Con_Alma;1097299 wrote:He's leading the polls by delivering a message that resonates with the people. There's a bit of a snap back to social conservatism in our culture. It's interesting to watch.

What's more interesting is seeing people get irritated and frustrated by the message of a guy who won't even be nominated.

Maybe they should read Presidential Candidate Rocky Anderson's platform to calm their heart rate down a bit.

believer;1097300 wrote:Exactly. It's almost comical to watch the MSM and the lefties (redundant?) foam at the mouth over this stuff.

I Wear Pants;1097627 wrote:If you support our current and recent past military exploits then you support exactly what I said. It makes us less safe. It isn't "fighting our battles abroad" or something making us more safe. The options aren't A: Fight them here or B: Fight them there.

I Wear Pants;1097638 wrote:Santorum is winning primaries and polls, it isn't ridiculous to think he could be nominated. And it's interesting that you think bigotry and unconstitutional thinking is a message that resonates with people.

...

I Wear Pants;1097629 wrote:You really think that we can sustain our current level of absurd military spending and that we should do so?

Talk about being wrong.

Also..."we don't have to be in danger to have a proactive military". Please expand on that.

Con_Alma;1097665 wrote:We can sustain our military spending if we reduced social spending.

We participate in many things proactively when we are not in immenant danger. We support allies and are wiling to take action to prevent future threats and dangers along with "unjusts" in the world.

I Wear Pants;1097673 wrote:That policy results in more Americans being killed Con_Alma.

Con_Alma;1097676 wrote:You don't know that. Because some Americans are killed with such a policy doesn't mean less would be with another.

pmoney25;1097607 wrote:Your point would be more valid if Paul just wanted to cut defense spending and not cut all. He Has plans to reform ss.

QuakerOats;1097873 wrote:Actually, defense spending is about the only type of spending the federal government should be engaged in. And unfortunately, it has not been defense spending that has led to the multi-trillion deficits of the last few years, as we all know.

jhay78;1097838 wrote:I believe you. Yet when I hear/see Ron Paul speak at debates and such, he gets very animated and his voice changes a pitch or two when talking about our military invading/occupying sovereign nations and our endless wars and blowback and how the primary cause of violent actions against America is America itself.

While there are indeed consequences for American policies, and rational ways to talk about them, Ron Paul seems to focus entirely on the "America itself" part of the equation (along with tinkering on the edges of one conspiracy after another) and no mention of any radical ideology motivating these attacks.

To me those things seem to inspire Ron Paul more so than dealing with runaway entitlements, or even Obamacare specifically. As a former OB I would think he would be pretty animated about Obamacare and its mandates.

sjmvsfscs08;1097313 wrote:True, but things like Social Security have been a huge success. One of the things that really gets at me is how people seem to say sometimes, to paraphrase, "well it's not in the Constitution, so the Founding Fathers would have hated that idea." How are we to know that the Founding Fathers (who disagreed vehemently with eachother) would be against a program that would bring tens of millions of elderly out of poverty and thus improve the lives of almost everyone (because the families aren't spending their wherewithal keeping Pops and Grams alive, they are increasing their own standard of living at the same time).

I mean, for me personally, it's really hard to take the word of the Founding Fathers as omniscient gospel when they lived back in the day when "nearly universal poverty" was accepted as fact by every government, philosopher, and religion on the globe. You cannot say with 100% certainty, and maybe you aren't and I'm just ranting to rant and not necessarily against anything you're saying, that the Founding Fathers would be against a social safety net program and specifically something like Social Security.

The big issue with Social Security, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a natural law of population and economics is that the rate of population increase will decrease and that spells disaster for Social Security if it's not reformed. Orrrr, we let the Mexicans in. GASP!



Yeah....huh???

Isn't that sort of assuming that our country is in danger? I mean we literally cannot be invaded, we are the only Naval power in the world. No one can cross the oceans without us letting them do so, in a sense. We could stop any attempt to cross the Pacific or Atlantic, any attempt. We are also the only military that can move an actual army over land too, no one else has the logistics to move an invading force very far. We live in a world where the United States, and the United States alone, is the only country in the world than can move any military muscle by sea, land, or air. It's like playing chess against someone else, but you have an entire set of queens and they have an entire set of pawns. That's the current scenario.

Now many you're talking on a purely philosophical level, the protection of the country is more important than that welfare programs. True. 100% true. Butttttt, when we are the only Naval and Air Force power in the world, and account for >50% of the world's military spending....don't you think it's a bit much?

Facts are we can trim down the military sooooooo much and still be just as safe.

Footwedge;1097972 wrote:Bingo! Please step forward and claim your prize. The pro imperialism crowd just got shalalied.

Con_Alma;1097665 wrote:We can sustain our military spending if we eliminate social spending.

gut;1098034 wrote:I agree, we could halve the military spending and still outspend #'s 2-5 COMBINED.

However, that's still going to leave us with @ a $1T deficit. We might get $300B, possibly $400B, from raising taxes, but we'll never get to a balanced budget without cutting SS and Medicare. Never. Now if and when the economy and hiring fully recovers, maybe we get another $300B in revenues from that. But at the end of the day you are stlll staring at at least $300B in entitlement reforms to balance the budget, more if you only cut military 30-40%.

Hell, I question if there isn't easily 20% of fat/inefficiency in that military budget to begin with. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if that isn't par for the course across all discretionary spending, but the military budget in particular has been fatter and subject to far less belt "tightening" (read: slower rates of increase).

When you don't hold people to flat or *GASP* reduced budgets then the fat and inefficiency tends to just grow. You'll not convince me cutting military 20% over 4 years will mean any real sacrifice (i.e. reduced capability or quality). It's clearly not $ for $, maybe we'd cut spending 50% over a period of years but lose only 30% of the benefit.

I Wear Pants;1097703 wrote:You think it's likely that without going into Iraq more than 4500 Americans would have been killed and 32000 wounded? Because I don't.

I Wear Pants;1097938 wrote:Maybe it's because our current policy of permanent war doesn't just not make fiscal sense, it kills thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of other people around the world. If that doesn't get you worked up I don't know what to tell you.

Footwedge;1098060 wrote:American intelligence agencies all concur that invading Iraq has made the US less safe..

Con_Alma;1098781 wrote:Those soldiers deaths save American lives. That's why it's done. May God Bless them, everyone of them.

Con_Alma;1098780 wrote:More could have been killed. We could still be defending the stinging from the attack of innocent people who died here at home.

There's no way to know. Its not one military action that makes up the deterrent. It's the decades of fearless invasions that make it clear we will not be threatened. Going into Iraq alone does not reduce the number of potential American deaths. Flexing the military might routinely does.

IggyPride00;1098710 wrote:Liberal websites are running what they refer to as "Operation Hiliarity" in which they are going to vote in the open Michigan primary for Santorum as a means of sabotaging Willard. It is a take off on operation chaos from Limbaugh in 2008.

The interesting thing is that Michigan is seen as being so close right now if enough liberals vote in the Republican primary it could well swing the difference towards Santorum.

In the poll, Obama lags the two leading Republican rivals in the 12 states likely to determine the outcome of a close race in November:

•Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum tops Obama 50%-45% in the swing states. Nationwide, Santorum's lead narrows to 49%-46%.

•Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney edges Obama 48%-46% in the swing states. Nationwide, they are tied at 47% each.

Romney also has a health care problem: Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in the battleground states, 27% say they are less likely to support him because he signed a Massachusetts law that required residents to have coverage. Just 7% say it makes them more likely to back him.