What is Digg?1186 Comments
- Luth, on 04/10/2008, -147/+866Why the hell do we have to pass resolutions to ask China to be nice? There's no law being passed here. There's nothing being done. What a complete waste of time. I'd have voted against it due to that alone, regardless of the worthiness of the cause. What has changed? The world now knows the House does not like the way China treats Tibetans. Guess what: we're spreading our morality and fairness through the barrels of so many guns; I'm pretty sure the world already knows America's feelings against this issue. What a stupid waste of time that vote was....
- Izult, on 04/10/2008, -89/+536I find it interesting that they're saying that he's dropped out of the race. there is nothing official posted on his website and nothing official has come from his campaign. Until they have something official they really need to stop this crap.
As for the article itself, i have to agree with Luth. There is nothing that this resolution will achieve absolutely nothing, it's just saber rattling. - Hangly, on 04/10/2008, -22/+358In other news, a school board in Quito, Ecuador passed a resolution condemning the use of sweatshop labor in Vietnam.
- vbullinger, on 04/10/2008, -54/+385Gee, according to the mainstream media, Ron Paul has dropped out about 30 times.
It's kind of like that one Al Qaeda leader that the US has killed like 8 times.
If they really wanted to do something, they'd remove most favored nation status (something that shouldn't even exist in the first place).
Then, maybe we could start actually asking China to give people their liberties back. - pschwar, on 04/10/2008, -28/+311Wasn't Ron Paul the lone Republican in the house who voted against the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq? Yeah, again he thinks for himself, what an a-hole!
- jask0, on 04/10/2008, -43/+324He hasn't dropped out of the Presidential Race, btw.
- ravage86, on 04/10/2008, -29/+284Shouldn't congress be busy with impeachment proceedings or something. We can't vote on China's policy.
- Weiln, on 04/10/2008, -71/+272What a waste of time and tax dollars. Nothing will be accomplished by this toothless proposal. China already has a concrete relationship given how much of our national debt they own. CNN is not very accurate. Ron Paul is still campaigning. http://www.ronpaul2008.com
- freedomwv, on 04/10/2008, -37/+212At first I find it odd the Ron Paul refused to vote in favor of the resolution. After thinking about it for a little while I now understand his decision. It only makes things worse right now to condemn China. We should be talking to China before calling them out. The US constitution really does not give the US central government to power to do anything about how China treats the people of Tibet. The resolution puts a wedge between China and the US.
It is very true that the US is in major debt to China. We should not be pissing off the government of China. They could buy us out in short order at this point.
Ron Paul is still in fact still in the race. http://www.ronpaul2008.com - ICSU, on 04/10/2008, -51/+191obligatory
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." - V3n0M, on 04/10/2008, -29/+142"Ron Paul as much as I love him would vote no a bill to extend his own life."
Indeed! I believe he would vote no if it cost the taxpayers money, limited our freedom, or involved telling other countries what to do.
Precisely *why* I love him! - sigg14, on 04/10/2008, -44/+148buried as inaccurate. "Ron Paul, R-Texas, who recently dropped out of the presidential race" check the facts before you write another piece *****.
- CommissarVlad, on 04/10/2008, -16/+109I like how because there was a small mention of Ron Paul in the article the person who posted managed to spin an article about condemning China into an article about Ron Paul.
- PeppermintPig, on 04/10/2008, -7/+98And they have plenty of time later in the day to get more nothing done.
- colihondro, on 04/10/2008, -5/+93BTW, Ron Paul did not drop out of the presidential race
- BetterOffEd, on 04/10/2008, -32/+113Well if Ron Paul said it, it MUST be true.
- trippinlikegod, on 04/10/2008, -25/+101The guy's nickname is ***** Dr. No How did you think he was going to vote? You honestly think this is the first time he has been the ONLY no on a bill. ROFL Ron Paul as much as I love him would vote no a bill to extend his own life.
- wastedlife, on 04/10/2008, -74/+1446134 DIGGS
"Ron Paul Is The Only Rep To Condemn China Over Tibet"
Comments (312)
by Luth 9 hours ago +319 diggs
"This resolution was so important and only Ron Paul was the one brave enough to admit it. This is terrible! RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!" - Jenadae, on 04/10/2008, -28/+94OMG SOME ONE THOUGHT FOR THEM SELF IN THE HOUSE!!! SOUND THE ALARM >.>
- ncairns, on 04/10/2008, -16/+80"The Dalai Lama is the bad guy, not China!"
Wow, that's some industrial-grade stupidity you're working with there. - inactive, on 04/10/2008, -6/+69The thing nobody notices is that when a government has as much control over its citizens as China or the US, it doesn't matter if anyone speaks up or not. "Your opposition has been noted."
- throughtheblack, on 04/10/2008, -2/+57Where do you get this isolationism thing from? Nobody here believes in that. I think what you may be trying to refer to is the term "non-interventionism". Just so you know, there is a huge difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. May I suggest you pick up a grade-school dictionary and refresh your vocabulary?
- philhatesyou, on 04/10/2008, -23/+752 things:
1) God damnit, I find myself in agreement with Ron Paul :(
2) Funny how, about a week ago, the crowds on digg would have been clamoring for this legislation to get passed. Now that Ron Paul opposes it, it's suddenly a waste of time and money. Go go groupthink. - techie06, on 04/10/2008, -10/+62No, he means non-interventionism. Ron Paul has never said anything promoting isolationism. He just wants us to stop meddling in other countries, which causes unnecessary hatred towards us. That is not so bad. The fact that you don't know the difference or what he has said just shows your lack of intelligence on the matter.
- rotten777, on 04/10/2008, -4/+53"The resolution, which has no force of law, ..."
Basically an empty posturing gesture by our government. They need to get in gear and quit with the ***** - bobbknight, on 04/10/2008, -19/+66If one takes the time to read the constitution and the the documents of the day that lead up to the adoption of the constitution with the included bill of rights. You would find that out of all the congressman and woman, he is truly on the side of the founding fathers.
Another document to read would be the farewell address to congress by President George Washington, where he cautions against foreign intrigue and entanglements.
I you pick and choose the parts of the constitution that you like and don't like, disregarding the founding fathers original intent.
Well, your just like every member of the current government, except Ron Paul, and the constitution is just meaningless words on parchment.
The destruction of the true meaning of the constitution and the intent behind it is required to allow the USA to enter into the coming world government. Where all of us will be subjugated to the will of some kind of international body, where we will have little or no representation.
About the only thing that our politicians are following with regard to the constitution, are that treaties are the supreme law of the land.
But even they have trouble with self interest in that regard, just ask any of the sovereign nations within our own boarders. - KiraDnote, on 04/10/2008, -14/+58Ron Paul is never wrong.
- Claude1971, on 04/10/2008, -46/+89he didn't drop out, no, he lost
- inactive, on 04/10/2008, -15/+57Apparently you missed the concept of not getting entangled in foreign affairs.
- BambinosKrib, on 04/10/2008, -16/+57Yes an independent Tibet would be in the US's best interest. They've already backed Kosovo's independence. Expect a US military base to be installed in Kosovo and independent (maybe) Tibet in the next few decades. Must keep close tabs on the Chinese and Russians
- roho76, on 04/10/2008, -2/+41It doesn't matter. Just promote freedom. It was never about Ron Paul it was about our civil liberties and not letting legislation like the Patriot act and the Homegrown terrorist whatever ***** bill (basically the we hate all the people with their own opinions other than that of Fox news opinions *****). So spread the word get out information to the people. This is why you always heard Ron saying "it's about spreading the message of freedom". It's sounds kooky but it's real. A lot of people will be saying the same thing in about year or two when Obama doesn't CHANGE anything.
- BobOki, on 04/10/2008, -6/+42Moron, RP made a statement to stop two things.
#1. Wasting time&money on a resolutions with no power and no reason to have been made. It does NOTHING but waste time and money.
#2. Setting USA up to possibly get ready to attack China. "We tried to work this out, but now we have reasons to believe they hate our freedoms etcetc" - inactive, on 04/10/2008, -10/+45Are you incapable of doing your own research?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
How the ***** are you even able to type? - Matt2k, on 04/10/2008, -3/+35I like the emulated pause in thought while you consult wikipedia. Nice touch
- MrCobaltBlue, on 04/10/2008, -4/+36Better than voting no because some company or special interest group is telling him to.
- 3ugene, on 04/10/2008, -19/+51He refuses to force other countries to follow our rules. It's not like anything is going to come of this resolution anyway. Who would finance our wars if we pissed off China?
- sigg14, on 04/10/2008, -8/+39what vindication? because Paul is against the USA bullying other countries around? who are we to condemn anyone? after all we invade sovereign nations and torture prisoners
- inactive, on 04/10/2008, -7/+37There are different crowds on Digg.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian and he always votes as a Libertarian. Period. That means no meddling in other countries' affairs. It doesn't matter who it is, if it's not the US, for the US and by the US: he votes against it. If it involves adding anything to the government and making it larger or more involved, he votes against it. And he's been doing that for the past 40 years, flawlessly. - koroviev, on 04/10/2008, -40/+70go Ron Paul!
- davebots, on 04/10/2008, -20/+50This totally changes my opinion on Ron Paul. I wish i could go back and vote for him now.
- momsshizzle, on 04/10/2008, -4/+33It's being passed because Congress doesn't like to work on real issues.
- queotic, on 04/10/2008, -6/+34It's called hypocrisy. How can we condemn China when we're killing innocent Iraqis?
- paddleguy, on 04/10/2008, -1/+28Article says hes has NOT dropped out.
- Zique, on 04/10/2008, -23/+50It's called political pressure, look it up. No matter how you try to twist it, Ron Paul could've simply voted yes as easily as he voted no.
- justinkimball, on 04/10/2008, -3/+30That's part of the problem with our government. Half of the time they're throwing hours and days away on stupid garbage like this. In effect, they're wasting tax payer money in a 'feel good' bill, that is designed to make everyone look better when it comes time for re-election.
I don't understand the point in non-binding resolutions, waste of time and money. How about you guys in congress actually do some.. oh, I don't know, work? - Gottlos, on 04/10/2008, -4/+31Well the article seemed to mention it first thing so that's like the cart and the horse there. Besides I enjoy reading about Ron Paul thumbing his nose at the establishment.
- vanguardanon, on 04/10/2008, -3/+29I think it's just as simple as, "Ron Paul doesn't meddle in the concerns of other countries."
Helping Tibet might be a nice thing to do but Ron's guiding principles involve letting other countries do what they want as long as it doesn't impact the US. - tumples, on 04/10/2008, -3/+29Because China support the regime there.
- Murdats, on 04/10/2008, -2/+28right, because getting involved in a war that involved the whole world is perfectly analogous to invading a country on false pretences when the whole world is against it.
- ncairns, on 04/10/2008, -12/+35They're buddies with Sudan. Look it up.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 1180 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is