Posted on 08/26/2011 10:10:01 PM PDT by mnehring
Ron Paul, House representative of the 14th district of Texas, believes that US foreign policy must be reformed to avoid conflicts around the world.
The interview was conducted outside the Foreign Relations Committee.
Press TV: What is your opinion on the idea of the US blocking Iran's oil exports and preventing its gasoline imports from reaching the country (based on H. Con. Res. 362 previously sought by US congressmen)?
Paul: I think it is an outrage I think it is a blockade. It is the use of force to stop the inflow of petroleum products and people and goods, banking, trains, cars, trucks, cargos. It's all prohibited. How can we stop that without the use of the navy and without the use of force? This idea is not a blockade it is just pure silliness on their part [US senators and congressmen].
If we bomb them, that's the start of hostilities. They (US policy makers) are never willing to take anything off the table, which includes a nuclear-first strike. So, if they do that do you think the Iranians are going to sit still? They are going to react!
The opposition said that, well, we don't want them to block the Strait of Hormuz [the Persian Gulf waterway which allows the passages of a third of the world's daily oil supply]. They ought to change their policy because they are more likely to get the Strait of Hormuz blocked if we persist on this. If we do any bombing or we put on a blockade, it's going to lead to big trouble.
Press TV: There has been a lot of speculation that Israel may act on its own and conduct an independent air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Do you think that's possible?
Paul: I don't think there is such a thing as an independent Israel doing anything, because I think no matter what they do its our money, its our weapons, and their not going to do it without us approving it and if they get into trouble we're going to bail them out, so there is no separation between the two.
Press TV: During your line of questioning at the Foreign Relations Committee you mentioned the Seymour Hersh article, which was among the articles that revealed that the Congress had awarded the Bush administration hundreds of millions of dollars for a covert operation to overthrow the Iranian government. Why did you mention those stories?
Paul: Well it's something that I have known about and heard about and it does go on. It goes on all around the world. To me it was a surprise that it was news, because we have been doing that and people do talk about it. I think it's an outrage. How would we react if somebody did it to us? We would be infuriated, willing to go to war. The fact that somebody came and tried to undermine our government.
MJ/AA
This what I meant by similar authority and which you dismissed offhand. I'm not sure why since any reasonable person could have guessed this without doing any research at all into the specifics.
That said, the constitutional argument that Ron Paul makes regarding foriegn aid seems entirely untenable, unless you're willing to entertain the idea that he disagrees with what Congress, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson approved in 1791, which opens up a whole new set of criticisms.
Anyway, that's pretty much why I threw my hands up in the air. Not that it really matters....
>>>You’re not going to make any friends and impress people with that attitude you’re carying around.<<<
You might want to look at your own arrogant, condescending attitude before criticizing others.
>>>Speaking of national defense, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but foreign asisstance (of which foreign aid is)falls under the authority of Foreign Affairs and National Defense, of which the Department of Defense and the State Department, among others, are managers. There is no Charity Department. <<<
You can call it whatever you like (you do have that right in a free country, you know), but foreign aid is charity, exactly as Ron Paul describes it.
>>>That said, the constitutional argument that Ron Paul makes regarding foriegn aid seems entirely untenable, unless you’re willing to entertain the idea that he disagrees with what Congress, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson approved in 1791, which opens up a whole new set of criticisms.<<<
You are still talking apples and oranges. Tribute is not Foreign Aid. Tribute is protection money.
This from the person who said it's his mission to "teach dumb-ass conservative wannabe’s the facts of life about the inner workings of government, and the true intent of the Founding Fathers."
Impressive...
>>>That’s yout answer? That’s your defense? <<<
There was really nothing to defend because your entire premise was flawed.
>>>This from the person who said it’s his mission to “teach dumb-ass conservative wannabe’s the facts of life about the inner workings of government, and the true intent of the Founding Fathers.”<<<
I do occasionally get irritated at all the Ron Paul bashing by people with no real explanation for their venom. In your case, your original post to me on this thread seemed like an arrogant gotcha question because there was no right answer due to your flawed premise. I actually believed you were trying to trip me up, rather than have an intelligent discussion because your argument was so weak. How many people do you know who don’t know the difference between aid and tribute?
In any case, my response was correct, yet you continued with your flawed premise, even attempting to complicate it with another flawed premise which is, “foreign aid falls “under the authority of Foreign Affairs and National Defense”.” Who cares what modern day department it falls under? It is still charity and not constitutionally authorized.
Anyway, if this kind of hair-splitting is your best case against Ron Paul being a strict-constructionist, then I am even more convinced he is a strict constructionist. Also, might I recommend you get a life? [If debating and arguing about split hairs is your life, then please ignore my recommendation]
Something you've yet to demonstrate.
I, on the other hand, have demonstrated that it is constitutionaly authorized, and I did it on your terms.
Don't see it, do 'ya. Ping me when you figure it out...
>>>I, on the other hand, have demonstrated that it is constitutionaly authorized, and I did it on your terms. <<<
+You are hopelessly brainwashed.
Like the paleosurrenderman, David Brooks is no fan of, well frankly, WAR. Brooks is a weak-kneed, lily-livered liberal with not a shred of conservative principle to his name. He must be as thrilled by El Run as he was by the crease in Obama's pants. He undoubtedly agrees with Ru Paul that the SCOTUS created "right" to slice, dice and hamburgerize innocent babies and the judicially created "right" of Adam to marry Bruce should not be stopped in their tracks and that, in a nation which witnesses calmly federal: traffic control, housing schemes, nursing scholarships (sponsored by El Run), shrimpin' subsidies (ditto), Galveston choo choo subsidies for public transportation (ditto) and a lot more that mnehring can reference for you if he chooses, the paleopeacenut has no more important use for the long-ignored 10th Amendment (see the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, most of what Nixon and Ford did, and Obozo's Raw Deal) than to prevent the fedgov from undoing the evils perpetrated by its own court system by way of babykilling and rumpranging posing as "marriage."
If you think paleoPaulie is a conservative and not just an effectively leftist (on many issues) lying social revolutionary surrendermonkey, how many moons are there in the sky of your home planet? Ron Paul is in the same category as Cynthia McKinney as a political crackpot and, like her, he will be permanently out of office. That is a promise by those of us who are ACTUALLY CONSERVATIVE.
Ron Paul = Lyndon LaRouche (read his wiki page, lol)
So he was a dictator then? Or was this merely an announced goal that needed to pass Congress? A speech is not a legal authority
...
So, Missouri, a union slave state, didn't have to free its slaves?
I don't know if Lincoln was a "white supremacist" anymore than most whites of the north were at the time (they didn't have anything like equality for "free blacks" in the north, more like Jim Crow) but he didn't seem to see them as equals.
Ron Paul has had to lie about his beliefs in open borders because he wanted to be a Republican and actually win a seat in Congress that wasn’t going to happen as a Liberaltarian.
Well, that explains it. Of course, the Paulistinians prefer to pay protection money to our nation's enemies. Doing so is so craven, so spineless, so utterly Left Bank!!! Their Randian element joins La Rand in regarding charity as "cruelty" because it prolongs what they regard as the unworthy lives of the recipients. La Rand shared this endearing view with Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Barrenhood. Whatever those two and El Run may be, it is not describable as conservative.
We need not favor foreign aid schemes (admittedly unconstitutional), to recognize that "these colors do not run" and neither shall we as a nation much less as a conservative movement. If we provide MILITARY hardware to an ally like Israel when it has to wear the pants in Western Civilization during interregna such as Obozo's temporary regime, that is simply an extension of our constitutional right to defend against those enemies that Israel may cruch with those weapons. As Santorum observed to the surrenderman in recent debate: Iran is NOT Iceland.
Your conservative critics have EARNED the right to have condescending attitudes about the, ummm, "foreign policy" of Ramsay Clarke, George McGovern, Code Pink, SDS, the New Mobe, any older Mobes, Bertrand Russell, America Firsters and paleoPaulie, the new Neville Chamberlain. If you support Paulie on these controversies, you must expect to be flayed here since this IS a CONSERVATIVE website. You will need to receive your butt smooches from Reason, Cato, Pat Buchanan's magazine or from Justin(e) Raimondo of that Paulistinian-style website antiwar.com.
csense: Keep up the good work and take no guff from the peanut gallery. May God bless you and yours.
A lot of foreign aid is charity, I once read one of the Overseas Appropriations whatever and it was astounding, might as well be something like Cowgirl Poetry Museums in Indonesia.
....
Overall, Ron Paul is still a crank.
LaRoche is/was a Stalinist but he certainly shared his hatred for the USA, his fondness for political fantasies, and his mental incapacity with the Galveston shell game artist. God bless you and yours. I have long agreed with most of your posts.
thanks, I am sure some of them will make you mad somewhere along the line. heh
Wow! If I had a loved one who died on 9/11 I'd wonder how Paul can even see that the sky on Earth is blue....
The whole thing is a mental derangement, straight and simple.
Of course, no one in his/her right mind could imagine the paleopipsqueak occupying the White House, much less by the votes of Republicans or conservatives.
When, by the end of his career (January 2013 unless he resigns sooner), conservatives have crushed the little quisling bastard once and for all, maybe we can stop listening to the ravings from libertoonianland and you can do something more productive (from your POV): selling the public roadways, getting rid of the lighthouses, antiwar poetry readings at MaryJane's social revolutionary cafe and coffeehouse, rallies to keep the feds paws off the left sacramental abortion mills and fudge packeries, 10th amendment poseurs to protect social revolution, National Committee to Sing and Dance our Sovereignty Away; Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything (SWINE) and the like.
Meanwhile, paleoPaulie will be available in January 2013 to host a new show (same old, same old content) on MSLSD (co-hosting with Reagan's biggest mistake Little Ronnie Tutu) or maybe even on Al Jazeera where he could co-host with Baghdad Bob.
OTOH, I am certainly interested in any resume you may claim as to actual accomplishments of yours as a conservative and not just that you supported the Galveston sewer rat. I doubt that I will see it because your resume of actual conservative accomplishments is likely to be what mathematicians call a null set, i.e. containing zero, zip, nada. Let's see what you've got and if we don't see it, then you cannot blame us for arriving at the reasonable conclusion that there is nothing for you to report other than keyboard warrior, repeater of Ron Paul talking points, would be philosopher king without credentials and failed conservative wannabe (depending on an eccentric version of the meaning of "conservative").
As to the fraudulent pose of Ron Paul as "pro-life," it does not matter how many babies he delivered. Dr. Bingham, the Planned Barrenhood abortionist at Norwich, CT, (who is a member of the Party of the Right of the Yale Political Union for that matter) has probably delivered that many and then some. However, he is an atheist and has testified before the Connecticut General Assembly that he believes that there is no such thing as individual life, that a fingernail clipping or hair clipping is the moral equivalent of an entire human being, etc, and that there is only some all inclusive entity (human and otherwise) called "life." In the matter of abortion policy, no one who is genuinely a pro-lifer gives a rat's patoot what paleoPaulie SAYS he believes while gulling the suckers (or Dr. Bingham fr that mater). What matters is what Paulie is willing to DO to stop abortion. The answer so far is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as he hides behind his quaint barricade of the otherwise long ignored 10th amendment. BTW, the Ninth Amendment (even longer ignored) was the only "constitutional" basis claimed by Herod Blackmun to underlie Roe vs. Wade and the onset of the American Holocaust. Analogous argument applies as the radical left in alliance with the fedcourts and the libertoonians try to establish rumpranging as a "federal right" that no state court dare interfere with (just like Roe vs. Wade as to babykilling). These are the crucial issues whose resolution will make or break Western Civilization, not Paulie's little hobbies. Ron Paul wants to play conscientious objector to effective action on each of them. Opinions are like noses and certain other body parts. Everyone has one. What counts is action. He won't ACT. He whines, moans and groans and the babies continue to be slaughtered without ANY EFFECTIVE ACTION by Ron Paul. He does not try and fail. He does not try and he refuses to try. He is a phony on the most serious issue before our society. Those who are not phonies like him are not amused by his phoniness on such an issue.
Air Force officer? He was an Air Force Ob-Gyn and thus an officer and he would not have known diddly or squat about combat which certainly is obvious from his wall of resistance to actual military action. Stationing the military on the borders to eliminate by superior fire power Mexican mamacitas and their babies trying (in quite diminished numbers nowadays) to cross our southern border is a waste of military power. Paul should be the first to advocate taking the restraints off state governments to enforce the borders of their own states. When an Obozo (or a paleosurrenderman who is not being nominated much less elected in any event) is in office the fedgov will be a less than useless non-player.
Have you ever been nominated for Congress as a Republican? Probably not. If one who has been nominated as a Republican asked Reagan or any Republican POTUS to sign an endorsement letter saying that (the nominee) Hieronymous Q. Pecksniff's election is essential to the wood whittler community and that only Pecksniff can protect the whittler's interests, the letter will be signed and returned promptly on White House stationery. Did I mention that all this chumminess alleged to have existed between the paleosurrendermonkey and Ronaldus Maximus came BEFORE Paulie ran as a Libertoonian for POTUS in 1988 attacking Reagan to please the usual gang of libertoonian, pro-abort, pro-homosexuality, anti-military, anti-American gang of suspects in that party? When Paul is in libertoonian mode, he wears a beanie with a spinning propeller on top and his eyes roll in place. He is a crackpot like his zombies.
I have no need to "rethink my position." My positions have remained those of the conservative movement (the New Right of the '60s and '70s) all these years. Ron Paul needs to re-think his positions but he lacks the capacity to think or re-think and, as you say, he won't anyway.
Other than attracting the support of such anti-Semites as David Duke and Conrad Black and such rank imbeciles as Alex Jones and the 9/11 Troofers, there is the matter of paleoPaulie wanting to sit idly by while his Iranian buddy Ahmanutjob nukes Israel as spring training for nuking the US. Fortunately Paul will never be POTUS and fortunately Bibi Netanyahu can render Teheran and any Iranian nuclear weapon facility flat, black, and glowing in the dark.
You guys should stop libeling George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as though somehow the circumstances of today's United States and the USA of 1789 were somehow comparable. Neither had any problem accepting assistance from Admiral DeGrasse at Yorktown. Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory without any search for "constitutional authority" even though such expansions were quite foreseeable at the time. If, like Woods and the surrendermonkey, you don't like the Patriot Act, try the Federalist Alien and Sedition Acts that destroyed the Federalist power once and for all even though the Federalists (Northeastern money obsessives like the Whigs and all too many Republicans after them) had the great advantage of being George Washington's party. They also had the burden of being Alexander Hamilton's party.
If you think Ron Paul has become damaged goods, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait until you see his tattered political remains when this cycle is over. His fantasies never were, are not and never will be acceptable to actual conservatives.
Freneau: 97 was posted to you. All others were pinged as informational to them.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
He hasn’t done Jack S**t during his whole time in Congress.
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.