House Vote to Condemn MoveOn Ad

[Mordechai Vanunu]

Which way did Ron Paul vote on this?

[LibertyOfOne]

He voted for it

[ctb619]

I was only aware of a Senate vote on this....you have a link?

[LibertyOfOne]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll910.xml

[OptionsTrader]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll910.xml

[OptionsTrader]

Raising the issue to a vote is stupid, but if you are forced to vote yea or nay, I don't see anything in Ron Paul's ideology that prevents him from voting yea on that idiotic roll call.

[Mordechai Vanunu]

Strange, I heard him say in an interview afterwards that this was all about political grandstanding...why did he take part in the vote?

[ctb619]

how about the text of H J Resolution 52?

[OptionsTrader]

how about the text of H J Resolution 52?

Not voted upon yet:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj110-52

[ctb619]

OK...maybe I'm missing something, but in the first link you provided, what is it exactly that Ron Paul voted 'Yea' on?

[OptionsTrader]

OK...maybe I'm missing something, but in the first link you provided, what is it exactly that Ron Paul voted 'Yea' on?

A useless toothless "you were a bad boy" name calling by the congress toward moveon.org.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Raising the issue to a vote is stupid, but if you are forced to vote yea or nay, I don't see anything in Ron Paul's ideology that prevents him from voting yea on that idiotic roll call.

well.. moveon.org is a private organization. I would have voted no

[Mordechai Vanunu]

OK...maybe I'm missing something, but in the first link you provided, what is it exactly that Ron Paul voted 'Yea' on?

I don't know, but I would also like clarification on everything in the bill...maybe there was more to it, or that is not the same bill...?

Doesn't make sense to me that RP would vote just to condemn an advertisement legally made by a private organization.

[ctb619]

sorry to keep bothering you, but do you happen to have a link to the text of the "condemnation"?

[OptionsTrader]

sorry to keep bothering you, but do you happen to have a link to the text of the "condemnation"?

Don't have a link to the verbiage of the bill, nor did I care enough about the non-issue to read the betray-us advertisement. I honestly could not care less about the whole thing. If Paul found the bill worthy of a yea I'm sure he has his reasons, but no funding was required to "condemn" the ad, so I don't care.

[Richandler]

I would much rather congress condemn adds then spend money.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I would much rather congress condemn adds then spend money.

they are spending money.. who do you think pays their electricity? who pays their salaries? What a waste. Democratic majority? lol apparently made no difference

[Lois]

I really would like to know why Ron Paul vote Yes on this. Isn't this a Free Speech issue. If anyone has any link to his voting Yes or an explanation on why he voted yes, please post it.

How does the Constitution fit into this?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I really would like to know why Ron Paul vote Yes on this. Isn't this a Free Speech issue. If anyone has any link to his voting Yes or an explanation on why he voted yes, please post it.

How does the Constitution fit into this?

maybe to save face? they would have bashed him allday for voting no

[austinphish]

this is Ron Paul minutiae. i am ok w/ you guys posting and threading about this, but IMO there are better things you can be doing. Just IMO, i am libertarian so do as you please.

[Ron Paul Fan]

This has nothing to do with free speech. It doesn't mean that moveon.org has to take down their ad. If that were the case, Paul would have voted against. It seems more like a personal feeling vote to me. You can have a personal feeling of condemnation for something someone says, and at the same time can support their right to say it. So maybe he personally felt that it was a bad ad, but that doesn't mean that he's against free speech. Get a hold of yourselves people.

[OptionsTrader]

And it isn't like he called the vote.

If there was a vote called by some other silly Congressman, asking for a vote of "Is Spinach flavor your favorite type of cookie?", and Ron Paul being a chocolate chip man, felt he wanted to press the Nay button, that is fine with me. Was it unnecessary for the other congressman to call this ludicrous action to vote? Yes. Was it a waste of time for the House to bother with this? Yes.

They asked him what his opinion was of Spinach cookies, and he told them, big deal, he likes Chocolate over Spinach.

[Sematary]

Strange, I heard him say in an interview afterwards that this was all about political grandstanding...why did he take part in the vote?

Maybe because the bill linked is this: Making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.

[Spanish for Ron]

This has nothing to do with free speech. It doesn't mean that moveon.org has to take down their ad. If that were the case, Paul would have voted against. It seems more like a personal feeling vote to me. You can have a personal feeling of condemnation for something someone says, and at the same time can support their right to say it. So maybe he personally felt that it was a bad ad, but that doesn't mean that he's against free speech. Get a hold of yourselves people.

Doesn't make sense to me. So the congress now votes which ads they like and which ones they don't?

[Sematary]

The bill linked at the beginning of this thread is an appropriations bil

[Phil M]

I suppose it was worth condemning, but all negative ads making personal attacks are. I can't believe that the United States Congress is voting on a bill about some ad than ran once in a newspaper weeks ago.

[Sematary]

I suppose it was worth condemning, but all negative ads making personal attacks are. I can't believe that the United States Congress is voting on a bill about some ad than ran once in a newspaper weeks ago.

Ya, I'm shocked.
Personally, I'd rather they waste their time on stupidity like this than actual bills. They cause far less damage that way. :D

[Ron Paul Fan]

Doesn't make sense to me. So the congress now votes which ads they like and which ones they don't?

I guess so. I'm not defending the vote itself, I think it's a complete waste of time. I was defending Congressman Paul's vote which has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. And the bill cited is correct. Here is some text of the Appropriations Bill, H.J. Res 52 where the ad is mentioned towards the bottom.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:2:./temp/~c110ifiyRZ:e16991:

[Sematary]

I guess so. I'm not defending the vote itself, I think it's a complete waste of time. I was defending Congressman Paul's vote which has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. And the bill cited is correct. Here is some text of the Appropriations Bill, H.J. Res 52 where the ad is mentioned towards the bottom.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:2:./temp/~c110ifiyRZ:e16991:

And THAT is why I hate tacking other stuff onto bills. He obviously felt a need to vote for the appropriations bill and the condemnation was obviously unimportant enough that he didn't bother fighting the bill for this stupidity.

[OptionsTrader]

Off topic, but if you want something worthy of condemnation, which Congressman Paul did condemn to the Fed Chairman's face and precious few politicians have the balls to condemn:

The obliteration of the value of my dollars in the bank (Chart of U.S. Dollar Index Futures):
http://i22.tinypic.com/14dk56g.jpg

[Man from La Mancha]

You better get into metals and bullets.

[apropos]

Why are my taxpayer dollars being used for this?

[OptionsTrader]

Why are my taxpayer dollars being used for this?

Why should I even be paying taxes? =)

[10thAmendmentMan]

I really would like to know why Ron Paul vote Yes on this. Isn't this a Free Speech issue. If anyone has any link to his voting Yes or an explanation on why he voted yes, please post it.

How does the Constitution fit into this?

You can still be for freedom of speech, but be against what the person is saying. For example, if a vagrant gets up on a soap box on the corner and starts yelling, "BURRITOS TASTE BAD! DON'T EAT BURRITOS!" I can disagree (since burritos are very tasty) but still support his free speech. It would only be an issue if the bill were designed to punish MoveOn somehow -- which it does not.


Why are my taxpayer dollars being used for this?

Just look through the daily business of the House and the votes they do. 95% of it is stuff like this. It's absolutely ridiculous. This is one of the reasons the Constitution says something like "Congress shall meet at least once a year..." The founders didn't expect them to be churning out legislation year round, because there just isn't supposed to be that much for them to legislate.