Left to right

[Ed R]

Left:                                                                                                                       Right:

       Liberal - Libertarian - Independant - Moderate - Undecided - Conservative

 

I put Ron Paul in the Libertarian category

I put Huntsman in the Independant category

I put Mitt Romney in the Moderate category

I put Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich in the Conservative category

 

 

[Ray Kirkus]

Ed R said:

I know that I started this post by laying out where I stood, at the time, of my interpretations of my positions as to where the candidates fit into my definitions of the afformantioned categories.  I don't get my talking points by pointing to what others have said i.e. links to whatever; the words I write come strait from my observations and ideas. 

Thank you for taking me up in discussing the issues. I would like to address the issues as you raise them.

There are issues in this election cycle that are important to the survival and progress of this country.  Number one on the list is whether we can keep our country safe from being dominated from foreign or domestic invasion.

Can you elaborate the actual threat you perceive? Is it that the Al qaeda will attack again? Do you know how many Al qauda there are? But most importantly do you know what their reasons  are for attacking us?

In the early 1990's after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, in direct response to Kawait angle drilling and stealing Iraqi oil, the US military, with the invitation of the Saudi King, set up a military base in Saudi Arabia. There is a reason that most of the hijackers during 9-11 were Saudis.

Anyhow, the Al qaeda were created by the CIA who assisted AlCIAda in fighting the Soviets off.  This time the US was the occupier and though the Saudi Royalty ( dictatorship/ monarchy) allowed the US military to set up a base, Bin Ladin himself  has explained that is was the reason for the 1993 attack on the WTC.  There are many publications out there that address this issue of blowback. I do believe we should understand why we were attacked and not presume the sound bite because we are free and prosperous and they hate us for it.

Domestically speaking, state laws and courts protect us against crime. The president is not delagated those powers within the context of the constitution. It is our own government that we and our local officials and representatives should be guarding us against, not the president. Just my take..

  Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, as of yet, have not convinced me they are willing to be an effective commandor and Chief of our military given the current threats that face our nation.

Again please define the threats.. Congress is supposed to declare war when the national security issues are at stake, not the president.

  In the case of Romney he appears to me as a man that has no interest in being forceful in changing our current trajectory toward where we are currently heading at this time and that concernes me a lot.  Most of the power of the Presidency is with foreign policy.

If you mean trajectory as we continue going into more countries and entangling ourselves into more mischief and expense, I have to disagree. Romney is very pro- more war and will kill the Taliban, but do you understand who the Talban are? They fight against the occupiers and do not come here. They want the US out of their country. That is the sole purpose of their existence. They are the resistance, you could say. You are correct, the president is vital and does control foreign policy.

George washing had a statement about his foreign policy to trade with all nations  and have entanglements with none. a true huble foreign policy, the identical policy that Bush ran on.

Ron Paul' s foreign policy is similar to Washingtons: Open dialogue and trade with countries not sanction them. Threats and sanctions are acts of war and the United States uses that tactic everywhere, currently with Cuba, Iran, ect. 

Paul supports a strong and powerful military for defence and cut the spending on militarism such as paying for the private mercenaries in Irag and building billion dollar embassies. The cost of US militarism simply cannot be sustained as we now have to borrow nearly 1/2 of what we spend. All empires eventually end because they go broke.

  I am somewhat convinced that given the opportunity Ron Paul would nominate a very conservative constitutionalist to the Supreme court; Romney has not convinced me of that.

Isn't that a good thing? A true conservative would be fantastic!

  We needed a national military to defend us from invasion at the time of our creation as an independant nation.  We still need a military, that is more than able, to carry out the mission of defending us from invasion from outside our bourders.  Even in 1776 we needed to be aware of what was going on outside our boarders to be prepared militarily to defend this country. 

Absolutely! I agree, so does Paul.

It is the responsability of the President of the United Satates to handle foreign affairs. 

 Yes it is.

We have had threats to our nation since it began from forien hot forces and the way our military handled those threats in the past is not the same as they need to be today.

True, thanks mostly to technology.

  I am not in favor of changing our Constitution. 

I agree, either am I , but the federal government operates completely outside of it and our reps and senators simply don't care.

As in 1776 we need a military that is capable of defending us against foriegn invasion.  The tactical as well as stategic plans and capabilities of our enemies are vastly different than they were when our nation began.  We cannot deffend our country from invasion from outside forces with a 1776 vision of military strategies. 

Again  correct. I agree!

Many Ron Paul supporters have repeatedly condemmed the military industrial complex.

Yes we all do, we condemn militarism not defence. Like I said policing the world and maintaining and empire in 130 countries with over 800 bases is not defence, it is militarism.

  The industrial military complex is mostly private sector. 

Yes , but paid for by congress borrowing money from China and vastly contributing to the enormous national debt. All of us have to pay the costs of war, but only the Military industrial complex profits.

Yes; there are those that loby the powers in DC to award contracts to private sector companies, but that does not take away the need for a modern approach to national defence.

I don't understand the statement. I agree with  modern bleeding edge defence technology developed by the private sector and agree it is  and should be paid for by taxes.. a responsibility of the government ( congress actually) and quite constitutional.

  It is our private sector that creates the equipment that our military uses for our national defence.  In the modern world the threats to our nations security are more destructive, intense, and immediate than at the beginning of our creation as a nation. 

I agree.

Our military mission needs to be different than it was in 1776 and Ron Paul has stated time and time again that he will adopt the 1776 version of foreign policy, which is dangerous.

That foreign policy is non-interventionist . I don't understand your application. He doesn't say lets build wooden ships and fly bi-planes. He supports a military might in the world second to none, but we are stretched thin due to all our interventions and are quite unsafe the way things are proportioned right now. We are less safe now than we were before 9-11. it is impossible to keep the US safe and police the world and grow an economy based on debt and war. What we do now ids more dangerous than ever.

  If we as a nation do not handle foriegn policy poperly in this modern age of almost instant everything, then we will pay the price losing everything in a matter of a very short time period.

I agree.

  While serving in the Strategic Air Command in the United State Air Force back in the 1970's it was clear to me the dangers of letting our guard down.  Becoming an isolationist nation ignoring other nations and allowing them to create weapons that will allow them to attack our nation effectively is beyond dangerous; it's irresponsible. 

The press uses the word and definition of Isolationism.  The Former Soviet Union was isolationst. They locked their people up and traded with no one and fought unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and finally collapsed. Pauls viewsa re not Isolationist at all. Trading and partnering with nations in commerce is beneficial to all parties. Not intervening in their sovereign matters in not a bad idea and illegal under most international law. Again I will stress Paul supports a mighty military force. If someone was to attack the US there would be immediate retribution. He voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan as well. Here I think you misunderstand his policy and i would be glad to share his policy info with you should you so choose.

Like it or not we are a global world now. 

Kind of funny, We always lived in a global world, However the economy is global and the dollar ( so far) is the global reserve currency. FYI, Sadaam Hussein was in the process of refusing to sell Iraqi oil for dollars and shifting over to Euros and gold, we then finished him off. Qadaffi ( sic) did the same thing .Coincidence?

We have the ability to stay in our homes and communicate and transact with anyone on the planet twenty four seven.  People all over the world have the ability to create things with technology that do great good and also great harm.  If we ignore those around the world we will find out when it is too late that some of them wish to do great harm and that harm may be at our expense.

So how exactly are you going to protect your self against all the bullies you create and piss off? Again, you have to look at the reasons as to why things happen, if you dont you will make the same mistakes over and over.

  So; first of all; and most important; we must create the ability to defend ourselves, at all costs, or nothing else will matter

We do and we have, but we need to concentrate it her and protect America here. Not sure what you mean at all costs. We have the TSA groping and detaining and tell me do you feel safe after going through all that? Please answer yourself before you read on,,,,,,

Now consider South bend airport.. surrounded by residential area and in some driveway in a commercial flight path sits a van with a skylight  cut into the roof. Inside is some guy who smuggled himself and a shoulder mounted stinger missile launcher perched on his shoulder waiting for the next flight to come overhead. He probably wouldn't be there if some 19 year old kid operating a drone would have hit his target, but instead missed and killed this guys entire family.. feel safe now? could anyone stop him? Think about what you are willing to sacrifice before making a final decision.

Our vision today as individuals is mostly trying to get from one paycheck to the next and that is only for those that are getting a paycheck.  I worry everyday if I will have a job tomorrow; I don't wish to live like that.

We need less government regulation to create jobs, less taxes as well ( Tea party principles)

  This myth that we as a nation cannot do great things because the government is not taking in enough money is missing the whole point.

Not a Ron Paul stance, he wants to take less money from all of us and preferably no money at all

  A reasonable tax system that allows the economy to grow will in fact create more jobs, that in turn will increase government revenue.  This works everytime it is implemented.

Correct again and I agree.

  More to the point; Money is not the problem. 

 Yes it is

Money is nothing more than a note that represents an individuals efforts building something that someone else wishes to trade some of their earnings. 

You need to understand our monetary system, You said it" It's a note" it an unextinguished debt certificate. It is fiat and backed by nothing, printed at will and created by a computer keystoke, Its in reality, unreal!

As long as people are creating something that someone else wants there will be a steady growth in the economy.

I agree.

  It is this creation of products and services that supplies our nation with more.  Our Nation can afford to think big dreams; in fact; we will wither away without big dreams.

 I don't understand what you said there.

This is not rocket science; I know; I know a lot about rocket science; this is not rocket science; it is common sense.

Yes it is, Common sense and Ron Paul is Common sense. Please look into it a bit deeoer you may be surprised what you will discover,

The best Ray

[Ed R]

Thoughtful response.  I had extra time when I wrote what I wrote; that does not happen often.  I would continue this discussion further if I had time.  Thanks and God Bless.
 
Ray Kirkus said:

Ed R said:

I know that I started this post by laying out where I stood, at the time, of my interpretations of my positions as to where the candidates fit into my definitions of the afformantioned categories.  I don't get my talking points by pointing to what others have said i.e. links to whatever; the words I write come strait from my observations and ideas. 

Thank you for taking me up in discussing the issues. I would like to address the issues as you raise them.

There are issues in this election cycle that are important to the survival and progress of this country.  Number one on the list is whether we can keep our country safe from being dominated from foreign or domestic invasion.

Can you elaborate the actual threat you perceive? Is it that the Al qaeda will attack again? Do you know how many Al qauda there are? But most importantly do you know what their reasons  are for attacking us?

In the early 1990's after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, in direct response to Kawait angle drilling and stealing Iraqi oil, the US military, with the invitation of the Saudi King, set up a military base in Saudi Arabia. There is a reason that most of the hijackers during 9-11 were Saudis.

Anyhow, the Al qaeda were created by the CIA who assisted AlCIAda in fighting the Soviets off.  This time the US was the occupier and though the Saudi Royalty ( dictatorship/ monarchy) allowed the US military to set up a base, Bin Ladin himself  has explained that is was the reason for the 1993 attack on the WTC.  There are many publications out there that address this issue of blowback. I do believe we should understand why we were attacked and not presume the sound bite because we are free and prosperous and they hate us for it.

Domestically speaking, state laws and courts protect us against crime. The president is not delagated those powers within the context of the constitution. It is our own government that we and our local officials and representatives should be guarding us against, not the president. Just my take..

  Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, as of yet, have not convinced me they are willing to be an effective commandor and Chief of our military given the current threats that face our nation.

Again please define the threats.. Congress is supposed to declare war when the national security issues are at stake, not the president.

  In the case of Romney he appears to me as a man that has no interest in being forceful in changing our current trajectory toward where we are currently heading at this time and that concernes me a lot.  Most of the power of the Presidency is with foreign policy.

If you mean trajectory as we continue going into more countries and entangling ourselves into more mischief and expense, I have to disagree. Romney is very pro- more war and will kill the Taliban, but do you understand who the Talban are? They fight against the occupiers and do not come here. They want the US out of their country. That is the sole purpose of their existence. They are the resistance, you could say. You are correct, the president is vital and does control foreign policy.

George washing had a statement about his foreign policy to trade with all nations  and have entanglements with none. a true huble foreign policy, the identical policy that Bush ran on.

Ron Paul' s foreign policy is similar to Washingtons: Open dialogue and trade with countries not sanction them. Threats and sanctions are acts of war and the United States uses that tactic everywhere, currently with Cuba, Iran, ect. 

Paul supports a strong and powerful military for defence and cut the spending on militarism such as paying for the private mercenaries in Irag and building billion dollar embassies. The cost of US militarism simply cannot be sustained as we now have to borrow nearly 1/2 of what we spend. All empires eventually end because they go broke.

  I am somewhat convinced that given the opportunity Ron Paul would nominate a very conservative constitutionalist to the Supreme court; Romney has not convinced me of that.

Isn't that a good thing? A true conservative would be fantastic!

  We needed a national military to defend us from invasion at the time of our creation as an independant nation.  We still need a military, that is more than able, to carry out the mission of defending us from invasion from outside our bourders.  Even in 1776 we needed to be aware of what was going on outside our boarders to be prepared militarily to defend this country. 

Absolutely! I agree, so does Paul.

It is the responsability of the President of the United Satates to handle foreign affairs. 

 Yes it is.

We have had threats to our nation since it began from forien hot forces and the way our military handled those threats in the past is not the same as they need to be today.

True, thanks mostly to technology.

  I am not in favor of changing our Constitution. 

I agree, either am I , but the federal government operates completely outside of it and our reps and senators simply don't care.

As in 1776 we need a military that is capable of defending us against foriegn invasion.  The tactical as well as stategic plans and capabilities of our enemies are vastly different than they were when our nation began.  We cannot deffend our country from invasion from outside forces with a 1776 vision of military strategies. 

Again  correct. I agree!

Many Ron Paul supporters have repeatedly condemmed the military industrial complex.

Yes we all do, we condemn militarism not defence. Like I said policing the world and maintaining and empire in 130 countries with over 800 bases is not defence, it is militarism.

  The industrial military complex is mostly private sector. 

Yes , but paid for by congress borrowing money from China and vastly contributing to the enormous national debt. All of us have to pay the costs of war, but only the Military industrial complex profits.

Yes; there are those that loby the powers in DC to award contracts to private sector companies, but that does not take away the need for a modern approach to national defence.

I don't understand the statement. I agree with  modern bleeding edge defence technology developed by the private sector and agree it is  and should be paid for by taxes.. a responsibility of the government ( congress actually) and quite constitutional.

  It is our private sector that creates the equipment that our military uses for our national defence.  In the modern world the threats to our nations security are more destructive, intense, and immediate than at the beginning of our creation as a nation. 

I agree.

Our military mission needs to be different than it was in 1776 and Ron Paul has stated time and time again that he will adopt the 1776 version of foreign policy, which is dangerous.

That foreign policy is non-interventionist . I don't understand your application. He doesn't say lets build wooden ships and fly bi-planes. He supports a military might in the world second to none, but we are stretched thin due to all our interventions and are quite unsafe the way things are proportioned right now. We are less safe now than we were before 9-11. it is impossible to keep the US safe and police the world and grow an economy based on debt and war. What we do now ids more dangerous than ever.

  If we as a nation do not handle foriegn policy poperly in this modern age of almost instant everything, then we will pay the price losing everything in a matter of a very short time period.

I agree.

  While serving in the Strategic Air Command in the United State Air Force back in the 1970's it was clear to me the dangers of letting our guard down.  Becoming an isolationist nation ignoring other nations and allowing them to create weapons that will allow them to attack our nation effectively is beyond dangerous; it's irresponsible. 

The press uses the word and definition of Isolationism.  The Former Soviet Union was isolationst. They locked their people up and traded with no one and fought unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and finally collapsed. Pauls viewsa re not Isolationist at all. Trading and partnering with nations in commerce is beneficial to all parties. Not intervening in their sovereign matters in not a bad idea and illegal under most international law. Again I will stress Paul supports a mighty military force. If someone was to attack the US there would be immediate retribution. He voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan as well. Here I think you misunderstand his policy and i would be glad to share his policy info with you should you so choose.

Like it or not we are a global world now. 

Kind of funny, We always lived in a global world, However the economy is global and the dollar ( so far) is the global reserve currency. FYI, Sadaam Hussein was in the process of refusing to sell Iraqi oil for dollars and shifting over to Euros and gold, we then finished him off. Qadaffi ( sic) did the same thing .Coincidence?

We have the ability to stay in our homes and communicate and transact with anyone on the planet twenty four seven.  People all over the world have the ability to create things with technology that do great good and also great harm.  If we ignore those around the world we will find out when it is too late that some of them wish to do great harm and that harm may be at our expense.

So how exactly are you going to protect your self against all the bullies you create and piss off? Again, you have to look at the reasons as to why things happen, if you dont you will make the same mistakes over and over.

  So; first of all; and most important; we must create the ability to defend ourselves, at all costs, or nothing else will matter

We do and we have, but we need to concentrate it her and protect America here. Not sure what you mean at all costs. We have the TSA groping and detaining and tell me do you feel safe after going through all that? Please answer yourself before you read on,,,,,,

Now consider South bend airport.. surrounded by residential area and in some driveway in a commercial flight path sits a van with a skylight  cut into the roof. Inside is some guy who smuggled himself and a shoulder mounted stinger missile launcher perched on his shoulder waiting for the next flight to come overhead. He probably wouldn't be there if some 19 year old kid operating a drone would have hit his target, but instead missed and killed this guys entire family.. feel safe now? could anyone stop him? Think about what you are willing to sacrifice before making a final decision.

Our vision today as individuals is mostly trying to get from one paycheck to the next and that is only for those that are getting a paycheck.  I worry everyday if I will have a job tomorrow; I don't wish to live like that.

We need less government regulation to create jobs, less taxes as well ( Tea party principles)

  This myth that we as a nation cannot do great things because the government is not taking in enough money is missing the whole point.

Not a Ron Paul stance, he wants to take less money from all of us and preferably no money at all

  A reasonable tax system that allows the economy to grow will in fact create more jobs, that in turn will increase government revenue.  This works everytime it is implemented.

Correct again and I agree.

  More to the point; Money is not the problem. 

 Yes it is

Money is nothing more than a note that represents an individuals efforts building something that someone else wishes to trade some of their earnings. 

You need to understand our monetary system, You said it" It's a note" it an unextinguished debt certificate. It is fiat and backed by nothing, printed at will and created by a computer keystoke, Its in reality, unreal!

As long as people are creating something that someone else wants there will be a steady growth in the economy.

I agree.

  It is this creation of products and services that supplies our nation with more.  Our Nation can afford to think big dreams; in fact; we will wither away without big dreams.

 I don't understand what you said there.

This is not rocket science; I know; I know a lot about rocket science; this is not rocket science; it is common sense.

Yes it is, Common sense and Ron Paul is Common sense. Please look into it a bit deeoer you may be surprised what you will discover,

The best Ray