"Ron Paul Is Sole Dissenter From Resolution Supporting Iranian Protests"

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ron Paul's voice is A voice, not THE voice.

As A voice, it is refreshing to hear his pro-capitalism and pro-constitution statements. As THE voice, his foreign policy scares the bejeezus out of me.

His lack of common sense at times does not annul the good he has done in the cause for freedom and free markets.

Just don't let him ever direct our military and fight against our enemies.

Despite the calm veneer, look at how Iran's leaders are exploding the country right now with fraud and violence, especially the hardline government's vicous attacks on its citizens. Look at the brutality. Does anyone doubt they would do these things against other countries if they ever got nuclear power? Ron Paul, for one, apparently doesn't think they would.

In my view, Ron Paul is right where he belongs, as a MEMBER of Congress, not as a LEADER.

Michael

Michael,

On the other hand it looks as if you are confident in Obama in the realm of foreign policy compared to Ron Paul's noninterventionist policy and his adherence to the Constitution when it comes to declaring war.

Something tells me that given Obama's domestic agenda in which his way out of a bankrupt country is to spend even more and to more than double the money supply, that you would rather see Ron Paul as President.

Not to mention all the other power grabs Obama is up to at the Federal Reserve, energy and health and who knows what else is "on his plate." Ron Paul happens to be correct in all those areas you all will no doubt agree.

HR1207 the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 now has 237 cosponsors on its way to being veto proof thanks in part to the efforts of the growing campaign for liberty members who simply write and petition their congressmen and continue to do so.

If Ron Paul policy of nonintervention had been in place in 1953 Iran would have been spared the dictatorship of the Shah, Saddam Hussein would never have been in power in Iraq, we would not have 826 plus military bases and troops in over 130 countries around the world and as a consequence the World Trade Towers would still be standing.

Michael aren't you terrified by the domestic actions of our Leader, Obama?

www.campaignforliberty.com 21 Jun 6AM 163,127

gulch

Gulch; You don't get it. You posted Ron Paul's vote against the resolution indicating to me that you agree with him. On this issue Ron Paul is a piece of S_. He should be ashamed and so should you. These comments will mean nothing to you. Death to Mullahs!

Chris,

You're right. He doesn't get it. The Neville Chamberlains of the libertarian movement are alive and well. It was worth it for the British to resist the Nazis even if it meant loss of empire, socialist rule and a lousy economy. In this case, all that was required was some simple humanity, to look at the plight of the dissidents and the oppressed in Iran and express solidarity with them.

Jim

[BaalChatzaf]

The circumstances of her murder and the supposed lack of reaction of numerous neighbors were reported by a newspaper article published two weeks later; the common portrayal of neighbors being fully aware, but completely nonresponsive has later been criticized as inaccurate. Nonetheless, it prompted investigation into the social psychological phenomenon that has become known as the bystander effect (seldom: "Genovese syndrome")[4] and especially diffusion of responsibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

This was within 5 miles of where I lived and rocked the city.

Adam

I am the sworn enemy of "the bystander effect". When I see an emergency situation I am on the phone to the authorities to get a competent official/agent on it PDQ. I do not care if I am the first, the fiftieth or the hundredth to make the call. I assume, a priori, that if I don't make the call, then the call will not be made. Sometimes I am right about that, and sometimes I am wrong. It is better to be redundant than silent. If not now, then when? If not me, then who?

Notice, I said I make the call to police, fire department or emergency squad. I am not about to go into a burning building myself, since I have neither the training nor the courage. He who is silent in an emergency for fear of looking foolish is not only a coward, but a harmful coward. One of the purposes of society is render aid to individuals in emergencies. That is why we live communally and not atomically. Silence is not golden. It is poison. And there is the matter of karma. If in silence ye live, then in silence ye shall surely die. As ye do, so it shall be done to you.

In an emergency I do want to get "involved".

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 21, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[DavidMcK]

1. Ted is correct in post # 12 that this is an expression of support, not money or troops sent in support so it is appropriate. Everyone else is wrong with the rest.

2. Notice that people are expressing the idea that if you aren't willing to attack you aren't willing to defend..as though the concept of neutrality wasn't capable of being grasped.

3. A non-interventionist policy (with a commitment to self-defense a la Switzerland) is the pure expression of Objectivist principles to foreign policy, including the idea of rational self-interest applied to foreign relations, the idea that the government creates consequences that are the exact opposite of their intended effect, collectivism vs. individualism, as well as the idea that 'war is the health of the state'.

4. The nuclear weapons that we are threatened with came from an interventionist policy, namely the Reagan administration allowed Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons as part of their cold war against the Soviet Union, and nuclear weapons technology went from Pakistan to Iran and N. Korea. The Reagan administration could have stopped nuclear weapons in a country that is 95% Muslim, and the Bush administration could have contained the Al Qaeda and the Taliban to Afghanistan and wiped out the problem but instead thought intervening in Iraq was a higher priority. Pushing the problem from Afghanistan to Pakistan was a disaster, and it shows what happen when you don't have a foreign policy, you just believe that if they have a turban on their head : 'fire!'.

Edited June 21, 2009 by DavidMcK

[ginny]

Ba'al, your post should be framed. Beautiful and spot-on.

Ginny

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al; Thanks for the correction. I meant Kitty Genovese.

Not my correction. I did not catch the error either. It was the Kitty that misled me. Some Kitty-s do not have nine lives.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[galtgulch]

Ron Paul's voice is A voice, not THE voice.

As A voice, it is refreshing to hear his pro-capitalism and pro-constitution statements. As THE voice, his foreign policy scares the bejeezus out of me.

His lack of common sense at times does not annul the good he has done in the cause for freedom and free markets.

Just don't let him ever direct our military and fight against our enemies.

Despite the calm veneer, look at how Iran's leaders are exploding the country right now with fraud and violence, especially the hardline government's vicous attacks on its citizens. Look at the brutality. Does anyone doubt they would do these things against other countries if they ever got nuclear power? Ron Paul, for one, apparently doesn't think they would.

In my view, Ron Paul is right where he belongs, as a MEMBER of Congress, not as a LEADER.

Michael

Michael,

On the other hand it looks as if you are confident in Obama in the realm of foreign policy compared to Ron Paul's noninterventionist policy and his adherence to the Constitution when it comes to declaring war.

Something tells me that given Obama's domestic agenda in which his way out of a bankrupt country is to spend even more and to more than double the money supply, that you would rather see Ron Paul as President.

Not to mention all the other power grabs Obama is up to at the Federal Reserve, energy and health and who knows what else is "on his plate." Ron Paul happens to be correct in all those areas you all will no doubt agree.

HR1207 the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 now has 237 cosponsors on its way to being veto proof thanks in part to the efforts of the growing campaign for liberty members who simply write and petition their congressmen and continue to do so.

If Ron Paul policy of nonintervention had been in place in 1953 Iran would have been spared the dictatorship of the Shah, Saddam Hussein would never have been in power in Iraq, we would not have 826 plus military bases and troops in over 130 countries around the world and as a consequence the World Trade Towers would still be standing.

Michael aren't you terrified by the domestic actions of our Leader, Obama?

www.campaignforliberty.com 21 Jun 6AM 163,127

gulch

Gulch; You don't get it. You posted Ron Paul's vote against the resolution indicating to me that you agree with him. On this issue Ron Paul is a piece of S_. He should be ashamed and so should you. These comments will mean nothing to you. Death to Mullahs!

Chris,

You're right. He doesn't get it. The Neville Chamberlains of the libertarian movement are alive and well. It was worth it for the British to resist the Nazis even if it meant loss of empire, socialist rule and a lousy economy. In this case, all that was required was some simple humanity, to look at the plight of the dissidents and the oppressed in Iran and express solidarity with them.

Jim

Et al,

I have said before that the mere fact that I post something Ron Paul said, and I do not post it all as there are many opportunities for Ron Paul to speak out these days, does not mean that I agree with him. He said himself that he was reluctant to oppose the resolution because he sympathizes with the protesters. As it turns out I agree with all of you on this and think he should have voted for it.

Still it is not clear at all that the protesters want what we would want them to want. I know it is tempting to assume that they are opposed to a theocracy and a tyrannical dictatorship and that may be true of many or most of them. Still the man they supported and voted for is also part of the same establishment and the "supreme leader" would still be calling the shots.

As time goes by the older clerics will die off and most of the younger generation there might be westernized but the gang in power behind the scenes will find plenty of fanatics to take their place. Meanwhile we will buy oil from Saudi Arabia and they will fund the madrasses where the children will be indoctrinated and America will be demonized.

www.campaignforliberty.com 21Jun 1PM 163,262, 2PM 163,301

gulch

Edited June 21, 2009 by galtgulch

[BaalChatzaf]

Is Ron Paul channeling Neville Chamberlain?

When FDR called for a declaration of war against Japan, there was one dissenting vote in Congress. Was that Ron Paul or his Spirit Guide?

There is something more important than Liberty. And that is killing our enemies.

Revenge first, then later liberty -- maybe. That is what Ron Paul does not get.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Campbell]

As soon as I heard that the House resolution on the events on Iran had passed with one vote against, I knew who had cast that vote.

Sorry, I'm not with Ron Paul on this one.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Is Ron Paul channeling Neville Chamberlain?

When FDR called for a declaration of war against Japan, there was one dissenting vote in Congress. Was that Ron Paul or his Spirit Guide?

There is something more important than Liberty. And that is killing our enemies.

Revenge first, then later liberty -- maybe. That is what Ron Paul does not get.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Thanks Ba'al:

I did not know that there was one negative vote and it is no surprise that the budding progressive pacifist voted against WW I also.

"December 8, 1941

Jeanette Rankin casts sole vote against WWII

On this day, Montanan Jeanette Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress and a dedicated lifelong pacifist, casts the sole Congressional vote against the U.S. declaration of war on Japan. She was the only member of Congress to vote against U.S. involvement in both World Wars, having been among those who voted against American entry into World War I nearly a quarter of a century earlier.

Rankin was a committed pacifist, and she cared little about the damage her beliefs caused her political career. Although some male representatives joined her in voting against World War I in 1917, many citizens saw her vote as evidence that a woman could not handle the difficult burdens of national leadership. Perhaps as a result, Montanans voted her out of office two years later. Ironically, Rankin won re-election to the House in 1940, just in time to face another vote on war.

While her commitment to pacifism was politically harmful during World War I, Rankin knew that in the case of World War II, it would be downright suicidal. The surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. military base at Pearl Harbor was devastating, and zeal for revenge was at a fever pitch. The vast majority of Americans supported President Roosevelt's call for a declaration of war.

Rankin, however, believed that Roosevelt deliberately provoked the Japanese to attack because he wanted to bring the U.S. into the European war against Germany; she was determined not to cooperate with the president's plan. After a 40-minute debate on the floor of the House, a roll call vote began. When her turn came, Rankin stood and said, "As a woman, I can't go to war and I refuse to send anyone else."

When news of Rankin's vote reached the crowd gathered outside the capitol, some patriots threatened to attack the Montana congresswoman, and police escorted her out of the building. Rankin was vilified in the press, accused of disloyalty, and called "Japanette Rankin," among other impolite names. She stood her ground, however, and never apologized for her vote.

When her term neared completion two years later, Rankin was certain she would not win re-election and chose not to run again. She continued to be an active advocate for pacifism, and led a campaign against the Vietnam War in 1968 when she was 87 years old."

Adam

Edited June 21, 2009 by Selene

[kiaer.ts]

As soon as I heard that the House resolution on the events on Iran had passed with one vote against, I knew who had cast that vote.

Sorry, I'm not with Ron Paul on this one.

Robert Campbell

Funny, Sheppard Smith on Fox announced that the Senate had voted unanimously to support the Iranian protests and that "a similar measure" passed the House. I knew what that euphemism meant and he didn't even have to mention the dissenting vote.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am the sworn enemy of "the bystander effect". When I see an emergency situation I am on the phone to the authorities to get a competent official/agent on it PDQ. I do not care if I am the first, the fiftieth or the hundredth to make the call. I assume, a priori, that if I don't make the call, then the call will not be made. Sometimes I am right about that, and sometimes I am wrong. It is better to be redundant than silent. If not now, then when? If not me, then who?

Notice, I said I make the call to police, fire department or emergency squad. I am not about to go into a burning building myself, since I have neither the training nor the courage. He who is silent in an emergency for fear of looking foolish is not only a coward, but a harmful coward. One of the purposes of society is render aid to individuals in emergencies. That is why we live communally and not atomically. Silence is not golden. It is poison. And there is the matter of karma. If in silence ye live, then in silence ye shall surely die. As ye do, so it shall be done to you.

In an emergency I do want to get "involved".

Life sure looks weird when I agree with Bob as much as I do in this post.

It's 100% agreement. And I even think it is extremely well-stated.

Dayaamm!

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Ron Paul's voice is A voice, not THE voice.

As A voice, it is refreshing to hear his pro-capitalism and pro-constitution statements. As THE voice, his foreign policy scares the bejeezus out of me.

His lack of common sense at times does not annul the good he has done in the cause for freedom and free markets.

Just don't let him ever direct our military and fight against our enemies.

Despite the calm veneer, look at how Iran's leaders are exploding the country right now with fraud and violence, especially the hardline government's vicious attacks on its citizens. Look at the brutality. Does anyone doubt they would do these things against other countries if they ever got nuclear power? Ron Paul, for one, apparently doesn't think they would.

In my view, Ron Paul is right where he belongs, as a MEMBER of Congress, not as a LEADER.

Michael

Michael,

On the other hand it looks as if you are confident in Obama in the realm of foreign policy compared to Ron Paul's non interventionist policy and his adherence to the Constitution when it comes to declaring war.

Something tells me that given Obama's domestic agenda in which his way out of a bankrupt country is to spend even more and to more than double the money supply, that you would rather see Ron Paul as President.

Not to mention all the other power grabs Obama is up to at the Federal Reserve, energy and health and who knows what else is "on his plate." Ron Paul happens to be correct in all those areas you all will no doubt agree.

HR1207 the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 now has 237 cosponsors on its way to being veto proof thanks in part to the efforts of the growing campaign for liberty members who simply write and petition their congressmen and continue to do so.

If Ron Paul policy of nonintervention had been in place in 1953 Iran would have been spared the dictatorship of the Shah, Saddam Hussein would never have been in power in Iraq, we would not have 826 plus military bases and troops in over 130 countries around the world and as a consequence the World Trade Towers would still be standing.

Michael aren't you terrified by the domestic actions of our Leader, Obama?

www.campaignforliberty.com 21 Jun 6AM 163,127

gulch

Gulch; You don't get it. You posted Ron Paul's vote against the resolution indicating to me that you agree with him. On this issue Ron Paul is a piece of S_. He should be ashamed and so should you. These comments will mean nothing to you. Death to Mullahs!

Chris,

You're right. He doesn't get it. The Neville Chamberlains of the libertarian movement are alive and well. It was worth it for the British to resist the Nazis even if it meant loss of empire, socialist rule and a lousy economy. In this case, all that was required was some simple humanity, to look at the plight of the dissidents and the oppressed in Iran and express solidarity with them.

Jim

Et al,

I have said before that the mere fact that I post something Ron Paul said, and I do not post it all as there are many opportunities for Ron Paul to speak out these days, does not mean that I agree with him. He said himself that he was reluctant to oppose the resolution because he sympathizes with the protesters. As it turns out I agree with all of you on this and think he should have voted for it.

Still it is not clear at all that the protesters want what we would want them to want. I know it is tempting to assume that they are opposed to a theocracy and a tyrannical dictatorship and that may be true of many or most of them. Still the man they supported and voted for is also part of the same establishment and the "supreme leader" would still be calling the shots.

As time goes by the older clerics will die off and most of the younger generation there might be westernized but the gang in power behind the scenes will find plenty of fanatics to take their place. Meanwhile we will buy oil from Saudi Arabia and they will fund the madrases where the children will be indoctrinated and America will be demonized.

www.campaignforliberty.com 21Jun 1PM 163,262, 2PM 163,301

gulch

Gulch; You say you do not agree with Ron Paul's position. Then why post his statement. The mullahs only let certain candidates on the ballot. These candidates have to toe the line. The opposition candidate campaigned with his wife which is signal of support for women. Lots of people in Iran hate the mullahs and want them out. I hope we can see the day when the Grand Mullah is swinging from a lamp post and I would not mind if it is an American rope. Gulch can you occasionally disagree with Ron Paul. We'll tell the Campaign for Liberty not to take away your decoder ring.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the other hand it looks as if you are confident in Obama in the realm of foreign policy compared to Ron Paul's noninterventionist policy and his adherence to the Constitution when it comes to declaring war.

Gulch,

Looks where like I am "confident in Obama in the realm of foreign policy"?

When I look at my posts, it looks an awful lot like I disagree with both.

Do you have a quote?

Michael

[galtgulch]

On the other hand it looks as if you are confident in Obama in the realm of foreign policy compared to Ron Paul's noninterventionist policy and his adherence to the Constitution when it comes to declaring war.

Gulch,

Looks where like I am "confident in Obama in the realm of foreign policy"?

When I look at my posts, it looks an awful lot like I disagree with both.

Do you have a quote?

Michael

Michael,

Do you mean you disagree with both Obama's domestic and foreign policies?

By any chance do you agree with any of Ron Paul's domestic policies? You have made it clear that Ron Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention scares the living bejesus our of you. That is a little vague for me. I am almost certain that you are not in favor of the U.S. being the policeman of the world nor that it should have a worldwide empire. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

Instead of focusing your attention on the aspects of Ron Paul's foreign and domestic policies with which you disagree I would like to see you list his domestic policies with which you agree. Transparency of the Federal Reserve, abolition of the Federal Reserve and other quasi whatever agencies like the Federal Housing Authority, Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac, adherence to the powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 for starters, not to mention restoration of a metallic standard for the currency instead of a paper standard.

I don't expect you would care to do that but would rather indicate how scared you are at the thought that Ron Paul would ever be president. Were you as fearful of Obama ascending to the throne? Does he frighten you at all now that he is in power?

www.campaignforliberty.com 21 Jun 9 PM 163,447

gulch

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Instead of focusing your attention on the aspects of Ron Paul's foreign and domestic policies with which you disagree I would like to see you list his domestic policies with which you agree.

Gulch,

You don't need to go far. Try this very thread:

As A voice, it is refreshing to hear his pro-capitalism and pro-constitution statements...

His lack of common sense at times does not annul the good he has done in the cause for freedom and free markets.

Michael

[galtgulch]

Instead of focusing your attention on the aspects of Ron Paul's foreign and domestic policies with which you disagree I would like to see you list his domestic policies with which you agree.

Gulch,

You don't need to go far. Try this very thread:

As A voice, it is refreshing to hear his pro-capitalism and pro-constitution statements...

His lack of common sense at times does not annul the good he has done in the cause for freedom and free markets.

Michael

Michael,

Yes. That is so.

What remains to be seen is who will step up and run for office from the ranks of the Campaign For Liberty. I have reason to believe that they will change the dialog in future elections as they draw attention to the failure of both major parties to adhere to the Founder's promise. In that regard I have Jefferson in mind not Hamilton.

www.campaignforliberty.com 21 Jun 10PM 163,468; 22Jun 5AM 163,614; 5PM 163,886

gulch

Edited June 22, 2009 by galtgulch

[jordanz]

As soon as I heard that the House resolution on the events on Iran had passed with one vote against, I knew who had cast that vote.

Sorry, I'm not with Ron Paul on this one.

Robert Campbell

LOL - me too. I said aloud to my wife "that must be Ron Paul."

[Chris Grieb]

It is precisely because Ron Paul is right on some many issues that he should be disagreed with when he is wrong. He was wrong on the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and it looks like he will be wrong on Iran. I am delighted Dr. Paul is in the House and on many issues admire him greatly.

Gulch; I just haven't checked my brain like you have.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[kiaer.ts]

It is precisely because Ron Paul is right on some many issues that he shouldn't be disagreed with when he is wrong. He was wrong on the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and it looks like he will be wrong on Iran. I am delighted Dr. Paul is in the House and on many issues admire him greatly.

Gulch; I just haven't checked my brain like you have.

I think you meant to say should be disagreed with when he is wrong.

[Chris Grieb]

It is precisely because Ron Paul is right on some many issues that he shouldn't be disagreed with when he is wrong. He was wrong on the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and it looks like he will be wrong on Iran. I am delighted Dr. Paul is in the House and on many issues admire him greatly.

Gulch; I just haven't checked my brain like you have.

I think you meant to say should be disagreed with when he is wrong.

Ted; I corrected it. Thank you. I should check the correcting part of my brain.

[galtgulch]

It is precisely because Ron Paul is right on some many issues that he should be disagreed with when he is wrong. He was wrong on the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and it looks like he will be wrong on Iran. I am delighted Dr. Paul is in the House and on many issues admire him greatly.

Gulch; I just haven't checked my brain like you have.

Michael,

If that remark isn't against your rules of behavior and decorum it should be! It is one thing to suggest that someone "check your premises" and quite another to say, "I just haven't checked my brain like you have."

At times like this I wish we still lived in the age of dueling as I would call you out!

www.campaignforliberty.com 22Jun 5PM 163,886

gulch

Edited June 22, 2009 by galtgulch

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gulch,

That was Chris, not me...

Michael

[Selene]

Gulch:

Lighten up.

Adam

[galtgulch]

Gulch,

That was Chris, not me...

Michael

Michael,

I know it wasn't you. I was drawing your attention to the way Chris was using your forum by attacking me.

gulch

www.campaignforliberty.com 162,922

[Selene]

:baby: