Ron Paul being equated to religious fanaticism...

[Articulate_Ape]

WoW!

[txradioguy]

Paul's attitude toward foreign policy is to have none.

Bingo.

[txradioguy]

Ron Paul being equated to religious fanaticism

It's true. They show up every Presidential election cycle spamming forums declaring Paul the only "true conservative" and anyone why dares to question him or have doubts about his stance on the issues is immediately deemed a heretic and told they are either a RINO or a "liberal".

It's much the same reaction that Obama supporters showed to any and all criticism of "The One" in 2008.

[SaintLouieWoman]

A friend from California (and a poster here) has been the service/IT manager for a company in my old field for a number of years. He said that he has personally seen the 3D printer and was amazed.

Applications for it abound in the architectural and design fields. He said that his company opted out of taking on the product line due to the expense of the equipment and limited market.

I see another market---model making for an aeronautical company. WOW indeed.

[jnkbortka]

The fact of the matter is Ron Paul is a loser of the worst sort. He cares not for the conservative/Republican cause. As a matter of fact, I hope he is excluded from the rest of the debates.

And for those who have "conveniently" forgot, Ron Paul, in his typical fit of stomping his feet, endorsed Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader in 2008 when it became apparent he wouldn't get the nominee.

CNN News Link

you should remember, Ralph Nader caused Al Gore to loose in 2000. Paul is no dumbass.

Perhaps, but it still seems hypocritical to be on the side of small government and then support a huge military budget and Paul is the only one who's spoken about shutting down bases in places like Europe (which, as it stands is basically subsidizing their defense system so they can fund their various government programs). But I do agree with the other people here that the fanatics aren't correct either and there is certainly room for argument that having a worldwide intelligence operation has made us safer in being able to thwart attacks. Personally though, I've always focused a lot more on economic issues than foreign policy issues, so that would explain my reasoning.

The one candidate I'm disappointed who declined to run was Jim DeMint. Same with Paul Ryan. I really hope we're not stuck with another John McCain again.

AMEN!

It's true. They show up every Presidential election cycle spamming forums declaring Paul the only "true conservative" and anyone why dares to question him or have doubts about his stance on the issues is immediately deemed a heretic and told they are either a RINO or a "liberal".

he's not the only true conservative, but he is one of the most conservative reps we have. just look at his voting record.

It's much the same reaction that Obama supporters showed to any and all criticism of "The One" in 2008.

except obama is the complete opposite side of the spectrum

[Madisonian]

The need for those bases have been explained again and again here. I've done it. Odysseus has done it. Not going to hash over that again.

Job security?

[Zathras]

We need to bomb them when they are bad, drop a few pallets of rice on them after and then apologize for not putting parachutes on the pallets of rice.

Or better yet strap bags of rice to the bombs and kill two birds with one stone.

[Molon Labe]

As I stated in my earlier post, Paul and his zealots seem attached to the romantic notion that in a global world we can somehow return to the founders' desire to avoid foreign entanglements.

I don't know about any of that......but the founders principles of not getting involved in EVERY conflict isn't unrealistic either. Which is where we are today.

I disagree with Paul when it comes to bringing ALL troops home. However, the discussion is where it is because of the road this country has taken in the last decade.

Let's talk about extremism....

There are over 900 US military bases around the world and we outspend every nation on earth combined with 42 % of all military spending. You think we might be able to establish "security" needs with maybe a third of that?
There are some very brilliant military minds that know we could do better and still achieve our major security needs with nowhere near the overkill we have now.

So one could also suggest that there are zealots who can't see any other way but to continue this nonsense. They are also prone to believe that every foreign policy issue is the equivelent to "Anschluss" and they are locked into the notion that it is always 1938. Just as damning in my opinion. And if our economy comes crashing down it won't matter anyway because we won't be able to afford it. And then we won't have a choice, which will really suck.

[Molon Labe]

Perhaps, but it still seems hypocritical to be on the side of small government and then support a huge military budget .

Intersting point. George Washington thought so too.

Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty - George Washington

There are plenty of conservatives who used to think the same way. Russell Kirk comes to mind.

And someone once said that endless conflicts in war and socialism have similarities most conservatives hate: they all require large Centralized goverments, state planning, false rationalism, restricted liberties, foolish optimism about intended results, and blindness to unintended secondary results. All the things we laugh about when liberals do it.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Intersting point. George Washington thought so too.



There are plenty of conservatives who used to think the same way. Russell Kirk comes to mind.

And someone once said that endless conflicts in war and socialism have similarities most conservatives hate: they all require large Centralized goverments, state planning, false rationalism, restricted liberties, foolish optimism about intended results, and blindness to unintended secondary results. All the things we laugh about when liberals do it.

I have a modest proposal for National Defense. I'm not normally in favor of any kind of Government Welfare, but I'm going to toss this one out there for the sake of discussion. :)

There are approximately 110,000,000 Households in the United States. Let's go ahead and knock this down by 10% to screen out all Heads of Households with any sort of Violent Criminal Record. This is an outrageously high estimate, but it gets us down to an even 100,000,000. (The TOTAL number of Americans with any sort of Criminal Record is possibly as high as 25%, but I'm not considering trivial misdemeanors and such as worthy of consideration).

Therefore, for Fiscal Year 2012, the US Government shall issue, to each Adult Head of Household (with no Violent Criminal Record) the following Equipment:

1 AR-15 rifle (call it $750, assuming mass-production cost savings).
500 rounds of Ammunition (call it another $750)
1 Bulletproof Vest (call it $360)
1 Kevlar Helmet (call it $140)

Total Cost per Household: Approximately $2,000. (Sorry, you supply your own flashlights and canteens, etc).
Total Cost for Fiscal 2012 Equipment Issuance: Approximately $200 Billion

In addition, the Government shall issue this same Equipment to each newly-Adult Head of Household once per year. Assuming a 1% annual Population Growth Rate -- Annual Cost: Approximately $2 Billion per year.
And, heck, let's go ahead and throw in an annual $200-dollar Voucher for each Head of Household, redeemable for shooting time and practice ammo at the gun range of their choice -- Annual Cost: Approximately $20 Billion per year. (We'll assume that this is a pure sunk-cost, and that providing employment at all those nice gun ranges is of no countervailing economic benefit).

$200 Billion up-front cost, and just $22 Billion per year thereafter.
Voila. National Defense achieved.
Okay, so maybe we'd still want a small regular army to watch the Borders. Heck, even my half-Mexican wife wants to know who's coming into her country, even if she's fairly welcoming towards (LEGAL) immigration. But, hey, this is just an idea. (It works for the Swiss).

In 1768, as conflict with the Crown worsened, the colonists called for the strengthening of the militia, so that "this country will have a better security against the calamities of war than any other in the world, Switzerland alone excepted." -- Guns, Crime, and the Swiss, by John Lott