Why do people HATE Ron Paul and his policies?

NO Obamanation said:
ah I am glad you are Zionist. I am to some degree, used to be without question but now Its a bit differnt.


But it is so nice to know others out there care about Israel too. It seems rare and getting more so.
Click to expand...

When clinton was in office, I thought the land for peace deal was a good thing... then Israels neighbors once again began their rocket and mortar attacks against Israel. Thats when I realized Israel was not the aggressor, they are the victims of aggression and had every right to protect their citizens. It frustrates me to hear people say that Israel has no right to protect its cities from such attacks... Not saying the Israeli's are ALWAYS right but I have learned enough to know they have their back against the wall in the ME.

I also had a friend in TX who was in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) before he came to Texas to go to college. He told me a great deal about what life was like in Israel and the compulsory military service... I had also thought compulsory service was a good Idea until I heard his argument against it... Lets just say volunteers are not as likely to break rules because they love their country and chose to fight for it, people who feel forced to be in the military have no compunction about breaking rules because they know it reflects poorly on their government and draws negative attention to Israeli Operations.
 
Werbung:
GenSeneca said:
I also had a friend in TX who was in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) before he came to Texas to go to college. He told me a great deal about what life was like in Israel and the compulsory military service... I had also thought compulsory service was a good Idea until I heard his argument against it... Lets just say volunteers are not as likely to break rules because they love their country and chose to fight for it, people who feel forced to be in the military have no compunction about breaking rules because they know it reflects poorly on their government and draws negative attention to Israeli Operations.
Click to expand...

As far as Israel is concerned, they are our "watch dog" in the region, and have been since their inception. They help guard, and ensure the free flow of trade in and through the region, and it's been our nations policy to do whatever is necessary to ensure the free flow of trade since the Administrations of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Our helping of Israel means that we don't have to park warships in the region and do the job ourselves, so any aid we give to Israel is offset by that savings. Your point of "land for peace" under the Clinton Administration was a mistake then, and it's still a mistake. You cannot negotiate with terrorists, and that's exactly what the PLO, Hammas, and every other group over there is. Personally, I'm old school enough to believe that if anyone attacks Israel, when Israel kicks their butts, they should lose their lands to Israel.

As far as compulsory service, I'm aware of the arguments against it, but I still support the idea, and for very good reason. It has been our codified policy, since before America was a nation, that every man is in the militia, and this policy is evident in the Militia Act of 1792, and is codified today in Title 10 and Title 32 of the United States Code. Under our law, every able bodied male between 17 and 45, to age 64 if he has served in the military, is in the militia, and as such, can be called up to service in the defense of America, or to put down Civil unrest, at the discretion of the President. As such, it only makes good sense to me that all able bodied males should be required to do a minimum of 2 years of compulsory military service.

I'm not advocating throwing all of these young men into Infantry units, and in fact would prefer it if they were given a choice as to which branch, and MOS or AFSC, they would serve in just as they are under our all volunteer system. The thing is this, how can you expect someone to fulfil their obligations as members of the "unorganized militia" if they've never received any professional training in the profession of arms?
 
Federal Farmer said:
As far as Israel is concerned, they are our "watch dog" in the region, and have been since their inception. They help guard, and ensure the free flow of trade in and through the region, and it's been our nations policy to do whatever is necessary to ensure the free flow of trade since the Administrations of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Our helping of Israel means that we don't have to park warships in the region and do the job ourselves, so any aid we give to Israel is offset by that savings. Your point of "land for peace" under the Clinton Administration was a mistake then, and it's still a mistake. You cannot negotiate with terrorists, and that's exactly what the PLO, Hammas, and every other group over there is. Personally, I'm old school enough to believe that if anyone attacks Israel, when Israel kicks their butts, they should lose their lands to Israel.

As far as compulsory service, I'm aware of the arguments against it, but I still support the idea, and for very good reason. It has been our codified policy, since before America was a nation, that every man is in the militia, and this policy is evident in the Militia Act of 1792, and is codified today in Title 10 and Title 32 of the United States Code. Under our law, every able bodied male between 17 and 45, to age 64 if he has served in the military, is in the militia, and as such, can be called up to service in the defense of America, or to put down Civil unrest, at the discretion of the President. As such, it only makes good sense to me that all able bodied males should be required to do a minimum of 2 years of compulsory military service.

I'm not advocating throwing all of these young men into Infantry units, and in fact would prefer it if they were given a choice as to which branch, and MOS or AFSC, they would serve in just as they are under our all volunteer system. The thing is this, how can you expect someone to fulfil their obligations as members of the "unorganized militia" if they've never received any professional training in the profession of arms?
Click to expand...

Compulsory service would also help to remove criminal deliquints from society (( at least most )) and well nearly guarentee that all young males have even footing upon exiting service.. everyone have a way to pay for college (( new reform to MGIB would be simple to cover this and a serious investment in America in general )) plus remove possibility of carrrer criminals.
 
Does the world have a face dysfunc?

OH, and btw, people don't hate Ron Paul. That would be giving Ron Paul more credit than he deserves because most people don't even think about him. People think he's an idiot!
 
Fed and Mr.D, you both make good points... allow me to retort.

Those Americans are bitter. They cling to their guns and their religion, with antipathy for those who are not like them... Wait.. Thats Obama's speech, I'd better use my own:

You guys are both ex-military... did you ever have to deal with some chicken shat and curse the fact you were stuck with it? With our relatively small military, we have relatively small levels of corruption and relatively few incidents of conduct unbecoming of a US soldier...

I see that as being multiplied exponentially by compulsory service in a nation of over 300 million. It works for Israel and their population of 7 and a quarter million inhabitants but we do a great deal to subsidize them and its just not fiscally possible for the US.

Israel has roughly 170,000 active servicemen at any given time under their compulsory service, thats about 2.5% of their population, and an additional 400,000 in reserve - another 5.5% of their population. I'll apply those percentages to our population:

Right now we have about 1.5 million active and another 1.5 million on reserve and our DEFENSE budget takes up 21% (All defense, not just military) of the total Federal Budget. Under compulsory service, and expecting the same general numbers the Israeli's garner, we would have 7.5 million active and an additional 16.5 million in reserve... I can only imagine what impact that would have on our already failing budget.

And that doesn't even touch all the veterans benefits, hospitals, college programs etc which would also grow exponentially with our military.

This may sound shocking but hear me out... we keep the volunteer military. We end things like GI bills and ALL other Veteran programs/benefits. That would free up roughly 80 BILLION dollars from the budget... A year.

Now remember under our current volunteer system we have 1.5 million active and 1.5 million reserve. We give them all a considerable pay raise:

80,000,000,000 (80 billion)
divided by
3,000,000
Nets each serviceman an additional
$26,666.00 per year, after completing your first year, on top of their respective pay grade salaries, and its tax free.

From what I could find about current pay grades, the E-1's earn roughly $1350/ month or $16,200/ year. The lowest level of pay, after finishing the first year, would now pay roughly 42,800/yr... I think it would be a big incentive to join the military and make it a far more appealing career choice.

I also think vets, even 2 year vets, would be able to pay for their own college... even provide for their own healthcare (we'd still have all the other programs like medicare and medicaid)... and basically be better off utilizing non-governmental services, which they can now afford, and should they fall on hard times, they can still rely on existing government social safety net programs.

Mr.D, sorry to go off topic there... I promise I'll get around to Paul eventually :)
 
GenSeneca said:
Fed and Mr.D, you both make good points... allow me to retort.

Those Americans are bitter. They cling to their guns and their religion, with antipathy for those who are not like them... Wait.. Thats Obama's speech, I'd better use my own:

You guys are both ex-military... did you ever have to deal with some chicken shat and curse the fact you were stuck with it? With our relatively small military, we have relatively small levels of corruption and relatively few incidents of conduct unbecoming of a US soldier...

I see that as being multiplied exponentially by compulsory service in a nation of over 300 million. It works for Israel and their population of 7 and a quarter million inhabitants but we do a great deal to subsidize them and its just not fiscally possible for the US.

<snip>
Click to expand...

I believe I can address your economic concerns GS.

According to the OMB, on Table 3.2, of the entire (050) Military Budget, Military Personnel accounts for $137,401,000,000 of their $607,263,000,000 budget. Now, given that between Active and Reserves, there are approx. 3 Million serving today, and using the US Census Bureau numbers, by extrapolating from the age group of 15-19 year olds, to get only 18 year olds, we arrive at 4,550,856. Ignoring for the moment that a small percentage of them will not be fit for military service, that would increase our military to a total of 7.5 million, that would mean the Military Personnel part of the budget would be increased to $300,000,000,000 per year since entering Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines receive the lowest pay, thereby increasing the total National Defense budget to $769,862,000,000, a total increase of only 25%. If we change the enlisment time from the current 4 or 6 year enlistments to only 2 year enlistments for 1st tour military personnel, we would actually see a DECREASE in the Personnel budget, since many 1st tour troops find very quickly that making a career out of the military really isn't for them, and they would be leaving, rather than being forced to stay 2 to 3 times as long as they would wish.

Now, I know that you're looking to "downsize" the overall budget as much as possible, and generally I agree with you, however in this case, I believe that the benefits received from militry service far outweight the costs, unlike the "social programs" that we have today. By instilling discipline, team work, and "mission focus" on our young people, something that is sorely missing in todays society, that additional expendature would be far offset by the inceased productivity of those young people.

If we're going to cut anything, I believe we should start with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, Section 8, HUD, and all of those other programs that currently make up over 60% of our annual Federal Budget, along with every program, Department, and Agency that is not specifically allowed for under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
 
Id actually prefer if Paul had been the Republican candidate... I really can't stand McCain. At least Paul's song and dance routine is interesting:

 
Ron Paul on Obama and "Change":
I gotta give credit where its due, Paul really nailed it... Obama offers no real Change and he laid it all out.

Here's another clip where he hits a home run before Bernanke:
"Some day we might try the Market to determine the Interest Rates."
I have NO idea who the CRAZY bald guy is behind him but I shudder to think he's involved in our government in ANY capacity... He has an ear bud like the Secret Service wears, talks to his hand on more than one occasion and by the end of the clip, he looks to be doing an impression of Stevie Wonder. If I were a Paulian, I'd swear it was part of a conspiracy to distract people from what Paul had to say. :)
-----------------------------
I do like Ron Paul and wish we had more politicians like him. He is not perfect and he was not my preferred candidate from the original group of nominees... However if I'd have known we'd get stuck with McCain, I would have probably been a Paul supporter.

Ron Paul's biggest handicap is certain segments of his supporters, like the 9/11 truthers. He was rightly held to account for associating with the likes of Alex Jones and I think Paul made a good case for himself and I was also VERY glad to hear him separate himself from the beliefs of the 9/11 movement. Nevertheless, it greatly damaged his national reputation.

Paul does want another investigation into 9/11... but he's looking to uncover incompetence, not a conspiracy. I don't see much point in another investigation - I have seen all the CT questions, looked at all their "Proof" and I have pretty easily found answers to all their questions - but I can cut Paul some slack for wanting to hold our government responsible for the failures that occurred.

Ron Paul also received 400 million in congressional earmarks for his district in TX. Now while he admirably votes "NO" on every piece of legislation that puts us further in debt, I think he disingenuously attaches earmarks to legislation he intends to vote against but knows will pass.

And another thing, Paul has been on about the One World Government and New World Order for some time. Talking about the North American Union, the Amero and basically sounding like a crazy person... At least until recently. Paul never once mentions International Socialism as the driving force behind such a plan and I think if he had, it would have clicked for me sooner. I thought Paul was suggesting, like the Loony Left, that the NWO was a machination of the Political Right in America... which is laughable since the Political Right in America BARELY has power here in America, much less international control of anything.

The Political Left in America has fully embraced Socialism, and it shows by the number of Socialist nations and people around the world who support the Democrat Party. I think this is also why you hear so much about the US being a Fascist Nation... National Socialism was Fascism and thats bad, International Socialism was Communism and thats just fine.

Therefore, International Socialists argue that we should abandon our silly notions of being the greatest nation in the world and submit to a global equality under the UN - Who replaced the USSR as the Central Nervous System of International Socialism with Soviet Russia's collapse - and start by dissolving our borders and doing a massive redistribution of American wealth to other nations... The latter of which Obama has already tried to do and the porous border both parties are happy to ignore.

What a horrible world it would be if we subornated ourselves to International opinion and did whatever the rest of the world wanted, to the detriment of our own national concerns but for the global "Common Good"... International Socialism.
 
Federal Farmer said:
I'm so sick of all of this "Obama" and "change" crap. I want FOLDING MONEY, he can KEEP the change!
Click to expand...

My point exactly and why i still support him.. out of all the would be canadiates who have come up so far ... None of the ones who gave a damn or actually had a well articulated plan survived.

I'm glad to see that while pushing this thread i have changed a few minds into what his insights were for his policies and the reason why the NWO , socialistic ideologoies and there followers should be closely monitered within the coming years.

The biggest plus I can give to Ron Paul is he is helping to open American eyes thru a new form of media also. Instead of selling himself on the national Media screen.. he is presenting ideas on the net which allow people to instantly fact-check information and there for creating a smarter voter in the process. Raising awareness thru this means is not only intelligent, but removes the typical spin that always seems to be assoiciated with T.V. and radio media.

I for one am one of its beinfactors... not only having my eyes awoken to the growing political and economic trouble befalling America but the plight as it can be seen for the future.
 
Werbung:
Federal Farmer said:
Military Personnel accounts for $137,401,000,000
3 Million serving today
increase our military to a total of 7.5 million
increase of only 25%.
Click to expand...

I have truncated your response in order to crunch some numbers....

We have 3 million soldiers and we're looking to increase that to 7.5 - well thats about a 150% increase and since the basic structure of the military wouldn't change I am forced to assume the cost would grow proportionally.

$137 Billion +150% = $342.5 Billion

That would constitute a more than 50% increase in the Nat.Def.Budget. which would go from $600 Billion to $950 Billion to pay the additional troops.

Obviously we're coming up with different numbers... I just don't see how its economically viable.... Add to that the cost of the soldiers burden and I don't see it as possible.
060622soldiersburdenx4fq.jpg
 

Similar threads

Q
Top Ten Reasons to Support Ron Paul
Replies
5
Views
2K
heyjude
heyjude
M
Romney "Borrows" Paul's Philosophy
Replies
1
Views
1K
SW85
SW85
I
Ron Paul and the REVOlution
2 3
Replies
44
Views
7K
heyjude
heyjude
primerib
A must read about Obama from Investors Business Daily
Replies
2
Views
1K
Mr. Shaman
Mr. Shaman
Back
Top