Bachmann's playing politics

Post Reply New Topic

Ron has pretty plainly said he thinks people are overtaxed and earmarks are a way of bringing their already appropriated money back to the district. If the money isn't returned to the district it would go to fund things like wars, bailouts, or whatever our out of control government wants to spend on. There is nothing dishonest about that. The dishonest thing are idiots like John McCain, and you apparently, who whine about them as if it makes any difference at all when it comes to the federal budget or deficits when in reality it has zero effect on them. There's a reason why Ron Paul is known as the "Tax payer's Best Friend". Most earmarks go to things like hospitals, infrastructure, etc. that are aren't wasteful at all. I'd rather my congresswoman bring my money back to our district for those things than sending them over to Afghanistan to fund hospitals and infrastructure over there. The only problem with earmarks arises when earmarks are used as bargaining chips to get votes in larger bills and obviously Dr. No does not have that problem.

How is Gingrich supporting amnesty a lie or half-truth? I don't really care how he spins it but he voted for amnesty in 1986 and he supports a form of amnesty now. He might condition it and call it by other names but it doesn't what it is and that's amnesty. If he wants to have honest debate about then call it what it is.

Newt is a conservative... Just like conservative icon Nelson Rockefeller! Who Newt was an avid supporter of btw. That's why he take the conservative position supporting the individual mandate and cap and trade. Heck, look at his conservative family values!

Romney is more like Gingrich-lite. Why do you dislike Romney again? I don't even understand why you dislike Obama when you support a buffoon like Gingrich. They're not different at all ESPECIALLY on foreign policy.

Maybe the Republicans need someone who is a bit "lite" this time.

Gingrich is much too heavy.

He got off walking, and on the cheeseburgers & onion rings

But, a true Libertarian would not be in favor of the government spending for anything useful to anyone. Or, am I missing something?

He'd rather his constituent's tax money be sent back home to their district than sent over Afghanistan or the pocket books of some corporate executive.

In case Ron Paul hadn't noticed, we were attacked on 9/11 and the attackers were based in Afghanistan, currently they've been denied a base of operations there. They would get that base back if we pull out before the Afghans can defend themselves, this isn't rocket science. Furthermore, Ron Paul has been doing this even before we went into Afghanistan.

Sounds like you need a history lesson. The hijackers, who were of Saudi descent, were based here in the US in Florida and planned the attacks in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. There is nothing special about Afghanistan. We were not attacked by Afghanistan and the Taliban government, as despicable as it was, did not a threat to anyone besides it's own people. The Afghan people don't want us in Afghanistan and it doesn't make us any safer at all. All we're doing over there is wasting money, creating new enemies, and putting our troops lives in danger.

And yea, we've been sending our money out of this country and into the hands of the corporate elite long before 9/11, this is true. Our government has been out of control for a long time.

The only reason to go into Afghanistan was to kill Bin Laden, who is now conveniently dead.

and he probably wasn't in Afghanistan for probably 9 out of those 10 years.

I can see this point. But, how would that make him different from someone labeled a "Liberal Democrat?" For a Libertarian, I thought that the government spending money on absolutely anything was considered bad.

He's not an anarchist, he believes in a limited government with in it's constitutional boundaries so that does include some government spending. He'd prefer the his constituent's money was never appropriated in the first place but if he doesn't send it back to his district, it will go somewhere else. The amount that gets spent on earmarks is completely insignificant when compared to the money we spend on wars, corporate welfare, entitlements, etc. A typical liberal democrat or your run of the mil neocon believe in increased government spending and taxation.(always former, a lot of times not the latter). Earmarks have absolutely 0 effect on the bottom line tho.

As I mentioned the problem with earmarks arise when they're used as bargaining chips and leverage to essentially buy votes for larger bills. I suppose a liberal democrat would be more inclined to use earmarks in this fashion altho it is certainly not unheard of for so called conservative republicans to either. Ron's support can never be bought and his record speaks for itself when it comes to that. It's more of an issue of integrity than ideology.

As I understand it, Libertarians are not anarchists, and would limit the role of government to enforcing contracts.

On the subject of the original post - just who the hell cares what that batty idiot Bachmann says? She had her turn at being the flavor of the week, and now is so low in the polls that she hardly qualifies as a real contender anymore.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You know the answer to that one as well as I do.

Sarcasm: Yes, the Afghan people want to be living under the brutality of the Taliban...

Seriously, if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you on Saturn.

Second, the fact that the attackers were of Saudi decent is irrelevant, their loyalty was with a group out of Afghanistan, not the Saudi Government.

Third, the Afghan people are scared of cooperating with us because they no we're going to leave no matter what the situation is on the ground by a certain date, cause Obama is playing politics with the lives of our troops and the lives of the Afghan People.

Is it Ron Paul is such an ideologue that he's okay with letting mass murder take place because he is hell bent on pulling our people out, or is he just like Obama and wants to score some cheap political points and he doesn't care if it costs people (including our service men and women) their lives. Which is it?



The other mission is to make sure Al Qaeda can't use Afghanistan as a base of operations, which they will be able to if we leave before the Afghan people can defend themselves.

The only reason why Bin Laden was allowed to set up shop in Afghanistan was because he had sucked up to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. Now that Bin Laden is dead, so ended Omar's obligation to protect him as a guest (which is very important in Pashtun society). I think even a lunatic like him realizes that Al Qaeda are more trouble than their worth, and so it's highly unlikely that he'd ever risk America's wrath by welcoming them back if he or his cohorts ever regain power.
As for your charge that Obama is playing politics with the lives of our troops, let me answer that with a question - just how long are supposed to stay in a horrible situation that may never improve? If anything, Obama is saving lives by pulling our people out.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer