PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul no compassionate conservative when it comes to Burma




Knightskye
05-16-2008, 03:32 AM
LATimes, if you couldn't guess.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/paulhatesburma.html

They're pumping that smear machine. Do they see him as a threat, or do they just love attacking him?

It's even the top article of the "Top of the Ticket" RSS feed...

Kludge
05-16-2008, 03:37 AM
Good, I hate the title of "compassionate conservative". Ron Paul's a hardass libertarian conservative.

Truth Warrior
05-16-2008, 04:20 AM
Ron's compassion is for the American taxpayers. Americans that may want to voluntarily help out Burma may do so.

coyote_sprit
05-16-2008, 04:31 AM
Why the hell is that even a bill in congress thats not an American issue. The idiot who submitted that bill needs to leave office.

Conza88
05-16-2008, 06:46 AM
Why the hell is that even a bill in congress thats not an American issue. The idiot who submitted that bill needs to leave office.

A bill so they could smear Ron Paul. I really wouldn't be suprised.

angelatc
05-16-2008, 01:15 PM
More on this topic at: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/05/ron-paul-against-unconditional-myanmar-love.php

The reason I know about it is that the local talk radio just opened their top of the hour news with the story.

I suppose I should be ticked, but I am strangely happy that the media is feeling it necessary to paint him as a kook, instead of ignoring him entirely.

Why else would this warrant a mention?

crazyfingers
05-16-2008, 01:17 PM
Andrew Malcolm is a troll of the highest order

acptulsa
05-16-2008, 01:27 PM
That string of responses has gotten pretty damned long since I threw my two bits of copper clad zinc in...

spudea
05-16-2008, 01:29 PM
I like this person that commented at radaronline


Mr. Curran,

You didn't do your homework. Did you read the text of the resolution? Contained within its sympathy framework, was a series of specific condemnations of the Burmese/Myanma military junta's domestic policies. The resolution was, therefore, neither symbolic, nor benign, but a latent foreign policy stance that could lead to later substantive--probably very expensive--actions by our government. The sports resolutions contained no latent possibilities of later action by the Congress. Ron Paul knows when to be serious, and when to simply cheer. Nice try, but you'll have to do better.

Athan
05-16-2008, 01:29 PM
Why the hell do I want MY tax payer money helping out Burma? Last I heard my country had a national debt IN THE DAMNED TRILLIONS!!!!

angelatc
05-16-2008, 01:34 PM
Why the hell do I want MY tax payer money helping out Burma? Last I heard my country had a national debt IN THE DAMNED TRILLIONS!!!!

It had no expenditures proposed. Paul's critics are conveying it as a simple measure of condolence, but the text contained some nasty slams at their current administration.

To quote the always charming LadyJade3, acting in her official capacity,
‘...the congressman objected to a sentence in the resolution calling on Burma’s ruling generals to postpone a scheduled referendum in order to concentrate their resources on disaster assistance. “It interferes with the internal affairs of another country,” Mills said. “It’s just none of our business.”

Also note that the vote had already happened 3 days prior to the passage of the resolution.

phixion
05-16-2008, 02:07 PM
Howcome he didnt' mind spending your money on congratulating those football teams? It seems inconsistent with his message..

"Come to find out that Paul has voted in favor of similar empty resolutions to congratulate the University of Kansas football team for a swell season and winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl, to laud the Louisiana State football team for, golly, winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series and to celebrate the New York Giants for their come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl XLII."

That's the only question I have.

Pete

tekkierich
05-16-2008, 02:10 PM
I also voted against this bill on my campaign website.

http://www.richardmatthews.org/vote/

crazyfingers
05-16-2008, 02:10 PM
Howcome he didnt' mind spending your money on congratulating those football teams? It seems inconsistent with his message..

"Come to find out that Paul has voted in favor of similar empty resolutions to congratulate the University of Kansas football team for a swell season and winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl, to laud the Louisiana State football team for, golly, winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series and to celebrate the New York Giants for their come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl XLII."

That's the only question I have.

Pete

Because that's not likely to lead to military interventionism?

acptulsa
05-16-2008, 02:14 PM
Because that's not likely to lead to military interventionism?

Thank you. I can't even remember the last time someone from Army or Navy made it into the NFL...

tekkierich
05-16-2008, 02:15 PM
Specifically mentioned in the bill is this:

Whereas the United States, through its Government, the Burma-American community, and its people as a whole, has already extended significant support to the people of Burma during this difficult time, including a $250,000 emergency contribution authorized by the United States Embassy in Burma to be released immediately, and $3,000,000 in additional aid relief announced on May 6, 2008, by the White House
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c1100uDww0::


That is why I voted against it.

phixion
05-16-2008, 02:18 PM
Because that's not likely to lead to military interventionism?

That is not the point. Paul says he doesn't like spending tax payers money friviliously, hence voting against using tax payers money to pay for a medal for Rosa Parks. That was the reason he cited.

I aren't talking about military intervention oversea's - I'm talking strictly about fiscal!

Please do not gloss over this - I want to understand why he voted in favour of spending tax payers money on congratulating football teams when it SEEMS to contradict his views.

I only want an answer.. to hear the justification of why he voted in favour of those.

Pete

crazyfingers
05-16-2008, 02:25 PM
That is not the point. Paul says he doesn't like spending tax payers money friviliously, hence voting against using tax payers money to pay for a medal for Rosa Parks. That was the reason he cited.

Pete

OK Well I'm not sure what bill you're referring to but I doubt a resolution congratulating some football teams cost the taxpayers any money. Maybe in the indirect sense that Congress was spending time on it and taxpayers pay the Congressional salaries. Personally I wish Congress would spend ALL of their time on meaningless resolutions like that and leave the people to handle their own affairs.

amy31416
05-16-2008, 02:26 PM
That is not the point. Paul says he doesn't like spending tax payers money friviliously, hence voting against using tax payers money to pay for a medal for Rosa Parks. That was the reason he cited.

I aren't talking about military intervention oversea's - I'm talking strictly about fiscal!

Please do not gloss over this - I want to understand why he voted in favour of spending tax payers money on congratulating football teams when it SEEMS to contradict his views.

I only want an answer.. to hear the justification of why he voted in favour of those.

Pete

I think the questions you ask are quite valid and I'd be interested in the explanation as well.

Rangeley
05-16-2008, 02:30 PM
The reason he voted against this was not because it offered condolences, he has voted for things that have offered condolences before in cases of terrorist attacks. The stated reason against this was specifically the last point:

Whereas Burma’s military regime did little to warn the people and is not providing adequate humanitarian assistance to address basic needs and prevent further loss of life;

Whereas despite the devastation, the military regime has announced plans to go ahead with its May 10, 2008, referendum on a sham constitution, delaying voting only in portions of the affected Irrawaddy region and Rangoon;

Whereas the military regime has failed to provide life-protecting and life-sustaining services to its people;

Whereas more than 30 disaster assessment teams from 18 different Nations and the United Nations have been denied permission to enter Burma by the junta;

Whereas the United States, through its Government, the Burma-American community, and its people as a whole, has already extended significant support to the people of Burma during this difficult time, including a $250,000 emergency contribution authorized by the United States Embassy in Burma to be released immediately, and $3,000,000 in additional aid relief announced on May 6, 2008, by the White House; and

Whereas a United States Agency for International Development disaster response team is positioned in neighboring Thailand: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) extends its condolences and sympathy to the people of Burma for the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by Cyclone Nargis;

(2) vows its full support of and solidarity with the people of Burma;

(3) calls on Americans to provide immediate emergency assistance to cyclone victims in Burma through humanitarian agencies;

(4) expresses confidence that the people of Burma will succeed in overcoming the hardships incurred because of this tragedy;

(5) calls for the Burmese military junta to consider the well-being of its people and accept broad international assistance; and

(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people.
This is interfering in the internal affairs of another nation. Its one thing to congratulate and send condolences, its another thing to demand a nation do something. If there were a resolution demanding the Giants re-sign their winning team from last year, it does not take much of a stretch of the mind to imagine he would vote against this too.

But people love to play the game where voting against a bill that contains multiple things means that the person rejects everything in the bill. Hotair.com (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/16/ron-paul-cant-bring-himself-to-vote-for-resolution-expressing-sympathy-for-burma/), for instance, is parroting essentially the same story. Its a form of condescending politics, and its nothing new.

spudea
05-16-2008, 02:55 PM
I only want an answer.. to hear the justification of why he voted in favour of those.

Pete

No money was appropriated in those other bills Pete. They were merely cheerleading votes.

phixion
05-16-2008, 02:57 PM
No money was appropriated in those other bills Pete. They were merely cheerleading votes.

Thanks, that cleared it up.

Pete

asgardshill
05-16-2008, 04:26 PM
Thank you. I can't even remember the last time someone from Army or Navy made it into the NFL...

The only two I can remember right offhand are Ronnie McAda (1997, Army) and Roger Staubach (1969, Navy). Of course, Pat Tillman played in the NFL too, but he was enlisted.

Yom
05-16-2008, 07:56 PM
The reason he voted against this was not because it offered condolences, he has voted for things that have offered condolences before in cases of terrorist attacks. The stated reason against this was specifically the last point:

This is interfering in the internal affairs of another nation. Its one thing to congratulate and send condolences, its another thing to demand a nation do something. If there were a resolution demanding the Giants re-sign their winning team from last year, it does not take much of a stretch of the mind to imagine he would vote against this too.

But people love to play the game where voting against a bill that contains multiple things means that the person rejects everything in the bill. Hotair.com (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/16/ron-paul-cant-bring-himself-to-vote-for-resolution-expressing-sympathy-for-burma/), for instance, is parroting essentially the same story. Its a form of condescending politics, and its nothing new.

Good eye, the reason he didn't vote for it is plain to see.

Knightskye
05-17-2008, 12:15 AM
Football teams don't equal military intervention. It does make sense why he voted against it. The only one in the house...

Dr. No! :D

Mongoose470
05-17-2008, 12:53 AM
Good, I hate the title of "compassionate conservative". Ron Paul's a hardass libertarian conservative.

Ron Paul is a very compassionate person. He did a lot of pro-bono work as a doctor. A conservative is the first person to give you a buck when you're down and out and the last to ask the government to do it for him. A liberal is the first to ask for the government to pick up the tab and the last to give you a buck out of their own pocket.

Ron Paul is also smart enough to know that government can screw up a cup of coffee.

Yeah look at how efficient our post Katrina aid was! We can't even run a smooth rescue and relief operation within our own freaking borders!

Kludge
05-17-2008, 01:02 AM
Ron Paul is a very compassionate person. He did a lot of pro-bono work as a doctor. A conservative is the first person to give you a buck when you're down and out and the last to ask the government to do it for him. A liberal is the first to ask for the government to pick up the tab and the last to give you a buck out of their own pocket.

Ron Paul is also smart enough to know that government can screw up a cup of coffee.

Yeah look at how efficient our post Katrina aid was! We can't even run a smooth rescue and relief operation within our own freaking borders!

GWB claims he is a compassionate conservative. George Bush is not libertarian, while RP is, meaning that RP is NOT exclusively conservative (libertarianism and conservatism are VERY different). Thus, I contend that Ron Paul should NOT be labeled a compassionate conservative if at all possible.

Here's a youtube video in which my favorite human being alive, John Stossel interviews my 2nd favorite human being alive, Ron Paul. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M) Ron appears so libertarian that he almost comes off as an anarchist by the end of the interview.

Mongoose470
05-17-2008, 01:22 AM
I understand your point about the term "compassionate conservative."

But to say Ron Paul is bereft of compassion is lunacy.

Mongoose470
05-17-2008, 01:31 AM
Furthermore Dubya is NOT conservative. He's a neo-conservative. On the fiscal side, it could be argued that he is liberal.

Ron Paul is a classical, constitutional conservative. Regarding compassion, he has compassion with intellectual understanding. He is definitely not an anarchist.

Anarchy cannot exist in a pure state anyway.

Kludge
05-17-2008, 02:15 AM
Dubya sold himself on being a "compassionate conservative" by problaiming himself as one wherever he went.

Ron is definately not an Anarchist. You can't be if you're a conservative, and I never said ron wasn't.


GWB claims he is a compassionate conservative. George Bush is not libertarian, while RP is, meaning that RP is NOT exclusively conservative (libertarianism and conservatism are VERY different).

Mongoose470
05-17-2008, 02:17 AM
Shrub definitely tried to sell himself on that point. Too bad he was neither.

satchelmcqueen
05-17-2008, 10:20 PM
In a time when we are loosing jobs, housing, and paying rising prices for everything at home and people in New Orleans STILL dont have their lives back, the last thing we need to do is send money to Myra mar or however you spell it. And plus, they dont even want our help to begin with. they hate us!!

Mongoose470
05-17-2008, 10:53 PM
In a time when we are loosing jobs, housing, and paying rising prices for everything at home and people in New Orleans STILL dont have their lives back, the last thing we need to do is send money to Myra mar or however you spell it. And plus, they dont even want our help to begin with. they hate us!!

Yep, all from the village idiots who gave you the Katrina relief effort!

Nirvikalpa
05-18-2008, 11:27 AM
This is truly sad and pathetic, considering some areas of New Orleans are still a mess and people are still without housing. Ridiculous.

amy31416
05-18-2008, 11:55 AM
This is truly sad and pathetic, considering some areas of New Orleans are still a mess and people are still without housing. Ridiculous.

This is a pic I took in Louisiana almost two years ago, it's of a restaurant that was mostly an outdoor deck type of place, just as the sun was setting on the gulf waters, there was so much destruction there yet. It was mind boggling:

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/Amy31415/IMAGE_183.jpg

Sorry it's small, it was taken with a cell phone.

qh4dotcom
05-18-2008, 12:11 PM
Just thought I'd post some comments left in that article that I really liked


Using tax payer money to pay military dictators in Burma, who keep aid from their people does not help anyone but the dictators.

Im not a christian, but as far as i know chairity comes from the heart and is somthing you choose to do.

It cannot be legislated

When you remove the choice from chairity, it becomes theft.



Let me explain: Dr Paul voted against the Burma resolution because he is sick and tired of the US interfering in other nations. He regularly votes against all resolutions that unnecessarily involve the United States in the internal affairs of other nations. It's called meddling in domestic politics. Obviously, Americans are so used to NOT minding their own business that they don't even think it's unusual anymore. He voted against the 1998 Iraq regime change resolution too.

It has nothing to do with 'caring' or not caring about the Burmese people. Obviously, it's easier to sell your principles and vote with the crowd in Washington, but fortunately Paul doesn't do that.


My fellow patriots have responded adequately I just felt the need to add a little bit. It is correct that Dr. Paul voted no because of the last part of the resoultion stating that we had the right to tell their government to forego a scheduled vote on a referendum. We have no right to tell another country how to run their government.
Secondly, what if China Saudi Arabia said that we are not doing enough for the Katrina victims and decided to pass a resolution saying we had to conduct our relief efforts according to their standards. And better yet, that we needed to cease all other activity by our government and concentrate on the Katrina victims. Is it a bad thing to help our own people- of course not- but can you imagine if any country tried to force us to do anything.
Lastly, these compansionate reps voted to spend taxpayers money not their own. It is a lot easier to spend other people's money.

devil21
05-18-2008, 04:12 PM
Allow me to translate the resolution into layman's terms:


"Whereas, the US is real sorry about that hurricane and we hope not too many more people die

Whereas, the US is committed to helping Burmese people as much as we possibly can

Whereas, your government sucks, your country is a shithole, and your Constitution is a sham

Whereas, you must change it all and let us build a military base on your land if you want any money from us."

There, thats more like it. Is it any wonder RP voted no??