Perhaps you should read that little piece of paper call the Constitution. The goverment has no right or business giving money to other countries, that's why there are non profit organizations like the Red Cross. If people want their money to go to humanitarian efforts, they can donate to these charities. The government cannot give tax payer money away like that.
Keep on loving your big government when you're standing in line waiting for medical help.
You Paultards are painfully predictable.
Brian wouldn't feel that way if Ron paul were giving his condolences to the phakeastinians in fact Brian would be appluading ron paul for having a kind hearted nature
No offense, but I truly don't believe that this is what Congress should be spending its time on.
Why don't we have more nuclear power? Why don't we have tar sand oil extraction like the Canadians do? Are you suggesting that Canada is ruining their environment with their own tar sands extraction.
If you want to give money to the people of Myanmar, try sending them some and see if you can get it by the Kleptocratic Government.
Nobody was talking about giving them money, Jack. Just showing a little decency and compassion, two traits clearly lacking in Ron Paul and his robotic followers.
They care about nothing but themselves. It really is disgusting he can't show the slightest bit of compassion.
Did you even bother to read the bill, or the reason he voted against the bill?
http://strictconstruct.com/2008/...nding-politics/
Before throwing wild allegations, these are probably a good thing to find out.
In other words, Lester, the reason is his usual isolationism. Yawn.
Chester. I meant Chester. My bad.
Non-interventionism is not isolationism - it relates only to the interference in the internal affairs of foreign nations. Isolationists, on the other hand, additionally do not want to deal with nations, do not want to trade with nations (therefore they tend to support protectionist trade policies) and instead favor a national economy as opposed to a free one. People have consistently misapplied the isolationist label towards Ron Paul, when it does not describe him whatsoever.
But yes, his opposition to the bill is born out of his non-interventionism. While you very likely have a different view than he over the issue of government intervention abroad, I think it should be understandable that someone would vote against a bill if it included something they fundamentally opposed. If a bill expressing sympathies also delved into the issue of abortion, demanding that Myanmar legalize it (assuming they have not yet,) it would be understandable that someone who opposed abortion would vote against the bill - not because they are heartless and don't want to extend sympathies, but for the inclusion of something that they do oppose - abortion.
That is why this is a very unfair entry - it ignores that the bill was not merely expressing sympathies, and ignores the stated reason for opposing it.
Commenting by HaloScan
