Presidential Election: 2012

[Sanji Himura]

Don't lump in the "Establishment Conservative" with the rest of us. Yeah, most of the field is hypocritical, but calling Paul a Fiscal conservative is just plain 🤬. Paul just knows how to hide all that Pork that he is spending.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Don't lump in the "Establishment Conservative" with the rest of us. Yeah, most of the field is hypocritical, but calling Paul a Fiscal conservative is just plain 🤬. Paul just knows how to hide all that Pork that he is spending.

Dr No???? I'm sorry but his vote is probably the hardest of them to get. He votes against almost every bill that comes through the House. I don't really think "Pork" and Paul go together at all.

 

[Sanji Himura]

But you notice that almost every spending bill that goes through to the President has an amendment by Paul in some way that benefits his district. So much so that Paul has announced that he will ignore the unilateral moritorium on Pork, along with two other republican representatives. This is according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/gov-waste-watch/2010/spring/20-years-at-the-trough.html

 

[Rich S]

None of the GOP's are going to be "conservative" fiscally. NONE!!!

I'm not a fan of any GOP candidates..... But Paul is the way to go if the Republicans want a shot. I'm not a fan of Paul......Buchmann I hate......Westburo style he he he

People only really care about the economy. They vote based on social issues but they secretly dont care at all about social politics.

Most of what affects your life in USA is economic.

 

[Sanji Himura]

No he is not. If none of them are willing to stand on the issues, and I mean the real ones, then none of them are willing to earn my vote.

Perry - He is attacking Obama 24/7

Bachmann - She is basically a Perry light EXCEPT she is willing to go with the DC establishment when it suits her.

Romney - Is the Establishment candidate. Willing to be the mouth piece of Steele and the rest of his Elk.

Paul - I don't know what to say about him. Only to say that Bill O'Rilley gave the man the opportunity to speak his mind, but decided to skip out. Got something to hide Ron?

Really, it all boils down to two philosophies, the Tea Party or the Establishment.

 

[ChaosStar79]

But you notice that almost every spending bill that goes through to the President has an amendment by Paul in some way that benefits his district. So much so that Paul has announced that he will ignore the unilateral moritorium on Pork, along with two other republican representatives. This is according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/gov-waste-watch/2010/spring/20-years-at-the-trough.html

"The three House Republicans renegades who have announced that they will simply ignore the unilateral earmark moratorium are Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska), who requested $14 billion in earmarks in FY 2011, or only $2.5 billion less than the total of $16.5 billion in the 2010 Congressional Pig Book; Joseph “Anh” Cao (R-La.), who requested more than $400 million, or nearly ten times the $47 million he obtained in FY 2010; and Ron Paul (R-Texas). They apparently all believe they must keep feeding at the taxpayer-funded trough when it is clear to the rest of their conference that earmarks are wasteful, as well as politically toxic. "

The article only states his name but gives no example of him spending anything, unlike the other two that it talks about. He votes no on everything so he likely said no to this on just the basis of it being unconstitutional in some way or something along those lines. I don't think that all spending is fair to be called pork, sometimes earmarks do have a real need for them but there has definitely not been a history of him inflating costs to the tax payer. It's quite the opposite. I have never, even on fox , heard him described as a porker.

 

[Rich S]

"The three House Republicans renegades who have announced that they will simply ignore the unilateral earmark moratorium are Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska), who requested $14 billion in earmarks in FY 2011, or only $2.5 billion less than the total of $16.5 billion in the 2010 Congressional Pig Book; Joseph “Anh” Cao (R-La.), who requested more than $400 million, or nearly ten times the $47 million he obtained in FY 2010; and Ron Paul (R-Texas). They apparently all believe they must keep feeding at the taxpayer-funded trough when it is clear to the rest of their conference that earmarks are wasteful, as well as politically toxic. "

The article only states his name but gives no example of him spending anything, unlike the other two that it talks about. He votes no on everything so he likely said no to this on just the basis of it being unconstitutional in some way or something along those lines. I don't think that all spending is fair to be called pork, sometimes earmarks do have a real need for them but there has definitely not been a history of him inflating costs to the tax payer. It's quite the opposite. I have never, even on fox , heard him described as a porker.

Yeah good point.

But the whole posing as Libertarian "Tea Party" BS is sickening........

It is called "astro-turfing" in politics. Their "posers" like the 50 somethings that go snow boarding and pretend to be "hip".

 

[Keef]

But you notice that almost every spending bill that goes through to the President has an amendment by Paul in some way that benefits his district. So much so that Paul has announced that he will ignore the unilateral moritorium on Pork, along with two other republican representatives. This is according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/gov-waste-watch/2010/spring/20-years-at-the-trough.html

Ron Paul is mentioned one time in the entire article, and his name is not connected with any amount of earmarks, as the other two "renegades" are. Why? Because he refuses to request earmarks because he believes they are unconstitutional. Spending like this is public information - if it existed you would be able to find it, but it can't be found because it doesn't exist.

 

[Omnis]

Earmarks are the responsibilities of a congressman. If a congressman doesn't earmark something, it goes to the executive. This whole moratorium thing was something schemed up by the GOP to bully congressmen into ceding money to a Bush presidency. Earmarking isn't the problem. Voting for the spending is the problem.

 

[Keef]

Earmarks are the responsibilities of a congressman. If a congressman doesn't earmark something, it goes to the executive. This whole moratorium thing was something schemed up by the GOP to bully congressmen into ceding money to a Bush presidency. Earmarking isn't the problem. Voting for the spending is the problem.

Interesting. So I guess Dr. Paul wants to kill the whole system by simply not voting for the spending to begin with.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Yeah good point.

But the whole posing as Libertarian "Tea Party" BS is sickening........

It is called "astro-turfing" in politics. Their "posers" like the 50 somethings that go snow boarding and pretend to be "hip".

I'm starting to believe that a few of you know nothing at all of who Paul is or has been during the entirety of his political career. It doesn't even make sense to claim that he is posing to be anything. He has even run for President on a Libertarian ticket. lol. '88 ring a bell? You might try even just running through his Wiki page before spouting out stuff like that with no basis in fact whatsoever. It seems to me like you are trying really hard to talk smack about him, but have nothing to say.

EDIT: The Tea Baggers jumped on Paul's bandwagon, he didn't go chasing them down.

 

[Omnis]

Interesting. So I guess Dr. Paul wants to kill the whole system by simply not voting for the spending to begin with.

It doesn't make any sense to complain about earmarks when the congress passes a grossly unbalanced budget year in and year out. That's like punting a small dog into a lake to keep it away from Michael Vick.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Earmarks are the responsibilities of a congressman. If a congressman doesn't earmark something, it goes to the executive. This whole moratorium thing was something schemed up by the GOP to bully congressmen into ceding money to a Bush presidency. Earmarking isn't the problem. Voting for the spending is the problem.

👍

 

[Rich S]

I'm starting to believe that a few of you know nothing at all of who Paul is or has been during the entirety of his political career. It doesn't even make sense to claim that he is posing to be anything. He has even run for President on a Libertarian ticket. lol. '88 ring a bell? You might try even just running through his Wiki page before spouting out stuff like that with no basis in fact whatsoever. It seems to me like you are trying really hard to talk smack about him, but have nothing to say.

EDIT: The Tea Baggers jumped on Paul's bandwagon, he didn't go chasing them down.

Yeah I see that he ran once as a libertarian...... but if he;s now running as a republican that automatically makes him suspect.

Maybe as a 76 year old or however old he is now he wont be worried about making money. But then again the republican party might not like somebody they cant control.

Bachmann's unelectable, or I'd like to think she is. That leaves Paul.....

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm starting to believe that a few of you know nothing at all of who Paul is or has been during the entirety of his political career. It doesn't even make sense to claim that he is posing to be anything. He has even run for President on a Libertarian ticket. lol. '88 ring a bell? You might try even just running through his Wiki page before spouting out stuff like that with no basis in fact whatsoever. It seems to me like you are trying really hard to talk smack about him, but have nothing to say.

EDIT: The Tea Baggers jumped on Paul's bandwagon, he didn't go chasing them down.

Hell most of the people who followed him before are still behind him and make up the meat of who he is. I wanted Ron Paul last time around, and still do this time. I'd rather see him or Jon Huntsman get a true shot at the GOP. I'd also like to see us do more fact showing in this thread so other non-political people who want to be informed can do so by reading the posts. Many of us here are well read up on politics and political/government issues and should share the wealth.

 

[ChaosStar79]

I really wish he would run as a third party candidate, but it seems he needs the votes of the people who just vote R regardless of who runs, as well as those who would actually vote 3rd party. There's so much of this thought process in this country, that only two parties can win, so you are "wasting your vote" if you cast it otherwise. Like it's a raffle or something and you are going to get a toaster in the mail if your candidate wins. It seems that no one really looks for a candidate that represents them, but instead for the lesser of two evils because they don't see options. I think we would be far better to abolish parties altogether and just vote based on the men we want to be represented by. Idealistic, yes I know.

Edit: I'm with you LMS, Paul's the man but I would vote for Gary Johnson as well, I don't know much about Huntsman honestly. I was lucky enough to get to see Dr. Paul speak in the last election cycle at the Drawbridge for a 2nd Amendment Rally and there was quite a turn out. I bet everyone of them still backs Paul. People tend not to flip flop when the man they are backing is consistent and does exactly what he promises. It's a rare thing in government and people tend to remember it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I really wish he would run as a third party candidate, but it seems he needs the votes of the people who just vote R regardless of who runs, as well as those who would actually vote 3rd party. There's so much of this thought process in this country, that only two parties can win, so you are "wasting your vote" if you cast it otherwise. Like it's a raffle or something and you are going to get a toaster in the mail if your candidate wins. It seems that no one really looks for a candidate that represents them, but instead for the lesser of two evils because they don't see options. I think we would be far better to abolish parties altogether and just vote based on the men we want to be represented by. Idealistic, yes I know.

Edit: I'm with you LMS, Paul's the man but I would vote for Gary Johnson as well, I don't know much about Huntsman honestly. I was lucky enough to get to see Dr. Paul speak in the last election cycle at the Drawbridge for a 2nd Amendment Rally and there was quite a turn out. I bet everyone of them still backs Paul. People tend not to flip flop when the man they are backing is consistent and does exactly what he promises. It's a rare thing in government and people tend to remember it.

Huntsman worked under Obama as 9th United States Ambassador to China, so he knows how well they work and also how well to an extent the incumbent (President Obama). I agree with you the lesser of two evils is an irony in too many cases and so many people tell me that after they vote, but say it as if it is justified. I don't know when we stopped questioning why certain people make it to the top stage and just accepting it. I mean when you go to the delearship to buy a car and the only two colors are white and black...you don't just make a choice you usually ask to see other variations of color or perhaps design. Why isn't this seen with canidates, we want choice in every other aspect of life!? The other issues I see is lifetime loyalty to republican and demorcrat and actually being happy as if one side has all the answers that the other is too ignorant to see or understand.

 

[Omnis]

This story is a perfect example of how American business is being crippled/bullied/persuaded into either shutting down or moving out of the country.

Wow, look at this:

 

[CAM]

It's getting to that time where all that is talked about at school (that is, in high level classes. The hoodlums could care less.) is the upcoming election. After watching parts of this debate, I really like Huntsman and his demeanor and policies. If you disagree, don't jump on me, this is the first I've looked into the election in depth, I just hope it doesn't turn into a public speaking contest. One thing that got a laugh out of me is Bachmann stating that the gas is too high, bringing a mental picture of the New Yorker who ran on the Gas is Too High platform. All that I've gotten out of Perry and Romney's banter is how they're only concerned with what they have done to only outdo one another, not really address the question. Newt just seems to be trying way too hard.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Newt is trying too hard, he actually had some good points, Paul seems quite lazy from his other speeches that I've seen. Huntsman though has good points and seems to be a great president if we were facing a cold war issue with China. Which in an sense we are facing a economic war process with china that we seem to tip toe and bend to their will. I think Huntsman can really help the nation with china. However, more facts need to be shown to prove this. Everyone knows the facts of Perry, Romney, and Bachman because the media finds those three easy to attack. Newt was right they shouldn't allow the media to keep sheltering Obama from time to time by trying to make them attack one antoher in the debate.

 

[Dapper]

 

[Omnis]

LMAO. What an idiot.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

^^^ Good reason to not get drunk...

 

[ChaosStar79]

Newt is trying too hard, he actually had some good points, Paul seems quite lazy from his other speeches that I've seen. Huntsman though has good points and seems to be a great president if we were facing a cold war issue with China. Which in an sense we are facing a economic war process with china that we seem to tip toe and bend to their will. I think Huntsman can really help the nation with china. However, more facts need to be shown to prove this. Everyone knows the facts of Perry, Romney, and Bachmann because the media finds those three easy to attack. Newt was right they shouldn't allow the media to keep sheltering Obama from time to time by trying to make them attack one another in the debate.

Yeah, I don't care for Newt one bit, but he was on fire again. I don't know that I can argue with anything that he said.

I have to say that I don't agree with all of his stances and methods necessarily, but I do like Huntsman himself. His familiarity with China is something that I think could benefit us greatly as a nation in the future as China grows stronger and becomes even more prominent on the world stage. The only bad thought I had about this is when He mentioned addressing China in Chinese, because it made me think of other nationalities butchering our language when they speak it, and how he as president (and not being a native speaker of mandarin) must sound to them when he speaks. Granted I do not personally comprehend the language, but I am familiar with the issues that many have with that language and how the stressing of syllables and the infliction put on different sounds largely determines the meaning of what is being said. After watching him speak Chinese in a few videos, I cannot imagine that he sounds natural to them, but it does show a great amount of effort being put forth to learn what he has.

Honestly, I think the biggest strike against him is the Mormon thing. Even though he is quite realistic about his attitudes on science and evolution, I think that issue alone could keep him out of the race. Americans (imo rightly so) don't understand or even half support Mormonism. It seems that if he were to say he was Baptist or even Catholic, he might have a better chance, but I do appreciate his integrity in not hiding his faith. For me, any candidate that seriously doubts evolution is someone without the critical thinking skills necessary to lead any group of people.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yeah, I don't care for Newt one bit, but he was on fire again. I don't know that I can argue with anything that he said.

I have to say that I don't agree with all of his stances and methods necessarily, but I do like Huntsman himself. His familiarity with China is something that I think could benefit us greatly as a nation in the future as China grows stronger and becomes even more prominent on the world stage. The only bad thought I had about this is when He mentioned addressing China in Chinese, because it made me think of other nationalities butchering our language when they speak it, and how he as president (and not being a native speaker of mandarin) must sound to them when he speaks. Granted I do not personally comprehend the language, but I am familiar with the issues that many have with that language and how the stressing of syllables and the infliction put on different sounds largely determines the meaning of what is being said. After watching him speak Chinese in a few videos, I cannot imagine that he sounds natural to them, but it does show a great amount of effort being put forth to learn what he has.

Honestly, I think the biggest strike against him is the Mormon thing. Even though he is quite realistic about his attitudes on science and evolution, I think that issue alone could keep him out of the race. Americans (imo rightly so) don't understand or even half support Mormonism. It seems that if he were to say he was Baptist or even Catholic, he might have a better chance, but I do appreciate his integrity in not hiding his faith. For me, any candidate that seriously doubts evolution is someone without the critical thinking skills necessary to lead any group of people.

However, if people educated themselves for once, stopped being lazy and did the job and learned about mormons. It'd surprise them that Huntsman isn't a orthodox mormon and isn't letting his religion cloud his judgement. He is tolerant of Chinese culture, now I must say many of these debates have yet to talk about the social policies so his background might show itself. However, I don't see why religion would matter if you allow others to have gay rights, that's on them to do it, not the person allowing it.

 

[ChaosStar79]

However, if people educated themselves for once, stopped being lazy and did the job and learned about mormons. It'd surprise them that Huntsman isn't a orthodox mormon and isn't letting his religion cloud his judgement. He is tolerant or Chinese culture, now I must say many of these debates have yet to talk about the social policies so his background might show itself. However, I don't see why religion would matter if you allow others to have gay rights that on them to do it, not the person allowing it.

I don't personally care what any person chooses to do or think as long as they are not making decisions for anyone else based on these ideals, and they have no effect on any one else. From my personal experience with the handful of Mormons that I have known, I choose to believe that their religion is just as wacky and focused on the assimilation of non believers as any other. They, like every other "person of faith", surely believe that they are doing well and good by being true to their religion, but I see it as just racism, bigotry, and intolerance disguised as divine mandate (the same as other religions to me). I think that any strong religious ties deter the person's objectivity and ability to make independent decisions based on the innate principles and teachings that they believe to be gospel. It's the likes of Rick Perry and others, that make my fears so valid. What would the rest of the world think and how would they react if our leader is off praying for guidance or worrying about "demonic control" over Iran or how they (evil spirits) make people gay. lol The continued following of Bronze age mysticism is holding humanity, as a whole, from moving forward and actually working towards unity and peace in our world.

I think we need a leader that makes decisions based SOLELY on the facts and using reason and logic. I'm not saying that Huntsman is incapable of this as some other candidates clearly are, but I am saying that his faith will keep him from being a viable option to many, both from those with viewpoints like my own, as well as people of other faiths. I can honestly say that almost none of the X-tians or Cath's that I know would ever vote for a Mormon. Unfortunately, these people make up a large portion of our country, making it so that being open about being a member of these other religions, is a sure disadvantage for a candidate.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't personally care what any person chooses to do or think as long as they are not making decisions for anyone else based on these ideals, and they have no effect on any one else. From my personal experience with the handful of Mormons that I have known, I choose to believe that their religion is just as wacky and focused on the assimilation of non believers as any other. They, like every other "person of faith", surely believe that they are doing well and good by being true to their religion, but I see it as just racism, bigotry, and intolerance disguised as divine mandate (the same as other religions to me). I think that any strong religious ties deter the person's objectivity and ability to make independent decisions based on the innate principles and teachings that they believe to be gospel. It's the likes of Rick Perry and others, that make my fears so valid. What would the rest of the world think and how would they react if our leader is off praying for guidance or worrying about "demonic control" over Iran or how they (evil spirits) make people gay. lol The continued following of Bronze age mysticism is holding humanity, as a whole, from moving forward and actually working towards unity and peace in our world.

I think we need a leader that makes decisions based SOLELY on the facts and using reason and logic. I'm not saying that Huntsman is incapable of this as some other candidates clearly are, but I am saying that his faith will keep him from being a viable option to many, both from those with viewpoints like my own, as well as people of other faiths. I can honestly say that almost none of the X-tians or Cath's that I know would ever vote for a Mormon. Unfortunately, these people make up a large portion of our country, making it so that being open about being a member of these other religions, is a sure disadvantage for a candidate.

I see where you come from, and I'd say Huntsman is different I've watched several interviews with him and to be honest he usually doesn't make it known he is mormon. The interviewer usually does that, and he acknowledges it but doesn't talk further on the subject. Really I think he cares more about speaking mandarin/chinese than what religion he practices. I agree with you 100% I don't follow a religion but do believe in a God, but at the same time you don't make decisions on your faith based or non-faith based beliefs. You do it with rational thought. Bachman's crazy business of using faith to cure homosexuality...is just flippin insane and people not just a small chunk but a good number like and believe her!!! That should scare you, they're willing to give up rational thought (if they ever had it) and go with someone that thinks they can use bible verses to cure something that may be genetic and not a choice if science for it is right.

 

[ChaosStar79]

After the debate tonight, I retract my previous statement about not being able to argue with Newt. His war mongering ideology and fear tactics in talking about the middle east show me that he has no grasp of the cause/effect relationship of our foreign policy that we are finally being forced to deal with.

Paul and Huntsman both have my full support at this moment, though they are very different in some ways. Paul is of course still my dream choice, but I do think Huntsman is actually very capable of beating Obama and would likely make the country a better place as well. I do think the religion issue will come into play for many people, but I am now fairly convinced that it wouldn't be an issue in his actions as president. Honestly, I like the guy more every time I see him and he seems to get treated with more respect by the media which gives him a chance to talk. We'll see what happens next, but so far 👍.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

^^^ I agree with you Choas on everything you just said. I looked at Newt and his Neo-Con colors were like hi beams in the night.
Here is my review of the debate, I decided to take notes and see if Wolf Blitzer would be fair and give everyone equal ground. From the tally I made for who got how many questions, Newt was asked the least amount of times. Then you have Santorum and Cain with the same but second to last. Bachman and Huntsman were third to least, with Paul being asked the most next. Mitt was asked more than the rest of them, and finally Perry was asked the most questions and given more chances to defend. He defended against Romney, Paul and Bachman. Now Bachman and Paul got many chances to talk but there were three times Romney and Perry debated alone on subjects and had longer durations to talk with out being cutt off. I must also remind people that many political analyst have Romney and Perry taking the fight all the way to the RNC primary where the Republican canidate is finally picked. I find this asinine considering that we're 13 1/2 to 14 months away from that. Guliani was running at the top around this time and didn't make it very far last time, so I don't understand how the media can blow up Perry.

Now the next part I took notes from all the canidates and will give my opinion on their performance.
So if you disagree that's fine but please don't use my opinion as an absolute and do some research like I have. Thanks

Newt: Newt was asked questions on national security and mainly sticking to talking about the Middle east or to be correct, West Asia. He did talk about Social Security but agreed with most and said it needed a rehaul and quoted Obama's state of the union, claiming he said they wouldn't be able to pay out checks(I plan to look into this). He let everyone know that we didn't do enough with North Korea. Turkey should be watched closely along with Egypt (which I don't understand) and finally Iran. Turkey I don't understand what advancements they've made to warrant our watch, unless he believes in the fight the Kurds bring to the Turkish gov't. N. Korea, not sure how we could have stopped them from backing out of the NPT they left and gave the necessary amount of time to leave and were invited to return even, but declined. I understand the fears of Iran, but many should realize that Israel seems to want us to fight Iran with them which any American should watch out for. Newt tonight seemed like a Chenney figure and I retract any liking I had to him.

Santorum: Asked mainly the same questions as everyone else, he also had a little scuff with Ron Paul. The foreign policy with Santorum is to bring home troops from Afganistan. He was angry with Paul for having on his website, blame toward America for 9.11.01, which got many cheers. To me Santorum seems like a classic puppet and really seems to mirror Newt becuase they've worked together and if you watch the debates they actually quote each other exclusively about certain legislation they've worked on with each other. However, when it came to the fight with Paul that's where I really despised Santorum. The facts are certain memos didn't make their way to the right people like John O'Neill, or how Barbara Bodine shut down and black balled the investigation of the USS Cole in Yemen which could have led to info about 9/11 due to have the suspects needed in Yemen jails. They were released after the FBI left Yemen. The NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake is another person who comes to mind. Now at the time the NSA were tracking three of the hijackers and had a program that could help break down the info to help the agency understand. Problem was a more expensive and lackluster program was wanted and never started up when the cheaper and more effective program named Thin Thread could have been used in January 2001. Then you had the Phoenix FBI memo about flight schools and never got to John O'Neill cause they didn't want him to have more info on Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden. He knew the most about OBL in the world at that time.

Thomas Drake
Ali Soufan

I show this because it helps break down Santorum and his highly Nationalist views.

Ron Paul: Great guy and stuck to what he believes, but didn't have the passion like other debates until challenged by Santorum. He told viewers about the U.S. being in 130 countries and 900 bases around the world (info that I plan to look into and see if factual). Paul told Santorum that the reason we were attacked was becasue like the Terrorist said themselves, the fact that America had bases on home soil in Saudi Arabia and followed closely what Israel did with out holding them accountable is the reasons why we were hit. This is the reason Paul thinks we have no business policing the world. Santorum thinks we are the voice of the world. Paul also went after Perry about rasing taxes as well and was asked other questions like those on Social Security and probably a tricky moment the health care system saying that Gov't healthcare shouldn't be used and that people were still being taken care of in a good fashion before Medicaid and Medicare. Paul also explained what would be best way to start fixing the economy and he said the Trillions that were lost due to the wars is the first step, but still more would need to be done.

Rick Perry: Stuck to his guns as well and let everyone know that he believed he was right about making sure girls in his state go the HPV vaccine. He seemed to back track or detail what he meant by saying the Social Security was a "Ponzi Scheme". His claim was that people 30 and younger should be told the truth that unless SS is fixed they will never get to be paid when their retirement comes up. He also talked about Job creation and had alot more fight this time than last weeks. Bachman fought Perry about the HPV saying that a health mandate isn't right and isn't freedom. Perry told her and everyone else that they made it easily ready for young women so they could have a chance, and that an opt out was always on the table. If Bachman is right about her numbers and claim, Perry only did this because he got paid contributions by the company who made the medicine. Perry admits to contributions but only 5000 dollars and says it was not a pay out and he finds it sad that people might think he could be paid off with five thousand dollars.

Michelle Bachman: She did alot of number throwing and stuck to Perry about a few things first was the Social Security saying that it should be taken away but fixed. Healthcare was another issue that she was asked about along with others and said "Obamacare" would be dismantled if she was elected, as well as Dodd Frank. She also went against Perry about HPV and claimed that it wasn't right and girls should choose. She seems to not trust the corps. that manufacture medicine. Another issue was the immigration issue, which she thought it was wrong for Perry to allow kids of illegal immigrants to have funding to go to college. She also disagreed with Huntsman for allowing illegal aliens to have a temp driving license, but he claimed was not allowed to be used for anything other than a license and not a form of ID. The number throwing went out to Obama about his health care system and claiming he took $500 Billion from medicare to start Obamacare and another $105 billion that I don't have a specific location from.

Mitt Romney: Talked alot about the same things everyone else did, and more about his private sector job growth. He said that SS should be revamped but not removed and the idea of taking it apart was just crazy. He and Perry and a few scuffles through out the night, about the Border, Social Security and health. He was calm and kept a straight face during uneasy times. He also made it aware to Perry, that texas enjoys things that most states don't and that is oil legislation, but also told him that his predecessors had good job ratings before Perry came in.

Herman Cain: He kept up with his idea of the 999 plan, which is 9% tax for state, federal, and income and would like to re-write the tax code. He also got much praise from his fellow republicans for he talk about the Border. He talked further in Social Security as well...and criticized all the politics in D.C. seperating himself as the only non-politician. He let everyone know that his experience working as head of fast food chains gave him an idea of how to create jobs.

Jon Huntsman: He too was calm and well spoken, but got flak from his fellow republicans and audience for his stance on allowing licenses but not ID for illegal immigrants. Now he did say he agreed the border should have more agents, and national guard as well as a bigger fence. Perry said to all those that the idea of a fence from Galvaston to the California Coast (paraphrasing him) is crazy and not likely to work. He talked about foreign policy and that he understood job growth better than any of them thanks to Utah being number one.

There is obviously more that I missed but a general synopsis. Another note is Newt probably did the most Attacking of Obama next to Santorum and Bachman. So hopefully you enjoy...

 

[arora]

any candidate that seriosly doubts evolution is somone without the critical thinking skills necessary to lead

........ Paul is of course my dream choice[\QUOTE]

I thought it was a very inappropriate question, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter....I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory..[\QUOTE]
2007