Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help!
  Advanced
Register  |  Log in  
   Ask    
 Answer  
  Help  

Ask QuestionsprogressAnswer QuestionsprogressBuild ReputationprogressBecome an Expert
 
Free Answers in 3 Easy Steps

Register Now
3 Steps

At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to:
  • Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics.
  • Accept money for answers that you provide.
  • Communicate privately with other members (PM).
  • See fewer ads.

Home > Forum Community > Member Discussions > Current Events   »   Ron Paul publicly names neoconservatives

 
Question Tools Search this Question Display Modes
Question
 
 
#1  
Old May 15, 2008, 03:48 AM
NeedKarma's Avatar
NeedKarma
Ultra Member
NeedKarma is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,790
NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Ron Paul publicly names neoconservatives

This man has courage. The U.S. needs a guy like him to clean house. A great mixture of history lesson and wake-up call.


Reply With Quote
 
     

Answers
 
 
Old May 15, 2008, 04:10 AM   #2  
tomder55
Ultra Member
tomder55 is offline
 
tomder55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,520
tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Ron Pauls attempt to undermine the Republican Convention is being under-reported in the MSM .

BTW another thing that has not been reported is that in all of Congress ;Paul was the only dissenting vote in a resolution offering condolences for the people of Burma. He is a jerk.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old May 15, 2008, 04:20 AM   #3  
NeedKarma
Ultra Member
NeedKarma is offline
 
NeedKarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,790
NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Try to stay on topic tom. I know you love calling calling people jerks but this is not about Burma.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old May 15, 2008, 04:25 AM   #4  
NeedKarma
Ultra Member
NeedKarma is offline
 
NeedKarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,790
NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
In response to your statement:
NotPink - Statement on Burma, H Con Res 200
Quote:
Statement on Burma, H Con Res 200

October 2, 2007

Madame Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation not because I do not sympathize with the plight of the oppressed people of Burma , particularly as demonstrated by the continued confinement of Aung San Suu Kyi. Any time a government represses its citizenry it is reprehensible. My objection to this legislation is twofold. First, the legislation calls on the United Nations Security Council to “take appropriate action” with regard to Burma and its internal conditions. This sounds like an open door for an outside military intervention under the auspices of the United Nations, which is something I do not support.

More importantly, perhaps, I am concerned that while going around the world criticizing admittedly abhorrent governmental actions abroad we are ignoring the very dangerous erosions of our own civil liberties and way of life at home. Certainly it is objectionable that the Burmese government holds its own citizens in jails without trial. But what about the secret prisons that our own CIA operates around the globe that hold thousands of individuals indefinitely and without trial? Certainly it is objectionable that the government of Burma can declare Aung San Suu Kyi a political prisoner to be held in confinement. But what about the power that Congress has given the president to declare anyone around the world, including American citizens, “enemy combatants” subject to indefinite detention without trial? What about the “military commissions act” that may well subject Americans to military trial with secret evidence permitted and habeas corpus suspended?

So while I am by no means unsympathetic to the current situation in Burma , as an elected Member of the United States House of Representatives I strongly believe that we would do better to promote freedom around the world by paying better attention to our rapidly eroding freedom here at home. I urge my colleagues to consider their priorities more closely and to consider the much more effective approach of leading by example.

I love this guy.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old May 15, 2008, 04:29 AM   #5  
tomder55
Ultra Member
tomder55 is offline
 
tomder55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,520
tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
good let him lead Canada. He's a jerk .
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old May 15, 2008, 04:33 AM   #6  
NeedKarma
Ultra Member
NeedKarma is offline
 
NeedKarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,790
NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Off your meds?
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old May 15, 2008, 07:33 AM   #7  
tomder55
Ultra Member
tomder55 is offline
 
tomder55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,520
tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
no ;just saying that JFK would be considered a neo-con today....

That Ron Paul speech was in 2003 btw .
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old May 15, 2008, 07:49 AM   #8  
speechlesstx
Ultra Member
speechlesstx is online now
 
speechlesstx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Amarillo, TX
Posts: 1,044
speechlesstx See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.speechlesstx See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.speechlesstx See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
So while I am by no means unsympathetic to the current situation in Burma , as an elected Member of the United States House of Representatives I strongly believe that we would do better to promote freedom around the world by paying better attention to our rapidly eroding freedom here at home. I urge my colleagues to consider their priorities more closely and to consider the much more effective approach of leading by example.

Yeah, having an "I feel your pain" moment while making asinine comparisons and criticism of the U.S. will help the multitudes of dead, dying, starving, homeless and oppressed Burmese people...like this child with one shoe amidst the ruins



tom's right, he's a jerk.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old May 15, 2008, 03:53 PM   #9  
Skell
Ultra Member
Skell is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,927
Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Skell See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
I think he makes a lot of sense with comments re Burma and the US. Given his policital beliefs it would be somewhat contradictory of him to support this resolution. His explanation for his vote to me is logical.
And whats with all these resolutions anyway. Is that not a waste of parliamentary time or what. A resolution offering condolences?? What the?? Im sure that means a lot to the kid with one shoe. But before you jump down my throat, yes i do know that the US has contributed aid. Im not saying they have done nothing. But a resolution offering condolences offer little more help than does Paul's speech. Just get on with the help and spare the rhetoric.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old May 15, 2008, 04:32 PM   #10  
tomder55
Ultra Member
tomder55 is offline
 
tomder55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,520
tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.tomder55 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
his second point is the unnecessary rhetoric. What does our offering relief and condolences have to do with his nonsensical comparison to internal politics inthe US ? If he sees a moral equivalence between the US and the Burmese junta than he is dillusional and in no way qualified to be President.
  Reply With Quote
 
     


Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

 
Similar Sponsors

Similar Questions
Question Asker Topic Answers Last Post
How about that Ron Paul? Greg Quinn Current Events 3 Feb 27, 2008 06:36 AM
commercial names to botanical names jbg20072 Botany 0 Dec 6, 2007 05:36 AM
Ron Paul for President? What? Duckling Politics 25 Nov 14, 2007 09:08 AM
Ron Paul tomder55 Politics 14 Nov 7, 2007 08:18 AM
Paul are Oldsoapy2 oldsoapy2 Other Money & Services 0 Jul 18, 2005 09:57 PM




Copyright ©2003 - 2007, Ask Me Help Desk.
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:53 AM.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.