georgia_tech_swagger
Res publica non dominetur
Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC
|
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
GGniner Wrote:Yes votes by Ron Paul, hypocrite-Texas
Quote:Some resolutions from the 2nd session of the 109th Congress:
H RES 578, “Concerning the Government of Romania�s ban on intercountry adoptions and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania.”
H RES 736, “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that legal action in Afghanistan against citizens who have already converted or plan to convert to other religions is deplorable and unjust.”
H RES 795, “Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006.”
H RES 642, “Expressing sympathy and support for the people and governments of the countries of Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico which have suffered from Hurricanes Felix, Dean, and Henriette and whose complete economic and fatality toll are still unknown?”
H RES 233, “Recognizing over 200 years of sovereignity of the Principality of Liechtenstein, and expressing support for efforts by the United States continue to strengthen its relationship with that country?”
Why did Paul vote in favor of those if he thinks criticizing foreign governments is under the aegis of State?
Show me the full bill. Depends on if the bill is simply a statement, or if the bill proposes aid, sanctions, etc etc. If it's just a statement, I could see a Yes vote, because it's totally meaningless. It's just a shallow circle jerk by Congress.
Quote:Interesting No Vote:
Quote:H RES 861, “Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.”
H RES 921, “Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel�s right to defend itself, and for other purposes.”
While we are on the Topic of Constitutionality, where does congress get the authority to tell the Commander in Chief the number of troops he's allowed to use? Paul voted with his Leftist friends on this Quote:H CON RES 63, “Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”
Paul votes for Notoriety, not principle. The last thing he wants is the mainstream to take him seriously because he would get torn to shreds in the mainstream by the press and opponents.
[/quote]
First, Israel is not the 51st state. I know that's hard for neocons like yourself to grasp, but it's true. Our constant meddling with Israel is to our direct detriment fiscally and safety wise.
Secondly, Paul opposes the whole "global war on terror" propaganda nonsense, because it has come with tremendous losses at home of civil liberties, fiscal responsibility, etc. Guns and butter, as usual. There's a difference between going after those responsible for 9/11, and hunting them all down, and using the deliberately vague "war on terrorism" to drum up support for totally unrelated wars. Recall ... 0 hijackers came from Iraq. 0 weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. The CIA and NIE report have said several times that al Qeada (sp?) was pretty much non-existant in Iraq until we showed up. The evilness of Saddam didn't make Congress sleep poorly at night when they were financing him, and giving him weapons (even nerve gas!). So explain to me again why we invaded Iraq? And then explain to me why one should support deliberately vague and non-defining resolutions on "terrorism" when they are used to promote such things as Iraq?
|
|