Ron Paul will vote FOR House resolution condemning attack in Arizona

[Heimdallr]

He should just abstain.

 

[lester1/2jr]

It's good that we know where they stand on this.

 

[low preference guy]

Is this not just the members taking advantage of the 1st amendment?

sure. still, i don't see the point. why condemn attacks to members of congress only? or do they vote for a resolution every time an american is attacked? since this is not the case, do they form some sort of clique to protect themselves more than they protect the general public? the answer is yes, but they shouldn't rub it in our faces like this.

people should be treated equally. if congress is going to approve a resolution for this, they should at least vote for one every single time an innocent american is violently attacked.

 

[acptulsa]

Is this not just the members taking advantage of the 1st amendment?

'Put a U.S. Senator in a room with more than two people and there ain't any power on Earth that can stop him from making a speech.'--Will Rogers

Thank God it didn't cost us anything. For once. (And, yes, I realize this is the House. Still.)

 

[jmdrake]

Most of the non-binding resolutions condemn some other country so there's his non intervention principles to think about. This one will just condemn the man responsible. And since the GOP is in power it will likely not say stupid stuff like "We condemn the out of control gun culture" or "We condemn the virulent partisan rhetoric that led to this."

 

[Matt Collins]

Maybe it will instead keep Congress from spending their time on something that will actually limit our liberty. Keep these guys occupied.

 

[RM918]

Most of the non-binding resolutions condemn some other country so there's his non intervention principles to think about. This one will just condemn the man responsible. And since the GOP is in power it will likely not say stupid stuff like "We condemn the out of control gun culture" or "We condemn the virulent partisan rhetoric that led to this."

Exactly. Paul does vote for stuff like this if it's not allocating money, forwarding some law or condemning another country. He's done it in the past like when he voted to praise the Gators or somesuch team. There's nothing inconsistent about it.

 

[Vessol]

Maybe it will instead keep Congress from spending their time on something that will actually limit our liberty. Keep these guys occupied.

I say we recommend that the new Congress spends all its time condemning all sorts of random things in America

"We condemn Little Ceasars Pizza for selling shitty cardboard disguised as pizza"

 

[rich34]

I dont think it costs any money, and I don't think it has any force of law, so why not?

Right on Brotha.. Also a lot of those resolutions in the past that Ron as voted against have been to condemn foreign countries. This being the United States and obviously the politics of it, he's got to folks. Settle down, this doesn't cost any money..

 

[idirtify]

There's nothing inconsistent about it.

Unless the resolution is a prelude to something with teeth, that we don't know about.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I'd like to see a House resolution condemning the Homo Sapiens for driving the Neanderthals into extinction.

 

[idirtify]

Let’s trick them into making a resolution condemning unconstitutional bills, sending anyone involved in their passage to federal prison for 5 years minimum.

 

[PreDeadMan]

Why the fuck do you need a House resolution condemning the attacks?

exactly lol....

 

[yoshimaroka]

He playing the game! Looks like he might actually want to win the Presidency this time around.

Would anyone teach their kids that in order to advance to the top, you have to sellout your principles to "play the game"?

This resolution is BS.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I dont think it costs any money, and I don't think it has any force of law, so why not?

That argument is flawed. The same could be said about Ron Paul having voted no on some resolutions that basically say: 'hey, we feel bad for you' for severe weather victims.

 

[sratiug]

I'd like to point out that since the woman was in the House that sort of does make it house business and Ron Paul is probably the only member actually against the initiation of force.

 

[sratiug]

Maybe we could trick them into passing a bill saying the initiation of force is never acceptable either toward or against the government and its agents?

 

[sailingaway]

I dont think it costs any money, and I don't think it has any force of law, so why not?

It costs money wasting congressional time on an issue, but it is about a Congresswoman and federal judge amongst others... not about foreign country internal affairs. Ron voted for the plaque commemorating slaves that built the Capital, too, that being uniquely Congress's concern.

He is consistent; you just need to ask his office why he voted a particular way if you don't know.

 

[Cherder]

I say we recommend that the new Congress spends all its time condemning all sorts of random things in America

"We condemn Little Ceasars Pizza for selling shitty cardboard disguised as pizza"

Made me lol

 

[Fredom101]

THis whole thing is absurd.
Congress needs to vote to decide on whether this was a bad thing or not?

I guess when your whole organization is based on violence, you need all the propaganda you can drum up.