IggyPride00;1057548 wrote:Do Rove and company not realize that allowing Willard to win the primary is basically ensuring 4 more years of BHO?
And THIS is why I will not vote for Romney in the general election. A vote for Obama is a vote for Romney, and a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. They're both content with a large central government with widely stretching power. They both seem intent on policing other nations if we don't like what they do (regardless of whether or not what they do is an attack on our safety). They both were in support of NDAA. They both have a track record of supporting a government-funded healthcare system.
Essentially this: Obama + big business connections + more general competence at accomplishing his goal = Romney
Which of the two do you prefer: an overweight burglar with vertigo and clubbed feet, or an in-shape burglar with incredible balance and the ability to be silent while committing his crimes?
Or do you not care and just vote for whoever has the "R" or the "D" next to their names?
Cleveland Buck;1057720 wrote:You won't see it on Fox News, but Ron Paul introduced legislation today to repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process of law and effectively repeals the 5th and 6th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?Itemid=1&catid=16%3Aspeeches&id=1941%3Astatement-introducing-repeal-of-sec-1021-of-national-defense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2012&option=com_content&view=article
You'll see it. I guarantee it will be on. He's too involved in the primaries as a legitimate contender to not involve it. However, I doubt it gets substantial airtime.
I'm curious how active the other candidates are in their current roles during all this? I mean, it's obvious Paul is still working as a Congressman, bringing legislation before the floor that would restore some freedom to citizens of the US that were taken away around New Year's. Are the others still playing as active a part in their positions (Newt notwithstanding)? I'm genuinely curious, as I don't know.
If anything, I think our failure to communicate is representative of how difficult it can be to hash these topics out at any level. No worries. As long as we maintain cool heads and try to explain ourselves as clearly as possible, we should at least come to an understanding of one another.BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote:This is really quite simple, but I'm failing somewhere!
Eureka! I now understand what you mean!BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote: The discussion was regarding costs to protect US vessels and no others. In terms of costs alone, if we are engaged in a "show of force" or protection of US vessels only in the Middle Eastern seas, then it doesn't cost any more to provide the same "show of force" or protection for other nations using the seas. Why you aks? Because we are already there protecting our own (and accountants don't swim well)! In other words, if we are there expending capital on sailors, submarines, drones, diesel, electricity, gasoline, uniforms, or whatever costs it takes to perform this task, then if other nations utilize our "show of force" while we are there, THEN there is no additional costs whatsoever to protect them vis-a-vis US vessels ONLY.
The presence may not cost us any more, provided that multiple ships aren't being attacked at once. The ACTION, however, could. It does cost money to engage in battle. The weapons, ammunition, and vessels that are used (or replaced, as the case may be) cost money, and that doesn't take the risk of losing the lives of American soldiers into account, either. I know you know all this, of course. I don't mean to explain that so as to insult your intelligence. Just stating the facts as they are.
If a foreign vessel is attacked there, and we save their vessel, that costs us money to replace the ammo, weaponry, and any damaged vessels of our own, and could cost us American lives as well ... lives of people who have been trained to protect OUR people and OUR nation.
Now, if these other countries want military protection, I'm sure they could bring their own military to keep them safe. Or, if they don't have such a Navy, they could pay a soldier-for-hire company to keep them safe. Granted, that would cost THEM money ... but why is that a bad thing?
Until we use that protection to actively protect them.BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote: Another viewpoint: If we are to maintain a presence in the Middle Eastern seas, then we expending taxpayer dollars. The fact that other "friendly" nations are in the same seas as us utilizing our protection does not add any costs.
If we're over there to look mean and scary in an attempt for Iran to leave everyone the hell alone, fine. But that's not why we have active military over there, I don't think. It's to be there in case we need to USE them, and USING them incurs additional cost.
Presence never protects anyone. Actions do. I could have Chuck Norris standing watch at my front door, but if someone breaks in, and he doesn't round kick them in the face, his presence has accomplished nothing.BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote:There are many on here that say we shouldn't provide for other country's defenses and all I'm saying is that in this instance, the line cannot be drawn as our presence protects everyone.
Here it is, in a nutshell: Other sovereign entities are allowed to do whatever they want until it is confirmed that they either have already harmed us, or if our action prevents the would-be attack DIRECTLY.BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote: Back to my main point regarding "non-interventionalism": If I (and millions of others) don't understand it, then it is indeed up to Dr. Paul to explain it!
In some ways, he has already shown it by voting to enter Afghanistan to take out Bin Laden. Now, he's upset, because that's not what we're doing there. We're rebuilding a nation.
That's not our responsibility. Our responsibility was to kill the specific group of people who attacked us. That would be Al-Qaeda. Not Afghanistan as a whole. Not Iraq. Not Pakistan. Not even the Taliban.
To use an analogy, assume we live in a country with no law (I say this to mean that every man is autonomous, and is responsible to no governing body ... just like two autonomous nation states - the U. S. and Iran, for example). However, I have a house rule that everyone in my house, including myself, has to follow. My rule says that I can protect my family. If Ronald McDonald (because that guy creeps me out) came to my house and killed my son, I could (and should) go kill him and anyone he plotted with. That rule also allows me to kill the creepy clown if I catch him in the ACT of trying to kill my son.
It does NOT allow me to kill his son because I have strong cause to believe that he will raise his son to try to kill me, and his son has a gun.
He and his family may hate me. He may perpetuate that hate for generations. He, his family, and the subsequent generations may also own guns. But until they ACT on a threat to my safety, I don't kill them.
Damn, what a morbid analogy. Murder and clowns.
It's his view of what is "necessary" that is the distinction. I'm convinced the former Salamander of the House would give the nod for military action against a nation that says they wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire. "Necessary" is subjective, so determining that it means only the strictest sense of what is in the Constitution ("defense") is to ensure that the Commander-in-Chief does not overstep his bounds.BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote:The fact that CB says we should remain in the Middle East to protect Americans is, in fact, intervening in my opinion. For Dr. Paul to tell us he's for non-interventionalism and then profess to intervene where he sees fit does not hold water with his definition of non-interventionalism! He's playing games with words, and would thus, be unpredictable in the future. I get the distinct impression that he believes in not intervening unless he thinks it necessary ... which means he's just like all the others!! More importantly, I can't tell what his policy is as he sends confusing signals as I've described above and he wants to be Commander-In-Chief. To me, this is both scary and dangerous.
Be friends with anyone who is willing. Be cordial and respectful of nations who are not willing to be friendly, but also don't attack us. Be a complete son-of-a-bitch to anyone who does try to attack us.
