Anyone know why he voted against it? He usually has a pretty good reason, and the article doesn't share it.

China wasn't in the Constitution.

shocked. I'm so shocked.

Capitalist1: Anyone know why he voted against it? He usually has a pretty good reason, and the article doesn't share it.

Probably because the Lama regime in Tibet was part of an oppressive caste system. The Chinese conquest of Tibet was not good. That said, it is over and done with. Should we really be working hard and fighting to put a tyrant back into power. Obviously CNN would never say that because...FREE TIBET!

The one guy who's NOT crazy. Why don't we just wave a red flag in their face too. Maybe measure penis size.

Capitalist1: Anyone know why he voted against it? He usually has a pretty good reason, and the article doesn't share it.

I gather he's generally against stupid do-nothing finger-wagging votes.

kronicfeld: Capitalist1: Anyone know why he voted against it? He usually has a pretty good reason, and the article doesn't share it.

I gather he's generally against stupid do-nothing finger-wagging votes.

I'm thinking it's none of our business..lol. He's clever like that.

Go Ron! Isn't it nice to know there are politicians who actutally vote the way they claim to?

Capitalist1: Anyone know why he voted against it? He usually has a pretty good reason, and the article doesn't share it.

Probably the same reason he voted against the same waste of time with Israel/Hezbollah attack or whatever that was.

/didn't rtfa
//we are talking about Paul right?
///vote yes for Dr No!!

ron paul?

/off to rtfa

Because he's a farknut. Ron Paul Revolution, indeed.


Have fun with your war chest, Ronny.

yay what do i win?

mcwebe0: Capitalist1: Anyone know why he voted against it? He usually has a pretty good reason, and the article doesn't share it.

Probably because the Lama regime in Tibet was part of an oppressive caste system. The Chinese conquest of Tibet was not good. That said, it is over and done with. Should we really be working hard and fighting to put a tyrant back into power. Obviously CNN would never say that because...FREE TIBET!

lol, no. he voted against it because he is a non-interventionalist. i'm sure he personally is sympathetic to the tibetans, but he does not believe it is the role of the american federal government to get involved.

So he thinks just saying something is bad is being "interventionalist"?

He often votes no on these type of votes on the grounds Congress should be worrying more about its citizens and not about matters that don't directly affect this country.

Atypical Person Reading Fark: So he thinks just saying something is bad is being "interventionalist"?

We did an actual governmental motion. That's more than voicing an opinion. It's provocative, like we're in any position to criticize them.

We should all support the democratically elected leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama. And by democratically elected, I mean that as a toddler he picked out the the previous Lama's beads from a pile of decoy beads.

GaryPDX: Atypical Person Reading Fark: So he thinks just saying something is bad is being "interventionalist"?

We did an actual governmental motion. That's more than voicing an opinion. It's provocative, like we're in any position to criticize them.

I still don't get it. We can still take formative, opinion-shaping action, even if we're wrong in other areas, can't we?

What, we're supposed to bow out of expressing national opinion (and forewarning of policy interests) because we have our own policy gaffes?

What's the point of that?

China's response: ".....THPTPTPTHHH!!!"



/Doesn't look as good without the Bloom County cartoon to go with it...

kronicfeld: Capitalist1: Anyone know why he voted against it? He usually has a pretty good reason, and the article doesn't share it.

I gather he's generally against stupid do-nothing finger-wagging votes.

THIS

Atypical Person Reading Fark: GaryPDX: Atypical Person Reading Fark: So he thinks just saying something is bad is being "interventionalist"?

We did an actual governmental motion. That's more than voicing an opinion. It's provocative, like we're in any position to criticize them.

I still don't get it. We can still take formative, opinion-shaping action, even if we're wrong in other areas, can't we?

What, we're supposed to bow out of expressing national opinion (and forewarning of policy interests) because we have our own policy gaffes?

What's the point of that?

Put yourself in their shoes. What would you say if China criticized the US for telling Utah what to do. That's how they look at it, it's arrogant and non of our business. They already have a burr up their ass over Taiwan, which they consider a misbehaving child that needs to come home.

Get it? It's none of our business and he's the only sane one up there.

Actually, are you aware that China does what it can to influence trade and the economy in Utah?

Utah has an international trade commission, and China lobbies (and does other things once Utah establishes businesses in China) the Utah economy quite heavily.

China does a lot of other things that express opinion about other nations (!)

The fact that China isn't a democracy and doesn't have a particular passion for speech (free or otherwise) doesn't change the fact that China does everything it can to influence countries like Sudan, Argentina, Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica, and many others.

They issue warnings, tariffs, and all that stuff too. What our congress did is on the fluff end of that, but nations do have a standard toolkit - they use it when they can.

I consider it fair warning to China. I don't think it means shiatt, of course - China is laughing all the way to the bank.

GaryPDX: It's none of our business and he's the only sane one up there.

You can be right most of the time and still be crazy.

Oh look, Ron Paul did something pointlessly unique again.
STOP THE PRESSES.
Honestly, the slight shred of respect I had for that guy-- because even though his politics views are asinine at best, he sticks to his guns and voices a dissenting opinion, which this country needs more of-- has completely vanished after reading his old newsletter. He's not just crazy, or stupid. He's willfully deceitful, racist, backwards and apathetic to even his constituents. Ron Paul is not fighting for you, he doesn't care about you, and despite whatever he tells you about saving canned beans, he's a dirty career politician. Stop voting for him already.

Ok, fine, I'm a big-government liberal idiot who wants massive taxes. Whatever. Read his charming little flyer promoting "Surviving the New Money," a $99 pamphlet about how not to pay taxes, and try to tell me he's anything but a shameful huckster out to make a buck on other people's fear and mistrust.

Ron Paul?

*Reads TFA*

RON PAUL!

Defiance_: GaryPDX: It's none of our business and he's the only sane one up there.

You can be right most of the time and still be crazy.

Well now, there's the conundrum. I often wonder myself, am I crazy? Or is everyone else crazy? Or maybe both, just different kinds of crazy?

burndtdan: lol, no. he voted against it because he is a non-interventionalist.

You're probably right. I thought about it after my post. The short rant I gave above is more about my reasons for objecting to the "Free Tibet" movement or, at least, to the Dalai Lama's desire to restore the old system in Tibet.

Sygerrik: Oh look, Ron Paul did something pointlessly unique again.

And the rest of the House did something pointlessly unoriginal. Bo-ring.

Good for him.

GaryPDX: Put yourself in their shoes. What would you say if China criticized the US for telling Utah what to do. That's how they look at it, it's arrogant and non of our business. They already have a burr up their ass over Taiwan, which they consider a misbehaving child that needs to come home.

So for your comparison to be valid, the US Government would be telling the Mormon Church that the US Government gets to hand pick their spiritual leader, all while trying to eliminate Mormonism as a religion and make the Mormons act more American.

GaryPDX: Defiance_: GaryPDX: It's none of our business and he's the only sane one up there.

You can be right most of the time and still be crazy.

Well now, there's the conundrum. I often wonder myself, am I crazy? Or is everyone else crazy? Or maybe both, just different kinds of crazy?

Personal experience has taught me to start drinking before you hit the 'different kinds of crazy' line of thought.

Defiance_: Personal experience has taught me to start drinking before you hit the 'different kinds of crazy' line of thought.


Preach on Brother Defiance_...

i knew who it was the minute i read the headline.

probably had something to do with his 'stay the fark out of other country's affairs' thing he's got going.

It amazes me that this galvanizes the Paulites. I absolutely love the man over his dedication to civil liberties, but my adoration for him starts and stops there. However, my adoration for his stance on civil liberties could outshine the sun. And I would have loved to see him be the republican candidate. He's definitely the best republican for the job.

Back in 1956, Eisenhower refused to take sides. He simultaneously crushed the UK's dominion over Suez while marginalizing the Egyptians. They attacked each other. Life was good.

I liked it a lot better when we let the loonies sort it all out over there.

ShawnDoc

He often votes no on these type of votes on the grounds Congress should be worrying more about its citizens and not about matters that don't directly affect this country.

There was a time when that would have worked, and even been laudable. Things change. There is very, very little in the world today that doesn't directly affect this country. If that is his excuse, then he FAILS.

oldebayer

There is very, very little in the world today that doesn't directly affect this country


Are you saying I shouldn't go outside and flap my arms like a butterfly right now?

POAC: However, my adoration for his stance on civil liberties could outshine the sun.

while i can't argue that, there are other people who, imho at least, have stands JUST as good on civil liberties, and who's other positions are a lot more palatable... at least from my perspective. YMMV.

Speaking of cracking down on Tibet, I was wondering, how's that resolution in Congress condemning our involvement in the death squads in (pick your South American country name) coming?

Crickets?

413-1, my ass.

You're all a bunch of farking hypocrites.

Capitalist1: Anyone know why he voted against it? He usually has a pretty good reason, and the article doesn't share it.

Something about the Executive Branch having a State Department or something like that. The Congress seems to step into foreign policy when it constitutionally can't do anything and shy away when it constitutionally can.

Let me guess it was a non binding resolution that has no teeth or political fall out for people who voted for it.

burndtdan: lol, no. he voted against it because he is a non-interventionalist. i'm sure he personally is sympathetic to the tibetans, but he does not believe it is the role of the american federal government to get involved.

THIS

Capitalist1: Anyone know why he voted against it? He usually has a pretty good reason, and the article doesn't share it.

He'd vote against a "sky is blue" resolution. He just likes to get his irrelevant name out there. In this case, he succeeded.

Also, I didn't realize he dropped out of the presidential race, as the article said. I guess it's the old "if a tree falls in the woods" thing.

I'm sure you'd all love to see China or Russia passing resolutions about us during their governmental procedures.

You'd all say the same thing- Go fark off, and mind your own business.

LibertyFirst: burndtdan: lol, no. he voted against it because he is a non-interventionalist. i'm sure he personally is sympathetic to the tibetans, but he does not believe it is the role of the american federal government to get involved.

THIS

hehe, i was simply stating his position. i wasn't really endorsing it... i think it has merit, and much more merit than pointless grandstanding, but i don't think it's the ultimate objective.

Jaykzo: I'm sure you'd all love to see China or Russia passing resolutions about us during their governmental procedures.

You'd all say the same thing- Go fark off, and mind your own business.

China does pass resolutions and issue reports about US human rights abuses every year. It just doesn't get much media play.

Uh, the article says he recently dropped out of the presidential race. But as of this moment he's campaigning his ass off in PA for the upcoming primary. CNN is full of fail, again.

Well, Ron Paul often Ron Paul Ron Paul because Ron Paul and Ron Paul.

/RON PAUL!

What an attention whore!

uvadover: Capitalist1: Anyone know why he voted against it? He usually has a pretty good reason, and the article doesn't share it.

He'd vote against a "sky is blue" resolution. He just likes to get his irrelevant name out there. In this case, he succeeded.

Also, I didn't realize he dropped out of the presidential race, as the article said. I guess it's the old "if a tree falls in the woods" thing.

Another sad victim of bad media reporting.

Ron Paul hasn't dropped out, period. It's a shame they misreport it, and its a shame you believe everything you read. I wonder what else you've seen online and instantly taken as true. Reading comments like this
He'd vote against a "sky is blue" resolution. He just likes to get his irrelevant name out there. In this case, he succeeded.
makes me think quite a few.