Ron Paul: Constituents changed my mind on 'don't ask, don't tell'

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/ron_paul_constituents_changed.html


So why did Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), after supporting "don't ask, don't tell" since its introduction in 1993, vote to begin the process to repeal it?

"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said Friday. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."

Paul's vote was the lone surprise among the five Republicans who bucked their party to vote for the amendment sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn).

[low preference guy]

duplicate thread

[libertythor]

But this has a place in General Politics.

[sofia]

Paul's argument makes no sense. These ***** knew the rules going in.

How can he say that their behavior is not disruptive??? If I had *****s in my unit, I would not feel comfortable around them. Dont soldiers have to endure enough stress????? Now, on top of battle stress, we want them to deal with this bullshit drama to?

No homosexuals...and no females in the trenches.....mess halls maybe...but not mixing with the men.

This is a damn military....not a college campus.

[torchbearer]

Paul's argument makes no sense. These ***** knew the rules going in.

How can he say that their behavior is not disruptive??? If I had *****s in my unit, I would not feel comfortable around them. Dont soldiers have to endure enough stress????? Now, on top of battle stress, we want them to deal with this bullshit drama to?

No homosexuals...and no females in the trenches.....mess halls maybe...but not mixing with the men.

This is a damn military....not a college campus.

i think ron has stated that all people in the military should be treated as individuals. as in, the same. no fratenizing for anyone- with anyone. sounds reasonable to me.

[TonySutton]

No homosexuals...and no females in the trenches.....mess halls maybe...but not mixing with the men.

This is a damn military....not a college campus.

There are lots of straight men I would not want to fight a war with. Although their sexuality has nothing to do with it. I judge people as individuals not as members of groups.

[haaaylee]

Paul's argument makes no sense. These ***** knew the rules going in.

How can he say that their behavior is not disruptive??? If I had *****s in my unit, I would not feel comfortable around them. Dont soldiers have to endure enough stress????? Now, on top of battle stress, we want them to deal with this bullshit drama to?

No homosexuals...and no females in the trenches.....mess halls maybe...but not mixing with the men.

This is a damn military....not a college campus.


Wow.


*****s? *****?

If you want to make a logical argument, you need not use these terms. You just came off as a very ignorant and judgmental person. If you have a problem with people being gay, get over it.

Are you seriously trying to argue that gays, by the mere act of being gay, cause stress??? And drama?? They are human beings. The only difference is that when they have sex their partner doesn't look like yours.

If someone (you?) doesn't feel comfortable around gays in the military, that is your own problem. And maybe you are the person that doesn't need to be in the army.

There is nothing "disruptive" about being a homosexual. The real issue here is other people and their ignorance and fear of gay people. Its almost as if we're dealing with an issue of if Blacks should be in the army or not.

"It makes Soliders feel uncomfortable!" Well, then don't be in he army . . .

Ugh.

[mello]

If I was a soldier & I had to choose between two soldiers to be in my squad, my first & only question is:

"Which one of you is a better shot with their M-16?"

[dannno]

Paul's argument makes no sense. These ***** knew the rules going in.


Ya but when the rules become ridiculous people just break them, it doesn't matter where you are. I'm sure there are tons of people in the military who are openly gay and they don't get kicked out because nobody says anything.. maybe they are an exceptionally good soldier and everybody likes them (the ones who choose to come out) who knows.. I would think the minority end up getting kicked out.

Most people agree that DADT was good policy in the 90s, but times have changed.. most people don't care anymore.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

It is an utter insult to enlisted persons such as myself to suggest that we can't handle having openly gay men and women serving side by side with us. We are far more mature then some of you douchebags are giving us credit for.

[dannno]

Ya, sofia, straight men are just as capable at causing drama as gay men.. if they are causing drama then they should be treated as an individual, straight or gay. If a woman and a man are having issues that are sexually related in the military then you treat that the same as you do if two men are having issues, if one of them is harassing or making them feel uncomfortable, etc..

[BlackTerrel]

I disagree with Ron on this one but it doesn't change my opinion of him.

I have 100 issues that are far more important to me than this one where I agree with Ron.

[specsaregood]

Paul's argument makes no sense.

So you think discharging a "well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military" for being gay DOES make "financial sense"?

Because ya know, that is the root of his argument in that article in the OP.

[aravoth]

Paul's argument makes no sense. These ***** knew the rules going in.

How can he say that their behavior is not disruptive??? If I had *****s in my unit, I would not feel comfortable around them. Dont soldiers have to endure enough stress????? Now, on top of battle stress, we want them to deal with this bullshit drama to?

No homosexuals...and no females in the trenches.....mess halls maybe...but not mixing with the men.

This is a damn military....not a college campus.

I for one, knew of at least 3 people in my brigade that were gay. One of them, was my squad leader. He had a legion of merit and a purple heart. The only people he "disrupted" were the people our government told him he had to kill. His sexuality had no bearing on his precision with a rifle.

That being said, I have no Idea why you give a shit about who someone has sex with. I am also clueless as to why you think it is your responsibility to thrust your moral code upon the whole of a nations military just because you found out that some people that serve in it have a sex life (which is none of your god damn business) contrary to yours.

That is all.

[libertarian4321]

Paul's argument makes no sense. These ***** knew the rules going in.

How can he say that their behavior is not disruptive??? If I had *****s in my unit, I would not feel comfortable around them. Dont soldiers have to endure enough stress????? Now, on top of battle stress, we want them to deal with this bullshit drama to?

No homosexuals...and no females in the trenches.....mess halls maybe...but not mixing with the men.

This is a damn military....not a college campus.

How many years did you serve in the military before you came to this conclusion?

My guess is that you have never served.

I've served almost 3 decades in the Army active and reserve, and I'm with Dr. Paul (who also served) on this one. I think the DADT policy, while not as bad as the previous policy, is unfair and wasteful.

The Army spends a lot of money training soldiers- even training the lowest ranking infantryman costs a lot, and to train specialists and officers can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

To toss a good soldier out of the military, after spending all that money, because someone rat's him out is just stupid. You're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on training a pilot or engineer officer, then toss him out because someone saw him in a gay bar? That's just nuts.

I would allow gays in the military, but I would do it like they do with women for now- allow gay soldiers to openly serve in all non-combat positions. Most military slots are NOT front line combat positions- for every front line combat guy, there are a bunch of truck drivers, clerks, technicians, cooks, medical staff and the like.

If that goes well, consider opening up all positions a few years later.

BTW, many armies already allow gays to serve- including good ones like the Israeli Army and the British Army.

[amy31416]

So if this passes, and there's a draft, the only ways for men to get out of service are to feign complete insanity, flee the country or maim themselves? Yeah, can't get too excited about this victory.

But hey, congrats to the gays. Big fucking victory--they can kill for the empire without fear of persecution.

If we weren't in perpetual warfare, I'd think it was a good thing.

[0zzy]

So if this passes, and there's a draft, the only ways for men to get out of service are to feign complete insanity, flee the country or maim themselves? Yeah, can't get too excited about this victory.

But hey, congrats to the gays. Big fucking victory--they can kill for the empire without fear of persecution.

If we weren't in perpetual warfare, I'd think it was a good thing.

Contrary to popular belief, not all military peoples are soldiers who kill. Some don't ever see battle at all.

[MelissaWV]

Paul's argument makes no sense. These ***** knew the rules going in.

How can he say that their behavior is not disruptive??? If I had *****s in my unit, I would not feel comfortable around them. Dont soldiers have to endure enough stress????? Now, on top of battle stress, we want them to deal with this bullshit drama to?

No homosexuals...and no females in the trenches.....mess halls maybe...but not mixing with the men.

This is a damn military....not a college campus.

There are already homosexuals in the military. Until you develop a test (which I encourage you to do, if you are so inclined!) to figure out who is homosexual on sight, they are going to serve right alongside straight people in the military. Right now, as you type, there are straight men and gay men living in close quarters, showering near one another, eating meals together, and saving each other's lives.

The only thing "stressful" about all of this is the stupid politicizing of such a non-issue, when in fact we're still engaged in all these crappy wars. Hey! How about we solve THAT first, okay? Then we can worry about whether or not Bob can talk about his gayness the way that most military guys talk about their straightness during down time.

How about having physical and mental and emotional testing for people going into the military, and not worrying about what genitals the candidate has, or what they do with them... and having a code of conduct that addresses bad acts, rather than petty crap like tattoos and what kind of sex the soldiers have in their time off? Nah. That'd make too much sense.

[MelissaWV]

Contrary to popular belief, not all military peoples are soldiers who kill. Some don't ever see battle at all.

Well, in her defense, she's talking about a draft situation. That usually means we're drafting soldiers to go kill people (or cannon fodder).

I'm with her on that. Right now it's such a glaring loophole through which a lot of smart men would readily jump in order to avoid fighting in an unjust war.

[amy31416]

Contrary to popular belief, not all military peoples are soldiers who kill. Some don't ever see battle at all.

I'm well aware of that...but yeah, read what Melissa wrote. No need to be repetitious.

[forsmant]

DOesn't this vote go contrary to what Paul believes about property and the civil rights movement? Isn't this decision best left to the military? If you believe yes than the law should be repealed and the military can still have the policy.

[dannno]

Until you develop a test (which I encourage you to do, if you are so inclined!) to figure out who is homosexual on sight, they are going to serve right alongside straight people in the military.

http://9gag.com/photo/3416_540.jpg

[MelissaWV]

Gay men do notice women, you know. Also what if I'm a lesbian? Oops! Non-scientific test is non-scientific.

;)

[doctor jones]

http://9gag.com/photo/3416_540.jpg

^^This is Funny...

and I think Sofia has been put in her place so I won't add any other criticism. Her statement was shocking to find on this forum but as usual the marketplace of ideas welcomes all even abhorrent ones.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Some of the best warriors in history have been homosexuals, or at least bi.

Oda Nobunaga and Takeda Shingen come to mind (both Samurai warlords), as do the Sacred Band of Thebes (a Greek force made exclusively of homosexuals who defeated the friggin' Spartans).

Ernst Rohm, commander of the Nazi Stormtroopers, was also a flamer.

[.Tom]

DOesn't this vote go contrary to what Paul believes about property and the civil rights movement? Isn't this decision best left to the military? If you believe yes than the law should be repealed and the military can still have the policy.

The military doesn't own any property because it's funded entirely by theft.

[RM918]

Gay men do notice women, you know. Also what if I'm a lesbian? Oops! Non-scientific test is non-scientific.

;)

If you spell 'dude' as 'dood', you probably don't believe women EXIST on the internet.

[specsaregood]

If you spell 'dude' as 'dood', you probably don't believe women EXIST on the internet.

On the plus side, the creator of the image got "you're" correct. I was somewhat surprised and encouraged by that.

[idirtify]

I don’t know, but I think a different perspective is in order. Frankly, I don’t get the general sentiment here – or RP’s new position. When your country has the most powerful and intrusive military in the world by far, shouldn’t you think up as many ways/reasons/excuses as possible to reduce the size of said military? I mean I’m not sure serving in the military is a “right” in terms of “equal civil rights”, and I’m not sure that having hundreds or thousands of regulations that prevent shitloads of civilians from adding to the problem would be so unconstitutional. I mean I’m normally against government regulations, but not when they only serve to limit the size of the government entity – especially when it’s a bloated standing army that’s not only unnecessary but dangerous and abusive. In fact, I would say those kind of regulations are some of the very few GOOD ones.

Think about it. What are we arguing for here? For equal rights to go kill and maim mass quantities of innocent people for trumped up reasons?? What’s so noble about advocating the right to do that? IIRC, I don’t think it’s in the BOR.

So let me be clear. I think all gays should be prohibited from serving in the military; and all bisexuals, and all women, and all people under 21 and over 22 years old, and all blacks, and all Muslims, and all Christians, and all overweight people, and all people with any levels of any drugs in their hairs, and all people with the smallest criminal record, and many more types of people yet to be determined. In fact, lets treat potential troops like six-figure job applicants – AND like prospective jurors, where those who are too eager to serve are the FIRST to be rejected during Voir Dire.

Here’s my hippie dream for the day:
The new public service advertisement for the armed forces goes something like this:
“We’re the Army and we discriminate against nearly EVERYONE! We dare you to try to join. If you can pass all the tests and meet all the requirements and get in, you are certainly one of the few good men.”

[idirtify]

So you think discharging a "well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military" for being gay DOES make "financial sense"?


YES, of course it does. It costs $ to keep paying him to fight. But of course the best savings would come from not letting him join in the first place (see my previous post).

[idirtify]

But hey, congrats to the gays. Big fucking victory--they can kill for the empire without fear of persecution.

If we weren't in perpetual warfare, I'd think it was a good thing.

You’re on the mark!

[AmericaFyeah92]

^Fair enough, but try explaining that to Joe Schmoe.

Here's my perspective.....from the Great Bill Hicks


YouTube - Bill Hicks- Gays in the Military (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6_b-72H3E&feature=player_embedded)

[Icymudpuppy]

http://9gag.com/photo/3416_540.jpg

I've looked as hard as I can, and I still can't find the dood... Too many other distracting images.

[idirtify]

How about having physical and mental and emotional testing for people going into the military, and not worrying about what genitals the candidate has, or what they do with them... and having a code of conduct that addresses bad acts, rather than petty crap like tattoos and what kind of sex the soldiers have in their time off? Nah. That'd make too much sense.

I say let the military have BOTH physical and emotional testing AND testing of genitals and genital behaviors. Let’s have a military that requires a strict code of conduct that addresses bad acts, and INCLUDES petty crap like tattoos and what kind of sex the soldiers have in their time off. Let’s add as many requirements as we can think up and make the military nearly impossible to join – and maybe then we can get it down to constitutional size.

[idirtify]

The military doesn't own any property because it's funded entirely by theft.

bingo!

[specsaregood]

I mean I’m not sure serving in the military is a “right” in terms of “equal civil rights”,

Or course Dr. Pauls argument in the OP had nothing to do with rights. But was rooted in fiscal sanity. Something that should speak to both sides of the spectrum. Why pay thousands of dollars in training somebody to be a soldier, just to fire them over something that shouldn't affect their job performance?

I like it. i'm sure Dr. Paul holds some thoughts in regards to rights, but how he framed it is beautiful and tough to argue against.

[specsaregood]

YES, of course it does. It costs $ to keep paying him to fight. But of course the best savings would come from not letting him join in the first place (see my previous post).

Wrong, because it won't stop the core problem. it just ends up costing more because you have to train a new person to do the job.

[idirtify]

^Fair enough, but try explaining that to Joe Schmoe.



Forget Joe Schmoe. He’s a collective myth. Do YOU agree?

I’m here to advocate a more liberty-minded position. If I pandered to common sentiments that are part of the problem, why would I even post in a forum like this?

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by idirtify
YES, of course it does. It costs $ to keep paying him to fight. But of course the best savings would come from not letting him join in the first place (see my previous post).


Wrong, because it won't stop the core problem. it just ends up costing more because you have to train a new person to do the job.

You apparently did not read my previous post; and your premise is incorrect - you do NOT have to train a new person to do the job.

[idirtify]

Or course Dr. Pauls argument in the OP had nothing to do with rights. But was rooted in fiscal sanity. Something that should speak to both sides of the spectrum. Why pay thousands of dollars in training somebody to be a soldier, just to fire them over something that shouldn't affect their job performance?

I like it. i'm sure Dr. Paul holds some thoughts in regards to rights, but how he framed it is beautiful and tough to argue against.

It’s easy to argue against. See my previous posts. To stop paying any troop to keep being a troop is to save money. The “investment” in his training (angle) is nothing but the same kind of excuse war hawks use to stay in foreign countries and continue to invade and occupy them. It’s the “too-big-to-fail” (“too-big-of-an-investment-to-stop”) mentality.

[specsaregood]

You apparently did not read my previous post; and your premise is incorrect - you do NOT have to train a new person to do the job.

I did read it and as I said, keeping gays out does not fix the "core problem".

Not letting gays join doesn't keep others from joining. in fact it probably costs more since it decreases the pool of applicants which could cause the military to be forced to offer more money as an incentive to join.

Quite simply, firing a trained employee because they are gay, ends up costing more if you plan on replacing them. Not replacing them (which we both agree is the best solution) is a different subject entirely.

[idirtify]

I did read it and as I said, keeping gays out does not fix the "core problem".

Not letting gays join doesn't keep others from joining. in fact it probably costs more since it decreases the pool of applicants which could cause the military to be forced to offer more money as an incentive to join.

Quite simply, firing a trained employee because they are gay, ends up costing more if you plan on replacing them. Not replacing them (which we both agree is the best solution) is a different subject entirely.

So under this reasoning, Ron should also vote to continue invading Iraq - because:
1. We have too much invested.
2. Getting out would mean it will just be replaced with another invasion.

But before I go any further, let me ask you to explain precisely what you mean by “keeping gays out does not fix the ‘core problem’”. What exactly is “the core problem”?

[0zzy]

Anyone who thinks its okay to keep out homosexual people from the military simply because of their sexual orientation is the core problem.

"BUT WAR! WAR KILLS PEOPLE! WE NEED TO STOP RECRUITMENT OF GAY PEOPLE TO HELP STOP THE DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN LIFE!"

Ah, what? So maybe we should just ban all people from joining the military, that way, we have no offensive military force to go to any war! And no defensive military to defend America!

That's the ticket! Pacifism at its best!

Look, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the military should not be tolerated. Someone shouldn't be fired nor denied recruitment in the military strictly based on whether or not they are homosexual.

[specsaregood]

So under this reasoning, Ron should also vote to continue invading Iraq - because:
1. We have too much invested.
2. Getting out would mean it will just be replaced with another invasion.

No, those are completely different issues. One can vote to end those wars and work to prevent more wars. In the meantime, while outnumbered in those positions it doesn't mean one should do whatever they can to keep costs down.



But before I go any further, let me ask you to explain precisely what you mean by “keeping gays out does not fix the ‘core problem’”. What exactly is “the core problem”?
The core problem is wars of interventionism, the MIL and a warfare state.

[idirtify]

Anyone who thinks its okay to keep out homosexual people from the military simply because of their sexual orientation is the core problem.

"BUT WAR! WAR KILLS PEOPLE! WE NEED TO STOP RECRUITMENT OF GAY PEOPLE TO HELP STOP THE DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN LIFE!"

Ah, what? So maybe we should just ban all people from joining the military, that way, we have no offensive military force to go to any war! And no defensive military to defend America!

That's the ticket! Pacifism at its best!



I really don’t think that what specsaregood meant by “the core problem”.

And we are such a long way from having no military for defense that for you to distort my position into such is like me distorting LF’s small-government position into a “lawless violent aggressive anarchy”. Save your strawman arguments for someone other than this farm boy who can spot them a mile away. If you read my post again, you should see that I advocate the concept of a “constitutional military”.

[idirtify]

No, those are completely different issues. One can vote to end those wars and work to prevent more wars. In the meantime, while outnumbered in those positions it doesn't mean one should do whatever they can to keep costs down.


The core problem is wars of interventionism, the MIL and a warfare state.

Those things are very analogous, but let’s move on.

Ahh well “wars of interventionism, the MIL and a warfare state” certainly make for a huge core alright! I really thought you would say “wasting money” was the core problem. So apparently this IS about more than just finances. So to continue: I believe you were criticizing my position because it did not fix the core problem. But now that we know that the core problem is not just money, and you are instead judging positions on how much they solve the warfare problems above, it appears that MY position easily qualifies over yours. I mean you are criticizing mine because excluding classes of people from the military doesn’t eliminate the MIC etc. Well no it won’t completely solve it, but it whittles on it good. It makes fighting any war more difficult. But your position falls far short, because accepting gays does absolutely NOTHING to solve the core problem as you state it.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I would like to know WHEN these constituents of his supposedly changed his mind. As long as I have been aware of Paul, his view has always been that gays should be allowed in the military and any disruptive sexual behavior, hetero or ****, should be punished accordingly. His standard line of "Don't ask don't tell is a good policy" was always followed up with a humorous "It should apply to straight people too" to make the point that everyone should be treated the same and act professionally.

When I see an old video of him actually saying that gay people in the military should have to hide their sexuality, then I'll believe that he suddenly had his mind changed.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Good for Ron not giving in to bigotry.

[specsaregood]

it appears that MY position easily qualifies over yours. I mean you are criticizing mine because excluding classes of people from the military doesn’t eliminate the MIC etc. Well no it won’t completely solve it, but it whittles on it good. It makes fighting any war more difficult. But your position falls far short, because accepting gays does absolutely NOTHING to solve the core problem as you state it.

My disagreement is that kicking out qualified, trained personnel costs more money. It doesn't whittle down the MIC, it has no effect except costing more money.

[specsaregood]

I would like to know WHEN these constituents of his supposedly changed his mind. As long as I have been aware of Paul, his view has always been that gays should be allowed in the military and any disruptive sexual behavior, hetero or ****, should be punished accordingly. His standard line of "Don't ask don't tell is a good policy" was always followed up with a humorous "It should apply to straight people too" to make the point that everyone should be treated the same and act professionally.

When I see an old video of him actually saying that gay people in the military should have to hide their sexuality, then I'll believe that he suddenly had his mind changed.

I think you are misunderstanding what exactly was "changed". It was not his views of gays in the military but his view of the specific policy itself and even more specifically: how that policy has been enforced.

[Vessol]

Anyone who is dumb enough should be allowed to join the military.

[0zzy]

I really don’t think that what specsaregood meant by “the core problem”.

And we are such a long way from having no military for defense that for you to distort my position into such is like me distorting LF’s small-government position into a “lawless violent aggressive anarchy”. Save your strawman arguments for someone other than this farm boy who can spot them a mile away. If you read my post again, you should see that I advocate the concept of a “constitutional military”.

I was just speaking generally to those who oppose homosexuals in the military and oppose such a vote on those grounds. That somehow it will be disruptive to the military.

[Imperial]

I had *****s in my unit, I would not feel comfortable around them.

Maybe the homosexual persons would feel uncomfortable around a heterosexual?

DADT is good in theory, but fails in practice.

[Vessol]

If I had *****s in my unit, I would not feel comfortable around them.

I'd feel more uncomfortable around trigger-happy manchildren then around someone whom likes men. Though if he was also a trigger happy man child, then I'd be just as nervous.

[bkreigh]

Anyone who is dumb enough should be allowed to join the military.

yup. we are a bunch of idiots who dont know any better.

You sir are a douche.

[BlackTerrel]

yup. we are a bunch of idiots who dont know any better.

You sir are a douche.

+1 The anti-military comments here are off the mark.

You have my respect and appreciation. As do my many friends and family who serve.

[0zzy]

+1 The anti-military comments here are off the mark.

You have my respect and appreciation. As do my many friends and family who serve.

They read too much LewRockwell.com which, although very helpful to the liberty movement, often become the collectivists they hate when begin criticizing the military.

[idirtify]

My disagreement is that kicking out qualified, trained personnel costs more money. It doesn't whittle down the MIC, it has no effect except costing more money.

Of course it whittles down the MIC; in contrast to what you are advocating, which only strengthens it. Now if you again try to argue as if the financial issue is the main problem, here’s another rebuttal besides the ones I have already provided: There is nothing that says the gay soldier will get booted only after most of his/her training. That can happen at any time in their military career, including before much has been invested. But that doesn’t really matter when it comes to the giant war machine (which you admitted was the main problem) since costing it more money helps to whittle away at it (by making it less efficient). Whereas accepting more troops and increasing financial efficiency is the opposite of a solution. Therefore since booting gays certainly whittles it down more, your disagreement cannot possibly be accurate.

[idirtify]

They read too much LewRockwell.com which, although very helpful to the liberty movement, often become the collectivists they hate when begin criticizing the military.

I’m curious how you came to that conclusion, when you can’t get much more collective than the military. IOW how do I become a collectivist when I criticize one of the most collective of all government entities?

[AmericaFyeah92]

They read too much LewRockwell.com which, although very helpful to the liberty movement, often become the collectivists they hate when begin criticizing the military.

Pointing out that signing your life and individuality away to this country's ruling class, and volunteering to kill/be killed by people who you have no personal grudge against, might not be the smartest choice....is collectivist?

[AmericaFyeah92]

yup. we are a bunch of idiots who dont know any better.

You sir are a douche.

You had me nodding till the last sentence. Unless you are an "oath keeper," the sad truth is that you are a useful idiot for our country's ruling class. An enforcer of imperialism.

[Fredom101]

Far more importantly:

How does the military fund itself?

The answer is via theft and extortion of the American people, at the threat of violence.

Why do we put up with this? It is immoral to force someone at gunpoint to pay for something they don't want. If they wanted it, they would voluntarily pay for it.

The gay issue is a distraction.

[bkreigh]

You had me nodding till the last sentence. Unless you are an "oath keeper," the sad truth is that you are a useful idiot for our country's ruling class. An enforcer of imperialism.

Your comment has been noted and because of such you will be the first person i find and lock up in one of our many internment camps.

Do you even have the foggiest clue as to what i do? Better yet what do you think i do? Please let me into that ignorant mind of yours.

[0zzy]

Your comment has been noted and because of such you will be the first person i find and lock up in one of our many internment camps.

Do you even have the foggiest clue as to what i do? Better yet what do you think i do? Please let me into that ignorant mind of yours.

Well obviously if you have a uniform, you must be killing someone! Or bombing someone! Or gathering CIA intelligence to create the NWO! THAT'S IT ISN'T IT! YOU ARE A NWO STOOGE !

OMG I KNEW IT! COINTELPRO! COINTELPRO!@@@%#@~!@!

[bkreigh]

Well obviously if you have a uniform, you must be killing someone! Or bombing someone! Or gathering CIA intelligence to create the NWO! THAT'S IT ISN'T IT! YOU ARE A NWO STOOGE !

OMG I KNEW IT! COINTELPRO! COINTELPRO!@@@%#@~!@!

You are pretty good at this game. You hit the nail right on the head. For being the first to respond correctly you have won a paid vacation to one of the beautiful camps you will spend many years all expenses paid. Congrats!

[bkreigh]

Pointing out that signing your life and individuality away to this country's ruling class, and volunteering to kill/be killed by people who you have no personal grudge against, might not be the smartest choice....is collectivist?

This right here is the dumbest more ignorant post i have seen in my couple years of being on here. Are you that stupid to think that everybody that joins the military volunteers to go to war? Have you done any research into the different branches not to mention the different fields somebody can get into? Wake the fuck up man.

[BlackTerrel]

This right here is the dumbest more ignorant post i have seen in my couple years of being on here. Are you that stupid to think that everybody that joins the military volunteers to go to war? Have you done any research into the different branches not to mention the different fields somebody can get into? Wake the fuck up man.

+1

If not for the absurdity of dissing two million Americans at the very least think smart.

Saying you oppose the troops is one of the dumbest things you can politically do. And you are doing this on something called "Ron Paul Forums". Think smart.

Oppose the assholes in Washington who send our people to fight. Don't oppose our people.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Pointing out that signing your life and individuality away to this country's ruling class, and volunteering to kill/be killed by people who you have no personal grudge against, might not be the smartest choice....is collectivist?

+1

To bad this kind of common sense wasn't in my circle of influence before I exercised stupidity, signed up, and racked up six dumb ass medals as a young adult.

I commend you for pointing out the common sense truth of the matter. It takes a certain level of ignorance, stupidity to sign your individuality away to the ruling class and think you are not volunteering to kill/be killed by people who you have no personal grudge against or have not even invaded/attacked the U.S.

[pacelli]

Paul's argument makes no sense. These ***** knew the rules going in.

How can he say that their behavior is not disruptive??? If I had *****s in my unit, I would not feel comfortable around them. Dont soldiers have to endure enough stress????? Now, on top of battle stress, we want them to deal with this bullshit drama to?

No homosexuals...and no females in the trenches.....mess halls maybe...but not mixing with the men.

This is a damn military....not a college campus.

Be careful, one day you might give birth to some "bullshit drama".

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

+1

If not for the absurdity of dissing two million Americans at the very least think smart.

Saying you oppose the troops is one of the dumbest things you can politically do. And you are doing this on something called "Ron Paul Forums". Think smart.

Oppose the assholes in Washington who send our people to fight. Don't oppose our people.

Without the people to send, the people in Washington are powerless. Thats the whole point! Standing Armies are a pox on liberty. Abolish them all. For what use is the Militia?

Standing Armies are offensive tools. If you truly only believe in defensive just wars, then you must be against Standing Armies, and only be for Militia. Period. Elbridge Gerry is the man by the way.

PS I'm currently AD CG also. (Which could easily be privatized, and not introduce moral hazard -- oh the CG is always here. They'll always come get us. It's free. Let's act like retards..... >.>)

[AmericaFyeah92]

+1

If not for the absurdity of dissing two million Americans at the very least think smart.

Saying you oppose the troops is one of the dumbest things you can politically do. And you are doing this on something called "Ron Paul Forums". Think smart.

Oppose the assholes in Washington who send our people to fight. Don't oppose our people.

I am stating facts. Very little of the military establishment today is around to "defend" you and me. They are used for wars of empire and to keep the military-industrial complex rolling.

I wasn't dissing the troops, who I'm sure for the most part have honest intentions when they sign up. But pointing out that (despite whatever reasons they joined) they currently function as the gun-toting slaves of our rulers is simple truth.

[AmericaFyeah92]

+1

To bad this kind of common sense wasn't in my circle of influence before I exercised stupidity, signed up, and racked up six dumb ass medals as a young adult.

I commend you for pointing out the common sense truth of the matter. It takes a certain level of ignorance, stupidity to sign your individuality away to the ruling class and think you are not volunteering to kill/be killed by people who you have no personal grudge against or have not even invaded/attacked the U.S.

SO YOU DON"T SUPPORT THE TROOPS?!?!? :eek: garrrrrrr

[constituent]

So if this passes, and there's a draft, the only ways for men to get out of service are to feign complete insanity, flee the country or maim themselves? Yeah, can't get too excited about this victory.

feign? lol.

[BlackTerrel]

Without the people to send, the people in Washington are powerless. Thats the whole point! Standing Armies are a pox on liberty. Abolish them all. For what use is the Militia?

Standing Armies are offensive tools. If you truly only believe in defensive just wars, then you must be against Standing Armies, and only be for Militia. Period. Elbridge Gerry is the man by the way.

A militia is not going to defeat a modern military.

When the Chinese come with aircraft carriers, tanks, and F-15s go call the good ole boys to bring their muskets.

Welcome to 2010.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

A militia is not going to defeat a modern military.

When the Chinese come with aircraft carriers, tanks, and F-15s go call the good ole boys to bring their muskets.

Welcome to 2010.

Have we left Iraq or Afghanistan yet?

How did Vietnam work out?

Welcome to reality.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Have we left Iraq or Afghanistan yet?

How did Vietnam work out?

Welcome to reality.

"I fear there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass...."

[AmericaFyeah92]

A militia is not going to defeat a modern military.

When the Chinese come with aircraft carriers, tanks, and F-15s go call the good ole boys to bring their muskets.

Welcome to 2010.

The real threat to American liberty doesn't come from China, the Middle East, Russia, North Korea, or any other of those Bad Guys our political class distracts us with. It comes from them, and the people in uniform who follow their orders.

[BlackTerrel]

Have we left Iraq or Afghanistan yet?

How did Vietnam work out?

Welcome to reality.

It depends on the goal. If the US just wanted to "defeat" those countries and be done with it, it could happen in a week.

Also their countries are currently occupied. Not exactly what I want for us. I prefer what we have here to Iraq or Afghanistan.


The real threat to American liberty doesn't come from China, the Middle East, Russia, North Korea, or any other of those Bad Guys our political class distracts us with. It comes from them, and the people in uniform who follow their orders.

That's easy to say now. If they disappeared tomorrow that might be a different tune.

Those people in uniform don't scare me. They are my friends and relatives.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

It depends on the goal. If the US just wanted to "defeat" those countries and be done with it, it could happen in a week.

Also their countries are currently occupied. Not exactly what I want for us. I prefer what we have here to Iraq or Afghanistan.

So once you win a war and defeat a country why would any more U.S. troops get killed? They have been defeated.

[BlackTerrel]

So once you win a war and defeat a country why would any more U.S. troops get killed? They have been defeated.

Because they're trying to "rebuild".

Anyway point being if a foreign country wanted to come over here and steal our shit it would take a lot more than a militia to defend it. I am still not sure how you think a militia is supposed to fair against a modern military.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Because they're trying to "rebuild".

Anyway point being if a foreign country wanted to come over here and steal our shit it would take a lot more than a militia to defend it. I am still not sure how you think a militia is supposed to fair against a modern military.

Ask the Swiss. Oh, thats right. They haven't been attacked in what, 500 years? It is a futile attempt to try and institute a non-interventionist foreign policy while you have a Standing Army. It is impossible. Similarly, in a country of 300,000,000, with Oceans seperating us from both continents, and socialistic countries to the North and South you honestly believe anyone would dare come over unprovoked and fight against at least 100,000,000 soldiers who are as well armed, and trained as any Modern Army?

Moreover, the motivation of the Militia man gives rise to a much more indominatable soldier than any Standing Army. Secondly, the terrain knowledge of the locals are far superior to any offensive force. One needs to not look no further than Vietnam. I wouldn't ever want to fight in the Appalachias against a well trained, well armed militia. You are asking for death.