digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cnn.com

Ron Paul Refuses To Condemn China Over Tibet

cnn.com — The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution Wednesday calling on China to end its crackdown on Tibet and release Tibetans imprisoned for "nonviolent" demonstrations. The vote was 413-1. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who recently dropped out of the presidential race, was the lone congressman voting against it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Luth, on 04/10/2008, -147/+867Why 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....
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -96/+41it only takes a few minutes to pass. i think they have enough time.
      • PeppermintPig, on 04/10/2008, -7/+99And they have plenty of time later in the day to get more nothing done.
        • Nerys, on 04/10/2008, -5/+16Oh and he has NOT dropped out of the race. Shoved out he was but submit he has not.
      • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -9/+9the fact that they even voted on this resolution means that they are being more productive than usual. they don't want to actually vote to take action against china because that would be too dangerous. usually, the bills that go through don't get anything done, but this one does by making a clear statement, which is better than making no statement and getting nothing else done due to partison bickering. the bill brought the parties together on an issue for once.
      • brjohnson789, on 04/10/2008, -4/+9The few minutes spent on this cost taxpayers thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars to accomplish absolutely nothing.
        • tjmb9, on 04/10/2008, -7/+4facts please.
        • cheappop, on 04/10/2008, -1/+9@tjmb9:
          Tax payers fund the senators through taxes. They are wasting our money when they pass needless ***** like this.
          • tjmb9, on 04/11/2008, -4/+3tens of thousands of dollars a minute, apparently.
        • TrevaLVF, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3And they routinely give themselves a raise. They used to vote for it and go on record, but not it's like an automatic increase no matter how far below the cost of living we fall and regardless of how many jobs we lose to cheap foreign labor.
      • EvilGunOwner, on 04/10/2008, -3/+16Dear Congress,
        Please stop wasting my time and get to repealing all those stupid, tyrannical, and ineffective federal laws that you guys passed earlier to make yourselves look good and feel powerful.
        Sincerely,
        Armed Taxpayer.
    • ICSU, on 04/10/2008, -51/+192obligatory
      "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."
      • marcomc2, on 04/10/2008, -16/+3Pastor...Niemoeller? right?
        • Matt2k, on 04/10/2008, -3/+35I like the emulated pause in thought while you consult wikipedia. Nice touch
          • marcomc2, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Haha. Yeah I figured thats why I got dugg down. I actually didnt though, thats why Im taking this so lightly. Im German, I just know ***** like this from growing up. Of course I cant prove this. So whatever.
      • senatorpjt, 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."
      • FLarsen, on 04/10/2008, -12/+19That doesn't apply here.
      • fokov, on 04/10/2008, -5/+19The thing is they keep levels of control in place, such as the false Democrat vs Republican, white vs black, rich vs poor, etc to make sure the populous doesn't come together as one and pull a french style revolution. They said "Power to the people" yet the people ignored them and went on with their lives because they have bills to pay for borrowed money used to buy unnecessary pieces of junk. The majority of this country doesn't see problems with it, and the government is making sure everyone is either drinking their problems away or doing drugs (legal and illegal). Thus keeping the sheep from noticing the planned future.
        People bash me for thinking the people that really run this country have a plan. They laugh it off in "jokes" like "the government couldn't organize themselves to tie a shoe." While I question their reasoning on whether the shoe really needs to be tied, or even tied by the government. Just think of all the amazing things that we have done, we have machines orbiting our planet and can communicate with anyone anywhere in a matter of seconds, computer developers have created huge applications with tons of logic that are amazing, writers that create products like 1984, or even "simpler" scripts like Seven where many details are put in to have a thorough life-like plot. These people will never understand there are con-men out there that plan things, beings have been trying to rule over others since the dawn of time, and it isn't going to change. If I can come up with a plan to take over government and keep people in line, for these morons, why can't they seem to believe others with power and money do not have the same plans, or are even executing them as we debate whether or not we are getting screwed over.
        /rant
        • xerigen, on 04/10/2008, -1/+11"Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool" - Plato

          "When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." -Dresden James
          • opticwind, on 04/10/2008, -5/+1Ron Paul is just refusing to condemn China over the issue of Tibet. He's not spreading the truth, he just has a zero-tolerance stance for any foreign-policy matters.
          • raisputin3, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2He has a zero-tolerance stance for anything that is not allowed by the Constitution
          • opticwind, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Where in the constitution does it say we can't be involved with other countries?
        • andburn1, on 04/10/2008, -2/+11Sir, you may sound like a lunatic, but you're pretty much right. I think the most eloquent way of saying it without sounding too conspiracy theorist-esque is the way that Howard Zinn said it: "The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough wealth to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority. It is a country so powerful, so big, so pleasing to so many of its citizens that it can afford to give freedom of dissent to the small number who are not pleased.
          There is no system of control with more openings, apertures, lee-ways, flexibilities, rewards for the chosen, winning tickets in lotteries. There is none that disperses its controls more complexly through the voting system, the work situation, the church, the family, the school, the mass media- none more successful in mollifying opposition with reforms, isolating people from one another, creating patriotic loyalty.
          One percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth. The rest of the wealth is distributed in such a way as to turn those in the 99 percent against one another: small property owners against the propertyless, black against white, native-born against foreign-born, intellectuals and professionals against the uneducated and unskilled. These groups have resented one another and warred against one another with such vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as sharers of leftovers in a very wealthy country."
        • alecks, on 04/10/2008, -0/+6I hear ya brotha!!! I feel the same and every time I try to bring these topics up for discussion, I get the same reactions from my peers.
        • rlbond86, on 04/11/2008, -5/+1It played out this way because it was allowed to by the Constitution. You support your candidate who says to be a constitutionalist, but the Constitution wasn't written strongly enough to prevent this from happening. Ironically, you support non-interventionism, both in policy and economics, but ultimately this policy created the government we have today, with corporations seizing control because they were not watched by the same government you oppose. Less oversight is not what we need. We need a President with the balls to fix executive power, levy restrictions on asymmetric business transactions, and stop big businesses.
          Consider: 40 years ago there were 100 media companies in the US. Now there are 6: GE, NewsCorp, Time Warner, Disney, CBS Corporation, and Viacom New Media. This is due to a LACK OF RESTRICTIONS in acquisitions. As the companies get bigger, they trade favors with the government.
          Your candidate, Ron Paul, would oppose any effort to stop these mergers from happening, yet you oppose mass media. This is a curious combination.

          So, in the end, who has the balls to stop this from happening? I am afraid that nobody running seems to. But, I know who does not: Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, and probably McCain, and maybe Obama. I fear for our country's future. We need someone like Teddy Roosevelt or something like that. We need someone like that soon.
      • insllvn, on 04/10/2008, -5/+7How is that relevant, never mind obligatory?
      • bpoteat, on 04/10/2008, -3/+9And then . . . they came for me . . . but they realized too late that "take everyone's guns" should have come earlier in the TODO list.
        • forgiste, on 04/10/2008, -3/+2yeah, that way the government has all the guns and the people can't defend themselves against tyranny. Now, if we had a decentralized government where every person only had power over themselves, then we could take the guns away and even allow 24 hour surveillance.
      • humperdeath, on 04/10/2008, -1/+6What are they going to do? Send China to 'time-out"?
        It is a waste of time, but since Mr Paul actually DID vote, he wasted the same amount of time as all the others. He SHOULD have abstained.
        BUT, here is what it did, it got him on many news sources again just because he was 'different' How do you say it: "Any news is better than no news?"
      • Killwize, on 04/10/2008, -1/+2Thats from the book "they thought they where free: the germans 1933 1945" hua?
    • BetterOffEd, on 04/10/2008, -32/+113Well if Ron Paul said it, it MUST be true.
      • KiraDnote, on 04/10/2008, -14/+58Ron Paul is never wrong.
        • silentboom, on 04/10/2008, -16/+30This statement seems to be more and more true each day as much as people want to ignore it. The faux news channel would have you believe otherwise.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 04/10/2008, -20/+8"The vote was 413-1"

            RP must be in a pissy mood after having to drop out of the race.

            "Well, maybe I don't FEEL like condemning China!"
          • Funbox, on 04/10/2008, -1/+8He didn't drop.

            His vote goes perfectly with the libertarian views he's always had.

            Quit being a bitch.
        • rpgmaker, on 04/10/2008, -37/+15Except for that racist publication that he promoted a few years ago, am I wrong?
          • card51short, on 04/10/2008, -16/+24he promoted it now?
            Was he on the street holding up signs for it?
            Did he buy some magazine ad space for it?
          • Wartyboskfapped, on 04/10/2008, -27/+22"he promoted it now?
            Was he on the street holding up signs for it?"

            - oh, nooooo. he only had his ***** NAME ON IT. It was written in HIS NAME. So, yeah, he promoted it. You blinkered ***** douche.
          • terrya64, on 04/10/2008, -2/+10this was done without his knowledge, he was not even in public service when that happened.
          • rpgmaker, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I'm being dugg down, that means that the RonPaulBots are still 'round.
        • noahtron, on 04/10/2008, -7/+3i hope you're joking...
      • 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 *****
        • Angostura, on 04/10/2008, -19/+8They are expressing their disapproval. Which would you prefer? Trade sanctions? A pre-emptive nuclear strike?
          • rotten777, on 04/10/2008, -5/+7Use the UN to get something done. If we weren't China's bitch thanks to the current government (white house and congress) we could actually get something accomplished. Right now we're limping along and trying to give the idea that we're still 100%. Get real.
          • faskill, on 04/10/2008, -4/+4Really?... How much money do we owe as Americans owe China? How much Chinese money is invested in American business? Do we really want to see that go away and our economy crash and our country go bankrupt? Wait, we do? Oh, then free Tibet!
        • Kral, on 04/10/2008, -2/+22Something that actually accomplishes something for once would be nice. I know it's a lot to ask from this government..
          • ICSU, on 04/10/2008, -14/+6Like a military action? Like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan?
            Diplomacy and cooperation > wars
          • rotten777, on 04/10/2008, -5/+15"Like a military action? Like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
            Who said ANYTHING about war or military action? Are you trying to put words into other peoples mouths? I'm personally more worried about the treasure of this country, the gold standard, the Iraq war not being over, and my tax money bailing out corporations as well as morons who can't understand ARM loans.
          • alittleroy101, on 04/10/2008, -14/+9Please shut up about the gold standard.
          • tzadiel, on 04/10/2008, -1/+7I think something as simple as removing China from "Most Favored Trading Nation" until they begin treating *all* their citizens at least as well as prisoners are required to be under the Geneva convention would be a start that doesn't require an military action.
          • NeoConned08, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1alittleroy101
            Perhaps you should tell alan greenspan to stfu about the gold standard, as he is now advocating it on national new stations. plz2stfu!!!
      • hokie47, on 04/10/2008, -2/+7So say we all
    • 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.
      • 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!
        • cwgannon, on 04/10/2008, -60/+13You would have fit in so well before World War I. Good luck with the isolationism.
          • TopherT, on 04/10/2008, -2/+22World War I was a terrible war to have gotten into. It was never our problem. Iraq and Afganistan, not our problem, China, Tibet, not our problem.
          • Speed, on 04/10/2008, -20/+3Topher, have you heard of a ship called the Lucetania?
          • TehMCP, on 04/10/2008, -1/+16The RMS Lusitania (to spell it correctly) was warned ahead of time, carrying military supplies, and was in fact considered a legitimate military target. And when I say warned ahead of time, I mean that the German embassy put up (or tried to put up) big ads in the newspapers and right next to the ship itself. That shouldn't have (and didn't have) anything to do with the U.S. getting involved in WWII. Try again.
          • xerigen, on 04/10/2008, -2/+17Ron Paul is less isolationist than the current administration. George Bush goes to war, those countries will no longer be our allies. He has a trade embargo with Cuba for no reason whatsoever. Ron Paul would be friends with Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan, as well as lift the embargo and trade with Cuba. You're a moron who watches too much Fox News and you need to lay off of Rush Limbaugh's balls.
          • andburn1, on 04/10/2008, -28/+4Shut the ***** up about Ron ***** Paul. THE MAN IS CRAZY. Do you know WHY he didn't condemn it? Because he believes it is the RIGHT of a powerful person or people to subjugate and mistreat others for their own ends. He would abolish the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the minimum wage, and all other sorts of things that prevent corporations from enslaving the working class, because he thinks that's the corporations' RIGHT. The same goes for China. Ron Paul is crazy, stupid, or evil, take your pick.
          • betterth, on 04/10/2008, -1/+15@andburn1

            Andburn1 is retarded, mentally deficient or just really ***** stupid. Take your pick!

            It's fun to play this game.
          • andburn1, on 04/10/2008, -13/+2Ad hominem, my friend. If you can't tell me why it's ok to let poor Americans be paid 1 dollar an hour, work 12 hour days, receive no health benefits, work among cockroaches in cramped quarters with unclean drinking water and any other problem a corporation was too lazy to fix, then please, be my guest. Otherwise, I'm afraid the record will show that my argument had substance, and you acted like a child.
          • insllvn, on 04/10/2008, -1/+16andburn, I am not sure I agree with Paul, but if I may speak in his defense for a moment, I will try to channel him.

            Ahem. Unions. It is the job of free men (and women) to ensure they are treated well by their employer, not the business of the government to limit the rights of employers or dictate to them how they run their business. This is the job and purpose of unions. A united working class may bargain on its own behalf for safety restrictions and reasonable wages, without costly and unnecessary government intervention. The free market, if allowed to exist without willful manipulation by the government or the wealthy elite (see anti-trust laws) will correct for the value of labor and keep the system in check.

            Back to speaking for myself: I am a tad less free market than Ron Paul. I think a little state intervention is a good thing, as it serves the purpose of speaking for the best interest of all people, or it would if government were more transparent and less vulnerable to corruption. I do not however, condemn the opposing view to the territory of madmen, morons, and villains. That, sir, is ad hominem at its worst and most divisive. Shame on you.
          • andburn1, on 04/10/2008, -9/+3While I do believe that those whose interests are at risk in the most numbers (the working class) should get the most protection from a supposed democracy, and do understand that this conflict of values may not ever be resolved through discourse, I'm heartened by your mature, balanced view of things. From my point of view, though, a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" must protect the interests of the people. The rich, who some may see as having their rights violated by this kind of regulation, don't need help. They can continue to profit while treating workers fairly. These kinds of regulations protect the well-being of the majority of the people, and do not unfairly compromise the well-being of any of the people. ... And I just realized you basically said that. Let me address the last point. In modern politics, libertarianism is a joke. The reason that it is a joke is that it is so idealistic, so naive, and so short-sighted that one who has any understanding of history and human nature cannot help but scoff. I generally respect other people's opinions, but this political philosophy is not just ignorant, it's dangerous. The reason that Ron Paul angers me so is that he has captured the language of progressive politics to entice a group of people that would be devastated by the implementation of his proposed policies. It's the fact that he spins such anti-progressive politics in a web of grandeur and nationalism and deceives many of the young people that support him. It's just sad to me that so many people defend him with such vehemence when they do not understand the real implications of his politics. That is villainous.
          • Parisjune, on 04/10/2008, -1/+7We don't live in a democracy andburn1 and there is no clause in the Constitution for protecting the "working class" or for involving ourselves in the affairs of other nations -- whether they be good or evil. Libertarianism (or classic liberalism) is the foundation of our country so for you to call it a joke is ridiculous. From reading your post, it seems to me you might feel more comfortable in another country. A European one, perhaps?
        • 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?
          • BESTenemy, on 04/10/2008, -0/+17... or at least listen to Ron Paul's debates. Non-intervention is his platform. He explains quite well what it means. It means doing business with our opponents instead of going to war with them. It means minding out own business as a way of preventing others from makingit their business to come over here and... let's say... crash planes into our buildings.
          • andburn1, on 04/10/2008, -8/+2We must appeal to justice or we sacrifice the very foundation of our nation.
          • insllvn, on 04/10/2008, -0/+5andburn, nonsense, non-interventionism is one of the values our countries founders held most dear.

            "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." - George Washington

            "Walk softly, and carry a big stick." - Theodore Roosevelt

            Who are we, who drove the natives from this land and brought over Africans to work our fields and provoked the Mexicans so we could steal their land, to tell the Chinese, in their age of rapid industrialization, not to commit crimes which pale in comparison to our own? Not applicable you say? What of burning the south and bending railroads around trees? What of the crimes against our own people in the civil war? General Sherman's path? We are just a country, on equal footing to China, and it is both out of line and unwise to provoke them. We are not the world's police.
          • rrbest, on 04/10/2008, -3/+3I somehow doubt a grade-school dictionary includes the words 'isolationism' and 'non-interventionalism'.....
          • insllvn, on 04/10/2008, -0/+6rrbest, not after No Child Left Behind anyway...
          • cwgannon, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1You must be joking. Is that your best attempt at reducing this to semantics?
        • gathly, on 04/10/2008, -1/+24Have you seen our grade schools? Kids are not learning anything about history in grade school anymore, and certainly nothing like the differences in foreign policy stances and their consequences.
          • FLarsen, on 04/10/2008, -4/+7But they ARE learning history. They are learning about the time between now and 6000 years back.

            /sarcasm
          • ChristianMagic, on 04/10/2008, -1/+5FLarsen, you fail hard. You obviously were attempting to make a joke on creationism, but you have to realize that teaching history generally does start around 6000 years ago. Obviously there were people beforehand, they just didn't have ways of writing down history(see Prehistoric). They do teach history from before, but it sort of merges w/ Science and is a lot more spotty.

            Also on the topic, ***** you, "kids these days" aren't idiots.
          • FLarsen, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3I made a joke on the fact that a lot of time is wasted on religion in school. It doesn't matter if history generally starts around 6000 years ago (which I know).

            And yes, "kids these days" aren't idiots, but many schools are quite idiotic.
          • ChristianMagic, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Okay, that's understandable.
      • MrCobaltBlue, on 04/10/2008, -4/+36Better than voting no because some company or special interest group is telling him to.
        • BigLLamasHouse, on 04/10/2008, -2/+7i see what you're saying, but how does that even apply here?
          • MrCobaltBlue, on 04/10/2008, -1/+14Because he's voting with his principles, and not pandering or wasting time with political *****.
          • andburn1, on 04/10/2008, -9/+2One, resolutions like this are a very important part of foreign policy, and are not "political *****," but a peaceful way to present a united stance and leverage our considerable influence on situations which violate the ideals which we believe are essentially American. That brings me to two, principles. It is the principles of this nation (whether they're for show or not) which this condemnation is informed by - Ron Paul obviously believes that it is the right of a powerful country or corporation to subjugate people for its own ends, which contradicts the principles of America as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. This is exactly the (supposed) reason which we revolted against England. There's no "special interest" that could get every congressman but one to vote together on an issue, there's only the common values which are intrinsically American. Ron Paul disagrees with every single elected representative of the people of the United States, and you think that that's somehow admirable?
          • MrCobaltBlue, on 04/10/2008, -0/+8"One, resolutions like this are a very important part of foreign policy, and are not "political *****," but a peaceful way to present a united stance and leverage our considerable influence on situations which violate the ideals which we believe are essentially American."

            No its poking the bee hive with a stick. Its unnecessarily chastising a country is not "diplomacy", especially a country we're borrowing billions of dollars from to finance a war.

            "That brings me to two, principles. It is the principles of this nation (whether they're for show or not) which this condemnation is informed by - Ron Paul obviously believes that it is the right of a powerful country or corporation to subjugate people for its own ends, which contradicts the principles of America as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. This is exactly the (supposed) reason which we revolted against England. There's no "special interest" that could get every congressman but one to vote together on an issue, there's only the common values which are intrinsically American."

            See AIPAC.

            "Ron Paul disagrees with every single elected representative of the people of the United States, and you think that that's somehow admirable?"

            When these elected officials can be doing something better than bloviating over something another country is doing when ours is going to *****? Yes it is admirable, its called priorities and we should be getting our own house in order before we go judging other's on theirs.
          • andburn1, on 04/10/2008, -6/+1Unnecessarily chastising? Do you believe that China's actions are just? If they are not just, the government of the United States must assert its opinion - which carries a lot of weight, DESPITE the mess that is foreign relations right now - of those actions as unjust. As to priorities, this condemnation does not have to be asserted at the expense of other issues. Our government cannot be scared away from asserting its values - which I believe are mostly just - because the country is dealing with a certain degree of internal strife. I'm not saying that the government is always right or just - usually it isn't. But when it comes to asserting our opinion about international affairs - a tradition with a long history - politicians must act in accordance with our values. I am not pro-Israel, but just because you can give me an example of a compromise of values that the government has made doesn't mean that it can't create policy in line with our values. It's like saying a social worker who commits a crime should never again do social work. And again on priorities, even if you WERE right in saying that this issue shouldn't be the focus of our Congress, once it IS the focus, how can one justify voting against it? It's very very clear-cut. China's actions are wrong, and clash greatly with American values. As part of our tradition of legislation on foreign policy, we must assert this fact in an official capacity. No one's saying that we should drop everything we're doing and focus on China - it was just a simple vote.
    • 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.
      • scamper22, on 04/10/2008, -35/+12hence, why Ron Paul will not get elected.

        Even if I agree with him on principal that this kind of vote is pointless, it would cost him nothing to actually vote yes.
        Ron Paul is like that family member who won't even let things slide to maintain peace on Christmas Day. Maybe that admirable when dealing with fiscal/constitutional issues, but definitely not on simple issues like this.
        • marcomc2, on 04/10/2008, -5/+19"it would cost him nothing"? so when did you sell your soul then?
          • wafflez, on 04/10/2008, -11/+5because voting to publicly condemn the actions of china clearly constitutes selling his soul. >_>
          • eviltandem, on 04/10/2008, -2/+10@wafflez
            When your country wanted land and it was occupied before we got here (native americans) we wiped them out. We chased them, did death marches, relocated them, and finally used our military to finish them off.

            At least China isn't committing genocide. We might, given the same situation. I think considering history China is being remarkably tolerant of the whole thing.

            If we were dealing with the people of North Carolina wanting to leave the Union we would be all kinds of pissed if the Chinese were trying to get involved. It's not your country, it's not your people, it's not your business.
        • V3n0M, on 04/10/2008, -1/+15"principal" is exactly what it would cost him.
        • MrCobaltBlue, on 04/10/2008, -3/+3"I dont want to be your principal, I want to be your princiPAL."
        • gathly, on 04/10/2008, -3/+5Exactly. Political pressure is not nothing. It's not much, but it's not nothing. Gordon Brown has just declared that he will not attend the Olympics now. With more and more of these "empty" gestures, eventually people will move in larger numbers. In the end, it won't stop China, but it will embarrass them, and then they'll come up with some kind of PR band-aid to make it look good in Tibet for the cameras.
          • evilic0n, on 04/10/2008, -2/+5Dude, do you really think China gives a ***** about PR?
          • Zique, on 04/10/2008, -2/+3Yeah, they applied for the Olympics and put billions into it, initiated large scale military action to quell any riots, because they don't care.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 04/10/2008, -1/+9So you're saying that we should not elect people based on their steadfast principles and elect them on their ability to pander to the public? Someone who can cave into peer and political pressure?

          Because, you know, standing up for your principles even if your the only one to do is something I thought was encouraged in America, if not revered.
          Why would you have him change his vote to a Yes, when the whole goddamn vote was a waste of time? And even if it promised action, the vote itself still doesn't have anything to do with internal US politics. The gesture is nice, but If the goddamn congress has to vote in saying "China is being a douche by imprisoning the non-violent protesting Tibetans," then obviously US VOTERS are the ones doing something wrong with requesting for congress to make such a frivolous waste of time.

          Hell, all that is really needed is for someone in PR to basically say it's bad and we don't agree with it because it's against what we take as basic human rights, which is what we have written on hour constitution
          • andburn1, on 04/10/2008, -7/+2A "frivolous waste of time?" Look, America has (or, debatably, had) the most political, economic, and military influence of any other nation in the world. As an ideologically based nation - and the only one in the world - we have a duty to take action to see justice done in the world. Resolutions are very important because they present a united stance on an issue, and allow us to - without any ambiguity or lack of clarity - leverage our considerable influence to pressure China to change. Will they? Maybe not. But America must do something, and this is the first step on the diplomatic path to social justice.
          • ThndrShk2k, on 04/10/2008, -1/+2"But America must do something, and this is the first step on the diplomatic path to social justice."
            While I agree with that aspect because being the example for good behavior is one of the best things we could do, there are better ways of doing it. Instead of spending hours writing up a worthess vote, they could've written up, or even presented at random, a proposition to declare a PR statement from the congress about this issue, and then broadcast it in a release. This waste less time before it would be approved (As they are only voting on the agreement to a future written announcement), as well as be more public of a statement.
            Media carries a lot of weight, wouldn't not using it for a reason such as this mean that they only wanted to feel good for voting for a piece of paper? BS such as this may make the voters of the congressmen get warm fuzzies too, but ultimately it doesn't do anything as it isn't really a committed local opposition towards China's state of business. They may be united in saying "Oh yeah, that's bad", but that is just saying common sense based on our country's principles.

            While we have no reason to meddle in the affairs of other countries, we can be sure as hell to base our relations with them on the way they treat their lessers.
            Although currently from the way we treat ours, we might not be the ones to speak about such things...
        • xerigen, on 04/10/2008, -0/+6Yeah.. let's all conform even if it's completely against our beliefs.
      • dot19408, on 04/10/2008, -3/+25That's the problem with Congress, it's just as easy to vote Yes as it is to vote NO.

        They vote in whatever way they think will do THEM the most good. At least Paul votes according to a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution giving Congress the power to condemn another government for their actions, unless those actions directly affect US citizens.
        • BigLLamasHouse, on 04/10/2008, -4/+6yeah, but there's no provision preventing them from condemning human rights violations. China is as bad as the USSR was. They ***** suck.
        • Dragular, on 04/10/2008, -0/+5Actually Big, there is a provision stating that any power not granted to Congress in the constitution falls to the individual states. Thus, you don't have to have a provision PREVENTING anything, just don't mention it.
        • Speed, on 04/10/2008, -10/+3There is also no provision in the Constitution giving congress the power to use electricity. There's no provision giving congress the power to televise broadcasts on Cspan. There's no provision in the Constitution allowing for democratic selection of candidates in party primaries. Should we ban these?
          • Dragular, on 04/10/2008, -1/+9Electricity is used to function in their primary goal.

            CSPAN is a private company, and per wikipedia: "It receives no funding from any government source, has no contract with the government, and does not sell sponsorships or advertising."

            The selection of candidates in party primaries is not via government either. Parties are seperate entities and use the primaries to determine who they're going to nominate. This would be no different than you and a few of your buddies deciding to pick which one of you should run for City Council... it's merely on a larger scale and has more funding packed behind it.

            READ A BOOK. LEARN THINGS.
          • Speed, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Electricity isn't necessary for them to function in their primary goal, thus there is no provision for it.
            There is also no provision allowing Cspan cameras in the houses of congress (something the government does control).
            Although, I will admit I should have thought the primary thing through, but we don't really study the American political system in Canadian schools, so sue me.
        • andburn1, on 04/10/2008, -10/+2Speed is right. The Constitution must not shackle America, must not prevent it from striving for social justice around the world. With World War II, we decided that it was our duty to see our principles done justice in the world. That's a part of the culture of our government, and it continues to be because of the officials WE ELECT. Ron Paul is placing the value of a strict interpretation of the Constitution over the value of the principles of the United States.
          • Dragular, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1That's not why we got involved in WWII. Hitler was being a bastard long before Pearl Harbor.
        • insllvn, on 04/10/2008, -2/+5andburn1

          America...
          America...
          America, ***** YEAH!
          Coming again, to save the mother ***** day yeah,
          America, ***** YEAH!
          Freedom is the only way yeah,
          Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
          America, ***** YEAH!
          So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
          America, ***** YEAH!
          What you going to do when we come for you now,
          it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow

          ***** YEAH!

          McDonalds, ***** YEAH!
          Wal-Mart, ***** YEAH!
          The Gap, ***** YEAH!
          Baseball, ***** YEAH!
          NFL, *****, YEAH!
          Rock and roll, ***** YEAH!
          The Internet, ***** YEAH!
          Slavery, ***** YEAH!

          ***** YEAH!

          Starbucks, ***** YEAH!
          Disney world, ***** YEAH!
          Porno, ***** YEAH!
          Valium, ***** YEAH!
          Reeboks, ***** YEAH!
          Fake *****, ***** YEAH!
          Sushi, ***** YEAH!
          Taco Bell, ***** YEAH!
          Rodeos, ***** YEAH!
          Bed bath and beyond (***** yeah, ***** yeah)

          Liberty, ***** YEAH!
          White Slips, ***** YEAH!
          The Alamo, ***** YEAH!
          Band-aids, ***** YEAH!
          Las Vegas, ***** YEAH!
          Christmas, ***** YEAH!
          Immigrants, ***** YEAH!
          Popeye, ***** YEAH!
          Democrats, ***** YEAH!
          Republicans (republicans)
          (***** yeah, ***** yeah)
          Sportsmanship
          Books

          WE ARE NOT THE GODDAMN WORLD POLICE!
          • andburn1, on 04/11/2008, -5/+2Don't ever throw that ***** at me. I'm no nationalist, no patriot, I believe that this government is one of the most effective plutocracies in the history of the world, and has most effectively divided and set in opposition factions of the same group of non-wealthy Americans in order to ensure the ongoing control of the rich than any other nation in the history of the world. I believe the American government is more evil than good. Consumerism and materialism, capitalism and paternalism, dogmatism and propaganda - all these things make me sick with rage. But I do believe in social justice, and I believe that America can use its immense power to work toward that end. If a bunch of corrupt ***** have to reach down deep and admit that they have some responsibility to the world, I don't think some ***** who doesn't know the first thing about justice should presume to stand in the way of it by appealing to "principles" which are in fact a set of corrupt convictions about the entitlement of the powerful. I think you may have insulted me worse than anyone ever has on digg. ***** you.
          • raisputin3, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1No andburn, you're ignorant
          • insllvn, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1So andburn, are you in favor of the Iraq war because we are spreading freedom?
          • ThndrShk2k, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1@andburn1
            Watch South Park dumbass.
        • yodaj007, on 04/10/2008, -1/+4"With World War II, we decided that it was our duty to see our principles done justice in the world."

          Um, no. Learn some history. We stayed out of WWII until we, ourselves, were attacked in Pearl Harbor. The Japanese woke the slumbering beast, not our "values".
          • andburn1, on 04/11/2008, -6/+2Pearl Harbor was merely an excuse for our involvement in World War II. But my point was that the spirit of that war - conquering evil and all that ***** - lived on and continued in our foreign policy.
        • Xondar, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3andburn1 really knows nothing of history it seems.
    • Zcott, on 04/10/2008, -28/+10And would you be saying the same thing if the vote was 413 no and 1 yes from Ron Paul?
      • rpgmaker, on 04/10/2008, -7/+5Ron Paul against the world!! :D
      • eviltandem, on 04/10/2008, -7/+3Yes. Welcome to crazy lib-cons. It's stuff like this that makes it nearly impossible for me to be a full "liberal". There seems to be some requirement to be crazy about certain different things. China is our equal. Militarily they are simply not bully-able. Let them deal with it in their way (since it is their country and all). If they start genocide then I see the point in protesting, but they seem to be exercising restraint.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3There is point in bad press, but there are ways of doing it without involving congress. Civilian protests in major areas and movement groups are a good thing.

          If they start a genocide, then the country itself can take a stronger stance, but currently they're just doing light stuff. We currently have many contracts with China, and they probably wouldn't start one, but if they do... Well lets just say it really isn't good business.
    • Tyvich, on 04/10/2008, -26/+23"The world now knows the House does not like the way China treats Tibetans"
      Exactly, that is what a political statement is. Although it might be wide known that we condemn their treatment of human rights, by making a unified stance it lets them know we are serious, without taking arms. I think it was worthwhile, by showing that we took the time to pass the resolution we are as a nation recognizing the human rights violation that China committed. It's called diplomacy.
      • queotic, on 04/10/2008, -6/+34It's called hypocrisy. How can we condemn China when we're killing innocent Iraqis?
        • goatyak77, on 04/10/2008, -8/+5You do what you can
        • goatyak77, on 04/10/2008, -11/+2O way to bring Iraq into this, although it is important, and I agree with your concerns about Iraq, you can still get things accomplished why we have a bad president. It shows that the executive branch and legislative are disagreeing
        • Speed, on 04/10/2008, -6/+6Sometimes hypocrisy is needed. You go to the doctor, he tells you that you need to quit smoking or you will die within 5 years, then he goes outside to light up. Does that make his advice wrong or invalid? No.
          Your parents partied a lot when they were young, does that mean they are wrong when they say underage drinking can be a very dangerous thing? No.
          Eventually you'll have to grow up and realize that the world isn't black and white. And, honestly, as bad as the war in Iraq is, it's nothing compared to what's going on in Tibet. America isn't as evil as diggers like to make it out to be.
        • BESTenemy, on 04/10/2008, -1/+4In addition is a good distraction from problems back home, which we've got plenty of.
        • jyac, on 04/10/2008, -1/+5"Your parents partied a lot when they were young, does that mean they are wrong when they say underage drinking can be a very dangerous thing? No.
          Eventually you'll have to grow up and realize that the world isn't black and white. And, honestly, as bad as the war in Iraq is, it's nothing compared to what's going on in Tibet."

          are you ***** kidding me? did you read the news how many people die in iraq? i don't know if you have kids, if you party all night long and them your kids party all night long is not good, you think they will listen to you? sounds like you don't live on this planet.
      • silentboom, on 04/10/2008, -7/+18So we are now passing laws of our opinions on things? How many god forsaken laws do we need. Pretty soon there will be laws passed with opinions on other laws. They are creating a law structure so large and powerful and so unchangeable that the little people have to be hurt by it. There is no other way. We cannot allow this to happen. Every law we need is already on the books, we have to start going back to the Constitution. This is crazy.
        • goatyak77, on 04/10/2008, -9/+6It is not a law
        • cwgannon, on 04/10/2008, -14/+6Well done. You've managed to completely blow this out of proportion and make it about something else entirely.
        • BobOki, on 04/10/2008, -4/+8No, really he didn't.
      • BobOki, on 04/10/2008, -1/+12Democracy does not consist of a list of demands. Democracy does not consist of creating unnecessary tensions between nations. Our country is not a democracy. Our country is a Constitutional Republic. Why do we spread "democracy" when we do not practice it?
        • Speed, on 04/10/2008, -7/+4Unnecessary? You want to tell the 2 million Tibetians that they don't matter? If the end result means that lives can be saved without war, isn't it worth it?
          • ThndrShk2k, on 04/10/2008, -2/+2You know what also prevents war? Genocide.
            Nuke china until they're dead, Tibetians are free, chinese don't oppress. No war there, only mass decimation.

            Now with that stupid extreme out of the way: The ends don't always justify the means.
            Also: Resolutions without commitment do nothing. Propositions about committing to a PR announcement about US relations with China due to the fact that we are not agreeing with their actions does more than any stupid resolution would.
          • Speed, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1It may do nothing directly, but it does give China bad PR (which is one thing the Chinese government does care about), and if the vote is already on the table, what's the point in voting no? If there is already a vote, you may as well vote yes, because it passing may do nothing, but it failing will do even less.
          • ThndrShk2k, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1Doing less than nothing is still nothing.
            Opposing useless forms of government by voting against something that advocates such useless actions is more effective than doing nothing.

            Sticking to your guns isn't always a bad thing, as long as those are within known range of values. However if those values are deemed unappealing, sticking to those opinions only will cause downfall.
            What is so unappealing to refuse to give warm fuzzies when your reason is based against such counter-intuitive voting?

            Also: Why ***** vote on common sense? Of course it's bad, we don't need to ***** vote on that *****. That is why it's useless waste of money. If you don't think denying human rights is bad, then you're dumb.
      • eviltandem, on 04/10/2008, -7/+4Seriously. When there were native americans causing a ruckus in our country we killed them. Almost all of them. We even used our military on them.

        So how is this different? In comparison to us, the Chinese seem to be exercising restraint.

        And for the record diplomacy is when you leverage things and make deals to get things done. Waving your hands in the air politely asking someone to do something they have no intention of doing is not diplomacy; it's waving your hands in the air doing nothing.

        As long as you don't do anything that China has to deal with, they won't care. I don't care and it's my government.
        • Speed, on 04/10/2008, -2/+5So because British settlers 300 years ago did something bad, we can't speak up about bad things? Do you mind telling me how that works?
        • insllvn, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3Speed, don't you know wonder how China (or France or Gemrnay or Japan or Nigeria or Brazil) feels about Gitmo? How about secret CIA torture prisons or Abu Gharab or the Iraq war in general? Aren't you just falling off your seat wondering?

          Fix the injustices in our on country and stop the crimes of our own government and then we can talk about China and Tibet.
          • Speed, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1I don't wonder and I don't care because it doesn't matter how they feel: it's wrong either way. I've never claimed to support the injustices in America or Canada, but we have a chance to try to right a wrong in China, and it would be irresponsible to pass it up because there's injustices in America too. It is possible to multi-task, and we don't have to wait until America is fixed before we worry about China.
        • jimmyleeca, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0If you are really sincere, what i doubt about, why don't you fight for government to give all the publich land back to native indians? If you can get 1% of their land back for them, you are already a hero
      • dot19408, on 04/10/2008, -1/+9Diplomacy is the business of the State Department, Congress' job is to legislate.

        Congress (Left and Right) is far to concerned with political noise making, and has far to little concern for DOING anything. The war aside, all the problems they talk about this election year are the same as the ones they talked about LAST election year. No politician wants to FIX the problems, that would take away their ammo for the NEXT election....
        • MrCobaltBlue, on 04/10/2008, -0/+6They want to feel like they're doing something since Bush has them by the balls on everything else.
          • ThndrShk2k, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2More like they want US to feel like they're doing something GOOD.
            Warm fuzzies all around, because congress agrees with fundamental principles of human rights and common sense. Who knew politicians had it in them!?
    • markgl, on 04/10/2008, -15/+8always america the bad guys. your tune never changes...
      • markgl, on 04/10/2008, -1/+4See what I mean? -10 Dugg down for pointing out the stupidity of comparing us to china.
        • insllvn, on 04/10/2008, -3/+2It is so hard to see things from the point of view of those we despise, or whose actions we abhor. How is China's occupation of Tibet different from our occupation of Iraq? We would say it is because we don't intend to stay forever or make Iraq part of America. They would say it is different because there is no Tibet, only a secessionist movement in China. We violently suppressed a secessionist movement in America during the Civil War, but I doubt you would champion the Confederate State's right to self determination, at least not as heartily as you cry "Free Tibet." Both China and Tibet have valid points in their disagreement, at least from their particular points of view. We have enough problems at home without redirecting the spotlight onto the follies of other nations.
          • markgl, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2give me a ***** break. i can't even explain anything to you if you think us in iraq is like china in tibet. you scare me with your thinking.
          • Laughsatyou, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2or lack thereof.
    • rpgmaker, on 04/10/2008, -6/+26What if the representatives pass a resolution to get the troops out of Iraq? Why bitching about how China treats the Tibetans when the US is doing the same thing in Iraq and other countries in the middle east?
      Double standards much?
      • elipabst, on 04/10/2008, -2/+11They have, it got vetoed.
      • BobOki, on 04/10/2008, -1/+3Can't veto a resolution as its not a law.
      • BigLLamasHouse, on 04/10/2008, -3/+2I agree with you fundamentally, but its gotta start somewhere. The world as a whole has a long way to go but at least the US protects the rights of our own citizens.. well, as long as they don't download pirated music
        • rpgmaker, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Which rights? You have almost lost any privacy and fundamental rights by laws passed by your congressmen.
    • colihondro, on 04/10/2008, -5/+93BTW, Ron Paul did not drop out of the presidential race
      • Sinnic, on 04/10/2008, -0/+5April 22nd baby, I'm finally going to get my chance.
      • hendo1769, on 04/10/2008, -2/+11FTA: The vote was 413-1. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who has NOT dropped out of the presidential race, was the lone congressman voting against it.
      • hmunkey, on 04/10/2008, -9/+1Why not? Seems kinda stupid to stay in.
        • Laughsatyou, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3I know! wont somebody tell Hildogg to give it up already?
    • geoken, on 04/10/2008, -13/+14I don't understand why this is a waste of time. Isn't forming an official opinion on a given issue one of the jobs of the government?
      • silentboom, on 04/10/2008, -5/+16It stops at another countries border, we don't respect borders though. Not even our own.
      • thekauf, on 04/10/2008, -3/+24The job of the federal government is to protect our civil liberties. That is it. What in the world would give you the idea that part of the governments job is to form opinions?
        • groberts1980, on 04/10/2008, -1/+14Exactly. And what the ***** are opinions supposed to accomplish anyway?
        • diggn_it, on 04/10/2008, -2/+2What about foreign policy and trade agreements and such? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just be interested in what you have to say on the subject.
          • Laughsatyou, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3Commerce with all nations, alliance with none - Jefferson
        • Syric, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3The job of the government is to interact with and have discourse, relations, etc. with other governments. It does this in order to protect the country's material resources, to secure the possibility of more in the future, and to increase its reputation for being able to do these things. That whole "protecting the civil liberties of a citizen" thing is a recent invention, no matter how you slice it.
      • xerigen, on 04/10/2008, -0/+4Diplomacy is great. The way this is being done is not. We need to sit down with the leaders and convince them to stop if we really feel that we need to push our "morals" on others. Just publicly saying we don't like what you're doing is just going to piss them off. Pissing off a country that could make you bankrupt in a day is probably a bad idea.
        • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1it's more complicated than that. it is a difficult balancing act because china has so much influence. yet we do have to criticize them over tibet.
        • Syric, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2Well, look at it this way. The U.S. could piss off China, or piss of all of its allies. The choice is easy.
      • Parisjune, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3No geoken. It's not one of the jobs of the government. The federal government has basically three jobs: coin money, protect the country from foreign invasion, and to sign treaties.
        • Syric, on 04/10/2008, -3/+1Sign treaties falls under the general category of conducting diplomatic relations, under which "issuing official statements" also falls.
        • LadyKofNYC, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1No, a treaty involves a WELCOMED interaction between our country and another. By the way, where is this "general category of conducting diplomatic relations" written in the Constitution?????

    • BobOki, on 04/10/2008, -3/+20It's a waste because it does nothing but cause more tensions between the US and China. It takes a long time and effort, which costs money, to write up a resolution, so the actual money aside, it's still a waste becuase instead of concentrating on things that really need to be addressed, our debt, our economy, our unemployment, our medical insurance, our schools, our homeless, etcetc, they are busy creating resolutions that do more harm than good.
      So, now the world knows the USA are hypocrites. We condemn China for what they are doing, while we are engaged in an illegal war, condone our use of torture, etcetc. So, yes, we most certainly ARE making a statement.
      Also, note, also by doing this, we create an opportunity for us to come by later and try to pull the "we tried to talk peacefully with them" crap and then go to war with China. All that debt ceases to exist if China falls, so hey, why not right?
      • mgags, on 04/10/2008, -7/+4We need more tension between us and China if we think they are human rights violators...
      • BobOki, on 04/10/2008, -1/+7Don't condemn Ron Paul and call him a isolationist in one hand, then try to make the entire world hate us in the other.
      • dot19408, on 04/10/2008, -2/+7Writing words on paper and talking to a camera has absolutely ZERO effect on another government, it makes the speakers fell all warm and fuzzy because they SAID something. It makes a brain dead section of the population feel good about their government because they SPOKE OUT about it. It accomplishes absolutely NOTHING.

        If Congress is disturbed about the violation of human rights in Tibet they should DO something. Sanction US businesses that do business with China. Place tariffs on Chinese imports.

        DO SOMETHING, words have no sting.
        • jyac, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1yep it's sad but true, that's how they spend our hard earn money.
    • momsshizzle, on 04/10/2008, -4/+33It's being passed because Congress doesn't like to work on real issues.
      • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -5/+1how is this not a real issue?
        • yodaj007, on 04/10/2008, -1/+4What other countries do is their business, not ours. Gee, Congress passed a resolution. How nice.

          *China throws it into the "to-do" pile*
    • @nival, on 04/10/2008, -4/+14What's wrong with the Chinese government, don't they know that we are the only ones allowed to torture, use waterboarding, detain citizens without charges, rape female soldiers, detain based on racial profiling, and take away privacy rights? no wonder the house is so pissed, geee.
    • StandupShowcase, on 04/10/2008, -8/+3nice work lemming. eat it up.
    • MuskokasFinest, on 04/10/2008, -12/+8It's really sad when people on digg are always saying someone should speak up for what atrocities are happening in different places. Then your government speaks up about something, and people condemn it, and make up excuses about how it won't have any effect. The U.S. has said the right thing, saying China is wrong and even if that doesn't have any effect, why would you vote against it. An opinion is an opinion, and the opinion of the most powerful country in the world is a BIG opinion. They're taking a step in the right direction, and because your favourite candidate said otherwise, you're all going to change your views to warp around him. It's sort of sad.
      • TamerzIsMe, on 04/10/2008, -1/+5Actions speak louder than words. If they want to prove how serious they are about human rights they should be spending their time stopping torture and ending an illegal war.
        • Gemfinder, on 04/10/2008, -3/+1We've been trying to for the past five years. Bush won't cooperate.
          Maybe you got what it takes to convince him? Then act on it.
        • MuskokasFinest, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1They shouldn't be trying to "prove" anything. They should be showing their support for a suppressed populous.
      • Parisjune, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3"why would you vote against it." Because what the Congress did is Unconstitutional and Ron Paul knows it. You might "feel" it's the right thing to do by voting yes, but if you have sworn to uphold the Constitution then you cannot vote yes. There shouldn't have been a vote at all.
    • theheadguy, on 04/10/2008, -12/+15Actually, you are entirely wrong. As Americans, we are affected by guilt. China is not. China is affected by honor. When the US goes through the work to pass a resolution condemning their actions, it is embarrassing to China and affects their honor (just like not showing up for the Olympics)...

      You might want to know something about the culture before you vote against something.

      Digg me down for not saying ron paul is the second coming of christ.
      • cheesejaguar, on 04/10/2008, -7/+5Dugg down because you think China cares what we think about them.
        • starkruzr, on 04/10/2008, -1/+8Dugg down for not understanding Chinese culture and the concept of face.
      • orangedude, on 04/10/2008, -1/+2If you really understood Chinese culture, then you would realize that they would take these US actions as an insult to them. This would only make them more angry and distrustful of the US in the future and achieve the opposite effect.
      • jimmyleeca, on 04/12/2008, -1/+0China does care, as any other country. Although they don't give ***** to this resolution, they hates all the hypocrites sitting in DC even more!
    • Zlorp, on 04/10/2008, -4/+11for real, we have killed hundreds of thousands of iraqis without so much as blinking. im sure the rest of the world sees us as being 100 times the monsters we claim the chinese government are.
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1***** moron, "we" havent killed hundreds of thousands of iraqis you lying asshat. blame america but whatever you do dont blame those ***** ***** that suicide bomb hundreds of their own people every day.
      • jimmyleeca, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0then how about the millions native indians you killed earlier? aren't you still living on their land with their corpse 6 feet under?
    • chenyu768, on 04/10/2008, -3/+6Well when you tried 50 years ago with the CIA to start a coup in a newly emerged nation called P.R. China, which involved arming so called "monks" to rebel for the promise that the Dali Lama can continue to enslave its people, failed miserably. Well you kind of have to keep it up or admit to the world that you don't really care about Tibet and that America is just saving face. I wonder why nobody ever mention that the CIA provided the Tibetan Monks with guns and that the Tibetan monks first attacked Chinese soliders. So China invading Tibet is a false statement. For if there was "No China, then there would be No Tibet".

      Oh and if the Dali Lama wants to be part of China then what's with "Free Tibet" shouldn't it be something like "Reunite Tibet" or "Take Back Tibet" or something similar to that. It's funny how the protest became more than about Tibet, "for most protesters can't even find Tibet", it became a trend. It's now trendy to support Tibet, even though noone really knows about Tibet, and it's trendy now to hate China, even though no-one really knows why.

      Lastly, people should realize what the Dali Lama is. He is not divine. He is not the reincarnation of divinity. He is suppose to be the reincarnation of the 1st Dali Lama. Who was not divine but infact appointed. So therefore he is the reincarnation of an appointed official.

    • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -13/+3Paulism has become a religion, just like christianity or scientology. paulites refuse to accept contradictory evidence in opposition to the views of their cult leader. that is why i stopped supporting ron paul. i hope he loses reelection, but then he could play that loss as some sort of martyrdom, and the ignorant sheep that praise his every word will simply praise him more in response. i don't know how this can be solved.
      • blankuser, on 04/10/2008, -6/+2Couldn't agree more with you.
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2are you projecting as an air america/ micheal moore leftist?
    • Gemfinder, on 04/10/2008, -2/+2Way to spin being a stuck-up *****, Luth.
      Say you're beating up a little kid, and your buddy or business partner told you to knock it off and leave the kid alone? Would you ignore him?
    • bluezinc, on 04/10/2008, -13/+5Ron Paul can ***** off. A resolution to basically express the United States' dislike of China's human rights problem is in no way bad. They aren't bombing China, they aren't even sending over diplomats to change things. They're simply saying, "we think what you are doing is wrong" PERIOD.

      Now, if you're such an isolationist where you think we shouldn't even have an opinion on what other countries do to other countries (which Tibet was until China took it) then I suggest that YOU not say anything and YOU remain opinion-less because the rest of us are going to feel a certain way no matter what.

      Boo ***** hoo.
    • derek13, on 04/10/2008, -4/+6China has to realize that if they want to participate in trading with the industrialized nations, they have to take human rights more seriously. It was not a waste of a vote and I disagree with you.

      Was stopping the holocaust a waste of time and resources? No, it wasn't. It isn't always about what is the best for America, but what is the best for mankind.

      In hindsight, since it was Ron Paul, doesn't matter if he voted yes or no, you all still would have praised him anyway.
      • caramba420, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0It wasn't a non-binding resolution that stopped the Holocaust.
      • jimmyleeca, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Holocaust on what? Can you detail a litte bit quoting some knowledgable and neutral source? Don't bother with CNN or MSNbc, chinese government or dalai's exile government please, as neither of them has been honest. Chinese government does much better than CNN or dalai's government recently, but they had too much truck in history.
      • chenyu768, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1"Free Tibet" Yells the Americans standing in Iraq
    • AAK15, on 04/10/2008, -7/+2lol Ron Paul still thinks he has any chance
    • dylio, on 04/10/2008, -3/+3It amazes me. The Digg crowd was pro-Paul, then Pro-Obama, now what the hell are they? Apathetic?
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2please, stop with the collectivism. it doesn't make you look intelligent.
    • Jareth86, on 04/10/2008, -3/+2Let me ask you a question. If Bush or Hillary voted against condemning Tibet, would your reaction be the same, or is this just more Ron Paul worship?
      • understudy, on 04/10/2008, -1/+2Nice screen name, Labyrinth is a great 80's fantasy film.

        I like Ron Paul, and I don't know what his rationale is for voting against this resolution, but I'd imagine he has one. I've written to his staff to ask him to post said rationale on his web site.

        _
    • caramba420, on 04/10/2008, -1/+4I wholeheartedly agree. Non-binding resolutions are such a load of *****. Why do we pay these people $250,000 a year to sit around and talk about feelings? There's so much wrong with our country, yet our congressmen recoil at the thought of a 40-hour workweek, and when they actually are there, half the time they're jerking each other off with non-binding resolutions. What a bunch of lazy ***** scumbags. This has nothing to with being pro-Paul or pro-Obama or pro-Ghandi or pro-Mussolini. It has everything to do with elected officials not taking their jobs seriously
  • 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.
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -49/+43that's exactly why he should support it. it will send a strong message without involving any spending at all. it's about diplomacy. no matter what ron paul thinks, diplomacy actually is important.
      • koft, on 04/10/2008, -15/+58Apparently you missed the concept of not getting entangled in foreign affairs.
        • ncairns, on 04/10/2008, -51/+15You mean isolationism? I didn't miss that so much as I rejected it.
        • 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.
          • Angostura, on 04/10/2008, -18/+5Hmmm lets see. I suspect congress voting no would have caused "unnecessary hatred" to the U.S in most countries - just not China.
          • cwgannon, on 04/10/2008, -11/+3The fact that him disagreeing with the above poster and that this caused you to label him with a lack of intelligence leads me to believe you're a pompous ass-prick. RON PAUL!>!.!
          • KMye, on 04/10/2008, -15/+8Ron Paul's "non-interventionism" : isolationism :: intelligent design : creationism
          • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -6/+3the resolution involves absolutely NO intervention. It is simply making a statement. the fact that ron paul voted against it once again shows that he is in fact an isolationist.
        • ncairns, on 04/10/2008, -44/+17No, he means isolationism. Euphemize it however to want, Ron Paul is an anachronistic, ignorant isolationist who wants to drag the nation backwards into the muck and haze of the 19th century. Luckily he's also completely irrelevant.
          • Murdats, on 04/10/2008, -10/+28as opposed to the muck and haze you are being dragged through now?
            have you looked outside, your country is falling apart to the cheers of the whole world
          • ncairns, on 04/10/2008, -31/+15Oh Christ, don't give me this silly teenage melodrama. You kids who think the sky is falling because the economy is ***** and the president's a moron make me embarrassed to be a liberal for fear I might accidentally find myself associated with your breed of paranoia.
          • herkimer65, on 04/10/2008, -12/+7You seem to have the misconception that because you believe something to be true, it is. You're hubris is as remarkable as your idiocy.
          • ncairns, on 04/10/2008, -16/+6@herkimer65

            Nah, you're right - the world is coming to an end. Guess I better ***** my pants and waste my vote and throw my money into overvalued gold commodities. Thanks for showing me the light!
          • Jimmyb207, on 04/10/2008, -6/+18It is called non-INTERVENTION. North Korea would be a good example of an isolated country. I don't think Ron Paul would bring us down that road. The U.S. is more isolated right now than it's ever been. Sure were spread all over the world setting up camp in peoples back yards all over the world whether they like it or not. We will INTERVENE in the affairs of other countries and the world because hell, we're the bad cop of the world now. America has intervened so much that the world is pretty ***** up from all of our "HELP". With friends like us who needs enemies. What do we have, 700 bases all over the world? Have any idea how much money is spent on the EMPIRE?? What if all that money was used to build and modernize American infrastructures and schools? How about research into alternative energy. There is so much GOOD that could be done right here in America.
            Another thing.....Had America remained on the gold standard, the U.S dollar would still be one of the most valuable currencies in the world. Right now the dollar is junk. Gold overvalued? Not when it's your money.
          • ncairns, on 04/10/2008, -18/+8This reflexive, ethnocentric guilt is so ***** boring. America didn't ***** the world up. Sorry. It didn't. In reality, America is a stabilizing presence throughout most of the world, and has almost certainly prevented far more bloodshed worldwide that it has caused in Iraq. Moreover... oh *****, what's the point:

            "Had America remained on the gold standard, the U.S dollar would still be one of the most valuable currencies in the world."

            When someone says something *that* insanely stupid, it's a lost ***** cause.
          • SpykerSpeed, on 04/10/2008, -7/+10ncairns, I suggest you look at a chart comparing the value of gold and the value of the dollar relative other currencies. From a monetary standpoint, maintaining some correlation with the gold standard makes sense even if it isn't a 1:1 value parity. The government's willingness to sell American debt at the drop of a hat will mean economic doom for this country within the next 20 years. Don't believe me or Ron Paul? Ask the comptroller general.

            There's nothing "ethnocentric" about it. This isn't the kind of ***** guilt you were fed in public school about white guys giving indians blankets covered in smallpox. This is real. It's mathematical. And both major parties are completely ignoring it, because they know the voters who will be affected by their shortsighted policies are either too young to get it en mass (partially thanks to the aforementioned public school system which completely skips over finance as a course requirement) or aren't even born yet. Talk about taxation without representation!
          • Jimmyb207, on 04/10/2008, -7/+10"America is a stabilizing presence throughout most of the world".......talk about insanely stupid pal. What has America "stabilized" lately? Hell, our Government can't even stabilize this country! America is being driven right into the ground!
            The U.S. dollar has been more or less falling in value since it was taken off the gold standard in 1971. Tell me, financial genius....how are we better off now?
          • ThndrShk2k, on 04/10/2008, -3/+11No not intervening and talking with countries, proposing free trade between people, encouraging negotiations... Thats isolationism?
            So what do we call making the world hate us with our arrogant actions and forced compliance? Wouldn't it called a more true isolation when we think that we alone can solve the world's problems, and ***** the rest of the people?
            ***** France, we saved their ass and they're being pussies over the war. We KNOW we're right. ***** the rest of the countries that think bad of us because they're total wusses.

            Not giving a ***** about what other countries think of OUR actions and doing them anyway is more isolation than not-***** with other countries internal affairs.
          • ncairns, on 04/10/2008, -3/+1Uh oh, looks like I've upset the Cult of Paul! Sorry to invade your tidy little echo chamber of equivocation and apologetics, I'd hate to do something other than concretize the nonsensical, demonstrably false conceptions you kids are under. I mean, it's not like I - having lived in both Hong Kong and Denmark - am in any position to speak on the relative merits of libertarian and socialist economic policy. I mean YOU GUYS have listened to a speech Ron Paul gave on YOUTUBE! All I've done is live in the hellish reality of the mendacious ***** he preaches! I mean ***** people, stupidity has always been a disease, but Ron Paul takes it airborne!

            Don't worry about the fact that gold is an overvalued commodity and has been for five years, or that when you average it historically against inflation and the CPI it barely breaks even against the dollar anyway - RON PAUL SAID it's a good investment! Don't worry about the fact that Ron Paul opposes the separation of church and state - RON PAUL SAID it's unconstitutional! Don't worry about the fact that Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution - RON PAUL SAID it's just a theory! Don't worry about the fact that Ron Paul tried to federally define life as beginning at conception - RON PAUL SAID he's for states' rights! Don't worry about the fact that Ron Paul secured more pork per capita this year than any other candidate, and does so routinely - RON PAUL SAID he opposes government spending! Don't worry about the fact that Ron Paul opposes net neutrality - RON PAUL SAID that's unconstitutional too, and besides, who understands the Internet better than a 72 year old man!? Don't worry about the fact that Ron Paul is a doctor by profession and has no education whatsoever on anything pertinent to running a country - RON PAUL SAID he's a Constitutionalist! Don't worry about the fact that Ron Paul has no substantive plan at all to end the Iraq war, or that every general on the ground says it will take no fewer than 16 months to bring the troops home - RON PAUL SAID he'd get them out immediately! Don't worry about the fact that libertarian economic theory has been disproved in New Zealand, Chile and Hong Kong - RON PAUL SAID it works! Don't worry about the fact that Ron Paul and his Stormfront and David Duke endorsements published 20 years worth of something called 'The Ron Paul Political Report' which was rife with racist, homophobic ***** - RON PAUL SAID he totally didn't know anything about it, and I mean there must be half a dozen different things with MY name in the title which I don't know about!

            This is just the latest excuse from you people.

            Don't worry about the fact that while he pretends to be a libertarian, a philosophy which above all else - yes, above even the Constitution - is concerned with ensuring the rights to life, liberty and property they believe we are divine heir to, and then declines to condemn the WORST human rights violator IN THE ENTIRE WORLD - RON PAUL SAID he and freedom are like total BFF!
          • Izult, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1@ ncairns

            you raise a lot of interesting points that are going to be well researched at least on my part. However.. honey>vinegar when trying to make a point.

            One last question, could you provide some backup citations for your claims? not bashing, just asking.
          • ThndrShk2k, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2So if we believe in ron paul's vision that seems too good to be true, we're all homophobic racist non-net neutral economy wreaking war fearing religious bigots?
            That we only value him, not his message he talks about?

            Who ***** cares if he's a religious bigot? He can't be worse than what we already have in that field. Hell, the way he preaches if he does turn a 180, He'll have a riot so big that he'll be kicked out of office so soon he won't even get a chance to sit down.
            If he did get elected, he'd be bound by his message, and as such would be forced to adhere to it. Because the reason that he would get elected would to induce major change, which is what he promises.

            But it likely he won't get elected. You just bring up mostly pointless issues that could be taken against him, and you're kinda taking some issues too literally. You expect the change of economics as well as troop withdrawal to be immediate. It is impossible to be immediate, and saying immediately only means as soon as it is physically possible. Saying "As soon as possible" without the physically part means some more BS, delaying because "Due to blah blah, not possible as it would blah blah", like the other candidates do.
            Just because I support the general message he campaigns on doesn't mean I support all of his opinions. It's just that his campaign identifies with my opinions a hell of a lot more than the rest of the candidates. The closest one is Obama of the major ones, and he's kind of far off from Paul in a lot of aspects.
          • ncairns, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1@Izult

            Sigh...

            I just spent about an hour writing a response for you, and then FF crashed. Maybe I'll get back to you later if I can keep my head from exploding.
      • Boggie08, on 04/10/2008, -14/+9Our foreign policy should end at another nation's borders.
        • Herkimer56, on 04/10/2008, -7/+12That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen posted on Digg.
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/10/2008, -5/+8Your speech should never leave your lips.
        • BobOki, on 04/10/2008, -2/+7Our foreign policy gives us the right to talk to other countries for their treatment to us. That is outlined in that "goddamn piece of paper" our country was created on. It does not give us rights to demand how others run THEIR countries. There are other things setup to address that.
      • silentboom, on 04/10/2008, -7/+9Condemnation is NOT diplomacy.
        • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1definition of diplomacy from dictionary.com:

          "the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations."

          therefore, condemnation would in fact count as diplomacy.
      • BobOki, on 04/10/2008, -3/+12Diplomacy is NOT a list of demands.
        • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -3/+1defintion of diplomacy from the dictionary:

          "the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations."

          therefore, a list of demands WOULD count as diplomacy. diplomacy doesn't have to always be in praise of the other country.
    • Claude1971, on 04/10/2008, -46/+89he didn't drop out, no, he lost
      • wastedlife, on 04/10/2008, -22/+15Once again the truth is being dugg down.
      • silentboom, on 04/10/2008, -17/+11You can't lose until the Convention. Your opinion of "the truth" is why we have these problems in America.
        • Herkimer56, on 04/10/2008, -11/+24Your detachment from reality is why we have so many problems in America.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 04/10/2008, -8/+8Hope is not detachment. Don't confuse those.
          Is it unlikely that he'll turn the tide at the RNC? Yes
          Is it possible (but improbable) that he could win? Yes
          Is there reason to give up hope? No.

          Less likely things have happened before, as well as the state of the country will change by september. If the republican party is full of conservatives, then if the economy falls even greater than it is falling right now, the only candidate with years upon years of economic background would appeal far greater than the one who flips, flops, and promises more war and spending.

          So ultimately the best case scenerio for Paul is the worst case scenerio for our economy ;_;
        • zjordan04, on 04/10/2008, -7/+5Possible?

          Are you ***** insane?
        • rlbond86, on 04/10/2008, -7/+2McCain is already known to be the winner, so there WON'T be a convention. And the Republican party is not going to disenfranchise their voters by SWITCHING CANDIDATES IN ***** JULY.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 04/10/2008, -2/+8If something is possible doesn't mean it's probable.

          I was just saying that however unlikely, it still could happen. It probably will not, but just because something is improbable doesn't mean it's impossible.

          Dumbasses, learn to evaluate a situation without personal bias.
      • MojoFlys, on 04/10/2008, -3/+11No.. I think WE lost.. If McCain is the direction the Republican party wants to move in, It is a shame.. It seems like only a year ago he was being bashed for being a RINO (Republican In Name Only).. Yay for us.. We won a liberal in office..
    • slapded, on 04/10/2008, -34/+6he dropped out on cnn live several weeks ago. look it up
      • slapded, on 04/10/2008, -25/+12ok so -9 diggs now because i mentioned he dropped out on cnn? im glad that racist bigot dropped out
        • misguidedmonkey, on 04/10/2008, -5/+9If you wanna talk racists, lets talk about Obama and his white-hating pastor. And his family and friends.
          • ssn697, on 04/10/2008, -12/+3I missed those racist newsletter in Obama's name, going out for two decades. I also missed that signed request for donations before the "coming race wars" in Obama's name. I DID'T miss the same thing in Ron Paul's name.

            So, you going to condemn Ron Paul now?
      • Boggie08, on 04/10/2008, -2/+13Why don't you give a link. I'll give a link of him saying he is not dropping out.

        http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5cxJkvlSwZI
      • Herkimer56, on 04/10/2008, -14/+9It doesn't matter if he dropped out or not. The voters dropped him. No one outside of a few paranoid government haters ever wanted to see him as President and his showings at the polls affirms that.
        • mablco, on 04/10/2008, -7/+5lol you love the government. fool.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 04/10/2008, -1/+7Hard to get people to vote when you can't get word out like the other candidates. It's amazing he scored near 5-7% consistently throughout the whole process. Even when the other candidates were dropping out like flies.
          • ssn697, on 04/10/2008, -8/+4He was on every major news show, the Tonight Show more than once (along with other entertainment shows), had several million dollars to spend at a key time in the campaign. He got "the word" out, and Americans soundly rejected him BECAUSE the word got out.
          • ThndrShk2k, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Was he on as much as the other candidates?
            Did he get the same amount of time?
            Did they talk about him a lot
            Do they still mention his name when naming the republican and democratic candidates?
            Do they avoid mentioning him?
            Do they rarely mention him?

            My point still stands that the other campaigns had more money, as well had more popularity with the media itself. Ron Paul got a good amount of money for his commercials, and actually did pretty well with the lack of news coverage. November the 5th 4.2 million was broadcasted pretty well, but December 16th 6 million? Where the ***** was that *****. Seriously, I hardly heard ***** about that. 6 million dollars in one day, a record for both fundraising in 1 day AS WELL as online fundraising.

            It doesn't matter if he was ON the news, just matters how much TIME. The people who watched the debates sure knew who he was, but on average they called his win of those debates a fluke, or bug in the system, and didn't really mention much of him after the debate on the major news. They focused on soundbites for the more favorable candidates.
        • Laughsatyou, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2I'll "like" the government when they become fearful of the people again.
    • mbookmeyer, on 04/10/2008, -16/+39He voted against it because it is not inline with the constitution. You will notice it is very hard to find an explanation on mainstream press. Suppose they could have asked him...
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/10/2008, -33/+7The constitution doesn't say anything about cars or planes or computers. So I guess he rejects them too? The constitution is not the bible.
        • clclark33, on 04/10/2008, -4/+20No, the Constitution makes more sense than the Bible.
        • tao52nyc, on 04/10/2008, -4/+7He rejects the Fed's "regulation" of those things on Constitutional grounds. Either we have a fundamental blueprint for our political culture or not. If we do not, then we are cast adrift without an anchor and any old dictator (or whoever has the most guns) makes the "laws".
        • BESTenemy, on 04/10/2008, -0/+9Our constitution outlines the role of the government. Since all rights derive from the concept of property, starting with your own body and ending with personal possessions, the bill of rights sets a foundation by explaining what the rights are. It does not invent rights. Rights to do not come in effect after they're written. They exist always. Rights are something that every person is born with. Constitution is a document that defines the role of the government as the protector of the rights. It does not talk about specifics such as cars, airplanes, computers, cell phones. That's what the amendments are for. Constitution outlines principles and ideals that define our constitutional republic.Ron Paul defends the Constitution and the integrity of our nation and does it quite well, as oppose to pretty much every other constitution illiterate politician.
      • Dumbledorito, on 04/10/2008, -10/+11How is it not in line with the constitution?
        • colihondro, on 04/10/2008, -10/+16The Constitution tells us how we spend the taxes that are pillaged from the people.
          It does not give the US central government the power to do anything about how China treats the people of Tibet. This resolution puts a wedge between China and the US.
          • alittleroy101, on 04/10/2008, -10/+9Pillaged? Cry me a river.
          • alittleroy101, on 04/10/2008, -9/+3@jeff
            Welcome to the real world.
          • skeeterbug84, on 04/10/2008, -1/+7You are taxed, and money is taken out for social security and Medicare. Most of our generation probably will never see that money again. Social security won't be around when we retire, or we will be almost dead by the time we are eligible for it. The money we do get, is taxed yet again through sales taxes, gas is taxed, etc. I think pillaged was an excellent way of putting it. Funny, I just received an email about this not long ago. Here is a list of taxes that weren't around 100 years ago.

            Building Permit Tax
            CDL License Tax
            Cigarette Tax
            Corporate Income Tax
            Dog License Tax
            Federal Income Tax
            Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
            Fishing License Tax
            Food License Tax
            Gasoline Tax
            Hunting License Tax
            Inheritance Tax
            Inventory Tax
            IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
            IRS Penalties (tax on t op of tax),
            Liquor Tax,
            Luxury Tax,
            Marriage License Tax,
            Medicare Tax,
            Property Tax,
            Real Estate Tax,
            Service charge taxes,
            Social Security Tax,
            Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
            Sales Taxes,
            Recreational Vehicle Tax,
            School Tax,
            State Income Tax,
            State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
            Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
            Telephone Federal Universal Service Fe e Tax,
            Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax,
            Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,
            Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,
            Telephone State and Local Tax,
            Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
            Utility Tax,
            Vehicle License Registration Tax,
            Vehicle Sales Tax,
            Watercraft Registration Tax,
            Well Permit Tax,
            Workers Compensation Tax.
          • publiclurker, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1You are free to move to a country that does not have any of those taxes any time you like. Of course we both know that you would just prefer to leach off everyone else and complain about it
          • Laughsatyou, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3free to stay and protest my country and effect change back to when individual liberty was more important than creating a socialist utopia.
        • Dumbledorito,