Yet ANOTHER lunatic vote from Ron Paul against freedom

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
While Ron Paul is celebrating his 5 million dollar fundraising take in the 3rd quarter and campaigning on the issue of "freedom", he doesn't seem to believe that freedom is worth fighting for, or even addressing, outside of the circles he travels in.

This past Tuesday, Paul voted against congressional resolution H Con Res 200, "Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding the Immediate and Unconditional Release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi" .. a courageous Burmese woman awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her non-violent struggle against her country's brutal military dictatorship. She has been jailed by the Burmese government in their crackdown against democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi

The measure passed 413-2
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/931/

This measure would cost US taxpayers nothing and isn't against the Constitution.

This isn't the first time Paul has stood alone or virtually alone against liberty and freedom as he stood all by himself against honoring the 40th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. That measure passed 414-1, and he stood all by himself against honoring Rosa Parks, America's symbol of the freedom and courage, as that measure passed 424-1.

I've listened to Paul supporters go on and on paying lip-service to the concepts of freedom and liberty, but I continue to ask, freedom for who? What "liberty" is Paul talking about outside of his own?

It was also interesting and not surprising to find that on the same day, Paul also voted against HR 2828, "To Provide Compensation to Relatives of United States Citizens Who Were Killed As a Result of the Bombings of United States Embassies in East Africa on August 7, 1998."

You mean we shouldn't do that?

That resolution passed 409-12, and also unsurprising, all 12 were republicans.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/930/

I'm not interested in a pissing contest, but I am seriously confused why anyone sees Ron Paul as any sort of champion of freedom or a politician who believes he has any responsibility to anyone but himself.
 
Though sad, the victims of the embassy bombings shouldn't have the right, nor are they entitled to steal my money. Regardless of the circumstances.
 
blackascoal said:
While Ron Paul is celebrating his 5 million dollar fundraising take in the 3rd quarter and campaigning on the issue of "freedom", he doesn't seem to believe that freedom is worth fighting for, or even addressing, outside of the circles he travels in.

This past Tuesday, Paul voted against congressional resolution H Con Res 200, "Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding the Immediate and Unconditional Release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi" .. a courageous Burmese woman awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her non-violent struggle against her country's brutal military dictatorship. She has been jailed by the Burmese government in their crackdown against democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi

The measure passed 413-2
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/931/

This measure would cost US taxpayers nothing and isn't against the Constitution.

This isn't the first time Paul has stood alone or virtually alone against liberty and freedom as he stood all by himself against honoring the 40th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. That measure passed 414-1, and he stood all by himself against honoring Rosa Parks, America's symbol of the freedom and courage, as that measure passed 424-1.

I've listened to Paul supporters go on and on paying lip-service to the concepts of freedom and liberty, but I continue to ask, freedom for who? What "liberty" is Paul talking about outside of his own?

It was also interesting and not surprising to find that on the same day, Paul also voted against HR 2828, "To Provide Compensation to Relatives of United States Citizens Who Were Killed As a Result of the Bombings of United States Embassies in East Africa on August 7, 1998."

You mean we shouldn't do that?

That resolution passed 409-12, and also unsurprising, all 12 were republicans.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/930/

I'm not interested in a pissing contest, but I am seriously confused why anyone sees Ron Paul as any sort of champion of freedom or a politician who believes he has any responsibility to anyone but himself.
Click to expand...

Find me where in that pesky Constitution it's a function of government to honor or condemn anyone.
Ron Paul votes based on the Constitution, so if you ever wonder about why he votes a certain way, well now you know what to expect.

"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people." – Congressman Ron Paul, 1987
 
blackascoal said:
While Ron Paul is celebrating his 5 million dollar fundraising take in the 3rd quarter and campaigning on the issue of "freedom", he doesn't seem to believe that freedom is worth fighting for, or even addressing, outside of the circles he travels in.

This past Tuesday, Paul voted against congressional resolution H Con Res 200, "Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding the Immediate and Unconditional Release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi" .. a courageous Burmese woman awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her non-violent struggle against her country's brutal military dictatorship. She has been jailed by the Burmese government in their crackdown against democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi

The measure passed 413-2
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/931/

This measure would cost US taxpayers nothing and isn't against the Constitution.

This isn't the first time Paul has stood alone or virtually alone against liberty and freedom as he stood all by himself against honoring the 40th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. That measure passed 414-1, and he stood all by himself against honoring Rosa Parks, America's symbol of the freedom and courage, as that measure passed 424-1.

I've listened to Paul supporters go on and on paying lip-service to the concepts of freedom and liberty, but I continue to ask, freedom for who? What "liberty" is Paul talking about outside of his own?

It was also interesting and not surprising to find that on the same day, Paul also voted against HR 2828, "To Provide Compensation to Relatives of United States Citizens Who Were Killed As a Result of the Bombings of United States Embassies in East Africa on August 7, 1998."

You mean we shouldn't do that?

That resolution passed 409-12, and also unsurprising, all 12 were republicans.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/930/

I'm not interested in a pissing contest, but I am seriously confused why anyone sees Ron Paul as any sort of champion of freedom or a politician who believes he has any responsibility to anyone but himself.
Click to expand...

ron pual is gay hes no consrvative consvities love war and kill gays. pual may as well join in with the peple who wnat to make every1 an atheist and make sure no whites go to cllege.

bush is a REAL consverative
 
WhiteAsBirdShit said:
ron pual is gay hes no consrvative consvities love war and kill gays. pual may as well join in with the peple who wnat to make every1 an atheist and make sure no whites go to cllege.

bush is a REAL consverative
Click to expand...
I thought the name was funny Watermark, but the material got stale pretty quick.
 
TheDanold said:
Find me where in that pesky Constitution it's a function of government to honor or condemn anyone.
Ron Paul votes based on the Constitution, so if you ever wonder about why he votes a certain way, well now you know what to expect.

"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people." – Congressman Ron Paul, 1987
Click to expand...


Yes, because there can be no dispute as to the proper interpretation of the Constitution. The courts have been wasting everyone's time for the past 230 years.
 
Dungheap said:
Yes, because there can be no dispute as to the proper interpretation of the Constitution. The courts have been wasting everyone's time for the past 230 years.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, then find me an area that has even the slightest ambiguity relevant to what I said was lacking.

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. – South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)
 
TheDanold said:
Fair enough, then find me an area that has even the slightest ambiguity relevant to what I said was lacking.

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. – South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)
Click to expand...

Good

This is a Christian nation after all, it said so in the constitution.
 
DigitalDave said:
I'd have to check to see why Ron Paul voted against this, but I lost some respect for him on this..
Click to expand...
I will "gaurantee" it was because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention this and that he believed it to be a waste of the powers of Congress.

I'd also "bet" that he voted against the condemnation of moveon.org, if that one was before the House.
 
Ok went to his house site and got his statement:

"So while I am by no means unsympathetic to the current situation in Burma, as an elected Member of the United States House of Representatives I strongly believe that we would do better to promote freedom around the world by paying better attention to our rapidly eroding freedom here at home. I urge my colleagues to consider their priorities more closely and to consider the much more effective approach of leading by example. "
http://www.house.gov/paul/

He has a good point, how effective are we in making condemnation statements against those who crack down on freedom, when America does the same here?
 
The situation in Burma nearly makes me physically ill when I think on it. I would have voted for the measure. There is nothing in the constitution against it and we can speak on freedoms both here and at home. There is nothing to keep us from doing both.

And BTW, I was clearly wrong on my "guarantee" of why he voted against it.
 
Maybe because of his isolationist stance... but I disagree with this vote. It's not meddling or intervening to express our opinion.

We should be trying to stand up for democracy like this, in peaceful ways, rather than military intervening.
 
This past Tuesday, Paul voted against congressional resolution H Con Res 200, "Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding the Immediate and Unconditional Release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi" .. a courageous Burmese woman awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her non-violent struggle against her country's brutal military dictatorship. She has been jailed by the Burmese government in their crackdown against democracy.


I don't understand why he voted against this.
 
Warren said:
Maybe because of his isolationist stance... but I disagree with this vote. It's not meddling or intervening to express our opinion.

We should be trying to stand up for democracy like this, in peaceful ways, rather than military intervening.
Click to expand...

Blackascoal lied, the legislation was not merely expressing an opinion, here is Ron Paul's statement:

Madame Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation not because I do not sympathize with the plight of the oppressed people of Burma , particularly as demonstrated by the continued confinement of Aung San Suu Kyi. Any time a government represses its citizenry it is reprehensible. My objection to this legislation is twofold. First, the legislation calls on the United Nations Security Council to “take appropriate action” with regard to Burma and its internal conditions. This sounds like an open door for an outside military intervention under the auspices of the United Nations, which is something I do not support.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr100207h.htm
 
Cypress said:
This past Tuesday, Paul voted against congressional resolution H Con Res 200, "Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding the Immediate and Unconditional Release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi" .. a courageous Burmese woman awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her non-violent struggle against her country's brutal military dictatorship. She has been jailed by the Burmese government in their crackdown against democracy.


I don't understand why he voted against this.
Click to expand...
Dan posted a thread on why he voted against it.

I would have voted for it, even with the UN portion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top