Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

House Vote 405-1 (Ron Paul)

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 11:38:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Bipartisan resolution on Iran passes House 405-1
http://www.politico.com...

Ron Paul Is Sole Dissenter From Resolution Supporting Iranian Protests
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...

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.

---Comments?

I agree with Ron Paul on this one.
Brock_Meyer
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 12:12:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ron Paul wrote:
I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas.

That's the key point. The United States federal government's feelings about what is happening in other countries should be as irrelevant as mine or yours.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2009 9:27:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't think that the government should take a side, even though the protesters ARE right.

We can only hope that the protestors win in the end.

We should only really interfere if not doing so is an immediate threat to our safety.

And it is shocking that Ron Paul is the only one that would stand up to this.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2009 11:55:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's a sad situation when you know one side is right and you have the capacity to help but cannot.

I mean, you can't exactly invade a country with near a million troops with 2/3 or more countries backing it. Take into account North Korean problems and it's not even a situation to consider.

No doubt some guns "fell" of the back of some trucks heading to American bases in Iraq and "blew" themselves to Iranian revolutionaries.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2009 2:16:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/27/2009 9:27:57 AM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't think that the government should take a side, even though the protesters ARE right.
---How do you know the protestors are right? Do you have special knowledge gained from Twitter?
We can only hope that the protestors win in the end.
---I do not care who wins. Mousavi would not be that much different than Ahmadinejad. I slightly favor Mousavi though.
We should only really interfere if not doing so is an immediate threat to our safety.
---How could it possibly be a threat to U.S. safety?
And it is shocking that Ron Paul is the only one that would stand up to this.
---I'm not really suprised Ron Paul is the only one who voted against this.

At 6/27/2009 11:55:59 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
It's a sad situation when you know one side is right and you have the capacity to help but cannot.
---Once again, how do you know the protestors are right? The minimal knowledge we have gained about the situation is from Twitter.
I mean, you can't exactly invade a country with near a million troops with 2/3 or more countries backing it. Take into account North Korean problems and it's not even a situation to consider.
---There is no way we will invade Iran. 99.9% sure of that.
No doubt some guns "fell" of the back of some trucks heading to American bases in Iraq and "blew" themselves to Iranian revolutionaries.
---The Iranian revolutionaries aren't using guns... I don't know what you're talking about here.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2009 8:03:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You misinterpreted my statement as some sort of rebuttal.

At 6/28/2009 2:16:22 PM, Nags wrote:
At 6/27/2009 9:27:57 AM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't think that the government should take a side, even though the protesters ARE right.
---How do you know the protestors are right? Do you have special knowledge gained from Twitter?

Inductive logic. They're doing everything possible to cover it up. It was a bogus election.

We can only hope that the protestors win in the end.
---I do not care who wins. Mousavi would not be that much different than Ahmadinejad. I slightly favor Mousavi though.

I don't care for the result. I just prefer that democracy prevails over tyrany.

We should only really interfere if not doing so is an immediate threat to our safety.
---How could it possibly be a threat to U.S. safety?

I didn't say it would be. I was saying that because it wasn't, we shouldn't get involved (see first statement on last post).

And it is shocking that Ron Paul is the only one that would stand up to this.
---I'm not really suprised Ron Paul is the only one who voted against this.

Ron Paul is the most likely person to actually take a stand for his beliefs, apparently. It is a sad reflection on congress that no one else would think outside of this 405-block.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 6:49:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I agree with Ron Paul on this one.

And FDR's opponents who railed against getting Yankee soldiers embroiled in another damned overseas war.

Silence is acceptance. Refuse to speak on oppression and you accept oppression.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 9:18:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 6:49:19 PM, PervRat wrote:
I agree with Ron Paul on this one.

And FDR's opponents who railed against getting Yankee soldiers embroiled in another damned overseas war.
-Yes, I do agree with them. If Japan never bombed Pearl Harbor, if I was Prez, I would probably have never got involved in WWII.
-Even if I did not agree with them... Phony elections are far different than mass genocide.
Silence is acceptance. Refuse to speak on oppression and you accept oppression.
-There is no need to get involved in another country's domestic affairs.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 8:13:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Paul was also one of only 8 Congressmen, 6 of whom were theists, with Paul being the only Republican, to vote against http://clerk.house.gov..., a bill that would instruct the Architect of the Capitol to engrave both "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegience (as modified during the Red Scared to include "under God") in the Visitor Center. Even one of the 3 (I believe there are only 3) Congressional non-theists voted for it (Johnson, D-GA).
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 10:02:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 8:13:01 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Paul was also one of only 8 Congressmen, 6 of whom were theists, with Paul being the only Republican, to vote against http://clerk.house.gov..., a bill that would instruct the Architect of the Capitol to engrave both "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegience (as modified during the Red Scared to include "under God") in the Visitor Center. Even one of the 3 (I believe there are only 3) Congressional non-theists voted for it (Johnson, D-GA).

Why would a non-theist do that? For traditional or aesthetics? Did Johnson ever give a reason why he voted for it?
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 11:42:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 10:02:00 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/29/2009 8:13:01 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Paul was also one of only 8 Congressmen, 6 of whom were theists, with Paul being the only Republican, to vote against http://clerk.house.gov..., a bill that would instruct the Architect of the Capitol to engrave both "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegience (as modified during the Red Scared to include "under God") in the Visitor Center. Even one of the 3 (I believe there are only 3) Congressional non-theists voted for it (Johnson, D-GA).

Why would a non-theist do that? For traditional or aesthetics? Did Johnson ever give a reason why he voted for it?

Not that I know of. It could have been part of a bargain by which conservatives would vote for an engravement acknowledging that slave labor built the capital. (Only one Representative dissented from that vote, a Republican who felt they shouldn't have to bargain in order to get "In God We Trust".) Then again, Johnson's district, in addition to being majority black, is majority Christian, so he had electoral reasons to vote for both bills.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
ilovgoogle
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2009 9:28:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
" 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."
Bullsh*t, Jefferson wanted to be involved in the French revolution as did much of the country at the time. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't the helping hand the French gave us during the revolution. In fact I would argue we have a moral obligation to help the Iranians overthrow their government.
ZT
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2009 8:05:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 11:38:17 AM, Nags wrote:
Bipartisan resolution on Iran passes House 405-1
http://www.politico.com...

Ron Paul Is Sole Dissenter From Resolution Supporting Iranian Protests
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...

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.

---Comments?

I agree with Ron Paul on this one.

I might agree, if we weren't already heavily involved with Iran, which is agressivly countering our interests. Until the current regime stop threatening the stability of Iraq, threatening to wipe countries off the face of the earth, and funding terrorist organizations, we're already involved and it's counter-productive to pretend otherwise.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 2:41:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/21/2009 9:28:00 PM, ilovgoogle wrote:
" 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."
Bullsh*t, Jefferson wanted to be involved in the French revolution as did much of the country at the time. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't the helping hand the French gave us during the revolution. In fact I would argue we have a moral obligation to help the Iranians overthrow their government.

...and many other governments, far more unpopular than the Iranian one, that the U.S. supports. The problem is that the U.S. never simply overthrows governments. It tends to destroy countries in the process, and, when even more successful, instutute replacement goverenments with little regard for the will and welfare of subjects. I don't much admire paleo-conservative isolatonism, but I consider it far superior to the arrogant brand of "internationalism" espoused by liberals and neo-conservatives. Added to which, both the French and the American revolution overthrew monarchies, not disputed elections. I don't think Americans would enjoy bombs dropped on Washington and New York on the basis of the malodorous 2000 Bush election.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 1:06:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/21/2009 9:28:00 PM, ilovgoogle wrote:
" 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."
Bullsh*t, Jefferson wanted to be involved in the French revolution as did much of the country at the time. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't the helping hand the French gave us during the revolution. In fact I would argue we have a moral obligation to help the Iranians overthrow their government.

This moral obligation spreads to dissenters in any oligarchy. Therefore, the U.S should invade China.

Yeaaaaahhhhhh............................................
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.