From Owen's site:
As a congresswoman, Tammy Baldwin backed legislation to block funding
for body armor and medical supplies for U.S. troops. The Democratic
candidate for U.S. Senate co-sponsored legislation in every session of
Congress from 2003 until 2009 to allow taxpayers opposed to the
military, Department of Defense, and various intelligence agencies to
withhold their tax dollars from being spent in support of those
entities. Specifically, the legislation allowed individual taxpayers to
block funding that would be used for, “the training, supplying, or
maintaining of military personnel.” That would include body armor,
medical supplies, and other non-offensive equipment.
At least four times Baldwin co-sponsored the legislation, in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009
....
Some say she's "extreme." I maintain that she's out of her mind. The insanity defense is the only one which might justify this crap.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Let's examine this issue more closely.
"...block funding for body armor and medical supplies for U.S. troops".
I totally OPPOSE this bill...IF it was the intention to deny ALL taxpayer money for this endeavor. Of course our troops in the field of battle should be given what they need to carry out their mission.
Now, the bill is H.R. 2085: Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act (2009). It states "to affirm the religious freedom of taxpayers who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war, to provide that the income, estate, or gift tax payments of such taxpayers be used for nonmilitary purposes, to create the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund to receive such tax payments, to improve revenue collection, and for other purposes."
Baldwin was one of 21 co-sponsors--all (D)'s except one, that being Ron Paul, a Republican who in truth is a libertarian.
From what I have read, the gist of the bill is to afford CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS the opportunity to NOT have their tax money be used to fund military activities.
Their status has been clearly established according to past federal laws, and these individuals oppose participation in war in ANY form based on their moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.
No such provision exists for taxpayers who are conscientious objectors and who seek to NOT be compelled to have their tax dollars for
It seems to me the specific intent of the bill as written is to FURTHER religious causes, i.e. a person who objects to war based on their beliefs.
Perhaps people should do some investigating, because the title of the post to me is clearly misleading. Gee, I wonder why?
So, are people here still opposed to this bill, because it appears to be PROTECTING the rights of individuals who have legitimate reasons to oppose war.
NOT be compelled to have their tax dollars for military purposes.
Oh.
But Catholics MUST pay for abortion and sterilization, right?
I don't see any comparable offering from The Fool on the Hill over that issue.
She voted for ObozoCare. So in her alleged mind, there ARE no "conscientious objectors."
Can't refute the facts, eh, Dad29, so you use false equivalency as a diversion. Nice try.
It must just chafe you that in this particular instance, Democrats are PROTECTING religious freedoms.
The question remains--do you oppose conscientious objectors from having their taxes go toward military expenditures?
No catholic is compelled to pay for abortion or this sterilization thing you keep bringing up. They are only compelled to compensate their employees according to law. How the employees use their compensation is their business.
No Conscientious Objector is compelled to pay for war or this military activities thing you keep bringing up. They are only compelled to pay their taxes according to law. How the government uses their taxes is its business.
The Fact is, and remains, this:
Tammy Baldwin backed legislation to block funding for body armor and medical supplies for U.S. troops
The C.O. exemption only allows C.O.'s to avoid direct killing in combat but C.O.'s, when drafted, must serve in the military--for example, as SeaBees, or in other support positions.
The Fool on the Hill's proposal is different; not only would it allow C.O.'s to avoid direct combat; it would evade ANY involvement in national defense, which is one of the few principal functions of Gummint(s).
The Catholic Church does not oppose national defense.
Nor--by any stretch of the imagination--is abortion a 'principal function' of Gummint.
Your Fool on the Hill, and you, fail Logic 101 AND you both fail Government 101, too.
Dad29--The Fact is, and remains, this: Tammy Baldwin backed legislation to block funding for body armor and medical supplies for U.S. troops.
Patently false!
Dad29--The Fool on the Hill's proposal is different; not only would it allow C.O.'s to avoid direct combat; it would evade ANY involvement in national defense.
You have yet to provide a specific counterargument to the contents of the bill as I outlined--all you have done is grossly mischaracterize it. The bill is about CO's--whose status has been recognized by the Supreme Court as having a religious objection to war--not having their tax money being used for its related activities.
BOTH the Catholic Church and CO's are objecting to their tax dollars going toward something they object to from a religious standpoint. Their unique status has EACH been designated by the Supreme Court.
The objection itself is what matters most, not the content of that objection. BOTH groups are seeking to have the federal government respect their views because of their long-standing position on a particular issue, in one case war and in the other case abortion.
The bill seeks a compromise between citizens’ duty to obey BOTH the call of God and the law.
Educate yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg8CDWc4hN0
It's easy to be obtuse. You prove it.
National defense is a sine qua non of the social contract. Abortion is not.
It is irrelevant that CO's are defined in law, or that under that law they are exempt from direct combat. But "direct combat" is not the same as paying taxes to support it. The national interest--defense of the country--overrides their "religious objection."
They are not within their rights to refuse to support national defense.
Catholics object to being forced to provide support for direct killing of the innocent. Combatants against the US are not 'innocent,' assuming JWT has been followed.
And--by the way--JWT is a theologically sound argument. Thus, I'll question the philosophical and theological bona fides of those who imply that JWT is faulty.
Got that?
Oh--yah--TWENTY ONE co-sponsors?
Sounds like 5% of the House to me.
That's about the correct number for "lunatic fringe."
TO: Ann 10/18/2012 11:10 PM:
Hey fourth stooge:
"...how the government uses their taxes is its business..."?!?!
We The People ARE the government. It is OUR taxes and 100% OUR business.
What civics hayride did you fall off of that knocked your empty cranium causing the echo heard 'round the world?
"Catholics object to being forced to provide support for direct killing of the innocent."
So catholics opposed the Iraq War, with at least 100k innocents were directly killed? The hypocrisy of the Tali-dad on full display!
Ron Paul knows ALL war is profiteering and ALL wars are simply to be sustained for select profiteers.
Prescott Bush (Bush Family) and The Nazis
Halliburton
Bechtel
General Dynamics
Aegis
Chevron
ExxonMobil
Custer Battles
Nour USA Limited
CACI
Titan
all petro-imperialists
et cetera
The Merchants Of Blood War Profiteering From Vietnam To Iraq - War Profiteering From Vietnam To Iraq
Prescott Bush, And The Golden Age Of War Profiteering
Calling Them Out: War Profiteer Steven R. Loranger
The War Profiteers
The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers
War Is A Racket
Who Profits from War - Evil Billionaire Bankers
Inside The World Of War Profiteers
It is never simple...nor black and white.
The argument becomes moot for one simple reason.
Name me one CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR that can forcibly audit the federal government to follow the audit trail of that CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR's specific tax dollars.
Unless anyone can follow the audit trail of their own personal "wallet theft" by our pubic serpent thieves, one will NEVER KNOW whatever happened to one's own personal forced tax payments.
The sewer filth called government, in the end, truly could care less what the hell anyone's "OBJECTOR" status is. Government'll use the money they steal from any CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR any way government pleases, no transparency, and no CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR'll EVER KNOW what happened to the money government stole from any specific CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR under the guise of "taxes".
This simple, oppressive, totalitarian, oligarchial, plutocratic, overwhelming, all-telling point makes the entire argument moot.
The government doesn't give a shit about a CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR law it enacted to placate the rabble. When did government ever obey its own laws?!?!
The argument is moot.
Take back your government.
Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.
Dad29--National defense is a sine qua non of the social contract.
So, are you stating or implying the war in Afghanistan that CO's who do not want their tax money used for something that find morally incompatible with their beliefs is indeed about national defense, or even a Just War, that supersedes their "religious objections"? I would love to see that post. Because he is what you said about the war in Afghanistan.
http://dad29.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-did-us-do-in-afghanistan.html
Dad29--It is irrelevant that CO's are defined in law, or that under that law they are exempt from direct combat.
In YOUR world, it may be irrelevant, but in the United States, Congress and the Supreme Court say otherwise. The insistence on "irrelevance" is NOT an argument nor a position, it's being intellectually lazy. Try focusing on the topic at hand, not diversionary tactics.
Dad29--Oh--yah--TWENTY ONE co-sponsors? Sounds like 5% of the House to me. That's about the correct number for "lunatic fringe.
So, any bill that has 5% sponsorship is "crazy"; really, that's your conclusion? And you call yourself a learned man?
Well, in 2009, there were 417 with 0 cosponsors and 132 bills with 1 sponsor in the House, and 168 bills with 0 cosponsors and 84 bills with 1 cosponsor in the Senate, with the average being roughly 20 (!) for any bill regardless of its origin. So, using your logic (?), CONGRESS is insane.
Regardless, who freaking cares about the number of people or groups who sponsor or cosponsor a bill, its the content and purpose that most counts.
"Take back your government."
So, St. Revolution, tell us all how do you propose on doing this. You've been saying that you have a preferred method, why don't you make it happen. Or shut up.
"So, are you stating or implying the war in Afghanistan that CO's who do not want their tax money used for something that find morally incompatible with their beliefs is indeed about national defense, or even a Just War, that supersedes their "religious objections"? I would love to see that post. Because he is what you said about the war in Afghanistan."--Anony
I'm actually pretty good at following long sentences. Here's a gentle hint: use commas and proof-read before posting. Drinking heavily or chooming up before posting is not recommended.
Since you cannot distinguish the issues, and insist on throwing a lot of foofoodust around, I think it's better that you sleep it off.
You're right, I was hasty in my sentence structure. See, I can admit my mistakes. Can YOU? No, that would take way too much effort on your part.
The question remains nonetheless.
Are you stating or implying that the war in Afghanistan is about national defense and/or meets the criteria for a Just War, in which case supersedes a CO's moral objection to funding that war using their tax dollars?
If you answered yes, then how do you rectify those positions with these comments?
http://dad29.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-did-us-do-in-afghanistan.html
IN CONTEXT, "OC status" is irrelevant. I wasn't as clear as I should be.
Do I think that every war is JWT tested and approved? Nope. But then, I don't think that national defense should be subject to a Facebook "Like" election, either.
OC's are still required to serve in support ops (SeaBees).
As to choosing wars: elections are held for a reason. Meantime, we all pay taxes.
Post a Comment