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.

4df1soW7Dho

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.

Try to stay on topic tom. I know you love calling calling people jerks but this is not about Burma.

In response to your statement:
NotPink - Statement on Burma, H Con Res 200 (http://www.notpink.com/RonPaul-SpeechesandStatements/Statement_on_Burma_H_Con_Res_200-1/)


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.

Good let him lead Canada. He's a jerk .

Off your meds?

No ;just saying that JFK would be considered a neo-con today...

That Ron Paul speech was in 2003 by the way .

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

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/afp/dv_to_getty_1899247_0.rp350x350.jpg

Tom's right, he's a jerk.

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 what's 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.

His second point is the unnecessary rhetoric. What does our offering relief and condolences have to do with his nonsensical comparison to internal politics in the 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.

Neither was Fred Thompson qualified. But his supporters have dried up and gone away; Ron Paul seems to have a lot of fervent believers in his ideas.

Ron Paul told the dirty truth in the video. Our government has been overthrown from the inside. It is like the cartoons we used to watch as children. The evil ruler that only wants to take over the world and pillage and plunder for their own gain. Any one that can't see that is the real jerk here.

Yeah that Jewish lobby again.

His explanation for his vote to me is logical.
And what's with all these resolutions anyway. Is that not a waste of parliamentary time or what. A resolution offering condolences? What the?

Here is some more waste of parlimentary time that Paul found it in his heart to support:

A resolutions to congratulate the University of Kansas football team for a swell season and winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl

A resolution to the Louisiana State football team for winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series

A resolution to congratulate the New York Giants for their come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl XLII.

He also voted for a resolution supporting the public display of the 10 Commandments in courts and government buildings . Not that I disagree ;but isn't his argument that these resolutions are empty gestures?

It was acceptable to give kudos to football teams but it was not in his heart to express sadness for the plight of the Burmese burdened by the combination of a natural disaster and a tyrannical government. Not only that ;he went out of his way to support the military tyranny under the guise of lame isolationism.

This is not new for him . In April he was the lone dissenting voice when Congress condemned the Chinese repression of Tibet.
House passes Chinese crackdown resolution - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/09/house.olympics/)

But back on topic, here is more information on neoconservatism that you may find interesting:
Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism)

POLITICS: What Is a Neo-Conservative Anyway? (http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19618)

Hoover Institution - Policy Review - Neoconservatives and the American Mainstream (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3438776.html)

Let's see ;former Democrats who got tired of the parties head in the sand defeatism . a ''liberal who was mugged by reality''. yeah that about describes it That would be me. But I'm not a Trotskyite .I'd say I was closer to Wilsonian because I do not see government control as the solution as the commies do.

Do I think Democracy should be promoted world wide... of course ;as well as free market capitalism being the best means to prosperity. So did JFK . I guess he was a neo-con too..

I do not think you will find any of the neo-cons who would argue for Marxism so the charge that they are a bunch of Trotskyites is a slander. The fact that the founders of the movement eventually rejected their socialist past is not proof that today's neo-cons are socialist.

Dodgie at best. It's hard to nail one right between the eyes since they are always moving.

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.

Skell, perhaps if the resolution (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-200) was targeting the U.S. instead he would have been happy to support it?

Here is some more waste of parlimentary time that Paul found it in his heart to support:

a resolutions to congratulate the University of Kansas football team for a swell season and winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl

a resolution to the Louisiana State football team for winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series

a resolution to congratulate the New York Giants for their come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl XLII.

He also voted for a resolution supporting the public display of the 10 Commandments in courts and government buildings . Not that I disagree ;but isn't his argument that these resolutions are empty gestures?

It was acceptable to give kudos to football teams but it was not in his heart to express sadness for the plight of the Burmese burdened by the combination of a natural disaster and a tyrannical government. Not only that ;he went out of his way to support the military tyranny under the guise of lame isolationism.
[/url]

You'd have to agree that resolutions such as these make a bit of a mockery of the whole darn thing don't they? What a waste of time and money! What a joke!

Neither was Fred Thompson qualified. But his supporters have dried up and gone away; Ron Paul seems to have a lot of fervent believers in his ideas.

They haven't "dried up and gone away," but they do realize the futility in supporting a candidate that's withdrawn from the race - unlike Paul's "fervent believers."

http://thejiveman.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/tinfoil-hat.jpg