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".Ron Paul being equated to religious fanaticism
It's much the same reaction that Obama supporters showed to any and all criticism of "The One" in 2008.
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.
except obama is the complete opposite side of the spectrumIt's much the same reaction that Obama supporters showed to any and all criticism of "The One" in 2008.
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.
Intersting point. George Washington thought so too.
There are plenty of conservatives who used to think the same way. Russell Kirk comes to mind.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
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.
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
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|