Wonkette

I,m not sure, Dick Chaney only votes for senate tiebreakers, right?

Was it the guy who sold the gerbil to Richard Gere?

What does Ron Paul have against annoying hippie protesters?

Those fucking Tibetan monks should have rented a blimp to get their message out.

BTW, can pacifists use money bombs?

Paul had a good reason. To give ground to those Tibetan monks would certainly lead to appeasing the black agenda. This is a slippery slope people.

This must be be the love part of the R3VOLUTION.

Horrible.

Was it Tom Lantos?

Quite the profile in courage to stand up to the fucking Buddhist lobby. His Holiness, my ass.

@HowInsaneIsJohnMcCain: See "Ron Paul Forum"

I guess it's un-Libertarian to restrict the ability of people to impose their will on anyone else. Either that or they've just discovered oil in Tibet.

I have a hard time keeping "Tibet Monks" and "Chinese Reeducation Authorities" straight in my head. Their worldviews seem confusing similar to me.

I use the following mnemonic to help. Feel free to borrow it for yourselves:

Monks = Pacifists
Authorities = Passel o' Fists

There, isn't that better?

Dr. Paul is angry that the Tibetans wouldn't cooperate with Himmler's path-finding ethnographic missions.

Paul/Icke '08

Dr. Paul doesn't like unbelievers...even though they have been "believin'" for years before Moses checked out of Egypt with the chosen ones. I am still convinced that Jesus had a Buddhist monk as a mentor.

From now on, he shall be referred to as the "Right Honorable Reverend Dr. Mr. Protector Kundun Dalai Lama H. Ron Paul the Fourteenth and a Half."

Ron Paul can yield his Libertarian beliefs when it comes to abortion, but he is not able to do so when pacifists are being killed for their beliefs.

Isolationism. He doesn't believe we should say anything to anybody. Damn Tibetans. Always usin' yak butter and so forth. Let 'em buy Land-o-Lakes like other people.

"You call it corn. We call it mace."

@DanzaSlap: 'splain, plz, Lucy. The Dalai Lama not holy? Not that I'm objecting, particularly, but why do you say that?

It takes real courage to be the only douche bag in Congress to vote against this, even though it doesn't seem to be very strongly worded or have any teeth at all. What possible reason could dipshit have? "Hey, look at me, LOOK AT ME I SAY"

Someday when Texans are out there getting slaughtered in their sincere and peaceful efforts to have their distinctive language, culture, religious identity and fundamental freedoms allowed by the People's Republic of the North American Union, this vote will be remembered.

I'm glad he was outvoted. Now that this bill has passed, real, true change can begin.

Maybe Paul's onto something:

If you keep your head up your ass, you technically never have to smell your own farts.

While I am on the same side as the majority there, it is nothing but a circle jerk to think that even a strongly worded resolution will get anywhere with China. So yeah, the good Dr. just might be the sane one for once.

@Grandjester: Yes, but if we never send them a stiffly-worded protest note, how can they keep track of our mailing address? They need to know where to send the invoices for our debt to them.

@Grandjester:
China would've listened if Paul had voted in favor because he's just so impressive. Doctor Paul is wise to use his power sparingly, like Lorenzo Music does with his distinctive voice.

It will turn out to be related to the earlier post about intelligence (the IQ kind) and America plus inside the beltway stuff and Texas feuds/settling of old scores. An aide briefed Paul on the DeLay Lama -- not the Dalai Lama and this was the result.

@Grandjester: Exactly. This bill is about as effective as the UN sending strongly worded letters to North Korea to tell them to stop building nukes. The point I'm guessing he was trying to make is that this is a waste of time.

Yixil: Then he should have ABSTAINED. By getting off his cottage cheesy libertarian ass to record a vote, he PLAYED HIMSELF.

The bill refers to the Dalai Llama as "His Holiness"? Doesn't he have our Legislature on a string!

Wow, Ron Paul is a real asshole.

@jagorev: Yes, a gigantic, useless asshole.

If the founding fathers had wanted China to end its crackdown they would have said so in the Constitution.

Whoa whoa whoa.

Ok, Ron Paul is an asshole, we know this. What surprises me is one Rep who did not vote: Mark Udall (CO). If any of you know anything about his district, you'll know that hippie-mecca, Boulder comprises a healthy percentage of his constituents. Tibet is kind of one of Boulder's things. If I had a quarter for every 'Free Tibet' bumper sticker I have seen in that town, I could probably buy my own Porsche to stick my own bumper stickers on.

Mad:

There are more attacks on His Holiness for being too comprimising with China. CNN did a thing recently. Perhaps Boulder has been the subject to a subtle 'divide and conquer' campaign. Do we espy the fine Italian hand of China?

@Madaloon: Maybe he was, like, stoned, man.

Mr. Paul will now be keel-hauled, water-boarded, swift-boated, and the subject of a massive prayer-wheel flogging. Dingleberry.

Excuse me, but when did Democrats become Roman?

@jagorev: No way - I suspect it was the ether that made him do it. Remember what The Good Doctor said, "There is nothing more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge."

Tibet isn't in the constitution...ergo Ron Paul can't stand it .

@shortsshortsshorts: All roads lead to Rome.

If McCain becomes prez, let's call him "His Whoriness."

Oh, that adorable Ron Paul, what an iconoclast! It can't be easy to make the entire remainder of Congress look ethical. We should keep him around for further human decency pass/fail tests.

One of my old college professors is a major Paultard...I just commented on his MySpace page that Ron Paul supports communism and hates human rights.

One of my old college professors is a major Paultard, I just left a comment on his MySpace profile that Ron Paul supports communism and hates human rights.

Too bad he's moderating comments.

Well that'll put Chiner in it's place. No doubt their shivering in their sandels right now.

Clearly, this is Ron Paul's vote for closer and more open trade relations with China. Oh wait ...

@RssDude: Hi Dude. I've been wondering how you felt about this since you like both Ron Paul and Tibet. Or you used to like Paul.

@Darehead: He probably has some rationale like he did for the Rosa Parks holiday. He would be happy for every member of Congress to pay for it out of their own pocket, but he doesn't believe the Constitution grants Congress the power to tax people for it. Or something.

@RssDude: Er, not holiday, it was some thing or other that cost money having to do with Rosa Parks.

My point about Ron Paul is, anything is worth dismantling the American Empire peacefully, sooner rather than later. Not as a practical goal, but as an imaginary standard.

@RssDude: I mean, anything politically.

Anyway, my philosophy of life is that it consists of arguing and complaining. Then we die.

@RssDude: OK, thanks for 'xplaining. Hope you get some fresh air now and then.

@Darehead: The air is all poisoned like the water and the food supply. We're all doomed. Whatever.

Aww, the Wonkettes still believe in Santa Claus. I'm sure the Resolution is all about saving Tibet and not about wasting taxpayer dollars to pass a meaningless resolution with no teeth that merely irritates the Chinese. Paul should have abstained from the vote.

@RssDude: Well, the main problem with the Rosa Parks deal is that Ron Paul lied and/or didn't read the legislation. If he had read the legislation, then he would have known that the medal was self funded via the sale of bronze replicas with no tax dollars. The second problem is that Ron Paul was being sincere. If he was sincere, then he would have bought a damned replica, and be done with it. The third problem is that Ron Paul is a raging hypocrite who has actually DRAFTED legislation for $140 million worth of medals for Cold War Vets, yet couldn't spare $30 k for Rosa Parks.

@RothbardsZombie: Yeah, but he didn't abstain, did he? No. He wasted time too. Just like with Rosa Parks and all the other times he's voted "no" just to be a grumpy old fart in Congress. Because you KNOW he'll write up a speech about it, and spend MORE time doing that, and you KNOW we're paying for it. And you KNOW he'll continue to vote no to be a little attention whore, and he'll continue to vote no.

Name ONE good thing Ron Paul's done effectively in office. ONE.

And furthermore..

[www.govtrack.us]

If your guy is about "not wasting time and money".. why is he missing so many darned votes? That dashed upper line shows that 90% of the congressmen miss less votes than Ron Paul.

@redcard:

"Name ONE good thing Ron Paul's done effectively in office. ONE."

You do realize that Paul's effectiveness is based upon the votes of his colleagues as well (?) Considering the current Congress, and the past one, and the one before that... I'd rather the man voted correctly than voted effectively.

And he voted no because he thought it was more important to send the message that the situation in Tibet is none of our concern. Not as good as abstaining, but better than voting yes.

Paul gets a C on this one.

@RothbardsZombie: So basically, your defense of Ron Paul's incompetence boils down to the fact that Ron Paul isn't the lone dictator of all America. Please. He's a friggin congressman. People have accomplished a lot more than Ron Paul has with a lot less than Ron Paul has. Heck, even Dennis Kucinich has accomplished more than Ron Paul has, which is pretty amazing considering the fact that the republicans have been in charge of everything until just recently. Yeah, maybe Ron Paul gets outvoted. It happens. That's when you decide to use your LEADERSHIP ABILITY, and develop a STRATEGY. That's when you find small issues that the American public will actually find palatable, and take charge of it.

As for voting "correctly," that's BS, and you know it. How exactly are you gauging "correctness"? You can't. It's almost always subjective, so basically all you're saying is "I'm rather Ron Paul vote like Ron Paul, however it is that Ron Paul votes." For instance, the Rosa Parks vote wasn't correct even by Ron Paul's own standards, because he voted against the Rosa Parks medal based on objectively untrue assumptions. The man doesn't even accept the theory of evolution, and he's a doctor.

Stop trying to use "waste of tax dollars" as the standard Paultard trump card. Not everyone -- and especially not all liberal -- will agree that if something uses tax dollars, then it is automatically immoral. You can't even quantify HOW MUCH tax dollars are being "wasted" here, or how the alternative would waste any less of them. For instance, Ron Paul voted in FAVOR of H Con Res 31, which declared that the ten commandments were the cornerstone of Western society and that they should be permitted on US courthouses. That's not just toothless and a waste of tax dollars -- it also flies in the fact of the first Amendment. And yet, Ron Paul voted yes on it.

Ron Paul likes to cite Gandhi as an example in order to "prove" that he's not a racist. If Gandhi were alive today, how would Ron Paul react? Would he cry out against the injustices that Gandhi was experiencing at the hands of the British? Or would he simply shrug his shoulders, say "It's not in the US, so it's not my concern," and ignore the matter completely? Ron Paul isn't just an evil little man. He's also a lying, opportunistic hypocrite.

@RothbardsZombie:

You didn't answer my question. You just dodged it. So, let me change the question so that you can answer it.

Name ONE bill that Ron Paul introduced that became law.

Voting no over and over, and introducing bills that will never pass is having NO effect on congress. If Ron Paul wasn't even IN congress, than it'd be the same effect as now, when he IS in Congress.

So you talk about wasting time and taxpayer dollars, and all that , on the stuff he voted no on. Isn't he wasting time and taxpayer dollars by being there and not getting anything passed?

So go on. Name ONE piece of legislation that Ron Paul introduced that is now law.

@redcard:

I thought it was obvious from my answer that I implied that I knew of no bill that Paul has successfully introduced and passed. C'mon, I was blabbing about standing alone blah blah blah... you should have figured out the answer from that one. The only one that still might have a chance is some bill allowing farmers to grow hemp. And that'll probably die in committee.

And yes, in a way his lack of success in passing bills is a waste of time. It's largely all a waste of time; at least he's not wasting time writing bills to ban light bulbs or online poker games. Those things seem to get passed in Congress with ease, but bills that require Congress have a reasonable amount of time to read a bill seem to die in committee. I'd rather someone voted what they thought was in-line with their powers as Congressman within the USCon than being effective in today's climate.

Will be interesting, well...sorta, to see how his run will affect his future influence within Congress.

@RothbardsZombie: Yes, those bills you mentioned do get passed, because, gasp, we're a republic as noted by the Constitution.. and it's what people want. oh, the horror. As for bills that die in committee, they usually die there because they are largely not wanted by the people. Would you rather all of his bills left committee and then got killed 372-41 or something?

Look, face it. The man is worthless. He doesn't submit any legislation that becomes law..

And as for voting in line with the US Constitution, people who vote in line with the Constitution and are strict constitutionalists are a waste of time and a drag on society. If people didn't challenge the Constitution every now and again, blacks would still count as a fraction of a person, slavery would still be rampant, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, and Presidents could be in there an unlimited number of terms.

The point of the Constitution is that it can be challenged and changed, not so that it can be dogmatically followed like some sacred text. The founders knew this, and wrote of this.

@redcard:

It's called the amendment process, look into it. I'm saying that one ought to treat the Constitution like a snake handler treats the Bible, but if you're going to change it then go through the proper procedures. Last time I checked suffrage for all citizens 18 and up, the repeal of the 3/5ths Clause, and the limits placed on the president were all a result of amendments to the Constitution. Oh, and ignoring the amendmment process and not sticking to the US Con has brought wonderful things such as the War on Drugs and the evisceration of the 4th Amendment. All I'm saying is that it's fine to challenge the US Constitution, but follow it in the meantime while you're either working to get an amendment passed or work to pass a state level amendment so that the other states can see if the idea works or not.

"Yes, those bills you mentioned do get passed, because, gasp, we're a republic as noted by the Constitution.. and it's what people want. oh, the horror"

There's a reason why the Founding Fathers didn't really like democracy. And in some cases yes I'd rather like to see a bill of his pass committee to be trounced in the House; it would be amusing for example to see Congressmen who claim to support ethanol vote against the Industrial Hemp Act and justify their vote to both their constituents and the media. Some of his bills I don't think even he would want to get passed; like Abolishing the Fed. He might hate the Fed, but I've never heard him say he'd do it in in one fell swoop. I know, gasp, the man's a politician.

The validity of an idea is not determined by the popularity of that idea. If that was the case then slavery was a valid institution not too long ago.

@RothbardsZombie: It's ironic that you talk about the amendment process as though it somehow supports Ron Paul's case, when really it doesn't. He's against the amendments that other people have processed (e.g., birthright citizenship, income tax, establishment clause, commerce clause, etc.), and hasn't had much luck in getting any amendments of his own. In truth, Ron Paul has no respect for the amendment process. Instead, he thinks that the amendment process should be respectful to HIM, and subservient to HIM.

And yeah, maybe the founding fathers didn't want a direct democracy. But what you're suggesting is a Direct Paultocracy, and you're acting as though that's the only possible alternative.

It's also funny how Paultards tend to reject the idea of popular support within a democratic process, when the only alternative that they propose is popular support WITHIN A PAULTARD COMMUNITY. They'll reject the idea that we should increase the minimum wage, even though the vast majority of the population supports it. But when they state their opposition, the best they can come up with is "All economists agree that the MW is bad," where "all economists" really means "all 'credible' economists,' which really means "all economists who already agree with austrian ideology."

Ron Paul also rejects the theory of evolution. He isn't exactly an authority on what is and isn't a valid idea. True, popular support doesn't mean that an idea is valid. What it does do is force the burden of proof on the opposition.