Korean Job Discussion Forums

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

If you want to know the difference between a liberal and libertarian, consider the following: Today, the House of Representatives passed H CON RES 200, a resolution of the sense of the House on events in Burma. The text of the resolution, which you can read below, calls upon the military dictatorship that rules Burma to release advocate for democracy and the rightful Prime Minister, Aung San Suu Kyi, immediately and without condition from her captivity. The resolution also calls for an end to government violence against ethic minorities and for a restoration of democracy in Burma.

Of the 432 members of the House of Representatives eligible to vote on the resolution, 413 voted in favor of it. Only two Representatives voted against it. One of those who voted against it was Ron Paul, libertarian and Republican candidate for President in 2008.

(the rest of the article can be read here: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/10/02/ron-paul-burma-vote/)

********
It's one thing to come out against interventionism. It's quite another to be isolationist, which is what Ron Paul sounds like he is up to with a vote like this. I'm all for a less adventuresom foreign policy, but to vote against a resolution like this is amoral.

igotthisguitar · Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:55 am Post subject:

Send his campaign office Ya-ta.

Ask em' why Idea

Tony_Balony · Joined: 12 Apr 2007

You would think that after the Iraq disaster, the US would learn not to meddle in the affairs of other countries.

Tiger Beer · Joined: 07 Feb 2003

blaseblasphemener · Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:31 am Post subject:

yes, let's let the other compassionate republicans off the hook because they voted for this measure. Confused

I'll take ron paul's forgeign policy over any other republican and most of the democrats, hands down. I would have voted for it, but at least he's consistent, not twisting however the wind blows, like Hilary or Julie or Mitt.

Pluto · Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Masta_Don · Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Location: Hyehwa-dong, Seoul

Pluto · Joined: 19 Dec 2006

ontheway · Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:12 am Post subject:

No article was at the site linked. It's just a propaganda site for Greens and other fascist D party types anyway, but where's the text of the resolution and all attached riders?

Many bills in Congress have terrible riders or actual consequences opposte to their titles.

Many bills in Congress fall outside the limits of what is actually allowed under the constitution.

There is no info on this thread.

bucheon bum · Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Washington Post with the voting info.

The text of the bill

Pretty straight fwd if you ask me.

And as Pluto said, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was elected but was not allowed to come to office thanks to the gracious junta.

Masta_Don · Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Location: Hyehwa-dong, Seoul

ontheway · Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:35 am Post subject:

Bucheon Bum:

Thanks for the link. There are three versions of the bill listed. I read the one that seems to be moving forward as the joint resolution of the two houses.

This bill is not so simple.

Had the bill only called for the release of the Political Prisoners mentioned, more than the one in the OP, and had the bill only called for respecting human rights, political rights, not firing on citizens etc. it could have been a great bill.

However, the bill calls for sanctions and a trade embargo which would hurt the people more than the rulers. The bill writers want to destroy the Burmese economy.

This is the kind of interventionism that is counterproductive, so I'm guessing that while this seems like a feel good bill, and many voted for it for that reason, Ron Paul actually read the bill, realized that it was a violation of the principles of liberty and free trade for the American people, and would hurt many innocent people in Burma if actually implemented.

Alot of trash gets attached to bills in Congress, like this one. Some people don't understand that free trade will do more to change countries around the world than sanctions. Others, don't bother to read the bills at all.

The Founding Fathers called for peace, non-intervention, friendship and free trade. This is the opposite of isolationism.

Voting for wars and trade sanctions, import quotas and taxes is the inverventionists' dream but leads to political, cultural and economic isolation.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee · Joined: 25 May 2003

Ron Paul would probably have opposed sanctions against Nazi Germany.

ontheway · Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:44 am Post subject:

The bill is not an opinion.

The bill is a call for sanctions.

Sanctions are a kind of warfare and should be reserved for war.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee · Joined: 25 May 2003

right no sanctions against Nazi Germany.

The US can't express its disaproval with sancitons cause it will offend the bad guys.

We have to allow them trade with the US. Otherwise they will get made.

Non intervention slowly turns to appeasement.