Somebody please explain Ron Paul's logic to me

[rambone]

Israeli Economists Agree with Rand Paul: End Foreign Aid

Individuals including Israeli economists Ran Dagoni, Yoel Bainerman, and Alvin Rabushka, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, as well as groups including the Jewish Task Force, the Zionist Freedom Alliance, and the Manhigut Yehudit faction of the Likud Party have long advocated for an end to U.S. foreign aid to Israel. These groups insist that Israel must develop her own economic strength and move towards more free-market economic reforms as a means of boosting national prosperity and strength.

Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that foreign aid may do more harm than good, and proposed efforts to wean Israel off of American military aid payments.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

So what business is it of the United States if Iran does want to blow Israel off the map? You dont think israel wants to do the same?

Let them duke it out, we have our own problems to take care of. Its about time we stop cleaning up other peoples houses who dont want us to and start taking care of our own house that is crumbling from the foundation.

 

[pudly]

Actually, I don't believe there is any evidence at all that Israel wants to blow anyone off the map. Supposedly, they've had nukes for decades. They haven't used them. On the other hand, Iran has threatened Israel dozens of times in public and on the record. Israel would be thrilled to just be left alone.

The only reason to care is if you think there is any value to having allies in the world. If you think that hanging separately is better than hanging together, then I guess I can understand your point of view.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Is it the responsibility of the store owner to protect the neighbor? I would say it is not, and that he should (IMHO) sell the gun, but also perhaps notify someone of the buyer's stated intent. The comparison is akin to a bartender being held accountable for the actions of a patron of his bar, which, while it is done today, I do not agree with it. The only person I see as accountable for my actions is me and the only person responsible for your actions is you.



Blessings,
Bill

I would call it upsurd as well. I don't understand the penchant for advising others to break the law and put themselves at risk.

If you transfer a weapon to a person who has told you they intend to kill their neighbor, you have violated IC 35-41-2-4 (in Indiana. Every other state has an equivalent statute) if they in fact kill, attempt to kill, or even threaten their neighbor. USC also has aiding and abetting (accessory) statutes, so you could be charged federally for engaging in a conspiracy (if there is any wiggle room to charge). Or if they really didn't like you both.

Upon conviction if you hold an FFL you will lose it for life. You will also lose your right to possess a firearm.

 

[Rookie]

So, once again, we hold others accountable for someone's actions.

What a wonderful world.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So, once again, we hold others accountable for someone's actions.

What a wonderful world.

Wrong. If an FFL sells a weapon without specific knowledge of the intent of the buyer to commit a crime, the FFL bears no criminal responsibility whatsoever as long as the transfer was otherwise legal. However the hypothetical FFL in this case (which BTW, I know a LOT of FFLs and can't think of one that would risk their license to provide a weapon to someone who said they intend to commit a crime with it) joined the crime by providing the weapon to be used in its commission.

 

[Rookie]

I look at it different. I'm responsible for my actions and the actions of my children. What you or anyone else do should not be my concern.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Actually, I don't believe there is any evidence at all that Israel wants to blow anyone off the map. Supposedly, they've had nukes for decades. They haven't used them. On the other hand, Iran has threatened Israel dozens of times in public and on the record. Israel would be thrilled to just be left alone.

The only reason to care is if you think there is any value to having allies in the world. If you think that hanging separately is better than hanging together, then I guess I can understand your point of view.

To me an ally should be in a mutually beneficial relationship. Israel takes our money, our military assistance, and everything else we offer. What do we get I exchange other than the bill? If my choice is that or to go alone I'll take alone.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I look at it different. I'm responsible for my actions and the actions of my children. What you or anyone else do should not be my concern.

I absolutely agree with you. You alone are responsible for your action. If you commit a crime you should suffer the consequences of your actions. If you are an accessory to a crime you should suffer the consequences of your actions.

The law in every state of this nation also agrees with you.

 

[Rookie]

You're twisting my words and you know it.

What you do is your business. What you say you're going to do should also be your business. I shouldn't be responsible for your words or actions.

 

[88GT]

This thread seems to prove the point that people are more interested in 4 second sound bytes than actual spelled out reasonable discourse. Bottom line... do your research. If you don't like what you find, don't vote for the guy or gal.

People panic because Dr. Paul's idea(l)s sound so irrational because they're defending the RINO position and not the conservative one. If your gut reaction to a political stance is ruffled ask yourself is it because you're defending the status quo or because its (more dangerously) irrational.

Nonsense. I disagree with Paul's foreign policy decision because I think it is impractical, ignores reality, disregards the actions of other nations, and just plain stinks. I have no interested in war-mongering for the sake of war-mongering, but neither do I wish to pigeon-hole U.S. foreign policy by making universal statements of when we would act...or not act.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Go ahead, keep arguing for our security until we have no more freedom.

 

[Destro]

Go ahead, keep arguing for our security until we have no more freedom.

we can't have both? darn....

 

[RockofStrength]

we can't have both? darn....

The balance of freedom and security is tenuous, as they tend to increase in a linear fashion but destroy their counterpart exponentially. It's not that you can't have both, but rather that increased security requires a surrendering of freedoms while an increase in freedom makes it much more difficult to be secure because you can't centralize everything.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

we can't have both? darn....

No, you can't have one without the other.

 

[ATOMonkey]

No, you can't have one without the other.

Not 100% true.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You're twisting my words and you know it.

What you do is your business. What you say you're going to do should also be your business. I shouldn't be responsible for your words or actions.

No I didn't twist your words.

If you join a conspiracy to commit a crime you have committed a crime. Everyone in the conspiracy is responsible for their criminal actions.

Not 100% true.

Really? How exactly does it work otherwise?

 

[Rookie]

You win.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would call it upsurd as well. I don't understand the penchant for advising others to break the law and put themselves at risk.

If you transfer a weapon to a person who has told you they intend to kill their neighbor, you have violated IC 35-41-2-4 (in Indiana. Every other state has an equivalent statute) if they in fact kill, attempt to kill, or even threaten their neighbor. USC also has aiding and abetting (accessory) statutes, so you could be charged federally for engaging in a conspiracy (if there is any wiggle room to charge). Or if they really didn't like you both.

Upon conviction if you hold an FFL you will lose it for life. You will also lose your right to possess a firearm.

You might be charged with knowingly aiding the person, however by notifying someone of the buyer's stated intent, you will have voluntarily abandoned and thus at least attempted to prevent its commission.
IC 35-41-3-10
Abandonment
Sec. 10. With respect to a charge under IC 35-41-2-4, IC 35-41-5-1, or IC 35-41-5-2, it is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct voluntarily abandoned his effort to commit the underlying crime and voluntarily prevented its commission.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.15.

A person who buys a gun might use it as this example stated, or he might just be blowing steam and would instead use it for some completely lawful purpose. To start charging crimes on the basis of "mights" and "coulds" gets into thought-crime (or if you prefer, "pre-crime".) We can consider possibilities all day, and in this litigious society, sure, it's very probable that the seller would be charged criminally, sued civilly, or both; That just makes it current practice, it doesn't make it right.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

No, you can't have one without the other.

This depends upon from whom you wish to be secure.