaker seat by his own party, and why did Gingrich take the extra step and resign from Congress in whole, IF Gingrich did no wrong?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/06/george-bush-trip-to-switzerland
"Loose Cannon" Gingrich says "Spanish is a language of the ghetto"
Hello Daryll, here we go again! Your views on Cuba make me wonder how did YOU obtain the "secret" infomation? Remember that Prsident Kennedy wanted to avoid having an aggressive Communist country with nuclear weapons only 90 miles from Forida. The dismantaling of the missile sites in Cuba had to be done or some of our B-52 bombers could very quickly have dropped a few nuclear reminders to the Soviets that we were very serious.
I'd also like to make a reference to the last time we exchanged views on Ron Paul. I truly beieve he is very serious and believes that isolationism (of a sort)is the only way for us to go. I respect him for his views but can't support him. Good Luck
Hi Daniel,
The "secret" information, isn't so "secret", Daniel. All you have to do is look it up.
As to President Kennedy wanting to avoid having an aggressive Communist Country (Soviet Union) with nukes 90 miles from Florida, I'm in total agreement with that. But you can't CHANGE the FACTS on what actually transpired, nor can you "leave out" the Soviet's Role and Response to Kennedy. It wasn't a "one way" street like we're taught in High School.
ALL this Nationalistic and Patriotic "rhetoric" surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis - that it was "all about America's might" and if the Soviets didn't dismantle, we would "bomb them into oblivion" - is just the "propaganda" that was needed so Kennedy could "save face" for the unsuccessful Invasion of the Bay of Pigs.
Think about it. If Kennedy's ambition to covertly invade Cuba to overthrow Castro, and he was completely "uninhibited" to overthrow a little nation like Cuba, don't you think he could have done it in a day or two without being covert about it? (as we did in Iraq)
The PROBLEM that isn't discussed was that Kennedy's ambition to invade WAS inhibited because the Soviets were Cuba's ally. Hence, Kennedy made the choice to do-the-deed covertly (and unconstitutionally), but the Bay of Pigs Invasion failed anyway. So, when the Cuban Missile Crisis really started taking off, Kennedy was then "forced" to broker an agreement, through (and with) the United Nations, so to have the WORLD avoid a Nuclear War between the 2 "Super Powers". If this agreement hadn't of taken place, then the "Cold War" would have turned into an ALL OUT Annihilation of the Planet.
But we haven't learned our lessons, have we?
As a side note: Did you know that this "plan" to overthrow Cuba was actually created during the Eisenhower Administration? (A Republican) "Communism" was really hated back then after WW2, just like "Terrorism" is hated today after 9/11. The only thing that HASN'T changed is the "Moral Superiority" of the Neo-Conservative "Philosophy" to Rule and Dominate the World. The Elitists "behind" the Throne just LOVE to "pick fights" and "start wars". They ARE called the Money Manipulators!
I'm sad to read that you won't support Ron Paul. But that's your choice.
The PIIG Nations in Europe, along with a few more nations were just downgraded today by the S&P. The Euro is on it's way to it's inevitable collapse. When this happens, the Economic Tsunami will cross the Atlantic so quickly that it could crash our Economy overnight. $700 TRILLION in Derivatives are at risk. All-in-all, we all better be getting prepared for very difficult times ahead.
To Paul Coonan - After reading all your comments, I wonder if you may be slightly out of touch with us. Fox News is the only major news entity not controlled by the leftists yet you discredit their views completly.Do you believe ABC,NBC and CBS are reliable news media channels?
he's a ron paul surporter
Daniel
In defense to Paul Coonan regarding FOX News, I have to ask - Are you serious???
I'm a Conservative, registered as a Republican which leans toward Libertarian. I'm 53 years old and I've watched FOX News for years. I'm sorry to report this to you - But FOX News LIES! Not only do they LIE, but they "manipulate" the News through their Opinion Shows like Hannity and O'Reilly. I've witnessed their lies many times. They want you to believe that they aren't "controlled" by the Leftists and that they are SO different from ABC,NBC and CBS. But they are a "controlled" propaganda machine.
If you want the REAL News, try the Alternative Media on the Internet.
Here's just one example of FOX News Lying… There are many many more on Youtube. It's all about Perception, Daniel
Here's what FOX Reported to "Manipulate" the Results of the 2011 CPAC Straw Poll…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN-jWLRhimo
And here's their "Lame" Apology…
You assume that I believe in the left/right paradigm.
I watch every view from the staged mainstream media, and about 20 other alternative sources. I rarely find anything UNbiased on any of the lamestream media. I can discern between biased and unbiased, and I prefer the unbiased news. The alternative media tends to report what the lamestream will not touch.
For example, the NDAA was passed and Obama gives a signing statement saying his administration would never use it on US citizens. So what is following behind the NDAA, aka, indefinite detention act? HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”
If you Google either of those bill, entered in Oct 2011, you will not find a single shred of the mainstream media even mentioning those bills.
So when Obama says he will not use the NDAA against US citizens, he is absolutely right. He will strip citizenship first, then indefinitely detain. That is pure dictatorial power that Obama and all future presidents would have and could very easily be used against any dissenter.
Paul Coonan
Craigslist just posted an online protest to SOPA and PIPA.
Check it out on their homepage in your area.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/SOPA
Yeah, January 18th will be interesting to see who decides to honor the proposed blackout. Major sites like Google, Reddit, Facebook and many other monster sites are considering closing down for the day in protest. If that action does not wake people up as to the dangers of SOPA, I don't know what will.
Paul Coonan
Do you listen to Greenwave TV, Gerald Celente (Blog), RT or Wide Awake News?
Just asking. You seem like you're part of the Truth Movement.
Paul Coonan
Michael Rivero is good, too.
I am an info warrior. I seek the truth where I feel the need to seek the truth, rather than blindly believe what someone tells me is true. Love Gerald Cellente, I can never get enough of his rants!
Paul Coonan
It's funny. I have a cousin who is a "staunch" Establishment Republican supporter. She's heavily involved with the Republican Party in my area. She knows I support Ron Paul and for months now, she's been trying to convince me otherwise. She listens to Rush Limbaugh, religiously.
The other day, Rush Limbaugh decides to "all-of-a-sudden" report on the NDAA legislation The way he reported on it, with such "shock and surprise", made me laugh. I just happened to be listening at the time.
Anyway, my cousin calls me and asks me if I heard what Rush Limbaugh said about NDAA that evening. I told her I did hear it, but I also told her that this Bill has been out there for months. I asked her why did she think Rush Limbaugh was "all-of-a-sudden" reporting on it now? I also said that the MSM Media hasn't been reporting on it either. She didn't know why…
I told her that, just like FOX News, Rush Limbaugh is a LIAR, too. He KNEW it was out there for months. He also KNEW that the "Establishment" Republicans, McCain and Graham, Co-Sponsored the Bill. He also KNEW that they debated it on C-Span. Yet, because he is SO "partisan" and HATES Obama so much, he waited for Obama to sign it, before he reported on it. He NEVER mentioned who authored it and how it passed the Senate 93-7. He could "Care-Less" about the Constitution, Freedom or Liberty. He's in it for the MONEY!
Believe me, I'm sure that "woke up" my cousin as to the "Disingenuousness" of Rush Limbaugh.
Here is a tidbit for you, Bain Capital owns Clear Channel (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Etc.)
Darryl, So you are going to label Limbaugh a LIAR! Wow.
He, like all of us, supports what we believe to be true. That doesn't mean that any of us, including Limbaugh, should be pegged a Liar for an occasional non-factual statement be it deliberate or a case of being honestly misinformed or just wrong. Rush does give a lot of good advice and I am glad that he is around to be a positive spokesman for the conservatives.
k-bow
To believe that Rush Limbaugh is a Constitutional Conservative is just plain naive. He's a Neo-Conservative! The Neo-Conservative Movement is responsible for "making up" the fabricated LIE that Saddam had WMD's. Their main emphasis since 1990 has been using American POWER to foster "Democracy" abroad, especially in the Middle East. However, PEACE - nor "Democracy" through following the Principles and Precepts of the Constitution are NEVER their included in their Agenda. It's War, War, and MORE War to Conquer the World!
Germany had this same problem just before WW2 when they were "taken over" by the Political Philosophy of Nazism. The German people "allowed" their Constitution to be "usurped", while Hitler promoted German Nationalism - then off-they-went to Conquer the World…
You need to see who owns Fox. Search and you will find it. Believe me, they are controlled.
Oh I know. I know who owns all the major news networks. For those that don't know, Wikipedia had great details histories on them all.
Well people SC, tell me are you going to follow suit like the puppets of NH and vote for Romney or are you going to think and vote for the most qualified canidate that can rip Obama a new as$hole in the debates and win, we don't need another Obama in the White house, Romney is not the most qualified, don't let the GOP elet tell you how to VOTE.
Electability… The buzz word used by FOX, CNN and all the other mainstream media outlets.
"Ron Paul is unelectable." Just because the establishment medias says he is?
Ignorance begins where thinking for one's self ends. As long as their is ignorance, the Establishment media will continue to spoon feed what they want people to believe rather than giving real unbiased journalism that makes people think and come to their own conclusions.
Say something enough times, and it tends to become believed as truth.
Romney - 1 term governor
Ron Paul - 12 term congressman over 20 years
Ron Paul isn't electable? I do believe that 12 is more than 1.
Paul Coonan - Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Goebels believed the same as you stated about belief.However, it doesn't apply in Romney vs. Paul. We are now considering the fate of our nation and it is a different comparison. Ideology must be the basis for our decisions. As I mentioned in an earlier post,I believe that we cannot return to any form of Isolationism. Unfortunately, Ron Paul seems to believe we can extricate ourselves from the rest of the world and apply all our resources to use here in the states. Great idea but not very practical in our present world.
As far as all your statements about the news media and the powers that be, who are all these alternative media sources? I'd like to check them out and see if THEY are
so different.
"I believe that we cannot return to any form of Isolationism" Only the mainstream media has characterized peacetime as isolationism. Being a non-interventionalist does not an isolationist make. Are Canada and Mexico isolationist countries? How about the whole of South American countries?
Non-interventionalism is far from, and not even related to, isolationism and once again, it was the mainstream media that turned peace into isolationism.
The World is ready for PEACE!
Are YOU ready???
Some of you (above) call it isolationism when instead of bombing others we sit down and negotiate. How sad!
The world of tomorrow will depend on economic power instead of military power. It is a big step forward.
Ron Paul’s program will give both: Less military and more economic power.
I, along with many others, know that we have to have military power. It is Isolationism when you think you can live in our little country and stay safe and peaceful when you have enemies coming through your boarders. That is living in a fantasy world.
"It is Isolationism when you think you can live in our little country and stay safe and peaceful when you have enemies coming through your boarders"
That would not be isolationism. If an enemy was coming through the borders, that would be pacifism.
On top of that, that with all the trouble we currently have on the Mexican border, your twisted analogy would indicate the US is already isolationist.
We have a president that ignores the boarder and will not do anything about it. What would Mr. Paul do about it?
My analogy is not incorrect. My point is that we do have to put a stop to those that are invading this country with an agenda that is in opposition to what we believe and stand for. That is plain and simple. I personally do not think Paul sees this as a threat.
Just like taking money out of politics would give this country back to we the people, take money out of drugs that cross the Mexican border into the US, and the Cartels have nothing to kill over anymore.
k-bow
The United States Military is BY FAR, the MOST SUPERIOR Military in the World. It is Imperialism, Interventionism and GENOCIDAL MASS MURDER to USE that Military to "set up" a World Dominating Empire - to INVADE Countries without a Declaration of War - to KILL it's citizens and call it "collateral damage" - and to "steal" their Natural Resources for the Economic Gain of "Special Interests".
That's the REAL World, my friend. NOT a Fantasy World. And that's why the United States is HATED around the World. That, too, is the REAL World.
Ms. Darryl,
I am not in disagreement about the fact that we should not use our military to invade other countries and to kill it's citizens. Do not put words in my mouth. I am not here to argue. I am stating that I believe, like many others, that Ron Paul is way to weak on the issues of foreign affairs. That is all there is to it.
I am finished discussing Ron Paul with you and Mr. Coonan.
Glad you are voting. I will be voting also, lets leave it at that.
OK k-bow
PEACE to you and yours!
You nailed that one. I often ask people who the real terrorists are. When we are attacked, we call them terrorists. When we attack, we are called patriots.
On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, there was some polling in Afghanistan. 92% of Afghans never even heard of 9/11 and in fact were fighting the US simply because we were occupying them. After 10 years of fighting, that is a staggering fact.
Of course the mainstream media could never touch that one because it would have been a truth that did not fall in line with the official stories they had been spoon feeding America.
k-bow
Isolationism is what the United States is currently doing to Iran through Sanctions. Sanctions are an "Act of War". Iran is being backed-into-a-corner and it's Economy is being "brought-to-it's-knees". They will eventually fight back with the Help from Russia and China. Iran is NOT Iraq! When they "fight back", it won't be a "cake walk". Many INNOCENT Lives will be lost and Terrorism will flourish. WW3 is right around the corner.
You are not telling me anything I don't already know.
I hope Iran is backed into a corner. Their threat to destroy us is real alright. They are Radical Islam. I close my case. You need to research what they are all about.
"Their threat to destroy us is real alright. They are Radical Islam. I close my case."
===============
Here is a quote from Bachmann. This same talking point has also been used by other candidates.
"They've stated, as recently as August just before President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad came … to the U.N. General Assembly. He said that he wanted to eradicate Israel from the face of the Earth," Bachmann said during the Nov. 22, 2011, CNN debate.
"He has said that if he has a nuclear weapon he will use it to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He will use it against the United States of America."
===============
Politifact has determined this to be False. In fact, since being determined as false, you no longer hear this from any candidate.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-iran-has-threatended-launch-/
Give me a break. They called Bachmann's statement false because she used the word bomb. Since Iran claims not to be making a weapon, they for that reason said her whole statement was incorrect and false.
“Robbers are far less dangerous than a well-organized government.” Lyev Tolstoy
(This statement isn’t true now, presently politicians are robbers too.)
While all republican candidates propose to decrease the size of government, only Ron Paul proposes significant cuts, and only his track record is clear on that issue.
Oh my goodness! I had no idea there were so many naive, misguided people in this country! We do not invade countries for the purpose if domination or control of natural resources. I'm pretty sure most people don't understand the level of evil we are up against. The zealots, specifically Muslim extremists, hate us and want to kill as many of us as possible just because we exist. Anyone who doubts that is, in my opinion, a walking victim. We shouldn't live in fear, just awareness.
“We do not invade countries for the purpose if domination or control of natural resources.”
Dear Almighty! Then for what reason do we invade other countries??? But remember that our interests are often in the region or neighboring countries.
Since your Islamo-phobia is out of control, would you tell me how many times Arab (or Muslim) countries have interfered in our affaires and how many times we interfered in their affairs?
And why do you call other people naive when you seem to be the most naive of all???
Let's talk about real naivety.
There is one thing the US has proven in the last 100 years that started right here on our own soil. The more you suppress, oppress, and attack groups of people, the more they will fight back, and the more resentment is garnered towards those oppressors.
Are you one of those people that believes "they hate us because we are free?"
Near the 10th anniversary of 9/11 Afghans were polled, asked if they new why the US was in their country, and 92% of them never heard of 9/11 even after being shown images of the attacks on the twin towers. They were fighting back because were attacking them over the last 10 years.
Even very shortly after the invasion of Iraq due to 9/11, Bush, in a press conference was asked, "What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?" The quote from Bush, "Nothing."
We have killed over 1 million people with a conservative estimate of 25% of those people being innocents, women and children, over the last 10 years between Iraq and Afghanistan, with Afgans not even knowing whey were there, and killing in Iraq over a false premise of how Bush put it, "There has to be some weapons somewhere."
Yeah, they hate us because we are free. It disgusts when I here anyone who truly believes that line anymore and falls for the fear mongering of "They are going to kill us, so give up your liberties, and give us all your money."
The reason the US has to expand it's military strength, now 900+ bases in 130 countries, is to protect from people who actually see the US as tyrannical terrorists.
A world wide fear campaign is the basis of the US government, even on we the people right here in the USA. This is the example we set for the rest of the world in a new millennium.
I think it is far past time this nation grows up.
They hate us because we are free? That is not what I felt about bullies when I grew up. I feared them, afraid I may get hurt by them. I hated them, because of the fear they generated in others which lead to getting people to do what they did not want to do, out of fear. Every bully I knew continued to bully because they enjoyed the power they had. The enjoyed their power until one day they eventually got their butts kicked. Unfortunately, that is what it takes for most bullies to stop their fear campaigns.
This is why the US needs to expand it military and fear campaign so nobody will ever stand up to the bully that is the US government. Unfortunately, it is a perpetuating circumstance that will never allow for peace. Our future generations will see more wars and expansive police states with heavy surveillance, the like of which we have never seen because the US government will have to be watching over it's shoulder for the rest of it's existence.
I feel sorry for my future grandchildren for the world they will be given because the US government refuses to stop being a bully, and the US will not stop being a bully to the rest of the world if everyone keeps blindly believing the fear mongering agenda that is spoon fed to us.
Ron Paul is too old and is showing signs of senility. His thinking is impaired and his judgement is not normal. He should drop out of the race and preserve what dignity he has left which is nil.
Medley708 - The "Abused" Voter
The typical ABUSED "voter", as exemplified here by Medley708, would much rather live in a FAILED economy as long as they get a leader who "appears" strong.
These ABUSED voters are the typical "scared little kids" who NEED a strong "father figure" in the house – even if he's a Drunk ABUSER.
These ABUSED voters cannot stand living in a healthy household with a "traditional, older, more stable" father figure. (Ron Paul)
These voters have been so ABUSED and are acclimated to the ABUSE to the point to where they "cannot understand" a society or economy that is "healthy". Thus, they join the ABUSER mindset and begin to ABUSE Ron Paul publicly.
Ron Paul is WAY TOO "Independent" for their psyches to handle. They would rather a Romney/Newt/Obama who exemplify the strong "father" leader who makes "everything (appear) okay" by "saying stuff" that they need to hear - that everything (will be) OK (even if it's NOT the Truth).
It's all perception as usual.
The INDEPENDENT intellects perceive Ron Paul to be a good leader.
The DEPENDENT "scared" little children perceive Romney/Newt/Obama to be a good leader.
@Darryl. time to grow up and face the facts. Ron Paul is a mental case. He tried 4 years ago and failed. He is even worse now due to age and poor judgement which can be reflected by his large frontal lobe which is where a person performs judgement and can also indicate bi polar disorder. This certainly is the case of Ron Paul. You are backing a freak of nature. Enough said.
Medley708
Wow! Yes. Enough said FROM YOU!
"Ron Paul is a mental case."
Actually, in addressing Congress in 2002 he told exactly where this country was going, where it would be, and how it would happen. See the vid.
"He tried 4 years ago and failed."
So did Romney a one term governor, while Paul has been elected to congress 12 times. And they say Paul is 'unelectable.'
"He is even worse now due to age and poor judgement which can be reflected by his large frontal lobe which is where a person performs judgement and can also indicate bi polar disorder. "
Ron Paul is doing worse now? His support and ranking in the polls have grown by 3 to 5 times what they were 4 years ago.
And you make me laugh asserting Paul is bi-polar based on the appearance of his forehead! Ron Paul is the most consistent when it comes to his views. His views have NEVER changed in the 20 years since he entered politics!
You can't kill an idea whose time has come. The people are rising and beginning to take this country back. A vote for anyone but Paul is a vote to continue to disassemble and repeal the Bill of Rights and the Constitution this country was founded on.
Medley708
You are very late but welcome to school!
It appears there are some conservatives who believe as I do - that we cannot afford to withdraw from international politics and once again play by a set of rules which would have spelled doom for our country in WWII!
Im referring to the theory of the "America Firsters" who were convinced that we could watch the whole world go down in flames and not be involved. Had they been successful we would be speaking German or Japenese unless they would have killed off each other and then we would be speaking Russian.
Fortunately,we are still free to engage in written debates because the Isolationists didn't win out. So now, I'm going off to watch the completely "edited" Huckabee debate. If you don't believe me,ask Paul Coonan!
Apples to oranges!
The Nazi Germany CAN NOT be compared to present Iran. Germany was an immensely powerful industrial country. Germany alone was able to invade almost the whole world. This is not the same case as Iran. Iran almost a century later is a poorly industrialized country that was barely able to defend itself in the Iraq-Iran war.
Isolationism has been happening already. The US is loosing credibility and friends due to indiscriminate foreign policies. The best example is the Filipinos (and in general the South Pacific Region), who after WWII nearly worshipped Americans and today hate Americans. Personal experience is the best, ask a Pilipino and I’m sure he/she will tell u why.
Ron Paul's message of Freedom and Liberty is inspired by the Constitution and living in a FREE Republic. His supporters speak "in their own words", WHY they support this Man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR4WYqabTxU
.
Well Alex, If Iran is so poor and hardly industrialized, why did that war go on for almost a decade? Do you think for one second that Iran is just a nice neighbor? Their leader is one of those people with the "Little Man Syndrome" who try to over-achieve so where do you think his thoughts are directed? If you believe he is only interested in peaceful pursuits and not for extending his strength,then-man-have I got some deals for you!
Daniel:
The war was long because they were equal in strength (military, industrial, economic).
The Iranian politicians are obviously crazy. The politicians in many other countries are also crazy (much of it if not most of it doesn’t make it into the media, f.e.: the Argentinean Presidents who made an awful economic/financial mass before the present President).
We should not and can not bomb every country that has a crazy President, Ayatollah or politicians. If we invested to poor countries all the money which we gave to dictatorships, we would have by now many more friends and much more peace on Earth.
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein (Who lived in hardest of all times.)
War with Iran?
Paul Coonan,in Ron Pauls mind if we and US GOV. stops the war on drugs,then the drug problem will end, that means that our sons and daughters ect. that are dying from drugs supplied by the drug cartell in Mexico will no longer die?,or is he saying that there is no reason for the fight because the fight can't be won?,do you think that the drug cartell will just give up and go away with his policies and turn into good guys,what about his veiws on radical islamist,why don't we just leave them alone, is that not the same veiw that President Bill Clinton took then 911 happend,these threats are real and they are out to kill all of us, Ron Paul needs some education on current events around the world and at home, maybe a good place for him is the retirement home.
,
If you leave a bees nest alone, they leave you alone. If poke it with a stick they attack you. The more you poke it, the more they attack you. Then you instill fear in your family by telling them they can't go outside anymore or they might get attacked by the bees. You just gained control over your family, and continue to poke the stick at the hive and spread the fear to your neighbors assuring them you will make sure the bees do not get them. How long can one keep poking the stick and expect someone will not see right through you and what you are doing?
Most people learn just to never poke a stick at a beehive because they learned from history what happens. But every onece in a while someone has to poke that hive to see test if history holds true.
Ron Paul speaks more truth about foreign events than anyone else because he is not in the pocket of the military industrial complex which cannot continue to get massive government contracts at taxpayer expense, contractors who depend on fear mongering to survive.
did Bill Clinton poke the bee hive ,NO, he left it alone and look what happend, do you think that we can reduce our military down to scraps and still be able to protect ourselves from nations that our building their Military like China ,Iran, North Korea, there is a reason why we are a super power, we had to become a super power to protect and keep our FREEDOM, are you willing to gamble with our freedom on a hunch that they will leave us alone, i don't think i am, you don't seem to remember the past bombings of our embassies or the USSCOLE we didn't poke that beehive did we, but Ron Paul and you blame us for the consquence, we need a tough leader that will keep our military strong and ready for any situation not to say just don't poke at em, i wish are world was what Ron Paul thinks it is but it Ain't.
"do you think that we can reduce our military down to scraps and still be able to protect ourselves "
Who ever said we would? There is a difference between cutting defense spending and cutting military spending. Nobody, including Ron Paul has ever said we should reduce the military.
The US spend twice as much on defense as the next 10 highest spenders combined.
Just where does Bill Clinton come into this anyway? Clinton has nothing to do with 9/11! Yeah he brought the troops home and guess what, we had a budget surplus! If you are referring to the Oklahoma City bombing when Clinton was president, what does that have anything to do with defense spending and troop support in foreign countries? Nothing!
Damn you sound so scared. I feel sorry for you. When you were growing up, how old were you when you realized the boogie man was not real? Or do you still believe in him? Are there still monsters under your bed?
Fried:
You can retire yourself if you want to.
We won’t, neither will Ron Paul before the primary is over.
You see the important thing is to fight for Liberty, and not if we win or loos in the next election.
Viva Liberty
Zeitgeist - The Movie - The Federal Reserve
The video suggests that the debt was created/caused by the FRB (Federal Reserve Board). This is FALSE.
The federal debt has been created by the by the accumulation of deficits (fiscal/yearly) by the Federal Government of the USA. The debt is an accumulation of more then 50 years of deficits.
The FED used to finance the deficits by issuing Treasury Bills and Bonds but lately people do not buy as much as to cover the whole debt. Therefore, the only solution is for the FRB to create new Money Supply or Currency Supply.
Ron Paul doesn’t blame the FRB for creating this new Currency Supply. RON PAUL BLAMES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for running deficits. And rightly so.
Yes, Ron Paul wants to eliminate the FRB but for completely different reasons.
Guys be careful not to mix in left-wing junk, conspiracy theories etc..
VIVA LIBERTY
Alex
I agree with you for the most part. However, you're assuming that there is "actual" money being "created" when the Government "borrows" money from the FED. Yes. The Government "creates" the Debt through Government Spending, but the money is being "created" out-of-Debt. In other words, it is "backed" by ONLY Debt and nothing more. The Money, that is being created out-of-thin-air, then becomes a "perpetual" Debt that can NEVER be paid back because the "Interest" money was NEVER created. So, in reality, the FED also DOES create the Debt by charging "Interest" that it never created in the first place.
Not to mention, the network of Banks who are "supported" by the FED, can also "create" money out-of-thin-air (and thus create even MORE "Debt") through the practice of "Fractional Reserve Banking". (This video is part 1 of 3)
Alex
You stated: "The FED used to finance the deficits by issuing Treasury Bills and Bonds but lately people do not buy as much as to cover the whole debt. Therefore, the only solution is for the FRB to create new Money Supply or Currency Supply."
This is incorrect. The FED is now "buying" it's OWN T-Bills, thus "monetizing" the Debt. So, in essence, the FED "creating" NEW money (out-of-thin-air) to "purchase" the money it created (out-of-thin-air - plus the "Interest" which doesn't exist because it was never created in the first place) to fund the Government Spending which the Government "borrows" from the FED. Thus, the FED is not only "creating" the money (out-of-thin-air), it is actually "purchasing" that money that it created (out-of-thin-air) and capitalizing TWICE on this "funny" money.
First, the FED is "charging Interest" on the money it "created" (out-of thin-air) and it then "loaned" to the Government to cover whatever the Government decides it needs the money for. AND second, the FED has now become a "purchaser or investor" in these Government "created" T-Bills, who, in turn, will "collect Interest" which ANY "purchaser or investor" of these Government "created" T-Bills would accrue.
If anything, Alex, if EVERY issue could be "set aside" and the 2012 Presidential Campaign be ENTIRELY "focused" on "Ending the FED", the Country's Problems would eventually be worked out. But because this Issue (and Ron Paul) is being "Ignored", the other Issues (problems) will only continue to manifest (expand).
Alex
My apology… I stated that the FED is buying it's OWN T-Bills, which is only partially true. The Government "creates" these T-Bills in "collusion" with the FED. I should have been more clearer on that.
Alex
I just noticed your comment: "Guys be careful not to mix in left-wing junk, conspiracy theories etc.."
Maybe I'm just "assuming" here, but did you get that "left-wing" jargon from Rush Limbaugh? I heard him make a comment on the Zeitgeist Movement as being "left-wing".
Just so you know, although I "disagree" with some of the information put out by the Zeitgeist Movement, I also "disagree" with some of the information put out by Rush Limbaugh.
Propaganda is put out there through many venues. Rush Limbaugh and Conservative radio are just one of those venues. I'm a Conservative, just NOT a "Rush Limbaugh Conservative". I listen, but I DON'T take what he says as "Gospel". When he came out AGAINST Ron Paul, I realized that there was something DEFINITELY WRONG here. We all should. He LIES, like Fox News LIES. I realize that's "harsh" language, but when Truth is "intentionally" distorted, it then becomes a LIE. You'll NEVER hear Rush Limbaugh or Conservative Talk Radio "expound" on the Federal Reserve. One then has to ask the question "Why"?
Neocon Ron Paul-haters, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have seen their audiences plummet by 33 percent and 28 percent respectively since October. Turns out that listeners are sick of neocon LIES and distortions. Lew Rockwell
http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/01/11/rush-limbaugh-and-sean-hannity-have-seen-their-audiences-plummet/
The Time is Now for Limbaugh and Hannity to Rethink Ron Paul
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/01/12/the-time-is-now-for-limbaugh-and-hannity-to-rethink-ron-paul/
"One step toward regaining some of their lost credibility that Limbaugh, Hannity, and the others can take would be to start treating Ron Paul a bit more respectfully. Paul, along with millions of the most demographically disparate Americans, is defying both the conventional wisdom as well as the two-party system that embodies it."
http://jackkerwick.com/2012/01/13/conservative-media/
Paul - Would you mind explaining how defense and military are NOT related? Concerning the amount we spend on defense, would you suggest we cut our spending when the bad guys would love for us to do that? Hey man, this is the real world-not a place to use buzz-words, long words and babble-get with it!
I may be a left-over from WWII - The Greatest Generation - in case you don't know what it means, but it seems to me you sure could use some indoctrination in real life! We fought our butts off so you could mealy-mouth us on this blog!
Also, speaking of boogy-men, take a look out there and then tell us there aren't any of them waiting to get us first chance they get.
Alex - I have to admire your idea of giving money to all those people who need it and like us, but I believe that many times it might result in another small-time dictator who will seek power to satisfy his greed and ambitions.
It is unfortunate that too many people, mostly young ones, haven't gotten it into their heads that we must continue to be a super-power and use force when we are threatened or face the consequences.
Man has not evolved to live as Einstein would have us do. If we are being observed regularly,and I believe we are, these beings must be shaking their heads in dismay at our behavior.
Perhaps someone will eventually use a magnetic pulse and send all of us back to the stone age. Then, with our present knowledge, we might do better the next time.
Alex, that may the answer.
I sad:
“If we invested to poor countries all the money which we gave to dictatorships, we would have by now many more friends and much more peace on Earth.”
But I didn’t say we actually should have done it, not when we don’t have money/surplus only debt.
As far as your idea that we are a Super-Power… You live in the past. We are no longer Super-Power, not even close to it. A country that is a Super-Power isn’t bankrupt, but the USA is presently bankrupt. I admire Ron Paul for thinking he will be able to eliminate the deficit and afterwards to pay down the debt. However, analysing the present Money/Currency Supply, the hyperinflation is already a fact (within 1-2 years), the only question being when it will start.
Viva Liberty
Alex, I forgot to mention that I was a pre-depression baby and grew up in the hardest of times. It isn't something you can ever forget. I'm now a Great-Grandfather and so happy that all my descendents have their needs taken care of through working for them. They aren't parasites feeding off the government so they don't have to worry as long as we maintain our superiority as a world power.
Daniel
For someone who is as seasoned as you are, Daniel - I'm so surprised that you're completely missing the Matrix that has been set up all around you. You really don't understand what's happening, do you?
Hi Daryl - Please explain your view. I'm serious and would like to understand more of your reasoning. I know I can have a civil,intelligent conversation with you.
As an aside, I enjoyed The Matrix and the sequels immensely. I've been a scifi fan since the fifties when there were only a handful of scifi writers and some dopey movies back then.
Nite,nite time- Don't you ever sleep?
Hi Daniel
Before I get into things, I'd like you to watch a video which explains Social Security and Birth Certificates. These controls were implemented back during the Great Depression. It's a segment from the Series, "Slavery By Consent". (It even has a scene in the Video from the "Matrix"…haha)
Anyway, I'd like you to watch it (just the segment) and to get your thoughts, since you went through the Great Depression.
Daniel - Then I must assume you you know George Orwell, and his book 1984? Welcome to it's manifestation!
Which is why I do not believe in the boogie man and do not fall prey to the fear mongering agenda of the establishment.
Darryl - I'll look at it later today. Thanks.
Paul - Yes, I read 1984 yearss ago - Big Brother is here!
Hi Darryl. I just watched this segment but would like to see it again and perhaps some of the other segments before making any comment. I already agree and believe the Federal Reserve may be an unnecessary organization, but I've never researched it in depth.
I'm prepping for surgery tommorow very early in the am so I might not get back to you today.
Have a good one!