Take a look. It could come in handy...
---
I've been listening with one ear to all of the Republican's trashing each other. Play nice, kids!
I've been hearing the most noise being directed towards one of the only Republican I could ever consider giving my vote: Ron Paul. He's a RINO - his views are really those of a libertarian.
He's always gotten short shrift from the conservative radio crowd. They can't stand him because he doesn't toe the party line. He believes in the Constitution. He believes it is in place to limit the federal government. He believes that if a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, any exercise of said power is unconstitutional.
Pretty radical, huh?
The talking-heads say he wants to legalize heroin and other dangerous drugs. True, kinda. He wants the FEDERAL government to get out of the unconstitutional prohibition business. Unless a sale happened to cross state lines, the federal government has no constitutional standing. If a STATE government wants to regulate dope, knock yourself out.
I ask anti-Paul folks if all drugs were re-legalized, would they start using them. "Of course not!", they huff. But there are too many weak-minded, weak-willed people out there that WOULD start using drugs. And think about the children!
Basically, their stance is that they are strong and decent, but everyone else is weak and needs the government to wipe their ass. Sounds a lot like when the Democrats want to regulate fast food, and salt, and fats, and cigarettes, and... You get the idea.
Isn't it amazing that we were able to declare independence, fight the largest, most powerful country in the world - and win, invent and innovate at such a clip that the entire world benefited from our brains, grow the country from shore-to-shore, have the Industrial Revolution, and lots of other neat stuff, all while not being told what we could put into our own bodies.
Either we're extraordinarily gifted when we're high, or most people choose not to abuse drugs and alcohol. Hmm, I wonder which one it is?
They say he wants to dismantle the military. Eh, not really. He wants it to only engage foreign entities when America is at risk. He wants to reduce our "footprint" around the world. Bases in South Korea and Europe come to mind. I'd be hard pressed to argue for either of those. Seems like those keep Koreans and Europeans safe, not Americans. You know, the folks paying the bill.
I disagree with his stance on Iran and Israel, but fully support him about Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Peace Prizer's recent forays into Libya and the rest of the Middle East.
---
As soon as he moved ahead in the polls past Gingrich (or was it Romney) in Iowa, Das Party went to work. Cut the kook off at the knees. He's spoutin' some dangerous stuff.
Their latest attack centers around some pretty damning newsletters that went out for a good number of years - under his name.
When I heard what was in these newsletters, I was shocked. Not so much by what they said, but that they could be attributed to Ron Paul. I have NEVER seen his lips move and say things even remotely associated with the beliefs espoused in the newsletters.
He immediately came out and disavowed knowing what was being written in them. I dunno. This seems a lot like Obama saying he attended Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and didn't know he was a racist and whack job.
Take a look at this posting [link]. It poses a lot of question I've got.
But the questions remain. If Ron Paul is so libertarian that he won't even police people who use his name, if his movement is filled with incompetents and opportunists, then what kind of a president would he make? Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?I hope he comes out and addresses these types of questions in detail. Put this to bed and move on. His public service life has no tinge of this kind of stuff, so I hope he's able to give a convincing explanation.
---
On a positive note, that d-bag Gingrich has slammed the door shut on picking up any Paul supporters.
"I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American."Doh! Kinda stepped on your schwantz with that one, didn't ya Newt? Those indecent Paul supporters vote. In droves.
--Newt Gingrich on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer
I'm sure the flip-flopping, damage control is already in the works...
---
Copyright 2011 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com
9 comments:
Another world war is inevitable. History shows us that war is a reoccurring event and it would be naive to believe somehow one would never occur again. Our bases in Europe and around the world make other nations think twice before they decide to go to war. We have men and equipment prepositioned around the world making the task of countering our forces extremely difficult. Arguably these forces do indeed protect the Europeans as you say but to the extent they prevent another war they protect every American. Some believe that 100% of the cost of an overseas base would be recouped if we closed the base. But in fact most of those costs would simply still be spent as the men and equipment have to reside somewhere. Some of the foriegn bases are subsidized by the host country. So in those cases it is likely the cost of closing those bases would increase not decrease our total costs. Further cost increases would result from not having convenient resupply bases near hot spots. There would be more deaths for our soldiers if adequate medical facilities were no longer close to the action. It would be an incredibly stupid move to close our bases around the world. The only winners would be Russia and China.
That garden link = awesome! Found some great info on building an inexpensive hoop house....and emailed it immediately to my beloved :) I'm gonna have a hoop house, even if I have to drag all his tools out into the garden and build the danged thing myself!
I dunno, Anony- if we bring all the troops home from foreign bases, stop sending our taxes to foreign nations, and let those same foreign nations support and defend themselves, perhaps getting involved if we are invited, and then only sending troops to the hot spot with congressional authorization, we could use those troops to defend our borders and save a lot more American lives from drug dealers and (OMG!) those terreristic terrerists, as well as keeping out the undesireables coming in doing those jobs American kids- and adults- can be doing. Not to mention, not giving money to foreign countries would- gasp!- save us a few bucks. Maybe we could use those saved dollars 'for the children'.
The only reason troops are in foreing countries is to act as a buffer until we can ship more troops in from CONUS. Life expectancy when I was there was three days. Long enough to watch the reinforcments arrive. Maybe.
As to the resupply in hot spots: let the foreign nations supply us- it's their war, not ours. If we need resupply, we've been there too long.
PS: and get the U.S. out of the united nations and get the united nations out of the United States. If the u-n wants to act a the world police force, let them- they don't need our help.
Anon, Huh? Costs would go up by shutting bases? Really? I'm going to take a wild guess here and guess you're a Republican, as that kind of logic is used by R's for military, and D's for social programs.
I don't buy it from either of them.
As we demonstrated in Desert Storm, we can mobilize and deploy massive amounts of troops and equipment in very short order.
The way we persuade folks not to mess with us is to take politics out of the war fighting. For instance, I've noted before that for Afghanistan, the only boots on the ground we needed were spotters. For the bombers and laser guided smart bombs. You hit whomever has dicked with us in grotesque proportion to whatever injury they brought on us.
Then go home.
To have whole armies stationed around the world in anticipation of the next world war is a horrific waste of money and materiel.
Andrea, isn't that a great site? A number of the regions we'll eventually move to are sometimes weak in the soil department, and often very cold. Raised beds with the hoops seems to work very well. If the location has good soil, being able to extend the "season" to year 'round would be fantastic.
Shy, my feelings as well, across the board. Especially getting out of the UN. A waste of money and international prestige.
Troops stationed around the world to prevent wars. That is our policy. Whether it be 10,000 plus in a carrier group of 10,000 plus on a German base with a hospital.
"When I heard what was in these newsletters, I was shocked."
Umm, you HEARD what?
Did you take the time to investigate, at the source?
In case you haven't noticed, ALL of the first 100 or so hits on this story seem to have been written BY THE SAME PERSON.
Weird, huh?
Anon 8:28, what source? Are you suggesting I contact Paul directly? I read a number of articles from different sources, and they distill down to what I stated. Paul says he didn't write them, but showed poor oversight in controlling the content of the newsletters published under his name.
Thanks for the gardening link.
Even better than gardening, though, is foraging wild edibles. Most of the benefits (plus a few of its own) and almost none of the work.
Post a Comment