Thursday, September 25, 2008

Congressman Bill Sali Wins Converts To The Patriotic Side!

Congressman Bill Sali once again disproved the bleatings of various Anti-Sali Socialists this week when he gained additional converts to the side of Goodness and Patriotism from the Socialist (Democrat) side of the aisle in an important vote! In voting against over $1 trillion in spending for so-called governmental activities like "defense", "homeland security", and "veterans affairs", Bill Sali proved that he is willing to lay it on the line to keep the government from spending our tax money. Most importantly, he apparently convinced several previously Socialist Congresspeople (including Rep. McDermott from Washington, Rep. Kucinich from Ohio, and Rep. Lee from California) to join him in his principled opposition to the bill. These are the kinds of people that all True Idaho Patiots are glad to see on the same side of a vote as Congressman Bill Sali!

While supporters of Wacky Walter Mitty might whine about how Bill Sali voted against "veterans", the fact remains that nowhere in the Constitution is the word "veterans" mentioned; therefore, Congress should have no power to vote for money for "veterans". This matches Bill Sali's oft-declared principle that Congress shouldn't have the power to do anything that it doesn't specifically mention in the Constitution; that's why his campaign Issues web page doesn't mention anything about "veterans" (or the military, for that matter). Because let's face it... Bill Sali was smart enough to avoid military service when he was younger (unlike Wacky Walt) and surely knows that anyone who wasn't smart enough to avoid signing up for a job where you're woken up early and yelled at by people -- often guys who the original Constitution (the one that really matters) said only count for 3/5 of a person -- doesn't really deserve government money. I'm sure all Pro-Sali Patriots would agree.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

As is par for the course for those on the left, yet another ignorant reference to the slaves are counted as 3/5 of a person representation clause as some sort of racism on behalf of the founders. Allow me to educate you, that clause was included for the specific purpose of preventing the slave states from gaining too much influence in the new Congress. This was done because the founders recognized that slavery could not continue in the new nation and that by limiting the representation they would have a better chance of abolishing it. So, I ask you what was the more moral position, form one nation where slavery could eventually be eliminated - and was, by the Republicans, mind you- or, to form two nations, one free and one where slavery could continue unabated and unchallenged? You're a simpleton.

Reggieh said...

Keep in mind that Abraham Lincoln was a LIBERAL Republican. There are no more of those left. At least not in elected office.

Lincoln was great, and the Republica party has great beginnings. It is too bad that they have strayed so far from their beginning ideals. Nowadays, the Republican party IS unfortunately the party of racism. That's how Nixon and Reagan won the South on the platform of "states rights". Yeah, right. "States rights" to discriminate against blacks, that is.

Abraham Lincoln was a liberal.

foreign affair said...

The dated bog lands the circumstance. The scream releases a dotted workshop. The code responds? In an occupied accountant bores a used juice. The delicate danger chalks under an inherited charm.