O-Trap;930234 wrote:That's fair, but the action still needs to be "for the common defense" and not "for the economic convenience" or "for the spread of a style of government." I agree with you, though.

That is pretty much what I am saying. I could have worded a few things better. My point was congress does have the power to declare war without an actual physical attack occuring against our nation. Those situations would be extreme economic conditions to the point that it threatens our ability to maintain a common defense. That point may have some gray areas as it is neared. Congress in the end decides when it has been crossed.

As for the current wars I have always argued that we should have went with an official declaration of war. Like a declaring a state of emergency, a declared state of war allow the government to conduct itself outside of the rules of due process we hold under the constitution in dealing with the declare enemy. I would also note (although in my opinion politically weak and not the language I believe the framers intended) when congress declares that the president has their authority to attack a nation militarily knowing damn well he will use force, is a de facto declaration of war.

Now that said we have not had the results we had the most stellar results in these "de facto wars" yet clear victory in "formally declared wars." Words do have meaning. A formall declaration of war is a very solemn event when you listen to FDR's declaration of war speech to congress it literaly send a shiver up your spine.

Con_Alma;930280 wrote:..certainly not those natural disaster efforts they assist in afterwards.

Indeed.

Con_Alma;930284 wrote:Yeah, they finally came to their senses and got rid of that title. Imagine the public outcry every time it was reported that the Pres was consulting with his Secretary of War!

I'm betting fewer countries would be pissing us off.

"In other news, just days after the Iranian president executed Youcef Nadarkhani, the president has a private meeting with his Secretary of War, Chuck Norris.

OneBuckeye;930285 wrote:Quick poll... Who are you in favor of for the nomination and why? (Please note if your party affiliation if any)

A tick random and off-topic, don't you think?

Barack W. Bush and company are beating the drums for another one. We hatched some cockamamie plot that Iran was going to assassinate some Saudi ambassador. Have to get public opinion high enough before we start the invasion. We might as well colonize the rest of the Middle East while we're at it.

O-Trap;930302 wrote:Indeed.



I'm betting fewer countries would be pissing us off.

"In other news, just days after the Iranian president executed Youcef Nadarkhani, the president has a private meeting with his Secretary of War, Chuck Norris.



A tick random and off-topic, don't you think?

Given the title of the thread and not wanting to read 64 pages of crap and trying to save duplicate thread, I think it was appropriate.

"Who's your favorite candidate?" is way off the topic of "Republican candidates for 2012". Just sayin'.

In other news, one RINO endorsing another RINO:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/11/christie-to-endorse-romney-for-president/

I hesitate to do this now, but my thoughts on the candidates are:

1. Perry- I find myself agreeing with his ideology and his philosophy of what government's role should be. I like the fact that he has executive experience, which gives him my vote over some others here. I don't agree with everything he did as governor, but then again, if some of these other people (read: Ron Paul) served as guv for 10 years or so, they might have more of a record to criticize.

Need to see more from him in the debates.

2. Gingrich- IMO the smartest guy out there. A little too much baggage for me, plus he shot himself in the foot criticizing Paul Ryan's Medicare plan. Other than that he's solid.

3. Bachmann- Haven't seen anyone on here speaking favorably of her, but I think she's a solid conservative. I like her stands on some issues that haven't always been popular. She got behind the Tea Party early. As a male with a mom, a wife, and three daughters, I have an instinct to protect and shield females from abuse and harm, both physical and otherwise, and I cringe at seeing that woman (much like Palin was) get trashed by leftists in the media and popular culture. Other than that, I'd have no problem with a President Bachmann.

4. Santorum- Again, not a popular guy, but I feel he's done well in the debates. Doesn't have much of a chance, but to me he's solid on important issues.

5. Cain- I like his instincts and philosophy of government. Too inexperienced politically (although some may think that's a plus), but there's a lot to like about him.

6. Paul- Not my favorite, but wouldn't have a problem with him in the general election.

7. Romney- Only if there's no other choice.

Huntsman and the others are irrelevant to me.

There- I've opened myself up to be trashed and ridiculed by all.

As a male with a mom, a wife, and three daughters, I have an instinct to protect and shield females from abuse and harm, both physical and otherwise, and I cringe at seeing that woman (much like Palin was) get trashed by leftists in the media and popular culture.

I hope you realize most women don't want that sort of "protection".

If you look at Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, and Romney, ask yourself what distinguishes them.

How many of them are going to do anything to reform our monetary policy, or even understand why we need to? None.

Ok, how many of them are going to eliminate corporate welfare, subsidies, and the other things that prevent competition? None.

How many are going to cut spending significantly enough to make a real difference (meaning either bringing the troops home or eliminating all entitlements)? None.

How many of them support the erosion of our personal liberties and rights as laid out in Constitution, by either supporting the Patriot Act or assassinations? All of them.

What would be different from now if any of them were president? The deficit would be bigger with some (Romney, Cain) than others (Bachmann), but it wouldn't be anywhere to close to a balanced budget, like now. None of them would hesitate to get us involved in more wars overseas, essentially fast tracking our bankruptcy, so they hold Obama's position here too. Stagflation will continue, money printing will continue as that is the only thing keep our banks and federal government solvent for the time being. I can't think of one thing that would change.

So that eliminates 6 of them from my list. And Huntsman is also irrelevant to me as well.

Cleveland Buck;930458 wrote:If you look at Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, and Romney, ask yourself what distinguishes them.

How many of them are going to do anything to reform our monetary policy, or even understand why we need to? None.

Ok, how many of them are going to eliminate corporate welfare, subsidies, and the other things that prevent competition? None.

How many are going to cut spending significantly enough to make a real difference (meaning either bringing the troops home or eliminating all entitlements)? None.

How many of them support the erosion of our personal liberties and rights as laid out in Constitution, by either supporting the Patriot Act or assassinations? All of them.

What would be different from now if any of them were president? The deficit would be bigger with some (Romney, Cain) than others (Bachmann), but it wouldn't be anywhere to close to a balanced budget, like now. None of them would hesitate to get us involved in more wars overseas, essentially fast tracking our bankruptcy, so they hold Obama's position here too. Stagflation will continue, money printing will continue as that is the only thing keep our banks and federal government solvent for the time being. I can't think of one thing that would change.

So that eliminates 6 of them from my list. And Huntsman is also irrelevant to me as well.

Please don't tell me that you honestly believe Obama will do any of those things and therefore get your vote?

Cleveland Buck;930458 wrote: What would be different from now if any of them were president?

Obama wouldn't be...addition by subtraction.

jmog;930475 wrote:Please don't tell me that you honestly believe Obama will do any of those things and therefore get your vote?

Of course not. Obama is the exact same thing.

Herman Cain sounds good. Paul has as well when he has had a chance to speak. This whole debate has revolved around the 9-9-9 plan. Bachman and Santorum foolishly attack it with idiotic statements. Perry is not looking as bad as the last debate but still looks uneasy. Gingerich has had some good things to say as well. The only thing Huntsman can do is tell a decent joke.

Am I the only one that thinks Gingrich acts like he doesn't really want to do it?

These candidates that are attacking Cain's 9-9-9 plan for adding another avenue of taxation for the federal government, yet it eliminates several others. Payroll taxes employer/employee, death tax, and capital gains taxes. They sound like fools. Plus cuts the bullshit subsidies, tax breaks, the feds use to "encourage" to do their bidding. 9-9-9 plan is simple and replaces the behemoth federal tax code.

The complete Internal Revenue Code is more than 24 megabytes in length, and contains more than 3.4 million words; printed 60 lines to the page, it would fill more than 7500 letter-size pages. The founders would shit. They rebelled against a lot less that this.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/

Paul still hasn't improved on dumbing down his message, but at least they made Cain out to be the fool he is. His answer to every question is 9-9-9 which will never pass Congress anyway. How many poor and middle class Americans are going to clamor for their representatives to increase their taxes and cut taxes on the rich? I was happy they let Dr. Paul make a fool of him with the Greenspan answer too. If enough people see this debate, Cain will be finished.

Cleveland Buck;930753 wrote:Paul still hasn't improved on dumbing down his message, but at least they made Cain out to be the fool he is. His answer to every question is 9-9-9 which will never pass Congress anyway. How many poor and middle class Americans are going to clamor for their representatives to increase their taxes and cut taxes on the rich? I was happy they let Dr. Paul make a fool of him with the Greenspan answer too. If enough people see this debate, Cain will be finished.

I get close to 200 channels and bloomberg isn't one of them, so Goodluck

Cleveland Buck;930753 wrote: His answer to every question is 9-9-9 which will never pass Congress anyway.

If thats the case then neither will any of Ron Pauls proposed changes.

Cleveland Buck;930753 wrote:Paul still hasn't improved on dumbing down his message, but at least they made Cain out to be the fool he is. His answer to every question is 9-9-9 which will never pass Congress anyway. How many poor and middle class Americans are going to clamor for their representatives to increase their taxes and cut taxes on the rich? I was happy they let Dr. Paul make a fool of him with the Greenspan answer too. If enough people see this debate, Cain will be finished.

The pubs are going to have solid majorities in both houses in 2013. They'll pass whatever the GOP POTUS puts in front of them. I can think of about 53% of the country that would go for 9-9-9.

Skyhook79;930764 wrote:If thats the case then neither will any of Ron Pauls proposed changes.

Ron Paul policies stand even less of a chance. I agree that Cain's 9-9-9 plan will be extremely difficult to get through congress but if Cain were elected he would have a very strong mandate. At this point in the campaign his plan is resonating. He is not getting the big donations like Romney and Perry. But people like the simplicity of his plan.

fish82;930771 wrote:The pubs are going to have solid majorities in both houses in 2013. They'll pass whatever the GOP POTUS puts in front of them. I can think of about 53% of the country that would go for 9-9-9.

The 9-9-9 plan raises taxes on the bottom 90% of earners. If 53% of the country supports it, they are idiots, which I suppose isn't out of the question.

Cleveland Buck;930753 wrote:Paul still hasn't improved on dumbing down his message, but at least they made Cain out to be the fool he is. His answer to every question is 9-9-9 which will never pass Congress anyway. How many poor and middle class Americans are going to clamor for their representatives to increase their taxes and cut taxes on the rich?

Lol Cain looked great. How will their taxes increase? With the elimination of payroll taxes and the ability to buy used goods free of the sales tax?

Cleveland Buck;930753 wrote:I was happy they let Dr. Paul make a fool of him with the Greenspan answer too. If enough people see this debate, Cain will be finished.

This was the only time during the debate where Cain did not give a good answer. I would have not excepted the premise of the question and answered none of the above. The next president does not have a chance to end the fed so who cares right?

Cleveland Buck;930781 wrote:The 9-9-9 plan raises taxes on the bottom 90% of earners. If 53% of the country supports it, they are idiots, which I suppose isn't out of the question.

What are you a class warfarist now?

majorspark;930776 wrote:Ron Paul policies stand even less of a chance. I agree that Cain's 9-9-9 plan will be extremely difficult to get through congress but if Cain were elected he would have a very strong mandate. At this point in the campaign his plan is resonating. He is not getting the big donations like Romney and Perry. But people like the simplicity of his plan.

Cain campaigns on controversial tax plan and gets elected = strong mandate.

Obama campaigns on controversial health care plan and gets elected = "no one wants it how can he do this that monster."

majorspark;930776 wrote:Ron Paul policies stand even less of a chance.

Not necessarily. I bet Democrats would be willing to negotiate on some entitlement spending cuts or other spending cuts in return for cuts in empire spending and nation building. There is bipartisan support of auditing the Fed. There is bipartisan support for ending corporate welfare and bailouts. His goal of eliminating the income tax might not happen, but if he can get a lot of the cuts he wants, they will be able to afford cutting taxes significantly.

majorspark;930788 wrote:What are you a class warfarist now?

I've never bemoaned businesses and individuals making as much money as they can as long as the government didn't give it to them unfairly. I'm not going to forsake a shower and head out to the OWS protests. But I've still never suggested that the rich should pay lower taxes than the lower and middle classes. I do not oppose a progressive tax code as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

And my main point is how unrealistic it is to think that Cain would even be elected if he won the nomination because he will be skewered in the media for trying to get the poor to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich. He would have zero chance of beating the king of class warfare in a general election.

Cleveland Buck;930790 wrote:Not necessarily. I bet Democrats would be willing to negotiate on some entitlement spending cuts or other spending cuts in return for cuts in empire spending and nation building. There is bipartisan support of auditing the Fed. There is bipartisan support for ending corporate welfare and bailouts. His goal of eliminating the income tax might not happen, but if he can get a lot of the cuts he wants, they will be able to afford cutting taxes significantly.

That is a possibility. I'll give you that. But is very slim. Its unlikely Paul is going to make the cut. He is failing to get his message through to the average primary voter. Only the politically astute understand some of the things he is saying.