Posted on 05/24/2010 10:02:37 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Congress, with its insatiable appetite for spending, is set to pass yet another “supplemental” appropriations bill in the next two weeks. So-called supplemental bills allow Congress to spend beyond even the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government. These are akin to a family that consistently outspends its budget, and therefore needs to use a credit card to make it through the end of the month.
If the American people want Congress to spend less, putting an end to supplemental appropriations bills would be a start. The 13 “regular” appropriations bills fund every branch, department, agency, and program of the federal government. Congress should place every dollar in plain view among those 13 bills. Instead, supplemental spending bills serve as a sneaky way for Congress to spend extra money that was not projected in budget forecasts. Once rare, they have become commonplace vehicles for deficit spending.
The latest supplemental bill is touted as an “emergency” war spending bill, needed to fund our ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. The emergencies never seem to end, however, and Congress passes one military supplemental bill after another as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on.
Many of my colleagues argue that Congress cannot put a price on our sacred national security, and I agree that the strong, unequivocal defense of our country is a top priority. There comes a time, however, when we must take stock of what our blank checks to the military industrial complex accomplish for us, and where the true threats to American citizens lie.
The smokescreen debate over earmarks demonstrates how we have lost perspective when it comes to military spending. Earmarks constitute about $11 billion of the latest budget. This sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the $708 billion spent by the Pentagon this year to expand our worldwide military presence. The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually, which is roughly what the entire federal budget was in 1990!
We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and far more than we spent during the Cold War. These expenditures in many cases foment resentment that does not make us safer, but instead makes us a target. We referee and arm conflicts the world over, and have troops in some 140 countries with over 700 military bases.
With this enormous amount of money and energy spent on efforts that have nothing to do with the security of the United States, when the time comes to defend American soil, we will be too involved in other adventures to do so.
There is nothing conservative about spending money we don’t have simply because that spending is for defense. No enemy can harm us in the way we are harming ourselves, namely bankrupting the nation and destroying our own currency. The former Soviet Union did not implode because it was attacked; it imploded because it was broke. We cannot improve our economy if we refuse to examine all major outlays, including so-called defense spending.
Ron Paul, Jun 3, 2007
"And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."
So in his own words the pervert Paul thinks homosexual behavior is equal to heterosexual behavior morally. Now he has taken this perversion of his one step further and is using his power as a representative to force this perverted morality of his on the men and woman of the Armed Forces.
Paul is a disgrace.
Unfortunately for you, the Constitution protects the rights of the individual to be treated equally, regardless of whether they are saints or sinners.
The core of the issue from a legal and functional perspective is "whether there is sexual behavior that is disruptive" -- if so, the source of it (homosexual, heterosexual) is irrelevant. It simply needs to be stopped and dealt with. That's ground neutral -- not "pro-gay" or "pro-hetero".
But you want the stamp of Social Conservatism on this issue and RP doesn't give you that, so you resort Rachel Maddow/Saul Alinsky tactics. Two words for you: "Grow up".
The Constitution does not protect ‘behavior’ to be treated equally. Of course this is obvious to most people yet it seems to escape many people.
Are mens and women’s bathrooms un-Constitutional? Of course not because as a people we make a moral decision about the behavior between men and women and discriminate in regards to that behavior.
Is Paul going to bring forth a bill for all bathrooms and showers to be coed in the military? Why would he discriminate against heterosexual behavior but then tell our servicemen and women that they have no right to be against showering with people who openly flaunt their homosexual behavior?
Paul is a phony Constitutionalist who injects his own perverted morality into law in order to force it upon others. He is a disgrace.
Ok fair enough.
The Constitution protects the rights of the individual (not the group, hetero or homo) to be treated equally.
Not all heterosexual behavior is "holy" (hookers, adultery, sexually explicit behavior, etc), ether. With an integrated male/female military, occurrences of "sexual behavior that is disruptive" (even among heteros) are now even far more likely to occur, and they need to be disciplined. This would discipline both disruptive heteros and homos with the same measure.
The male/female bathroom example is off on a tangent -- not all public bathrooms are divided into male/female, and there are sound practical reasons based on differences in physiology for having separate male/female bathrooms for venues with heavy traffic.
However, after having said all of that, I would still want to see the military's own report on the subject to see what policy they recommend and why. I have no idea why they forced this vote before that report was out, except to play to the politics of the issue.
Ultimately, the fitness and readiness of the military to do its job must be the most important objective -- not simply "fairness" -- because we have a voluntary military and no citizen is being subjected to military rules against their will. They know what they are getting into before they get there. On the other hand, if the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is simply arbitrary, then ditch it.
You hypocritically claim that you want to discuss this based upon individual rights and not group rights but then go on to make the argument that we need to treat the two groups of hetero and homo equally. Here are your words:
“This would discipline both disruptive heteros and homos with the same measure. “
Again you are showing that you cannot even follow your own thought process. One second you are against group rights and then you are arguing for group rights. You want heterosexuality and homosexuality treated equally by your own words. This may be your morality but it is a perverted morality.
Why don’t you give one example of a practical reason to divide men and women facilities based upon physiology. There is none.
And there is no tangent in regards to coed facilities but that is instead the crux of the issue in where Paul is violating the individual rights of our men and women in the Armed Forces. Paul has voted for a bill that would force men and women to bunk with and shower with people who openly admit to having a perversion towards people of the same gender. So in essence we have a double standard then whereas we discriminate against coed facilities based upon heterosexual behavior but force people to have to deal with homosexual behavior.
Basically Paul’s words that you posted on this issue state clearly enough that Paul morally believes that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. He is a pervert and has no respect for true equality under the law. His constant attacks on our military and National Security in order to promote his perverted morality is pathetic.
You hypocritically claim that you want to discuss this based upon individual rights and not group rights but then go on to make the argument that we need to treat the two groups of hetero and homo equally. Here are your words:
“This would discipline both disruptive heteros and homos with the same measure. “
Again you are showing that you cannot even follow your own thought process. One second you are against group rights and then you are arguing for group rights. You want heterosexuality and homosexuality treated equally by your own words. This may be your morality but it is a perverted morality.
Why don’t you give one example of a practical reason to divide men and women facilities based upon physiology. There is none.
And there is no tangent in regards to coed facilities but that is instead the crux of the issue in where Paul is violating the individual rights of our men and women in the Armed Forces. Paul has voted for a bill that would force men and women to bunk with and shower with people who openly admit to having a perversion towards people of the same gender. So in essence we have a double standard then whereas we discriminate against coed facilities based upon heterosexual behavior but force people to have to deal with homosexual behavior.
Basically Paul’s words that you posted on this issue state clearly enough that Paul morally believes that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. He is a pervert and has no respect for true equality under the law. His constant attacks on our military and National Security in order to promote his perverted morality is pathetic.
Let me rephrase it for you in long form: "Sexually disruptive behavior" is "sexually disruptive behavior", period -- no place in the military, same discipline regardless of the sexual orientation of the individual.
Why don’t you give one example of a practical reason to divide men and women facilities based upon physiology. There is none.
Good grief, if I have to spell this one out for you, then you have no business debating anything that requires actual use of brain synapses:
Because women don't have the physical equipment to use urinals. Because women have menstrual periods. Because it takes a woman on average longer to use the bathroom than it does a man. One of the reasons to separate male and female restrooms in large venues is efficiency -- you can turn over more men needing to urinate by installing urinals than you can turn over women using a stall. Physiological differences.
My thoughts yesterday were correct. Waste of time and energy.
You want to concentrate on “sexually disruptive behavior” as if homosexuality is normal and not disruptive? That is your perverted morality. Homosexuality is a corruption of natural sexuality and should not be forced as acceptable in public. It is disruptive. You and Paul want to use the federal government to force your perverted morality on others. You claim to be Constitutionalists who want to secure our liberty but the gig is up. Paul is pushing a fascist agenda to force his perverted morality on our Armed Services.
And uh you do know idiot that bathrooms have stalls? That woman can use. And you claim that menstrual cycles make it so men cannot use the same facilities? I guess you should enlighten all of the men who share a bathroom with woman in their home. And woman take more time? Get real. You haven’t given one real reason for discriminating in regards to heterosexual behavior when not doing the same in regards to homosexual behavior.
It is you who are a waste of time. You want to push for treating types of behavior as being equal as if the Constitution calls for that when it does not. The Founders would have never supported your agenda to force this perversion upon the People.
“sexual orientation of the individual.”
I noticed that you used this BS term created by the left-wing to make homosexual behavior seem more natural. Thus you are arguing for the federal government to force others to accept you perversions.
You really are a waste of time.
WHAT? I am long happily married to a member of the opposite sex! Seems to me you are the one with the perverse preoccupation with homosexuality and a need to punish it. What is it -- the thought turns you on?
I am simply for the government keeping its nose out of where it doesn't belong -- and it doesn't belong in people's sex lives!
Who is threatened by a nuclear Iran? Do you seriously suggest that Iran would use them against the United States?
I didn’t accuse you of being homosexual. You do have a perverse morality though being that you think homosexuality is a morally equivalent alternative to heterosexuality and that you want it to have special protections as such by the federal government. This is what Ron Paul stated in the words of his that you posted here and it is also what you are arguing for. You even use the left-wing deception of calling homosexuality some sort of natural ‘orientation’ instead of being the perversion that it is.
Now you are also using the left-wing strawman argument that this issue has something to do with having the government go into people’s bedrooms and sex lives. This is an issue of how sexuality is dealt with in public. It is a violation of the rights of the men and women of the Armed Forces to have to be forced to deal with open expressions of perversion and then be told that they have to bunk, shower and deal with this. The total hypocrisy of Ron Paul’s position is that he accepts separate facilities for men and woman based upon discrimination of known heterosexual behavior but then wants to force men and women to integrate themselves in these same facilities with people openly expressing their homosexual perversion.
If you espouse this same position then you are most certainly trying to force your perverse morality on others.
Yes, the money will indeed by spent. Some of us don’t live in La La land.
Ron is even more.
Ron is a jew hating, isolationist , earmark lovin crackpot whose shelf life is way past expired.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
As to terror groups like Al Queda, our tepid, insanely misdirected response to 9-11 only encouraged terror groups to launch more attacks. Instead of invading Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9-11), the much smarter policy after 9-11 would have been to meet terror with unspeakable terror. I mean kill all of the terrorists, kill their families, forcing them first to eat pork and sh*t on the Koran. Then nuke Mecca and nuke any Muslim city that dared to stage a public protest in response. Basically, kill them all and let God sort them out. Meet their terror with a terror so unspeakable that men centuries hence will wince to think of it. Respond with terror so horrific that Lenin himself would vomit at the thought.
They talk about how nobody can conquer Afganistan. But there was one guy who did it - Ghengis Khan and his Mongols. He did it by killing everybody, making mountains of skulls throughout all of Central Asia. Ghengis Khan left entire divisions of his horsemen behind so that they could hunt down the last starving child shivering in the rubble of the cities he destroyed. Terror. Thorough, unspeakable terror. That's what works.
So it can be done. I loved that line in Apocalypse Now - terror is either your friend or it is an enemy to be feared. If Bush II and his entourage of fools had any sort of balls at all (and we know that Bush II was a draft dodger, so he was not only an idiot but a gutless one at that) the response to 9-11 would have been so complete and so horrific that no Muslim would have dared to raise their eyes from the ground for generations hence.
But no, Sugar Foot had to don a white hat and proceed, checkbook in hand, to try to convert the Muslims to democracy.
What a fool.
And we're still paying for it.
As it is, we lack the stomach for meeting terror with terror, which is perceived (inevitably) as weakness by these spiritually stunted Muslim cultures. Instead of killing the terrorists and their families and genociding any village that dared to harbor one of them, we took the insane step of invading Iraq (which again had nothing to do with 9-11) and trying to convince a bunch of Muzzies that democwacy is a good thing, and likewise trying to bring a hopelessly backward place like Afghanistan into the modern world.
Mass, merciless retaliation (including nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina) and religious terror were the sole proper responses to 9-11. It would have been cheap and effective. It would be over in a few weeks, and we would have used weapons that we have plenty of.
"Nation building" in Muslim countries could only be seriously considered by a drooling idiot. The Bush II administration was full of drooling idiots, which is why seven years later we're still spending billions and billions of dollars and losing precious American lives in two pointless, no-win wars WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT.
Thanks for destroying our country, "conservatives."
Ron Paul is right. American foreign policy must be Fortress America. Live your lowly lives and you will, Muzzies. But if you attack us, our response will be so unimaginably horrific and so Tuetonically thorough that you will begin your calendar anew. Year one won't be Mohammed's Hejira, but the year of our response.
Iran is headed by a full blown NUT dictator .
he will blow up the middle east.
Ron Paul is fraud and JEW HATER and a media HOG !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.