61–70 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Tea Party has nothing to do with civil libertarianism.
true. the tea party movement started on good principles, attracted the right wing rabble, and became the punching bag for left wing morons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That you think pork and hidden riders are acceptable is highly disturbing. Corruption should never be the norm. "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one" -Nietzsche
One man's pork is another man's job.
Create a section in a government agency to deal with some known problem, hire people directly into the government for that. Same effect, but you can't hide behind the false veneer of creating private sector jobs. It also becomes much more obvious that if you want to sustain those jobs in the long term you have to perpetually fund those salaries.
"I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 297, Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2013, which reauthorizes federal payments to children's hospitals for operating graduate medical training programs... The bill passed 352-50." "I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 225, National Pediatric Research Network Act of 2013, which expands the existing Pediatric Resear…
A quick count of the first 22 votes on his Facebook profile shows 11 yes votes, 11 no votes. How does disagreeing with half of the bills qualify as refusing to govern ? Do you just blindly vote Yes on every ballot initiative?
I appreciate his reasoning for a lot of his votes, and in isolation, his arguments sound very valid to me. But you can take a principled principled stand and make the best compromise you can to move things towards your principles, or you can just try and prevent anything from happening that doesn't align 100% with your principles to begin with. If you're just going to vote against everything except the occasional symbolic vote to on bills that ensure ovums have the right to carry assault weapons, then this doesn't strike me as actually governing.
I'd donate $10k in a heartbeat to a bi-partisan PAC (or equivalent) whose goal was to fund the campaigns of people who do this. Someone should get working on this.
Maybe consider donating to Mark Kelly & Gabrielle Giffords' PAC. I've heard that that Mark is actually a moderate republican, even thought he is married to a now-retired democratic congresswoman. The PAC is somewhat bipartisan http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/ Before her shooting in 2011, Rep. Giffords did blog regularly, Although she didn't give vote-by-vote explanations herself.
unfortunately this guy is crazy...and on the far right fringe of things. in recent years, as more and more people have become involved in the political process we've developed this notion that there's a correlation between transparency and competency that simply does not exist. And the perceived transparency, such as some 100-200 word facebook post summarizing hundred page bills, is merely an illusion buffered by ove…
Why does his attempt at transparency, even though you doubt its earnestness, make him crazy? Most politicians give no justification at all, or only offer totally vacuous platitudes and other bullshit. 100-200 words of justification that you don't agree with/ doubt is still preferable to silence or some 5 minute interview on Meet the Press rife with passive-agressive rhetoric and demagogical nonsense.
I'd donate $10k in a heartbeat to a bi-partisan PAC (or equivalent) whose goal was to fund the campaigns of people who do this. Someone should get working on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Tea Party has nothing to do with civil libertarianism.
true. the tea party movement started on good principles, attracted the right wing rabble, and became the punching bag for left wing morons.
I'd donate $10k in a heartbeat to a bi-partisan PAC (or equivalent) whose goal was to fund the campaigns of people who do this. Someone should get working on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't look very hard, I only used control-f "H R 41" on Facebook and found it. Here is his full explanation on H R 41. I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 41, which temporarily authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to borrow an additional $9.7 billion from the U.S. Treasury to carry out the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The bill increases FEMA's borrowing aut…
Thank you for finding his explanation. I blame Facebook's infinite scroll. I don't see this as a "hard decision." He cast a symbolic vote to remain ideologically pure. Had our Congress consisted of at least 217 Justin Amashes, their votes would have had the practical effect of denying thousands of people devastated by Hurricane Sandy from having their flood insurance claims paid. That's all the additional funding was…
I disagree with Justin politically w.r.t. nearly everything, but I definitely admire his approach. He's also a genuinely thoughtful and nice guy, and very adept at explaining why he holds the positions he does.
Same here. I find he is able to defend himself on things I would never accept personally, and in a pretty sensible way. Granted, most of his votes are "more spending not offset by cuts"-type votes, but he also votes sensibly on some bills, with good justifications ("this bill creates redundant regulation.... congress doesn't need to do this, this agency already does it"). I admire his way of doing his job, even if I…
I'll never understand the hypocrisy of the group of voters that freaks out over a possible 1 degree shift in the average temperature of the planet over the next 50 years (that we may or may not have any control of whatsoever) -- yet doesn't want to take any action to slow down the runaway spending that will certainly destroy more lives in a much bigger way.