# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Amash Votes Against Cutting War Funding

## Zatch

Surprise House Effort to Defund Afghan War Falls Short
Rep. Nadler Led Push That Split Dem Reps Down the Middle
by Jason Ditz, February 19, 2011

A surprising (and little discussed) effort by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D – NY) to defund the Afghan War was brought before the House of Representatives yesterday, and unfortunately fell well short of its goal, with a 98-331 failure. The vote is still interesting on a number of fronts, however.

The vote would have attached an amendment to the budget which would reduce the Afghan War spending from the $100+ billion it currently costs annually to a level of $10 billion, which is the amount the Pentagon insists it would cost to withdraw the troops from the nation.

Notably, however, the vote was surprisingly close amongst Democratic Congressmen, with 91 voting in favor of ending the occupation to 99 voting against. It was the Republican side which saw overwhelming rejection, with *only 7 GOP Congressmen voting to end the war (Reps. Campbell, Coble, Duncan, Johnson, Jones, Paul and Rohrabacher)*.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment was that the *freshmen “Tea Party” Congressmen, who were reportedly so keen on reducing the budget deficit, voted unanimously in favor of continuing the occupation*, despite the clear and dramatic savings that ending the war would have provided.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/19/s...r-falls-short/

*Roll Call*: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll091.xml

----------


## Thomas

wth!

----------


## american.swan

I wouldn't be surprised if some new members didn't know what they were voting on.

----------


## Zatch

I don't think he has posted a vote explanation for this on his Facebook yet. I wonder if he's going to.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

Im surprised this thing already came up for a vote.. that was damned quick...

----------


## Romulus

> I don't think he has posted a vote explanation for this on his Facebook yet. I wonder if he's going to.


I'd like to hear it..

----------


## juvanya

Doesnt surprise me one bit. The Tea Party Express was a farce once it left Ron Paul Station. Few exceptions, but ..

----------


## Chester Copperpot

This isnt the bill just introduced by ROn Paul and Walter Jones and Barbara somebody or other is it?

----------


## Matt Collins

Really?

----------


## Zatch

I posted the antiwar article in his Facebook comments: http://www.facebook.com/repjustinama...91093274247483

----------


## angelatc

It could be that they didn't give him time to read it.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Doesnt surprise me one bit. The Tea Party Express was a farce once it left Ron Paul Station. Few exceptions, but ..


The "Tea Party Express" organization was a front for the RNC....

----------


## Anti Federalist

Edit - waiting to see just WTF happened here.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Well that train went off the rails quickly.

----------


## surf

> It could be that they didn't give him time to read it.


he voted with _Pelosi_

here's what he didn't have time to read


> H.AMDT.93 (A083) 
> Amends: H.R.1 
> Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (offered 2/17/2011) 
> AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
> An amendment numbered 232 printed in the Congressional Record to limit the use of funds for the United States military operations in Afghanistan to no more than $10,000,000,000. 
> 
> STATUS:
> 
> 2/17/2011 7:28pm:
> ...

----------


## Brent Pierce

Don't know about you all, but I'm going to be looking for an explanation on this one. Very confusing. He just voted against the Patriot Act. The guy is clearly not a war hawk.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Damn.

Another one bites the dust?

----------


## Texan4Life

> Doesnt surprise me one bit. The Tea Party Express was a farce once it left Ron Paul Station. Few exceptions, but ..

----------


## angelatc

> the "tea party express" organization was a front for the rnc....


amash wasn't a tea party express candidate, so that's a strawman anyway.

----------


## Guitarzan

I'm sure there's a good explanation. 


Don't judge too quickly.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Well that train went off the rails quickly.


 Good thing he didn't do this before CPAC. They would've run him out of the room on a rail!

----------


## juvanya

> The "Tea Party Express" organization was a front for the RNC....


Didnt mean that literally.

----------


## brandon

This isn't really surprising. What is sort of surprising is how awesome Walter Jones is turning out to be in general.

----------


## Elle

On his FB page he says he voted yes, but the roll call says he voted no.  So how did he actually vote?

**ETA**

new link
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll143.xml

now it shows he voted yes.

----------


## ord33

> On his FB page he says he voted yes, but the roll call says he voted no.  So how did he actually vote?
> 
> **ETA**
> 
> new link
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll143.xml
> 
> now it shows he voted yes.


Am I misreading this? Because currently it shows Paul Ryan (Wisconsin) as voting yes to the amendment and Ron Paul not voting. I think they have this all messed up!

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> On his FB page he says he voted yes, but the roll call says he voted no.  So how did he actually vote?
> 
> **ETA**
> 
> new link
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll143.xml
> 
> now it shows he voted yes.


Different amendment.

----------


## thehighwaymanq

Take it easy everyone. The explanation will come eventually! Don't throw him under the bus already! Jeez.

----------


## Bergie Bergeron

His response:



> The amendment to defund Afghanistan operations was an unannounced, dramatic cut that I did not have time to discuss or debate with anyone. I felt it would have been irresponsible to vote yes on such a cut without being confident in what I was doing.
> 
> There was also a vote to cut European troop levels from 100,000 to 35,000, which I opposed. I support cutting European troop levels (perhaps even to less than 35,000) but not without a debate and input from commanders.

----------


## MRoCkEd

^^

That's actually a great explanation. We are lucky to have someone in congress who gives his reasoning like that.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> ^^
> 
> That's actually a great explanation. We are lucky to have someone in congress who gives his reasoning like that.


So Ron Paul is "irresponsible"?

----------


## low preference guy

> So Ron Paul is "irresponsible"?


Maybe RP trusted his gut feeling and is right.

But that doesn't mean Amash is wrong. It's good to have a Rep. that will vote no to every bill for which he isn't given enough time to read.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Maybe RP trusted his gut feeling and is right.
> 
> But that doesn't mean Amash is wrong. It's good to have a Rep. that will vote no to every bill for which he isn't given enough time to read.


Mmmm, yeah, maybe.

I say the heat is on and Amash felt some of it and wilted.

But I'm a negative, grouchy old $#@!er, so hopefully I'm wrong.

----------


## low preference guy

> Mmmm, yeah, maybe.
> 
> I say the heat is on and Amash felt some of it and wilted.
> 
> But I'm a negative, grouchy old $#@!er, so hopefully I'm wrong.


He used to give the same type of reasons for no votes when he was a state legislator.

----------


## AZKing

> Maybe RP trusted his gut feeling and is right.
> 
> But that doesn't mean Amash is wrong. It's good to have a Rep. that will vote no to every bill for which he isn't given enough time to read.


He couldn't vote 'present'? :<

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

I'm with AF. That's a weak vote. He could have voted present or abstained from voting instead of voting FOR the empire. What I posted on Justin's facebook:

Justin, here's the debate and input from commanders and our Military Industrial Complex overlords:

"Why on earth would we decrease troop levels and weaken our national security? Sit down and shut up, Mundane."

Vote for bringing home troops whenever possible next time, please.

----------


## anaconda

I thought this was the idea of the Lee-Paul-Jones bill introduced Thursday???.....is this Nadler bill something similar but different?

I gave money to Amash because Dr. Paul asked us to. perhaps we might consider calling RP's office and asking why we contributed?

----------


## low preference guy

> He couldn't vote 'present'? :<


What's the difference between a no and a present?

Never mind. Don't answer. It's a stupid discussion.

----------


## AZKing

> What's the difference between a no and a present?
> 
> Never mind. Don't answer. It's a stupid discussion.


I dunno, apparently it made a difference in relation to Planned Parenthood.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

I pushed him on the difference between Planned Parenthood and this vote, we'll see what he says in response to that.

----------


## Brent Pierce

I posted on his facebook as well. He's going to have to respond to this one or give up his facebook experiment.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

If you're Kaj, Brent, he answered you but not me.

----------


## Brent Pierce

> If you're Kaj, Brent, he answered you but not me.


No response yet. I posted on the Justin Amash "government official" facebook page as "Brent Pierce."

----------


## low preference guy

> I pushed him on the difference between Planned Parenthood and this vote, we'll see what he says in response to that.


He actually read that one.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Wow Justin. Way to sell out. Meet the new same as the old. The Federal Government is so out of control, so large, so destructive even so-called allies wilt to the power it imposes. Severe the ties to that god-forsaken pit of soul-crushing monstrosity.

PS: The talking to commanders and such is a cop-out. Justin you know there is a purpose behind having civilians in charge of the military and not Military Commanders right? What do you not understand about ' WE ARE BROKE '? What do you not understand about ' WE CREATE OUR ENEMIES '? It's simple and requires no debate or talks with the Military Brass who are ready and willing to steamroll the entire world.

Ugh, so disappointing. You let me down Justin. This just goes to show how one in a trillion Ron is.

----------


## specsaregood

lame, really lame

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Wow Justin. Way to sell out. Meet the old same as the new. The Federal Government is so out of control, so large, so destructive even so-called allies wilt to the power it imposes. Severe the ties to that god-forsaken pit of soul-crushing monstrosity.
> 
> PS: The talking to commanders and such is a cop-out. Justin you know there is a purpose behind having civilians in charge of the military and not Military Commanders right? What do you not understand about ' WE ARE BROKE '. What do you not understand about ' WE CREATE OUR ENEMIES '? It's simple and requires no debate or talks with the Military Brass who are ready and willing to steamroll the entire world.
> 
> Ugh, so disappointing. You let me down Justin. This just goes to show how one in a trillion Ron is.


He's decided to avoid my questioning for now. He answered the guy who posted just after me, so it's not like he didn't see it. Maybe I should copy/paste your stuff, see if it gets him to respond?

----------


## sonofshamwow

One thing you guys will have to learn about Justin, which has not been RP's focus, is that Justin cares just as much (if not more) about following a principled, conservative _process_ to legislating as he does the substance of the legislation itself.  You'll see what I mean if you continue to follow his votes.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> He's decided to avoid my questioning for now. He answered the guy who posted just after me, so it's not like he didn't see it. Maybe I should copy/paste your stuff, see if it gets him to respond?


Please do. I am unable to since I'm at work. Thanks.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> One thing you guys will have to learn about Justin, which has not been RP's focus, is that Justin cares just as much (if not more) about following a principled, conservative _process_ to legislating as he does the substance of the legislation itself.  You'll see what I mean if you continue to follow his votes.


As rational people recognize, the cowardly thing would have been to ignore the serious concerns I had with the way the amendment was drafted just because I support the outcome (defunding Planned Parenthood). The courageous approach is voting my conscience with the knowledge that I'm going to have to do a lot of explaining. Very few elected officials will do that. "Present" is not the same as "absent." It indicates that the Representative has a procedural objection.

- Amash, on Planned Parenthood

Funny, that same exact logic could have been used for the troop cutting votes. Instead, he votes for keeping the empire intact.

----------


## low preference guy

> Funny, that same exact logic could have been used for the troop cutting votes. Instead, he votes for keeping the empire intact.


If the same rationale can be used, should he oppose both bills? He voted against the bill in both cases.

----------


## college4life

> As rational people recognize, the cowardly thing would have been to ignore the serious concerns I had with the way the amendment was drafted just because I support the outcome (defunding Planned Parenthood). The courageous approach is voting my conscience with the knowledge that I'm going to have to do a lot of explaining. Very few elected officials will do that. "Present" is not the same as "absent." It indicates that the Representative has a procedural objection.
> 
> - Amash, on Planned Parenthood
> 
> Funny, that same exact logic could have been used for the troop cutting votes. Instead, he votes for keeping the empire intact.


good point, could you post that on his fb and tell us his response?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

If he agrees with a bill, has a procedural issue, and votes present (Planned Parenthood), it would stand to reason that if he agreed with cutting troops from Afghanistan and Europe but has a procedural issue (in this case, not reading it) he would have done the same.

In his own words:




> "Present" is not the same as "absent." It indicates that the Representative has a procedural objection.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> good point, could you post that on his fb and tell us his response?


I posted something similar an hour ago, he answered someone who posted after me.

----------


## low preference guy

> If he agrees with a bill, has a procedural issue, and votes present (Planned Parenthood), it would stand to reason that if he agreed with cutting troops from Afghanistan and Europe but has a procedural issue (in this case, not reading it) he would have done the same.


Oh my God. So you're saying... that if he voted 'present' it would've been OK with you. But since he voted 'no', you are disappointed?

I. cannot. stop. laughing.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

What I'm saying is this:

He supports defunding Planned Parenthood. He objected to the procedural aspect of the bill. Voted present because of this.

He voted no on cutting on troop levels, citing a procedural objection.

Do you see the disconnect? His stances here leave me questioning his motives. Had he voted present, I'd chalk it up to supporting the measures, but objecting to the way the bill was introduced.

----------


## low preference guy

> What I'm saying is this:
> 
> He supports defunding Planned Parenthood. He objected to the procedural aspect of the bill. Voted present because of this.
> 
> He voted no on cutting on troop levels, citing a procedural objection.
> 
> Do you see the disconnect? His stances here leave me questioning his motives. Had he voted present, I'd chalk it up to supporting the measures, but objecting to the way the bill was introduced.


It seems to me that his approach could be this:

There is no time to read the bill: automatic no.
There is a procedural objection to something in the bill: present.




> Had he voted present, I'd chalk it up to supporting the measures, but objecting to the way the bill was introduced.


How can he know all the measures without reading the bill?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

His objection was that he didn't have a debate or get input from commanders, as seen here:

"The amendment to defund Afghanistan operations was an unannounced, dramatic cut that I did not have time to discuss or debate with anyone. I felt it would have been irresponsible to vote yes on such a cut without being confident in what I was doing.

There was also a vote to cut European troop levels from 100,000 to 35,000, which I opposed. I support cutting European troop levels (perhaps even to less than 35,000) but not without a debate and input from commanders."

Mentioned nothing about not reading the bills.

----------


## low preference guy

> Mentioned nothing about not reading the bills.


I see. I must be confusing Justin with someone else then. Never mind my post.

----------


## aspiringconstitutionalist

Oh, come on, Amash.  You're being silly.  You shouldn't need to have a debate or get input from other people to just vote in line with liberty and the Constitution.  Just do it!  -__-

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

I agree with the worrying & upset of the other posters. 

I also don't understand something I read on Justin's facebook, that there was a bill voted on that would have cut European troop levels. I was under the impression that only the President could order troops around, and the Congress only handles the funding for them. Not that they pay attention to the rules anymore.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

... edit

----------


## Thomas

Justin is going to lose his liberty support fast if this keeps up...

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

His response to my concerns:

Travis, voting "present" would have been fair under the circumstances; however, there is a big difference between the military votes and the Planned Parenthood vote. It is my opinion that nobody should have voted "yes" on the Planned Parent...hood amendment (as drafted); it was improperly drafted legislation that should not have come to the floor in that form. In other words, I had constitutional concerns about the procedure, though I supported the objectives.

With respect to the military amendments, my concerns were different. They appeared to be properly drafted. There was certainly a lot of congressional debate on those issues before I entered Congress. Any objections were particular to me and my lack of knowledge on the subject. The procedures were fine, but I wasn't certain I fully agreed with the objectives (how much to cut, how quickly to withdraw troops, etc.) In such cases, I am more comfortable voting "no" than "present."

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Looks like only Duncan, Jones, and Ron are the only three up there that share our values. 

Hey Justin: _We just went in, and we can just come home_. Either way, its better to come home at least organized now, than in the disarray which will accompany us when our dollar becomes worthless. I guess Justin isn't fine with ending the Afghanistan War.

----------


## nayjevin

> With respect to the military amendments, my concerns were different.  They appeared to be properly drafted. There was certainly a lot of  congressional debate on those issues before I entered Congress. Any  objections were particular to me and my lack of knowledge on the  subject. The procedures were fine, but I wasn't certain I fully agreed  with the objectives (how much to cut, how quickly to withdraw troops,  etc.) In such cases, I am more comfortable voting "no" than "present."


I'm satisfied with this reasoning.  But I'm worried that the 'cut and run' propaganda has had some effect on him.  I would guess that all he'd hear from commanders is more of it.

----------


## Ricky201

> Looks like only Duncan, Jones, and Ron are the only three up there that share our values. 
> 
> Hey Justin: _We just went in, and we can just come home_. Either way, its better to come home at least organized now, than in the disarray which will accompany us when our dollar becomes worthless. I guess Justin isn't fine with ending the Afghanistan War.


I would suggest you to read Jones' record a little closely.  Foreign policy wise he's fairly decent, but on other domestic issues he distances himself from our camp.

I don't know much about Amash or how he votes besides that he was fairly good state rep.  I need to see more votes for him before I no longer throw my support to him.  Hell even Barry Goldwater had his bad votes.  Just because someone is libertarian-leaning, it does not make them a libertarian.

----------


## invisible

Ok, I almost hate to say it this time, but I buy his reasoning on this one as well.  I don't agree with the vote personally, but can certainly see the logic of "I don't understand all the implications of this legislation, and need more information and discussion before being able to vote yes with confidence".  If nothing else, it's still a principled conservative stance at worst.  I'm personally not happy with this vote, but don't see it as reason to write Amash off so quickly.  Hopefully he cares enough about the issue to do some research on his own, so that he does not have to vote this way on it again.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Justin if you read this, or if someone can post it to his facebook -- you really need to read Robert Higgs _Crisis and Leviathian_.

----------


## sailingaway

> This isnt the bill just introduced by ROn Paul and Walter Jones and Barbara somebody or other is it?


It sounds like the same bill.  But apparently this writer likes whosis so wants to use their name.  Or it could be a different version.  I'd read that Ron's just said all funds for Afghanistan could only be used to demobilize our troops and bring them home.  It might not have been a dollar figure.  But I hadn't heard that Amash had joined that one, either.

To me, taken as a single vote, t isn't as bad as the patriot act recoommittment vote which would have required the patriot act to be applied consistently with the Constitution and would have fast tracked Constitutional claims, though.  I see NO justification for that one.  People have different tolerances to having their district told that they want dead soldiers because they voted against body armor for the troops (as asshat said about Ron in the 2008 Congressional primary.)There are other ways to get the same outcome and if he were regularly voting for those, this could just be an outlier.  Mind you, I think Ron's position is the correct one.

----------


## MRoCkEd

If you have been following Justin, you would know he often votes "no" on significant legislation he might agree with, but that leaves no time for debate or discussion.

I am just amazed that he actually responds to inquiries quickly and personally. It's historical for government officials.

----------


## nayjevin

> I am just amazed that he actually responds to inquiries quickly and personally. It's historical for government officials.


Yes, this is the big Justin Amash story.  In this world, there is no excuse for politicians to not explain every vote for constituents to see.  Those explanations would be practically the only relevant stories coming out of DC.  But does anyone else do this besides Amash?

----------


## sonofshamwow

I can't believe that Justin does the responsible thing and doesn't support legislation that he hasn't been given an opportunity to discuss and debate and some people in this forum are acting like he's a traitor for it.  Some of you guys need to chill out.  Nobody is going to agree with you on every last piece of legislation and just because you think a bill should be supported because its title is appealing to you doesn't necessarily mean it should be blindly followed.  At the end of the day, the person voting should be completely comfortable that they have the information they need to make a "yes" vote confidently.  If they aren't comfortable, then it's generally better to maintain the status quo until more information/debate/discussion is available.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

I think Justin is great. He does what he believes in and he follows through AND he pretty much agrees with all of us and Ron Paul..

So cut the guy a break.  Maybe they threw this thing together at the last minute for a vote, didnt announce it and it caught him off guard.

Being in Congress is new for him as it would be new for us.

I, for one love that this guy takes the time to explain everything on facebook with whats going on, with who, and how.

I think he's providing us all quite a window to peek through at how congress works and perhaps if any of us wind up running and get lucky enough to be elected we'll be able to learn by the things he is showing us.

----------


## AlexMerced

Ron Paul hs been around a lot of longer and already had plenty of debate on these issues, also Ron Paul is much more symbolic than practical, which I personally think is practical but I'm an anarchist so that doesn't mean much.

Amash sounds like he's trying to be a responsible legislator in it's most principled and pragmatic manner, which I'm sure he'll eventually be disillusioned with when he finds out 99% of everything is rushed with no debate and he finds himself voting no on things even ron paul saids yes on cause he didnt get to debate.

I appreciate what he's doing, he's trying to be the congressman he wishes others were in wanting to actually have debates, follow procedure and the rules of how the body is supposed to be run, but the congress is so far from that now it's just a battle for political posturing. Ron Paul has been around enough that he's already realized trying to be a purest about congressional procedure will destroy any gains he can at least get by symbolic votes which is better than nothing since he's part of  small minority and plus I'm pretty damn sure Ron Paul is a closet anarchist.

Amash is taking a very nuanced prinicpled approach which provides no symbolism since it's over most peoples heads and will only provide him strife as he will find himself having to explain procedure and legislative ethics constantly to justify his votes. Overall, he's a good guy.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yes, this is the big Justin Amash story.  In this world, there is no excuse for politicians to not explain every vote for constituents to see.  Those explanations would be practically the only relevant stories coming out of DC.  But does anyone else do this besides Amash?


Ron Paul always has.

----------


## Slutter McGee

Wait, what somebody voted one time in a way we disagree with. TRAITOR!!!!!!!!ANGRY. ANGRY.

Jesus people, relax a little.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Wait, what somebody voted one time in a way we disagree with. TRAITOR!!!!!!!!ANGRY. ANGRY.
> 
> Jesus people, relax a little.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Slutter McGee


Yeah, because for quite a few of us, this is a pretty big issue.

Now, the rationalization seems to be that "there was not enough time to properly debate this amendment, so I voted "yes" (continuation of current policy)"

A "no" vote has also been described as "irresponsible".

Well, RP had no more time to consider this than anybody else, yet he voted no, as did a few other, more "mainstream" republicans. Is RP "irresponsible"?

I'm not calling for his head, by any means, but that doesn't change the fact that this vote of his was weak sauce. 

Man up to it, say a _mea culpa_ and don't let it happen again...

----------


## sonofshamwow

> Man up to it, say a _mea culpa_ and don't let it happen again...


There's nothing to "man up" to.  You should not expect Amash to ever support a bill he doesn't feel he is given the opportunity to adequately understand.  Period.  No matter what the subject.  RP is not like that.  That's why I said earlier that you all will have to get used to Amash's emphasis on process over substance.

I promise you there will be a lot more votes that most of you will think he obviously should've voted yes on.  And in all likelihood he may ultimately support the substance of the bill.  But if there isn't enough time given, if he's not given a chance to read it, if there isn't adequate debate or discussion, etc. he will not vote yes.  Count on it.

----------


## sonofshamwow

> Amash is taking a very nuanced prinicpled approach which provides no symbolism since it's over most peoples heads and will only provide him strife as he will find himself having to explain procedure and legislative ethics constantly to justify his votes. Overall, he's a good guy.


Here's a guy who gets it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Quote Originally Posted by AlexMerced View Post
> Amash is taking a very nuanced prinicpled approach which provides no symbolism since it's over most peoples heads and will only provide him strife as he will find himself having to explain procedure and legislative ethics constantly to justify his votes. Overall, he's a good guy.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Here's a guy who gets it.


So sorra suh, I should have knows it wuz over my head.

I'll be getting back to my work now suh, by and by...

----------


## specsaregood

> I promise you there will be a lot more votes that most of you will think he obviously should've voted yes on.  And in all likelihood he may ultimately support the substance of the bill.  But if there isn't enough time given, if he's not given a chance to read it, if there isn't adequate debate or discussion, etc. he will not vote yes.  Count on it.


So as long as those in charge refuse to allow "adequate debate" on the topic of ending these wars, Rep. amash will support them indefinitely.
Good to know.   The problem is, there wasn't "adequate debate" before the war started.  And as far as "adequate debate", I guess he discounts all the debate that has gone on with in the mundanes over this topic for the past 10 years.

So we make a mistake, let's just not talk about it and keep on perpetuating it forever.  Sounds like a great plan, now where exactly are the lifeboats?

----------


## surf

> *So as long as those in charge refuse to allow "adequate debate" on the topic of ending these wars, Rep. amash will support them indefinitely*.
> Good to know.   The problem is, there wasn't "adequate debate" before the war started.  And as far as "adequate debate", I guess he discounts all the debate that has gone on with in the mundanes over this topic for the past 10 years.
> 
> So we make a mistake, let's just not talk about it and keep on perpetuating it forever.  Sounds like a great plan, now where exactly are the lifeboats?


this. i don't think this vote can be defended because he hadn't read the entire HR 1. The amendment was "*An amendment numbered 232 printed in the Congressional Record to limit the use of funds for the United States military operations in Afghanistan to no more than $10,000,000,000*."

i doubt i'm too far off when i say that this is what we liberty-minded folks want (and more, of course). it's probably another $50 billion of the budget.... 

i fear that Mr. Amash has already either a) caved to leadership because he knew this would fail overwhelmingly and wants to be re-elected or b) is a closet neocon that hoodwinked us liberty lovers.

----------


## Romulus

> So as long as those in charge refuse to allow "adequate debate" on the topic of ending these wars, Rep. amash will support them indefinitely.
> Good to know.   The problem is, there wasn't "adequate debate" before the war started.  And as far as "adequate debate", I guess he discounts all the debate that has gone on with in the mundanes over this topic for the past 10 years.
> 
> So we make a mistake, let's just not talk about it and keep on perpetuating it forever.  Sounds like a great plan, now where exactly are the lifeboats?


+rep on that one.

I agree - lame reasoning on Amash's part.

----------


## angelatc

> Justin is going to lose his liberty support fast if this keeps up...


Ron Paul is the only person in the world who is going to please all of us all the time. That's been quite clear for some time now.

----------


## specsaregood

> Ron Paul is the only person in the world who is going to please all of us all the time. That's been quite clear for some time now.


Point taken, but this is sorta a big issue.  This amendment alone would have cut more of the deficit than all the supposed budget cuts they have been batting around.
He could have voted YES, if it passed and those opposed think it needed to be debated further it could have been brought back up.  I'm sure its easier to change their mind and find more funding once the decision to end the war has been made, than it is to actually start the withdrawl process.

----------


## doctor jones

I understand what Amash is trying to say but I would have done differently. The thing is, if the most important votes you are going to take continue to not have "enough time to debate" you are going to keep empowering the empire. Until he has power to change the legislation consideration problem, I think he'd be wise in just voting to cut cut cut.

----------


## angelatc

> Point taken, but this is sorta a big issue.  This amendment alone would have cut more of the deficit than all the supposed budget cuts they have been batting around.
> He could have voted YES, if it passed and those opposed think it needed to be debated further it could have been brought back up.


I'm not thrilled with it, but I've given up on cloning Ron Paul.   If his vote was a swing vote, I'd be devastated.  But I'm not going to burn him at the stake over this because it really didn't matter, and he has a history of voting for exactly the reason he gave .  I have good reason to trust that he will be there when it really matters, and at this juncture I'm willing to settle for that, especially knowing that the guy he beat in the primary was a much worse choice for liberty.

----------


## MRoCkEd

This should cheer you up:

Justin Amash:

Here's the roll call for Amendment 141 to H R 1, which reduces defense/military spending to 2008 levels. I voted yes. It failed 76-344.

Bring our men and women home from the countless overseas engagements. Our military strength has always derived from our economic strength, and our exploding debt jeopardizes our security. A bankrupt country cannot defend its people.

----------


## sonofshamwow

> This should cheer you up:
> 
> Justin Amash:
> 
> Here's the roll call for Amendment 141 to H R 1, which reduces defense/military spending to 2008 levels. I voted yes. It failed 76-344.
> 
> Bring our men and women home from the countless overseas engagements. Our military strength has always derived from our economic strength, and our exploding debt jeopardizes our security. A bankrupt country cannot defend its people.


One of only 7 Republicans.  What a closet neo-con he must be.  RP didn't vote, again, incidentally.

----------


## sonofshamwow

> He could have voted YES, if it passed and those opposed think it needed to be debated further it could have been brought back up.  I'm sure its easier to change their mind and find more funding once the decision to end the war has been made, than it is to actually start the withdrawl process.


It's much harder to undo passed legislation than it is to bring back up for another vote legislation that hasn't passed.  It's also much more irresponsible to vote to pass something only to debate it later, unless you're Nancy Pelosi.

----------


## specsaregood

> It's much harder to undo passed legislation than it is to bring back up for another vote legislation that hasn't passed.  It's also much more irresponsible to vote to pass something only to debate it later, unless you're Nancy Pelosi.


LOL, yeah real hard to get congress to change their mind and spend more money on wars.   In what century was that?

----------


## CurranH

MRoCkEd and sonofshamwow beat me to the punch.  Clearly Rep. Amash supports a more humble foreign policy, as evidenced in his recent status update.  His objection to this amendment stems from procedural objections, not philosophical.  

Seriously, people—you're being hysterical.  Rep. Amash gives a perfectly rational explanation for his vote and you jump all over him.  Instead, you should be giving him credit for his prudence.  

Still, it's good to know that all of you have studied and read this amendment, understand its consequences, and can vote unequivocally yes to take drastic and essentially irreversible action. 

Seriously though, it's like sonofshamwow says:

"It's much harder to undo passed legislation than it is to bring back up for another vote legislation that hasn't passed."

----------


## brenden.b

Seriously, what the hell? The guy gives you a good sound reason why he voted no on one amendment and then proceeds to vote in favor of cuts in military spending and makes a comment like this:

"Bring our men and women home from the countless overseas engagements. Our military strength has always derived from our economic strength, and our exploding debt jeopardizes our security. A bankrupt co...untry cannot defend its people."

And everyone is freaking out calling him a Neo-Con and everything else.... 

What would you do if Ron voted wrong on one bill? Would you throw him under the bus as well?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> MRoCkEd and sonofshamwow beat me to the punch.  Clearly Rep. Amash supports a more humble foreign policy, as evidenced in his recent status update.  His objection to this amendment stems from procedural objections, not philosophical.  
> 
> Seriously, people—you're being hysterical.  Rep. Amash gives a perfectly rational explanation for his vote and you jump all over him.  Instead, you should be giving him credit for his prudence.  
> 
> Still, it's good to know that all of you have studied and read this amendment, understand its consequences, and can vote unequivocally yes to take drastic and essentially irreversible action. 
> 
> Seriously though, it's like sonofshamwow says:
> 
> "It's much harder to undo passed legislation than it is to bring back up for another vote legislation that hasn't passed."


No, you're wrong. Amash had no procedural objections to the bill he voted against, as per his facebook. His issue was that there was no input from military commanders as to what our troop levels should be in Europe and Afghanistan. He stepped in it on that vote. There was no input from military commanders on this amendment, so why the change in voting tactics? I'm guessing it's because we put heat on him in a public forum. Which is GOOD.

His statement on the no vote:

"With respect to the military amendments, my concerns were different. They appeared to be properly drafted. There was certainly a lot of congressional debate on those issues before I entered Congress. Any objections were particular to me and my lack of knowledge on the subject. The procedures were fine, but I wasn't certain I fully agreed with the objectives (how much to cut, how quickly to withdraw troops, etc.) In such cases, I am more comfortable voting "no" than "present." "

----------

