PDA

View Full Version : Nutjob? Nutbag? Loon?



Articulate_Ape
04-16-2010, 05:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmEOv_rT8LQ



Please tell me why what this man says sounds so crazy to some conservatives. Liberals thinking he is off his rocker is completely understandable given that he is the antithesis of everything their agenda stands for. But conservatives?

I hear many (although fewer these days) self-professing conservatives labeling Mr. Paul some epithet representing insanity; including some here. Well, if Paul is indeed one beer short of a six-pack, then so was Jefferson, so was Adams, and all the others who drafted and/or signed the Constitution of the United States of America.

I have asked numerous times here, what exactly is it that Mr. Paul puts forth in his arguments that makes him in any way daft?

Thanks.

djones520
04-16-2010, 05:52 PM
I think his foreign policy idea's is the biggest attribute for that idea. The biggest enmity for him comes from his followers. Ronbots invaded this site and acted loonier then a pack of loonies in a loony bin. The fact that they were invited and led by a power mad megalomaniac who single handedly drove half this sites members away, it just left a lot of bad feelings.

Articulate_Ape
04-16-2010, 06:09 PM
I think his foreign policy idea's is the biggest attribute for that idea. The biggest enmity for him comes from his followers. Ronbots invaded this site and acted loonier then a pack of loonies in a loony bin. The fact that they were invited and led by a power mad megalomaniac who single handedly drove half this sites members away, it just left a lot of bad feelings.

I see. Well, that is understandable. Unfortunately, every movement has its loons. Ron Paul's biggest PR problem with me is that his Libertarian principles keep him from dictating to those who believe in his overall message. For example, Jesse Ventura (who I think IS a bubble off of plumb) appearing at a Ron Paul event leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well. However, I try to separate the message from the messenger when I can.

Likewise, I hear what you are saying about his view of foreign policy and that used to be my own biggest policy difference with him, but I have to say that as time has passed and our fiscal house has crumbled further, and our foreign adventures (esp. Afghanistan) seem to be more and more like trying to nail Jell-O to a swaying tree, I have begun to reexamine my own assumptions in "empire" maintenance.

At any rate, whether one agrees with him in part or at all, I don't think anything that he suggests even remotely resembles lunacy.

Rockntractor
04-16-2010, 06:13 PM
Voting for Ron Paul For president will insure we become a communist nation. We cannot chance 4 more years of obama. Rem Ross Perot! Ron Paul cannot get the votes to win it would be impossible. get over it!:rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
04-16-2010, 06:23 PM
Voting for Ron Paul For president will insure we become a communist nation. We cannot chance 4 more years of obama. Rem Ross Perot! Ron Paul cannot get the votes to win it would be impossible. get over it!:rolleyes:


I really don't think he is going to run, Rock. Even if he does, it will only be to mobilize his forces so when he endorses the Republican that can win, the Republican WILL win. Paul understands full-well that trying to work outside the framework of the Republican Party is utter folly, at least for the foreseeable future. Ross Perot (who clearly was insane) didn't get that, and I don't think he cared. I believe he ran on ego.

I am frankly more worried about the Tea Party missing this dynamic than Ron Paul and his foot soldiers. What you suggest is a really, really important factor that ALL conservatives had better get to avoid the very outcome you predict if they don't. At the same time, the GOP and whoever emerges as the favored candidate to kick Bam Bam out of office had better understand that Ron Paul's endorsement is very, very important. If you recall, Paul refused to endorse any Republican candidate the last go around and that was very damaging to the already damaged goods named John McCain.

Rockntractor
04-16-2010, 06:27 PM
I really don't think he is going to run, Rock. Even if he does, it will only be to mobilize his forces so when he endorses the Republican that can win, the Republican WILL win. Paul understands full-well that trying to work outside the framework of the Republican Party is utter folly, at least for the foreseeable future. Ross Perot (who clearly was insane) didn't get that, and I don't think he cared. I believe he ran on ego.

I am frankly more worried about the Tea Party missing this dynamic than Ron Paul and his foot soldiers. What you suggest is a really, really important factor that ALL conservatives had better get to avoid the very outcome you predict if they don't. At the same time, the GOP and whoever emerges as the favored candidate to kick Bam Bam out of office had better understand that Ron Paul's endorsement is very, very important. If you recall, Paul refused to endorse any Republican candidate the last go around and that was very damaging to the already damaged goods named John McCain.
I wish we had a hundred Ron Paul's in congress, my main fear is a split conservative vote when it comes time for the presidential election.

Articulate_Ape
04-16-2010, 06:37 PM
I wish we had a hundred Ron Paul's in congress, my main fear is a split conservative vote when it comes time for the presidential election.


And it is a very legitimate concern, my friend. Again, I don't think it is going to come from Paul & Co. since their movement was very arguably the catalyst for the Tea Party movement of today. I think the two are far more the same than different and there is a great deal of crossover.

I think it will be a unified front than bitch slaps Obama out of the Oval Office in 2012, but I worry a little about the November elections and whether the Tea Party chapters nationwide understand and share your extremely important point. Take Reid's race for example. Last I read the Tea Party candidate was running under that banner rather than the GOP's. There was even speculation that it was a Reid orchestrated plant. I have not had time to catch up on what is going on out there, but I will check tonight.

At the end of the day, you are as right as rain, Rock. If we are going to capsize this government like the island of Haiti, we all need to be pulling in the same direction--and hard.

Sonnabend
04-16-2010, 07:25 PM
I have asked numerous times here, what exactly is it that Mr. Paul puts forth in his arguments that makes him in any way daft?

1. He is in bed with Troofers...he caters to the lunatic fringe
2. He's an anti semite
3. He is associated with, and took campaign money from, Stormfront.

Anyone who keeps company with these two groups is either not sane or a fucking moron.

fettpett
04-16-2010, 07:58 PM
I'm with djones520 on his forigen policy stances. Thats the biggest thing that turn him off to voters in '08. once he said that the Wars were illegal, he got thrown in with the moonbats on the left that were saying the same thing.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-16-2010, 07:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmEOv_rT8LQ



Please tell me why what this man says sounds so crazy to some conservatives. Liberals thinking he is off his rocker is completely understandable given that he is the antithesis of everything their agenda stands for. But conservatives?

I hear many (although fewer these days) self-professing conservatives labeling Mr. Paul some epithet representing insanity; including some here. Well, if Paul is indeed one beer short of a six-pack, then so was Jefferson, so was Adams, and all the others who drafted and/or signed the Constitution of the United States of America.

I have asked numerous times here, what exactly is it that Mr. Paul puts forth in his arguments that makes him in any way daft?

Thanks.


Ron Paul is Dead on right on most matters regarding domestic policy. On foreign policy, however, his policies would mean the end of western civilization. Not much better than a DUmmie in that area.

Articulate_Ape
04-16-2010, 08:36 PM
Not much better than a DUmmie in that area.

Because...?

djones520
04-16-2010, 08:48 PM
Because...?

Thinking America is the bad guy, wanting total isolationism, etc, etc, etc... that's DUmmie speak.

fettpett
04-16-2010, 09:53 PM
not only that, but when he was talking about Congress being the only ones allowed to send boys to war, he was refering to Iraq. (and "police actions") when it comes to that he's a nut, he claims (as well as some moonbats on the left) that the TWICE congress passed the authority to go to war

Constitutionally Speaking
04-16-2010, 09:56 PM
Because...?


Because I believe that there really is a very strong and very large radical muslim movement that is intent on destroying western civilization. I don't think Ron Paul gets that, and he attributes their attacks against us to blowback from our past policies.

I believe that these are mere excuses and if we were completely innocent in all that we have ever done, they STILL would be intent on destroying our way of life.

PoliCon
04-16-2010, 10:10 PM
Ron Paul is Dead on right on most matters regarding domestic policy. On foreign policy, however, his policies would mean the end of western civilization. Not much better than a DUmmie in that area.

QFT

PoliCon
04-16-2010, 10:11 PM
1. He is in bed with Troofers...he caters to the lunatic fringe
2. He's an anti semite
3. He is associated with, and took campaign money from, Stormfront.

Anyone who keeps company with these two groups is either not sane or a fucking moron. Do you have any evidence to back these statements up?

Rockntractor
04-16-2010, 10:15 PM
Do you have any evidence to back these statements up?

It has to do with donations he didn't send back, but in his defense he didn't solicite them either. If Wilbur sent me a boatload of cash I would hold my nose and put it in the bank!

PoliCon
04-16-2010, 10:20 PM
It has to do with donations he didn't send back, but in his defense he didn't solicite them either. If Wilbur sent me a boatload of cash I would hold my nose and put it in the bank!

I'd still like the facts on these claims.

Gingersnap
04-16-2010, 10:23 PM
Like everybody else here, I liked RP on domestic matters and I liked that he was blunt and to-the-point. His foreign policy ideas just wouldn't fly. Not that they were all wrong but they just weren't practical at the moment.

Everybody I know in the Tea Party is committed to working like dogs to promote conservatives but not one of us will vote for the donkeys if "our" guy or gal doesn't make it. We'll back the Republican and then dedicate our lives to making that Republican a conservative. ;)

Rockntractor
04-16-2010, 10:29 PM
I'd still like the facts on these claims.

What would you do with them? How would that change your life?:confused:

Constitutionally Speaking
04-16-2010, 10:32 PM
We need the tea party to take over the Republican party. Not form a third party.

Gingersnap
04-16-2010, 10:33 PM
We need the tea party to take over the Republican party. Not form a third party.

That's the Plan. ;)

AmPat
04-16-2010, 10:56 PM
The GOP had better move hard right and fast. The country is conservative and is being led quickly Marxist by a boatload of moonbat crazy libs. I suggest the Tea Party come up with a conservative platform that candidates either sign and adhere to, or they don't get the endrsements. Tie that to campaign contributions and the RINOS are through.:cool:

PoliCon
04-16-2010, 10:59 PM
We need the tea party to take over the Republican party. Not form a third party.

much agreed.

Articulate_Ape
04-17-2010, 12:40 AM
We need the tea party to take over the Republican party. Not form a third party.


"From". That's it, you are off the sign painting detail.:p

Constitutionally Speaking
04-17-2010, 07:41 AM
"From". That's it, you are off the sign painting detail.:p



:confused:

djones520
04-17-2010, 07:59 AM
:confused:

:confused:

Sonnabend
04-17-2010, 08:33 AM
Do you have any evidence to back these statements up?

I posted it earlier. StormFront had a fundraiser going for Paul and he took that money,. He accepted campaign donations from the founder of StormFront and was stupid enough to have this cute photo taken

http://lonestartimes.com/images/2007/12/rp-and-db.jpg


Ron Paul: I don't accept 9/11 investigations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihCP3cfS88E

I have posted on the rest previously.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-17-2010, 09:14 AM
:confused:

:confused::confused:

M21
04-17-2010, 09:28 AM
We need the tea party to take over the Republican party. Not form a third party.The problem I see is that the GOP is trying to co-opt the Tea Party and the power of the Tea Party is that it is NOT the GOP. Like Beck said, the GOP is in denial and refuses to admit it has a problem.

The GOP has destroyed itself from within and the last thing a REAL Conservative movement needs is an infection of NeoConism.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-17-2010, 10:05 AM
The problem I see is that the GOP is trying to co-opt the Tea Party and the power of the Tea Party is that it is NOT the GOP. Like Beck said, the GOP is in denial and refuses to admit it has a problem.

The GOP has destroyed itself from within and the last thing a REAL Conservative movement needs is an infection of NeoConism.


Becks "solution" will condemn us to another 4 years of Obama. Beck is right about EVERYTHING - EXCEPT how to defeat liberals.

The Party big-wigs may be slow to get it, but if the tea party takes over - these guys will be kicked out or minimized.

Conservatives already outnumber the liberals in the Republican party - we just need to act like it and take over.

fettpett
04-17-2010, 10:11 AM
We need two things in the Tea Party, a good Strategist and a good Tactician at a national level. we get that and the vicotries will follow.

Rockntractor
04-17-2010, 10:24 AM
Becks "solution" will condemn us to another 4 years of Obama. Beck is right about EVERYTHING - EXCEPT how to defeat liberals.

The Party big-wigs may be slow to get it, but if the tea party takes over - these guys will be kicked out or minimized.

Conservatives already outnumber the liberals in the Republican party - we just need to act like it and take over.

Steele has to go and he has to go now!

Constitutionally Speaking
04-17-2010, 03:41 PM
Steele has to go and he has to go now!


Yes he does.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-17-2010, 03:57 PM
But if the Tea Party was to reform as a true third party, wouldn't that simply steal votes from the GOP and give Obama another victory?

Constitutionally Speaking
04-17-2010, 04:37 PM
But if the Tea Party was to reform as a true third party, wouldn't that simply steal votes from the GOP and give Obama another victory?


Yes it would.

Articulate_Ape
04-17-2010, 06:15 PM
:confused:

I was being facetious. :D We are all supposed to be illiterate, remember?

Articulate_Ape
04-17-2010, 06:23 PM
Thinking America is the bad guy, wanting total isolationism, etc, etc, etc... that's DUmmie speak.

Again, that aspect of Paul I have problems with too. However, I don;t know as it makes him crazy, just wrong. I realize that there is a contingent of Paulites that would like to turn back the clock at least a couple hundred years, and again, that is misguided I think. I, and a great many others who lean Libertarian, would prefer to see a balance between what Paul proposes and what most conservatives think about global issues and America's role in facing them.

I think that the problem we face in trying to maintain a military presence in so many places is that we can no longer afford it. There is little point in setting up bases overseas to defend America if there will soon be little left of America to defend because we have bankrupted ourselves.

I would like to at least have a conversation among conservatives regarding where we REALLY need to be at this point and whether the ends justify the means.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-17-2010, 06:47 PM
I was being facetious. :D We are all supposed to be illiterate, remember?

:confused:

Articulate_Ape
04-17-2010, 06:50 PM
:confused:

:confused:

djones520
04-17-2010, 06:56 PM
Again, that aspect of Paul I have problems with too. However, I don;t know as it makes him crazy, just wrong. I realize that there is a contingent of Paulites that would like to turn back the clock at least a couple hundred years, and again, that is misguided I think. I, and a great many others who lean Libertarian, would prefer to see a balance between what Paul proposes and what most conservatives think about global issues and America's role in facing them.

I think that the problem we face in trying to maintain a military presence in so many places is that we can no longer afford it. There is little point in setting up bases overseas to defend America if there will soon be little left of America to defend because we have bankrupted ourselves.

I would like to at least have a conversation among conservatives regarding where we REALLY need to be at this point and whether the ends justify the means.

Our expidentures on those bases isn't really all that much compaired to the big picture. The entirety of Afghan and Iraq's money (9 years of war) comes to just a little more then the Stimulus bill, and nothing compaired to Obamacare combined with that. And oddly enough, those military ventures are things that are allowed by the Constitution while those other things aren't.

The military is not the enemy in the face of our debt. It's social programs that is. And it really annoys the hell out of me when I see conservatives pointing out the military as being a bigger waste of money then other things.

Articulate_Ape
04-17-2010, 07:26 PM
Our expidentures on those bases isn't really all that much compaired to the big picture. The entirety of Afghan and Iraq's money (9 years of war) comes to just a little more then the Stimulus bill, and nothing compaired to Obamacare combined with that. And oddly enough, those military ventures are things that are allowed by the Constitution while those other things aren't.

The military is not the enemy in the face of our debt. It's social programs that is. And it really annoys the hell out of me when I see conservatives pointing out the military as being a bigger waste of money then other things.

Don't take me wrong, djones. I think the military is one of the few valid functions of the federal government. That's why this aspect of Paul's message is such a turnoff to me and always has been. However, I am one who is willing to think out of the box and I do think that our military has had a tougher row to hoe since we passed the war powers act, thus giving presidents and, moreover, Congress political cover when we prosecute wars. Whether the Congress endorses giving the POTUS the power to use military force or not, the WPA allows a president to point to that endorsement and Congress to parse the words of that endorsement for political convenience.

Now, I never served in the military, but I hold its members in the highest regard. It is that admiration that makes me so angry when they are not given free rein to do what they do better than any military on the planet: win. These men and women at all levels of rank struggle against a political machine back home that uses them as pawns and it disgusts me.

I believe, but I would defer to any active duty or veteran soldier here, that the WPA should be repealed and that Congress should be required to enact a declaration of war before we send the finest men and women this nation produces into harms way. That is what the Constitution requires and for good reason. It is so when we go to fight a war WE MEAN IT. It is designed to keep piles of feces like Murtha, and Kerry, and Durbin, and Reid, Pelosi, et al, from undermining or military under the cover of "oh, we authorized it, but this isn't what we meant".

Such a demand of legitimacy will not only de-politicize the wars our military so nobly prosecute, it will also have a sobering effect on which wars we are willing to sacrifice our treasure, first in the form of the blood of our best, second in the form of our financial well-being.

Sorry for the tome, but I think that Paul brings to the table questions that may be worthy of dismissal, but are at least worthy of consideration before doing so. The result might just be a blend of ideas that are more practical, morally and fiscally responsible, and more Constitutional.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-18-2010, 07:55 PM
:confused:

:eek::confused::D

Odysseus
04-18-2010, 08:41 PM
I'd still like the facts on these claims.

Paul isn't a "Truther," although he did oppose pretty much everything that we did after 9/11. His opposition to the 9/11 Commission Report was that its main goal was "to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not ... to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war .... Some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done." When asked whether "9/11 was orchestrated by the government," Paul stated, "Absolutely not."

Having said that, he is an isolationist and tends to see actions in the rest of the world as resulting from US actions, rather than as their own specific issues. On the Middle East, for example, he opposes our alliance with Israel and doesn't grasp that the international Jihad exists independently of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. During the 2009 Gaza War, Paul opposed the House's proposed resolution supporting Israel, stating: "Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers..."Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country?"

Now, if you believe that the only reason that 1 billion Arabs/Muslims cannot get their act together is because 6 million Jews live on a sliver of land that's smaller than New Jersey, then this makes sense. If, OTOH, you recognize that Islam has been at war with the west since its inception, and that the US fought its first war against Jihadis during the Jefferson administration, then it doesn't.

I like a lot of what Paul stands for domestically, but I emphatically disagree with him on foreign policy. If the US didn't exist, Lenin still would have taken over Russia and created the evil empire. Stalin still would have murdered tens of millions, Mao would have come to power in China, Ahmedinejad, Putin, Chavez, Castro and a host of other evil bastards would still exist, and liberty would be threatened throughout the world. The Wahhabi/Salafist school of Islam actually predates the US, and we'd still be seeing jihad spreading globally. Khomeini might not have had us as the great Satan, but he'd have found something, because tyrants need enemies. And all tyrants know on a visceral level that America is their enemy because the people that they oppress look to us as an example. It wasn't a replica of the Eiffel tower that the students built in Tienanmen Square, it was the Statue of Liberty. When Iranians took to the street to oppose their regime, they carried English signs as well as Farsi, because they knew that we were watching, and that of all of the nations in the world, we were the only one that could and would help. The world has evil in it, and that evil would exist whether we opposed it or not, but it is our nature to oppose it, and if we, the greatest nation in the free world, fail to confront it, then it will triumph.

Tecate
04-18-2010, 09:41 PM
I posted it earlier. StormFront had a fundraiser going for Paul and he took that money,. He accepted campaign donations from the founder of StormFront and was stupid enough to have this cute photo taken

http://lonestartimes.com/images/2007/12/rp-and-db.jpg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihCP3cfS88E

I have posted on the rest previously.
I gave Ron Paul $1300 and had my photo taken with him, and he doesn't know me from anybody. I could be an axe murderer for all he knows. This is ridiculous and proves nothing. He is not "affiliated" with StormFront.

Six of the ten 9/11 commissioners said the (non)investigation was a cover-up and a fraud. Are they twoofers and kooks?

Ron Paul is not a perfect "slick" politician, but many of you neo-cons need to give credit where credit is due. He is responsible for a MASSIVE awakening to the PRIVATE off-shore banking cartel we call the federal reserve that would have seemed impossible just a few years ago. His bill (HR 1207) to audit the private criminal federal reserve has already passed in the House and continues to gain momentum in the Senate. This is no small feat. These people seized control of this nation's money supply and credit in 1913 and that's why the purchasing power of the dollar is in the shitter. Inflation is a hidden and illegal tax on the people. It punishes savers and people on fixed incomes the most.

Without exception, all fiat currencies all throughout history have always been inflated to their true value... Zero. There's absolutely no reason to believe that it can't happen here.

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/Loveways/6.jpg

Articulate_Ape
04-18-2010, 09:54 PM
"...but many of you neo-cons..." is not helpful IMHO. I think that conservatives of all stripes have more in common than that which separates us. Such a division is EXACTLY what the current regime wants. Can we please refrain from giving it to them?

No one turns the ship of state until they have boarded it and taken the helm. That is when we can split the hairs of policy. Until then, if we don't act together, then they win and we lose. Period.

Tecate
04-18-2010, 10:06 PM
"...but many of you neo-cons..." is not helpful IMHO. I think that conservatives of all stripes have more in common than that which separates us. Such a division is EXACTLY what the current regime wants. Can we please refrain from giving it to them?

No one turns the ship of state until they have boarded it and taken the helm. That is when we can split the hairs of policy. Until then, if we don't act together, then they win and we lose. Period.
I hear you. No it is not helpful, and I probably should have left that out.

Daily media spectacle talking point BS just makes me sick and keeps people from focusing on any real issues.

Articulate_Ape
04-18-2010, 10:25 PM
I hear you. No it is not helpful, and I probably should have left that out.

Daily media spectacle talking point BS just makes me sick and keeps people from focusing on any real issues.

I think we are all on the same team here, my friend. We may have certain differences of opinion, but they pale in the light of the agenda of bastards that are pissing on us all.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-19-2010, 06:45 AM
I think we are all on the same team here, my friend. We may have certain differences of opinion, but they pale in the light of the agenda of bastards that are pissing on us all.


Exactly.

Sonnabend
04-19-2010, 08:33 AM
I gave Ron Paul $1300 and had my photo taken with him, and he doesn't know me from anybody. I could be an axe murderer for all he knows. This is ridiculous and proves nothing. He is not "affiliated" with StormFront.

A man who is running for President, who has his photo taken with, and accepts donations from, a white supremacy movement has, in my mind, a lot to explain.

I never said he was affiliated...but I do question his judgement.

asdf2231
04-19-2010, 03:39 PM
Man you sure as shit got your moneys worth out of that deal. :D

Tecate
04-19-2010, 09:10 PM
Man you sure as shit got your moneys worth out of that deal. :D
Yeah, I'm just sitting back watching my bankrupted (by design) country go into receivership like a big fat Christmas hog served up on the alter of globalism.

It's real funny. I'm LMAO.

asdf2231
04-20-2010, 10:41 AM
Yeah, I'm just sitting back watching my bankrupted (by design) country go into receivership like a big fat Christmas hog served up on the alter of globalism.

It's real funny. I'm LMAO.

You dumped $1300 on a guy who never had a reasonable or sensible hope in hell. He got his ass handed to him.

That year I spent $1100 on a 60" HD flat screen. And Paul got his ass handed to him.

Both of us had an equal chance of getting him elected. But I got a nice TV out of it and spent less.

Odysseus
04-20-2010, 12:17 PM
You dumped $1300 on a guy who never had a reasonable or sensible hope in hell. He got his ass handed to him.

That year I spent $1100 on a 60" HD flat screen. And Paul got his ass handed to him.

Both of us had an equal chance of getting him elected. But I got a nice TV out of it and spent less.

LCD or Plasma?

asdf2231
04-20-2010, 11:38 PM
LCD or Plasma?

Plasma alas. :D

Tecate
04-21-2010, 12:06 AM
You dumped $1300 on a guy who never had a reasonable or sensible hope in hell. He got his ass handed to him.

That year I spent $1100 on a 60" HD flat screen. And Paul got his ass handed to him.

Both of us had an equal chance of getting him elected. But I got a nice TV out of it and spent less.
I knew he had no chance to win, that isn't the point... He was the only candidate injecting any real issues into the debates, which isn't exactly what the American people wanted to hear, but needed to. Actually, it's kind of a joke to call what we saw "debates" anyway, but that's another thread.

If you want to get real technical about it, the Republican party as a whole and their phony conservative platform had their asses handed to them... In spades.

M21
04-21-2010, 02:13 AM
If you want to get real technical about it, the Republican party as a whole and their phony conservative platform had their asses handed to them... In spades.

AMEN! +1

Molon Labe
04-21-2010, 12:13 PM
Again, that aspect of Paul I have problems with too. However, I don;t know as it makes him crazy, just wrong. I realize that there is a contingent of Paulites that would like to turn back the clock at least a couple hundred years, and again, that is misguided I think. I, and a great many others who lean Libertarian, would prefer to see a balance between what Paul proposes and what most conservatives think about global issues and America's role in facing them.

I think that the problem we face in trying to maintain a military presence in so many places is that we can no longer afford it. There is little point in setting up bases overseas to defend America if there will soon be little left of America to defend because we have bankrupted ourselves.

I would like to at least have a conversation among conservatives regarding where we REALLY need to be at this point and whether the ends justify the means.

Non intervention doesn't mean pacifism. It means not spreading yourself into every corner of the globe providing security for everyone. There's a big difference between non interventionism and isolationism, yet some still don't understand that gulf.
Ever hear of Michael Scheuer? He's written some of the best work on the failings of not getting this.

Articulate_Ape
04-21-2010, 12:45 PM
Non intervention doesn't mean pacifism. It means not spreading yourself into every corner of the globe providing security for everyone. There's a big difference between non interventionism and isolationism, yet some still don't understand that gulf.
Ever hear of Michael Scheuer? He's written some of the best work on the failings of not getting this.

I understand that perfectly well, Molon. I think there are tons of places (Europe for one) that we shouldn't be covering their asses anymore. However, there are hot spots where I believe it is in our security interest to have boots on the ground. Paul thinks we should pull everything back within our borders and that may sound great in theory, but in reality I think he is just plain wrong. We don't live in that world anymore.

Molon Labe
04-21-2010, 12:57 PM
I understand that perfectly well, Molon. I think there are tons of places (Europe for one) that we shouldn't be covering their asses anymore. However, there are hot spots where I believe it is in our security interest to have boots on the ground. Paul thinks we should pull everything back within our borders and that may sound great in theory, but in reality I think he is just plain wrong. We don't live in that world anymore.

Well. I don't agree with pulling everything back either, but there's complete overkill when 90 percent of your forces are outside the CONUS protecting someone else's borders. etc. Problem is there isn't a single politician that will even talk about that reality and how it burdens the economy.

Articulate_Ape
04-21-2010, 01:00 PM
Well. I don't agree with pulling everything back either, but there's complete overkill when 90 percent of your forces are outside the CONUS protecting someone else's borders. etc. Problem is there isn't a single politician that will even talk about that reality and how it burdens the economy.

You're preaching to the choir on this one, Molon.

PoliCon
04-21-2010, 10:41 PM
Well. I don't agree with pulling everything back either, but there's complete overkill when 90 percent of your forces are outside the CONUS protecting someone else's borders. etc. Problem is there isn't a single politician that will even talk about that reality and how it burdens the economy.

You do realize that it's against the law for US soldiers to be deployed within the CONUS right?

Articulate_Ape
04-21-2010, 10:45 PM
You do realize that it's against the law for US soldiers to be deployed within the CONUS right?


As a policing force, yes. As a military defense force, no.

Molon Labe
04-22-2010, 08:51 AM
You do realize that it's against the law for US soldiers to be deployed within the CONUS right?

Wrong.
See WWII for a second opinion. There's a difference in defending the homeland and using troops in a way that violates Posse Comitatus.

So you don't want troops to defend the homeland?

Rockntractor
04-22-2010, 08:54 AM
Wrong.
See WWII for a second opinion. There's a difference in defending the homeland and using troops in a way that violates Posse Comitatus.

So you don't want troops to defend the homeland?
He is afraid of getting stepped on.

fettpett
04-22-2010, 09:07 AM
I don't have an issue with Troops being stationed in CONUS as LONG as they aren't being used for anything other than possible emergancy services (ie fight forest fires, Huricane relief ect. ) and not used to violate Posse Comitatus

AmPat
04-22-2010, 12:30 PM
I don't have an issue with Troops being stationed in CONUS as LONG as they aren't being used for anything other than possible emergancy services (ie fight forest fires, Huricane relief ect. ) and not used to violate Posse Comitatus

I'm stationed in CONUS. I believe you meant "deployed" in CONUS on an operation?

M21
04-22-2010, 02:06 PM
I'm stationed in CONUS. I believe you meant "deployed" in CONUS on an operation?

Unless....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Task_Force_North

fettpett
04-22-2010, 06:52 PM
I'm stationed in CONUS. I believe you meant "deployed" in CONUS on an operation?

yes I meant deployed.

closing some of the bases in Europe and Asia and bringing the boys back home will keep a lot of bases from being closed and help a lot of small communities that are around the bases.

PoliCon
04-24-2010, 12:58 AM
Wrong.
See WWII for a second opinion. There's a difference in defending the homeland and using troops in a way that violates Posse Comitatus.

So you don't want troops to defend the homeland?

I don't trust the government not to try and use them against us - ESPECIALLY since they are already labeling us as trouble makers and threats to them.

PoliCon
04-24-2010, 01:00 AM
yes I meant deployed.

closing some of the bases in Europe and Asia and bringing the boys back home will keep a lot of bases from being closed and help a lot of small communities that are around the bases.

I agree. Bring them home in the order of the locations original deployment. What deployments predate WWII?

djones520
04-24-2010, 08:04 AM
Well. I don't agree with pulling everything back either, but there's complete overkill when 90 percent of your forces are outside the CONUS protecting someone else's borders. etc. Problem is there isn't a single politician that will even talk about that reality and how it burdens the economy.

90%? That a POOMA statistic? You've almost got it backwards. Roughly 13% of our Active Duty Forces are permanently stationed overseas. Thats about 168,000 of 1.5 million active duty personnel. The forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are drawn from both our permanent overseas locations and state side forces. There is another 850,000 Reserve and NG personnel who are also "permanently stationed" in the CONUS as well.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-24-2010, 09:25 AM
Earlier on in the thread, there was a point made about the expense of operating bases overseas. I understand that there IS an additional cost associated with overseas bases, but how significant is that?

We would still have to have bases somewhere and I would bet that having them here would cost nearly as much.

Anyone know just how much of a difference, cost-wise, being overseas makes?

fettpett
04-24-2010, 09:39 AM
Earlier on in the thread, there was a point made about the expense of operating bases overseas. I understand that there IS an additional cost associated with overseas bases, but how significant is that?

We would still have to have bases somewhere and I would bet that having them here would cost nearly as much.

Anyone know just how much of a difference, cost-wise, being overseas makes?

the cost has to be quite a bit higher when you factor in travel, resupply, and any money that is given to pay off the Governments of the countries we have bases in.

djones520
04-24-2010, 09:41 AM
the cost has to be quite a bit higher when you factor in travel, resupply, and any money that is given to pay off the Governments of the countries we have bases in.

Compare them to operational needs though? Those bases aren't there for no reason. And it's not just our ability to deliver fire power. Our ability to project force is why we are usually first responders in any humanitarian situation around the world.

fettpett
04-24-2010, 09:47 AM
Compare them to operational needs though? Those bases aren't there for no reason. And it's not just our ability to deliver fire power. Our ability to project force is why we are usually first responders in any humanitarian situation around the world.

I'm not saying there aren't needs for them. but I don't think we need more than a handful of bases outside the US for such operations. unless it's needed for a current operation, we don't need more than 1 maybe 2 bases per region outside the CONUS

heres a pic of where we currently have bases

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/US_military_bases_in_the_world_2007.svg (damn pic wouldn't post)

Dark Blue is more than 1000
Light Blue more than 100
Orange is use of facilities

djones520
04-24-2010, 09:58 AM
I'm not saying there aren't needs for them. but I don't think we need more than a handful of bases outside the US for such operations. unless it's needed for a current operation, we don't need more than 1 maybe 2 bases per region outside the CONUS

heres a pic of where we currently have bases

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/US_military_bases_in_the_world_2007.svg

Dark Blue is more than 1000
Light Blue more than 100
Orange is use of facilities

I will toss a bone to you and say that MAYBE we could reduce our Army foot print in Europe. Our Navy and AF all serve vital strategic importance though.

On that map, those 1000 troops just means we have a full active duty base there. Incirlik AB in Turkey, we'd be unable to continue our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without it due to it's KC-135's. Japan and Korea's forces are there keeping N. Korea in check, as well as China. Don't fool yourself thinking that all is happy cheery buddy chummy with them. Spain and Portugal are major naval shipping points. Almost all of our MRAPs that are currently saving lives in Iraq and Afghanistan where shipped into Spain and Portugal, and then flown from Moron, or Rota AB into the AOR. Ramstein AFB process all AE's coming out of the AOR, as well as provides a cargo hub for other supplies moving in. The ground troops there are usual first responders to military actions in Europe or Southwest Asia. And you can't tell me we haven't had need for that in the last 20 years. Our Naval forces have to be prepositioned world wide given the speed that they can move at. If we kept them all at our shores, it would take a week or two to get them to the AOR which is just unnacceptable to our warfighting doctrine.

Look, every year BRAC goes through and determines what is, and isn't vital to our needs. They don't keep those bases open for no reason. If there is no need for the base, they will draw it down to minimum manning or close it. Believe it or not, the military doesn't frugally throw money away like the rest of our Federal Government. We fight for every dollar we can get, and we use it to the best ability that we can. Every year for the last 6 years, I've been sweating facing a job cut because our mission keeps growing, while our money isn't growing to match it.

fettpett
04-24-2010, 10:06 AM
I am thinking more in the terms of Army footprints in places like Germany and Okinawa. 57,000 troops are stationed in Germany alone.

I'm sure the Military does what it needs to, to keep things going for vital interests. I'm not in the camp that says we need to isolate ourselves, but we need to think about what is and isn't necessary.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-24-2010, 10:48 AM
I am thinking more in the terms of Army footprints in places like Germany and Okinawa. 57,000 troops are stationed in Germany alone.

I'm sure the Military does what it needs to, to keep things going for vital interests. I'm not in the camp that says we need to isolate ourselves, but we need to think about what is and isn't necessary.

I would respectfully say we do that already - but we SHOULD always review things.

M21
04-24-2010, 10:53 AM
Look, every year BRAC goes through and determines what is, and isn't vital to our needs. They don't keep those bases open for no reason.

C'mon guy. BRAC is completely a political bondoogle. There are plenty of places slated to close who don't have a mission so they move a mission there to keep it open.

djones520
04-24-2010, 10:54 AM
C'mon guy. BRAC is completely a political bondoogle. There are plenty of places slated to close who don't have a mission so they move a mission there to keep it open.

Stateside yes. Politicians maneuvering to bring money to their districts to buy votes, etc, etc... We don't have German Senators or Japanese Representatives though.

FlaGator
04-24-2010, 11:31 AM
D) all of the above.

Molon Labe
04-27-2010, 08:48 AM
You do realize that it's against the law for US soldiers to be deployed within the CONUS right?

and yet.....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/03/army.unit/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/


'may be called upon to help with civil unrest.'

If this happens, then that would be the violation you speak of

asdf2231
04-27-2010, 09:18 AM
and yet.....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/03/army.unit/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/



If this happens, then that would be the violation you speak of

You DO realize that the whole purpose of this is to be sure that the when the next Katrina or similar level 5 ND or created event occurs and they wind up relying on the military to deliver logistics support that the military will be able to effectively mesh with the C3 and NIMS components of the civilian side... Right?

Because the first thing every Governor does in a level 4 or higher event is to try to ask for a federalization effort in the pre stages to set the table for when they need full blown loggie support later in the game. And the military and the federal government are sick of not having uniform standards of training and procedures and seeing the process go like shit. And the people that rely on heavy metal and warm bodies toting manna from Unca Sugar during disasters are tired of it as well. Because without practice training and procedures it goes slow as shit while people wrangle over jurisdiction and people suffer.

This is training for effective deployment under mandated circumstances when the use of federal troops is requested by local authorities and when the use of federal troops is MANDATED by events. Like 9/11. Its also supposed to help improve command and control issues between the Guard and regular army and marine logistics assets.

Speaking as one of the people tasked to coordinate between civilian relief agencies, local government and military and federal assets during large scale disasters, imma go out on a limb here and claim a little better grounding on the subject then you.

The sky isn't falling.

Odysseus
04-27-2010, 10:49 AM
The sky isn't falling.

B-b-b-but Al Gore said that is was falling! :D

Molon Labe
04-27-2010, 11:51 AM
Snip'

Speaking as one of the people tasked to coordinate between civilian relief agencies, local government and military and federal assets during large scale disasters, imma go out on a limb here and claim a little better grounding on the subject then you.

The sky isn't falling.

Yeah...I have experience there too. That doesn't speak to a "combat" unit necessity in the CONUS nor the problems that arise if we don't learn where to draw the line.