Ron Pauls solution for everything is "bring the troops home"

[oracle]

sorry...i seemed to have missed the part where dr. paul is wrong.

He really is. That's why he's never been and never will be president.

 

[oracle]

As nice as that would be the wars have only cost us as much as Obamas deficit this year. He has no depth to his platform.

You can't be a genuine deficit hawk and pro-war. Ron Paul is a genuine deficit hawk.

Its pretty simple.

More like a doofusit hawk.

 

[McDowell's]

Consolidating overseas bases and bringing most of the troops stationed overseas stateside would be a pretty common sense way to stimulate our own economy. Instead of grunts spending all their money in a foreign country, they would be spending it here. You would cut out a net drain on our economy and reduce the logistical costs of supporting our military all at the same time.

I disagree. All the troops overseas sent back home are not enough to stimulate the economy on a national level. The population of troops abroad isn't many. As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries. Some of the largest contingents are the 85,600 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 103,700 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany, the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), the 9,660 in Italy, and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

Altogether, 77,917 military personnel are located in Europe, 141 in the former Soviet Union, 47,236 in East Asia and the Pacific, 3,362 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 1,355 in sub-Saharan Africa and 1,941 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself.

Now the real solution in stimulating the economy is stop issuing welfare checks and SSI checks to minorities who are capable of working. Millions are taking advantage of the system and it has become a generational way of life by expecting free govenment handouts to them and it has put a serious burden on the economy. Cut them all off and it will free up taxpayer dollars well earned by hard workers so the workers who earned that money can buy goods and services with it.

The military personnel themselves do not function in isolation from society. There is also a significant number of contractors involved. Instead of contractors hiring foreign nationals to support our foreign military bases, they would be hiring US citizens. Additionally, the logistical support of all those troops would be sourced out of the United States instead of a foreign country. So the effect would not be limited solely to military personnel.

Also, I did not say that this was THE solution to our countries problems. As I've said in other threads, reforming our military does not preclude reforming entitlements and vice versa. Just because you have a preference for reforming entitlements doesn't mean that doing something simple like transferring the military back stateside would not have a significant positive effect on our nation. It's an equally valid pursuit.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yeah, where is RP worng? And that's not his answer to everything, it just happens to be an answer that would help the country on almost every big issue... Like deficits and spending... the economy and so on.

Ron Paul continues to quote UBL for reasons for 9/11. IMO Ron Paul gives comfort to the enemy by making them think they were right. He fails to articulate his position correctly and it sounds as if he agrees.

 

[McDowell's]

Consolidating overseas bases and bringing most of the troops stationed overseas stateside would be a pretty common sense way to stimulate our own economy. Instead of grunts spending all their money in a foreign country, they would be spending it here. You would cut out a net drain on our economy and reduce the logistical costs of supporting our military all at the same time.

Where would they work? Seems to me if you brought them home, your next complaint would be that we don't need so many troops. The police force isn't hiring, so most soldiers wouldn't qualify for anything. In order to change that you'd have to send them to some kind of college or trade school, who'll pay for that? while they are in school they still need to eat. With no job who'll pay for that? If you think I'm pulling this out of my ass, check this out. I was in the first gulf war, when we got home one of the first things people did here was say we didn't need so many troops (because we dominated over there). Bush's response, was to reduce forces by 50%. Unemployment shot right up. Why? Because you can't just tell everyone to go home, so they changed the rules. It became extremely easy to be booted from the military and tons of people were. Who do you think was eager to hire uncle Sam's rejects? They had to jockey for low wage dead end jobs, or go off the grid. Civilians love to talk about what the military should do and yet don't bring much if anything to the table. Before you follow the hippie rant of a bill maher, keep in mind he's shouting from the cheap seats of his ivory castle. While he dances you on a string, he sits back confidently knowing that no matter what happens, he won't end up like you. Kinda makes him sound teapublican huh?

I'm a fountain of info check out my flow.

Where in my post did I say they should be all put out of the military you fucking moron? That's not my next complaint, so by all means continue to talk out of your ass.

 

[oracle]

Consolidating overseas bases and bringing most of the troops stationed overseas stateside would be a pretty common sense way to stimulate our own economy. Instead of grunts spending all their money in a foreign country, they would be spending it here. You would cut out a net drain on our economy and reduce the logistical costs of supporting our military all at the same time.

I disagree. All the troops overseas sent back home are not enough to stimulate the economy on a national level. The population of troops abroad isn't many. As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries. Some of the largest contingents are the 85,600 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 103,700 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany, the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), the 9,660 in Italy, and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

Altogether, 77,917 military personnel are located in Europe, 141 in the former Soviet Union, 47,236 in East Asia and the Pacific, 3,362 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 1,355 in sub-Saharan Africa and 1,941 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself. In total the total amount of troops abroad would probably fill 4 1/2 NFL stadiums on a sunday afternoon.

Now the real solution in stimulating the economy is stop issuing welfare checks and SSI checks to minorities who are capable of working. Millions are taking advantage of the system and it has become a generational way of life by expecting free govenment handouts to them and it has put a serious burden on the economy. Cut them all off and it will free up taxpayer dollars well earned by hard workers so the workers who earned that money can buy goods and services with it.

Not the whites who are capable also? Wow, you really ARE dumb, aren't you? 66% of our population is white 15%is black 20% is hispanic and you think the food stamp crew is made up solely of lazy minorities gaming the system? Now we know where YOU'RE at. Or maybe you think the WHITE welfare queens are the only legitimate welfare recipients. And the solution isn't remove them, but make them earn it. Since they already collect, plus get government healthcare, I say put them on public works projects and environment beautification assignments. Let them deliver mail and clean parks. Remove graffiti and be crossing guards. there's plenty for them to do AND it would greatly reduce unemployment as well as lazy coloreds and wet backs, gaming the system that offend you so, without increasing the deficit one penny.

 

[Contumacious]

Ron Paul continues to quote UBL for reasons for 9/11. IMO Ron Paul gives comfort to the enemy by making them think they were right. He fails to articulate his position correctly and it sounds as if he agrees.

And you continue to give comfort to the fucktards:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg"]What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't [/ame]

.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ron Paul continues to quote UBL for reasons for 9/11. IMO Ron Paul gives comfort to the enemy by making them think they were right. He fails to articulate his position correctly and it sounds as if he agrees.

And you continue to give comfort to the fucktards:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg"]What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't [/ame]

.

Your a devoted fan and I would expect no less. I respectfully disagree.

 

[Contumacious]

Ron Paul continues to quote UBL for reasons for 9/11. IMO Ron Paul gives comfort to the enemy by making them think they were right. He fails to articulate his position correctly and it sounds as if he agrees.

And you continue to give comfort to the fucktards:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg"]What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't [/ame]

.

Your a devoted fan and I would expect no less. I respectfully disagree.

Why?

The facts are on our side.

Are you conflicted by interest because you are managing Perry or Romney's campaign?

.

 

[rdean]

Ron Paul received the biggest boos of the evening at the Republicans CNN debate in Florida when he said Muslims don't hate us for our freedom, but they attacked because we have bases built in their holy lands and we killed a hundred thousand in Iraq.

It's like the Republicans were calling him a liar. Except those are the reasons the Muslims gave for the attacks. So who to believe? The Muslims who have no reason to lie? Or Republicans, who don't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite?

You could almost say it's like Climate Change. Who to believe? Scientists who have data and research or Republicans who have neither? A huge number of Americans go with Republicans who have neither.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And you continue to give comfort to the fucktards:

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't

.

Your a devoted fan and I would expect no less. I respectfully disagree.

Why?

The facts are on our side.

Are you conflicted by interest because you are managing Perry or Romney's campaign?

.

um yea, thats it. lol

No im open to all the candidates but that along with a few other things he said really gets under my skin. Its okay to disagree you know....?

 

[oracle]

Consolidating overseas bases and bringing most of the troops stationed overseas stateside would be a pretty common sense way to stimulate our own economy. Instead of grunts spending all their money in a foreign country, they would be spending it here. You would cut out a net drain on our economy and reduce the logistical costs of supporting our military all at the same time.

Where would they work? Seems to me if you brought them home, your next complaint would be that we don't need so many troops. The police force isn't hiring, so most soldiers wouldn't qualify for anything. In order to change that you'd have to send them to some kind of college or trade school, who'll pay for that? while they are in school they still need to eat. With no job who'll pay for that? If you think I'm pulling this out of my ass, check this out. I was in the first gulf war, when we got home one of the first things people did here was say we didn't need so many troops (because we dominated over there). Bush's response, was to reduce forces by 50%. Unemployment shot right up. Why? Because you can't just tell everyone to go home, so they changed the rules. It became extremely easy to be booted from the military and tons of people were. Who do you think was eager to hire uncle Sam's rejects? They had to jockey for low wage dead end jobs, or go off the grid. Civilians love to talk about what the military should do and yet don't bring much if anything to the table. Before you follow the hippie rant of a bill maher, keep in mind he's shouting from the cheap seats of his ivory castle. While he dances you on a string, he sits back confidently knowing that no matter what happens, he won't end up like you. Kinda makes him sound teapublican huh?

I'm a fountain of info check out my flow.

Where in my post did I say they should be all put out of the military you fucking moron? That's not my next complaint, so by all means continue to talk out of your ass.

Hey dumbass, where do you think we should put them when they get home? guarding burgers of mass destruction? You are clearly the dumbest ass in captivity. If you bring them home we won't have use for them and they WILL be discharged. That's how it works. YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!! Check your history under bush sr. and clinton to see how they handled returning troops after saudi and son of saudi, YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!! It's not my opinion it's a fact because it already happened YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!! Learn your recent history, it hasn't been revised yet, YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!! Now, go find a corner somewhere to go sit and be still foolish one, before I have to spank you.

 

[Contumacious]

Your a devoted fan and I would expect no less. I respectfully disagree.

Why?

The facts are on our side.

Are you conflicted by interest because you are managing Perry or Romney's campaign?

.

um yea, thats it. lol

No im open to all the candidates but that along with a few other things he said really gets under my skin. Its okay to disagree you know....?

I understand

A Welfare State = Government Buy the People

.

 

[Avorysuds]

No, you're not just another blind Ron Paul hater, it's just us...

What part about getting out of the wars don't you like Gramps? What part of saving the money from the wars could help America on so many HUGE other issues do you not agree with Gramps?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ron Paul received the biggest boos of the evening at the Republicans CNN debate in Florida when he said Muslims don't hate us for our freedom, but they attacked because we have bases built in their holy lands and we killed a hundred thousand in Iraq.

It's like the Republicans were calling him a liar. Except those are the reasons the Muslims gave for the attacks. So who to believe? The Muslims who have no reason to lie? Or Republicans, who don't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite?

You could almost say it's like Climate Change. Who to believe? Scientists who have data and research or Republicans who have neither? A huge number of Americans go with Republicans who have neither.

You mean Muslim terrorists who will say anything in order to keep a population in complete fear, both their people and ours?

And scientists who have been busted manipulating data in an attempt to bolster their Global Warming theories?

Im not saying either are right or wrong. Im saying its irrelevant to our current situation.

 

[QUENTIN]

Why Ron Paul can't be president - YouTube

"Why Ron Paul can never be president...because he's informed enough to know what he's talking about and principled enough to speak the obvious truth rather than pander."

I wouldn't vote for Paul, but on this issue he's one of the very few politicians willing to just be honest about plain facts.

If you genuinely think we were attacked on 9/11 because "they hate us for our freedom" rather than that it was blowback for our decades of intervention in the Middle East (which is the official, on record conclusion reached by the 9/11 Commission Report and by the CIA and State Department) then you are genuinely an idiot.

 

[Charles_Main]

As nice as that would be the wars have only cost us as much as Obamas deficit this year. He has no depth to his platform. Im watching the debate now and that has been his answer to EVERY QUESTION.

He does not just mean bring the Troops home. That is why I can't Vote for him. He would gut our Defense Budget, and I do mean gut. His ideas of Foreign Policy are in a word, Wacked.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No, you're not just another blind Ron Paul hater, it's just us...

What part about getting out of the wars don't you like Gramps? What part of saving the money from the wars could help America on so many HUGE other issues do you not agree with Gramps?

I agree with all of that. I just dont believe Paul is the man to accomplish what we need.

The media doesnt respect him, his compatriots in washington mock him, America either laughs at him or drools over him,

Hardly the portrait of a strong leading President.

No thanks

 

[Kuros]

As nice as that would be the wars have only cost us as much as Obamas deficit this year. He has no depth to his platform. Im watching the debate now and that has been his answer to EVERY QUESTION.

He does not just mean bring the Troops home. That is why I can't Vote for him. He would gut our Defense Budget, and I do mean gut. His ideas of Foreign Policy are in a word, Wacked.

Tell your baby that.

 

[Oddball]

No, you're not just another blind Ron Paul hater, it's just us...

What part about getting out of the wars don't you like Gramps? What part of saving the money from the wars could help America on so many HUGE other issues do you not agree with Gramps?

I agree with all of that. I just dont believe Paul is the man to accomplish what we need.

The media doesnt respect him, his compatriots in washington mock him....

Sweet...A real outsider for a change.