PDA

View Full Version : House votes 402-1 to honor Chinese dissident. Guess who voted no



Bleda
12-08-2010, 03:17 PM
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll612.xml

What a loon. Why does this guy keep getting elected? They must really love that pork there.

Articulate_Ape
12-08-2010, 03:58 PM
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll612.xml

What a loon. Why does this guy keep getting elected? They must really love that pork there.

What did this resolution accomplish, aside from costing money and time that is?

Bailey
12-08-2010, 03:59 PM
I bet the Chicoms are pissed off lol


That old prob-verb comes to my mind "when you owe the bank ten thousand dollars the bank owns you but when you owe the bank Trillions you own the bank"


So fuck china

Bleda
12-08-2010, 04:00 PM
Is that in defense of Paul, or just criticism of the resolution?

djones520
12-08-2010, 04:00 PM
What did this resolution accomplish, aside from costing money and time that is?

Rather they waste time passing pointless resolutions then cap and trade bills and crap like that.

Bailey
12-08-2010, 04:05 PM
Rather they waste time passing pointless resolutions then cap and trade bills and crap like that.

Yes keep them busy with this shit. :D

Bleda
12-08-2010, 04:22 PM
So, any Ronulans who want to defend Herr Doktor over this? I have little to no doubt in my mind what their arguments will be, but I'm anxious to start crushing them.

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 04:33 PM
I see it as a bunch of shat to be voting on symbolic legislation. Probably thinks it's a waste of time.

Symbolism over substance as Rush Limbaugh would say.

Voting on symbolic matters is the equivelant of singing Kumbaya for Congress critters.

Apache
12-08-2010, 04:40 PM
Rather they waste time passing pointless resolutions then cap and trade bills and crap like that.

I'd rather they stay home and stop wasting our money with crap like this...

Articulate_Ape
12-08-2010, 04:41 PM
Rather they waste time passing pointless resolutions then cap and trade bills and crap like that.

I'd rather they pass a binding resolution that states that all new spending bills from that day forward must have a five year sunset. If sunset clauses are good for tax cuts, they sure as hell ought to be good for spending.

lacarnut
12-08-2010, 04:41 PM
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll612.xml

What a loon. Why does this guy keep getting elected? They must really love that pork there.

Who gives a shit. Congress has more pressing problems than taking time to do stupid shit like this.

Articulate_Ape
12-08-2010, 04:43 PM
Is that in defense of Paul, or just criticism of the resolution?

I think that Paul was making the same point that I did, only he used his vote. It was nothing but fluff.

Bleda
12-08-2010, 04:51 PM
I think that Paul was making the same point that I did, only he used his vote. It was nothing but fluff.

Okay, that makes sense. I agree many honorific resolutions are pointless and a waste of time. But why did Paul vote Yes on other, much more pointless honorific measures? I thought Ron Paul was supposed to be consistent and principled?

fettpett
12-08-2010, 07:03 PM
I'm surprised the leftist had the balls to vote for this

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 07:33 PM
we should just make one thread titled:

House votes 402-1 to [proposed measure]. Guess who voted no

because this isn't that uncommon

Gingersnap
12-08-2010, 07:55 PM
Okay, that makes sense. I agree many honorific resolutions are pointless and a waste of time. But why did Paul vote Yes on other, much more pointless honorific measures? I thought Ron Paul was supposed to be consistent and principled?

I'm no cheerleader for Paul (although I am Libertarian) but how do you know he wasn't being consistent according to his own view of what is "pointless" and what isn't?

I sure don't know that.

Bleda
12-08-2010, 09:11 PM
I'm no cheerleader for Paul (although I am Libertarian) but how do you know he wasn't being consistent according to his own view of what is "pointless" and what isn't?

I sure don't know that.

Pray tell, what in his view would be a pointless resolution? If Ron Paul thinks resolutions congratulating football teams, “honoring and saluting golf legend Juan Antonio "Chi Chi" Rodriguez for his commitment to Latino youth programs of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute” and “concerning the Government of Romania’s ban on intercountry adoptions and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania” are good and not pointless or a waste of time and resources, but resolutions “expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes”, “congratulating imprisoned Chinese democracy advocate Liu Xiaobo on the award of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize” and “Expressing condolences and sympathy to the people of Burma for the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by Cyclone Nargis” are bad, pointless and a waste of time and resources, then yes, he is consistent. Consistently nutty, that is, with no room in the US government.

The problem isn't just with pointlessness. It's about his “non-interventionist” schtick. Funny how he has no problem intervening in some countries' business, but not others.

By the way, why did he vote Yes on a resolution condemning terrorist attacks in Egypt, but No on a resolution condemning terrorist attacks in Israel (AKA the Jewish State)? Never mind, I think we know why. ;)

Gingersnap
12-08-2010, 09:26 PM
Pray tell, what in his view would be a pointless resolution?

Honestly, I couldn't tell you. I said that.


The problem isn't just with pointlessness. It's about his “non-interventionist” schtick. Funny how he has no problem intervening in some countries' business, but not others.

That a big topic and probably deserves its own thread. Maybe you could start that thread in Politics or GD.


By the way, why did he vote Yes on a resolution condemning terrorist attacks in Egypt, but No on a resolution condemning terrorist attacks in Israel (AKA the Jewish State)? Never mind, I think we know why. ;)

You think you know why, that's pretty clear. ;)

Bleda
12-08-2010, 09:33 PM
Honestly, I couldn't tell you. I said that.

I guess that question was more directed at Paul-supporters, not you specifically.


That a big topic and probably deserves its own thread. Maybe you could start that thread in Politics or GD.

Yes, well, maybe if a Paul-supporter is willing to defend Paul on this, you could move the thread to GD. :)


You think you know why, that's pretty clear. ;)

I believe they call it an 'educated guess.' I'm no mind-reader after all. ;)

Gingersnap
12-08-2010, 10:55 PM
Yes, well, maybe if a Paul-supporter is willing to defend Paul on this, you could move the thread to GD. :)

I don't want to derail the OP discussion. I'm sure if you start a new thread, they will come.

Odysseus
12-09-2010, 10:12 AM
I wouldn't call it a meaningless gesture. The support that the Soviet dissidents got made their plight much better. The Soviets knew that we were watching them and it limited the things that they could do to them. It also encouraged them to fight the system. Had we done this during the Iranian uprising last year, we could have significantly altered events there to our advantage. A congressional resolution that supports or condemns the actions of another nation encourages our allies and attacks our enemies. China will retaliate, I'm sure, but their dissidents will be heartened and they will act more boldly to defy their masters.

In fact, this kind of vote, which costs us nothing, but serves to put tyrants on notice, is exactly the kind of diplomacy that foreign despots respond to, because it embarasses them and exposes their misdeeds. Not only would Reagan have approved, but I think that the founders would have, as well, which is why Ron Paul's opposition is so maddening.

m00
12-09-2010, 09:44 PM
So, any Ronulans who want to defend Herr Doktor over this? I have little to no doubt in my mind what their arguments will be, but I'm anxious to start crushing them.

What business does Congress have spending our tax dollars (and it costs f money to keep Congress "open") on stuff like this?

Bleda
12-10-2010, 02:07 PM
What business does Congress have spending our tax dollars (and it costs f money to keep Congress "open") on stuff like this?

Don't know, but Odysseus makes a good case for it above. I don't see how this excuses Paul's No vote, since he voted Yes on other, useless resolutions, such as ones congratulating football teams.

Odysseus
12-11-2010, 01:50 AM
What business does Congress have spending our tax dollars (and it costs f money to keep Congress "open") on stuff like this?
"It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn."


George Washington, letter to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, September 5, 1789

"It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."


George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796



Don't know, but Odysseus makes a good case for it above. I don't see how this excuses Paul's No vote, since he voted Yes on other, useless resolutions, such as ones congratulating football teams.

Thanks. Ron Paul strikes me as someone who is more concerned with making a statement about an issue than he is with the issue. In this case, had he voted with the majority, he would have been one of 403, but by his dissent, he commands our attention. That is his agenda.