I can't wait til November!

[1bad65]

The rest of your post has some good points, I agreed with some actually. But this is likely not gonna happen:

As it is.. he will wind up being the last son of a President ever elected to the nation's highest office, in all likelihood.

I say this because America truly is starting to develop a "political class". Look at how many sons of big name politicians are in politics; Beau Biden is involved in politics, and Jimmy Carter's son just got elected to office in Georgia. You may be right, but there is a chance you will be wrong. I myself like 'new blood' entering politics, I think it reduces graft/bribes/corruption/etc, but I am against a law enacting term limits. Voters should just enact the term limits themselves by paying attention to the issues and candidates, not just repeadedly voting for incumbents while not paying attention. As much as I believe voting is a wonderful right, and people should take full advantage of that right, it's usually not good when people who pay zero attention to politics get out and vote.

[1bad65]

True. Why is it that the "small government" types (with the notable exception of Ron Paul and Rand Paul) seem to be all about small government EXCEPT for military spending and certain sorts of crime control?

Because you need a strong military to maintain peace. We were attacked on December 7,1941 for example because we were perceived as weak. We were not attacked that day because Japan wanted to fight the biggest, baddest country on the planet.

If you believe in minimalist governments you can't justify vast standing armies and three ways to nuke the world (ICBMs, bombers AND subs). Not without a clear super-state (like the USSR) as a declared enemy threatening invasion anyway.

Actually you do need alot of nuclear weapons for defense. The theory behind having so many weapons is simple; you don't need enough to just destroy the world once and you're safe. You need enough to be able to absorb a first strike that takes you totally by surprise, yet have enough left to retaliate and still destroy your enemy. It's called the "Mutually Assured Destruction" doctrine. Ask Drake if you don't believe me.

And we do have a clear super-state who is not exactly our best buddy, they are called China. They are a communist dictatorship with nuclear weapons and the largest standing army in the world.

[Drake]

Ask me? I think nukes are completely and utterly irrelevant these days. Especially how many we have.

Tactical nukes, maybe...but not the big ones. Having them just doesn't make sense. And at any rate, if you nuke a land mass the size of the USA, it'll devastate the entire world. It's suicide.

[1bad65]

Ask me? I think nukes are completely and utterly irrelevant these days. Especially how many we have.

Tactical nukes, maybe...but not the big ones. Having them just doesn't make sense. And at any rate, if you nuke a land mass the size of the USA, it'll devastate the entire world. It's suicide.

My point was that I'm sure you are familiar with the doctrine in question. You may not agree with it, but I just wanted you to back me up in saying it and the theory behind it do indeed exist.

[dimethylsea]

Ask me? I think nukes are completely and utterly irrelevant these days. Especially how many we have.

Tactical nukes, maybe...but not the big ones. Having them just doesn't make sense. And at any rate, if you nuke a land mass the size of the USA, it'll devastate the entire world. It's suicide.

Drake.. maybe you should explain to 1Bad65 about the "three prongs" of America's strategic nuclear arsenal (boomers, bombers and ICBMs) and how the use of even one of the prongs tends to result in feco-ventilatory impact on a planetary scale.

And that doesn't even go into all the SADMs and various tactical nuke toys the lab-coats designed to use by NATO "stay-behinds" in a Soviet-occupied Europe.


We really don't NEED three ways to destroy the world. China is a land power. They can't march that army across the Pacific.

The politicians should pick 1 or even 2 of the prongs of the strategic nuclear deterrent and mothball the remaining prongs. Maintaining them is extremely expensive and we could (assuming you are all about being the world's policeman) use the money on more Special Forces for asymetric unconventional warfare.

[dimethylsea]

Actually you do need alot of nuclear weapons for defense. The theory behind having so many weapons is simple; you don't need enough to just destroy the world once and you're safe. You need enough to be able to absorb a first strike that takes you totally by surprise, yet have enough left to retaliate and still destroy your enemy. It's called the "Mutually Assured Destruction" doctrine. Ask Drake if you don't believe me.

And we do have a clear super-state who is not exactly our best buddy, they are called China. They are a communist dictatorship with nuclear weapons and the largest standing army in the world.

I don't have to ask Drake. I actually support America having a strong nuclear deterrent. I'm personally a fan of scrapping the aircraft carriers, converting the Navy to mostly boomers and lighter surface craft useful for interdiction but not projecting power via naval aviation squadrons, and then giving the Air Force a choice between the Stratofortress or the ICBMs.

That gives TWO ways to destroy anyone foolish enough to mount an invasion.

You need to understand something 1Bad65... I'm not a ignorant military-hating hippy... I'm a military-hating hippy who served and was incredibly bored all the time while in the service. I sought to understand as much about our national defense capabilities as I could. You have alot of time to read (and everybody's blessing to) Jane's and all kinds of stuff sitting in a rear-deployed fleet hospital in the sandbox.

Personally I think a nuclear deterrent, a huge National Guard (dual-purposed for natural disaster interventions), and a super-lean volunteer military that's long on Special Forces and small naval craft is the way to go.

In otherwords.. the power to utterly destroy any nation on the planet, the power to protect our shipping on the oceans, protect US states from land or sea invasion by a state actor, and ridiculous levels of natural disaster response.

But virtually NO ABILITY TO INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY.

[1bad65]

You need to understand something 1Bad65... I'm not a ignorant military-hating hippy... I'm a military-hating hippy who served and was incredibly bored all the time while in the service. I sought to understand as much about our national defense capabilities as I could. You have alot of time to read (and everybody's blessing to) Jane's and all kinds of stuff sitting in a rear-deployed fleet hospital in the sandbox.

I never thought you were like that, but thanks for the clarification. And thanks for your service as well.

Personally I think a nuclear deterrent, a huge National Guard (dual-purposed for natural disaster interventions), and a super-lean volunteer military that's long on Special Forces and small naval craft is the way to go.

But virtually NO ABILITY TO INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY.

Nuclear weapons aside, that's exactly what I believe the Founders invisioned.

Maybe instead of voting Democrat because of your dislike of Republicans, you should vote Libertarian. They are alot more in line with your views that you've made known. Me personally, I only vote Republican to keep Democrats out of office. Assuming the Libertarians become viable candidates, I'll likely vote for them ~90% of the time. I fear Democrat policies because A) their Party leaders at this time are socialists B) their fiscal policies mirror those in the EU, and we can all see those economies on the verge of imploding under the strain of socialism. Of course Greece already imploded. And if you look at Greece, what they have now is what Democrats here are calling for us to have.

[dimethylsea]

Nuclear weapons aside, that's exactly what I believe the Founders invisioned.

Well nobody in the 1700s could conceive of something like nuclear weapons.
But what they COULD conceive of was this..

No country where every single law-abiding adult citizen possesses the same longarms and sidearms as a typical infantry soldier in a modern military can be successfully invaded and occupied.

You can destroy such a country.. but all you will be able to occupy is a wasteland.
That's what the Founders believed and I agree with that.

Maybe instead of voting Democrat because of your dislike of Republicans, you should vote Libertarian. They are alot more in line with your views that you've made known. Me personally, I only vote Republican to keep Democrats out of office. Assuming the Libertarians become viable candidates, I'll likely vote for them ~90% of the time. I fear Democrat policies because A) their Party leaders at this time are socialists B) their fiscal policies mirror those in the EU, and we can all see those economies on the verge of imploding under the strain of socialism. Of course Greece already imploded. And if you look at Greece, what they have now is what Democrats here are calling for us to have.

If I had a chance to vote for a Libertarian candidates that had an ice cubes chance in Hades of taking power I might.

But the FIRST virtue of Libertarian thought is the NON INITIATION OF FORCE.

That means my libertarian principles require me to vote for the party that is less inclined to kill non-Americans in military actions.

For a long time I held my nose and voted for the GOP on the grounds of fiscal responsibility and firearms.

Bush and Cheney taught me a lesson. There is NO true fiscal responsibility among the GOP OR the Demos.. and since this is a pipe-dream it's better to vote for spendthrifts who waste the money mostly at home, not on foreign wars.

The Demos are more to my taste on social morality issues (alternate lifestyles, drug legalization, science and biotechnology research, healthcare) and I *know* the GOP will spend as much as the Demos will. they will just use the money on corporate kickbacks and bombs.

For what it's worth I'm scared crapless about the deficit and the impending crash of our fiat currency but the GOP will NEVER have the courage to truly address this issue.

The lesser of the two evils is the Democratic Party. At least they aren't all hot and bothered to throw me and all my close friends in jail and throw away the key.

[1bad65]

Well nobody in the 1700s could conceive of something like nuclear weapons.
But what they COULD conceive of was this..

No country where every single law-abiding adult citizen possesses the same longarms and sidearms as a typical infantry soldier in a modern military can be successfully invaded and occupied.

You can destroy such a country.. but all you will be able to occupy is a wasteland.
That's what the Founders believed and I agree with that.

I completely agree.

Of course it's the Democrats who pass anti-gun legislation, not Republicans.

Bush and Cheney taught me a lesson. There is NO true fiscal responsibility among the GOP OR the Demos.. and since this is a pipe-dream it's better to vote for spendthrifts who waste the money mostly at home, not on foreign wars.

Don't lump all Republicans in with Bush. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative", not a "conservative". I openly admit Bush let spending get way out of control. In his defense, he did try and head off the sub-prime mortgage issue in 2002, but he and the Republicans were called racists and so no reforms to Fannie or Freddie were implemented.

And lets be honest here, Obama has spent more in one year than any other President. And it's deficit spending.

For what it's worth I'm scared crapless about the deficit and the impending crash of our fiat currency but the GOP will NEVER have the courage to truly address this issue.

Come on now. Either you are not paying attention, or you won;t admit the truth. In Congress, its the GOP who said Obamacare would be alot more than Obama promised, and now they were proven correct. It's the GOP who is trying to pass legislation stopping these bailouts. And it's Obama who is now considering bailing out the Teachers Union, which should cost a good ~$25 billion. This guy already has a bigger deficit than GHW Bush and Ronald Reagan had COMBINED.

The lesser of the two evils is the Democratic Party. At least they aren't all hot and bothered to throw me and all my close friends in jail and throw away the key.

In some ways, yes. But fiscally, no friggin way. They are gonna bankrupt this country for the sake of buying themselves votes. That's a **** shame.

And why would the GOP lock you guys up and throw away the key?

[MasterKiller]

In his defense, he did try and head off the sub-prime mortgage issue in 2002, but he and the Republicans were called racists and so no reforms to Fannie or Freddie were implemented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

It's the GOP who is trying to pass legislation stopping these bailouts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oetNPJJcuAE

[dimethylsea]

I completely agree.

Of course it's the Democrats who pass anti-gun legislation, not Republicans.

Given the number of firearms we have in civilian hands in this country and the amount of hunters and owners I'm not especially sanguine about the ability of Demos to ban our guns. Some of them don't even want to.

The Democrats can usually be reasoned with on single issue matters, or else allow the gun control issue to default to the states. I have no problem if a municipality or state chooses to enact gun control. The Constitution says
"CONGRESS".. Cities and states can do whatever they can get the votes to support.

And why would the GOP lock you guys up and throw away the key?

It's this tiny little human rights travesty called the War on Drugs.. you may have heard of it.

[1bad65]

Given the number of firearms we have in civilian hands in this country and the amount of hunters and owners I'm not especially sanguine about the ability of Demos to ban our guns. Some of them don't even want to.

It's not a question of if they have the ability to do it, it's the fact that some of them want to attempt it in the first place.

It's this tiny little human rights travesty called the War on Drugs.. you may have heard of it.

I have. And again, this is another issue you fall in line with the Libertarians on, not the Democrats. And FYI, the only candidate who ran for President in 2008 who openly called for the legalization of drugs was Ron Paul, a Republican.

Paul also ran against the Iraq war, another issue you two have the same stance on. Did you vote for Dr Paul in 2008 by chance?

[MasterKiller]

It's not a question of if they have the ability to do it, it's the fact that some of them want to attempt it in the first place.

I have. And again, this is another issue you fall in line with the Libertarians on, not the Democrats. And FYI, the only candidate who ran for President in 2008 who openly called for the legalization of drugs was Ron Paul, a Republican.

Paul also ran against the Iraq war, another issue you two have the same stance on. Did you vote for Dr Paul in 2008 by chance?

Paul also believes the state should endorse Christianity and allow prayer in school.

[SanHeChuan]

I have. And again, this is another issue you fall in line with the Libertarians on, not the Democrats. And FYI, the only candidate who ran for President in 2008 who openly called for the legalization of drugs was Ron Paul, a Republican.

Paul is a R.I.N.O., he is a Libertarian.

[1bad65]

Paul also believes the state should endorse Christianity and allow prayer in school.

I've not heard that. Of course I'm not saying you are wrong. Can you source that please?