He voted to Cut NPR. He agree's with cutting NPR but he says they are waisting time doing these little cuts they need to go after the big fish.
Your title is misleading. He didn't say we shouldn't cut NPR funding. He was getting at this; the republicans shouldn't be sucking each others dicks for slashing NPR funding which is a small piece of the pie, they should be focusing on getting out of Afghanistan which is a huge cost to this country in both lives and financially.
He voted to cut the funding.
Bullshit to act like he didn't. I will give you the benefit of the doubt since sometimes the mods alter titles to make them fit/sound better.
Ha ha no. My fault. Just trying to make a short punchy headline like a genuine newsman. Which I am not.
It's cool, the point of the video is still a great one. This is small beans compared to other shit we are facing.
^thats more what I'm after
What a reasonable and logical presentation. Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, it failed miserably.
"WASHINGTON -- The House overwhelmingly defeated on Thursday a nonbinding resolution to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year.
The vote, which failed by a margin of 93 to 321, followed a two-hour debate that involved a brief protest and a lengthy discussion of national security and budget cuts. But what surprised some observers is that the bill, authored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), made it to the House floor at all."
The sooner he is in the white house the better.
on the subject of war, I like Ron Paul.
Paul is a good man, and I agree with him on many things. But he will NEVER EVER become President. Nor, will he EVER be included on the ticket. The best he can hope for is a cabinet post. And that is somewhat of a long-shot.
I want it to happen, but know the powers that be won't let it happen. Plus, people are too stupid and uneducated on the subject to make a difference.
Can we get him close and uhhmmm have something totally tragic and unrelated happen to those above him? That's our only chance.
Reason to change suffrage.
While I'm a big supporter of Dr. Paul the likelihood of him becoming president is slim to none, and slim is out of town. Nevertheless, he should run for president again to educate the public.
The only way this clown gets into the White House if he takes the tour. That's always been the case, and your inability to recognize this is the reason you can't be taken seriously.
Yeah, who you going for? You found anyone yet?
I don't know about that, right now for the Tea Party support it is between him and Cain. Besides those two I don't see who could beat Obama, Huckabee isn't going to run.
During the presidential campaign, RP stopped at our statehouse to give a talk and greet people. At the time, I was working in the building next door so it was a no brainer to walk over.
I shook the man's hand and gave some encouragement and ended up voting for him via write in (I have never voted Rep or Dem for a president).
I would vote for him again, although I must admit that I don't think he's the most electable person. Not from a belief standpoint but from a personality standpoint and unfortunately in the media 24/7 world we live in, that is part of the equation.
Nope, and it seems like the choices are between hospital food and airplane food.
I want a candidate (the party affiliation is less and less important) who:
Insists on balanced budgets and cuts in spending, and renounces the supply-side theology that tax cuts pay for themselves
Gets China, and I mean really gets China, and plans on setting the US on a path of freeing us from that "entangling alliance" - "free trade" has simply translated into "free weapons" for the Chinese elite
Insists on real entitlement reform (i.e., raising of age limits on SS, possibly even means-testing)
Insists on busting up the big banks so that "too big too fail" becomes moot, as nothing will be "too big"
Insists on bona fide institutional reform - talks about term limits, more transparency in government, neutral redistricting rules, earmark bans, waiting periods on laws (public viewing before enactment, etc.),
Gets serious about reforming our agricultural policy (i.e., phase-out subsidies, but promote domestic agrilcultural producton)
Get serious about diversifying our energy portfolio (i.e., expanding domestic production of both fossil fuels and alternatives)
Wants to protect the value of the dollar so that saving - and thus the middle class - isn't penalized
If you find him, let me know.