If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   The military rank and file love Ron Paul. The bureaucrats, not so much   (motherjones.com) divider line 537
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5008 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2012 at 3:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



537 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-27 03:27:04 AM  

cuzsis: Uh...have you been reading this thread? The amount of dislike for Ron Paul is pretty obvious.


Ron Paul is losing badly to Rick Santorum, a man who the media pretty much dismissed as a complete joke from day one, who has a shoe string budget, and who was such a minor player that he didn't have a campaign press manager until last week.

Try putting Rick Santorum through google sometime. Then stop whining about how persecuted you are. If Rick Santorum can overcome being synonymous with anal discharge, then Ron Paul should be able to handle the fact that I'm not actually sure how to finish this sentence because I don't know what Ron Paul is actually whining about.

Look, I know that in your cult meeting, the fact that anyone could dislike Ron Paul is considered a major crime that requires the existence of a criminal mastermind. But here in the real world, people dislike candidates all the damned time. Why is it okay for Paul supporters to dislike the other candidates, but it's not okay for other people to dislike Ron Paul?
 
2012-02-27 03:34:05 AM  

DrPainMD: Here's the Peter Schiff YouTube channel (new window). Feel free to laugh and point out all those missing facts and poor logic.


Anyone find it amusing how Paultards insist on posting everything in highly edited youtube form? It's almost as if they want to discourage fact checking by refusing to present an actual text document that we can skim through at our own pace for key points.

They also have a tendency to post vague links to "everything," rather than a comprehensive list of direct argument. Thus insuring that any possible response or refutation can be dismissed as "nitpicking" or "missing the point." Their response is always, "Watch the whole video, it's explained in there!", rather than actually explaining it. It's almost as though they're trying to avoid any sort of direct accountability for anything they say.
 
2012-02-27 03:42:34 AM  
...
 
2012-02-27 03:46:01 AM  
...

i.imgur.com
 
2012-02-27 03:47:18 AM  

Vaccinium Arboreum: I think the status of money raised by the Ron Paulites is, however misguided their other ideas, actually pretty interesting.

What is money, after all?


In the eyes of most economic, money is supposed to be a medium of exchange, which constantly circulates throughout the economy in order to get the economy moving.

In the eyes of the Paultards, money is a medium of something that you should be able to bury in your backyard for 100 years and then it gains in value when you dig it up even though you did absolutely nothing to earn that extra value. In other words, not only is money not being exchanged, but you're actively trying to discourage it in favor of hoarding.

If you watch Ron Paul on Colbert Report, one of his arguments for the gold standard is that gold still has value even if it's lost at sea, where as paper money would be considered lost forever and simply be reprinted. WTF?
 
m00
2012-02-27 03:54:37 AM  

schrodinger: Vaccinium Arboreum: I think the status of money raised by the Ron Paulites is, however misguided their other ideas, actually pretty interesting.

What is money, after all?

In the eyes of most economic, money is supposed to be a medium of exchange, which constantly circulates throughout the economy in order to get the economy moving.

In the eyes of the Paultards, money is a medium of something that you should be able to bury in your backyard for 100 years and then it gains in value when you dig it up even though you did absolutely nothing to earn that extra value. In other words, not only is money not being exchanged, but you're actively trying to discourage it in favor of hoarding.

If you watch Ron Paul on Colbert Report, one of his arguments for the gold standard is that gold still has value even if it's lost at sea, where as paper money would be considered lost forever and simply be reprinted. WTF?


You don't work for a living, do you?
 
2012-02-27 03:59:12 AM  
Is this the thread where we pretend a Republican who has spent the better part of 30 years in Congress is a "political outsider" just because only a few kooks are crazy enough to think he'd make a good President?

/everybody is terrified of Ron Paul!!! He's going to shake up the machine!!! Root out all the "business as usual!!!" Cut the strings betwixt the puppets and the puppetmasters!!!

(Please pay no attention to the fact that in the nearly three decades he's spent in the highest legislative body in the land (as a registered member of one of the two major parties), he has attempted absolutely none of that, and has instead embarked on constant crusade of personal advancement and self-promotion... but he's totally not like those other politicians. He makes them all quake in their boots)

lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com
"Imma do it, I promise. I just need more power!"
 
2012-02-27 04:16:16 AM  

schrodinger: DrPainMD: Here's the Peter Schiff YouTube channel (new window). Feel free to laugh and point out all those missing facts and poor logic.

Anyone find it amusing how Paultards insist on posting everything in highly edited youtube form? It's almost as if they want to discourage fact checking by refusing to present an actual text document that we can skim through at our own pace for key points.

They also have a tendency to post vague links to "everything," rather than a comprehensive list of direct argument. Thus insuring that any possible response or refutation can be dismissed as "nitpicking" or "missing the point." Their response is always, "Watch the whole video, it's explained in there!", rather than actually explaining it. It's almost as though they're trying to avoid any sort of direct accountability for anything they say.



I really don't think they're that calculating. They just haven't got a farking clue what they're talking about. They're swayed by aesthetic meaningless bullshiat, and expect you to be too. The whole reason they're Paultards is because they're too lazy to sort through the issues. Paul is a way of pretending to be wise and cynical and offering a solution, without actually boning up up on the issues.

"Both sides are bad and if anybody wants to change anything they should do something new instead of the same old same old, but the stupid sheep are conned into believing there's a difference between the two parties."

It's a logical fallacy called "appeal to novelty."

"It's better 'cause it's different."

The biggest Paultard I know is a GMO nut and gold-bug who's always ranting about Monsanto, the Fed, anti-vax, and has even now dipped a toe into the sovereign citizen "your social security number is the invoice number of the bank that owns you" crazy pond.

They're not serious poltiical wonks. They're kooks who read shiat like PrisonPlanet all day... Real politics and actual policy analysis is way too farking boring for them. They need cinematic melodrama... That's why they send you to YouTube videos. In order to stay interested they need creepy graphics and dramatic music swells and ominous predictions of stormtroopers on every street corner and billionaires who herd commoners like cattle through labor camps and sterilize the population with trojan horse vaccines and seize control of the world's food and water.

And of course, they need a savior...

lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-02-27 05:02:59 AM  

Carth: Ron Paul is most popular with people under 30


A credit to the Republican shredding of the education system. Public education sucks, and private education is heavily doused with truthiness.
 
2012-02-27 05:05:04 AM  

rebelyell2006: snuffy: yes, elect any of the other clowns running for president and we will continue hell bent to the toilet.

Really? I'm fairly certain that the Greens and Socialists are running candidates who could find other ways to fix America's issues.


But it's unAmerican to PICK. ANOTHER. NAME. Don't you know that? You're just throwing your vote away. Better to stay home and wait until your vote becomes more valuable.
 
2012-02-27 05:58:02 AM  
Former infantryman. Pakistan, Afghanistan, 2001-2002.

fark Ron Paul and his batshiat crazy ideas, and fark his supporters for having no real grasp on how a global society operates.
 
2012-02-27 06:08:27 AM  

technicolor-misfit: (Please pay no attention to the fact that in the nearly three decades he's spent in the highest legislative body in the land (as a registered member of one of the two major parties), he has attempted absolutely none of that, and has instead embarked on constant crusade of personal advancement and self-promotion... but he's totally not like those other politicians. He makes them all quake in their boots)


Of you're simply looking to get famous or popular in Politics, there are far easier ways to do it.The federal reserve and monetary policy aren't exactly sexy issues. Now that some of his ideas have become popular talking points, it's easy to claim he's doing it for cynical reasons, forgetting the massive amount of time he spent gaining absolutely no mainstream ground whatsoever with his views.

The reality is few if any congressman or Politicians have taken a harder road to popularity than Paul, and his record in congress is remarkable for it's uncompromising consistency with what he preaches. This is a man who has refused his own Government pension on principle. Call it misguided or foolish, but if you can't make the integrity argument for Ron Paul, then there are few you can make it for.

But of course, as is the nature our political climate, opponents cannot simply disagree with his views - they have to expose him as a fraud, a nutcase, an idiot, or even claim that he's all three at the same time. Maybe he's just a guy who really believes in some stuff that you disagree with?
 
2012-02-27 06:10:48 AM  
Ron Paul is a moron.

His stance on the civil rights act of 1964 is indefensible.

I am a Libertarian. I am not a big fan of a powerful central government. But, they HAD to pass that law. Thats what pisses me off the most, that states refused to protect the most vulnerable.

I'll be putting down Gary Johnsons name this November. I suggest that everyone else does the same.
 
2012-02-27 06:35:17 AM  

schrodinger: DrPainMD: Here's the Peter Schiff YouTube channel (new window). Feel free to laugh and point out all those missing facts and poor logic.

Anyone find it amusing how Paultards insist on posting everything in highly edited youtube form? It's almost as if they want to discourage fact checking by refusing to present an actual text document that we can skim through at our own pace for key points.

They also have a tendency to post vague links to "everything," rather than a comprehensive list of direct argument. Thus insuring that any possible response or refutation can be dismissed as "nitpicking" or "missing the point." Their response is always, "Watch the whole video, it's explained in there!", rather than actually explaining it. It's almost as though they're trying to avoid any sort of direct accountability for anything they say.


I think it's more along the lines of trying to get someone into your favorite band - "Oh man, first you gotta listen to this album, then listen to this one after, and then finally these three albums!" One track doesn't cut it, you want people to see the multifaceted brilliance of that band just like you have come to love. Libertarians tend to be fanboys for their politics, so it's like you went and said, "I don't get what's so great about Led Zeppelin..." or, "Can someone explain to be what's so great about Japanese anime?" - of course they just can't just show you one little thing!
 
2012-02-27 07:57:04 AM  

DrPainMD: Friedrich Hayek


Ahh yes, a dead Nobel Laureate with a hard on for Pinochet. Which part does he comment on the existing global recession? I am having trouble finding it...

DrPainMD: PC LOAD LETTER: snuffy: vygramul: Right. Because being in debt at about your GDP is bankrupt the same way a guy who makes $300,000 and has a $300,000 mortgage is bankrupt.

if you believe your example, then it is obvious that your took the blue pill.

you deserve the future you will get.

No, this is the part where you post some videos of some guy talking about Ron Paul and the global economy who makes sense to you but the rest of us laugh at and point out all his sophistry, missing facts and poor logic.

Here's the Peter Schiff YouTube channel (new window). Feel free to laugh and point out all those missing facts and poor logic.

While he doesn't mention RP, here's Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek (new window). Feel free to laugh and point out all those missing facts and poor logic.


So where's the part where they say the US government is a zero-sum economy the way individuals are? I am having trouble finding that part. Probably because it's not true.
 
2012-02-27 08:41:59 AM  

Weaver95: no, but you could trade service for service - coding and/or upgrades and whatnot for website server space and priority bandwidth (as an example).


The problem with a barter system is that it often takes longer to work out what the correct things to exchange are between the two parties than the actual work involved on either side, so you probably halve or more everyones productivity as most people spend hours every day negotiating with each other to trade. There is a reason currency systems (with all the flaws and potential abuses) dominate, and that is because barter is massively limiting. How many chickens for a cow? How much coding for a coffee? What do you need to trade to get an aircraft carrier built?
 
2012-02-27 08:52:22 AM  
I was told that the only way to support our troops is to vote for people that get us into new wars, because soldiers love nothing more than war, all the time.

/are you suggesting that the Bush administration misled me?
 
2012-02-27 08:58:25 AM  
Oh great, the Paul haters all up in this thread. I love how Farkers (closet Obama lovers) can bash Pauls sound money message, because when they do so, they literally support a fiat money system where the biggest banks get to make money off of printing money. LITERALLY! It is amazing!
 
2012-02-27 09:01:18 AM  

DozeNutz: Oh great, the Paul haters all up in this thread. I love how Farkers (closet Obama lovers) can bash Pauls sound money message, because when they do so, they literally support a fiat money system where the biggest banks get to make money off of printing money. LITERALLY! It is amazing!


I, too, don't understand why people don't just get on board with gold hoarding and the end of the Air Force. Also, Weed!!!?!
 
2012-02-27 09:02:42 AM  
So we are really holding up the politics tab for a man that will never be president?
 
2012-02-27 09:04:02 AM  
It's already to late to elect Ron Paul in 2008. Don't wait for it to be too late in 2012.

The soldier you save may have been needed here at home.
 
2012-02-27 09:06:41 AM  
I can see how the rank and file would like Paul, you have people who often have libertarian make it on your own type beliefs. While also seeing often first hand the military waste and the bad consequences of hobby war.


DozeNutz: literally support a fiat money system where the biggest banks get to make money off of printing money. LITERALLY! It is amazing!


You might have a point if we were not the biggest economic powerhouse on the planet for decades all under that system. I'd rather see regulation and real penalties for individuals participating in corruption at that level.
 
2012-02-27 09:06:48 AM  

snuffy: you seem to discount that this country is BROKE, BANKRUPT, and PINING FOR THE FJORDS.


Just so we know your background, have you ever served in federal, state or local government during times of fiscal crisis inside this country?
 
2012-02-27 09:13:49 AM  
Call him an insider, outsider, racist, or whatever, but Ron Paul's "We can't afford to be overseas, nor should we be impugning other nations' sovereignty anyway" foreign policy is probably the very best thing we could adopt as a nation these days. The only reason it hasn't happened is that the military/industrial/media complex runs wild with fearmongering to keep us at perpetual war with brown people and keep Knight Armaments pumping out M4s.
 
2012-02-27 09:14:18 AM  

DozeNutz: Oh great, the Paul haters all up in this thread. I love how Farkers (closet Obama lovers) can bash Pauls sound money message, because when they do so, they literally support a fiat money system where the biggest banks get to make money off of printing money. LITERALLY! It is amazing!


Still waiting for an explaination on why gold isn't a fiat money system. Since paper is technically edible, I would think that it has more intrinsic value then a random type of rock.
 
2012-02-27 09:20:35 AM  

That Masked Man: Call him an insider, outsider, racist, or whatever, but Ron Paul's "We can't afford to be overseas, nor should we be impugning other nations' sovereignty anyway" foreign policy is probably the very best thing we could adopt as a nation these days. The only reason it hasn't happened is that the military/industrial/media complex runs wild with fearmongering to keep us at perpetual war with brown people and keep Knight Armaments pumping out M4s.


I agree. On the other hand, Ron Paul is a part of the party that has most consistently supported the fearmongering. It's a bit difficult to take him seriously, let alone trust him on any level, when he considers himself a Republican.
 
2012-02-27 09:24:52 AM  

Knara: Yes, more power to the states and less federal government power and what's with the taxes? Won't anyone give Ron Paul's ideas a try?

Oh wait, we did (new window), and it failed

/answer to every Ron Paul proposal and supporter


To be fair, of all his pie in the sky hyper-libertarian proposals, the "no standing army" one intrigues me the most. Fark his stance on gold and silver. This isn't 1652. Fark his stance on the absolute supremacy of states rights. The rights of the people come first, always. And in general fark his non-committal attitude about everything. Speaking truth to power is great and all, but when you're in a position of power and all you do is speak truth to it, I start to wonder if you're serious about your rhetoric.

But reduction of our standing army would have a slew of interesting side effects. The good: We'd have to be well and truly invested in a conflict in order to raise the necessary military might to join it. See also: WWII. We can do it, but we have to actually have the will. The bad: We'd jack unemployment up by an additional 5% or so. Overnight.

Funny how most of RONPAUL'S positions have a some pros and cons. And the pros are usually intellectual and slow to manifest benefits, while the cons are terrible, and the immediacy of their impact can frequently be described with that word... "overnight"

SILVER DIMES!
 
2012-02-27 09:35:38 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: That Masked Man: Call him an insider, outsider, racist, or whatever, but Ron Paul's "We can't afford to be overseas, nor should we be impugning other nations' sovereignty anyway" foreign policy is probably the very best thing we could adopt as a nation these days. The only reason it hasn't happened is that the military/industrial/media complex runs wild with fearmongering to keep us at perpetual war with brown people and keep Knight Armaments pumping out M4s.

I agree. On the other hand, Ron Paul is a part of the party that has most consistently supported the fearmongering. It's a bit difficult to take him seriously, let alone trust him on any level, when he considers himself a Republican.


Then you can take great comfort in the fact that Fox News, the propaganda branch of the now totally skewed GOP, completely hates him and systematically minimizes his coverage on their network.
 
2012-02-27 09:41:25 AM  

Headso: I can see how the rank and file would like Paul, you have people who often have libertarian make it on your own type beliefs. While also seeing often first hand the military waste and the bad consequences of hobby war.


DozeNutz: literally support a fiat money system where the biggest banks get to make money off of printing money. LITERALLY! It is amazing!

You might have a point if we were not the biggest economic powerhouse on the planet for decades all under that system. I'd rather see regulation and real penalties for individuals participating in corruption at that level.


Nobody still understands that regulation is f**king necessary. The whole "zero regulation" RON PAUL shiat was a cause of the 1929 crash. The de-regulation of 1999 caused 2008. What part of "we need regulation to prevent this shiat" don't these morons understand?
 
2012-02-27 09:41:33 AM  

BeesNuts: Knara: Yes, more power to the states and less federal government power and what's with the taxes? Won't anyone give Ron Paul's ideas a try?

Oh wait, we did (new window), and it failed

/answer to every Ron Paul proposal and supporter

To be fair, of all his pie in the sky hyper-libertarian proposals, the "no standing army" one intrigues me the most. Fark his stance on gold and silver. This isn't 1652. Fark his stance on the absolute supremacy of states rights. The rights of the people come first, always. And in general fark his non-committal attitude about everything. Speaking truth to power is great and all, but when you're in a position of power and all you do is speak truth to it, I start to wonder if you're serious about your rhetoric.

But reduction of our standing army would have a slew of interesting side effects. The good: We'd have to be well and truly invested in a conflict in order to raise the necessary military might to join it. See also: WWII. We can do it, but we have to actually have the will. The bad: We'd jack unemployment up by an additional 5% or so. Overnight.

Funny how most of RONPAUL'S positions have a some pros and cons. And the pros are usually intellectual and slow to manifest benefits, while the cons are terrible, and the immediacy of their impact can frequently be described with that word... "overnight"

SILVER DIMES!


Ron Paul aside, what if we created a transitional plan to gradually eliminate our standing military: one which involved taking, maybe 50%, of the money currently invested in defense/war and invested in a peace economy? I'll just throw out a few starter ideas for the peace investment.

a domestic medical corp ensuring every county, no matter how rural or impoverished, has at least one medical doctor

construction of a rail centered public transportation system - a real one, not an Amtrak-Disney ride for retired white people

kicking up investment in our schools - increasing the number of pr-K programs, building and funding more lower elementary schools so that small children can go to school closer to home

grants and loans to manufacturing start-ups

investment in medical research

investment in Green technology

Well, you and I both could think of many more things to add to this list. Do you think it is possible that we could, with careful planning, eliminate our military without increasing; in fact, possibly decreasing; our unemployment rate?
 
2012-02-27 09:43:33 AM  

trotsky: Headso: I can see how the rank and file would like Paul, you have people who often have libertarian make it on your own type beliefs. While also seeing often first hand the military waste and the bad consequences of hobby war.


DozeNutz: literally support a fiat money system where the biggest banks get to make money off of printing money. LITERALLY! It is amazing!

You might have a point if we were not the biggest economic powerhouse on the planet for decades all under that system. I'd rather see regulation and real penalties for individuals participating in corruption at that level.

Nobody still understands that regulation is f**king necessary. The whole "zero regulation" RON PAUL shiat was a cause of the 1929 crash. The de-regulation of 1999 caused 2008. What part of "we need regulation to prevent this shiat" don't these morons understand?


Nobody is a big word. I think a few people understand the need for regulation.
 
2012-02-27 09:46:33 AM  

Lunaville: Ron Paul aside, what if we created a transitional plan to gradually eliminate our standing military: one which involved taking, maybe 50%, of the money currently invested in defense/war and invested in a peace economy?


Well, if we did that then our military would never be able to be a reactive force, which is the only role RONPAUL sees as valid.
 
2012-02-27 09:49:22 AM  

sprawl15: Lunaville: Ron Paul aside, what if we created a transitional plan to gradually eliminate our standing military: one which involved taking, maybe 50%, of the money currently invested in defense/war and invested in a peace economy?

Well, if we did that then our military would never be able to be a reactive force, which is the only role RONPAUL sees as valid.


Maybe you missed the part where I typed "Ron Paul" aside. Your response seems an attempt to explain to me how my idea fits in with Ron Pauls' position/s. I am more interested in the overall viability of the idea (of eliminating our standing military) itself.
 
2012-02-27 09:51:00 AM  

sprawl15: Lunaville: Ron Paul aside, what if we created a transitional plan to gradually eliminate our standing military: one which involved taking, maybe 50%, of the money currently invested in defense/war and invested in a peace economy?

Well, if we did that then our military would never be able to be a reactive force, which is the only role RONPAUL sees as valid.


Reactive force? 100% non-active with the caveat unless a foreign boot touches our soil with aggression.
 
2012-02-27 09:53:44 AM  

Lunaville: Maybe you missed the part where I typed "Ron Paul" aside.


Uh, the inability to act as a reactive force exists regardless of RONPAUL's opinions. For someone complaining about not reading the first half of a sentence, you seemed to miss the first half of mine. The consistency of the theory - and its impact across the board - is important. If mean to say you have some other theory for the role of the military other than the standard 'standing army' one that RONPAUL espouses, feel free to explain it.

Do you mean to say you want to consider no standing military while remaining an expeditionary force?
 
2012-02-27 09:54:25 AM  

Anti_illuminati: sprawl15: Lunaville: Ron Paul aside, what if we created a transitional plan to gradually eliminate our standing military: one which involved taking, maybe 50%, of the money currently invested in defense/war and invested in a peace economy?

Well, if we did that then our military would never be able to be a reactive force, which is the only role RONPAUL sees as valid.

Reactive force? 100% non-active with the caveat unless a foreign boot touches our soil with aggression.


Yes, if there is no military, that is about as non-active as a (former) military can get.
 
2012-02-27 09:55:40 AM  

Anti_illuminati: Reactive force? 100% non-active with the caveat unless a foreign boot touches our soil with aggression.


Is there a reason you're defining things everyone already knows? Is this a new meme? I want to join!

mil·i·tar·y [mil-i-ter-ee] adjective, noun, plural -tar·ies, -tar·y.
adjective
1. of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces, often as distinguished from the navy: from civilian to military life.
2. of, for, or pertaining to war: military preparedness.
3. of or pertaining to soldiers.
4. befitting, characteristic of, or noting a soldier: a military bearing.
5. following the life of a soldier: a military career.
 
2012-02-27 09:56:42 AM  

sprawl15: Lunaville: Maybe you missed the part where I typed "Ron Paul" aside.

Uh, the inability to act as a reactive force exists regardless of RONPAUL's opinions. For someone complaining about not reading the first half of a sentence, you seemed to miss the first half of mine. The consistency of the theory - and its impact across the board - is important. If mean to say you have some other theory for the role of the military other than the standard 'standing army' one that RONPAUL espouses, feel free to explain it.

Do you mean to say you want to consider no standing military while remaining an expeditionary force?


I am proposing the possibility of going Costa Rica: no military; none. I am wondering if it is possible; if it is possible, how would we best accomplish it without driving increases in unemployment?
 
2012-02-27 09:59:03 AM  

Lunaville: I am proposing the possibility of going Costa Rica: no military; none. I am wondering if it is possible; if it is possible, how would we best accomplish it without driving increases in unemployment?


Well, if we did that then our military would never be able to be a reactive force, which is the only role RONPAUL sees as valid.
 
2012-02-27 10:00:43 AM  

sprawl15: Anti_illuminati: Reactive force? 100% non-active with the caveat unless a foreign boot touches our soil with aggression.

Is there a reason you're defining things everyone already knows? Is this a new meme? I want to join!

mil·i·tar·y [mil-i-ter-ee] adjective, noun, plural -tar·ies, -tar·y.
adjective
1. of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces, often as distinguished from the navy: from civilian to military life.
2. of, for, or pertaining to war: military preparedness.
3. of or pertaining to soldiers.
4. befitting, characteristic of, or noting a soldier: a military bearing.
5. following the life of a soldier: a military career.


I think he's trying to accommodate me. I'm a civilian and kind of wondering "out loud" here on Fark.

Is the Navy really distinguished from the armed forces? Is the Navy not armed? Does that mean, if I say "Let's consider eliminating the military", it might be argued that the Navy is not included, unless I specify it is, because of definition 1?
 
2012-02-27 10:01:37 AM  

sprawl15: Lunaville: Ron Paul aside, what if we created a transitional plan to gradually eliminate our standing military: one which involved taking, maybe 50%, of the money currently invested in defense/war and invested in a peace economy?

Well, if we did that then our military would never be able to be a reactive force, which is the only role RONPAUL sees as valid.


It's not just about the money. We spent tens of billions on the F-22 only to have it be inferior to Russian and Chinese fighters designed at a fraction of the cost.

Also, 'reactive force' begs the question, reactive to what? All possible contingencies? If we want to be prepared if the whole EU, Russia, and China suddenly declared war on us tomorrow, then yes, we have to spend a fair sum. If we accept the fact that there is no such thing as complete safety, and that no country in their right mind is going to start an outright war with us, then we can spend much less, mainly concentrating on small, specialized forces.
 
2012-02-27 10:03:15 AM  

Lunaville: Is the Navy really distinguished from the armed forces?


Constitutionally? Yes. But if we're going that hardlin, the Air Force, Coast Guard, NASA, and the Marines are not even allowed to exist.
Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power [...]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;
 
2012-02-27 10:04:20 AM  

sprawl15: Lunaville: Maybe you missed the part where I typed "Ron Paul" aside.

Uh, the inability to act as a reactive force exists regardless of RONPAUL's opinions. For someone complaining about not reading the first half of a sentence, you seemed to miss the first half of mine. The consistency of the theory - and its impact across the board - is important. If mean to say you have some other theory for the role of the military other than the standard 'standing army' one that RONPAUL espouses, feel free to explain it.

Do you mean to say you want to consider no standing military while remaining an expeditionary force?


I'm sorry, I failed to answer your question. I am envisioning no standing military, no army,no navy,no air force, no expeditionary force.
Can it be done? Can it be done without an economic crash and burn complete with astronomical unemployment rates?
 
2012-02-27 10:04:54 AM  

NewportBarGuy: snuffy: just so we know your background, have you ever served in the military during time of conflict outside of this country?

I'm sorry, was the DIRECT QUOTE not sufficient for you?


Your ass is showing. Suck it up.
 
2012-02-27 10:06:58 AM  

Virtuoso80: It's not just about the money.


Did you mean to quote some other post that was talking about money?

Virtuoso80: Also, 'reactive force' begs the question, reactive to what?


Anything. That's the point of a reactive force.
 
2012-02-27 10:08:42 AM  

Lunaville: Can it be done?


'Can' it be done? Sure. Anything can be done under our system. Would it make a lick of sense? Absolutely not.
 
2012-02-27 10:09:47 AM  

sprawl15: Lunaville: Is the Navy really distinguished from the armed forces?

Constitutionally? Yes. But if we're going that hardlin, the Air Force, Coast Guard, NASA, and the Marines are not even allowed to exist.
Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power [...]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;


I think the Coast Guard, NASA, and the CDC could be reclassified as civilian agencies with some mission tweaks. After all, doesn't the Coast Guard rescue more people than they arrest all ready? And does anyone really want to give up the research that goes along with funding NASA and the nifty things, like industrial ceramics, that result from it? Who, really, wants the CDC experimenting with Smallpox and Anthrax? Except perhaps in pursuit of a safer vaccine or absolute cures to be shared with all the world.
 
2012-02-27 10:11:55 AM  

sprawl15: Virtuoso80: It's not just about the money.

Did you mean to quote some other post that was talking about money?

Virtuoso80: Also, 'reactive force' begs the question, reactive to what?

Anything. That's the point of a reactive force.


Anything is a big word that entails an awful lot of scenarios; some of them quite unlikely. Are you sure you want to use the word 'anything'?
 
2012-02-27 10:14:35 AM  

sprawl15: Anti_illuminati: Reactive force? 100% non-active with the caveat unless a foreign boot touches our soil with aggression.

Is there a reason you're defining things everyone already knows? Is this a new meme? I want to join!


What i mean is that a re-active force as commonly defined these days would be a declaration of war due to one of our recon planes being shot down over another country. RON PAUL's plan would be, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and we only go to war under direct attack on US soil.

I just think defining RON PAUL's military albeit foreign position as reactionary (if that is what you're doing) just requires a bit more clarification. That's all.

/continue to be snarky if you like
//its monday; i'll get some more coffee
 
2012-02-27 10:14:56 AM  

Lunaville: sprawl15: Lunaville: Maybe you missed the part where I typed "Ron Paul" aside.

Uh, the inability to act as a reactive force exists regardless of RONPAUL's opinions. For someone complaining about not reading the first half of a sentence, you seemed to miss the first half of mine. The consistency of the theory - and its impact across the board - is important. If mean to say you have some other theory for the role of the military other than the standard 'standing army' one that RONPAUL espouses, feel free to explain it.

Do you mean to say you want to consider no standing military while remaining an expeditionary force?

I'm sorry, I failed to answer your question. I am envisioning no standing military, no army,no navy,no air force, no expeditionary force.
Can it be done? Can it be done without an economic crash and burn complete with astronomical unemployment rates?


No, I don't think so, mostly because we wouldn't just be eliminating the military. We'd be eliminating the entire Department of Defense, with all of its civilian employees. We'd be pulling nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars out of the economy in terms of research, development, and contracting, which would inevitably lead to lots of people out of work. The cost to society is also hard to predict; the military can be a useful avenue to get people out of poverty by providing some discipline, training, and a paycheck.
 
Displayed 50 of 537 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report