In response to:

The Final Debate

Paulus Textor Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 10:45 AM
Ah, so corporate socialist A essentially agreed with corporate socialist B on foreign policy? I am so shocked. But, the first premise of this article is not quite right. Per the Constitution, the American people most defend themselves; only in rare instances would an army be created for defense of the realm. As evidence, consider the Constitutional provision that any appropriations for an army would be for no longer than two years. Why? Because the Founding Fathers wisely feared "standing armies." The Founders viewed the well-armed militia as a force far superior to that of the national armed forces. Unfortunately, it didn't work out as they planned, as the natural tendency of governments is always to expand.
Steelpony Wrote: Oct 25, 2012 8:27 AM
Agencies armed to the max; FEMA, Homeland Security Agency, TSA, National Education Ascn ?, are you kidding, 450 million rounds of 40 cal hollow point ammo for training purposes. 12 gague shootguns for the NEA
How many other Agencies of the Fed are armed to the max.
Do you get the idea they are up to their necks in preping, for what you ask.
During Monday's debate, we went into some foreign territory. The election is going to be about the economy and the size of government, not foreign policy, but the task of a president—and, let’s not forget, a government—is most essentially to protect Americans. It is, at the most basic level, not as a manager or prophet or pop star, but as a commander-in-chief.

And that was what the debate was: a clear view for all of the two prospective commanders-in-chief. While they are similar in many ways, there were some minor differences that might have major consequences in the future.