Ron Paul being equated to religious fanaticism...

[Rockntractor]

Not quite, but that isn't too far off.

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.

[Articulate_Ape]

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.

Yep. What we DON'T need is bases in Europe (esp. Old Europe) at this point, and even South Korea may be a bit daft as well.

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. Mind you the founders were very right back then, given the enormous cost of such adventures in sailing vessels, etc. Hell, back then they used he-mail.

"There's a man at the door sir, he say 'You've got mail'. Shall I let him in?"

We can't ever, ever return to that approach to foreign policy. However, I do think we need to start asking an important question that doesn't seem to be asked with any seriousness anymore. That question is the same one every other country has never lost an eagerness to ask. It is, "What's in it for us?"

I think that we have nobly shunned that question in the face of need elsewhere in the world. The thanks we get for such sacrifices is abundantly evident. Perhaps it is time for our charity to be expended upon ourselves and let the rest of the world (esp. old Europe) sink or swim.

I sure as hell wouldn't send our brave forces to save France again, that's for sure. They haven't done shit for us in almost 235 years, the cheese-eating surrender monkeys (and I know my monkeys).

[swirling_vortex]

There are others out there who are fiscally sane, and won't lead our country to ruin through their foreign policy though.

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

[fettpett]

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

he's the only one talking about it cuz he's a moronic isolationist. I see it as defense, which is one of the few things they Constitution demands we spend money on. Now I think we could probably shrink some of those bases, but I wouldn't pull out totally

[djones520]

Yep. What we DON'T need is bases in Europe (esp. Old Europe) at this point, and even South Korea may be a bit daft as well.

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. Mind you the founders were very right back then, given the enormous cost of such adventures in sailing vessels, etc. Hell, back then they used he-mail.

"There's a man at the door sir, he say 'You've got mail'. Shall I let him in?"

We can't ever, ever return to that approach to foreign policy. However, I do think we need to start asking an important question that doesn't seem to be asked with any seriousness anymore. That question is the same one every other country has never lost an eagerness to ask. It is, "What's in it for us?"

I think that we have nobly shunned that question in the face of need elsewhere in the world. The thanks we get for such sacrifices is abundantly evident. Perhaps it is time for our charity to be expended upon ourselves and let the rest of the world (esp. old Europe) sink or swim.

I sure as hell wouldn't send our brave forces to save France again, that's for sure. They haven't done shit for us in almost 235 years, the cheese-eating surrender monkeys (and I know my monkeys).

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.

[SaintLouieWoman]

This may be the most amazing thing you will see today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Here is the link to the web site of the company in the video.


3D Printers and Rapid Prototyping | Z Corporation

[Bailey]

when it can make gold and jewels then get back to me :)

[Articulate_Ape]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw


Wow!

[Articulate_Ape]

Sorry, SLW, I missed your OP. :o

[Zathras]

World of Warcraft players have had the ability to have their characters made using this process for quite some time now....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9UyBGf01A0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw82KSzvkAs