Florida GOP Debates

[Erana]

The Florida GOP debates will start in about ten minutes. Let's see what happens....

[Enethier]

If anyone other than Ron Paul wins the nomination, I see no hope for the republican party. Obama is preparing to run against Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, neither of whom have support from the moderates and independents.

[jibber]

Ron Paul's foreign policy will destroy the US. While I agree with almost everything he said (even some of his foreign policy) I don't think turning your back on it is the answer.

[Enethier]

This is true. Still, the foreign policy, at this point, is dangerous no matter who's model we take.

[ledgerbay]

His foriegn policy is the only one that makes sense. we didnt go to war with russia during the cuban missile crisis. and if we had or had to. hes just saying do it right get congress to declare war

[Enethier]

I have to agree with that point. I like that stance. I don't necessairly agree with becoming a complete isolationist country again, however, we have no place involving ourselves with unnecesary wars.

[ledgerbay]

Unnecessary is the key word. want to say a bunch of stuff. but ill just say.......politics

[jibber]

A foreign policy that reduces our involvement with the outside world is completely ludicrous. It might look good on paper, but in the end it makes us weaker and more prone to attack. I agree we need to let countries run their countries the way they want, however, wouldn't you agree that everyone has the right to be free? Why shouldn't we step in when some guru of Marxism or some such decides that none of his citizens get freedom, and instead shoot any who protest?

Stop thinking about ourselves, and lets help others so that they can enjoy the freedoms we enjoy every day.

[Enethier]

What makes us more prone to attack is butting into everyone's business, assassinating civillians, and engaging in espionage. Not to mention that we put more american lives in danger being in constant, globally unpopular wars.

More powerful than any rifle, is an idea. An idea rallies the people to a cause, not a bullet. Do you think that the people of these countries care why we are there? No, they don't. This is something americans struggle with. We impose what we want, and how we feel, without taking into consideration the cultures and desires of others. If the people of Afghanistan did not support the Taliban, then we would have killed them all by now. Geurilla warfare only works this well when it has the popular support.

Ron Paul, who's foregin policy comes under a great deal of scrutiny by lawmakers and average citizens alike, has actually struck gold in the hearts of veterans and current military members. Ron Paul has more endorsements from veterans and current military members than every other candidate combined .... TIMES TWO! That says a lot for how well his foreign policy stands with the men and women that we as americans look to in times of war.

War does not make us strong. Thinking like that is going to lead us to a nuclear holocaust. Again, I do not think total isolationism is the right answer, but we cannot continue along this path of war.

[jibber]

What these veterans don't understand is once he takes office (if he beats Romney or Gingrich) they won't have jobs anymore. That's right. Reducing military spending will make our military not only smaller than it is now, but will reduce the US of A into a smoldering ash of "what, they used to be the super power?"

Ideas are great. And I agree that there should be less espionage, assassinations and forceful re-colonization of countries. I'm not sure if you watched the debate tonight, but Romney made a wonderful point: we need to keep our military strong, and we also need to stand behind the citizens of countries who want change (democratic change) so that they might have the same freedoms we enjoy.

Completely cutting spending on military and butting our nose OUT of other countries business when they scream for help will only isolate the U.S. It will also mean that we will be leaving a very GOOD ally out to dry. Israel has stood by us and we have stood by them for religious freedom for quite some time.

Going onto Obama, I find it very disappointing that he would endorse the Palestinians over the Israelis. I seem to remember the President of Israel (whose now dead come to think of it) offering 99% of what they owned to the Palestinians so that the war would stop and they could worship whomever they pleased in peace.

Palestine refused, wanting 100% of their lands and to create poverty for the Israelis. Why should we back out of that? How would we benefit?

Anyway. 'nough said.

[Enethier]

Our military is already getting cut 100k jobs in the next few month. But to us, the lives and safety of our brothers and sisters in arms are more important than a government paycheck. You're arguing a "slippery slope", and something totally illogical. Less war = less powerful? Honestly, the unemployment rating is getting worse not because of job loss (there's been something like a 22 month streak of job creation), rather, it's population growth. Our population is growing faster than we can create jobs. Which is understandable. The Clinton Era was an economic boom - people felt financially safer starting their families in that era.

I'm not sure if you've seen every other debate Romney has ever been in, but he says exactly what the majority vote would require him to say. With the passing of the FDAA, troubles abroad are the least of our concerns. Little known fact, as most of America is so badly versed in the English language that they cannot ascertain the purpose of FDAA (Federal Defense Authorization Act, by the way), is that we are under martial law. Permanently.

The United States Military has been given the capability to arrest, detain, interrogate, torture, and even assassinate anyone, american citizen or otherwise, without charge. A common misconception is that they must be associated with anti-goverment (i.e. terrorist) groups. However, as it later goes on to state that no charge is needed, or even what defines an anti-goverment group. Or even to define a group.

This strips americans of their bill of rights. We are silently losing our rights as americans. FEMA Camps exist outside every major urban area in the country, and are used as detention facilities for protestors of the government. The government can do this because federal law allows the military to detain citizens, bypassing their rights. There are no trials. No charges. They are simply taken and imprisoned. They don't even have the right to a lawyer.

Which candidate is the ONLY candidate, left or right, to oppose this blatant abuse of federal power?

Ron Paul.

How much of our budget, by the way, goes to the military? In the midsts of this colossal budget crisis, how can we justify continuing to spend taxpayer dollars on an over-inflated system? Most people aren't aware how the military budget works. The more you spend in a year, the more you receive the next year. Units buy thousands of dollars worth of "extras" over the years just to get new toys later. I work on a billion dollar weapon system. Even then, the amount of "extras" we have more than double the purchasing and operating cost of the ENTIRE mission ops for the system. And that's just two squadrons, of one branch. The military budget has escaped all forms of control. It NEEDS to be cut.

Also, the president does that only behind closed doors. We have pulled out of Iraq. That means the air space belongs to the iraqi air force. But they don't have an air force. Nor the means to enforce their air space. Quiz: Which country is the only country that seperates Israel and Iran? The answer is Iraq. Who has one of the largest air forces in the world? Israel. Who has purchased long range balistic missles in ever increasing quantities for a quarter of the price it takes to build them? Israel. To whom did we give all of our leftovers from Iraq? Israel. Who has recently flown "test missions" over the mediterrainean (and it just so happens the test mission covered the exact landmass of Iran...)? You guessed it, Israel.

You think that is a coincidence?

[ledgerbay]

First off your taking the cuts in military spending wrong. hes talking about wastefull military spending overseas and spending it here on us soil. we dont have to have a war for our troops to have a job. second of all the head of israeli mousaad? spelling? said that they can handle iran. our governments tyrannical warmongering is destroying this nation not ron pauls economic agenda. sorry on my phone at work

[jibber]

I don't think I said 'more wars!' anywhere in my post. But I guess that's your prerogative to interpret my post as you see fit.

[Pali]

I view Ron Paul like the crazy-but-interesting once-removed relative - utterly ridiculous most of the time, but occasionally he spouts a true gem. I also think that any hypotheses based on the possibility of him becoming president are a waste of time, as it will not happen - he is too honest in his distaste for government for the GOP to accept him as a candidate, since the GOP actually loves big government in the corporate-welfare semi-theocracy senses of federal government and Ron Paul's only okay with those happening on the state government level. As a third-party candidate in the general election he would not have nearly enough support to compete against either Obama or Romney/Gingrich/samecandidatedifferentname (and Obama's barely any better) and I expect would garner about 5-6% of the vote at the very best.

Unfortunately, like every Republican candidate, Ron Paul fails my basic litmus test of accepting science and I cannot in any way support him. And I do truly consider this unfortunate - were he to have a more realistic worldview, his passion and integrity could be a real boon to this country. I do not agree with the man in most of what he says, but unlike most politicians, he seems to actually believe what he says, and doesn't seem to just be saying things in the interest of gaining support/money. I'd love to see more people that I tend to agree with follow that example... sadly, they are quite lacking.

[ledgerbay]

the constitution? you dont agree with that?

[Grimulfr]

The problem with a two party system is that both sides have to curry favor with the exact same power groups if they want to get elected.

All the talk about one side will destroy America and one side won't ... When you get past the cosmetics "policy" differences, they're all pretty much the same.

[Twinblades713]

THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM IS A BOWL OF SH!T LOOKING ITSELF IN THE MIRROR -Lewis Black

[Kyzarius]

ITs not the 2 party system.

It is the presence of money in polotics. If you have millions, you can afford to lobby, and get your way. If your unemployed, your voice is never heard since you do not have the funds to even begin getting your way in congress.

[Enethier]

@Jibber: Your post advocates spending more on the military, and you state that weakening our military presence will inevitably lead to the death of american citizens and the toppling of our democracy (which we don't have in the first place). Strengthening the military entails both a higher military budget, and more forward deployed troops (you can recruit 200,000 new troops, however, you still have to give them a job. A military that is not at war cannot sustain active troops anywhere near our current levels). That, in a sense, demands that we become involved in more wars. Less war, in fact, demands that we do the exact opposite with our troops than your posts expresses that we should.

@Grimulfr: That's more than just a problem with the two party system, it's a problem with our system of election. It demands that all interested candidates appeal to the same crowd. Two, three, four, even five party systems would have the same issue.

As for Ron Paul, he predicted every major crisis we have experienced within the last ten years, and spoke in front of congress to appeal to his fellow lawmakers to stop the flow before it was too late. He is the only candidate on either side that did.

[Pali]

As for Ron Paul' date=' he predicted every major crisis we have experienced within the last ten years, and spoke in front of congress to appeal to his fellow lawmakers to stop the flow before it was too late. He is the only candidate on either side that did.[/quote']

This may be in part because Obama wasn't a national figure a decade ago and because the other Republican candidates are complete nutjobs.

the constitution? you dont agree with that?

Ron Paul doesn't agree with it as much as you might think he does. The man does not believe in separation of church and state, particularly at the state rather than federal level. As a rule, Paul seems only against big government at the federal level - he's fine with states prohibiting things like flag burning, abortion, equal marriage, etc. Personally, I don't see that viewpoint as particularly freedom-enhancing, particularly for minorities.

[jibber]

Flag burning..? WHAT?! You think it's okay to off and burn the American Flag?

Sorry, just find that very disrespectful for ANY American to do.

[Enethier]

And that IS constitutionalist. Seperation of Church and State is widely misinterpreted. The government cannot force you to have a certain religious view. That is all it means. It is to prevent another "Church of England" type deal. Believe me, the last thing I want for this country is a mandate on religion. Still, stretching the idea of SoC&S so that it no longer serves only it's original function is not the solution.

As for Obama, the first thing he did as PotUS in 2012 was to sign the FDAA into law, in the middle of the night, with limited press interaction. THAT is not very constitutionalist.

Look, I'm not saying Ron Paul is a perfect candidate. He's not. But if the republicans honestly want the best chance to beat Obama, it is him.

[Pali]

Flag burning..? WHAT?! You think it's okay to off and burn the American Flag?

Sorry, just find that very disrespectful for ANY American to do.

If freedom of expression only applies to those things that don't offend anyone, then it is meaningless.

As for religion, the govt is prohibited from "endorsement" of religion - this is a very different thing than simply being prohibited from enforcement of religion, which is what you're referring to, Enethier. Endorsement would cover any govt promotion of religion - I'm curious how you think this has been misconstrued.

Edit: correction, the wording is establishment, not endorsement. However, I would say that the result is the same - promotion of religion by the govt would, in effect, be creating a state religion, regardless of degree or enforced adherence.

[jibber]

If any American is burning the American flag, they should be ashamed to be an American. Just as if any country burned their own flag, they should also be ashamed.

If that's considered freedom of expression, so be it. But I have the freedom to set them on fire, too, if it comes to it. And I could guarantee if I was caught, I'd get away with it.

[Trick]

There is nothing more disrespectful than burning the flag. As a soldier, I find it extremely ironic that so many people stand against the country that gives them these freedoms.

It blows my mind that certain people say the things they say with out ever experiencing a military life style. Ignorance. Plain and simple. To think that you support the burning of the flag has caused me to lose all respect for you. You should be ashamed to be an American.

I've been thanked by citizens of a foreign country more than I have by my own. It's amazing how little respect our nation has. This generation is the most pathetic, cry baby, " I want everything handed to me " group of people in history. ****ing ridiculous.