Topic: Sarah thinks Perry is still very but is Paul set for a (Arrgghh!!!) Dean moment?

[Libertas]

Perry needs to cover a lot of ground, but Sarah says he has the funds to stick around a while.  He may survive a poor IA showing better than Bachmann or Santorum...I would take all three ahead of Paul, gNewt or Mittens.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/19/quotes-of-the-day-892/

Paul showing well though isn't a total bad thing though, as it should intensify the vetting of this dude and the dangerous foreign policy positions he has and there has been no airing at all of his domestic policies.  I wouldn't expect him to experience a "come to Jesus" moment and suddenly reverse his positions for political gain, so he likely will be given enough rope to strangle himself with.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/19/ron-paul-now-the-favorite-on-intrade-to-win-iowa/

[charlesoakwood]

...I would take all three ahead of Paul, gNewt or Mittens.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/19/quotes-of-the-day-892/

Just because the media's not covering them doesn't mean they aren't covering
a lot of ground. Heard that Michele covered twelve events in one day.  The
is avoiding them because they don't want them and if it happens it will be a
big surprise to report.

[AmericanPatriot]

Libertas, I respect your thoughts and somewhat agree with your opinion on Paul's foreign policy.
It is, at best, naive.
But, more worthy of discussion than dismissal

On another board the rabid Paulbots say his policy is constitutional but refuse to expound on that.

But, the implication is  that what we've been doing the last 20 years (or much longer) is sane.
Hardly.

The argument is usually that we're protecting "our" interests.
I have begun to wonder if the "our" is you and me or if it's the royal "our"

We have bases all over the world. Why can't Europe protect itself? (For example)

I'm nowhere near as extreme as Paul, but if I'm bigger and stronger than you and push you and your buddies around, eventually, you'ff figure out that if you gang up, you can start pushing me back.

I'm wondering if we have reached the point that Eisenhower warned.
Beware the military-industrial complex.

[IronDioPriest]

One thing regarding Ron Paul's foreign policy that I agree with wholeheartedly: The Executive does not have the power to send the military into war without a congressional declaration of war. The congress was meant to have the power to declare war - the president, to carry it out as commander. I don't know when or under whom this precedent began, but I believe it is unconstitutional - a perversion of constitutional intent that has been allowed to fester for far too long. The president ought not be able to just call a war a "military operation", and avoid the constitution.

And I also think that while bringing every soldier home from every military base throughout the world and shutting them all down earns Ron Paul his "nutjob" label, I also do not think that every military base or peacetime operation is sacrosanct and above existential scrutiny. When the issue is the military, Republicans generally have a "can't touch this" attitude, and rush to label people who scrutinize military budgets and functions as weak on national security, or even unpatriotic.

Paul IS weak on national security (I won't say unpatriotic because I know he loves America), but I also think his extremist viewpoint has brought a lot of attention to the unconstitutionality of war without congressional declaration, and scrutiny to the bloated military bureaucracy.

[charlesoakwood]

If only congress were congress.

[Libertas]

Libertas, I respect your thoughts and somewhat agree with your opinion on Paul's foreign policy.
It is, at best, naive.
But, more worthy of discussion than dismissal

On another board the rabid Paulbots say his policy is constitutional but refuse to expound on that.

But, the implication is  that what we've been doing the last 20 years (or much longer) is sane.
Hardly.

The argument is usually that we're protecting "our" interests.
I have begun to wonder if the "our" is you and me or if it's the royal "our"

We have bases all over the world. Why can't Europe protect itself? (For example)

I'm nowhere near as extreme as Paul, but if I'm bigger and stronger than you and push you and your buddies around, eventually, you'ff figure out that if you gang up, you can start pushing me back.

I'm wondering if we have reached the point that Eisenhower warned.
Beware the military-industrial complex.

I cannot disagree with the sentiment that other nations in which we are based should take the lead in at least paying for the protection we've afforded them.  I reject knee-jerk impulses to both pull out lock stock & barrel as quickly as I reject pure nation building.  Having said that I think there is some room for debate for what constitutes our "national interest".  I think a valid case can be made for us to turn Europe back to Europeans and pull out of bases there and that NATO as currently designed is outdated.  Korea I don't know, as soon as we leave the Nork's come a running I bet, and the South Koreans do carry a bigger load that other areas we are in.  As it stands now Afghanistan isn't worth one more American life.  That is where the debate should be, but Paul is all about pulling out of everywhere and no support for anybody, which is a totally unsupportable stance. 

[Libertas]

One thing regarding Ron Paul's foreign policy that I agree with wholeheartedly: The Executive does not have the power to send the military into war without a congressional declaration of war. The congress was meant to have the power to declare war - the president, to carry it out as commander. I don't know when or under whom this precedent began, but I believe it is unconstitutional - a perversion of constitutional intent that has been allowed to fester for far too long. The president ought not be able to just call a war a "military operation", and avoid the constitution.

And I also think that while bringing every soldier home from every military base throughout the world and shutting them all down earns Ron Paul his "nutjob" label, I also do not think that every military base or peacetime operation is sacrosanct and above existential scrutiny. When the issue is the military, Republicans generally have a "can't touch this" attitude, and rush to label people who scrutinize military budgets and functions as weak on national security, or even unpatriotic.

Paul IS weak on national security (I won't say unpatriotic because I know he loves America), but I also think his extremist viewpoint has brought a lot of attention to the unconstitutionality of war without congressional declaration, and scrutiny to the bloated military bureaucracy.

Congress started getting away from the constitution, and began letting the Executive hold more sway in matters of war, starting with Korea but it really picked up steam under Johnson & Vietnam.  It's been downhill since.  At least Korea had the imprimatur of legitimacy with international support under a UN action with nations who understood the red menace unlike today!  And while I would favor a return to declaring wars in congress before major action can be undertaken against another nation/group, in our polarized politics of today only the most egregious of enemies may earn our military wrath, since Dem's would favor stupid endeavors like Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Haiti, Libya and Congo while Repub’s would favor beating the snot out of Iraqi’s, Persian’s, Afghani’s (all the terror centers of Islam).  I despair of ever getting members of both parties recognizing a just war from a foolish endeavor, but that concern is mostly centered on the Left!

[AmericanPatriot]

I reject knee-jerk impulses to both pull out lock stock & barrel as quickly as I reject pure nation building

We totally agree on that.

The vacuum that we create would suck the enemy to our doorstep

[Libertas]

I reject knee-jerk impulses to both pull out lock stock & barrel as quickly as I reject pure nation building

We totally agree on that.

The vacuum that we create would suck the enemy to our doorstep

Yup.  The old "when in doubt" kill 'em over there so we don't have to do it here rationale.

[charlesoakwood]

I reject knee-jerk impulses to both pull out lock stock & barrel as quickly as I reject pure nation building

We totally agree on that.

The vacuum that we create would suck the enemy to our doorstep

Yup.  The old "when in doubt" kill 'em over there so we don't have to do it here rationale.

"Don't Tread on Me"

[charlesoakwood]

Rick Perry Reaching out to Floridians, Talks about Morality


92

[charlesoakwood]

...a part time congress.  They don't need to be there full time, they don't need to be getting a $174,000 dollars a year, they don't need to be having these lifetime benefits... that they vote on themselves.   If the American people want a pay raise for congress then let's have an election. ... as well as substantially reducing the size of agencies of government.
...
I'd do away with the departments of energy and commerce and education and there's probably some others that we don't need.

Rick Perry Wants to Slash Congress' Pay and Benefits