RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Last edited:
Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
Why would I do that? Ron Paul is just another unqualified politician. No clue about what a commander in chief does. Why is it we can never find anyone with some experience and background? He might make a good surgeon general or head up the studies on just why health care is so expensive. Kinda hard to fix a problem when you don't understand why you have it.
Why would I do that? Ron Paul is just another unqualified politician. No clue about what a commander in chief does. Why is it we can never find anyone with some experience and background? He might make a good surgeon general or head up the studies on just why health care is so expensive. Kinda hard to fix a problem when you don't understand why you have it.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
What is it in your mind that "qualifies" a politician (other than being eligible to run .... and then being elected, of course)
This oughta be reeaaally good ......
BTW, you might wish to review a couple of items, for starters, The Constitution of the United States, in both Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
and
Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Above, you will find the sum total of what our Founders deemed to be the both the legal qualifications and disqualifications of the job, for holding the office.
A person which possesses all of those qualifications and none of those disqualifications, by logic, is therefore, qualified.
Of course, I realize that you, in your infinite wisdom, are certainly possessed of more insight than our Founding Fathers were, when it comes to judging what should be the qualifications of office ........
Certainly, there are many attributes of a good executive or respresentative .... and one could certainly could debate whether one individual was more qualified, by reasons of temperment, experience, past performance, and other various factors, than another.
Can you provide any evidence of that ?
Again, I'd like to see you point to anything that Ron Paul has actually said, or written, that provides evidence of that (as opposed to just your own political opinions - which have about as much validity as the next guys) - and then make a rational and sound argument about it - that involves more than just a few sentences or glib layoutershooter-isms.
I have read quite a bit of what Ron Paul has written ..... and I have also read quite a bit of what you have written .....
Suffice it to say, that in my estimation - based solely on the writings alone - I would say that Ron Paul has a far greater knowledge, understanding, and conversance of the many things it would take to be a President and lead a nation (a fairly involved and complex thing) ....... than you do .... or you even have for what is even required to hold the office (a fairly minor and trivial thing in comparison, by far)
Or the way that Andrew Jackson, Chester Arthur, or Grover Cleveland could have only been good Secretaries of Education ..... because they had been teachers, or in education ?
Or perhaps the way that Teddy Roosevelt could have only been a good Secretary of the Interior ....... because he was an accomplished naturalist and published writer (ornithologist) ?
Or possibly the way that Warren Harding could have only been a Minister of Propaganda ....... because he was involved in the newspaper business ?
Quite frankly, I find your arrogant, dismissive attitude towards Ron Paul in this regard (his experience and service) - a person who answered the call of duty and wore the uniform of this country, serving his nation as an active-duty military officer during a time that we were at war - as a fairly shallow and lame attempt to sully the name of someone who served honorably in both the Air Force, and the Air Force Reserve. This is something that you have repeatedly engaged in.
You sir, bring dishonor on yourself ..... by disparaging the honorable service of a fellow soldier ....
Personally, I find your antics in this regard rather disgusting .... you can't even engage on the substance and details of the subjects which you raise, other than in vague generalities ..... and resort to pathetic attempts at underhanded character assassination.
BTW ...... Ron Paul retired with the rank of Captain when he ended his military service ('63 to '68) ..... exactly what was your rate/rank when you left the service ?
You raise a good point - since nothing that you have to say on this matter is ever particularly wise, terribly insightful, nor of any real informative value - you are probably correct: it would be best for you to save your breath - it has little, if any real value to others (IMNSHO)
LOL ..... like much of what you say LOS, such statements are really quite laughable ......
What is it in your mind that "qualifies" a politician (other than being eligible to run .... and then being elected, of course)
This oughta be reeaaally good ......
BTW, you might wish to review a couple of items, for starters, The Constitution of the United States, in both Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
and
Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Above, you will find the sum total of what our Founders deemed to be the both the legal qualifications and disqualifications of the job, for holding the office.
A person which possesses all of those qualifications and none of those disqualifications, by logic, is therefore, qualified.
Of course, I realize that you, in your infinite wisdom, are certainly possessed of more insight than our Founding Fathers were, when it comes to judging what should be the qualifications of office ........
Certainly, there are many attributes of a good executive or respresentative .... and one could certainly could debate whether one individual was more qualified, by reasons of temperment, experience, past performance, and other various factors, than another.
Really ?
Can you provide any evidence of that ?
Again, I'd like to see you point to anything that Ron Paul has actually said, or written, that provides evidence of that (as opposed to just your own political opinions - which have about as much validity as the next guys) - and then make a rational and sound argument about it - that involves more than just a few sentences or glib layoutershooter-isms.
Perhaps, if you can avoid the shallow glibness and generality (of "experience" and "background"), you will elaborate on what exactly these things are ......
I have read quite a bit of what Ron Paul has written ..... and I have also read quite a bit of what you have written .....
Suffice it to say, that in my estimation - based solely on the writings alone - I would say that Ron Paul has a far greater knowledge, understanding, and conversance of the many things it would take to be a President and lead a nation (a fairly involved and complex thing) ....... than you do .... or you even have for what is even required to hold the office (a fairly minor and trivial thing in comparison, by far)
Really ? ..... kinda like how John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln could have only been good Attorney Generals ...... because they were lawyers ?
Or the way that Andrew Jackson, Chester Arthur, or Grover Cleveland could have only been good Secretaries of Education ..... because they had been teachers, or in education ?
Or perhaps the way that Teddy Roosevelt could have only been a good Secretary of the Interior ....... because he was an accomplished naturalist and published writer (ornithologist) ?
Or possibly the way that Warren Harding could have only been a Minister of Propaganda ....... because he was involved in the newspaper business ?
Quite frankly, I find your arrogant, dismissive attitude towards Ron Paul in this regard (his experience and service) - a person who answered the call of duty and wore the uniform of this country, serving his nation as an active-duty military officer during a time that we were at war - as a fairly shallow and lame attempt to sully the name of someone who served honorably in both the Air Force, and the Air Force Reserve. This is something that you have repeatedly engaged in.
You sir, bring dishonor on yourself ..... by disparaging the honorable service of a fellow soldier ....
Personally, I find your antics in this regard rather disgusting .... you can't even engage on the substance and details of the subjects which you raise, other than in vague generalities ..... and resort to pathetic attempts at underhanded character assassination.
Indeed ..... but even before you get to that point, there is just the discussing of a problem in a rational, meaningful, and substantive manner ..... and ya know .... some people can't even do that ...
BTW ...... Ron Paul retired with the rank of Captain when he ended his military service ('63 to '68) ..... exactly what was your rate/rank when you left the service ?
Last edited:
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
I have liked Ron Paul in the past, but have decided to vote for third parties from now on. I believe it is best to vote against Democrats and Republicans as the only way to clean up D.C.. It is too bad the Republicans have proven themselves to not be a conservative party!
I have liked Ron Paul in the past, but have decided to vote for third parties from now on. I believe it is best to vote against Democrats and Republicans as the only way to clean up D.C.. It is too bad the Republicans have proven themselves to not be a conservative party!
arkjarhead
Veteran Expediter
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
I'm not trying to be a smart mouthed, but who would you suggest? I don't really think the Republicans have really anyone to put in the election in 2012. So should the Republicans just go ahead and concede the election to the Democrats?
I'm not trying to be a smart mouthed, but who would you suggest? I don't really think the Republicans have really anyone to put in the election in 2012. So should the Republicans just go ahead and concede the election to the Democrats?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
But I'll have to admit that I allowed what LOS said to get the better of my temper .... and what I wrote in response could have been better written, more diplomatic, and certainly a bit more polite (at least a little)
Nevertheless, I stand by what I said.
Perhaps the real irony that I saw is that an individual who once instructed me that I ought to be respectful of my elders, was so entirely dismissive of, and condescending towards an individual (his elder) - who is a good and decent man - who had honorably served his country, in uniform, in a time of war .... and then went on to continue to serve his country in the public arena for a good part of the rest of his life .....
Stating that this individual - a Captain in the United States Air Force - had "no clue about what a commander in chief does" ..... and was an "unqualified politician" is beyond the pale ..... such a statement is the epitome of ignorance ...... and is prima facie evidence that the person saying such is willing to carelessly make statements about the character of others without having bothered to inform themselves of a multitude of facts, which are in the public domain, and relatively easily accessible to anyone with a computer and internet access. Such a thing is utterly irresponsible.
Dr. Paul has a record ..... an extensive one ... examine it and judge for yourself ... as opposed to just listening to the ill-informed .... some malcontent (to paraphrase another ...)
For what reason ...... by what motivation .... to what end ... was this sleazy thing done ?
If I had to guess, I would venture to say that it is because that individual disagrees with Dr. Paul politically .....
And if I further had to guess I would say that disagreement largely centers around one thing: Dr. Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.
It is all fine and well to disagree over matters political - these are things that reasonable men (and women) can debate and argue about - it's what we are about, as a people.
But to engage in wholly-unjustified character assassination merely to further a political agenda ?
Such actions are way more demeaning to those who seek to undertake them ........ than they will ever be to those they are directed against.
Yeah .... it was pretty much meant to ....That's gonna sting.
But I'll have to admit that I allowed what LOS said to get the better of my temper .... and what I wrote in response could have been better written, more diplomatic, and certainly a bit more polite (at least a little
)Nevertheless, I stand by what I said.
Perhaps the real irony that I saw is that an individual who once instructed me that I ought to be respectful of my elders, was so entirely dismissive of, and condescending towards an individual (his elder) - who is a good and decent man - who had honorably served his country, in uniform, in a time of war .... and then went on to continue to serve his country in the public arena for a good part of the rest of his life .....
Stating that this individual - a Captain in the United States Air Force - had "no clue about what a commander in chief does" ..... and was an "unqualified politician" is beyond the pale ..... such a statement is the epitome of ignorance ...... and is prima facie evidence that the person saying such is willing to carelessly make statements about the character of others without having bothered to inform themselves of a multitude of facts, which are in the public domain, and relatively easily accessible to anyone with a computer and internet access. Such a thing is utterly irresponsible.
Dr. Paul has a record ..... an extensive one ... examine it and judge for yourself ... as opposed to just listening to the ill-informed .... some malcontent (to paraphrase another ...
)For what reason ...... by what motivation .... to what end ... was this sleazy thing done ?
If I had to guess, I would venture to say that it is because that individual disagrees with Dr. Paul politically .....
And if I further had to guess I would say that disagreement largely centers around one thing: Dr. Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.
It is all fine and well to disagree over matters political - these are things that reasonable men (and women) can debate and argue about - it's what we are about, as a people.
But to engage in wholly-unjustified character assassination merely to further a political agenda ?
Such actions are way more demeaning to those who seek to undertake them ........ than they will ever be to those they are directed against.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
The Constitution actually does have a requirement for a minimum age limit .... I suspect this was because that those that included the requirement recognized that one had to have actually lived a little bit ..... before one might possess the necessary temperment, and enough experience and wisdom to really be competent to hold an office with such awesome responsibilities as leading an entire nation such as ours ....
I also suspect that they might well have recognized that it would perhaps be a good idea for the safety and future of our nascent republic to limit the office to those whose testosterone levels had already peaked ..... and were now on the decline .....
We are not talking about selecting someone to compete in the Olympics for us ....... to go run a marathon for us ...... nor to set a new weight lifting record for us ..... no matter how much the more aggressive in the male sector of the electorate would like to flatter themselves into thinking that's what it's about.
(Interestingly, from what I know of Ron Paul and his work ethic, I rather suspect that there are quite a few men of a younger age who would be hard pressed to keep up with him.)
But what we are really talking about is choosing someone who has enough intelligence, insight, wisdom, and who has the courage to be willing to stand up and demonstrate real leadership - and advocate those things, which, while they may be somewhat politically unpopular, at least initially, are vital and absolutely necessary for our continued existence.
And real leadership is what we need - make no mistake about it - we are in a tremendous pickle: the problems we face today are unlike anything we have faced before in our nation's history ... they are problems which easily have the capacity to cause our nation's demise ..... forever.
You are perhaps witnessing the twilight of what was once the greatest country in Earth's history ...
Choose wisely.
I'm sorry ..... I guess I missed that portion of the Constitution where it said what the maximum age limit for holding the office was ....
The Constitution actually does have a requirement for a minimum age limit .... I suspect this was because that those that included the requirement recognized that one had to have actually lived a little bit ..... before one might possess the necessary temperment, and enough experience and wisdom to really be competent to hold an office with such awesome responsibilities as leading an entire nation such as ours ....
I also suspect that they might well have recognized that it would perhaps be a good idea for the safety and future of our nascent republic to limit the office to those whose testosterone levels had already peaked ..... and were now on the decline .....
We are not talking about selecting someone to compete in the Olympics for us ....... to go run a marathon for us ...... nor to set a new weight lifting record for us ..... no matter how much the more aggressive in the male sector of the electorate would like to flatter themselves into thinking that's what it's about.
(Interestingly, from what I know of Ron Paul and his work ethic, I rather suspect that there are quite a few men of a younger age who would be hard pressed to keep up with him.)
But what we are really talking about is choosing someone who has enough intelligence, insight, wisdom, and who has the courage to be willing to stand up and demonstrate real leadership - and advocate those things, which, while they may be somewhat politically unpopular, at least initially, are vital and absolutely necessary for our continued existence.
And real leadership is what we need - make no mistake about it - we are in a tremendous pickle: the problems we face today are unlike anything we have faced before in our nation's history ... they are problems which easily have the capacity to cause our nation's demise ..... forever.
You are perhaps witnessing the twilight of what was once the greatest country in Earth's history ...
Choose wisely.
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
Ron Paul?
Ok there are a number of issues that I agree with him about but him being able to lead us, not quite the person I would want. .
Here is the scary thing -
On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:
The numbers can't add up because he forgets three important points;
the size of government would have to be reduced to 1950 levels which is a very good thing
and we must get rid of unfunded mandates all together
The income tax revenue also funds our debt which we have to pay back.
The good thing is he said he would vote for the FairTax.
On the other hand I agree with this health care position, and his statement "Medical privacy has deteriorated in a similar manner. Our medical records are being transcribed in India and insurance companies and other entities have the right to access our medical history any time they choose." I also have to say is right on but getting worst.
The india thing should be a concern for everyone but got to tell you that most people are too ignorant to know that the risk is greatly increased by allowing their records to be moved off shore - financial and medical. India, like Pakistan DOESN'T have privacy laws and most of what we are afforded in protection comes from contractual obligations between the compaines who are hiring the services and those who are providing it.
Put this into prespective with the Internet doctor movement - having a doctor in India diagnost and "treat" you via the internet. It is not a joke that they are trying to reduce the cost through this and already there have been a number of issues with privacy and wrong diagnosis.
As one who will have to see two doctors to be able to drive a truck in the future, I think that is part of the issues with privacy or lack of. Once the DOT ipushes for the universal medical record database for all CDL drivers, then there is no way to keep the lid on things.
Ron Paul?
Ok there are a number of issues that I agree with him about but him being able to lead us, not quite the person I would want. .
Here is the scary thing -
On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:
“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.
We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”
Now this sounds all great pandering to the people like the "income tax is illegal" crowd but in truth if we derive 45% of our government revenue from personal income tax, then how can we have a government the size that we had 10 years ago? We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”
The numbers can't add up because he forgets three important points;
the size of government would have to be reduced to 1950 levels which is a very good thing
and we must get rid of unfunded mandates all together
The income tax revenue also funds our debt which we have to pay back.
The good thing is he said he would vote for the FairTax.
On the other hand I agree with this health care position, and his statement "Medical privacy has deteriorated in a similar manner. Our medical records are being transcribed in India and insurance companies and other entities have the right to access our medical history any time they choose." I also have to say is right on but getting worst.
The india thing should be a concern for everyone but got to tell you that most people are too ignorant to know that the risk is greatly increased by allowing their records to be moved off shore - financial and medical. India, like Pakistan DOESN'T have privacy laws and most of what we are afforded in protection comes from contractual obligations between the compaines who are hiring the services and those who are providing it.
Put this into prespective with the Internet doctor movement - having a doctor in India diagnost and "treat" you via the internet. It is not a joke that they are trying to reduce the cost through this and already there have been a number of issues with privacy and wrong diagnosis.
As one who will have to see two doctors to be able to drive a truck in the future, I think that is part of the issues with privacy or lack of. Once the DOT ipushes for the universal medical record database for all CDL drivers, then there is no way to keep the lid on things.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
I voted for RP as a write in in Ohio in the last election....
I heard on the radio from a Conservative young voter think tank rep (can't remember his name of the group) that was at Cpac...He was happy as all get out that Ron had won this yrs "straw vote", but not for the reasons many may think....
They estimated that 10,000 people were at Cpac this yr (one of the largest crowds) and that approx 2500 of them voted in this straw poll. That is considered about norm from a percentage standpoint. The thing that excited this guy was that most of those voting were under 35 and a large % of them were college students.......that WAS barrys crowd in the last election.....
I don't agree with RP on all issues by a long shot, but he is the guy that best works to do the best by our Constitution, but he also wonders on at times when it benefits his own issues...he is a politician ....I from a having heard a few people that were at Cpac and that had dinner at a "pay" function that RP spoke at, they came away thiniing that he wasn't lokking to run for the WH again, so who knows.....now if his son is in the same vein as Ron and after he gets a few yrs of experience (he is running for i believe Jim Buntings seat) he may give it a try...who knows what we will be facing by that time.....
I voted for RP as a write in in Ohio in the last election....
I heard on the radio from a Conservative young voter think tank rep (can't remember his name of the group) that was at Cpac...He was happy as all get out that Ron had won this yrs "straw vote", but not for the reasons many may think....
They estimated that 10,000 people were at Cpac this yr (one of the largest crowds) and that approx 2500 of them voted in this straw poll. That is considered about norm from a percentage standpoint. The thing that excited this guy was that most of those voting were under 35 and a large % of them were college students.......that WAS barrys crowd in the last election.....
I don't agree with RP on all issues by a long shot, but he is the guy that best works to do the best by our Constitution, but he also wonders on at times when it benefits his own issues...he is a politician ....I from a having heard a few people that were at Cpac and that had dinner at a "pay" function that RP spoke at, they came away thiniing that he wasn't lokking to run for the WH again, so who knows.....now if his son is in the same vein as Ron and after he gets a few yrs of experience (he is running for i believe Jim Buntings seat) he may give it a try...who knows what we will be facing by that time.....
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
The job of president is mainly in forgian policy and commander in chief. Domestic policy is mainly the pervue of the congress. That is my belief as that is what I was taught in school. I am sorry that I am so stupid RLENT. Not my fault. I am a victim too. Just as everyone else is today.
I prefer someone like Jerry Curry if he/she/it was younger and stayed out of domestic garbage and left that to the congress.
Ron Paul shows little knowlege of military policy. Playing defense vs. offense always loses.
The job of president is mainly in forgian policy and commander in chief. Domestic policy is mainly the pervue of the congress. That is my belief as that is what I was taught in school. I am sorry that I am so stupid RLENT. Not my fault. I am a victim too. Just as everyone else is today.
I prefer someone like Jerry Curry if he/she/it was younger and stayed out of domestic garbage and left that to the congress.
Ron Paul shows little knowlege of military policy. Playing defense vs. offense always loses.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
Ahhh ..... got it - entirely reasonable concerns.With all that said I'm referring to whether he would be alive at the end of his term and if he would be able to run for a second term.
As with many things: ..... I didn't have a clue .....But you knew that didn't you.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
I even checked out some Actuary charts, and if I looked at the correct ones he should be able to go an additional 12 years. So I might have to research him and see what he is all about.
Actuarial Life Table
I even checked out some Actuary charts, and if I looked at the correct ones he should be able to go an additional 12 years. So I might have to research him and see what he is all about.
Actuarial Life Table
Last edited:
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
Joe, with your background and experience you are far more educated than most in important areas. You have no need for apologies to anyone when it comes to national security and intelligence.
Joe, with your background and experience you are far more educated than most in important areas. You have no need for apologies to anyone when it comes to national security and intelligence.
Rhodes101
Not a Member
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
maybe Layoutshooter could answer a question for this person.
FORGIAN EMPLOYER - JustAnswer
maybe Layoutshooter could answer a question for this person.
FORGIAN EMPLOYER - JustAnswer
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
As to my rank, I was enlisted when in the army. I was a Spec 4 when I got out. I turned down Spec 5. I did not have enough time left in to take it. I would have had to re-enlist. My position at NSA was a Full Bird level if you carried it over into military ranks. When I had my own shop at NSA I had an Air Force E6, an E8, two captains and a major that I supervised and wrote evaluations for. I did get one of the captains promoted to major.
As to Ron Paul, his service is to be commended. He was a doctor. He would have gone is as an officer. Different carrier field. As a doctor he would have little command experience and even less experience in stratigic command and intell matters.
As to my job there, I did many over my 20 years. Starting as close to the bottom as you could and worked my way up to as high as congress would allow me. I earned my way up with hard work. I had good years, bad years and a few great years. In others words I did my job, I did to the best of my ability and I did for 20 years.
As to candidates, as stated, if Jerry Curry was younger I would be interested. Look up Bobby Iman, too old as well but those are the types of people that I believe would be able to handle command and military matters.
As to my rank, I was enlisted when in the army. I was a Spec 4 when I got out. I turned down Spec 5. I did not have enough time left in to take it. I would have had to re-enlist. My position at NSA was a Full Bird level if you carried it over into military ranks. When I had my own shop at NSA I had an Air Force E6, an E8, two captains and a major that I supervised and wrote evaluations for. I did get one of the captains promoted to major.
As to Ron Paul, his service is to be commended. He was a doctor. He would have gone is as an officer. Different carrier field. As a doctor he would have little command experience and even less experience in stratigic command and intell matters.
As to my job there, I did many over my 20 years. Starting as close to the bottom as you could and worked my way up to as high as congress would allow me. I earned my way up with hard work. I had good years, bad years and a few great years. In others words I did my job, I did to the best of my ability and I did for 20 years.
As to candidates, as stated, if Jerry Curry was younger I would be interested. Look up Bobby Iman, too old as well but those are the types of people that I believe would be able to handle command and military matters.
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
I like Ron Paul and will be voting for his son who is running for the US Senate here in Kentucky. Unfortunately, we live in a culture obsessed with youthfulness. As Ron Paul is in his late seventies, there is no way he could get the nomination or be elected to president. No doubt, many folks in their 70's and 80's are chock full of wisdom. However, there are good reasons Americans don't elect octogenarians.... the likelihood of rapid physical and mental decline is just too great. We could really use old-fashioned wisdom and steadiness, but in the age of television, we will continue to elect someone who connects with the MTV crowd. The cool guy will beat the wise old geezer every time.
I like Ron Paul and will be voting for his son who is running for the US Senate here in Kentucky. Unfortunately, we live in a culture obsessed with youthfulness. As Ron Paul is in his late seventies, there is no way he could get the nomination or be elected to president. No doubt, many folks in their 70's and 80's are chock full of wisdom. However, there are good reasons Americans don't elect octogenarians.... the likelihood of rapid physical and mental decline is just too great. We could really use old-fashioned wisdom and steadiness, but in the age of television, we will continue to elect someone who connects with the MTV crowd. The cool guy will beat the wise old geezer every time.
Re: Rep. Ron Paul wins the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nominati
As a side note... we need to rethink and reform voting rights in the United States. Maybe take a second look at age requirements. Then, establish reasonable voting rights for people not born in this country. Folks who have immigrated to the US and aquired citizenship should wait 10 years after achieving citizenship before voting. People convicted of violent crimes, whether paroled or not, should lose voting privileges permanently.
While we're at it, establish maximum age requirements for elected officials. Strom Thurmond was in the US Senate to age 100. Robert Byrd of West Virginia is past 90 years old. Several others cling onto public office until they kill over of old age. It makes no sense.
Radical as it sounds, I could support legislation raising the minimum voting age to 30 and a maximum voting age of 80. I would make an exception for any young person who currently is or has served in the US military. Also, the old age cutoff would be waived for all veterans. Veterans vote for life.
Why should a 19 year-old drug addict cancel your vote?
Why should a petty criminal cancel your vote?
Tighten up the voting requirements and responsibilities. Through various means, our votes have been diluted and cheapened. The right to vote should be earned.
As a side note... we need to rethink and reform voting rights in the United States. Maybe take a second look at age requirements. Then, establish reasonable voting rights for people not born in this country. Folks who have immigrated to the US and aquired citizenship should wait 10 years after achieving citizenship before voting. People convicted of violent crimes, whether paroled or not, should lose voting privileges permanently.
While we're at it, establish maximum age requirements for elected officials. Strom Thurmond was in the US Senate to age 100. Robert Byrd of West Virginia is past 90 years old. Several others cling onto public office until they kill over of old age. It makes no sense.
Radical as it sounds, I could support legislation raising the minimum voting age to 30 and a maximum voting age of 80. I would make an exception for any young person who currently is or has served in the US military. Also, the old age cutoff would be waived for all veterans. Veterans vote for life.
Why should a 19 year-old drug addict cancel your vote?
Why should a petty criminal cancel your vote?
Tighten up the voting requirements and responsibilities. Through various means, our votes have been diluted and cheapened. The right to vote should be earned.
Last edited: