CNN reports the following:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution Wednesday calling on China to end its crackdown on Tibet and release Tibetans imprisoned for "nonviolent" demonstrations.The Paultards have already sent their legions over to Digg in an attempt to white wash and spin doctor the incident. Right now, the best argument they seem to provide isn't the the bill was wrong, either in intent or in execution, but simply that it's a "waste of time," and vaguely, a "waste of tax dollars." Which is a pretty pathetic argument to begin with, and which sounds even more pathetic once you actually think about it. How exactly does voting "no" waste significantly less time than voting "yes"? You're still using the same amount of time, either way. So why not use your time to actually make the moral choice?
The vote was 413-1. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who has not dropped out of the presidential race, was the lone congressman voting against it.
The "waste of time" issue is also pretty hypocritical when you like at the things that Ron Paul actually has supported in the past. For instance, Ron Paul voted yes on H Con Res 31, which stated that "the public display of the Ten Commandments should be permitted in government offices and courthouses." That's not just a waste of time - it also undermines the establishment clause of the first amendment. Yet Ron Paul still supported it.
You may remember a few months ago, when the Paultards were insisting that Ron Paul couldn't possibly be a racist, because he cited Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi as his personal heroes, thanks to their stance on non-violence and civil disobedience. The recent Tibet vote would have been a great opprotunity for Ron Paul to show that he really means it.
If Gandhi were alive today, would Ron Paul be defending him? Would he condemn the British for their oppression of India? Or would he in the rest of the Paultard brigade insist that Gandhi wasn't worthy of their time? Of course, history has judged Gandhi and MLK Jr. to be in the right, so it's not only easy to defend those men today, but it's almost required if you want to be taken seriously. But most Paultards aren't old enough to have actually lived through, so they can't say how they would have reacted. It's amazing how Paultards are always the first to cry foul over their paranoid delusions of media censorship over their supposed "r[evol]ution", yet they can't even speak out in support of the Tibertan protesters without Ron Paul's say so.
This wasn't about economic sanctions or military action, it was about taking a moral stance. If the Paultards can't even go that far, then they have no right to lecture anyone else. Non-violent protest is great, as long as Ron Paul doesn't actually have to listen to or acknowledge it in any way, shape or form. But if Ron Paul won't listen to them, then why in the world should he expect for anyone to listen to him? The people in Tibet are taking real risks and are suffering real consequences. Meanwhile, Ron Paul is a rich old white man who likes to whine that he isn't even wealthier than he is already because he has to pay taxes. Hey Ron Paul, other people have problems too.