1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Revolution After Ron

edavis885 Wrote: Jul 12, 2012 7:42 PM
If Obama is Budweiser then Mitt is Bud Light. There really isn't a lick of difference between them. Mitt is a leftist Republican. He is just as much in love with state power as Obama is. He is just telling you what you want to hear to get elected. Obamacare is Romneycare. If you don't like Obamacare then how can you vote for the architect of it? Romney is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I wouldn't vote for him for so much as dog catcher. I'm a socially conservative libertarian. Why in the hell would I ever vote for the architect of the individual mandate? Romney raised taxes while governor but he just called them "fees". Romney was pro-choice before he started running for president. Now he is magically pro-life.
In response to:

The Revolution After Ron

edavis885 Wrote: Jul 12, 2012 7:32 PM
I guess watching cable news for decades, including reports about Al-Qaeda makes one stupid in your view. I guess when someone says get out of my country or I'll attack you, then it is stupid to believe that is why they attacked you. Yes, I watch Fox News, CNN, MSNBC ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, and CSPAN. I'm a news and political junkie. I don't blame you for not paying attention and remembering news reports about Al Qaeda statements from the 1990's. But, don't call someone else stupid because they do remember them. Being 33, my memory is actually quite good.
In response to:

The art of self-restraint

edavis885 Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 11:04 PM
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. The Constitution also stipulates that it is supreme. 1+1=2
In response to:

Budget Insanity

edavis885 Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 10:52 PM
True, however there is a difference between national defense and being the world's policeman. A lot of military spending has nothing to do with national defense.
In response to:

Budget Insanity

edavis885 Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 10:48 PM
The bulk of entitlements spending is comprised of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. If you eliminated everything but Social Security, Medicare, DOD, and interest you still couldn't balance the budget. You would be close but still not balanced.
In response to:

Budget Insanity

edavis885 Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 10:37 PM
Actually it is not an IQ problem, it is an education problem. The government is the one that teaches most people how to think about government. You go to a government mandated school and have a government trained and paid for teacher to teach you about government and economics. Is there then any surprise that most people have a pro-government viewpoint? People talk about rights but do not know the origins of natural rights theory. Most people that graduate high school can't pass a basic civics test. It's not about IQ it's about the information that they were taught and the light that it was presented in. Most of my knowledge about political theory was learned outside of the classroom.
In response to:

Budget Insanity

edavis885 Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 10:30 PM
Increasing tax revenue should not the object of tax reform. The best tax is the one that give the government the least amount of money. The best budget is the one that allows the government to spend the least amount of money. Romney wants the military to spend 4% or more of GDP. I want the federal government in total to spend 2% of GDP. But then again I am a radical.
In response to:

The Revolution After Ron

edavis885 Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 9:23 PM
You can also add in American immigration policy as the State Department let the terrorists into the country. But immigration policy is a subset of foreign policy. Right now for whatever reason American policy is not to secure our borders, let anybody into the country that wants to come, promote imports, destroy US manufacturing, and go overseas pissing people off that know how to make bombs. Really, Iran doesn't need and ICBM. They could walk a disassembled nuke across the US/Mexican border. If fact any foreign country could do it. Now if you agree with this foreign policy then fine, but don't complain about the consequences. I however call it insanity.
In response to:

The Revolution After Ron

edavis885 Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 9:15 PM
A group Saudi Arabians opposed putting infidel American troops into Saudi Arabia prior to Gulf War 1, They are ignored and US troops go into Saudi Arabia. After Gulf War 1 the Americans don't leave. There are threats/warnings for Americans to get out and then escalating attacks against US targets culminating in the 9/11 attacks by a group of predominately Saudi Arabian terrorists. Terrorists who wanted American troops out of their home country. War is the continuation of politics by other means. Terrorism is a tactic. It is a form of guerrilla warfare. The original stated political goal was to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia.So yes American foreign policy thought up by our political elite was directly responsible for 9/11.
It's not how much you cut as it is what you cut. If you abandon the farce in Afghanistan and pulled out completely by the end of the year, then that you save billions. If you close down most overseas bases, that would save a lot of money. You can save money be shedding excess administrative fat in the military's structure and ending some missions. The last thing you should cut is actual combat force structure. Even then there are choices that can be made. How many warheads do you want to put on a SLBM? We can actually carry our entire allowed New START nuclear weapon force on 9 Ohio missile subs with room left over. How many Ohio replacements do we need to buy? There are trade-offs than can be made between bombers and carriers.
1 - 10 Next