• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ron Paul amazes again

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Undesired Walrus
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
It's been posted elsewhere, but his baffling action to refuse to sign a statement condemming the Iranian Government surely deserves it's own thread. He was the sole vote in the House, again. I believe he made (link?) an excuse saying we had no right to judge what is going on thousands of miles away. Any Paul fans wish to justify this? What would Paul have said during Apartheid in SA? Refused to condemn it?
 
We also had no right to get involved in WWII. Even after our own ships and ports were attacked. ;)
 
Ron Paul is a pig and a coward for not showing moral support for the brave people of Iran. Congress did right to speak out, while the President and the State Dept. should remain neutral as far as the politics are concerned.

I have no doubt that if this was 1939, Ron Paul would have said we should stay out of Germany's affairs and that we can work with Hitler.
 
parky76 said:
Ron Paul is a pig and a coward for not showing moral support for the brave people of Iran.
Click to expand...
Parky is a pig and a coward for not going to Iran and fighting against the mullahs.​

Makes as much sense as your statement.

IMO, Ron Paul recognizes this empty rhetoric for what it is, and chooses not to play. I tend to agree with Capel Dodger, other thread, that this struggle is Iran's to resolve. Paul is at least, for all his curious views, being consistent in his long standing theme of non interventionism.
Congress did right to speak out, while the President and the State Dept. should remain neutral as far as the politics are concerned.
Click to expand...
Congress expended a great deal of hot air. Nothing "right" about it. The Pres and State Dept, whose business it is to execute and conduct US foreign policy, are indeed being reserved in their public utterances: you and I agree that such is a prudent course. ( I am not in accord with Senator McCain's recent demand for more volatile rhetoric. )
I have no doubt that if this was 1939, Ron Paul would have said we should stay out of Germany's affairs and that we can work with Hitler.
Click to expand...
Parky, reinventing the nonsensical on a daily basis. Glad to see that you are as consistent as Ron Paul.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
Paul is at least, for all his curious views, being consistent in his long standing theme of non interventionism.
Click to expand...

How is this interventionism when it's a non-binding resolution? All it does is express support for Iranian dissidents, something Ron Paul is opposed to.
 
undesired walrus said:
it's been posted elsewhere, but his baffling action to refuse to sign a statement condemming the iranian government surely deserves it's own thread. He was the sole vote in the house, again. I believe he made (link?) an excuse saying we had no right to judge what is going on thousands of miles away. Any paul fans wish to justify this? What would paul have said during apartheid in sa? Refused to condemn it?
Click to expand...

yawn.
 
You're bored with Ron Paul too?

Honestly, why does anyone care? So one huckster didn't jump on board with the other hucksters to make an empty gesture (which does nothing to help anyone exzcept the Reps themselves)?
 
Ron Paul's statement:

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Paul equates commentating with interfering.

what a prick.

if the US Congress condemned the massacre of Jews during WW2, would that have also been interfering in the affairs of another country?

if the Senate speaks out against the genocide in Darfur, is that interference?

If the House speaks out against attacks on monks and Buddhist shrines in Tibet, is that interference?

prick.

speaking out against crimes against humanity is an obligation.
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
It's been posted elsewhere, but his baffling action to refuse to sign a statement condemming the Iranian Government surely deserves it's own thread.
Click to expand...
I think that would have been understandable. But the statement didn't condemn the Iranian Government. It condemned the Government's use of violence against protestors.

Condemning the Government per se is something that would have been very close to a declaration of war, and so it would have been understandable to vote against that.
 
Here's the text of H Res 560:

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
Click to expand...

My $0.02: I find the this resolution impossible to disagree with- I don't think it's beneath Congress to affirm these principles. I'd be very unhappy with my representative if she hadn't voted for it.

I can agree with Paul that our criticism is selective. I took note that in February 2009, the House introduced a resolution calling on the Egyptian government to respect human rights and religious freedom (H Res 200). It died in committee.

ETA: 2 members voted "Present" on the resolution. Now that's cowardice.
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
IMO, Ron Paul recognizes this empty rhetoric for what it is, and chooses not to play.
Click to expand...

As opposed to what? All those other discussions in congress which are full of no-nonsense business, and don't include any rhetoric? Does Ron Paul only votes on issues which Congress debated without "empty rhetoric"? If so, he must have the shortest working week on the planet.

It is the height of hypocricy to be a congressman, vote regularly on all kinds of bills and declarations, and suddenly, where (for once) taking a principled stand -- if only rhetorically -- IS important, to claim all of a sudden that he "doesn't do" rhetoric. If he is so opposed to rhetoric, I suggest that he should resign.

Sorry, not buying it. If there is any "empty rhetoric" here, it is on Ron Paul's part, who is obviously using the opportunity of a high-interest Congress vote to draw attention to himself. He knew very well that he'll be the only opponent, so he will be named in all the headlines: "Congress voted, with the exception of Ron Paul, to...".
 
It is true that human outrage is selective. But there is no law that says that unless one is equally outraged at all crimes, one has no right to be outrages at anyone. It is unfair, indeed, to be outraged at some cases of mass murder (Darfur, Iran) and not at others (Congo). It would have been better if people were also outraged at the latter. But it is far, far better to be outraged at least about some mass murders than to express indifference to all mass murders so a to not be "selective". Mass murderers are in no moral position to demand "fairness" of this sort.
 
I guess back in the 1930's, if the US congress had passed a resolution condeming the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany, Ron Paul would have voted against that also.
Whatta Jerk.
 
dudalb said:
I guess back in the 1930's, if the US congress had passed a resolution condeming the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany, Ron Paul would have voted against that also.
Whatta Jerk.
Click to expand...

he would have also been against condemning Apartheid, as it was an internal South African affair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom