In response to:

4 Reasons The GOP Would Be Foolish To Dump Social Issues

amperro Wrote: Nov 24, 2012 12:32 AM
"Libertarians ... still probably won't vote Republican unless we agree to legalize crack, support open borders and close all of our overseas military bases." Hawkins really needs to learn more about libertarians before shooting his mouth off. There is no constitutional authority for the federal war on drugs. At the very least, it should be handled by the states. There is also no constitutional authority for having a military presence in over 100 nations.
Joseph64 Wrote: Nov 24, 2012 6:37 AM
Here's some authority for the war on drugs, and it's the Nancy Pelosi's favorite, the power to regulate interstate commerce. The power to regulate interstate commerce includes the authority to keep things off the market.

The Congress also has the authority to provide for the common defense and make all laws necessary and proper to enable them to execute their constitutional powers so if providing for the common defense means building bases all over the world, then they have the power to do it. The federal government also has the authority to enter into treaties with other nations so if they sign a treaty to build a military base in another country to aid in their defense, then they have the power to do that, too.
alopekos teumesios Wrote: Nov 24, 2012 4:06 PM
Since when does any real conservative wave the flag of the Interstate Commerce Act along side of Nancy Pelosi? It has been the single biggest excuse that statist collectivists use to federalize practically every aspect of our lives. As for building bases all around the world, just because the bank may give me a $1M mortgage to build a house, does not mean it is in my fiscal interest to do so.
Panda Wrote: Nov 24, 2012 1:34 AM
Hey, we agree with some of what you say. We just don't go that far.

For instance, the War on Drugs is far too expensive, and we also can't afford to be the world cop. So, what if we closed 1/3 to 1/2 of the bases overseas, and then moved all that firepower to our southern border? Those border towns are being run by the Cartels, and that's just wrong. We should use the greatest military in the world to secure our cities.

Naturally, this would constitute a "war on drugs," but is that all bad? And if we legalize marijuana, that would remove about half the war right there.

But no presence overseas? No, that would duplicate Lord Chamberlain's mistake. I believe we're far too interventionist, but let's not overdo it the other way.
amperro Wrote: Nov 24, 2012 2:50 AM
I never said no presence overseas. I said we do not have the right to be in over 100 nations. I am not against using the military to secure the coasts and borders of this country. That IS its intended purpose. There is a huge difference between eliminating foreign threats to national security and endless occupation of nations that don't want us there, for the benefit of unsavory and corrupt leaders.
Panda Wrote: Nov 24, 2012 6:40 AM
Sounds fine to me--but I wouldn't call us "occupiers," since we never take over like occupying forces have historically. I mean, comparing America's impact in these nations with that of historical occupiers is, to put it mildly, laughable.

But could I forge a coalition with you? Gladly! You sound like a reasonable sort.
Joseph64 Wrote: Nov 24, 2012 6:41 AM
What nations are we occupying that do not want us there? Every place where we have a permanent presence (notice I said a PERMANENT presence, places like Iraq and Afghanistan don't count because we will not be there forever) wants us there either for their own defense against their enemies or for the financial benefits of our soldiers spending their pay with the local shopkeepers and for the employment of their own citizens. There's probably only one place that doesn't want us there and that is Cuba but they are forced to honor the treaty we signed with the previous government so even they can't say anything without abrogating the treaty.
Panda Wrote: Nov 24, 2012 7:13 AM

Win, lose or draw, we're always supposedly hitting a tipping point where social issues just no longer work for the Republican Party. At first glance, this would appear to be a rather puzzling sentiment. After all, in 2010, despite the fact that the GOP was just as socially conservative as we were this year, the Republican Party had its best year in half a century. Furthermore, in 2008 and 2012, the GOP lost despite running moderate candidates who were soft on social issues and who barely brought them up at all. If anything, you'd think that seeing two non-social conservatives...