Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Bleda View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Ape Articulate_Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NJ, Exit Only
    Posts
    7,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Bleda View Post
    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.
    "The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Bleda
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Articulate_Ape View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    I'm surprised the leftist had the balls to vote for this
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    we should just make one thread titled:

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

    because this isn't that uncommon
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bleda View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Bleda
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    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. ;)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bleda View Post
    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. ;)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Bleda
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    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. ;)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bleda View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •