Comment: I agree with you 100%

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Except... (see in situ)

I agree with you 100%

Why are you taking exception to what I wrote? I believe we need to change our defense strategy to building a strong defense at home and adopting a non-interventionist policy abroad - what would result in a net savings, i.e., a reduction in federal spending; secondly, we need to divest the federal govt of certain roles and power it has garnered for itself, returning rights and responsibilities to the states and people - what would also result in a reduction in federal spending.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you misunderstood my point, which regarded the legitimate responsibilities of the federal govt (as per the Constitution), of which national defense is not only one, but the primary, responsibility. Accordingly, one would expect spending on national defense to be "the biggest piece of the (federal budget) pie." I thought that what Dionne said could lead one to erroneously believe (as many do!) that Ron Paul is "weak on defense," when it's not the case. What I've said is not out of line with Ron Paul's own policy statement. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir