Ron Paul to Congress: Stop Worshipping Israel

[Yamato]

You've never heard people espouse conflicting ideas between what they think is right and what they think should be legal? Never heard someone say, "I hate what you're saying, but I'll fight for your right to say it."? Or "I think drugs are a waste of time and money. That said, I believe they should be legal."?

That's not flipping, that's just a conflict of ideas. Ron Paul is the most consistent politician the US has seen for about a century and a half.

+1

[MichaelW]

You've never heard people espouse conflicting ideas between what they think is right and what they think should be legal?

Generally speaking, most politicians believe that what they think is right must either be illegal or legal. Ron Paul is obviously different to most politicians.

Never heard someone say, "I hate what you're saying, but I'll fight for your right to say it."? Or "I think drugs are a waste of time and money. That said, I believe they should be legal."?

I have, but I haven't seen anyone who genuinely believes it.

That's not flipping, that's just a conflict of ideas.

A conflict of ideas, you say? So if someone says that they don't mind people of the same sex getting married and calling it marriage, and then saying marriage is only between a man and a woman, that, according to the made-up definitions that this forum seems to produce in alarming amounts, isn't a change of opinion or "flipping" but is merely a conflict of ideas?

How is saying gay couples can call their relationship marriage and then saying marriage is only about a man and a woman not flipping? It's saying two different things. No consistency whatsoever.

Ron Paul is the most consistent politician the US has seen for about a century and a half.

A conflict of ideas is consistency now? Christ, no wonder people think of Americans as uneducated if the result of the education system is you and Yamato. And the fact you're only calling me out on the definition of a word and not the fact that the man lacks consistency is quite interesting.

Let me ask you something. If a man can't form an opinion and stick with it during his abortive election campaign, what makes you think he's going to stick with it when he is elected into any official office?

[Black Red Devil]

The US gives millions a year in aid to the Palestinans, so the same thing can be said, is the US buying their rockets and bombs?.

They give money in aid through NGO's (non governmental organisations in sectors such as humanitarian assistance, economic development, democratic reform, improving water access and other infrastructure, health care, education), not directly. None of this money goes towards bombs and rockets. Pages 7-10

But, the US does provide Israel with a staggering $2.6 billion per year on average, two-thirds of which goes towards military assistance and they have been doing so since 1971. At the top of page 28

No wonder Ron Paul is freaking out.....

Edited December 2, 2012 by BlackRedLittleDevil

[Black Red Devil]

Also, interesting conditions on page 10 of the US Foreign aid report towards the Palestinians considering what's happened recently:

Palestinian Membership in the United Nations or U.N. Specialized Agencies: No

Economic Support Fund aid is permitted to the PA if the Palestinians obtain from

this point forward (the restriction does not apply to Palestinian membership in

UNESCO) “the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in

the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement

negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.” The Secretary of State may

waive this restriction for national security reasons by filing a waiver detailing

how “the continuation of assistance would assist in furthering Middle East

peace.”

Edited December 2, 2012 by BlackRedLittleDevil

[+and-then]

Also, interesting conditions on page 10 of the US Foreign aid report towards the Palestinians considering what's happened recently:

The part you didn't highlight is the escape clause they use to continue the funding regardless what the Palestinians do:

The Secretary of State may

waive this restriction for national security reasons by filing a waiver detailing

how “the continuation of assistance would assist in furthering Middle East

peace"Has the current admin ever stopped or even cut aid to the Palestinians? I think they cut it in a minor way after some event but I can't recall what it was.

[Black Red Devil]

The part you didn't highlight is the escape clause they use to continue the funding regardless what the Palestinians do:

The Secretary of State may

waive this restriction for national security reasons by filing a waiver detailing

how “the continuation of assistance would assist in furthering Middle East

peace"Has the current admin ever stopped or even cut aid to the Palestinians? I think they cut it in a minor way after some event but I can't recall what it was.

LOL. Is this a fabrication of your own mind or do you have a link? The reason Israel and the US discriminates and oppresses the Palestinians is because of so called "Security reasons" So I wouldn't be expecting any waivers in the near future

Edited December 2, 2012 by BlackRedLittleDevil

[+and-then]

LOL. Is this a fabrication of your own mind or do you have a link? The reason Israel and the US discriminates and oppresses the Palestinians is because of so called "Security reasons" So I wouldn't be expecting any waivers in the near future

Maybe I misunderstood. Can you cite reductions in aid to the Palestinians by the US? Or for that matter, by Israel? Threats are made to do so but even Israel always relents under pressure and hands over tax revenues. The Palestinians enjoy one of the longest, most stable welfare systems available on the planet. Yes, they live in deplorable conditions and no I don't think they are treated fairly by Israel BUT they are also held down by the Arab governments in the region as well. The children who eat at the UN's table are now 3rd generation welfare recipients. There is a great deal of gray area in this dilemma and room for blame on many parties - not least of which are the Palestinians themselves, IMO.

[Black Red Devil]

Maybe I misunderstood. Can you cite reductions in aid to the Palestinians by the US? Or for that matter, by Israel? Threats are made to do so but even Israel always relents under pressure and hands over tax revenues. The Palestinians enjoy one of the longest, most stable welfare systems available on the planet. Yes, they live in deplorable conditions and no I don't think they are treated fairly by Israel BUT they are also held down by the Arab governments in the region as well. The children who eat at the UN's table are now 3rd generation welfare recipients. There is a great deal of gray area in this dilemma and room for blame on many parties - not least of which are the Palestinians themselves, IMO.

Try to keep up....The purpose of the Palestinian aid link was to show that NO money from the US was going towards rockets and bombs.

[+and-then]

Try to keep up....The purpose of the Palestinian aid link was to show that NO money from the US was going towards rockets and bombs.

My misunderstanding then. I think it matters little though. If they have a limited income and some must be spent to keep their people alive and we provide it then they have more to spend on their toys from others. Considering that they are already rearming via Iran and Sudan I'd say they have quite enough suppliers for the tools of war. Israel should have made the restocking a bigger job by pounding their stocks a little longer. But there's always next round, I guess.

[MichaelW]

But, the US does provide Israel with a staggering $2.6 billion per year on average, two-thirds of which goes towards military assistance and they have been doing so since 1971. At the top of page 28

No wonder Ron Paul is freaking out.....

$2.6 billion? A year? On average? Peanuts. The IAF in 2011 would pay US$144.7 million per aircraft when it receives 19 of the new F-35 stealth fighters. That's $2.7 billion alone. And Israel has the option of purchasing more than 55 of the aircraft. The annual budget alone of the IDF is US$14.5 billion.

[Yamato]

$2.6 billion? A year? On average? Peanuts. The IAF in 2011 would pay US$144.7 million per aircraft when it receives 19 of the new F-35 stealth fighters. That's $2.7 billion alone. And Israel has the option of purchasing more than 55 of the aircraft. The annual budget alone of the IDF is US$14.5 billion.

Such opinions from the guy who pays zero (the real peanut).

The aggregate cost of our foreign policy is insidious. Read the 9/11 Commission report. The authors who are the foremost experts admit the war in Iraq was coming to the aid of our "friend", Israel. Peanuts, my foot.

[Yamato]

The part you didn't highlight is the escape clause they use to continue the funding regardless what the Palestinians do:

The Secretary of State may

waive this restriction for national security reasons by filing a waiver detailing

how “the continuation of assistance would assist in furthering Middle East

peace"Has the current admin ever stopped or even cut aid to the Palestinians? I think they cut it in a minor way after some event but I can't recall what it was.

The Palestinians should receive zero aid, as should Israel. What part of "no foreign aid period" do people not understand? People simply can't handle a single standard (e.g. a principle). There's that word again.

[+and-then]

The Palestinians should receive zero aid, as should Israel. What part of "no foreign aid period" do people not understand? People simply can't handle a single standard (e.g. a principle). There's that word again.

A noble sentiment, like much of what Paul stood for. Just not practical in our current reality.

[acidhead]

A noble sentiment, like much of what Paul stood for. Just not practical in our current reality.

"our"?

count me out dude

[Yamato]

Not true, Coffey. Not everything is about the M.E. for me - just most My opinions on RP are well thought out. I'm not a hater where he is concerned, I just consider myself a realist on the chances of his movement. THAT many earnest and committed citizens should not be just ignored and marginalized, but neither can they expect to be given the keys unless they can convince enough others in the validity of his WHOLE plan.

Our emotions have nothing to do with it. We can all feel whatever we want about Ron Paul and it won't change a thing. Ron Paul is going to be right for everyone, love him, hate him, or something in between. The game is coming to an end because we can't afford to pay for it anymore. The only question remaining is how long do you want to delay the inevitable and how painful do you want the end of this game to be? I hope we don't have to stoop down into yet another protracted discussion about debt and deficit and fiscal responsibility but that's repetitively necessary when people expose their inner-Statist.

That's the real reason people can't agree with Ron Paul. They want the gobmint to make the world go around for always-another group of special people they want someone else's money to pay for. That's not the bureau's job, that's your job. Cough up your own $$ for whatever dirt you find worth paying for. Don't tread on me.

[acidhead]

Sound money would be a start... say what you want but you know it's true.

[+and-then]

All I'm saying is that if Mr Paul were the Superman his followers considered him to be, he would be actively building his new party now while he still has the money and energy left from the campaign. And if they are as committed as they seemed to be in the Spring and Summer then they could be positioning themselves for the absolute FUROR that is coming over the next months as Obama's same old, same old begins to stick in the voter's throats. NOW is the time when his movement could gain by leaps and bounds....so where are they?

[Yamato]

All I'm saying is that if Mr Paul were the Superman his followers considered him to be, he would be actively building his new party now while he still has the money and energy left from the campaign. And if they are as committed as they seemed to be in the Spring and Summer then they could be positioning themselves for the absolute FUROR that is coming over the next months as Obama's same old, same old begins to stick in the voter's throats. NOW is the time when his movement could gain by leaps and bounds....so where are they?

The gimme gimme generation the Boomers turned out to be (who are still the heart of the voting block) aren't interested in cutting spending whether democrat or republican. They're interested in punting the can down the road as long as possible. This fiscal cliff was the compromise that Congress made that allowed them to raise the debt ceiling. Since they raised the debt ceiling, we got the fiscal cliff (higher taxes + spending cuts) and now that we've once again caught up with the can they kicked, Congress is back to whining about what they did and didn't do.

This fluff election was nothing more than a choice between a right wing spender vs. a left wing spender and the differences are negligible when you count the big ticket items we're blowing our dough on. They both like war, they both like entitlements, they both worship Israel and insist on foreign welfare. Coke or Pepsi. My signature video. Neither party knows the meaning of spending cuts but both parties love to talk about it like they do.

Ron Paul is retiring, he's only as politically popular as the votes he received. It will only be politically popular to cut spending when we face bankruptcy we can no longer delay. That's not the same-old thing sticking in a throat, that's an economic depression. So Congress is busy preparing another punt on 1st and 10 as we speak; once again doing what is politically popular. The media has blabbed up the so-called fiscal cliff like it's a bad thing. And as always, the bureaucrats are busy convincing the people that it's the other side of he aisle's fault, to successfully continue their bipartisan scheme of mass-irresponsibility.

[WoIverine]

The Palestinians should receive zero aid, as should Israel. What part of "no foreign aid period" do people not understand? People simply can't handle a single standard (e.g. a principle). There's that word again.

Better believe that if foreign aid started cutting into people's welfare and food stamps, they would be up in arms and rally for a "change". Eventually, it just might.

Edited December 3, 2012 by WoIverine

[preacherman76]

All I'm saying is that if Mr Paul were the Superman his followers considered him to be, he would be actively building his new party now while he still has the money and energy left from the campaign. And if they are as committed as they seemed to be in the Spring and Summer then they could be positioning themselves for the absolute FUROR that is coming over the next months as Obama's same old, same old begins to stick in the voter's throats. NOW is the time when his movement could gain by leaps and bounds....so where are they?

If he were 10 year younger I think thats exactly what would be happening.

[+and-then]

If he were 10 year younger I think thats exactly what would be happening.

But preacherman76 why does it have to be just himself? No offense but it's his ideas that are (mostly) needed. The movement was strong and one of the best grassroots types since Perot. People are HUNGRY for real change and if RP's movement could keep rolling along, even slowly, and evolve even a little on some of his more drastic stands then it would have a REAL chance as a viable third party. Man, after this next 4 years (if anything is left) people are going to be so sick of politics as usual they are going to be primed to accept anyone not currently in office. Just imagine if those rallies he was famous for started popping up on college campuses in the Spring and Summer in all 50 states. His people could easily accomplish that. They could provide a real time alternative in ideas to the bilge that is seeping from DC every day for the next 2 or 3 years while the same old crowd anoint the next leader. The movement could grow into a monster in that time. The media couldn't ignore them forever - especially when the crowd sizes kept growing.

[MichaelW]

Such opinions from the guy who pays zero (the real peanut).

My opinions are as valid as anyone else's. And besides, at least I have the mental capacity and reasoning to say what oppression is and what isn't. My views aren't motivated by religion. My views are based on facts, not bull**** and conspriacy theories.

The aggregate cost of our foreign policy is insidious. Read the 9/11 Commission report. The authors who are the foremost experts admit the war in Iraq was coming to the aid of our "friend", Israel. Peanuts, my foot.

This isn't about 9/11 or Iraq. It's about how far $2.6 billion goes in Israel.

The OP doesn't even know the subject of his own thread. How pathetic.

[sam12six]

Generally speaking, most politicians believe that what they think is right must either be illegal or legal. Ron Paul is obviously different to most politicians.

True dat...

I have, but I haven't seen anyone who genuinely believes it.

Really? You have never seen someone who doesn't believe the way he or she chooses to live life should be mandated by law? I don't spend a lot of time in New Zealand, but around here there are tons of people like that (though granted, they very very seldom make it to the national level as politicians).

A conflict of ideas, you say? So if someone says that they don't mind people of the same sex getting married and calling it marriage, and then saying marriage is only between a man and a woman, that, according to the made-up definitions that this forum seems to produce in alarming amounts, isn't a change of opinion or "flipping" but is merely a conflict of ideas?

How is saying gay couples can call their relationship marriage and then saying marriage is only about a man and a woman not flipping? It's saying two different things. No consistency whatsoever.

Once again, some people can separate their personal opinions on what is right and good from an effort to force those opinions on others through legislation. I'll confess I don't exactly know Paul's complete stance on gay marriage, but I don't see a problem with someone saying either, "Marriage is between a man and a woman, but gay people should have a legal equivalent with the same rights and responsibilities.", or, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but that's a personal and religious belief and has impact on my legal opinion."

It's no different from a judge choosing to call a case fairly under the law in spite of finding the personality and lifestyle of a defendant to be abhorrent... or really anyone in the government putting the law that gives them their power above their personal opinions on how someone should live life. Again, it's really rare for a politician at the national level...

A conflict of ideas is consistency now? Christ, no wonder people think of Americans as uneducated if the result of the education system is you and Yamato. And the fact you're only calling me out on the definition of a word and not the fact that the man lacks consistency is quite interesting.

Let me ask you something. If a man can't form an opinion and stick with it during his abortive election campaign, what makes you think he's going to stick with it when he is elected into any official office?

Maybe the definition is the problem here since we're from different places. Here, you judge a politician's consistency on how he votes and what he says. Again, Ron Paul is famous and infamous for being the only one who won't temporarily put his convictions on hold and vote against what he preaches. He's also one of the only congressmen who doesn't take the coward's way out and abstain instead of going on record that he believes the unpopular option is the better legal one in many cases.

You remember that guy Willard Romney? He ran for president a while back. He flips. He says he's pro choice when speaking to a liberal crowd and zealously pro life when speaking to a religiously conservative crowd. This inconsistency applies to every policy question he's ever been forced to answer around politically different groups. From Ron Paul, we've just had decades of boring speeches in support of the Constitution and votes that go the same way. That is consistency.

Now, if you can find where Ron Paul said he believes gay people should have the right to be married and another instance where he said they shouldn't (which again couldn't be attributed to his wanting different terminology but the same rights or his stating his personal moral stance instead of his legal one), then you have an argument. He'd still be the most consistent politician on the national level by an unbelievable margin, but you would be able to argue that he was inconsistent once.

This isn't about 9/11 or Iraq. It's about how far $2.6 billion goes in Israel.

The OP doesn't even know the subject of his own thread. How pathetic.

Damn! You're awfully quick to tell someone who has a different opinion from you that it's because they're too stupid to think on your level. I'll resist the urge to answer such a charge in the manner and maturity level it deserves (which would be saying "Your momma dresses you funny!") and just point out that if (IF I say!!) attacking Iraq and many of the other entanglements the US gets into in the region are in Israel's interest but not ours, then the argument could be made the the costs of these entanglements should be included in discussions like this even if they aren't officially earmarked as foreign aid.

But preacherman76 why does it have to be just himself? No offense but it's his ideas that are (mostly) needed. The movement was strong and one of the best grassroots types since Perot. People are HUNGRY for real change and if RP's movement could keep rolling along, even slowly, and evolve even a little on some of his more drastic stands then it would have a REAL chance as a viable third party. Man, after this next 4 years (if anything is left) people are going to be so sick of politics as usual they are going to be primed to accept anyone not currently in office. Just imagine if those rallies he was famous for started popping up on college campuses in the Spring and Summer in all 50 states. His people could easily accomplish that. They could provide a real time alternative in ideas to the bilge that is seeping from DC every day for the next 2 or 3 years while the same old crowd anoint the next leader. The movement could grow into a monster in that time. The media couldn't ignore them forever - especially when the crowd sizes kept growing.

My personal opinion is that by shouting the same message from the rooftops for three decades, Ron Paul BECAME the message in the minds of many - especially since they don't hear it from any other prominent politicians. Again, only an opinion, but I also think lots of people were thinking Rand Paul would be the successor of this mantle (even though I said years ago here that he's a better politician than his father but not nearly as strict a constitutionalist). Those people are beginning to (and I believe will continue to) be disappointed in Rand Paul as his political star rises. Enough disappointment and hopefully people will change their online trolling from "RON PAUL ROCKS!!!!!!!11 VOTE FOR HIM!!" to "The Constitution rocks, vote for someone who will uphold it."

I'm pessimistic that people actually will do this, but open to being pleasantly surprised.

[Yamato]

My opinions are as valid as anyone else's. And besides, at least I have the mental capacity and reasoning to say what oppression is and what isn't. My views aren't motivated by religion. My views are based on facts, not bull**** and conspriacy theories.

This isn't about 9/11 or Iraq. It's about how far $2.6 billion goes in Israel.

The OP doesn't even know the subject of his own thread. How pathetic.

Your opinions invalidate themselves when you get personal with people as you've done on this thread once again. Put down the immature trollish derailing abuse already. You're not making any friends or allies here with that attitude.

Now let's address the subject of my thread. Our foreign policy in the Middle East is based on Israel worship per the video you are supposed to be discussing, therefore it's queer you think I don't know the subject. Did you even watch the video? You don't seem to understand what the subject is when you're denying the ramifications of it and the reasons why we're against US foreign policy.

[MichaelW]

Really? You have never seen someone who doesn't believe the way he or she chooses to live life should be mandated by law? I don't spend a lot of time in New Zealand, but around here there are tons of people like that (though granted, they very very seldom make it to the national level as politicians).

Not really. Most people don't really care what the government does unless it is something which is fairly pathetic, such as spanking (a bill passed Parliament outlawing it a few years ago and a government referendum found that the majority of people were against the bill) or something which gives people equality and rights. People were supportive of the legalisation of civil unions in 2007 and generally supportive of the Marriage Equality Bill (which defines civil unions as marriages in the same terms as "normal" marriage and gives gay couples the right to adopt).

I'll confess I don't exactly know Paul's complete stance on gay marriage, but I don't see a problem with someone saying either, "Marriage is between a man and a woman, but gay people should have a legal equivalent with the same rights and responsibilities.", or, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but that's a personal and religious belief and has impact on my legal opinion."

What I said was his stance. He said it was up to the states individually to define what marriage is, said that gay people can marry and call it marriage and then said that marriage is between a man and a woman.

As I said, doesn't look like something someone who is supposedly consistent in their beliefs would say.

It's no different from a judge choosing to call a case fairly under the law in spite of finding the personality and lifestyle of a defendant to be abhorrent... or really anyone in the government putting the law that gives them their power above their personal opinions on how someone should live life. Again, it's really rare for a politician at the national level...

Thing is, judges have to act professionally in spite of their personal beliefs. They can say that they personally oppose or support something but their job dictates that their personal opinion doesn't matter, because of procedure and law. Politicians aren't judges because personal beliefs and motives are what got them into politics in the first place. Most people do things on the "behalf of their electorates", but as I found out yesterday, this isn't the case.

Point is, you can't compare politicians to judges.

Maybe the definition is the problem here since we're from different places.

I doubt that we'd see two different things based on geographic and minor linguistic differences.

Here, you judge a politician's consistency on how he votes and what he says.

Same in NZ. But politics here are different to that of the US. And most people wouldn't vote for Ron Paul anyway because he keeps changing his mind.

Again, Ron Paul is famous and infamous for being the only one who won't temporarily put his convictions on hold and vote against what he preaches.

Our current Prime Minister voted against the Civil Union's bill in 2007 because he thought it was what the electorate wanted. My current MP is voting against the Marriage Equality Bill because he thinks it's what the electorate wants, despite personal beliefs.

Ron Paul appears to not go against what he preaches because he preaches several different things that contradict each other and uses them when the opportunity arises. How is it possible to say gay people can get married and call it marriage and then go onto say that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman?

You remember that guy Willard Romney?

Never heard of him. He that Mexican born father of Mitt?

He ran for president a while back. He flips. He says he's pro choice when speaking to a liberal crowd and zealously pro life when speaking to a religiously conservative crowd. This inconsistency applies to every policy question he's ever been forced to answer around politically different groups. From Ron Paul, we've just had decades of boring speeches in support of the Constitution and votes that go the same way. That is consistency.

You're not making the same comparison as I am. From what I have seen on his positions on gay marriage, he sounds a lot like Romney. As I said, Paul says gay people can get married and call it marriage and he wouldn't have a problem with it, then says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Looks pretty much like he's pandering to the progressives and the conservatives. Same as Romney.

Now, if you can find where Ron Paul said he believes gay people should have the right to be married and another instance where he said they shouldn't (which again couldn't be attributed to his wanting different terminology but the same rights or his stating his personal moral stance instead of his legal one), then you have an argument.

Sure. Not entirely sure on the validity of the sources though.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/ron-paul-church-abortion-narcotics-marriage.html?start=3

Page 3. Has the quote where he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's an hour long, but 12 minutes in, you have the quote "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want" right out of the proverbial horse's mouth.

Damn! You're awfully quick to tell someone who has a different opinion from you that it's because they're too stupid to think on your level.

Yamato has repeatedly said that I am apparently too immature to understand his clearly profound ideas and not intelligent enough to think and reason on the same level as he is. I consider it a perfect example of you reap what you sow. The ball's in his court. He can change the way he treats other posters and I'll do the same.