Check Out Congressmen Flake exposing the real truth!

dubya tee efff mate!

Is it just me, or does each day make you more and more ashamed to be represented by these crooks and liars?
 
Rick351714 said:
Does anyone have more information on this guy? Seems like he has some good qualities.
Click to expand...


Jeff Flake is ok. He leans libertarian, though he doesn't have anywhere near the guts as Ron Paul.

I am pretty sure Flake officially endorsed McCain several months ago.

He is a mormon.
 
Tim724 said:
Jeff Flake is ok. He leans libertarian, though he doesn't have anywhere near the guts as Ron Paul.

I am pretty sure Flake officially endorsed McCain several months ago.

He is a mormon.
Click to expand...

he is one of 6 in the house to vote no to HR 1955, once i saw that i checked him out and he is a pretty good guy...
 
While Flake did endorse McCain a while back, he is absolutely one of our greatest representatives in this Congress. He is a champion of earmark reform, and stands alone in his efforts to bring to light the most egregious wasteful spending in our government. He was punished by the Republican party for not towing the party line and is, like Paul, often considered "Fringe" due to his belief in the Constitution.

He has been criticized for his immigration positions, which are actually more in line with traditional libertarianism and for his view on the war, which is that it is not up to the Congress to interfere in the day to day running of it (while he questions the validity of it altogether).

I have high hopes for Mr. Flake's career and look forward to its future with great anticipation.

Edit: I highly recommend subscribing to his youtube channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/flakeoffice
 
Towards the end of the Nancy Pelosi video, he makes a funny joke about using earmark-speak to describe a wood podium and a plastic ink pen.
 
Talking about earmarks is fine and dandy but if you ignore the elephants in the room or the 'guns and butter' as Paul referred to them last night you ain't going to change much. Earmarks are really little more than representatives trying to get some of the money back that is taken from the district.
 
Flake is the congressman 1 district over from mine, in Arizona. It's pretty obvious that he'd endorse McCain.
 
I love the fight against earmarks, but I watched his appearance on Faux (in the YouTube channel) where he listed one of the rediculous earmarks as being $250k to Ada, OK for a water tower. And that got me to thinking.

I'm a councilman in a rural Kansas town (pop. 1300). Thanks to our wonderful EPA and their constantly changing (tightening) regulations, we just completed a $1 million wastewater treatment plant upgrade (yes, upgrade). This added about $15 to our citizen's monthly sewer bill. Now, they lowered the allowable amount of arsenic in drinking water (with no scientific or medical basis). We're looking at another $1 million project to deal with that. Guess what? Another $15 on the water bill, increase in property tax or reduction of city services (and towns like ours are already pretty dang lean).

As long as the money is there, they should stop giving out the earmarks to stupid pet projects and instead help out the small communities that get hammered by the rediculous regulations imposed by their beauracracies.

/end rant
 
I looked into him, aside from the McCain thing, I like the way this guy votes. He's no Ron Paul, but he's not a neocon either.
 
I don't understand why Flake would endorse McCain.
McCain is so corrupt and Flake seems like he is doing some good in congress, even though (I think) he's pro-war.
 
I like Flake, but he does have some black marks. He's pro-war, and he's got some troubling votes on civil liberties. (Electronic surveillance of foreign communications through the US, Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security) But on total, he's a pretty good egg.

He's worth keeping around, if that's what you're asking.
 
Economically, I like Flake. Other than that, I have some serious issues with him.
 
Describing Flake as "Pro-war" oversimplifies his position and misrepresents it to a degree. From his website:

My own thoughts on the situation in Iraq are as follows: I have little confidence that a surge in troop levels will change the situation in Iraq in any substantive fashion. It seems clear that the violence in Iraq is increasingly sectarian, and inserting more troops in this atmosphere is unlikely to improve matters very much. Without a more sincere commitment to step up to the plate from the Iraqi government, we are unlikely to make significant progress.

But when all is said and done, we have a commander-in-chief whom we have authorized to go to war. Inserting ourselves, as legislators, into the chain of command by passing legislation that questions the President’s decision to conduct a mission that is clearly already underway strikes me as folly.
Click to expand...

While I do not agree with his position, I understand it. Characterizing him as "Pro-war," in the vein of a Giuliani or a McCain is doing him a huge disservice.

This man is part of the Revolution, whether he knows it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
A Rothbardian Dissection of Javier Milei
Replies
2
Views
2K
PAF
PAF
PAF
Javier Milei Versus the Antiwar Cause
Replies
7
Views
1K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
PAF
The Real Aggressor
Replies
0
Views
578
PAF
PAF
PAF
“Personnel Is Policy” Means the Rule of Law Is Dying
Replies
0
Views
2K
PAF
PAF
Occam's Banana
Why the political establishment won’t touch the chronic disease issue
Replies
1
Views
921
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top