By The Right Scoop


Four candidates took the stage 2 days before South Carolina’s primary to debate each other. Watch the full debate below:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Anonymous

    I will try to make it! I have a work deadline to finish so I may be late!

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      I’m sure someone will save your spot C_Hippie!

      • Anonymous

        I have a spot save for him…in my heart :-) *turns red*

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    tap, tap.. saving a seat

  • Anonymous

    Can’t wait….

  • Anonymous

    Gingrich will kill this.

    • Anonymous

      I hope he’s fired up and hits it out of the f-ing park

      • Anonymous

        As they say, Gingrich runs on his record…

  • Anonymous

    I’m looking for the remaining Rick to elevate his campaign.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      Me too!

      • http://profiles.google.com/ajtelles Art Telles

        Me tree!

  • Anonymous

    Perry #dodge

    • Anonymous

      hehehehehehehehehe

  • Anonymous

    I only wish to see this many debates against Obama? I know I am dreaming, I just wonder what his excuses will be. Because thus far it seems like Obama being president is just one big vacation. Maybe that will be the excuses I got to go on vacation. It also makes me wonder what Obama has up his sleeve. He doesn’t even look worried. So that tells me either he doesn’t want to be president anymore, Or that he is going to still the election somehow.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/MVKB24PATKM3BXCRTLD62FUKK4 Richard

    There is something wrong with me,after a few debates I picked Cain,he dropped out I followed with Bachmann and she dropped out.My third choice,even though I call him hollow was Perry.The four reminders don’t trust any of them but better than BO

    • Anonymous

      Don’t pick or follow Newt please! LOLz!

    • Anonymous

      Santorum isn’t bad.

  • Anonymous

    ‘Scuse me, pardon me, excuse me, hi there, haven’t seen you in a while, pardon. Oooh, there’s a seat. Shhhhhh. Hey honey that guy’s head is in my way…smack(!) I don’t see no head. Pass the popcorn please, this is gonna be good :-I

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      :-D

    • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

      This is a CNN debate….I don’t have high hopes for it. 20 minutes on gay questions, 20 minutes on abortion questions, and the remainder of the time will be….Candidate A, in recent weeks Candidate B said “insert random media garbage here”….please tell us why you hate Candidate B.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_V2DBN3EEUPJPKG3ZYM6YSQGRIM John Bohler

        lol thats so true in so many ways its scary

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    Thank you Scoop. I hope my computer is up to it this time around!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    Palin defends Newt from media/marianne gossip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54UKoF-BKfA

    • Anonymous

      Wow, the comments on that video are vicious about Palin. What a bunch of hyenas.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    Over/Under Ron Paul will be boo’d 3 times.

  • Anonymous

    Newt…your heart is up a little higher…check the doctor to your left…

  • Anonymous

    I am a Ron Paul supporter, but opening with this crap about Newt?!?

  • Anonymous

    This is ridiculous.

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    OH YAY Newt!!!! Massive slap down!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Good job Newt, now go out and get Obama!

  • Trust1TG

    We have a home run to begin with. Way to go NEWT!

    • Anonymous

      …and don’t forget to *SMILE*

  • Anonymous

    Two standing O’s in the first 5 minutes for Newt.

  • Anonymous

    For the first time during this race, I can say without any fear of confusion, Go Rick!

  • Anonymous

    Newt just hit a home run with his reply on the Marianne issue; Slightly dissapointing response from Santorum… should have just said what Romney said.

  • Anonymous

    Oh pleasenot the Bain Capital thing again!? Please CNN!

  • Anonymous

    Squirm, Mitt, Squirm.

  • Trust1TG

    wow – Santorum is giving it to Mitt and Newt on healthcare! Home run for Rick!

    • Anonymous

      I knoooow… and there goes Paul talking about giving Iran the bomb again. Such a shame.

      • Anonymous

        Come on, man.

        • Anonymous

          What? Dude, I’m being honest. It is.

  • Anonymous

    Time to get out Mr. Santorum.

  • Anonymous

    If Romney is the nominee, the party and his supporters will have to defend Romney care, over and over and over and over again

    Wait till Barry gets a hold of aloof Mittens

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IDAKYMXLZIRLMLGEZJXV3AOO7E Vorlath

    I wish Ron Paul wasn’t so naive. If only he’d study history a little, he’d know that retreat is never a sign of strength. It has always attracted aggression.

    • Anonymous

      Who are you afraid of?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IDAKYMXLZIRLMLGEZJXV3AOO7E Vorlath

        Ron Paul and Obama

    • Anonymous

      I believe that it is naive to believe that we can win a war against Islam by overthrowing dictators, occupying the countries, installing a puppet government, turning their natural resources over to corporate control, then leaving them with a government worst than the last.

      In fact it is naive to think that we are fighting a war on terrorism to start with. We say that Muslim extremists want to attack us because we are free and prosperous. Therefor we are over their trying to change their minds with the use of force and control. When does that ever work? We bomb the crap out of them, then go back in and rebuild them. How did this work after eight years in Iraq? Are they “converted” yet?

      It is naive to think that cutting $100B per year, $1T over ten years, is going to solve our financial problems. This yearly cut is one month worth of debt spending.

      It is naive to believe that we can spend $1T per year on overseas adventures, and save our currency from collapse.

      It is naive to believe that we can work with the current monetary system and get politicians to make it more transparent.

      It is naive to think that killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle eastern countries will produce people who will love us for it. (more than 50% civilians)

      It is naive to believe that we can solve the terrorism problem by creating terrorists.

      It is naive to think that electing deeply embedded establishment candidates will produce anything different than the status quo.

      It is naive to believe that we can pay off our debt, fight multiple wars overseas, and fund the social systems that people are dependent on, without having a currency crisis which will lose us our world reserve status, thereby putting us into third world country status, and with nothing to back us up, or bail us out.

      It is naive to believe that the establishment candidates will get us out of the treaties, that they supported, which helped shut down our industrial base and shipped our jobs overseas.

      It is naive to believe that the other three candidates can put up a good enough fight against the Obama machine when they have so much baggage in their past.

      It is naive to believe that Ron Paul can’t win against Obama, when he polls at the top against Obama and splits the independent votes with Obama, which the others have no chance of getting.

      It is naive to think that the establishment would not rather have Obama than Paul because the establishment is controlled by the banks and corporations that run the world. They wouldn’t mind having any one of the other three.

      It is naive to think that the other three wouldn’t continue to sell out our sovereignty to world organizations and their laws.

      It is naive to think that any of the other three would fight to reverse the diminishing of our rights, and veto any unconstitutional legislation that infringed upon it.

      It is naive to think that the other three wouldn’t go along to get alone.

      It is naive to think that this country can be turned around without a radical change in thinking and policy.

      I will admit that I am probably naive to think, for one moment, that this country will do what it takes to change things.

      • Anonymous

        Woot!!!! Wow – excellent list of naiveties!! I despise that word – it is such an arrogant word and this is an excellent list.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IDAKYMXLZIRLMLGEZJXV3AOO7E Vorlath

        You should go back and read up on some history. Pretty much everything you say is silly when you put it in a historical context. If you knew anything about what’s going on in the world, you would never utter such nonsense. Ron Paul will be such a disaster than anything you think he will do domestically won’t matter.

        • Anonymous

          There are two primary schools of thought on world events, and foreign policies. One is that which we are engaged in now. This involves being everywhere, and expanding military involvement around the world, including preemptive military occupations and police actions in other sovereign nations. Not to mentions controlling the political processes of these countries through covert CIA coup’.

          The other involves respect of sovereign nations, and a strong national defense primarily focused on the homeland. We have no US example of this to compare with our current policies since the industrial revolution was in full swing. After two world wars, our government began to engage in primarily covert actions in the middle east to secure and control their oil. This intervention, which is no longer primarily covert, but rather overt, has changed the middle east in ways that have had many consequences for them, and for us. We have had the same basic foreign policy progression since the early fifties. This progression has become more and more violent as time has gone by.

          In modern times, we have used many excuses for the invasion of these sovereigns. 911 was one, but the case for invading countries was leveraged more heavily on humanitarian issue, and a supposed fear of a rogue nation getting weapons of mass destruction. Our government has used propaganda that was perfected in the early 1900s, by noted psychologists, to create an emotional response in the general public that would cause Americans to support things that they would not have previously. Prior to WW2, Americans were historically against getting involved in foreign conflicts. Essentially, we have been trained to respond emotionally, in such a manner as to support a globalist agenda throughout the world. In the process of creating this environment, nationalism has risen within our societal mentality. Nationalism is that which denies individual sovereignty for the sake of the “greater good”. With this mentality coming into fruition in the US, the government has been able to get the people to accept socialism.

          After the central bank created depression, government came in and installed a socialist system. They did this while keeping the focus on the issue of communism. They also did this in the name of nationalism. Nationalism generates and acceptance of government intervention, because it is based on the concept that government intervention in our personal lives is good for society as a whole, and this is the only way that we can have a cohesive national security.

          So the whole program is based on fear. Fear of people going hungry and lacking in basic needs. This mentality was created during the great depression. As people suffered, they were psychologically effect in lasting ways. When the economy recovered after WW2, the government was credited for their intervention and debt spending on social programs.The lingering psychological effects of the great depression created such things as hording. This lasted an
          entire generation, and still exists in the elderly.

          The “communist” issue had a huge psychological impact on society. It generated yet another type of fear. One that was of a real foreign enemy threat. Although, after WW2, that threat was not as real as it was made out to be. The Russians filled in as the big foreign threat to the US. Thus began the cold war. This was used in ways that, in retrospect, seems to have been completely unreasonable. Though it was based on a new concept, and the new technology of nuclear weapons. The new concept was “mutual destruction”. This was actually an engineered political concept, which served to create an rush to creating massive amounts of nukes.

          After the cold war, the military industrial complex, that was created in the first half of the century, needed a new enemy. Thus began the real escalation of middle eastern campaigns. We are well on our way in conquering those nations for the military industrial complex and the corporate controllers that want control of the oil supplies.

          Mean while, the US government has no interest in mining US resources. The corporate crony politicians have successfully been manipulated to transfer power over our economy to global corporate controllers. Not to mention global government. These corporations are as much the bankers, as they are the oil conglomerates. These two work hand in hand with each other’ interests. The US government slowly signs over our legal and financial sovereignty to global governing entities such as the WTO, IMF, UN, NATO, etc. Clinton was the first one to hand over command of our troops to a foreign power.

          You may have been taught history differently than I understand it, but that just means that you believe what you are told and trust in government, and I, on the other hand, am a full government skeptic who is willing to say that our government has done wrong to the people, and to foreign countries. One is based on nationalism, socialism, and fear, and the other is based on individualism, constitutionalism, and an understanding of the nature of government and its inherent desire to control people and become tyrannical.

  • Trust1TG

    Did you notice how Mitt absolutely avoided the questions about his personal business practices?

    • Anonymous

      Don’t worry, it will come out in the general election.

  • Anonymous

    As a freshman in 1979, Newt voted to create the federal Department of Education, which Reagan campaigned on ending.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Kawasaki/1798183858 Dave Kawasaki

      You say that as if Newt should have had the ability to see the future when he voted. Have you personally ever made a poor decision, albeit with good intentions?

      • Anonymous

        That is quite a poor decision. Gingrich is currently portraying himself as a “Reagan conservative” when he voted to create an entire new federal bureaucracy that Reagan himself campaigned on ending the following year.

        Newt Gingrich is not a conservative, and never has been.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Kawasaki/1798183858 Dave Kawasaki

          Yes, because his record is that of a f***king commie. Do you even have the ability to read, or did someone tell you what I posted?

  • Anonymous

    Not for anything, but Obama didn’t have much experience in Washington either, and look where that has gotten us.

  • Anonymous

    “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”

    –Ronald Reagan

    • Anonymous

      Many dead people vote for Democrats. Do you think Reagan will vote for Paul?

      • Anonymous

        Well, Reagan was once a Democrat…

        • Anonymous

          Ha – my laugh of the night – that was great!! Thanks…

    • Anonymous

      Yeah and a shame Paul went on to trash Reagan. Reagan had class, Ron Paul to this day has none.

  • Anonymous

    Romney’s doing much better tonight than he did on Monday.

  • Anonymous

    Wow! Romney just flinched & got stumped on the question big time then tried to change the subject. “I worked hard!” line come on man!

    • Anonymous

      You have to vote for Romney so we can find out what’s in him when he’s the nominee (twitter quote)

      • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

        LOL!

      • Anonymous

        Maybe if someone would grab the back of his hair and pull up, we would find out.

        • Anonymous

          Then he would say “if it weren’t for those crazy kids, I would have been the nominee”

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is in his highly-credible zone. (Let’s hope he doesn’t lapse into how we “continuously bomb other countries”.)

    • Anonymous

      He’s a nut and a freak and a distraction.

      • Anonymous

        Many of his followers are nuts and freaks – the type who would orchestrate posting bad reviews to Mark Levin’s Amazon page. Actually, they’re just scum. But Ron Paul is a bright man who is not in the pocket of anyone with much to say and offer about how to fix our suicidal spending, abolish the Fed, etc. Some (not all) of his foreign policy ideas are troubling to the conservative base, however.

        • Anonymous

          The question is, “do we go down fighting wars, or take care of our home first and deal with the borders”?

          • Anonymous

            it may not be such an extreme choice. how about shifting a few resources?

        • Anonymous

          I am not a nut or a freak – but a respected member of this community. As far as Levin is concerned – He started it by calling Paul unAmerican and a nut job and Ron Paul’s supporters were offended just like I am with your comment here. Why do you think people get upset when the name calling starts. Name calling ends discourse and the exchange of ideas. Ron Paul is VERY WISE and very well read. I don’t agree with everything he stands for – but I agree with a lot more of his positions than all the other candidates combined.

          • http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

            But Ron Paul is a nutcase.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IDAKYMXLZIRLMLGEZJXV3AOO7E Vorlath

      Too late.

  • Anonymous

    For Romney to say that he started from the bottom and worked his way up in a joke. Private school in Bloomfield Hills, Stanford, BYU and Haavad. I don’t believe he had to worry about student loan or funding his education. His family connections also helped immensley. In fact, Town and Country Magazine last month reprinted a short story about Mitt being one of the most eligible bachelors. Town and Country?? I doubt many of us “up from the bootstraps” people appear in that magazine. Romney has led a life of priviledge and family connections. A joke!!

    • Anonymous

      Yes, a great ad would exploit this, and should

      • Anonymous

        Why? To poopoo success and hard work?

        • Anonymous

          no, to call Romney on his BS….he just can’t be who he is

        • Anonymous

          Go back and take another hit off you bong!

          • Anonymous

            “Off you bong”? Are you crying right now? Your post is socialist crap.

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          Nothing wrong with success and hard work- but mittens has a way of being disengeniune about it. <3

          • Anonymous

            Governors have a lot of political pull. I would expect that being a corporate player, and the head of a state, that he has had the opportunity to engage in corporate cronyism already. I do not know this, but since Washington is the corporate crony capital of the world, I wouldn’t trust him to be there.

            • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

              Me either, but I was referring to the part about mittens claiming to start from the bottom. There’s nothing wrong with a privilaged upbringing. There’s nothing really wrong with him working hard- but I do have to wonder about the cronyism. That’s what I meant by being disingenuine.

              • Anonymous

                Agreed. He may have worked his way up, but his father having money and influence could get him money and influence. Even if he borrowed money to work his way up, where did the money come from?

                • Anonymous

                  Gosh, you know you talk just like a guy named Paulbot. Hmmm

                  :)

                • Anonymous

                  ABC suggested that I change it.

                • Anonymous

                  Ya, I know. Just messin’ wit cha.

                  Nice name, tho.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, but a life of priviledge and family connections ‘from the bottom’, don’t you know.

      • Anonymous

        I liked the way he earlier couldn’t distinquish between ‘thousands’ and ‘billions’. Granted, I know there isn’t much difference to him, but come on, Mitt.

      • cabensg

        Envy is what liberals use. We don’t need to fall victim to that kind of think.

        • Anonymous

          ‘Envy’? are you kidding me?

    • Anonymous

      So. That’s what one can hope and work for in this country. At least it used to be. Spare us your class warfare. It is the joke.

      • Anonymous

        What? Being part of the lucky sperm club like Romney?

        • Anonymous

          Wow, you’re in the wrong party. No, nothing lucky about what his Father did. A Father’s job is too provide for his family. The Bible says, he who does not provide for his family, is worse than an infidel. Would you snatch his Father’s hard work? His money? Kiss my ass. ‘Butt’ first, kiss his.

          • Anonymous

            NICE.
            You proved my and everyone elses opinion of you on this board.
            Don’t look for any more replies as your a waste.

            • Anonymous

              “…your a waste” ?

              What is “every one elses opinion” of me “on this board”, in your opinion?

              • Anonymous

                Geez, Rs, I always thought you were a far left Obamabot with wacko ideas. No, wait. That was someone else. My apologies, sir.

              • poljunkie

                I like you Rs!!!

                We’ve been friends for quite awhile and you make me smile.

                :-)

              • Anonymous

                IMHO your posts are always well recieved……….they are witty and wise.

              • Anonymous

                If it wasn’t clear in my previous post to you, I like your responses, too. If you are a waste, then I am a waste, too, just listening to them.

              • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

                Ditto on poljunkie, Nukefriend, and PAWatcher. Without your comments, Scoop would be no fun ~no offense Scoop! :-) ~ and I wouldn’t have such a good friend and encouraging brother.

              • Anonymous

                No matter what a person’s opinion is of your opinions, it is still just opinion. Anyone who dismisses another person’s opinion as a “waste” is wasting their credibility to have people consider their opinions. Therefor my opinion is that your opinions are not a waste.

                • Anonymous

                  Well said. A waste of a waste is a waste. End of story.

    • cabensg

      I don’t give a damn how he succeeded. It’s America and he should succeed. If he’d been a dumb schmuck even money wouldn’t have helped him. He worked and earned it later.

      I want Newt to defeat him in his bid for the presidency not because I envy his upbringing but because he would not be the president we need now. He’s a moderate who’s trying to be a conservative. That ain’t good enough.

    • http://www.facebook.com/salvatore.anello Salvatore Anello

      Some peoples bottoms don’t sag as low as others.

  • ApplePie101

    So far, they’re looking good. All those debates have helped them sharpen their performance.

    • cabensg

      The only thing that sharpened Romney’s performance was being able to channel all of Gingrich’s ideas from past debates. I wonder if he thinks we all have memory loss?

      • Anonymous

        I agree. But I don’t limit it to Romney. I have seen Gingrich adopt the talking points of Paul which receive the most applause in debates. These guys know what people want to hear.

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          They all get points from each other- from being around each other for so long…. osmosis thing going on I think. ;-)

  • Anonymous

    Santorum’s answer on Internet legislation is interesting – how do we protect IP rights, rather than call the internet a free for all? Is there a workable answer to this?

    • Anonymous

      Problem is, they’ll fix a legitimate problem, but the legislation would be a trojan horse for curtailing free speech. Example, they want to regulate away news aggregator sites (Drudge, anyone?). George Orwell, call your office!

    • Anonymous

      Unstoppable force meeting an immovable object??

    • cabensg

      Probably, but God help us if we let the present government come up with it.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think so. You either involve government and lose internet freedom, or you don’t and have a “free for all”. Many big sites have been self regulating to keep government out. Law suits have been brought against people who have broken copyright laws.

      The real issue is overseas activity. In this case, we have to consider that there is little that we can do except call for “world” regulation and support global government. This is the intended goal that few see coming. I believe that Santorum, Newt, and Romney would sign a treaty putting us under international law.

  • Anonymous

    Uh oh. Santorum just went big gubbamint on us a little bit with his soft rebuke of SOPA. He wants to do something kinda’ like that but not as harsh. He says SOPA went too far.

  • Maxsteele

    All Romney is doing is taking any opportunity to go through his list of talking points. I have been watching for 20 minutes now and he has already not answered two questions, forgot what the question was in one instance and also has interupted a back and forth between Santorum and Newt to sell himself.
    He is like that kid in school who wanted to be the centre of attention and got jealous when anyone else had any time in the spot light. Has he said anything that even remotely seems genuine?

    • Anonymous

      That’s all he does, he coasts. So people (not me) are supposed to vote to nominate him without without a test drive?

      This is what I mean by how obama will run circles around him. He’s waiting for Romney and Romney has no idea what will hit him.

      We already see how Newt performs, take the initiative, takes on hard questions, etc.

  • cabensg

    The chat room is full so I’ll comment here. Wow! Everyone is after everyone else. Is this no holds barred or what. I don’t see any clear winner yet. I wonder if it’s going to hurt or help anyone. Santorum’s really after Newt. Poor Romney is kinda foundering.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t mind it. Paul only had one major criticism. Santorum said that he was only 50% pro life. That is laughable, but Paul’s response was awesome. Pointing out that Bush and the republican congress could have taken authority over the issue away from the courts and given it to the state, thereby ending RoeVWade, was more than I could have hoped for. He made the establishment policy of waiting for the court to change seem ridiculous.

      Otherwise, an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 babies, and believes that abortion is an act of violence as a matter of principle, and therefor should be prosecuted by the states as “murder”, doesn’t exactly hold up to Santorums statement.

      I thought that Santorum’s arguments against Newt and Romney were accurate and good, but Paul put it back on him.

  • Anonymous

    Following Dick Morris’ Twitter Feed Analysis: Santorum is doing well, but as he wins points, he siphons support from Newt, which means…Romney Rises.

    • Anonymous

      …i.e., Santorum is dividing the anti-Romney vote that Newt was trying to consolidate.

      • Kari George

        I don’t know about this. I wasn’t crazy about him in the first place & he’s really getting pretty obnoxious. Glancing around, he doesn’t really seem to be winning many hearts (or at least, as of now). I think he let Iowa go to his head.

        In spite of Newt’s delicious beginning, this debate was kinda anti-climactic. Santy’s constant attacks kinda sucked all the substance out of it for me.

        just my .02

    • Anonymous

      I’ll say this once and/or 1,000,000 times, Romney loses against obama

      • Anonymous

        Thank you, Ann Coulter (one year ago).

      • Anonymous

        Right Geobbels. Thanks. Propagandist.

      • Anonymous

        I agree, and I have a hard time seeing a close general election, which is usually the case, going to Newt or Santorum. When the election is close, the independents decide. Paul splits them with Obama and has consistently polled at the top against Obama. (nationally)

        If the primaries showed Paul and Mitt leading overall, who would you choose?

        • Anonymous

          Neither.

          • Anonymous

            We have that in common, just not the same candidates. This could turn out to be one of the most contentious election cycles in history. Possibly, one of the lowest turnouts for republicans.

  • Anonymous

    Romney just made me realize what it is about him that is epic fail. Romney said Obama is way over his head (which I agree with), and now I know that compares to Romney being just a little over his head. Kind of like being only a little dead.

    • Anonymous

      Compared to the politicians that we usually get, I would say that Joe the Plumber wouldn’t be any more over his head than these guys. All you have to do is appoint bankers for cabinet members, call in the lobbyists to find out what to do about regulations, get a good phone list of all the oil company heads to know what to do about energy, hire a press secretary who knows what people want to hear and who can lie on demand, and let the military industrial complex run itself.

      Then you just go golfing.

  • Anonymous

    This is the unattractive aspect of Rick Santorum – always comparing himself to the others on the stage with the subtext that he’s been on these issues before everyone else but doesn’t get his due. That’s why some find him petulant. And, though he can’t help it, his face looks like a perpetual grimace, like he’s been walking on a pebble in his shoe for ten years.

    • Anonymous

      Rick loses the telegenic race because of this (think Kennedy vs. Nixon). Shallow, I know. But look at Mitt – always smiling.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, always a phony A used car salesman. A fraud. A born loser.

        • Trust1TG

          He looks like an Undertaker in looks, voice, behavior.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul makes a great point about pulling extraneous forces and put them on our own border. This is the sound aspect of his foreign policy ideas – shutting down bases that were established in WWII.

    • Anonymous

      Not necessarily. Most bases that are in non-combat areas, ie, Germany, are not generally extraneous. They generally have a purpose.

      • Anonymous

        I hope so, but if we can, we should identify resources that could be better used to maintain the integrity of our borders.

        • Anonymous

          I agree, but I’ve heard Ron Paul say pull them all out and bring them home. That is just wrong.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not a Paul drone, I’m just trying to give a layered analysis of his positions. They’re not all wrong. (But I do really despise his most unquestioning fanboys – they are annoying little toads, don’t you think?)

            • Anonymous

              Neither was Hitler! He had some good ideas setting aside liquidation, right?!

              • Anonymous

                Oooh, he whips out the dreaded Hitler. What else have you in your scabbed-over scabbard. Anything that might be considered sharp?

                • Anonymous

                  Bend over and I’ll show you Paul-tard

                • Anonymous

                  Not that kind of a Bear. Try a Teddy.

              • Anonymous

                nice straw man argument.

          • Anonymous

            I think that he uses terms and talking points like that for impact. It works with his supporters, and it gets people to listen for whatever reason. He says “end the Fed” in the same manner. Yet he also says that it shouldn’t be done overnight, and he would like to end the Fed through legalizing competition in currency. When he says “just bring them home”, I think that he is talking about an immediate withdrawal, but incremental as well. If he was asked by the government of Afghanistan to help them in a transition, he would probably accommodate them to some extent.

            Paul wants to change the direction of the country, and knows that it cannot, and should not, be done too quickly. He just has real solutions, rather than nibbling around the edges.

            His audience in the past was typically the far right groups who were fed up with both parties. The left has never supported him. In talking to those people, he was used to getting right to the point, which sounds extreme on the face of it. He has been fighting an ideological battle in support of the constitution for so long, that he is having to change his delivery message to be more acceptable and understandable by those who haven’t been in the far right fringe group.

            After McCain threw the election in 08′, I became one of those far right guys who was done with the main stream. I didn’t know about Ron Paul until I got streaming internet a couple of years ago. I absorbed a lot of things quickly with my new found information treasure trove. I even got into Alex Jones. Regardless of what people say, he does have good people that he interviews, and puts out some good info. Now I go there for the interviews and news on the police state and globalism. You don’t get it on the nightly news.

            There is a peaceful political revolution going on. I will be a part of it while it is peaceful. When things fall apart, I will go wait it out somewhere else.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan

              Alex Jones is a liar and pro-Russian propagandist. He is poison to this country.

              • Anonymous

                So, I take it that you have studied Alex Jones in detail by subscribing to infowars.com and listening to his interviews and arguments. I suppose that you have fact checked the things that he claims are true about history and globalism. I’ll just bet that you have really had an open mind about the anti-media alternative possibilities that may exist in the world.

                Good for you

            • Anonymous

              The problem with a candidate saying something ‘for impact’ is that he loses a lot of people. Not necessarily a good idea. It certainly has an impact.

              Also, look at what happened to Perry, with the ‘3 agency point’. Got labeled stupid unfairly and it unfortunately did him in. It’s small things that have big impacts in the political arena.

              • Anonymous

                I agree. I believe that this is a flaw for Paul. He tends to speak in general terms, rather than specific ones. Those who understand his libertarian concepts don’t need further specifics. Those who don’t study or subscribe to them, see him as being, well, “nutty”.

                Sometimes I think that he reacts to other people’s reactions. He isn’t used to getting such big crowds and so much support. Just as a rock star on a stage will feed off of the crowd, so can politicians.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IDAKYMXLZIRLMLGEZJXV3AOO7E Vorlath

      This is silly. I’m Canadian and our troops are all over the world. Most of the time in US bases found in other countries. Most allied countries do the same. The US also comes up to Canada for training on an ongoing basis and work with other forces from around the world. You close those down those bases and that partnership and you’ll have a systematic shutdown of international peacekeeping operations that will INCREASE your defense and military budget and will put allied countries in a very difficult situation.

      Ron Paul is a complete nutjob. If he had any clue about the world geopolitical situation, he would never say the things he’s saying. BTW, he says what he says because he’s naive and lives in a bubble. Also, young people that don’t know history are pushing him along.

      • Anonymous

        Many people don’t give the Canadians enough credit for America’s national defense. Canadian monitoring and air defense was integral to our safety during the cold war (our early warning).

        Thank you Canada!!

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          Thank you for reminding folks :-)

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan

            I thought Canada was just a territory of the United States? You mean it actually has a government and is considered a country!?

            Just kidding!

      • Anonymous

        Who is the threat that these countries are worried about fighting a conventional war with, in their own countries? If they have no invading armies on their doorstep, then why have our military there. We could see anything coming from 6k miles away, and it doesn’t take that long to get there anymore.

        We don’t have to back off of our support for allies, just pull out of their countries militarily. Paul’s argument is that it is time for our allies to start funding their own defense. Germany, Japan, and most of the others are perfectly capable of doing it, and they are not a threat to us anymore.

        A military occupation is simply the continued presence of a foreign military. South Korea even says that they can defend themselves. Israel says that they don’t need us over their fighting wars for them. Why not let them do what they need to do to protect themselves without our intervention into their sovereign affairs?

        Paul is right about bringing the troops home to protect our country, and how it will increase our GDP, rather than theirs. We have become a welfare state domestically, and we engage in welfare around the world. The primary reason to have people dependent on government is for control. We do use our foreign welfare to control other country’s internal affairs.

        As Paul says, do unto others. We would not accept a military occupation from anyone else, so why would we think that others would like it. Maybe these countries have accepted the loss of their sovereignty, but I don’t think that we have yet.

        All the while, we are accepting unprecedented amounts of tyranny here at home. It is being proclaimed through legislation that our inalienable rights are no longer inalienable. We had troops confiscating guns door to door during Catrina. We have had foreign troops practicing urban warfare in US cities with our military. Posse Commatatus is dead.

        We have allowed the federal government to take our labor and give it to corporate interests who use it to defraud us out of our real wealth, and then when they get in trouble, they do it again by bailing them out while putting us on the hook for it. We allow the feds to regulate almost every aspect of our lives and business’. This goes far beyond their constitutional authority. We have not become a socialistic fascist state overnight. Both parties do these things.

        As our currency fails, and martial law becomes more imminent due to economic collapse, what should we consider to be the biggest threat to our freedoms and way of life? Terrorism from the middle east, or our own government? The enemy within is having much more success than the terrorists are. It is not because we gave up our freedoms that we have not had another terrorist attack.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think that we have to worry about Hitler coming back, but some of these countries have depended on our military to some extent. At least diplomatically. We should pull out most of our presence and leave diplomats and ambassadors to have close connections with these countries. In today’s world, we need cooperation, and especially when we finally pull our troops out to protect our own butts here at home.

      I don’t see Paul diminishing our military might. In fact, I think that he would probably open up some of the closed bases that Clinton shut down. I lived in Sacramento when they closed down two big Air Force bases. If people don’t think that these bases contribute to the local economy, they are sorely wrong. It had a huge impact. I used to go to the bases to work on equipment as a private contractor.

  • Anonymous

    That was an outstanding answer about immigration by Dr. Paul.

  • Anonymous

    I have always against eugenics and abortion BUT, after reading Ronulite posts on this board, I’m not so sure anymore.

    • Anonymous

      You are thinking too much. Go get a few vaccines and drink more fluoride water. That should take care of it. (and give you incurable neurological disease and break down your immune system at the DNA level making you more susceptible to cancer and many other things)

      Bill gates says this is good, and that we should all be sterilized by vaccines that he funds the development of.

  • Anonymous

    Romney setting his Life record straight.
    It is far less dire than what Newt described – important to know. I have heard Mitt answer this before. It is as unfair for Newt to continue to make these charges as it would be for Romney to accuse Newt of charges he’s already answered.

    • Anonymous

      You are some brainwashed Romney-bot

  • Anonymous

    Here we go again with Santorum. Me, me, me. I’m the one that fought these fights, unlike my opponents. It really grates. Though I do appreciate his elevation of social issues, which many want to not talk about at all.

    • Anonymous

      Romney the RINO is Obama lite

      • Anonymous

        He’s a moderate. Not Obama lite. That is silly hyperbole.

        • Anonymous

          Splitting hairs??

        • Anonymous

          He is a liberal Republican.

          Sorry, pal. Romney will not win against obama. The base isn’t coming out for him.

          • Anonymous

            I wish you would provide a basis for your opinions. Some kind of argumentation other than “you say so.” The base WILL consolidate behind Romney, even if they do NOT want to acquiesce to nominating him now. The base’s desire to oust O far outweighs their aversion to less-than-conservative candidates. They will ride the horse they have.

            • Anonymous

              They will ride the horse they have — Drphibes

              Yes, but we keep being told that Romney is the only horse, when in fact, at this point, he is not.

              • Anonymous

                He’s more like a mule

              • Anonymous

                i agree. let’s keep the primaries alive so we have options.

          • Anonymous

            I agree with your first statement, but not the second. I think that the base will support him against Obama, but the disenfranchised republicans and independents won’t. Whereas Paul might not get great support from the base, but would from the disenfranchised and independents. Many dems are coming over to vote for him.

            Paul and Romney have been the favorites in national polls to beat Obama. I would love to see Paul’s adds against Obama. Obama’s would go something like this:

            “Ron Paul had a news letter that had bad stuff about blacks”, “and I am sure that there is other stuff out there somewhere”.

            Ron Paul’s adds would look like this:

            Starting out with a huge base hit on the media speakers there would be many clips of Obama’s campaign promises. Then the scary background music would softly screech in the background while other clips showed him using signing statements, pointing out the lobbyists in his cabinet, continuing the Patriot Act, starting new wars, shutting down oil production, killing US citizens without a trial, singing the NDAA, bailing out the banks, etc etc. All the while the music is getting louder, and the pace is speeding up, until there is a huge crashing sound and footage of a base jumper going off a cliff with a camera and the ground getting closer and closer.

        • http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

          Romney is a progressive and he admits it himself and he is proud he is an unconventional Republican with progressive views. Those are his own words!

          • Anonymous

            So, in other words, you fully expect him to usher in just a lighter version of what we have. A lighter version of Czars, a lighter version of the Van Jones types, a lighter version of class warfare, a lighter version of gun control, a lighter version of anti-oil, anti-gas. Please think through your sound byte rhetoric. It may simplify matters in your own mind, but it’s completely inaccurate.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t get me wrong, I don’t trust him, either. And those WERE his words from years ago. But he’s moved to the right over time and even more so in recent years. I think in Romney, we would have someone that’s a little better than McCain, decent on the economy, but more aggressive a campaigner than McCain. Wow, that’s pretty unappealing on its face. (Which is why I’m leaning toward Newt).

    • Anonymous

      I agree, I like his stalwart stand on life…but he is just, well, unlikeable on stage. He turned me off.

      • Anonymous

        that’s the downside of Rick, because he’s otherwise so solid on most things. just so buttoned down and grimacey.

  • Anonymous

    What Romney is saying on this abortion issue is, I will be whatever the Congress is. If they are Repub/pro life, then I’ll be pro life. If not, well can’t help ya.

    This applies to all concerns and issues.

    • Trust1TG

      Yep – he’s Flex Romney.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      Note especially at 36 sec. mark. I could never vote for mittens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNDsyKnQIes&feature=related

      Sorry about the time edit

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

        You should post this more often

        1st Time I saw it

        WOW!

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          I’d post it on every thread if Scoop allowed it. But I did post a different one on the Santorum rips Romney a new one on romney care ;-)

    • Anonymous

      His typical line is “I’ll have to check with the lawyers”.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is such an idiot. Now he doesn’t think protecting life is a federal issue?! Makes me so angry that man.

    • Anonymous

      He’s incoherent

    • Trust1TG

      That WAS a lame defense of his voting record.

      • Anonymous

        I think that he made a good point when he contrasted it with the republican’s ideas of how to deal with it. “Wait until the courts are changed”. What is the likelihood of that? At least some states would have the chance to pass the law, or simply declare that they will prosecute the “violence”, as Paul put it, against unborn babies. If the supreme court has had a majority of conservative judges, but won’t even address it, then the republicans are saying “we don’t care, and won’t do anything else”.

        The supreme court is purposely split the way that it is for the purpose of continuing the perception that there is a real difference between the two parties, and the two ideological political factions in this country. In fact, there is no real difference.

        What rating was Santorum referring to? One that is probably based on some bills that had no real change involved in them, and included unconstitutional mandates or legislation, and therefor Paul could not vote for them. Yet someone considered them to be right to life bills and included them in a rating system.

        Paul is the only one who is out there saying that abortion is an act of violence that should be prosecuted as such under state law, since the republicans were not willing to do anything when they had the opportunity, and Santorum was a part of that problem. (see clips of Santorum talking about how he and the republicans blew it when they had the chance) This is not something that Paul has a problem with.

        So an obstetrician who delivered 4000 babies, and who has said for the last thirty plus years that abortion is murder, is less conservative about abortion. Being the only one to offer a different approach that would help, makes him a bad person? Sorry, I don’t see it.

        The federal government should make abortion illegal, just as we have federal laws against murder. The federal government has the constitutional right to protect our lives, our liberties, and our property. Where the states refuse to prosecute, the feds should step in and convict people of murder for abortion. So what is the likelihood of that? Republicans didn’t do crap when they had the chance, and now we have no chance.

        God help us.

        • Jenai Goss

          Santorum on abortion:

          Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (This is very good/perfect record. Ron Paul’s ratings occillate between 35-75%).
          Rated 100% by the NLRC (Perfect Score.) Ron scores 56% ‘mixed record’.

          http://www.issues2000.org/Rick_Santorum.htm
          http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm

          Naral gave them both a shot out for being pro-life candidates this year though:
          http://washingtonindependent.com/110232/naral-reviews-where-12-gop-presidential-candidates-stand-on-reproductive-rights

          They didn’t rank them in porder/pit them against eachother, so its hard to know which one the group favors – everyone on the list they support except Rudy Gulliani, apparently.

          Rick Santorum did receive the endorsement of the Family Research Council (social conservatives), however, as well as Penny Nance from Concerned Women for America (A pro-life group), and Abby Johnson’s endorsement (former Planned Parenthood worker turned major pro-life advocate).

          Conservapedia has the theory that National Right has not yet made an endorsement as “The delay in pro-life endorsements is probably to await Santorum dropping out of the race.” :P They are thinking Romney and Gingrich will be the last two standing I think.

          • Anonymous

            Thanks for the information. I didn’t even know about these links.

    • Anonymous

      Do you want Roe v. Wade to be overturned or not?

    • Anonymous

      Before Roe v Wade (e.g., before federal judges usurped that power from the states) it was a state rather than a federal issue, and I don’t recall any constitutional amendments addressing that issue since Roe v Wade. Therefore, it is a state issue.

      • puma_for_life

        Correct and as Dr. Paul stated it would be overturned quickly if the states made the decision.

        • Anonymous

          It just means rich women will fly somewhere and get an abortion and poor women, mostly black and mexican, would be having babies by the boatload. I hope you’re ready to pay more taxes.

          • puma_for_life

            My response was to someone who was criticizing Paul’s position as being stupid because he does not support a federal law but thinks it is a state issue. I have always been pro-choice because people will have abortions whether it is legal or not and I believe it is a choice of the individual and that individual’s God. However, I do agree that is violence against life. Back when we passed Roe vs Wade we did not have sonograms. Now we do and it is obvious that an abortion is a taking of a life.

            • Anonymous

              It’s a tough issue no matter now you slice it. Citizenship and your existence is covered by the federal constitution so it could well be a federal issue, as well as state.

          • Anonymous

            I’m ready for people to pull their own weight.

    • puma_for_life

      I hate to break the news to you but that is what most conservatives want; to let the states decide on the issue.

      • Anonymous

        Again, what planet are you guys living on?!! Its a state issue whether to protect life?!!!!

        Roe v Wade applies federally and binds all the states so if something is to be done, it must be done federally. Please, I respect you Paul fans’ anger at the fed and the cronyism thats being happening among those in power for past decades in our politics, but that doesn’t mean you blindly follow Ru Paul’s logic into the oblivion that it will surely lead you. Jeeeze folks!!

        • Anonymous

          You don’t understand the constitution and the concept of federalism. The few powers of the federal government are listed in Article 1, Section 8. Abortion is not one of them. For that reason, before the corrupt Supreme Court usurped power from the states in Roe v Wade the states had complete control over abortion.

          • Anonymous

            Wishful thinking and ramblings from a closet conferedatist and anrchist. The states may have a right to decide HOW they will go about protecting life e.g, whether something falls under murder or manslaughter; inchoate offences etc. But if they will not protect life at all, that is a different matter and I cannot foresee a situation where federal law would not intervene were we talking about a state’s decision to let murderers of adult human beings go off scot free. But because we speak of the unborn, things are somehow different?! No way dude. Not selling that crap to me. Santorum is right. Paul, as usual, is wrong.

            • Anonymous

              I suspected you would resort to name-calling to convince us how “intelligent” you are. Unfortunately, your name-calling does not amend the constitution, nor does the desires of a social authoritarian like Santorum.

              There is a way to amend the constitution, and it is outlined in Article V of the constitution. However, you can, if you get the chance, usurp the constitution and take your place in the long list of tyrants (including Santorum) who have plagued this nation.

              • Anonymous

                Oh get back in your box. Utter nonsense. Nutjob. I called you a closet confederatist and anarchist… I’m pretty sure being a Ru Paul fan you’ve been called worst (in fact, some would say, you deserve to be called worst). If you cant handle the point I made and get past the first sentence in my last post without crying, then just say so, rather than being FAKE, with your “I suspected you would resort to name-calling…” gibberish. Please…

                • Anonymous

                  The only “point” you have made is that you are clueless about the constitution and original intent. Please refrain from name-calling to cover up your ignorance. It is unbecoming.

                • Anonymous

                  Ok.

  • Anonymous

    Rick went big gubbamint again on abortion. He’s not helping himself tonight.

    • Anonymous

      It’s sweet talk to me!

      Real Declaration of Independence stuff.

      • Anonymous

        But the Constitution rules. The Declaration has nothing to do with the rule of law here. The Declaration was to separate us from England.

        • Anonymous

          Isn’t that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

  • cabensg

    OMG! I can’t believe how much I agreed with some (not most) of Ron Paul”s answers. Either I’m losing it or he’s becoming more coherent. Sorry I shouldn’t belittle his efforts. Even though I disagree violently with his views on the military and our overseas actions he is very sincere on some things and should be listened to on those not dismissed out of hand because he’s over the top on other issues. He would be horrible as president but has much to contribute otherwise.

    • Anonymous

      Why would he be horrible as president? Because he would allow Israel to act upon Iran if they so decided?

      • Anonymous

        LOL! Funny you said that. The U.S. government treats Israel like the Democrat party treats blacks. That is, the racist Democrat party believes blacks are too stupid to make their own decisions. Likewise, the anti-semitic U.S. government believes Israel is too stupid to make its own decisions.

        • Anonymous

          OMG – that is IT!!! That is the most cogent analysis I have ever heard on this issue. You are right – that is exactly what is going on.
          Thank you…. I have never been able to put my finger on it like that before.

      • http://twitter.com/113KriEger 13Krieger

        How about nutcase Ron Pauls ideas on Iran for one. Ideas about its all the USA fault number two and three ”the cherry on top of the Nutcase” ”if we leave the terrorist alone they will leave us alone”.

        Face it. Ron Paul is dangerous because his isolationist appeasing foreign policy is on the same level as Neville Chamberlands and look what happened with that world outlook. (i.e. World War 2)

    • Anonymous

      I’m looking forward to the day his son becomes the face of the libertarian party. He’s actually a more balanced mix of conservatism and libertarianism, which I think reflects most of us. His dad his just TOO, if you know what I mean. There’s TOO liberal, TOO conservative, and TOO libertarian. The purists are just TOO polarizing, and the rest of us fall somewhere in between.

    • Anonymous

      What part of his international policies do you disagree with? The part about not trying to police the world and allowing our endless wars/interventions/bases/armies to bankrupt us?

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      I would love to see him in charge of the fed or something like it.

      • Anonymous

        The only reason… and the ONLY reason Paul looked reasonable is because CNN set up this debate to NOT ask any questions on foreign policy. They did this because the guys they hate are the two guys, Santorum and Newt, who happen to be strong on it. They did not want them to win cred with the South Carolinians. They did this to make Paul and their chosen candidate Romney look more credible and to suck votes away from the other two. And was a Romney pushing device.

        There is absolutely nothing they won’t do to manipulate outcomes. Bill Whittle said it best when he asked why the GOP and Republicans allow the MSM to set agendas and define who real Republicans are. This is just one more tactic from them.

  • Anonymous

    Dick Morris Scores It….

    “So far: Santorum won. Romney second and very strong. Ron Paul third. Newt lost.”

    • Anonymous

      LOL…you’re a retard

      • Anonymous

        thank you for the civil discourse.

    • Anonymous

      Dick Morris is confused and dense.

      • Anonymous

        when has dick been right about anythin is the last 15 years?

      • Anonymous

        a broken clock is right twice a day.

      • Anonymous

        He’s just confused – hot air is not dense! :)

    • Anonymous

      I think Morris is a bit off, but only by a few candidates.

      • poljunkie

        At our house if Morris says something we have decided it NEVER happens.

    • Anonymous

      Santorum is an attack dog, he is hard to shake.

    • puma_for_life

      That’s ridiculous; Santorum looked like a petulant little boy. I love the way Ron Paul put him down and told him he was too sensitive. Ha ha…his face got red.

      • Anonymous

        Yes – that was awesome. RP got no time tonight and they purposefully left the camera off of him. He still did great though – every time he got to speak – a gem came out.

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          I think that was drool.

          • Anonymous

            Come on… You give good input around here – do you need to stoop to this? I see you liking all the name calling – it’s beneath you – especially given your status as most liked on here.

            • Anonymous

              Maybe you need to go find an icepick. Start chopping some of the frozen stuff off your shoulder. Her comment was lighthearted.

              Just because you hold an unpopular view doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be stiff upper lips like you. Get a sense of humor.

              • Anonymous

                Maybe you’re right – I’m pretty sensitive to his age. I’ll give it a try.

                Um… hmmnn let’s see….

                Ok… Try this:

                Ron Paul is so old!
                (This is where you say “How old is he?”)

                NM60 – “How old is he?”

                Ok. vvvvvvvvvvv Scroll down vvvvvvvvvvvv

                He’s so old – he forgot to bring his pen to the signing of the Declaration of Independence!

                There – how did I do?

                • Anonymous

                  It’s a start :)

                • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

                  You know, I wasn’t even meaning his age. OK maybe a little, but I wasn’t focused on it. I was actually going to say spit, but that didn’t sound right :-)

            • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

              I know- I felt a little bit sorry for that, but I let it stand. I’m in one of those moods tonight.

        • Anonymous

          And they purposely left off foreign policy questions to shine up Paul’s credibility, otherwise he would have been a stuttering and incoherent mess, like he was the last debate. You can go back and see his performance.. it was dreadful. His performance on economy tonight was pretty darn good however, except where he stumbled explaining a few items (slips my mind right now… can’t remember… I would have liked him to have tackled it if he had time… )

          The only reason… and the ONLY reason Paul looked reasonable is because CNN set up this debate to NOT ask any questions on foreign policy. They did this because the guys they hate are the two guys, Santorum and Newt, who happen to be strong on it. They did not want them to win cred with the South Carolinians. They did this to make Paul and their chosen candidate Romney stronger than they are and to suck votes away from the other two. It was a Romney pushing device.

          There is absolutely nothing they won’t do to manipulate outcomes. Bill Whittle said it best when he asked why the GOP and Republicans allow the MSM to set agendas and define who real Republicans are. This is just one more tactic from them. And the disgraceful opening by King was exhibit “A”.

        • puma_for_life

          The complete bias of these debates is disgusting. Gingrich has not done better than 4th place so far and there he is center stage bloviating. A bag of hot air. And when the crowd demanded that King allow Paul to respond to the pro-life question, King acted surprised that anyone would care to hear anything Dr. Paul had to say. These people need to find new careers somewhere and let some real journalists get jobs.

    • Anonymous

      Morris must really despise Newt to place him lower than Ron Paul (whom he loathes)

      • Anonymous

        i guess he scored it like a boxing match or something, on points. whatever. it’s just a data point. take it with a grain of salt. i’m not a dick morris disciple, but i like his commentary sometimes.

        • Anonymous

          He prefers honey bbq on his toes.

          • Anonymous

            Ha. Ha. You have some historical knowledge that the younger folks here might not be aware of. I’ll leave it at that.

    • http://twitter.com/cfallon57 Cheryl Fallon

      How did Newt lose?

      • Anonymous

        I don’t think he lost. I was telling you what Morris thinks, just as an FYI since he had a live twitter feed. I think Morris totally blew it. I don’t think Santorum wins at all because he’s just not appealing no matter how forceful he is or how much microphone time he gets.

    • Anonymous

      Dick Morris! Oh that settles it then. Argument over.

  • Anonymous

    Santorum you’re selling hard but nobody’s buying

  • Anonymous

    LOL – Gingrich wants to debate Obama to death, what a fool.

  • cabensg

    I swear if Romney couldn’t channel what Newt’s said in other debates he wouldn’t have anything to say. Please give me a break. The whole time he’s talking all I want to say is blah blah blah blah!!!!!!

    • Anonymous

      It’s over your head. Here’s a piece of red meat. That’s all you clowns understand.

      • Anonymous

        And here’s a glass of Kool-Aid.

  • cabensg

    Now it’s Santorum. Blah, blah, blah, blah!!!!!!!

    • Anonymous

      I liked his ending!

      • Anonymous

        I liked the opening.

        • Anonymous

          I’ liked the middle.

          There! Beat you both.

  • Maxsteele

    Santorum and Newt. Those are my top two. The other two are completely not up to the challenge that was, once again, shown in this debate.

    • Anonymous

      You really don’t think a wackjob like Paul isn’t presidential timber? :)

    • Anonymous

      Santorum lost by 17 pts in PA in his last election and Newt thinks he can challenge Obama to endless debates and somehow win. The only candidates that can stand toe-2-toe with O are Paul and Mitt and only one of those two are true conservatives.

      • Anonymous

        Huh? Let’s see, Mitts the Liberal in the race and Paul is the Libertarian. I didn’t notice the Conservativve in the 2 choices.

        • Anonymous

          I guess u don’t know what a conservative is then.

  • Anonymous

    Santorum and Paul did awesome! Man, Santorum is vicious and spot-on. He’s my choice, now.

    • puma_for_life

      I’m a Paulbot and I love the way the audience demanded they let Paul respond to the abortion issue. They were just going to blow him off again. This debate was better than the Fox one and the audience was more balanced also. That Fox debate was horrible in all ways.

      • Anonymous

        It would be absurd to not let an obstetrician discuss the subject of abortion.

      • poljunkie

        Im not a Paul supporter. Frankly im without a candidate right now because my guy dropped out today. But is it true that Dr Paul has delivered over 3000 babies and not one abortion? That’s impressive.

        • Anonymous

          It is actually over 4000 babies and not one abortion.

        • puma_for_life

          Actually, the figure is over 4000 babies. He is pro-life. He tells the story of an incident early in his medical career. He walked into a room where a woman was having an abortion; the fetus was 6 mos. and alive. He witnessed the doctors throw the fetus in a bucket and let it die. This made an unforgettable impression on him. He considers abortion an act of violence.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t think the debate moved the needle for anyone tonight. Kind of a lousy debate but not surprising as it was on CNN

    • Anonymous

      I agree…it was sort of meh. Glad to see Newt take CNN to task.

  • Anonymous

    Whenever Newt said something great and they then panned to Calista…Whoooa! I just can’t see it.

    • Anonymous

      We discussed this earlier a bit.

      Tar and feathers all around. Hari Kari…everything :-)

  • Anonymous

    Santorum- No soundbites, no ovations; just plain hard policy and facts. The other night I said Newt won… when RS does his poll for tonight, I know who I’ll be glad to say won this time round: Santorum all the way!!

    • Anonymous

      Santorum crushed Newt, I would agree with that.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      His stance on abortion and on illegals seals it for me :-)

  • Anonymous

    Romney head and shoulders above the others.

    • Anonymous

      I thought he was the weakest of the 4.

      • Anonymous

        I thought he was strong the whole debate, except he had to explain the tax issue. Of course, the anti-Mitt people will focus only on that.

        • Anonymous

          It wasn’t just that for me. He seems to stutter a lot more when he’s challenged, and I thought he did a lot of stuttering tonight. I also hate the way he doesn’t answer any question asked until he’s said his little campaign talking points first. At one point, he even forgot the original question because he had sidetracked his own answer by deviating from the question. All of that looks like “question evasion” to me, which is why I think people don’t trust him.

          • Anonymous

            Nobody’s perfect. He’s ahead of everyone else so evidently some people do trust him. I certainly do, but then I’m looking for substance and ability and others are looking for style.

            • Anonymous

              I think he’s floundering, and has been for the last few debates. Even the pundits are having a hard time propping him up lately. And for the record, no one is questioning his ability. He was quite able to institute many a liberal policy in Massachusetts, but I’d argue the substance. Too much flip-flopping to be a man of substance.

              • Anonymous

                I’m not worried, as Mitt said before Iowa, this will be a long march. He will easily get his share of delegates from SC, pretty good for a MA governor.

          • Anonymous

            It shows a woodenness that he covers with canned talking points. I think you are right. He can’t think on his feet anywhere close to Newt. Where Newt can be brash and cutting… you get the idea that Newt understands the issues immediately, while Mitt’s still in the next room fixing his hair.

            • Anonymous

              That’s because he’s got to figure out which side to pull from.

    • Anonymous

      Ha! He is the tallest physically if thats what you mean. Otherwise… Ha!

      • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

        OK, now I just repeated what you said! Sorry unidentified ;-)

    • Anonymous

      Romney got rolled tonight by the other 3 – he needs to step it up if he wants to take this thing.

      • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

        I’d rather he step down, but that’s just me.

        • Anonymous

          but that’s just me.

          No it’s not!

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      So he’s tall. That’s all he’s got.

  • Anonymous

    This is interesting. The interviewers are debating the candidates after the debate. They must not have gotten enough gotcha answers during the debate.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

      They just do not stop being dopes

  • cabensg

    I can’t believe I missed the best part at the beginning where Newt kicked more media butt. That was so great and so well deserved. Hoorah!!!!!!!!!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

      It was good – watch the replay

  • Anonymous

    Love the chats during the debates. Thanks, Scoop.
    One technical suggestion: the FB recommend option pops up frequently during chat and always causes my auto-scroll to stop. Is there some way to limit the frequency of that option or to eliminate it altogether?

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      I get that too, but I thought it was because I go in through facebook.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

        Establish a Yahoo email account and try and logging in that way

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          I think I’ve got one of those- I tried to get back on once and couldn’t remember my password, then when I tried to reset, it said I didn’t have an account. When I tried to set up and account, it said my e mail address was already taken. I’m not blonde Joe, but I swear sometimes I feel like one ;-)

  • Anonymous

    Now the media has to defend themselves on the ex-wife gotcha question.

  • Anonymous

    Newt’s gender gap is going to be the biggest in election history if he wins the nomination.

    • Anonymous

      Blah blah blah, spoken like a real RINO. And how about Willard? He’ll have the biggest blue collar gap in history, Gordon Gekko doesn’t play well on Main Street.
      But you don’t really like Romney I think. I think another Paulbot troll is lurking.

      • Anonymous

        I hope you don’t have to find out. Some of you have no political insight at all. Women will not vote for him and they are half the population. Add to that blacks, jews, gays, liberal white men, etc and he is toast. He will carry most of the South and that’s it, similar to George Wallace in 1968.

        • Richard Laycock

          Who the hell are you to make those statements as fact? At least have the manners to say it’s your perception. No, ol’ dougie calls all of us ignorant and lays down the law. Sorry, that’s not discussion.

          I’ll follow your lead. Your opinion is just plain arrogant nonsense. Newt’s numbers at their best have been almost double any other candidate at their best. Except in New Hampshire and Michigan Romney is a glass of warm milk. No excitement. For darn good reason. He cannot defend himself without a prepared answer. He is a brilliant business man. He returned averages of 30 – 50 percent on capital per year when he ran Bain. Genius. As a politician he sucks!

          There’s a damn good reason ABC and the MSM is trying to take Newt out like they did Cain. He’s too dangerous to the Traitor in Chief. Obama would look like a whimpering child in a debate with Newt. Myself, I can’t wait. The ratings will be through the roof! The whole country will see that phony ass get his clock cleaned. The stammering will be legend.

          • Anonymous

            I’ll say it again because the picture is delicious:

            In a debate against Newt there will be blood… blood on the carpets, blood on the curtains, spatters on the ceiling. Obama will run away screaming like a little girl …folding chairs flying in all directions in his wake.

            This alone is why they hate Newt and are doing everything to destroy him, the way Cain was their anti-Obama who they needed to take down. Newt’s their target number one now.

            The Lincoln/Douglas… er sorry… The Newt/Zero debates… can’t wait.

            I actualy think Newt’s wrong on this Lincoln/Douglas debate comparison… it demeans Douglas… doncha think?

            • Anonymous

              O would never agree to a 3hr L/D debate, Newt uses it as a good line but it’s a fantasy. At most O would agree to 2-3 debates and they would be moderated by CNN / NBC / ABC or PBS…that’s reality, anyone agree?

              Newt would be strong on debates, but the election won’t be won by debates, O has $1B to spend and he’ll use it, blast ads on ever channel, he’ll fly Air Force One to multiple trips in battleground states (he’s been doing that since he took office) and don’t forget about the “in-kind” donations of free campaigning done for O by the media. Most of the electorate believes 30 sec sound bites, the problems we have in this country take more than 1 minute to explain, they click the channel to sports and entertainment…not debates.

              • Anonymous

                It’s not going to be just another Dem/Obama manipulation a-la McCain. We’ve already seen the damage Newt is doing to the MSM hacks and it’s going viral. He’s chipping at the edifice, and of course Obama would never agree to the massive numbers of debates Gingrich is proposing. Gingrich knows that as well. He’s using it as a terror tactic.

                And when people are terrorized, the get spooked and make dreadful mistakes. That’s what we are seeing play out here, and the Obama administration (if it could be called such) is famous for over reacting and blundering under pressure, and their blundering is to double down on stupid. Their reaction to Shirley Sharod and Van Jone’s dismissal are but two examples. But Newt will keep up the pressure. His take down of John King was certainly more than a 30 second sound bite. Newt’s no chump to be manipulated, Obama knows it, and the media knows it.

                Bill Whittle asked why the GOP allows the Media to set agendas and define who the real conservatives are. It’ll be interesting to see how Newt, should he win, finesses his opportunity.

                No! It won’t be MSM manipulation as usual, and Obama will be more naked and exposed than ever, and neither 1B nor Media cover will be able to take their eyes off of Newt when he confronts Obama on stage. Obama will meet his King Zedekiah moment, and it won’t be pretty.

            • Anonymous

              I can see the debate questions now:

              Questions to Newt: Experts say you are a womanizer. Would you care to respond? When will you pull the pin on the grenade in your pocket? Why did the entire Congress hate you when you were Speaker?

              Questions for O: How did you like Disneyland? What is your golf handicap? Can Michelle cook, or what? What is the best thing about you?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    Must Watch: Sh*t Liberals Say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uAuuQnh90s I’m sure some of you heard some of them, others might have heard ALL of them.

    • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

      That was friggin hilarious!

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

    Santorum got Schooled several times by Newt…….I am thinking maybe he isn’t ready to play in the big Leagues.

  • BeenSoup

    Where can I fin an unedited version of the debate? Seems everyone want to edit what i see.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

      i found it on youtube

    • Anonymous

      Found the whole debate divided up into 10 parts at
      http://www.youtube.com/user/MOXNEWSd0tCOM

      Except I didn’t see part one on the list which is at

  • Anonymous

    Me too plz. :-( I cannot find the whole debate , only snippets. Anyone got a link?

    I went to CNN, didn’t see it but I was going cross eyed and my pc wants to crash. :-((

    • Anonymous

      Found the whole debate divided up into 10 parts at
      http://www.youtube.com/user/MOXNEWSd0tCOM

      Except I didn’t see part one on the list which is at

      If you want the whole list as links, I can email them to whoever.

  • Anonymous
  • Trust1TG

    After sleeping on it…here is what I am thinking:

    Rick Santorum comes out ahead of the rest in my estimation.

    He is very aware of the real enemies of the US: A. our collective sin/moral collapse and corruption. B. Islam…the economy cannot be fixed without dealing with the first.
    He is completely dedicated to helping rectify our real problems.
    He has a Biblical worldview and holds to it (unlike Romney)
    He is competent, is an attorney, legislator, understands government
    He has strength of character, moral integrity, sincerity, earnestness.
    He has political integrity, consistency, experience.
    He is a hard worker, gets in the trenches
    He studies issues and tries to do the right/best thing
    He is a no-nonsense personality, cuts to the chase, reads people well.
    He is mindful of the real needs of real people, small business, mfg.
    He is a faithful, true, good father and husband…Christ in his own home.
    He does not rely on charisma or externals, does not bow to criticism.
    He was willing to admit that he struggled in the area of sanctity of life dealing with his daughter’s illness.
    His wife is also an attorney, who stayed at home to be a mother, homeschooling their children and she is also a real, loving, humane human being.
    His main backer is a balanced, sincere, evangelical Christian.

    – Newt – knows what is at stake – but can/will he deliver what he says? Can he be elected? Should he meet with Santorum, suspend his campaign, serve as a campaign Think Tank resource? Is Santorum more electable? Maybe SC will tell. Whatever they decide, maybe he (and Sarah Palin and other true conservatives) should go around and debate/lecture/teach government and history and tell the truth behind Obama’s campaign of lies.

    – Romney scares me. He should not be president. He is an appeaser and has never stood strong on any issue. He is also a high level cult-leader, as well as a member of the corrupt political, financial elite. They are not just corrupt, they have had an evil stranglehold on currency and banking, every part of our financial lives. That’s who owns him and will run him. He will be their puppet. They do not serve the Lord and have dismissed and betrayed and persecuted His church…compromising God’s commandments for their own ends. (think Clintons, Bushes, McCain). This nation will only survive if we return to God’s Law/Word/Ten Commandments and laws that agree with it. Period.

    – Paul scares me – not his economic or foreign policy (much of what he says about all that is true) It’s his goal of legalizing and ending the war on drugs and sex-trafficking with the present invasion of the Islam-rabid Zetas and Ndranghetas and their demonized hordes is INSANE and extremely dangerous to the security of this nation. He is a theorist and academic..he has no idea how to implement anything and how it would work out in practice. He would be better off advising on economic policies…and hopefully.

    All that being said, any are better than Obama.

    This election a dangerous four-way contest (war) between
    – Those currently in power – the Islamist/black-supremacist/Marxists/social leftists who are bent on persecuting the church and all whites.
    – The Old Guard Elite, power and wealth-mongers, power-brokers, who have betrayed the truth, disregarded God’s Law/Commandments for their own ends, have allowed abortion, traded our security for oil, they are willing to make money on drugs, alcohol, abortion, sell our nation for their pottage, etc.
    – The large secular politically-spiritually-ignorant people (center, left and right) who live by their media-fed passions/appetites/addictions and who care more about the media’s latest war game, hit TV show and/or Air Jordans. (there are many.) They are easily manipulated by externals, media manipulation.
    – Those who know, love and serve God and live by His Word.

    So – Obama’s opposition is fractured and he is ready with a thousand and one evil tricks, from no photo IDs to a third party candidate, probably Trump (an ego-driven Democrat liberal shill) or Cain (whose hunger for attention and non-Islamic MLK-AA supporters don’t want him to bow out.).

    They will stop at nothing – violence, threats, nuclear mischief, biological, cyber warfare, anarchy/military rule, with them, nothing is off the table.

    God Help America, a nation with ideals worth saving. She is like Israel so many times throughout Scripture, shattered and soiled by sin, greed, idolatry. Repentance and return are the only way to peace. But it will take a miracle for this to happen. The enemy (even the marxists, Islamists, drug cartels as well as the others) have already infiltrated all levels of power, law enforcement, military, courts, congress, intelligence.

    All in all, we Christians will always seek a country, church, a house, whose builder and maker is God. In Him is true peace, security, unity of soul and nation, the only comfort and strength. He can only unite and restore us one soul at a time. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

  • Jenai Goss

    There is a constitutional point related to abortion that they differ on. Santorum believes the ‘right to privacy’ was manufactured by the government/judges (which it was, its no where in the constitution). Ron Paul believes it is explicitly in the constitution, but shouldn’t apply for matters of abortion/contraception/things he doesn’t think its relevent to.

    Which is not to infer that Santorum believes government has the free power to invade provacy – it cannot – as its still bound by the constitution. But its its general powers of operation/providing for the general welfare happened to brush up against personal provacy (say, telling you you can’t murder your child through abortive contraceptive pills as it infringes on the unalienable right to life) –

    Santorum would say “Government has the right to enforce laws to stop morning after contraceptives/abortive pills” as they infringe on life –

    Ron Paul has said “It’s up to everyone’s personal moral choice’ and that personal ‘privacy’ trumps murder in that specific case.

    • Trust1TG

      Re: Abortion – Go back to the Thanksgiving debate that was held in a church and the one before or after that. The clip may be available here @TRS in the archives.

      Gingrich has a viable idea that would use (the 4th amendment?) to restore constitutional protection on unborn human beings.

  • Trust1TG

    Here is a link to the abortion issue debated between the candidates last night:

    http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/tab/live#/video/cvplive/cvpstream1

  • Anonymous

    Santorum I thought had a fairly poor showing. He seemed like he was sweating for the first half. His answers went out of their way to disagree with everyone on everything. Rather than saying he simply agrees, he pushed himself to say he agrees but his position is extra better than everone else. Then he came off fairly snippy and frustrated, Newt even looked empathetic to him even though he was being attacked. And Ron Paul seemed friendlier than Santorum, shocking.
    The fact is, Newt has had an incredible week. First Todd Palin endorsed him, then a great debate Saturday when he brough the audience to it’s feet, then Sarah Palin endorsed him for South Carolina, Then Perry dropped out to back Newt, then the big terrible scandal of Newt getting divorced 12 years ago and the shocking fact that his ex doesnt like him, all backfired beautifully. Newt won this last debate in the first 3 mins thanks to an over eager media thinking thay can assasinate every Conservative to threaten Romney. Newt brought the audience to it’s feet *again*.
    Romney is being unmasked, look at his key endorsements, John McCain and John Huntsman, hard to look very conservative after that. Newt’s got Walter Williams, Art Laffer, the Palins and now Perry.
    South Carolina is Romney’s Waterloo I think.

    I am drooling to think of Newt debating obama.

    • Trust1TG

      What about SC Gov. Haley and Chris Christie…will they swing SC for Romney?

    • Anonymous

      LOL – defending ones past selfish and despicable actions by blaming the MSM, former presidents and the current one, is not a recipicle to win presidential elections. It is foolish to think that a couple good debates is all it will take to beat Obama. If Newt is the candidate, the GOP will lose in a landslide – worse that McCain.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for the Whole debate in one!!!!

  • Trust1TG

    They were discussing the serious physical and emotional conditions of returning military at 27:50 or so, Santorum makes a great point about Obama cutting military benefits and budget saying, “…that’s disgusting.” (big applause)

    In an earlier debate, Newt also got applause when he said he wanted to make it possible for Vets to get better care than having to travel to get sometimes second-rate care in VA hospitals out of state.

  • http://fishygov.wordpress.com FishyGov

    Newt is the only candidate who has said that in order to defeat Obama and undo what he has done to this point we will need a Republican House, Senate and White House.

    Newt has a plan and he knows what pieces he needs to defeat Obama and the Progressive agenda.

  • Anonymous

    Test to log-in.