These ridiculous publicity stunts are a waste of taxpayer money and do nothing for the victims.

Who, the losing teams?

It’s all in keeping with our constitutional scheme per the “Rock Chalk, Jayhawk” Clause in Article I.

Hah!

That pretty much fixes everything.

You may not like this, but it’s possible that RP sees a difference between condemning/urging and demanding. Demanding is a real policy action.

its a toothless resolution, it doesn’t make any difference how its worded.

for the moral equivalence, look up his house speech on the Israel/hezzbollah resolution. Or the repeated times of comparing the US to China and asking us “how would we feel” if China was building military bases here. Which is so mind numbinlgy dumb and ignorant of the basic issue at hand, but on top of that is flat out Moral Relativism of the worst kind.

the hezzbollah resolution did condem them, a Islamic Terrorist outfit. Paul found a moral equivalence between hezzbollah, a common mortal enemy who wishes death to both the US and Israel(and all non-islam parts of the world) and Israel. He is morally in the toilet.

jp on May 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM

You keep referencing that he “found a moral equivalence” but I don’t see any quotes from you proving that he did. Please supply or desist from your redundant “toilet” comments.

similar resolutions condemning terrorist outfits like hezzbollah vs. Israel, who voted no on and found a moral equivalence between the two.

jp on May 16, 2008 at 2:31 PM

You may not like this, but it’s possible that RP sees a difference between condemning/urging and demanding. Demanding is a real policy action. Maybe he didn’t like the way it was worded. It’s certainly not the case that he “hates f***ing Burma” or anything ridiculous like that.

Again, why is everybody okay with this resolution but not the Turkey resolution?

His no vote was a symbolic gesture, that was nothing but posing for the camera, against a symbolic gesture that was nothing but posing for the camera?

DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Link to the photo please…

Where is the text for the other resolutions you have cited? That terrorist resolution does not condemn a country or get into a fight between countries.

Summary: H.R. 795 resolves that the House of Representatives:

* “condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks on Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt and other terrorist attacks directed against Egypt;
* “expresses its condolences to the families and friends of those individuals who were killed in the attacks and expresses its sympathies to those individuals who have been injured;
* “joins with President George W. Bush in expressing the solidarity of the people and Government of the United States with the people and Government of Egypt as they recover from these cowardly and inhuman attacks; and
* “expresses its readiness to support the Egyptian authorities in their efforts to bring to justice those individuals responsible for the recent attacks in Egypt and to pursue, disrupt, undermine, and dismantle the networks which plan and carry out such attacks.”

The resolution also states a number of findings, including the following:

* “on April 24 and 26, 2006, a series of explosions at Dahab and in Northern Sinai, Egypt, planned and carried out by terrorists, resulted in the deaths of scores of civilians and the injury of many others;”
* “the people of Egypt have been subjected to several other deadly terrorist attacks over the past years;”
* “President George W. Bush called President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to extend condolences on behalf of the American people for the loss of life.”

similar resolutions condemning terrorist outfits like hezzbollah vs. Israel, who voted no on and found a moral equivalence between the two.

a capella on May 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM

No I am not missing the point:

Urges the government of Romania to: (1) complete the processing of certain intercountry adoption cases; and (2) amend its child welfare and adoption laws to decrease adoption barriers.

(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people.

Urging and requesting is not the same language as DEMANDS.

This is none of our damn business seems like a justification for further action down the line. If Obama wins this is just the kind of stuff that Zbigniew Brzezinski drools over:

Whereas Burma’s military regime did little to warn the people and is not providing adequate humanitarian assistance to address basic needs and prevent further loss of life;

Whereas despite the devastation, the military regime has announced plans to go ahead with its May 10, 2008, referendum on a sham constitution, delaying voting only in portions of the affected Irrawaddy region and Rangoon;

Whereas the military regime has failed to provide life-protecting and life-sustaining services to its people;

(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people.

Okay, I’ve read the full text. I’m curious to know what you find objectionable in it. Details please.

scatbug on May 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM

The resolution gets very political for what amounts to a Congressional condolence card. Maybe they should have let hallmark write the resolution.

Go and read the resolutions you cited. You should see a clear difference. Look at the difference between “urges”, “requests”, and “supports” and here with “demands”. I would not see annexation but could definitely see this as another Bosnia or Somalia down the line. This language is not in line with something that expresses merely sympathy. Ron unlike most actually reads the bills before he votes on them.

LevStrauss on May 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Okay, I’ve read the full text. I’m curious to know what you find objectionable in it. Details please.

LevStrauss on May 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM

You may be missing or ignoring the point made here.

amerpundit on May 16, 2008 at 1:26 PM

Paul being a Rothbardian fool is the source of his “No” vote. His votes of “Yea” on similar measures for Egypt and Romania show atleast somewhere he realizes he’s morally in the toilet.

Why don’t you actually do some research on it instead of making a false argument on why he would not have supported this amendment? Does it only send condolences? Of course if you linked to the text of the resolution I would not have to paste this. Let’s continue to point our finger in the chest of other countries that are not threats and tell them how to live with these useless resolutions that are used for justification of future actions.

This language of the resolution probably had something to do with it:

Whereas Burma’s military regime did little to warn the people and is not providing adequate humanitarian assistance to address basic needs and prevent further loss of life;

Whereas despite the devastation, the military regime has announced plans to go ahead with its May 10, 2008, referendum on a sham constitution, delaying voting only in portions of the affected Irrawaddy region and Rangoon;

Whereas the military regime has failed to provide life-protecting and life-sustaining services to its people;

Whereas more than 30 disaster assessment teams from 18 different Nations and the United Nations have been denied permission to enter Burma by the junta;

Whereas the United States, through its Government, the Burma-American community, and its people as a whole, has already extended significant support to the people of Burma during this difficult time, including a $250,000 emergency contribution authorized by the United States Embassy in Burma to be released immediately, and $3,000,000 in additional aid relief announced on May 6, 2008, by the White House; and

Whereas a United States Agency for International Development disaster response team is positioned in neighboring Thailand: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) extends its condolences and sympathy to the people of Burma for the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by Cyclone Nargis;

(2) vows its full support of and solidarity with the people of Burma;

(3) calls on Americans to provide immediate emergency assistance to cyclone victims in Burma through humanitarian agencies;

(4) expresses confidence that the people of Burma will succeed in overcoming the hardships incurred because of this tragedy;

(5) calls for the Burmese military junta to consider the well-being of its people and accept broad international assistance; and

(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people.

also, Why are you voting to commend Govt. run schools like the University of Kansas?

Why congratulate LSU for their national championship but not express compassion over the horrific loss of life Burma? Paul picked the wrong time to make a symbolic stand.

highhopes on May 16, 2008 at 1:35 PM

A profile in courage. A model of consistency. A master of priorities.