Yet ANOTHER lunatic vote from Ron Paul against freedom

Damocles said:
Dan posted a thread on why he voted against it.

I would have voted for it, even with the UN portion.
Click to expand...

What if the UN decided to intervene, voicing support for them to "take appropriate action" (vague) basically leaves the nation's support for supporting another war on the mushy definition of "appropriate".
 
TheDanold said:
What if the UN decided to intervene, voicing support for them to "take appropriate action" (vague) basically leaves the nation's support for supporting another war on the mushy definition of "appropriate".
Click to expand...
Then the UN would need to find forces from elsewhere. I seriously doubt the UN would intervene militarily in Burma.
 
I see his reasoning but I still would have supported it.

China and Russia would not have allowed military intervention so the risk is virtually none that it will lead to military action on our part.
 
Darla said:
Dave you have too much heart to last long as a libertarian. I think you will be an Ornot someday, a former Libertarian turned liberal socialist. ;)
Click to expand...

Nah, more of a combination. A Socialist that wants programs to work towards a more libertarian society, where socialism isn't needed. ;)
 
Grind may be the closest to a philosophically pure anarcho-capitalist libertarian on JPP. I'm pretty libertarian but I have my limits.
 
Damocles said:
Then the UN would need to find forces from elsewhere. I seriously doubt the UN would intervene militarily in Burma.
Click to expand...
They intervened for less in Kosovo which did not have as bad a human-rights record as Burma does.

I think I doubt it as well given the mood of the world, but that could change as it took years for the situation in Kosovo to build up enough outrage and it would be safer to have a guarantee.

We don't need government to condemn this anyway, we can all do a better job just by boycotting businesses that do business there, chastizing tourists to Burma and so on.
 
TheDanold said:
They intervened for less in Kosovo which did not have as bad a human-rights record as Burma does.

I think I doubt it as well given the mood of the world, but that could change as it took years for the situation in Kosovo to build up enough outrage and it would be safer to have a guarantee.

We don't need government to condemn this anyway, we can all do a better job just by boycotting businesses that do business there, chastizing tourists to Burma and so on.
Click to expand...
However China wasn't likely to veto a measure of military might in their neighborhood in Kosovo.

The UN would be very unlikely to intervene militarily because China would not allow that vote to go through.

Our particular part there was as part of NATO, not as part of a UN force.
 
Warren said:
So would you have voted against this if you were a Congressman Dano?

I wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Nah, I'd already be attracting too much leftwing shit from attempts to slash government if I was in Congress that I wouldn't bother stirring the pot more over something likely symbolic.
I guess I'm more of a politician than Ron Paul.
 
TheDanold said:
They intervened for less in Kosovo which did not have as bad a human-rights record as Burma does.

I think I doubt it as well given the mood of the world, but that could change as it took years for the situation in Kosovo to build up enough outrage and it would be safer to have a guarantee.

We don't need government to condemn this anyway, we can all do a better job just by boycotting businesses that do business there, chastizing tourists to Burma and so on.
Click to expand...

boycott Chevron.
 
I would have voted against it just because it's a stupid waste of time. Think of how much time is occupied by congres because of stupid pointless legislation such as this. "Now presenting the 'we like the color green bill'" . . I mean give me a break guys. Find something better to do.

Now try to imagine me in my politics of developing (read: third world) nations class. It's basically a constant eyeroll for me.
 
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...

Yeah, I mean, cause "Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding the Immediate and Unconditional Release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi" is such a practical measure towards getting her realeased. I'm sure it'll happen any day now, cus of this self-congratulatory congressional PR bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top