Slog
News & ArtsFriday, June 19, 2009
Politics This Is Why They Call Him "Dr. No"
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Only one House member refused to vote his support of the Iranian protestors. Can you guess who it is?
Ron mothafuckin' Paul, that's who.
In his defense, Dr. Paul said he was reluctant to dissent from the support, but he doesn't feel that America should be the world's policemen and blah blah blah Federal Reserve something something crazy. And then he says this:
"I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly."
Ruh-roh. If Ron Paul thinks President Obama is doing something right on Iran, maybe it's time to reevaluate President Obama's stance on Iran.
1
Hey Paul -- would you stick to reviewing books, you fat fuck?
I don't know anything about Ron Paul, but I know your smugness is misplaced if you think you have any authoritative comment on the political process.
Couldn't you just denounce a symbolic vote as a waste altogether?
I don't know anything about Ron Paul, but I know your smugness is misplaced if you think you have any authoritative comment on the political process.
Couldn't you just denounce a symbolic vote as a waste altogether?
3
I kinda like Ron Paul. Don't get me wrong, I'd immediately flee the country if he ever got executive power, but he's entertaining. Plus, you always know where you stand with him. He says no and he votes no - like clockwork. Not like some politicians who talk real big about supporting certain minorities only to shit on them once he's elected.
5
"Ruh-roh. If Ron Paul thinks President Obama is doing something right on Iran, maybe it's time to reevaluate President Obama's stance on Iran."
Ron Paul is a naive prick who associates with dirtbags, but his attitudes on some subjects are spot on. Stopped clock, etc. It's a shame that his other beliefs make him unsuitable for getting the right decisions made.
"I don't know anything about Ron Paul, but I know your smugness is misplaced if you think you have any authoritative comment on the political process."
If you don't understand anything, why speak?
Ron Paul is a naive prick who associates with dirtbags, but his attitudes on some subjects are spot on. Stopped clock, etc. It's a shame that his other beliefs make him unsuitable for getting the right decisions made.
"I don't know anything about Ron Paul, but I know your smugness is misplaced if you think you have any authoritative comment on the political process."
If you don't understand anything, why speak?
6
I actually agree with Ron Paul on this one. The house Repub's can't all be so naive as to think their public support will do anything but potentially damage the climate in Iran. They know Obama is more cautious, and they know most of the American public doesn't understand why.
They're doing this to embolden themselves and attempt to chip away at Obama's popularity, and it could be at the expense of the Iranian protesters.
They're doing this to embolden themselves and attempt to chip away at Obama's popularity, and it could be at the expense of the Iranian protesters.
7
I have no patience with Ron Paul supporters. They are one step away from being as retarded as Lyndon Larouche (sp?) supporters.
8
@ 6 agreed. Paul C., sorry about it, but you're wrong. The House Republicans are playing with fire and it's too bad that others didn't stand up to their shenanigans.
This is neocon bullshit and gives the Iranian gov't some ammo to say that the U.S. is meddling.
This is neocon bullshit and gives the Iranian gov't some ammo to say that the U.S. is meddling.
11
I would politely like to suggest that Stranger writers/bloggers stop over-using (and just plain using) the expression "ruh-roh." It was kind of cute at first, but now is simply annoying and distracting from whatever point he or she is trying to make.
13
I agree with Obama. The others are small fry trying to play big fish at other's expense. The Ayatollah will unleash mass murder. Then he'll blame us.
14
@7 - Ron Paul and Lyndon Larouche supporters are different people? And how do they venn diagram with Truthers?
15
Every side has its retards. The left has PETA, Paul has some anti gov fringer, and truthers meet in the middle. Look, Paul voted against DOMA. How about your President? Do you always agree with O on bullshit like FISA and DOMA? I'd rather have my guy have a couple of nutty ideas, in the name of PEACE btw, as long as he has the Constitution in mind. I guess it is so wrong to agree with other peoples's ideas, convinced yours are always right with certainty. Sounds like Bush to me.
How about this, when you are done whining about the newsletters, Paul, write another letter to Obama asking him to quit comparing gays to pederasts and kicking people out of the army.
How about this, when you are done whining about the newsletters, Paul, write another letter to Obama asking him to quit comparing gays to pederasts and kicking people out of the army.
17
Paul is right about this, BTW. He's wrong about most things, but when he's right, he's right. The Iranian protesters haven't asked for our support, and they don't want it because they know it has no practical value and merely allows the regime to paint them as US stooges.
18
this twittering revolutionary fag fad is getting old. You can't get blood on your keyboards kids. Here is a nice quote from Mr. Paul (who is often nuts) about that vote:
"when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made."
"when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made."
19
Yeah, Ron and Obama are right here. Our gov needs to stay the fuck out of this and let the Iranians sort it out. The last thing we want is Ahmedinejad starting to say that the US is supporting a revolution. We already fucked them once when we seated the Shah. Because of that, we need to stay at arms length now.
Really Paul, you coulda been reading Sullivan for a few days to stay on top of this instead of knee jerking about Ron P.
Really Paul, you coulda been reading Sullivan for a few days to stay on top of this instead of knee jerking about Ron P.
20
I agree @6, I think what Ron Paul did here was exactly what our nation should be doing. I agree with Obama on this as well, WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT IRAN DOES, it's Iran, not the US. I'm all for the people of Iran fighting back but it's their choice to do so, and while they have my support it's no more support than I offer their opponents. I don't give a flying fuck what Iran does, and I 110% agree with Ron Paul here, and I'm saddened to hear McDermott bent over and let the house jam whatever populous crap right up his anus.
21
@6 Ahmadinejad and the status quo staying in power gives the neocons another bogeyman to parade as an imminent threat to American security and global morality blah blah blah.
@9 Agreed. I like Ron Paul. Although I think his views on domestic policy are dated, his foreign policy is rational and (seemingly) based on moral/constitutional code, rather than cheap political manouveurs like this one. I'd like to see him as secretary of state.
@9 Agreed. I like Ron Paul. Although I think his views on domestic policy are dated, his foreign policy is rational and (seemingly) based on moral/constitutional code, rather than cheap political manouveurs like this one. I'd like to see him as secretary of state.
22
As has been already pointed out, Obama & RP are correct. I disagree with RP on many issues, but I admire the fact that he has the backbone to vote his ideals, without fail. This cannot be said for the vast majority of politicians.
23
@20, Newsflash! Every country in the world is connected to each other, especially an oil-rich authoritarian theocracy researching nuclear weapons and an oil-hungry representative democracy trying to control the region. While I think these votes on this type of thing are useless, it would be fallacy to not "give a flying fuck" about what goes on in other parts of the world. We are all citizens of Planet Earth.
24
"@20, Newsflash! Every country in the world is connected to each other, especially an oil-rich authoritarian theocracy researching nuclear weapons and an oil-hungry representative democracy trying to control the region. While I think these votes on this type of thing are useless, it would be fallacy to not "give a flying fuck" about what goes on in other parts of the world. We are all citizens of Planet Earth."
The trick here is that our "benevolence" often affects the rest of the Earth more negatively than passivity.
The trick here is that our "benevolence" often affects the rest of the Earth more negatively than passivity.
25
Um, Obama's approach has been the most helpful if you want to see a new regime in Iran. American isn't popularly called the "great Satan" their because we're a wildly popular in Iranian political culture. Having the President of the US be all "ra ra, go team green" would undermine the reformers in Iran. I'm glad Obama is not being an idiot about this.
26
We better stay out of this, The Ayatollahs are already trying to claim the election rigging was a 'story concocted by the Jew Media to cause havoc', and doing everything they can to discredit the protestors (and probably an excuse to crush them).
If we step in, they can go 'see! The West has been manipulating this whole thing'. Not to mention as we learned in Iraq you cannot force "Freedom" onto others. So yes, staying back is best for now.
I think the only reason we should ever step in is if they started to murder the protesters.
If we step in, they can go 'see! The West has been manipulating this whole thing'. Not to mention as we learned in Iraq you cannot force "Freedom" onto others. So yes, staying back is best for now.
I think the only reason we should ever step in is if they started to murder the protesters.
28
An actual vote in support of the Iranian protestors here is 'abstain.' There's no win in voting on that bill which functions only as something to point to in the 2010 elections.
Obama's caution is ahead of the curve on this one. Ron Paul's reasoning for his vote is wrong (isolationism,) even if the vote was right (but again, better to not vote at all).
As many above have already stated above, the US giving voice only hurts their cause, as we have negative credibility there, and only serves to strengthen the position of those in power.
Obama's caution is ahead of the curve on this one. Ron Paul's reasoning for his vote is wrong (isolationism,) even if the vote was right (but again, better to not vote at all).
As many above have already stated above, the US giving voice only hurts their cause, as we have negative credibility there, and only serves to strengthen the position of those in power.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS