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]