Jimmy Duncan the only Republican to vote correctly on HJ Res 73

[Feeding the Abscess]

It was a vote to fund the NIH and other unconstitutional departments and spending:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h514

If Massie and Amash are going to be tools for Republican leadership when the chips are down, what's the point of supporting them?

[Rudeman]

Should they vote no on every spending measure?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Should they vote no on every spending measure?

On unconstitutional spending, yes.

[FrankRep]

Feeding the Abscess, the chess game right now is fighting against ObamaCare. You will lose the game if take on all the battles at once. You must pick your battles.


Are you seriously going to start attacking Massie and Amash now? Low rent bro.

[thoughtomator]

WWRPD?

[FrankRep]

WWRPD?

Priorities: What's more important - Defunding ObamaCare or defunding NIH?

[Christian Liberty]

I know Sola really likes Massie, isn't thrilled with Rand, and lives in Kentucky. I'm curious what his take on this one is...

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't believe Amash has posted an explanation of this vote.

If he does, I'll try to remember to post it.

I'm a little curious myself.

[tsai3904]

It was a vote to fund the NIH and other unconstitutional departments and spending:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h514

How would you have voted on the CR that defunded Obamacare but funded everything else?

[Brett85]

On unconstitutional spending, yes.

The other day you were criticizing Congress for voting in favor of funding those "murderers," the U.S military. So apparently you think that all spending is unconstitutional, even defense spending.

[Christian Liberty]

The other day you were criticizing Congress for voting in favor of funding those "murderers," the U.S military. So apparently you think that all spending is unconstitutional, even defense spending.

Attack spending is unconstitutional. You know the difference, own up to it.

Are you denying that they are murderers? On what grounds?

This scenario is making me very, very cynical about politics. I'll throw Rand my vote in the general if he gets that far, but I'm honestly not excited anymore. The sheep will make him water down his message so much it will be for nothing. Ron was nice to them but at least he actually educated them. Rand is way too close to the GOP.

And before anyone admits it, I really don't give a crap what Ron thinks about his own son.

[Brett85]

Attack spending is unconstitutional. You know the difference, own up to it.

Are you denying that they are murderers? On what grounds?

This scenario is making me very, very cynical about politics. I'll throw Rand my vote in the general if he gets that far, but I'm honestly not excited anymore. The sheep will make him water down his message so much it will be for nothing. Ron was nice to them but at least he actually educated them. Rand is way too close to the GOP.

And before anyone admits it, I really don't give a crap what Ron thinks about his own son.

1) The Constitution makes it clear the President doesn't have the authority to go to war unilaterally. It doesn't say that Congress can only vote in favor of "good wars."
2) No, our troops are not "murderers." I see no evidence that our troops are intentionally targeting innocent civilians in these wars. I'm opposed to these wars and support ending them immediately. That doesn't mean that I have to use the kind of extreme rhetoric that you and others use.
3) Not paying our troops would not end the wars. They would just be fighting wars overseas without getting paid. So you're basically saying that you're not opposed to having our troops fight wars overseas, just as long as they don't get paid for it?

[Feeding the Abscess]

The other day you were criticizing Congress for voting in favor of funding those "murderers," the U.S military. So apparently you think that all spending is unconstitutional, even defense spending.

Non-sequitur. My criticism of spending on an issue does not change the constitutionality of spending on another issue (or even the initial subject in question). Something is either constitutional or it is not.


How would you have voted on the CR that defunded Obamacare but funded everything else?

An unbelievably easy no.

[TaftFan]

I'm a big Jimmy Duncan fan. The thing is, he is much less perfect than Amash and Massie.

[Brett85]

Non-sequitur. My criticism of spending on an issue does not change the constitutionality of spending on another issue (or even the initial subject in question). Something is either constitutional or it is not.

You fail to recognize or fail to mention that even Ron Paul made comments where he said that he wasn't in favor of ending all social welfare spending immediately. He made comments in the Republican debates to the effect of, "we should cut overseas spending and spend some of that money on children's healthcare."

[tsai3904]

An unbelievably easy no.

Do you hold the position that if a spending bill contains even $1 of unconstitutional spending, you would vote against it or would you compromise on unconstitutional spending if you got something bigger in return?

[Brett85]

http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/ron-paul-cut-overseas-spending-maintain-social-security/article_66862532-e954-11e0-a736-001cc4c03286.html

"Answering a question from a woman on Social Security, Paul said the country has an obligation to put a high priority on programs "where we have taught people to be dependent," including those for the elderly and children's health care."

[anaconda]

The sheep will make him water down his message so much it will be for nothing. Rand is way too close to the GOP.


Rand's message is not very watered down. Go point by point through his platform and it's uncommonly anti-establishment.

[Christian Liberty]

1) The Constitution makes it clear the President doesn't have the authority to go to war unilaterally. It doesn't say that Congress can only vote in favor of "good wars."

You're correct about this, and this is where constitutionality and morality are going to break at some point. That said, we haven't actually declared war since WWII. So our criticism that the attack spending in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and who knows where else is not constitutional or defense spending remains correct.

2) No, our troops are not "murderers." I see no evidence that our troops are intentionally targeting innocent civilians in these wars. I'm opposed to these wars and support ending them immediately. That doesn't mean that I have to use the kind of extreme rhetoric that you and others use.


You don't "have" to and Ron Paul is definitely a little bit more "calm" on those issues than I am. But, the fact that they aren't deliberately targeting innocent civilians (Which isn't completely true either) is irrelevant. It would be like if I broke into your house, you tried to shoot me, and I killed you in "self-defense". See the problem here?




3) Not paying our troops would not end the wars. They would just be fighting wars overseas without getting paid. So you're basically saying that you're not opposed to having our troops fight wars overseas, just as long as they don't get paid for it?

Of course not. But I am saying that there is no way you could ever convince me that anyone "deserves" to get paid for being an aggressor. It would be like if we were subsidizing the mafia, and a bill came up to keep subsidizing the mafia. If I explained that the mafia are thieves and killers who don't deserve to get paid, and that the bill should therefore be rejected, would you accuse me of "Supporting the mafia as long as they don't get paid"? I think you already know the answer to this. I'm beginning to see why a number of ancaps here have a problem with you, and it isn't just because you disagree with them.

BTW: I'm also a no on "Fund everything but Obamacare" although honestly, that probably shows why I'm not suited for the game known as "politics."


You fail to recognize or fail to mention that even Ron Paul made comments where he said that he wasn't in favor of ending all social welfare spending immediately. He made comments in the Republican debates to the effect of, "we should cut overseas spending and spend some of that money on children's healthcare."


http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/ron-paul-cut-overseas-spending-maintain-social-security/article_66862532-e954-11e0-a736-001cc4c03286.html

"Answering a question from a woman on Social Security, Paul said the country has an obligation to put a high priority on programs "where we have taught people to be dependent," including those for the elderly and children's health care."

We recognize this. We just don't agree with him:p

[Christian Liberty]

Rand's message is not very watered down. Go point by point through his platform and it's uncommonly anti-establishment.

The foreign policy is quite watered down.

[Feeding the Abscess]

You fail to recognize or fail to mention that even Ron Paul made comments where he said that he wasn't in favor of ending all social welfare spending immediately. He made comments in the Republican debates to the effect of, "we should cut overseas spending and spend some of that money on children's healthcare."


http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/ron-paul-cut-overseas-spending-maintain-social-security/article_66862532-e954-11e0-a736-001cc4c03286.html

"Answering a question from a woman on Social Security, Paul said the country has an obligation to put a high priority on programs "where we have taught people to be dependent," including those for the elderly and children's health care."

1. I'm aware of what Ron has said along those lines. An utterance by Ron Paul does not make something constitutional.

2. You are comparing cutting various portions of government to fund specific items to funding literally the entire government on the faint hope that the Senate will pass and the president sign a bill that will overturn his signature legislative achievement. I hope you realize how ridiculous that comparison is.


Do you hold the position that if a spending bill contains even $1 of unconstitutional spending, you would vote against it or would you compromise on unconstitutional spending if you got something bigger in return?

If a bill were put forward that allowed the government $1 dollar outside of the 18 powers enumerated in the federal government in exchange for eliminating everything else, I'd vote for it. Note that I am not a constitutionalist, so holding me to a standard I do not claim to have is silly, and comparing that to the stance of funding literally the entire government on the faint hope that the Senate will pass and the president sign a bill that will overturn his signature legislative achievement is absurd.

[anaconda]

The foreign policy is quite watered down.

Insisting on a Congressional vote to authorize aggression and identifying conflicts abroad as having no national security interest for the U.S. make for just about a 100% antithetical approach to foreign policy from the establishment. This seems anything but watered down. At least to me.

[Brett85]

Of course not. But I am saying that there is no way you could ever convince me that anyone "deserves" to get paid for being an aggressor. It would be like if we were subsidizing the mafia, and a bill came up to keep subsidizing the mafia. If I explained that the mafia are thieves and killers who don't deserve to get paid, and that the bill should therefore be rejected, would you accuse me of "Supporting the mafia as long as they don't get paid"? I think you already know the answer to this. I'm beginning to see why a number of ancaps here have a problem with you, and it isn't just because you disagree with them.

1) Our troops simply follow orders. They don't set the policy. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the term "murderers" if you simply applied that to members of Congress who vote for preemptive war or endless war.

2) The vast majority of our troops aren't even fighting in wars overseas. They're either stationed on foreign military bases, (which I don't support, but I'm just pointing out that these troops aren't killing or "murdering" anyone) or they are stationed on military bases here at home.