Posted on 08/26/2011 10:10:01 PM PDT by mnehring
>>>So when Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination, who you gonna vote for?<<<
If Ron Paul gets the nomination, who are you gonna vote for?
Since you side-stepped my question, I'll return the favor.
Under no scenario does Ron Paul have a chance of getting the Republican Party nomination for president. So your hypothetical isn't worth consideration.
>>>Bottom line: Paul will criticize the foreign policy of the U.S. - and it’s allies - for even the slightest intervention into other countries and their affairs. It doesn’t matter how dangerous and threatening they are, we’re supposed to sit back and not intervene.<<<
Doesn’t sound like the Ron Paul I know. This is from his website at:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/national-defense/
“If elected President, Ron Paul will continue his efforts to secure our borders, hunt down the 9/11 terrorist planners (who are still at large), safely withdraw our troops from Iraq and other countries around the world, and finally overhaul the intelligence apparatus in cooperation with intelligence professionals rather than political opportunists”
This is a quote from the 2000 Republican platform:
“...the current administration has casually sent American armed forces on dozens of missions without clear goals, realizable objectives, favorable rules of engagement, or defined exit strategies.”
Sounds like something Ron Paul would say.
BTW, there are 2 videos on foreign policy on his website at:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/national-defense/
And I was at the Iowa debate a couple of weeks ago and heard what he said live, all of it. Talking about dealing with and negotiating with countries like Iran and getting involved in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban. Don’t care what’s on his website, I’ve heard it straight out of his mouth and I’m tired of the naive world he lives in.
>>>Talking about dealing with and negotiating with countries like Iran and getting involved in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban. <<<
I suppose you were also against Kennedy negotiating with Khrushchev and Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev.
The question is does the Constitution make a distinction between the two. For someone who who likes to throw around insults about education, you don't seem to comprehend arguments very well. You didn't even answer where Congress derived this authority.
Typical. You guys like to puff and preen about Ron Paul being a strict constructionist and how similar he is to the founding fathers, but when you're faced with some tough questions to demonstrate it, you insult people, dodge the question, and run away like whinning liberals.
Doesn't surprise me. I haven't met a libertarian yet who wasn't a hop, skip and jump away from being a full blown liberal.
You obviously pick your Historians like you pick your Presidents, without much thought at all
>>>You obviously pick your Historians like you pick your Presidents, without much thought at all<<<
Care to explain?
>>>The question is does the Constitution make a distinction between the two. [retarding tribute vs foreign aid]<<<
You did not ask that question. Rather, you made this rediculous assumption: “From the perspective of the Constitution, there is no substantive difference between tribute and aid since neither is addressed.”
Maybe the founders should have appended a dictionary to the Constitution, so there would be no dispute on matters such as tribute and foreign aid.
>>>You guys like to puff and preen about Ron Paul being a strict constructionist and how similar he is to the founding fathers, but when you’re faced with some tough questions to demonstrate it, you insult people, dodge the question, and run away like whinning liberals.<<<
It was not an insult about your education. Merely an observation. And I certainly did not dodge the question.
>>>Doesn’t surprise me. I haven’t met a libertarian yet who wasn’t a hop, skip and jump away from being a full blown liberal.<<<
Then you live a very sheltered life.
BTW, I have posted a total of 4,768 times (including this one) on Free Republic over the last 10.5 years. My ideology is there for all to see.
It's not unreasonable to assume that whatever authority the founders used to appropriate funds for tribute, can also be applied to foreign aid. You understand very well what the argument is here, but you continue to dodge it.
Again, I'm not surprised.
>>>I asked you how Ron Paul would explain Congress’ action since tribute isn’t addressed in the Consitution.<<<
You asked me to answer a question based on a false premise. Besides that wasn’t your question, anyway. Your question was: “If Ron Paul is a strict constructionist, then how does he explain Congress’ action here, and his own interpretation of the Constitution regarding foreign aid.”
And I explained to you that tribute had nothing to do with foreign aid (therefore your question was meaningless). I’ll try again.
Tribute is extortion money, more or less. Foreign aid is charity.
>>>It’s not unreasonable to assume that whatever authority the founders used to appropriate funds for tribute, can also be applied to foreign aid.<<<
To the contrary. Tribute payment falls under national defense, in the context of the Barbary Pirates, since we did not have a Navy at that time and could not protect our citizens and sea lanes any other way. It was “protection money”. Foreign aid falls under charity, but forced charity, whereby the citizens are forced by government to give charity to a foreign nation.
>>>You understand very well what the argument is here, but you continue to dodge it.<<<
Of course I understand your argument, and it was based on a false premise. I am beginning to believe you don’t even know what you wrote. Anyway, it appears you like to argue for the sake of arguing. I am no longer surprised.
>>>You obviously pick your Historians like you pick your Presidents, without much thought at all<<<
Since you did not respond to my previous inquiry, I’ll respond with a question:
Does almost continuous debate and inquiry on Freeper and other boards during Presidential campaigns count as “much thought”?
It is obvious you are the one who is weak on “thought”. Who tells you what to think: Levin; Hannity; Jon Stewart?
I know Tom Woods through Catholic Traditionalist circles and he should be ashamed of himself supporting that lying fraud and pipsqueak from Galveston. The Texas GOP has finally brought a long national nightmare to a conclusion by cutting off his escape hatch and taking this year's redistricting opportunity to abolish his district. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, even paleoPaulie is sensible enough to cite the, ummm, demands of his POTUS campaign as the dishonest reason why he is not seeking re-election. He will be slinking off into the sunset, this era's Harold Stassen, bumbling and mumbling away on a declining number of talk shows, having served the MSM's purpose by making a case that George McGovern's craven foreign policy and that of Neville Chamberlain somehow survive in the GOP because he can get some bunch of largely left-wing college peace creeps who share his libertoonian disdain for national legislation to stop the SCOTUS created "right" to kill babies and the federal judicially created "right" for Adam to "marry" Bruce. See paleoPaulie CLAIM to be pro-life and pro-family while extending the big wink, wink to his gullible Ron Paul Youth. See him CLAIM patriotism while having even less enthusiasm for manly exercises of justified military force than Comrade McGovern.
If Jeffrey Lord is a RINO of some sort, did he run as a Libertoonian candidate for POTUS attacking Ronaldus Maximus. The real beef of the "paleo""conservatives" is that Reagan's administration had no interest in credentialling them (with a scant few exceptions) and, six years into his administration, they realized they were being patronized, humored but kept far, far from public identification with Reagan. paleoPaulie attacked Reagan in 1988 and the "paleo"s who are no conservatives whatever they may hallucinate ate it up and still do. "Paleos" are plants without roots.
I was a Reagan state chairman when he bucked Ford and I bet you weren't. I was a state chair of YAF, YRs, and CRs and I bet you weren't. What REALLY ticks me off about paleoPaulie and his libertarian stooges is his hypocrisy in claiming to be pro-family and pro-life while hiding behind the 10th Amendment to justify DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING while SCOTUS and the fedcourts impose their barbarian social policies on all fifty states, 50+ million babies are sliced, diced and hamburgerized and marriage (the actual kind) is mocked. I am none too fond of his foreign policy of institutionalized national cowardice either or his habit of lying that he is a "fiscal conservative" while packing Galveston pork into each budget. He has been removed from YAF's advisory board as he has been rejected as not conservative.
As a proud interventionist, I can nonetheless see a point to ending the Iraq and Afghanistan misadventures as both die of old age without much result other than still further proof of how most politicians ought to keep their noses out of military affairs. This after a noble war in VietNam morphed into a drawn out nightmare and disaster under similarly incompetent ruling class management. This does not mean that we should hot have toppled Saddam Hussein and the Afghan Taliban in the first place. We can also do without wars in Syria or Yemen. If Iran is close to getting usable nuclear weapons, Bibi Netanyahu will have to take out Iran on his own until we reach 1/21/13. Thereafter, the USA can resume being the grownup. Personally, I don't give a rat's patoot whether any Middle East tyranny is replaced by a democracy. If anything, that may be a dangerous outcome if Gaza, Egypt, Libya Iraq and Afghanistan are any guide. We need not and ought not to nation build. We need to force each defeated nation to pay the entire cost of its defeat.
Interventionism means maintaining a strong military, second-to-none and far more powerful than any other AND being ready, willing and able to use that military when the USA and ONLY the USA determines to do so. Any other nation can join under our military management or not a they see fit. We need no UN, no NATO (the Cold War is over), no other diployak alliances and no "rules of engagement" to hamstring our military. If Eurowimp (Spain?, the Hague?) courts don't like it, they can always be introduced to the stock-in-trade of USS Ohio.
I saw your editorials but not your refutation of Lord's assertion that Paul is an ideological foreign policy heir of the William Borahs, the Burton Wheelers, the LaFollettes and a bipartisan posse of other wimps who were decidedly NOT any kind of conservative. Again, Tom Woods should be ashamed of himself. I did read the entire sorry Ron Paul butt-smooching "interview" puff piece which you linked. I have never heard of the interviewer or of the other interviewee and I don't really expect to hear of either of them Church or Gutzman) again even if I live near and attend a traditional Catholic Church with several principal players at the quite "paleo" Rockford Institute.
I can also tell you that Tom Woods is misconstruing John Flynn, an honorable conservative and editor of my boyhood hometown newspaper The New Haven Register, solidly conservative and then some under John Day Jackson's ownership. Mr. Flynn, having shamed himself by being a big shot in the America First Committee, went to Chicago on the very day after Pearl Harbor and, with McCormack and Lindbergh and others, folded America First's tent and joined in support of WW II. Flynn and John Day Jackson ran a simply great newspaper. I am unaware of any relapse into pacifism by Flynn thereafter.
The eccentric old coot is now about 76 years old, claims to be a "fiscal conservative" while stuffing each budget with tons of Galveston pork to be passed by his colleagues along with their own pork while Paulie poses for holy pictures and voting no. The Paulistinians respond with wild applause as the old nincompoop plays the two-faced game he plays.
Rand Paul, unlike his crazy father, shows some degree of promise so far. If Rand is to have a career in leadership, his father must, as fatally damaged goods, recede into a well-deserved obscurity.
Why should Ronaldus Maximus have wasted his time on diployak with Gorby???? Let's hang a Going out of Business sign on the State Department, close the embassies and sell the furniture. We don't need globaloney organizations like the UN or agencies like the State Department.
Like Santorum said: Hey, Ron! Iran is not Iceland!!!
At least you are right about Lincoln. I suspect you may be likewise right about Hamilton supposing that you object to him too as I do. BUT, Woods appears to claim Herbert Hoover as a conservative when he was POTUS. That is patently absurd. Likewise, regarding Ron Paul as a conservative is simply absurd.
You know what...I give up. I give you guys the opportunity to demonstrate the oft repeated claim that Ron Paul is a strict constructionist, and all you do is dance around the argument. You guys are nothing but a bunch of hot air.
>>>Let’s brush the foam off the beer or do whatever the equivalent may be for the marijuana. <<<
Well, that explains your incoherent rant. Frankly BlackElk, this is the most beligerent piece of bullshit I have read in a long time.
>>>I know Tom Woods through Catholic Traditionalist circles and he should be ashamed of himself supporting that lying fraud and pipsqueak from Galveston. <<<
I’m sure Tom would feel likewise about you, if he read this craziness.
>>>The Texas GOP has finally brought a long national nightmare to a conclusion by cutting off his escape hatch and taking this year’s redistricting opportunity to abolish his district.<<<
I see. The Texas Rockefellars are pushing out the one constitutionalist from the state because, aghast, his constituents insist on voting for him, time and time again. His constituents are probably just a bunch of low-life, sloped-foreheaded trailer trash, and who cares about them, right?
>>>See paleoPaulie CLAIM to be pro-life and pro-family while extending the big wink, wink to his gullible Ron Paul Youth.<<<
That is very observant of you. The doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies, and has claimed for decades that he believes that human life starts at conception, and that casual elimination of the unborn leads to a careless attitude towards all life, can’t fool you, right? The fellow who, on Hannity, argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, and asked, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty”, can’t fool you, right? Of course his argument that libertarians (who support non-aggression) should oppose abortion because abortion is “an act of aggression” against a fetus, is just plain bogus, right? And of course his argument that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, but gives power over the matter to the states, is merely a backdoor legalization scheme, right? (wait, abortion is already legal, so scratch that one).
>>>...having served the MSM’s purpose by making a case that George McGovern’s craven foreign policy and that of Neville Chamberlain somehow survive in the GOP because he can get some bunch of largely left-wing college peace creeps who share his libertoonian disdain for national legislation...<<<
Yea, the fellow who claims he will continue his efforts to secure our borders, hunt down the 9/11 terrorist planners (who are still at large), safely withdraw our troops from Iraq and other countries around the world, and finally overhaul the intelligence apparatus in cooperation with intelligence professionals rather than political opportunists, is just another Chamberlain-type appeaser, right? The fellow who follows the same foreign policy as George Washington (Farewell Address) and Thomas Jefferson (1st Inaugural), is a foreign policy McGovernite, right? The fellow who Ronald Reagan said was “...one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country”, is weak on national defense, right? The fellow who said, “There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons”, is a foreign policy wimp, right?
>>>I was a Reagan state chairman when he bucked Ford and I bet you weren’t.<<<
Wow! I’m impressed!
>>>I was a state chair of YAF, YRs, and CRs and I bet you weren’t.<<<
Wow! I’m even more impressed!
>>>What REALLY ticks me off about paleoPaulie and his libertarian stooges is his hypocrisy in claiming to be pro-family and pro-life while hiding behind the 10th Amendment to justify DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING while SCOTUS and the fedcourts impose their barbarian social policies on all fifty states, 50+ million babies are sliced, diced and hamburgerized and marriage (the actual kind) is mocked.<<<
I repeat myself, but the doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies, and has claimed for decades that he believes that human life starts at conception, and that casual elimination of the unborn leads to a careless attitude towards all life, can’t fool you, right? If you only have one vote amongst 435 members of the house, you should march right in, declare yourself dictator, and ban abortion.
>>>I am none too fond of his foreign policy of institutionalized national cowardice either or his habit of lying that he is a “fiscal conservative” while packing Galveston pork into each budget.<<<
Yea, he should let Obama spend all that money that is budgeted on Obama’s union and other leftist buddies. Screw Ron Paul’s unimportant constituents. So what if all spending is budgeted prior to a single earmark being attached, and all budgeted money that is not earmarked is given to Obama and his buddies in the executive to spend as they see fit.
>>>We need not and ought not to nation build.<<<
That is Ron Paul’s stated position, was G.W.’s position (initially), and I believe the GOP 2000 position. Of course Ron Paul only pretends to agree with you.
>>>Interventionism means maintaining a strong military, second-to-none and far more powerful than any other AND being ready, willing and able to use that military when the USA and ONLY the USA determines to do so. Any other nation can join under our military management or not a they see fit. We need no UN, no NATO (the Cold War is over), no other diployak alliances and no “rules of engagement” to hamstring our military.<<<
That is dangerously close to what Ron Paul believes. Maybe you should rethink your position, because it is a fact he will not rethink his.
>>> can also tell you that Tom Woods is misconstruing John Flynn, an honorable conservative and editor of my boyhood hometown newspaper The New Haven Register, solidly conservative and then some under John Day Jackson’s ownership. Mr. Flynn, having shamed himself by being a big shot in the America First Committee, went to Chicago on the very day after Pearl Harbor and, with McCormack and Lindbergh and others, folded America First’s tent and joined in support of WW II. Flynn and John Day Jackson ran a simply great newspaper. I am unaware of any relapse into pacifism by Flynn thereafter.<<<
Woods does not mention Flynn’s position of interventionism during the interview. He only mentioned Flynn because Lord labeled Flynn an anti-semite and Paul (must be) an anti-semite due to Paul’s recommendation of Flynn’s book. Woods wasn’t buying that Flynn was anti-semite. To the contrary.
Here’s Tom Woods (by himself) on John T. Flynn, Jeffrey Lord, and Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8
BTW, Have you read Flynn’s book “The Roosevelt Myth”? I have one of the earlier editions (my wife inherited it).
>>>The eccentric old coot is now about 76 years old, claims to be a “fiscal conservative” while stuffing each budget with tons of Galveston pork to be passed by his colleagues along with their own pork while Paulie poses for holy pictures and voting no. <<<
I discussed this previously, but I will repeat: the budget is passed before a single earmark is included. All earmarks fall within the budget. No earmark adds a single penny to the budget. All money not earmarked goes to the Executive to spend anyway it pleases. So, if Paul does not earmark some of the budget for his constitutents, it goes to Obama to be spent on his union buddies and leftist cronies. Ron is correct when he states there is no earmark problem, only a spending problem. He is only one man, in a sea of hucksters (GOP and Democrat alike), who love both earmarks and an increasingly fat budget. If Paul could reduce spending, he would.
Anyway, if that is what you want—that Obama gets more money for his crushing left-wing regulations and to prop up his union friends, then you are no friend of this country. Now do you understand?
>>>Rand Paul, unlike his crazy father, shows some degree of promise so far. If Rand is to have a career in leadership, his father must, as fatally damaged goods, recede into a well-deserved obscurity.<<<
If Ron Paul is damaged goods, it is because of arrogant, foolish, no-nothing party hacks like you.
>>>We can survive four years of Obozo and the drunken fratboy but NOT if we turn our country over to a moonbat like Ron Paul. Within three weeks the paleopipsqueak would be on his knees in the oval office with fully automatic weapons wielded by Ahmanutjob’s boys sticking into each ear as he signed away every right we have ever had rather than his Islamofascist idols.<<<
Are you referring to the Ron Paul who stated: “There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons”
Yeah, what a wimp.
>>>Woods appears to claim Herbert Hoover as a conservative when he was POTUS. That is patently absurd. Likewise, regarding Ron Paul as a conservative is simply absurd.<<<
If you believe that, I suspect you are not a conservative. Well, you might be one of these new-fangled “conservatives: along the lines of David Brooks, but certainly not a traditional conservative.
>>>You know what...I give up. I give you guys the opportunity to demonstrate the oft repeated claim that Ron Paul is a strict constructionist, and all you do is dance around the argument. You guys are nothing but a bunch of hot air.<<<
Your problem is you cannot read, buddy. I was right about your school, all along.
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.