I Wear Pants;924647 wrote:And guess who would love that? People that have tons of holdings in precious metals. Oh hi there Ron Paul.

[h=1]Romney: century of American dominance ahead[/h]By Steve Peoples and Bruce Smith
Associated Press / October 7, 2011

CHARLESTON, S.C.—Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is calling for a century of American dominance in his first major foreign policy address, outlining plans to strengthen the U.S. military while rejecting multilateral institutions like the United Nations when necessary.

The former Massachusetts governor also condemns the isolationist policies supported by some tea party members in a speech to be delivered Friday at The Citadel, South Carolina's iconic military college.

"This is America's moment. We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert America's moment has passed. That is utter nonsense," Romney says in prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press.

The leading GOP presidential contender offers no clear direction for the war in Afghanistan, but says he would conduct a full review of the situation in his first 100 days in office to determine "the presence necessary to secure our gains and successfully complete our mission."

"This century must be an American century. In an American century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world," Romney says. "God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will."

While he served as a Mormon missionary in France more than four decades ago, Romney has limited foreign policy experience. As he says in nearly every campaign stop, he has spent the majority of his life in the business world. But Romney has been critical of President Barack Obama's foreign policy, particularly the president's aggressive timeline to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

At a campaign stop in Mount Pleasant on Thursday, Romney previewed some of the themes for Friday's speech. He called for 100,000 new troops, increased military spending and a larger Navy.

"You would think that the president and the people in Washington would recognize the importance of the United States military and the need not to shrink our military budget but strengthen it," Romney told veterans on the hangar deck of the World War II-era aircraft carrier USS Yorktown.

The former governor acknowledged waste in defense spending and "my life in the private sector taught me to go after waste and economize, and there is an opportunity to do that." But he said he wouldn't, as European nations have done, reduce defense to bolster social programs.

Romney also released the names of 22 advisers he will consult on foreign policy issues.

The Citadel speech comes three days before his rival Jon Huntsman, the former ambassador to China, delivers a foreign policy address of his own. And it comes as Romney has jumped back into the lead in national polling following Texas Gov. Rick Perry meteoric rise and fall in recent weeks. The location of the speech, in the early voting state of South Carolina, is of course no coincidence.

Romney calls for working with the United Nations when appropriate.

"But know this," he says. "While America should work with other nations, we always reserve the right to act alone to protect our vital national interests."

Cleveland Buck;925019 wrote:http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/10/07/romney_god_wants_us_to_lead_not_follow/

Yeah, you all have fun voting for clowns like this. What we need right now is more spending, not less, more wars, not less. He sounds like Hitler talking about the "American century". How is this guy different from Obama?

The former governor acknowledged waste in defense spending and "my life in the private sector taught me to go after waste and economize, and there is an opportunity to do that." But he said he wouldn't, as European nations have done, reduce defense to bolster social programs

majorspark;925394 wrote:The only person on this sight excited about Romney is Boatshoes.

I realize that I have been wrong in arguing that we need to vote for Ron Paul to save America: the United States died with the killing of an American without due process. We are now voting for Ron Paul on the off-chance that we can bring America back from the dead.


I was also wrong in suggesting that true Liberals should prefer Paul over Obama: after this presidentially ordered killing, the truth is that anyone who votes for Obama -- for any "establishment candidate" at all -- will in that act alone prove themselves not to be liberal by any reasonable definition.


No person who accepts the killing of an American citizen without due process, based on the assessment of the executive branch alone, can call themselves a Liberal. A vote for Obama would be a vote knowingly against the Bill of Rights, and therefore against the very existence of basic human rights in America. It would be the act of a person complicit in putting power in the hands of a man who believes not simply in the value of government intervention, but in the altogether illiberal notion, expressed by Nixon in his famous interview with David Frost, that "if the president does it, it is not illegal."


America was sickened by the arrogance and danger of that sentiment 34 years ago. We should be more sickened now, when there is nothing left that a "terrorist" could take from Americans that our own government has not already taken.

Cleveland Buck;925019 wrote:http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/10/07/romney_god_wants_us_to_lead_not_follow/

Yeah, you all have fun voting for clowns like this. What we need right now is more spending, not less, more wars, not less. He sounds like Hitler talking about the "American century". How is this guy different from Obama?

Footwedge;925603 wrote:Romney just blew any chance he ever had with this nonsense. Neoconitis has been kicked to the curb. It's a shame it took so long...but finally it has been. Just another chickenhawk....who never donned the uniform.

gut;925765 wrote:I refuse to vote for Obama, but Romney appeals to me about as much as GW and McCain.

There's not much I expect (or give a shit anymore) out of Washington....I just want a balanced budget.

believer;925933 wrote:Kind of like you being an anti-military (well, ok, anti-war) neolib who never donned the uniform. But that doesn't stop you from spewing your type of nonsense.

That's what's great about Amerika.

believer;925933 wrote:I'll take a repeal of ObamaKare and no further Federal spending at this point. I doubt we'd see either with a Romney presidency but I'd still take Romney over Obama any day.

O-Trap;926313 wrote:Not that I don't butt heads plenty with Footwedge, and I do certainly think that being in the military adds a valuable perspective to the "what it's like" part of war and the military, but I hope you're not insinuating that unless someone has been in the military, they should have little or no say on the motivations of war or military action

O-Trap;926315 wrote:Honestly, I'm betting it would seem like six in one hand half a dozen in the other.

believer;925933 wrote:. I doubt we'd see either with a Romney presidency but I'd still take Romney over Obama any day.

gut;926765 wrote:I'd simply settle for a POTUS with even an ounce of economic sense.

I will grant much of the fear and trepidation over Obama and his policies in the business community is probably extreme or an overreaction, however justified or not those perceptions are impacting REAL decisions on investment and other business ventures, which makes the uncertainty somewhat self-fulfilling. People who want to dismiss that reality should sit in a few board meetings and be enlightened.

Cleveland Buck;926885 wrote:You aren't going to hear much about it in the media, especially Fox, who seems to have an even more anti-Paul agenda than the liberal outlets, but here are the results of the Value Voters Summit Straw Poll in Washington today:

Cleveland Buck;926885 wrote:You aren't going to hear much about it in the media, especially Fox, who seems to have an even more anti-Paul agenda than the liberal outlets, but here are the results of the Value Voters Summit Straw Poll in Washington today:

Ron Paul – 36.9% (732)
Herman Cain – 22.5% (447)
Rick Santorum – 16.3% (323)
Rick Perry – 8.4% (167)
Michele Bachmann – 7.9% (157)
Mitt Romney – 4.4% (88)
Newt Gingrich – 2.7% (54)
Undecided – 0.7% (13)
Jon Huntsman – 0.1% (2)

When Cain won a small straw poll in Florida he had nonstop coverage for the whole weekend, but you aren't going to see much of anything about this one.

Cleveland Buck;926885 wrote:You aren't going to hear much about it in the media, especially Fox, who seems to have an even more anti-Paul agenda than the liberal outlets, but here are the results of the Value Voters Summit Straw Poll in Washington today:

Ron Paul – 36.9% (732)
Herman Cain – 22.5% (447)
Rick Santorum – 16.3% (323)
Rick Perry – 8.4% (167)
Michele Bachmann – 7.9% (157)
Mitt Romney – 4.4% (88)
Newt Gingrich – 2.7% (54)
Undecided – 0.7% (13)
Jon Huntsman – 0.1% (2)

When Cain won a small straw poll in Florida he had nonstop coverage for the whole weekend, but you aren't going to see much of anything about this one.

ralphus33;927131 wrote:The Florida straw poll was more of an official straw poll and followed a debate in Florida. It seems there are a couple of straw polls every weekend, which really are meaningless. I'll see your meaningless straw poll results with another:

Oct. 8 - Midwest Leadership Conference Republican Presidential Straw Poll (from Minnesota)
1. Herman Cain (52.6%)
2. Michelle Bachman (12.2%)
3. Mitt Romney (11.1%)
4. Ron Paul (10.7%)
5. Rick Perry (4.0%)
6. Newt Gingrich (3.3%)
7. Rick Santorum (2.2%)
8. John Huntsman (.9%)
9. Gary Johnson (.2%)