GOP debate tonight fantastic--very STRONG candidates

[California Girl]

Lol. So any country that declares war on the U.S is committing treason? Secession is not treason because secession in its self does not mean war. The north forced war on the south by continuing to send troops and supplies to a sovereign country. The states joined the union voluntarily and can leave if they so choose...

Secession is pure and simple treason against your country the treasonous south attacked the US Garrison at Ft Sumter

There are no provisions for states to leave the union.

Not according to the US definition of 'treason'... but please, don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lol. So any country that declares war on the U.S is committing treason? Secession is not treason because secession in its self does not mean war. The north forced war on the south by continuing to send troops and supplies to a sovereign country. The states joined the union voluntarily and can leave if they so choose...

Secession is pure and simple treason against your country the treasonous south attacked the US Garrison at Ft Sumter

There are no provisions for states to leave the union.

And nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent.

 

[Sallow]

Rick Perry is radioactive. I'd love him to run.

His traitorous secessionist stance is a true winner.

Another tard who thinks secession is treason...don't you morons read the constitution? Obviously not.

Obviously..it's not something you are well acquainted with..

Here ya go..Nazi boy.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The only possible Constitutional way to secede would be for both houses of Congress to vote on Legislation and the President to sign it.

And I just don't see that happening.

 

[Sallow]

Lol. So any country that declares war on the U.S is committing treason? Secession is not treason because secession in its self does not mean war. The north forced war on the south by continuing to send troops and supplies to a sovereign country. The states joined the union voluntarily and can leave if they so choose...

Secession is pure and simple treason against your country the treasonous south attacked the US Garrison at Ft Sumter

There are no provisions for states to leave the union.

Not according to the US definition of 'treason'... but please, don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.

Sure it is..

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them

 

[jgarden]

Rick Perry is radioactive. I'd love him to run.

His traitorous secessionist stance is a true winner.

Another tard who thinks secession is treason...don't you morons read the constitution? Obviously not.

The underlying cause of the Civil War was the South's insistance that under the Constitution, slaves were considered property and the federal government had no right to interfere with a private citizen's ability to buy and sell property.

For the South to sucede from the Union based on legalistic arguments promoting the rights and freedoms associated with one racial segment of society, while condemning another race to slavery, may have been in accordance with the letter of the law, but did not represented the spirit of the law - as interpreted by most Americans.

Despite the fact that slaves were considered property with no legal rights under the Constitution, it allowed their numbers to be counted when it came to political representation. In fact there were districts and even whole states where the slave population equaled or exceeded their "white" counterparts. If the 4 million "slaves" concentrated in the Southern states had been allowed to vote, a map of the Confederacy would not have included Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia.

With a carefully negotiated balance of slave and non-slave states allowed to join the Union resulting in equal representation within the Senate, the South was able to exert a political influence far out of proportion to its "white" population.

This was further complicated by the fact that prior to the Civil War, America had had a succession of "Southern" presidents which meant that appointees to the Supreme Court also tended to favor the South's position.

The net result was that reasons of expediency, the framers of the Constitution chose to conveniently sidestep the "slavery issue," in the hope that it could be peacefully resolved at some later date.

 

[Political Junky]

I can't wait to see both Perry and Romney aside one another in the next debate, you know if that happens,we will be looking at the dream ticket,,,either combination! Perry/Romney 2012!! I am praying!

I'm hoping for a Palin/Cain ticket. And dont think for one second they couldn't win it. Just because the lame stream media says they couldn't win it doesn't mean the rest of America would not vote for them. **** the media, vote your heart and vote for who will constitutionally run this country. We are fighting socialist/progressives, we need to vote with the constitution, not against it.

Funny you trot out the Constitution and Herman Cain in the same sentence.

Cain has said he would never appoint a person who follows the Muslim faith to any government position.

Exactly how do you think that sits with the Constitution of the United States?

Also, funny to see Cain quote the Constitution, using lines from the Declaration of Independence.

 

[candycorn]

Nice try--didn't work.

Ask me on a Wednesday next November...and we'll see. None of the people on stage tonight have a chance against Obama.

All of them have a strong chance against the Messiah the Reps did a good job pointing the utter Failure of this administration Obama has nothing to run on

None of them have a chance outside of Romney who will get crucified sooner or later by the other pachaderms in the room.

Perry all the way if he wants it.

If you don't believe me; watch...and try to learn.

 

[candycorn]

Liberals and the left wing media have been telling us that this field of GOP candidates are weak--no one is interested in them--yada--yada--yada.

If you watched the debate on CNN tonight--June 13, 2011--the message could not be clearer. This entire field is STRONG. In fact the strongest I have seen in decades. Not a John McCain in the bunch--LOL. Every one of them had several home runs--they were articulate--gave direct answers--and are more than ready to take Barack Obama and his policies on.

In fact--after listening to them speak--any one of these candidates would cut through Barack Obama like a hot knife through butter. Why? Because they made SENSE. On the economy--on Jobs--and on the Deficit.

Michelle Bachmann announced that she is running for POTUS tonight during the debate--and she was great. Ron Paul got a lot of applause--he did great. Newt Gingrich--when everyone thought he was done--is not done. Of course Mitt Romney--Palenty--Herman Cain--and Santorim.

It was so good--I still don't have a favorite. I am going to have to watch several more debates before I can come to any conclusion.

Did any of you watch it?

I saw the debate and agree. They all came off quite well.

Will be interesting to see who else jumps in.

I like Rick Perry and his State is doing quite well despite the economy. That says a lot right there. The leaders of Texas must be doing something right.

Perhaps Barry should take a little trip to some of those States that are doing great and ask a few questions???

He went to El Paso; Perry refused to see him.

Says alot about Ricky (used to be a Democrat by the way).

Perry is the only serious challenger Obama has.

 

[skookerasbil]

Saw the whole thing Oreo.........sweet.

Im already preparing my library of Gay MSPAiNT Photobucket Classics for election night!!!

 

[candycorn]

Yeah. Secession isn't some..."hey, no worries. We can agree to disagree. You go your way, I'll go mine." kind of thing. The last one led to war. It's treasonous to call for secession.

You're sounding too reasonable.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

Ron Paul is the only strong candidate. The others are weak and don't stand for anything except maybe Santorum (but I disagree with his stances).

Most of them pandered to please the crowd but said nothing substantial. They all said bs like "we need to boost the economy to fix our problems" "we need to energize the economy" "we need to bring more places of employment into the U.S." and other vague bullshit answers.

Ron Paul is the only guy to take a stand and specifically explain HOW to boost the economy. He outlined that we need to stop the Federal Reserve, stop devaluing our currency, stop exporting jobs, stop foreign aid, stop militarism, stop funding the military industrial complex, and stop wasting money on government social programs that don't work.


.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ron Paul is the only strong candidate. The others are weak and don't stand for anything except maybe Santorum (but I disagree with his stances).

Most of them pandered to please the crowd but said nothing substantial. They all said bs like "we need to boost the economy to fix our problems" "we need to energize the economy" "we need to bring more places of employment into the U.S." and other vague bullshit answers.

Ron Paul is the only guy to take a stand and specifically explain HOW to boost the economy. He outlined that we need to stop the Federal Reserve, stop devaluing our currency, stop exporting jobs, stop foreign aid, stop militarism, stop funding the military industrial complex, and stop wasting money on government social programs that don't work. .

Ron Paul is an idiot. He has no idea that we live in a global society, he wants us to become isolationist. We can strenghten the dollar without weakening our nation as he suggested. I do agree with him and others that we need to get rid of certain bureaucracies like the department of Energy, Department of Education and the EPA to name a few.

 

[rh287]

I can't wait to see both Perry and Romney aside one another in the next debate, you know if that happens,we will be looking at the dream ticket,,,either combination! Perry/Romney 2012!! I am praying!

I'm hoping for a Palin/Cain ticket. And dont think for one second they couldn't win it. Just because the lame stream media says they couldn't win it doesn't mean the rest of America would not vote for them. **** the media, vote your heart and vote for who will constitutionally run this country. We are fighting socialist/progressives, we need to vote with the constitution, not against it.

If Palin is the nominee, I can guarantee you that Obama will win. Do you want him out of office or to 'vote with your heart'?

I prefer voting with my mind, instead of my heart. Logic over emotion.

I totally agree. If Palin somehow wins the nomination, Obama will defiantly win the election. I hope she does not run. I think she would be dangerous to the Republican chances in 2012 even as a VP running mate.

Ann Coulter said she would vote for Charlie Sheen over Obama. I think most every Republican and most Conservatives feel this strongly against Obama. As crazy as it sounds, Sheen would have a better shot at winning the general election than Palin does. Palin simply way over exposed herself way too early...Like becoming a Fox News Contributer when she was nowhere near ready to be exposing herself like that. That's just dumb..I'm sorry. Instead she should have been hiding out and quietly studying foreign affairs and domestic affairs.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ron Paul is the only strong candidate. The others are weak and don't stand for anything except maybe Santorum (but I disagree with his stances).

Most of them pandered to please the crowd but said nothing substantial. They all said bs like "we need to boost the economy to fix our problems" "we need to energize the economy" "we need to bring more places of employment into the U.S." and other vague bullshit answers.

Ron Paul is the only guy to take a stand and specifically explain HOW to boost the economy. He outlined that we need to stop the Federal Reserve, stop devaluing our currency, stop exporting jobs, stop foreign aid, stop militarism, stop funding the military industrial complex, and stop wasting money on government social programs that don't work.


.

They were all fairly specific on how to fix problems. All you are really telling me is you didn't bother paying attention to the issues. For example, Herman Cain's four step plan to deal with Illegal Immigration. Very specific.

You can underestimate your opponents all you want, but don't be surprised if the people choose someone you don't like.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ron Paul is the only strong candidate. The others are weak and don't stand for anything except maybe Santorum (but I disagree with his stances).

Most of them pandered to please the crowd but said nothing substantial. They all said bs like "we need to boost the economy to fix our problems" "we need to energize the economy" "we need to bring more places of employment into the U.S." and other vague bullshit answers.

Ron Paul is the only guy to take a stand and specifically explain HOW to boost the economy. He outlined that we need to stop the Federal Reserve, stop devaluing our currency, stop exporting jobs, stop foreign aid, stop militarism, stop funding the military industrial complex, and stop wasting money on government social programs that don't work. .

Ron Paul is an idiot. He has no idea that we live in a global society, he wants us to become isolationist. We can strenghten the dollar without weakening our nation as he suggested. I do agree with him and others that we need to get rid of certain bureaucracies like the department of Energy, Department of Education and the EPA to name a few.

I actually like Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policies. It's much more like the Founders plan for our nation. But the problem is he doesn't have an effective plan to become non-interventionist. His plan is just pull back all the troops with no plan to deal with the consequences of that.

There is only one reason we have an interventionist policy in the first place: Dependence on foreign energy. Until we have a sane and active domestic energy program we are going to be an interventionist nation out of necessity.

 

[Vanquish]

Ron Paul is the only strong candidate. The others are weak and don't stand for anything except maybe Santorum (but I disagree with his stances).

Most of them pandered to please the crowd but said nothing substantial. They all said bs like "we need to boost the economy to fix our problems" "we need to energize the economy" "we need to bring more places of employment into the U.S." and other vague bullshit answers.

Ron Paul is the only guy to take a stand and specifically explain HOW to boost the economy. He outlined that we need to stop the Federal Reserve, stop devaluing our currency, stop exporting jobs, stop foreign aid, stop militarism, stop funding the military industrial complex, and stop wasting money on government social programs that don't work. .

Ron Paul is an idiot. He has no idea that we live in a global society, he wants us to become isolationist. We can strenghten the dollar without weakening our nation as he suggested. I do agree with him and others that we need to get rid of certain bureaucracies like the department of Energy, Department of Education and the EPA to name a few.

I actually like Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policies. It's much more like the Founders plan for our nation. But the problem is he doesn't have an effective plan to become non-interventionist. His plan is just pull back all the troops with no plan to deal with the consequences of that.

There is only one reason we have an interventionist policy in the first place: Dependence on foreign energy. Until we have a sane and active domestic energy program we are going to be an interventionist nation out of necessity.

Not true. Ever since the Monroe Doctrine we've been going to other countries and engaging in war. It's a fact. There's not a decade in our 200+ year history that we haven't.

Interventionism began WAAAY before there was an Energy market.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

Ron Paul is the only strong candidate. The others are weak and don't stand for anything except maybe Santorum (but I disagree with his stances).

Most of them pandered to please the crowd but said nothing substantial. They all said bs like "we need to boost the economy to fix our problems" "we need to energize the economy" "we need to bring more places of employment into the U.S." and other vague bullshit answers.

Ron Paul is the only guy to take a stand and specifically explain HOW to boost the economy. He outlined that we need to stop the Federal Reserve, stop devaluing our currency, stop exporting jobs, stop foreign aid, stop militarism, stop funding the military industrial complex, and stop wasting money on government social programs that don't work. .

Ron Paul is an idiot. He has no idea that we live in a global society, he wants us to become isolationist.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he fully supports a global economy in which we engage in free trade with countries all over the world. What he doesn't want us to do is bomb the whole world and have military bases in 120 countries around the world. You think because he's against bombing the world and creating a global empire that it makes him ignorant of a global society? If anything, he's the only guy that supports global peace and cooperation.

We can strenghten the dollar without weakening our nation as he suggested.

Strawman. He didn't say that. Ron Paul said he wants a STRONGER national defense. He's the only guy up there who has a real plan for stronger defense.

I do agree with him and others that we need to get rid of certain bureaucracies like the department of Energy, Department of Education and the EPA to name a few.

But you don't agree with his ideals of liberty, property rights, and peace?

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOn2K7IYJC0]YouTube - ‪Chris Matthews Attacks Michele Bachmann Calling Her 'Balloon Head'‬‏[/ame]

*

 

[Avatar4321]

Ron Paul is an idiot. He has no idea that we live in a global society, he wants us to become isolationist. We can strenghten the dollar without weakening our nation as he suggested. I do agree with him and others that we need to get rid of certain bureaucracies like the department of Energy, Department of Education and the EPA to name a few.

I actually like Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policies. It's much more like the Founders plan for our nation. But the problem is he doesn't have an effective plan to become non-interventionist. His plan is just pull back all the troops with no plan to deal with the consequences of that.

There is only one reason we have an interventionist policy in the first place: Dependence on foreign energy. Until we have a sane and active domestic energy program we are going to be an interventionist nation out of necessity.

Not true. Ever since the Monroe Doctrine we've been going to other countries and engaging in war. It's a fact. There's not a decade in our 200+ year history that we haven't.

Interventionism began WAAAY before there was an Energy market.

I have to disagree. The fact that it wasnt until Monroe that the Monroe doctrine was formulated tells me that there was another policy before then. Washington and Adam's policy was non-interventionist. After that.. it gets more complicated.

 

[Jackson]

Funny you trot out the Constitution and Herman Cain in the same sentence.

Cain has said he would never appoint a person who follows the Muslim faith to any government position.

Exactly how do you think that sits with the Constitution of the United States?

Oh, Sallow. Please don't misquote people in order to score points. You're better than that.

Cain openly fears and hates Muslims. It would affect his ability to lead fairly and would destroy relations with 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide

He is a nice niche candidate for those who fantasize about a businessman cleaning up our country....but he will be a historical footnote once the primaries start

Cain doesn't openly hate Muslims. He chooses not to have any in his administration and at a time like this, that is not all bad. I for one admire his non pc attitude and honesty. It doesn't mean I totally agree with him but we need brave men that stand up for their ideas and not for potential votes.

It is certainly better than those that change their speeches to match their audiences. I like this man.