October 11th GOP Presidential Debate [Full Video]

By | October 12, 2011

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “October 11th GOP Presidential Debate [Full Video]”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

41 thoughts on “October 11th GOP Presidential Debate [Full Video]

  1. Madeleine Milam

    I realize what you suggest concerning the economic system. The inflation isn’t good and we can easily see it’ll probably exacerbate. oof.

  2. Thomas Fischer

    Whilst I am a Ron Paul supporter, I find a lot to like in most of these candidates save for Huntsman, he should run in the Democrat primaries. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, if enacted, would really juice up the economy and tempt many corporations to pull out some of the investments in China. Romney’s pointing out that we need to penalize China is excellent. Santorum’s idea of zero tax for manufacturing is excellent. China is building a huge military, blue water navy including aircraft carriers. Gingrich’s is trying to point out what happens if Greece defaults, and he is right, he would make a great running mate for Herman Cain.
    Bachman is solidly conservative, nothing to fault. Ron Paul has the most understanding of the economy, my only worry is his focus on the Federal Reserve is hard for most voters whose favorite TV show is dancing with the stars to understand. But even those folk can relate well to the 9-9-9 plan. And as for Romney; remember he is a Mormon who wears magic underwair and believes he will become a God with his own planet to rule over. This Battlestar Galactica worldview is so ridiculous, he lacks the wisdom to be a president; apart from the fact he is a RINO. Perry is a RINO who will take his orders from the Bilderbergers, it will be W all over again. He is a fake concervative. For me, if I can’t get Ron Paul as the nomibnee, I would happy to have Cain as the nominee as the consolation prize. Cain/Paul ticket anyone? But of all the candidates, the one with the best stump speech style is Herman Cain, bar none.

    1. Jake

      “And as for Romney; remember he is a Mormon who wears magic underwair and believes he will become a God with his own planet to rule over. This Battlestar Galactica worldview is so ridiculous, he lacks the wisdom to be a president.”

      I’m assuming you are a Christian? If so, then the hypocrisy here is pathetic. Everyone enjoys taking jabs at the irrational beliefs of mormons, but refuse to take a look in the mirror; is Joseph Smith receiving gold plates from an angel any more ludicrous than Moses receiving two tablets from a burning bush? It’s all absurd. Does Mormonism stretch the bounds of sensibility? Of course, but no further than Christianity has done already. I’m more concerned that Bachmann believes the world is 6,000 years old than I am bothered that Romney thinks his undergarments have spiritual powers.

      1. Thomas Fischer

        My comments on Romney’s Mormonism would only make sense to Christians with a Biblical worldview. His theology is wrong because it does not line up with the Bible. Now of course if you reject the Bible, it will all seem nonsensical. But then again, I find atheism of Richard Dawkins to be absurd. Can anyone point out evolution going on in the world now, something that can be tested in a lab? Ever seen an eyeball evolve? Any organism born without a proper eyeball can’t find food, can’t find a mate to reproduce, and dies out. Was Darwin or anyone since able to find any transitional forms? None have been found. In the end he is left to suggest little green men in flying saucers tampered with evolution to create humans. Even to suggest that proves that life can’t arise or evolve from non-life. So Evolution, which is the main crutch used by people in the West to reject the Bible, is just as much a matter of faith as young-earth Creationism that Bachman espouses. Spock said in the 2nd start treck movie to Dr. McCoy “you must have faith the universe will evolve as it should.” So when you criticise Christians for their worldview, don’t overlook the faith in the secular humanist worldview. Question is, is it misplaced in comparison to the Bible?

        1. Jake

          “Can anyone point out evolution going on in the world now, something that can be tested in a lab? Ever seen an eyeball evolve? Any organism born without a proper eyeball can’t find food, can’t find a mate to reproduce, and dies out. Was Darwin or anyone since able to find any transitional forms?”

          All I can say to this is: WOW. You ask those questions as if it were designed to stump me and anyone else with a high school level or greater understanding of biology. Here is a relatively simple wikipedia article for you to get familiar with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

          If you want to get even more technical, the wikipedia article cites the scientific sources from which the information is derived. Short answer: Evolutionary changes have been observed in the lab. In fact, antibiotic and HIV treatments are derived from an understanding of evolutionary changes in bacteria and viruses. They are relatively convenient case studies for evolution, because bacteria and viruses have generation cycles in the ranges of minutes and seconds. Consequently, thousands and millions of generations can be observed in a relatively short time (few months or years).

          Seriously, did you really just ask me if I had seen an eyeball evolve? Do you realize how idiotic that question is? To even translate your question into a form that is coherent, you would have to work under a false pretense of what evolution is or claims to be. If we observed eyeballs evolving right before our eyes that would prove evolution false. Yes, false. The creationist logic is so outrageous, that in order to prove evolution true for them, you would have to prove it false. Go figure!

          Seriously, you sound like a 5 year old who is telling me “germ theory” is a load of bogus because he can’t see the bacteria crawling around on his hand. (1) To even pose the question, you reveal a transparent ignorance of the subject. (2) If I could show you something crawling on your hand, they wouldn’t be bacteria would they?

          Oh transitional forms? Once again, it might be good to start simple. Here is an elementary introduction courtesy of wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

          Again, if you don’t trust everything you read on wikipedia (and you shouldn’t) the primary sources of the data can be found in the “References” section at the bottom of the article.

          Next time, do your homework before you try and fuck with science. She wields an 18 inch dildo you don’t want rammed up your ass. Any further questions? I’d be happy to help :)

          1. Thomas Fischer

            I looked up your Wikpedia articles, and your point seems to be that since scientists can manipulate bacteria in the lab that by extention this proves everything asserted in the name of evolution. That’s a big stretch. I have a book on my bookshelf with 50 contributions from 50 Scientists with terminal degrees in various scientific disciplines, all of them reject evolution in favour of intelligent design. So I am unimpressed with all your argument ad hominem attacks and vulgar language. As to evolution wrapping itself in the mantle of science, evolution reigns in academia because if you dissent from it you are fired or refused tenure. If you want an academic career, you toe the line. Our universities and high schools are run by control freaks who want us all brainwashed into believing the secular humanist worldview. That the debate still goes on proves they are not in total control.

        2. A Brown

          “My comments on Romney’s Mormonism would only make sense to Christians with a Biblical worldview. His theology is wrong because it does not line up with the Bible.”

          This could be up for debate itself. I happen to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly called Mormons, and I’d say that my viewpoint lines up with Biblical teachings. The thing that is so hypocritical about “Mormon bashing” is that it all centers around a different religious thought than you grew up with. Couldn’t every Christian sect say they have a different way of looking at the Bible and its teachings? How many sects of Christianity exist around the world that interpret the Bible differently from the other sects? Sure you may look at me and think the way I live my religious life is strange but I could say the same about the rest of so-called “Mainstream Christianity”. I don’t pray to saints like Catholics, I don’t jump around like the Pentecostals, I don’t sing the same songs as the Baptists, But I do certainly respect their deeply held religious beliefs even if I don’t think they got their interpretation of the Bible right.

          In America’s history we have had Protestant Christian, questionably Christian, and one Catholic Christian presidents who were our leaders. I don’t see how Mitt Romney’s choice of Christian affiliation has to do with his competency. I like Mitt, not because of our shared faith, but because he turned around the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics when it was falling apart at the seams with scandal, and he has had a good track record of turning other failures around. I would trust him with turning around our country at this time. I just wish his religion didn’t create an instant vote of “no” from the apparent “Mainstream” of Christianity in America.

          By the way I would not vote for Jon Huntsman even though he is Mormon (although questionably due to comments made by him), and even a not-too-distant relation to myself. He really didn’t do much as Governor of Utah and he is far too liberal for my tastes.

          I actually really like what Newt has to say and if I thought he stood a chance I might even vote for him. Not a Perry fan at all. Ron Paul? Eh…I just hope the GOP puts a contender vs. Obama so we don’t have to live with another four years of ridiculous bailouts and Obamacare. Yuck.

        3. Linda

          Why does everyone have a problem with Mormon’s? I know a lot of them and they are honest and hardworking people….not crazy as you seem to think they are. There are a lot who hold very competent positions in society from presidents of companies to professional athletes on down. I guess you haven’t heard of them. I think Romney would be a good choice! He has displayed many leadership qualities.

          1. Thomas Fischer

            The problems with Romeny are two fold. To begin with he is a RINO who changes his positions on issues depending on the audience he plays to. When Romney ran against Kennedy in 1994 for the Senate, he was pro choice. Same position in the 2002 governor’s race in Massachusetts. Now he wants to be presdent and he is pro life. In these same 2 campaigns he was supportive of Gay rights, now in 2011 he is against gay marriage. In the past he was pro free trade with China, now he wants to peanalize China for currency manipulation. He has changed his position on global warming, for instance. If you want consistency, Ron Paul is your man.

            Now as to the Mormons are nice folks argument. True enough. Romney sounds like the affiable Father in the 1950’s show “Father Knows Best.” But Mormons believe they can become a god in the next life, and secret temple ceremonies, wearing magic underware, will make one a god over some other planet out in the universe. This reminds me of the old TV series “Battlestar Galactica” whose script writers were Mormons. If Mitt Romney believes this, he is not wise enough to be president. No wonder he can’t understand that 9-9-9 would juice up our economy. As for the theology, if you are interested, Mormonism simply put is just a poly-theistic as Hinduism, which also has Gurus like Siah Baba who say you can be your own God. The Bible is monotheistic: there is one god and you or I are not him! I would refer you to Ed Decker’s book, The God Makers for the theological arguments. Many people have found a way out of Mormonism, including a member of Romney’s extended family, see World Net Daily for details. So if you are unwise in matters of God and eternity, you are not wise enough to be President. But I am ecumenical in my discernment, I would not vote for anyone running for high office that espoused that other religion started by an Angel: Islam! What if the same angel started both religions, just calling himself by a different name? Something to ponder.

  3. Caitlin

    I have put much thought a research into choosing my candidate, and am loyal to our founders and out constitution, not to any individual. As it stands I support Ron Paul because he is true to the constitution. I am also a huge fan of Johnson and was disappointed he was not included in this debate. What bothers me most is what I am seeing in the comments on this page, and on others. I am sorry to say this and will try my best to be eloquent, but I feel that many of you lack four sight, and are not well versed in History or Government. And I don’t mean government as in who’s who, and doing what, I mean to read and understand the constitution and it’s accompanying letters. If you had then you would understand what is wrong with Romney, Huntsman, Santorum, Gringrich, Bachmann, and Perry. As for Cain, I like the guy, But his 999 plan concerns me, Though I have faith he would keep to it for his term(s) in office, what about the next guy? Or the one after that?

    Most disturbing of all? That a few of you could be my parents, I’m sure. I am one of those youth that they talk about. What we want is freedom, to keep our earnings, and a balanced budget.
    And BTW, I got pregnant in 2010 (I was married, got married at 17, pregnant by 19) healthcare wasn’t there when I needed it. Food stamps were not there when I needed them, and renters aid wasn’t there when I needed. Planned parent hood? Useless, “You can always abort if times are tough, it’s not like you can’t have another when you can actually support it” Nice…

  4. Allenocus

    Like the others who have left their posts on here, it is clear to see that the media is deliberately trying to ignore Ron Paul. Even JOHN STEWART pointed out this anomaly when Fox was being retarded and disregarding Ron Paul. The bottom line is, the media owners- people like Rupert Murdoc, are attempting to go into self-preservation mode because Ron Paul’s decisions as president would directly affect the corporations that are giving money to these media owners, thus making their wallets lighter in the process. It’s becoming clearer to America that the republican nominees are in truth singing the same song as the democratic nominees in 2008, and in truth, the lines are blurring. Simply put, they’re all in this together. One thing one of the interviewers did an excellent job of was paint a picture that ONLY Mit Romney sympathizes with the occupy wallstreet protesters, HOWEVER, there was never a question directed to Ron Paul concerning the protests, so how could he identify with them if he isn’t given the chance? I think there is media manipulation where they are intentionally leaving opportunities for questions for the sake of leaving information covered because they already know, and don’t want us to know. Clearly this ISN’T working. Ron Paul 2012!…and NIBB HIGH FOOTBALL RULES! (Just trying to lighten the mood.)

  5. Brighton

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who actually wants to do something DIFFERENT. Everyone is so busy arguing about policy and what should be repealed, they are missing the point that unless REAL change occurs this next presidency, our country is going to collapse. We don’t need slight variations on how to tax more or spend less, we need to start from scratch and rebuild the system according to the constitution. The real problem is our currency and the power we have given to the Fed to print whatever it wants to manipulate the economy. It is proven throughout history as doomed to fail so why are all the other candidates (as well as the media) ignoring this? Ron Paul is not my choice just because he is a better option than Obama… he is the last chance we have at having a sovereign nation. I feel Benjamin Franklin knew we would come to a time like this. It has only been a few hundred years and we are already proving that we cannot keep the government the founding fathers set up.

    RON PAUL 2012.

  6. Tak

    I want to see a debat where all canidates gets to ask each canidate one question. That would get a fair amount of time to all and would give the people a better look at them. Now the media makes it so we only see there person and not whats best for the people.

  7. jon

    Well when Ron Paul gets to talk and isn’t censored by the media he’s the definite winner. Newt Gingrich actually does great in debates as well. But as we can tell the media and the rich want Romney or Perry to win so they can keep getting their handouts and continue the corruption.

Comments are closed.