Watch The GOP Presidential Forum Live From South Carolina

Tyler Durden's picture

Since it will be a slow news day until futures open in a few hours, readers who are locked indoors can waste it by listening to the oddly named Palmetto Freedom Forum which is basically another GOP presidential debate where candidates will take to the stage one at a time to substantively answer questions on their views from three panelists: South Carlolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Steve King of Iowa, and Dr. Robert George, founder of the American Principles Project and McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. The participating candidates will include the major GOP contenders: Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rep. Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney. As Townhall observes: "Sen. DeMint, et al's questioning is sure to challenge the participants on the hard-hitting issues, and should serve as a great preview to this Wednesday's GOP debate." That said, Rick Perry, and his Bank of America supporters, will be materially missing so no hard-hitting answers from the Texan.

Live Video streaming by Ustream


h/t Townhall and John McCloy

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Id fight Gandhi's picture

I want Paul to take it too, but the media is already telling everyone who THEY want, perry or Romney. Seems like they got the whole damn 14 months planned out already,

Will Paul run anyway without the GOP ticket?

MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

Perry and Romney are the clear front runners, and for good reasons. Ron Paul is simply UNELECTABLE, so there is no point wasting time and money on his campaign. Besides, his extreme views on economics are at odds with those of the world's top economists and financial institutions. Who do you believe about the economy, an Ivy League phd Professor, nobel laureate like Dr Paul Krugman, or a gynecologist? I know who I believe.

unununium's picture

I hope you're posting this quality sarcasm at the WSJ. The trollops there won't get it,and will mod you up!  Like the ones here who are modding you down.

RemiG2010's picture

Wanna bet AU 1oz that Ron is ELECTABLE?! Although I agree. Some of his views are controversial but that's what we need in the discussion right now.

Herbert Philbrick's picture

Ron Paul's views?  Does that include the racist and anti-Semitic articles that appeared in his newsletter back in the day?  Yeah, I'd agree that some of "his views" are controversial, but I don't think we need them.

whstlblwr's picture

Maybe, he denies he wrote it. Times different then. You go back to see other politicians from that time. Robert Byrd, great Democrat, now dead, but he wizard in KKK, filibuster Civil Rights, later apologized.

jeff montanye's picture

and no senator, nearly no u.s. politician, was more prescient and eloquent about the fiasco that the wars in the islamic world would become.

it is good that ron paul is said to be unelectable and that romney and perry are in the lead.  gives paul the cachet of the downtrodden and the forbidden while letting the bozos knock each other out.

if the wtc going down, looking like controlled demolition, after passenger planes hit them, followed by the election, by a comfortable margin, of someone who looks like barack obama and answers to that name (but governs like bush) doesn't impress on one the futility of predicting political events in the u.s. during interesting times, what would?

Mitzibitzi's picture

Please commence to fuck yourself with a brass-plated cactus, troll! Dr. Paul is the only guy in the race that hasn't been obviously bought and paid for by the banksters (not that he might not have been bought rather more quietly, of course, but I doubt it.) I can see this quite plainly. And I ain't even US-ian. And therefore can't vote in this upcoming charade. Though, quite frankly, I doubt any of YOU are gonna be voting in it, either. The result is now collated electronically, I'm told... no possibility of corruption there, then.

Thomas's picture

i caught part of RP and am in the middle of Romney. It seems clear Paul has influenced Romney's platform. In particular, Romney came out of the gate supporting states' rights. I am exceedingly distrustful, but so far Romney is talking the talk. 

snowball777's picture

Do you have any clue what "state's rights" really means south of the Mason-Dixon line?


SWRichmond's picture

I do.  It means "State's Rights."  Are you insinuating it means something else?

jeff montanye's picture

historically it has meant keeping blacks in chains real or de facto.  

i would be very careful about using something romney said (perhaps other than corporations are people too) to predict anything he would actually do.  he is as slippery as obama.

nmewn's picture

"Do you have any clue what "state's rights" really means south of the Mason-Dixon line?"

I do. I live "south of the Mason-Dixon line".

But why don't you go ahead and give me your version of what I think it means anyways, just for shits & giggles.

Edit: That was interesting ;-)

Lednbrass's picture

By all means, amuse me with your definition o left coast idiot.

One thing it does mean here is that outside of target practice and crab bait, we have little to no use for you or New England.  I suspect this point will be made rather forcefully later this decade, but time will tell.

jeff montanye's picture

"one thing it does mean here" "we have little to no use for you or new england"  oh right.  it's a club.  a fight club.  

SWRichmond's picture

I, too, was struck by the extent of the Paulization of Romney.  Romney came out of the gate with the notion that citizens are sovereign and government is not.  Candidate Romney had better not set foot in Virginia, because the Virginia Fusion Center has classified "Sovereign Citizens" as terrorists, and the Virginia State Police would probably arrest him.

Soon we will have eminem doing "will the real Ron Paul please stand up, please stand up..."


Tunga's picture

Corporations!!! They're People!!!-Charlton Romney


pods's picture

He just got it backwards:  People, they're corporations.


Bicycle Repairman's picture

Paul is gaining traction so it is natural for other candidates to adopt "safe" aspects of his candidacy.  One or two may even espouse some of his radical stuff if it makes them more electable.  But relax, if elected the radical stuff will be quickly forgotten.  See Obama, Barrack.

New_Meat's picture

Mitz: we have a local radio-guy who is working on the distinction of "vote with your head" vs. "vote with your heart" and all of the antecedent actions.

Cases in point:

  • H in '92 split the R vote, result: Clinton.
  • Nader in '00, skimmed off just enough of the D vote in FL, result: W.
  • etc.

But there might be a market for brass-plated cacti--you ought to get some up E-Bay.  There will be plenty of buyers if only to purchase as presents for others.  If

"... I ain't even US-ian."

then what are you?  Newbeez are OK, but, well ....

- Ned

{I had the discussion with 'young skull full of mush' about this as he was growing up.  Same subject, different direction: 'Lad, think w/the Big head, even though u wish to think w/Small head.  Advice still working (well, to the best of my knowledge ;-) }

Tunga's picture

How 'bout vote with a pen instead of electrons? Such primitive thoughts has the Tunga tonight.


Libertarian777's picture

you mean like how the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner waged an undeclared war on another country that wasn't threatening the USA?

Yes, them Nobel prizes, should be held to such high esteem.

mahalopamala's picture

 I respect your difference of opinion.  I do not agree that Dr. Ron Paul is unelectable.  When I decide who I will vote for, I evaluate someone by researching their accomplishments, who they associate with, who their mentors are, what values they hold dear, how well they have done in their chosen vocations, and most importantly whether they are characterized by truthfulness and steadfastness.  I have voted for Dr. Ron Paul in two elections, I am a constituent of his residing in the 14th congressional district of Texas. I believe his non-mainstream ideas are exactly what is needed if we are to make major changes in where this country is headed. Don’t just take my word for it, research him yourself.  His truthfulness, record of voting in congress, and his steadfast hold on his beliefs exemplify a person who is above reproach.

Dr. Ron Paul is not only an Obstetrician /Gynecologist, he is multi-faceted. As a long time advocate of the Austrian School of Economics, his views ARE the polar opposite of Dr.Krugman's. Dr. Krugman is a man who has achieved much in his field of Keynesian Economics. There are considerable differences in these two schools of thought. Without writing a tome on the subject, I think the differences can be summarized in one question. Is it good for the citizens of America to expand central federal government and for us to turn to government for all of our economic and other needs? If you answer yes, you might find the ideas of Keynesian economics quite palatable.  If you answer with a resounding NO, then you might possibly agree with some of the tenants of adherents to Austrian Economics.

Top economists and heads of the world's financial institutions have gotten us into the global mess we are in now. Consider this- many Ivy League grads are brilliant, and have achieved notable prizes, shaped national and international monetary policies, become key economists, bankers, politicians and enjoy access to amazing opportunities because of their pedigree.

I did my research, and could fill many pages with Ivy League School graduates and Nobel Laureates that have contributed to world economics and business schools of thought.  Here are a few notable people from that list you might enjoy reading more about. Timothy Geithner, graduate of Dartmouth College, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now is the US Secretary of the Treasury. He is an influential man and his track record and contributions are well documented.  Alan Greenspan, graduate of Columbia University in New York, who was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve board of Governors from 1987-2006 and now, is the head of his own consulting firm.  This man greatly shaped monetary policy globally and at home in the USA.  Murray Rothbard, graduate of Columbia University in New York, an American author and economist who wrote over twenty books and who is considered an important figure in the American libertarian movement.  Frederich Hayek, a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics recipient- Nobel Laureate- and influential author was inarguably a major influence on the field of Economics. Interesting quote concerning this fascinating man: “There is no figure who had more of an influence, no person had more of an influence on the intellectuals behind the Iron Curtain than Friedrich Hayek. His books were translated and published by the underground and black market editions, read widely, and undoubtedly influenced the climate of opinion that ultimately brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union.”—Milton Friedman* (Hoover Institution)

Of the four men mentioned above Geithner and Greenspan are among the experts that are in harmony with Dr. Paul Krugman.

Dr. Ron Paul has acknowledged that he respects some of the ideas of Rothbard and Hayek (among many others including the authors of the United States Constitution).  It seems to me that these men are also considered some of the world’s top economists. 

 Don’t just rely on sound bites of media or uninformed opinion pieces to determine who you should support.  PLEASE research and evaluate each candidate for the Republican nomination in light of your own personal beliefs.  I think there will be a lot of people on the ZH community who would agree with me that Dr. Ron Paul is a man of honor and would be an excellent candidate, and President!


Libertarians for Prosperity's picture



For all your research, though, you have to admit...  it got you nothing.  

In 2008, Ron Paul won only 14 (*LOL*) of the Republican presidential primary delegates.  1191 is needed to win the Republican nominee which McBush got, but then went on to loose the general election by a landslide.

RP is just a small pimple on the gigantic horse ass of American politics.  Your vote for Bugs Bunny would be equally influential.


mahalopamala's picture

When refuting MillionDollarBonus, I stated my beliefs.  I think that I was able to get everything from being true to myself.  In our congressional district 14, we have gotten what we wanted- namely Ron Paul being re-elected several times so that he can continue to represent the values our community believes in.

To me, the ultimate goal is that Dr. Paul's willingness to talk about real issues will help the people of this country to wake up and realize there is more than one way to think, govern, and live. The false right and left politics we have had to endure for so long must crumble. In my opinion, as you refer to him as small and insignificant, remember that what appears to be small and insignificant can become very large and influential.

If the establishment is against Ron Paul- I am even more for him.  What we need is local and state government and a very small very limited central government.  Many people do not share this philosophy which is why he did not get significant delegate votes.  Not winning the popularity contest does not dilute the message.


Id fight Gandhi's picture

Fuck it, it just tuned into CNN to watch Paul, and CNN cut to an anchor calling him controversial and went to Commerical.

Fuck it all. What's the point of caring about any politics.

New_Meat's picture

ifg, you really can't trust CNN.  Our Dear President was on the vaunted "Bus Tour" and he was so boring that they had the video of him reading TOTUS while the "Anchor" was commentatoring on blah blah blah.

- Ned

{then he finishes the "speach", rode out of town in the Canadian built bus, boarded the helo, and married up with the bus just before the next "stop"}

{{Did I mention that you can't trust CNN.  Jane Fonda is on Boomberg (with Charlie Rose) pissing all over Turner, even though she "loves him" eternally.}}

malalingua's picture

Here you go Id fight Gandhi, just the Ron Paul part without commercials.

Mark Noonan's picture

Geesh, what were you doing watching CNN?  I bet they had it on C-Span...

knukles's picture

Bachman/Perry New World Overdrive

Bicycle Repairman's picture

Slogan?  Taking care of business!

chipshot's picture

paul/perry might get er' done.....

Mitzibitzi's picture

OK, who are you and what have you done with Mitt Romney? You sound like... oddly... Ron Paul.

whstlblwr's picture

Obviously Ron Paul doing well in the polls :)

Christophe2's picture

I really don't see how any of you can believe in Ron Paul - the guy is the obvious 'next guy' the NWO plan to foist on us, just like the other Repub missfits on the ticket are clearly just meant to make him look comparitively better.


This talk of him being ignored by the mainstream is a JOKE.  Jon Stewart IS the mainstream, so how can he have Ron Paul on to complain about the mainstream ignoring RP?  And really: as if RP would have made it onto the Repub ticket if the NWO didn't want him there.  Sheesh.


The Repubs and Dems (and all their incoherent ideologies) are just puppet shows meant to trick us time and again.  Didn't you fools learn anything from the Obama deception?  And don't come telling me that RP has more history and experience, more proof of legitimacy: none of RP's anti-war votes ever made a difference (they were just meant to prepare him for the appearance of legitimacy today), just like none of his goofy libertarian bills ever amounted to anything either.  And here's what's most telling: RP is still as calm as ever, even though we have seriously fallen into fascism and even though none of his actions ever amount to anything.  Shouldn't he be a bit more concerned?


Anyhow, I don't wish to repeat myself: you can find a whole bunch more reasons why he's a fake on my page - no point repeating myself...

akak's picture

Respectfully, fuck you.

You have NO idea what you are talking about when it comes to Ron Paul --- no idea at all.  I do not idolize him, as I do not idolize any politician, but his honesty, integrity and consistency when it comes to his political positions are above reproach, and anybody trying to cast hysterical and blanket accusations against him is clearly grinding an ideological ax for the Establishment and status-quo.

Your dishonesty and malicious attacks on the man reveal your true purpose, and it is clearly NOT to further the public good nor rational discussion.  Begone troll.

Christophe2's picture

Wow - you really care a lot about this politician, huh?


As my link further below shows, he won't question the official report on 9/11 now, just like he never will later.  How is that "honesty, integrity"?  It surely is consistency though.

(repost of said link: )


Is my post hysterical?  I'm sorry, but it is patently false to claim that the mainstream media is ignoring him, when in fact he shows up on Jon Stewart and countless other mainstream shows.  TPTB always try to give us what we want, and they know that we want someone 'real', someone who is not a part of the mainstream.


How is that not a rational observation?  How is your extreme reaction, swearing and hate not an example of irrationality?  Did you try to actually argue against any of my points?  Nope, you just went with ad-hominem attacks, name calling and blanket statements in favor of your 'savior'.

whstlblwr's picture

Joke. Today wife's mother asked who is this Ron Paul, didn't even know he running for President. When wife told her Paul almost win Iowa, she didn't believe it because she didn't hear it.

Wife's mother think Bachmann looks KRAZY. LOL, is it who you support?

Christophe2's picture

I don't support any of them.  Why would I limit my choices to only those losers who make it onto the Republican ticket?  They are all sellouts to TPTB.  I certainly don't support Obama (that god-damned fake) or any of the Democrats, either, that's for sure.


The only politician whom I am aware of that seems legitimate is Cynthia McKinney (now in the Green party, I believe).  She asked hard questions on 9/11 and got truly demonized for it - she certainly doesn't show up on the mainstream anymore except to get slammed by their blowhards, so I'd say she is real.  One way or another I'll never vote Republican or Democrat again: it's a guarantee that, having passed the vetting process of either party, they are almost surely rotten.


How about looking outside of the 2 parties?  You could pick a random person off the streets, and so long as you vetted that they weren't a member of the free masons or some other craptastic secret society, you would end up with someone a million times better than RP or the rest.


Anyhow, it's pretty pathetic how I've been down-rated so much and yet not a single one of my detractors has managed to argue against the points I raised against Ron Paul.  Do they all just vote and decide things emotionally?  I am convinced that full-blown revolt is the only way we'll fix our country, but I guess many of you still think that your vote and mainstream candidate will somehow work out.  As if the political stories being told about RP or the election in general are any more true than the BS we are told about Libya.  Wake up already, people!  It's all propaganda.

whstlblwr's picture

Georgia Peach?! OMG, that's funny, she is bat shit crazy. You SHOULD stay home and not vote, LOL!!

i-dog's picture

"it's pretty pathetic how I've been down-rated so much "

Don't take it personally ... ZH is full of dishonest NWO agents and honest RP 'believers'.

You got my uprates, Chris. I've looked at your blog and I disagree with one of your solutions (protests) and one of your assessments (on Max Keiser), but I believe you have put them forward with full integrity after actually thinking about what you are saying. (In any event, if you ask 100 people to put up solutions, you'll get 80 different answers ... which is why democracy CAN'T work and is certainly not the solution!)

Christophe2's picture

Thanks Bro!  What are some of your preferred ideas to solve this, if not for protests (revolt)?  I am always looking for more things to add to that list of 'WhatToDo' (and I'm open to change).  Also, do you feel that Max is all bad, rather than 'moderately good', or is it that you like him 100%?  I gather it's likely not the later, but I'm curious as to your reasons (maybe it's simply the fact you do not believe in protest?).  Better yet, if you have any other sites you think would be particularly worth highlighting / promoting (and reading myself), I'm curious to know about 'em.

i-dog's picture

I'm against protests because: a) they don't work; and, b) they expose participants to police profiling and violence. They are also easily sabotaged by agents provocateurs and then branded by the media as 'just a bunch of anarchists'.

For example, the US did not pull out of the 20-year Vietnam War in 1973 because of the 1960's protest movements or the 1970 Kent State Massacre, but rather because the US had run out of money and body bags and the globalists were therefore already moving to a new strategy of rapprochement with both Russia and China to build up their military-industrial capabilites in preparation for the de-industrialisation of America and Europe.

Since the globalists rely on merging sovereign states into larger and larger 'unions' (eg. the ever-expanding EU, North American Union, African Union, APEC, and even the 50-state USA itself from an initial 13 states) until they will soon merge the 'unions' into one global government, or New World Order, my strategy is to thwart this by promoting secession of sovereign states back to local representative governments under republican or nationalist ideals. The original American Constitution of 1776 needs to be restored and the 14th Amendment of 1868 (which overturned the principles of the 1776 Constitution and effectively rescinded it) needs to be repealed. This can only be achieved by political activism at the county and state levels in the US, and in the national parliaments in the EU. Protests (begging the overseers) will not achieve anything and you will encounter more resistance from your fellow serfs than you will from your overseers ... "hush now, lest the master hears you!".

As for Max: I believe that Stacy is a naive Marxist and that Max is a confirmed statist and armchair socialist. As to whether they are witting or unwitting tools of the NWO, I'm undecided ... but Max is certainly pushing the NWO's AGW Tax-On-Breathing and is claiming that the 'Arab Spring' is a 'people-power' movement (it was actually an obvious NWO strategy to remove Mubarak and Ben Ali before going into Libya unopposed by Egypt and Tunisia, and then to remove Assad from Syria before going after Iran). One of the globalists' objectives in MENA is to remove all Shi'ite rulers and influence from Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As for recommending other sites: I don't have any recommendations. I use ZH as a primary source through insightful comments and occasional interesting links by commenters that lead me to explore new paths down the rabbit hole, but I find that nearly every alternative site has a disinformation component and that they all must be read with brain fully engaged to sort the wheat from the chaff. Disinformation and fear-mongering are everywhere! (eg. Alex Jones has the most comprehensive anti-globalist analyses, but he is also a knowing tool of the Luciferians and deliberately keeps the fear meter on 10).

Christophe2's picture

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, i-dog.  I think we are mostly on the same page (if I can be so presumptuous), as if you consider the details of how I propose we protest/revolt, you will see that I explicitly argue against protesting 'hard' and getting all beat up: things will only change (IMO) if we can get numbers so vast (eg: 50% population) that it becomes impossible to contain or deny.  This is not a question of asking/begging for change from abusive power-addicts and professional liars: it's about making fundamental change undeniable (eg: no more members of secret societies elected to office or working for government, no more backroom deals deciding things, when the internet makes it possible for everything to be publicly available).  Based on my program, people should be spending 99% of their time spreading the truth and the reasons for revolt, and 1% meeting up to validate progress, until critical mass is achieved.


Also, I think that the police profiling you mention is already occuring through the internet and that all our actions online are monitored to such a degree that just visiting sites like ZH probably makes you a part of the dreaded 'red list'.  I don't doubt they have details of most online activity (esp. posts and opinions) for each and every citizen - a database with a few hundred million entries is small potatoes, nowadays.  Furthermore, when the well stated plan is for a 92% reduction in world population and world-government totalitarianism, people who hide and survive will end up with a worse fate than those who fight and (maybe) perish.  I will live free or die - there are no two ways about it!


Incidentally, by some accounts the war in Vietnam was mainly for the oil nearby (forget which sea), with our airforce spending the entire duration of the war dropping bombs into said sea in an early form of echo-mapping to determine the detailed whereabouts of all that oil.  The war ended once they were done with that work (certainly not due to the protests, which were indeed ineffective), and once Vietnam started taking bids for oil extraction a few years later, the US companies 'miraculously' ended up picking all the good plots.  That being said, the one thing that makes me think that widespread revolt is possible today is a) the internet and alternative news sources and b) the fact that everyone is seeing their finances and job prospects obliterated on purpose by our elites.


In any case, I don't know if my suggested course of action is truly old-style protest (which I agree is basically pointless) - it's rather a question of forcing the question of popular will regardless of all their efforts to subvert it.  As this video on the vote fraud machines makes clear ( ), regular voting and political activism cannot achieve anything anymore, so I don't see how your secessionist movement (which I wholly support) can work without open revolt.


Regarding the secessionist movement you propose, I think we are on the same page regarding my 'protest in every city and town', and in particular it is easiest to organize and succeed with revolt at smaller dimensions than at larger ones.  Small communities have the best (only?) odds at succeeding (eg: Iceland), and any success they have would serve as momentum for the rest...


Regarding Max Keiser, I agree with everything you said and will be updating my site with the other reasons you mention for doubting him (eg: the fake 'Arab Spring').  I still feel that there is benefit to MK, since he keeps the focus on the criminal banksters and presents things in a popular format, but this recent interview with PCR was telling ( ) - Max was very quick to interrupt PCR and state unequivocally that protest in the US (his main market) is impossible...  Isn't he supposed to be all about GIABO?


In any case, you've given me much food for thought and I will spend some time fine tuning the text on my website.  Thanks again!

proteus's picture

i checked out your page - its pretty good.  special props for mentioning Alan Watt he is indeed excellent.  i am mostly active on youtube now because that's where it is easiest to reach people - visit my channel at

LedMizer's picture

And if not Dr. Paul I sure would like to see Jim DeMint run.