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.
6 comments:
It's great to see Dr. Douchebag up to his old tricks again.
There seems to be a major reduction in Paultards, but what they lack in quantity they make up in quality.
I should thank the Paultards for providing entertainment and making this election race bearable.
I should but I won't, because if I did, as usual, they'd miss the whole fucking point.
It's not that surprising, he's against anything that so much as acknowledges that there's something outside of the US.
//< Resolved, That the Senate--........
.....(7) both--
(A) calls on the United States Department of State to fully implement the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 6901 note), including the stipulation that the Secretary of State seek `to ESTABLISH AN OFFICE in Lhasa, Tibet , to MONITOR political, economic, and cultural developments in Tibet' , and also to PROVIDE consular protection and citizen services in emergencies; and
(B) urges that the agreement to permit China to open further diplomatic missions in the United States should be contingent upon the ESTABLISHMENT of a United States Government office in Lhasa, Tibet .> [Emphasis mine]
It sounds fine and dandy until you get to this part. I can understand why he wouldn't vote for a resolution "encouraging" our government to become less limited in the whole deal. Even if there are points to agree on in the resolution and it's not going to do much of anything, why should he support something he disagrees on?
I really don't think anyone is opposed to "encouraging" China to act more justly. I mean seriously, I don't know how anyone could believe that someone would oppose the resolution for that reason.//
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2465946428&topic=5237
Ever notice how when Ron Paul votes no or yes on something he should have,his supporters have to put words in ron paul's mouth.
//be contingent upon the ESTABLISHMENT of a United States Government office in Lhasa, Tibet .>//
how the hell is this so bad,what exactly will the offfice do,and i am sure the US has done this before.
"the Secretary of State seek `to ESTABLISH AN OFFICE in Lhasa, Tibet , to MONITOR political, economic, and cultural developments in Tibet"
...meaning an EMBASSY, which would mean we view Tibet as a distinct cultural entity from China, where the US State Dept. has an EMBASSY which provides a diplomatic representative who also monitors cultural, political, and economic developments and provides consular protection and citizen services. See? It's an EMBASSY, not a military base. Is L. Ron Paul now so isolationist that he's against the establishment of standard diplomatic offices?
Duh. Another case of Ron Paul failing to read.
How about the fact that it meddles in another nation's affairs? If say, Iowa wanted to leave the Union and the Fed said no and every country in the world said we ought to let Iowa exist on its own, should we listen and obey? Condemning Chiina is a form of meddling and even proposing these ridiculous bills is a huge waste of time. I think what China is doing is downright awful, but we cannot impose our morality on any other person. If we really feel strongly about it, let's start cutting our trade with China, but keep in mind, they own over $3trillion of our debt, so they kind of have us in a difficult place. Perhaps if we look at how this country should be ran, we could more easily pull this off. We are allying ourself with Tibet and our founding fathers had something to say about entangling alliances. This, no doubt, will come back to bite us. Why must the little children play with the hornets nest?
What did this bill actually do? Nothing. What is the best way to implement a policy with China? For individuals to refuse the products, which trickles to the companies creating allegiances with them. Also a presure put on companies by groups. Government did waste time doing this. It'd be great if we could rescue everyone of them, but the battle is not fought within the House. Paul was right.
Post a Comment