FACT CHECK

The debate today I notice has a long delay of asking Ron Paul anything at all. We find the coverage of this debate to be very biased without giving equal time to all the candidates. I am sorry you feel that Dr. Paul doesn’t have the chance to fit your bill of credibility. AND STOP CUTTING DR. PAUL OFF BEFORE HE FINISHES HIS TALKING. HE IS THE ONLY ONE YOU HAVE DONE THAT TO CONSISTANTLY.

As always, the candidates did a very good job in displaying their direction and consultation. However, typical liberal media hosts cause the Republican candidates to have to answer from a slanted position majority of the time. When they make liberal remarks, there should be no recourse from the hosts whatsoever. This is a true sign that the hosts are liberal. Good job to all and it is a run between Thompson, Rudy, and Romney.

As a registered independent, and someone who knows the truth of the corrupt control infested at the highest levels of both major “parties”, and the truth that almost all candidates are willingly beholden to those financial interests who exert said control, I am thankful and proud to know that there is one candidate who supports the truth, and who won’t deflect/obfuscate with lies and BS about the fake “global war on terror” and what is REALLY going on in Iraq. Sorry to all the other candidates up there, including Fred Thompson who is not. Thank you from the bottom of my heart to the honorable Ron Paul, a true Statesman and hero, and one of the last true defenders of Constitutional principles of Liberty and Justice.

As a Democrat, I’m not surprised at the blatant inaccuracies spouted by nearly ALL of the candidates-whith the one exception being Ron Paul. Fortunately Americans are smart enough to see through the usual “framing” tactics employed by the other candidates.

Ron Paul’s comment about now trading with Vietnam because we left in 1975 totally misses the point. The Jihadists and other militant Islamists are against Western Civilization and modernity, not just Capitalism. If we left Iraq without finishing the job, it would just confirm Osama bin Laden’s theory that we are a paper tiger and harden their resolve to resurrect and expand their caliphate. And you can bet that any trading with a Jihadist Iraq would not start anytime soon.

What does “jihadist” Iraq mean? We wouldn’t trade with them? wtf? Can anyone think of any radical and/or militant states that we trade with, ’cause I can only think of about 30…
Oil doesn’t do you much good, whether you’re a democratic govt or a “jihadist” one, unless you can *sell it to someone.

Paul was WRONG on the war he seems out of touch with the war at hand.Thompson made a great point- Ihope the democrats really heard when he talked of sending our soldiers in with one arm tied behind their backs HOW TRUE, I iked a lot of what Romney says but -he’s just too smooth, is he honest? I want to hear more from Hunter, Huckabee and Tomacero-Idon’t have their names spelled correct but I hope to know them better-I like what they say about the war -our soldiers -and our southern boarder.I hope to get a better understanding of the tax solutions they discussed too.Too bad the media distorts most the info -it is confusing enough with out their bias representaion.

noooo one was asked about the outrageous prices we pay for fuel which are higher than they should be because of the political and religious problems of the Middle East. Nobody except Huckabee, who did say we were too dependent on the region for our petroleum needs. Next time the political candidates of either party meets to debate, the issue of our dependence on oil imports from the Persian/Arabian Gulf Countries who are all members of the price-fixing Oil Cartel called OPEC. OPEC was formed in the 1970′s and the US Gov’t has done nothing to end their price-fixing activities.

I cannot wait until the “mainstream media” is something children learn about in history books. Specifically, how they help define and limit the debates to keep corporate interests above the peoples interest.
Thanks God for the internet – slicing right through that power structure.
Go Ron Paul!!!!

GEORGE:
GREAT DEBATE AMONGST ALL RHE CANDIDATES! BUT WAIT, 90 MINUTES OF PROGAMMING AND ONLY 11 MINUTES COMMERCIAL BREAKS, WHAT, SOMETHING WRONG AT ABC ?
DEBATE: 10:00 TO 10:55 CST.
COMMERCIAL 10:55 TO 11:OO CST.
DEBATE : 11:00 TO 11:24 CST.
COMMERCIAL 11:24 TO 11:30 CST.
ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE TELEVISION !
SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN SEEN FOR A LONG, LONG TIME !
GEORGE, HAVE YOU AND YOUR BIG SHOT CRONIES FINALLY COME TO YOUR SENSES,AND REALIZED THAT ALL THESE 9 AND 10 MINUTE SEGMENTS ARE JUST ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
YOU CAN NEVER FINISH A TRAIN OF THOUGHT WITH YOUR GUESTS.
YES, OF COURSE THE BILLS NEED TO BE PAID AND YOU GUYS NEED TO HAVE YOUR COMMERCIALS, MAYBE RENAMED ” HUGE PROFIT BREAKS ”
IN YOUR NORMAL SUNDAY THIS WEEK PROGRAM YOU HAVE THESE CONSTANT AGGRAVATING, ANNOYING PROFIT BREAKS,WHERE YOU ONLY HAVE 44 MINUTES OF ACTUAL PROGAMMING AT THE MOST, IF ANY.
BY THE THE WAY, YOUR USUAL HYPE OF THIS WEEK’S VOICES SEGMENT, CAN BE A LITTLE LONGER THAN JUST 30 SECONDS TO MAKE IT MORE INTERESTING. MAYBE IN THE FUTURE YOU CAN MAKE IT AT LEAST 2 MINUTES IF YOU AND THE POWERS TO BE CAN SPARE THAT.
MAYBE WITH THIS INTERESTING EXPERIMENT TODAY YOU CAN SUGGEST TO THE POWERS TO BE IN THEIR IVORY CASTLE IN THE BIG APPLE TO KEEP ALL YOUR SO-CALLED PROFIT BREAKS AT THE END OF YOUR THIS WEEK PROGRAM RIGHT AFTER THE FUNNIES.
I’M SURE I SPEAK FOR MANY TV WATCHERS OUT THERE IN TV LAND WHO WILL AGREE WITH ME ON THIS ANNOYING SUBJECT.
THIS IS JUST MY OBSERVATION TODAY WITH A WELL ORGANIZED AND INFORMATIVE DEBATE BY ALL THE CANDIDATES AND YOU AS THE USUAL INTERRUPTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SENTENCES MODERATOR.
YOU HAVE A KNACK GEORGE, JUST TO INTERRUPT A CANDIDATE AT THE MOST CRUCIAL AND INTERESTING PART OF HIS RESPONSE AND NOT TO LET THEM FINISH, AND THEN GO ON TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE ALTOGETHER.
SHAME ON YOU GEORGE, IF YOU DO NOT CORRECT THIS ANNOYING TACTIC, BUT….. THAT MUST BE A TELEVISION TACTIC, BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE INTERVIEWING TV BUSINESS DOES IT ALSO, IN ADDITION TO CUTTING PEOPLE OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSTING CONVERSATION LIKE YOUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE ELIZABETH “QUICKLY NOW” VARGAS.
I’VE WATCHED YOUR PROGRAM NOW PRETTY MUCH EACH WEEK, EVER SINCE YOU TOOK OVER FROM COKIE AND SAM, THAT IS TO SAY IF I AM HOME, AND I AM CONSTANTLY AMAZED !
AND I WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP WATCHING, BUT PLEASE INSTITUTE SOME CHANGES ! WHICH WILL BE WELL RECEIVED BY ALL AND THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC I THINK.
HAVE A PROFITABLE WEEK.

Unfair and Unbalanced – It doesn’t matter, many of us are already awake and can smell the “BALONEY” frying. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who understands that the United States was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. This country is supposed to be founded on the rule of law with the United States Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land. But Congress and the Executive branch have been playing footsie with each other for so long that the system of checks and balances the Founders strove to insure has been decimated. Whatever happened to the oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”?

ABC News is running a story on this website that claims that Mitt somebody has pulled ahead of his rivals. Yet when I check the total to this minute, RON PAUL has SIX times as many votes as Mitt Romney. It’s so obvious that ABC News is trying to brainwash the American public into ignoring this FIRST TIER candidate. How can the American public ever trust any of the main stream media after this happening in all the debates so far this year? Ron Paul was voted the winner in two of the past three debates, and came in second in the third debate. This is the time to put out the truth in large headlines that RON PAUL won the on-line poll and is now America’s favorite Republican presidental canidate!

Look, I agree that Ron Paul would be a good candidate if he got some face time, though I am a Mitt Romney supporter first. However, I think it’s ridiculous to read all these posts insisting that “Ron Paul was voted the winner in two of the past three debates” and that he’s the clear winner.
Learn some basic statistics. This is not a “scientific study”, as the ABC disclaimer points out, and the key reason for this is that there is no way to gauge who is voting. If the only people voting are the large internet-population of Ron Paul supporters, then of COURSE he’s going to win .. ONLINE. That doesn’t mean that the same holds true for those who actually attended the debate (a wider cross-section of “voters”) or all those who viewed the debate on television, but are not rushing to the internet to cast their vote.
If you support Ron Paul, and want him to get face time, start campaigning for him somewhere besides the internet– it’s clear that he’s got plenty of internet support. If you want him to get ahead in this race, he’ll need some real-life support which will get his name out there, and then the MSM will be forced to cover him because the “public” will demand it.
Simple logic, people. It’s just like the straw polls.. just because you can get all your friends to come and vote for you, doesn’t mean that you’re really the top pick across a wider margin of people.

Where is the full transcript of the debate? Why isn’t there a prominent link to it on this web page? CNN had the decency to post a full transcript when they hosted the YouTube debate.

Yes, Eric, my “dream,” too, and one all of us should be pushing to make a reality for the sake of our democracy, and help us restore our form of government to the representative republic the Constitution was designed to function within. I think we are at that crisis point, in this 217-year-old experimental form of government, that George Mason warned his fellow framer’s about, and the experiment can still fail. Not informing or mis-informing the voters, or confusing them to the point they feel utterly powerless is an effort to discourage their participation in their own government. It is a subtle and subversive form of tyranny, and as Mason fought for the inclusion of what we have come to know as the Bill of Rights (the almost simultaneous amending to a Constitution that was much contested and narrowly ratified), you must protect the people’s right to be informed and guard their right to speak out against those who will always seek to impose their advantage of position and power over them. “Live Free or Die” was not just a slogan hurled at King George’s men, but at those in Philadelphia as well.
The purpose of DEBATE is to “debunk” the opponent; it’s a classical form, as is rhetoric, and true debate and rhetoric attempt to persuade you through reason to see a new perspective on truth. It most certainly is not just another photo op or venue for self-promotion through uncontested sophisms and carnival hawkings. Perhaps all self-respecting journalists will at least have the commercial interests that sponsor them entertain the possibility that they are facilitating and contributing to the “dumbing down” of America every time they refer to these presentations as DEBATES. Embrace the form as it was intended, making the issue the argument, not the candidate or would-be arguer. Arguments that descend into the fallaciousness of “ad hominem” have already lost their point.