Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 532

Should Tax Dollars Not Go to Al Qaeda & ISIS or the Countries & Groups That Support Them?

Argument in favor

The U.S. has been supporting militant groups in Syria that have worked with and for terror groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and the equipment and resources provided to supposedly moderate rebels or countries end up in radicals’ hands all too often. This commonsense bill would put an end to that.

Chase's Opinion
···
04/15/2017
The sad part about this is, that our government has been doing this since Reagan. Our tax dollars shouldn't do anything but better our own country, and its citizenry. I'm fairly certain it's possible to petition to remove elected officials, this includes members of Congress. Our representatives, senators, and president are making it painfully clear that none of them are listening to what the vast majority of the people of this country are saying.
Like (75)
Follow
Share
···
04/15/2017
Yes we should not fund terrorists. We armed "rebels" against Russia and got Al Qaeda. We armed "rebels" against Syria and got ISIS. How many more times do we need to make this terrible mistake? The lesson of 9/11 should have been never to arm rebel groups again. Listen up, John McCain, that strategy has never worked and it never will. The only sound strategy is to keep our money, men, and machinery out of conflicts that have absolutely nothing to do with us.
Like (61)
Follow
Share
Loraki's Opinion
···
04/15/2017
Countable's reason for voting NAY on this bill gives some insight as to why they framed the question they ask to introduce us to this bill the way they did: "No one wants defense equipment paid for by the tax dollars of Americans to end up in the hands of terror groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS, but this bill is too restrictive. It makes coalition-building harder by preventing the U.S. from providing defense assistance to more moderate groups in Syria that fight Assad alongside the radicals." Spoken like a RINO or a Democrat, who would happily support this bill if it had been submitted by Chuck Schumer! Too bad Countable often provides bill "titles" that show their liberal bias! Sponsoring Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced this bill to prevent taxpayer money from directly or indirectly being used to support Al Qaeda or ISIS and the groups allied with them: “One of the unintended consequences of nation-building and open-ended intervention is American funds and weapons benefiting those who hate us. This legislation will strengthen our foreign policy, enhance our national security, and safeguard our resources.” https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/dr-rand-paul-introduces-the-stop-arming-terrorists-act Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) introduced an identical version of this legislation in the House of Representatives. I agree with Senator Paul 100%!! Those of us who eschew reading the liberal rags such as WaPo, HuffPo, and the NYT and listening to MSM news channels such as the C(ommunist) N(ews) N(etwork) because of their propensity to dish out fake news are familiar with stories of all the weapons that "fell" into the hands of our enemies on Obama's watch! Whether that was accidental or not is something we may never truly know. But even if it was accidental, that is completely unacceptable! Yeah, I know, accidents can't always be prevented, but we should do everything we can to reduce the risk! Those same weapons were used to kill or maim AMERICAN SOLDIERS or our coalition allies! I AM TOTALLY AGAINST TAXPAYER DOLLARS GOING TO COUNTRIES THAT HATE US AND WANT TO KILL US - AND THAT INCLUDES MOST, IF NOT ALL, MUSLIM-DOMINATED COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER "USUAL SUSPECTS" THAT ARE (or support) OUR ENEMIES! I VOTE YEA ON SENATOR PAUL'S BILL! But I suspect most liberals, including my own Representative and Senators, will vote against it. I hope I'm wrong. . . .
Like (39)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

No one wants defense equipment paid for by the tax dollars of Americans to end up in the hands of terror groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS, but this bill is too restrictive. It makes coalition-building harder by preventing the U.S. from providing defense assistance to more moderate groups in Syria that fight Assad alongside the radicals.

BeffinD's Opinion
···
04/15/2017
Any bill with such a clear right answer is pretty much guaranteed to be stuffed with a bunch of pork. No, I don't want my taxes going to ISIS, but I am extremely skeptical that this bill is really based on purely ethical reasoning.
Like (337)
Follow
Share
Courtney's Opinion
···
04/15/2017
This is a prop bill, if we want to stop arming terrorists we need to do so both home and abroad. Stop funding governments supporting terrorist, stop tax exempt status from churches like WBC, and nazi organization. In addition, how about we stop spending millions a day funding the southern White House, a separated first family, and travel of such which is still making the president richer on our dime
Like (199)
Follow
Share
robynvolker's Opinion
···
04/15/2017
This is worded so strangely that I can't possibly support it. Is it suggesting that currently the US is providing funding and arms to ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups? Or is it worded to evoke a frantic answer and hide all kinds of losses of civil rights and funds for unnecessary projects?
Like (101)
Follow
Share
    The sad part about this is, that our government has been doing this since Reagan. Our tax dollars shouldn't do anything but better our own country, and its citizenry. I'm fairly certain it's possible to petition to remove elected officials, this includes members of Congress. Our representatives, senators, and president are making it painfully clear that none of them are listening to what the vast majority of the people of this country are saying.
    Like (75)
    Follow
    Share
    Any bill with such a clear right answer is pretty much guaranteed to be stuffed with a bunch of pork. No, I don't want my taxes going to ISIS, but I am extremely skeptical that this bill is really based on purely ethical reasoning.
    Like (337)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a prop bill, if we want to stop arming terrorists we need to do so both home and abroad. Stop funding governments supporting terrorist, stop tax exempt status from churches like WBC, and nazi organization. In addition, how about we stop spending millions a day funding the southern White House, a separated first family, and travel of such which is still making the president richer on our dime
    Like (199)
    Follow
    Share
    This is worded so strangely that I can't possibly support it. Is it suggesting that currently the US is providing funding and arms to ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups? Or is it worded to evoke a frantic answer and hide all kinds of losses of civil rights and funds for unnecessary projects?
    Like (101)
    Follow
    Share
    The fuck you think?
    Like (65)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes we should not fund terrorists. We armed "rebels" against Russia and got Al Qaeda. We armed "rebels" against Syria and got ISIS. How many more times do we need to make this terrible mistake? The lesson of 9/11 should have been never to arm rebel groups again. Listen up, John McCain, that strategy has never worked and it never will. The only sound strategy is to keep our money, men, and machinery out of conflicts that have absolutely nothing to do with us.
    Like (61)
    Follow
    Share
    It's difficult to say whether or not this is a good bill without seeing the nitty gritty of it, because it seems fairly common sense. That gives me pause about what else may contained within this legislation that isn't being widely discussed.
    Like (41)
    Follow
    Share
    Countable's reason for voting NAY on this bill gives some insight as to why they framed the question they ask to introduce us to this bill the way they did: "No one wants defense equipment paid for by the tax dollars of Americans to end up in the hands of terror groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS, but this bill is too restrictive. It makes coalition-building harder by preventing the U.S. from providing defense assistance to more moderate groups in Syria that fight Assad alongside the radicals." Spoken like a RINO or a Democrat, who would happily support this bill if it had been submitted by Chuck Schumer! Too bad Countable often provides bill "titles" that show their liberal bias! Sponsoring Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced this bill to prevent taxpayer money from directly or indirectly being used to support Al Qaeda or ISIS and the groups allied with them: “One of the unintended consequences of nation-building and open-ended intervention is American funds and weapons benefiting those who hate us. This legislation will strengthen our foreign policy, enhance our national security, and safeguard our resources.” https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/dr-rand-paul-introduces-the-stop-arming-terrorists-act Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) introduced an identical version of this legislation in the House of Representatives. I agree with Senator Paul 100%!! Those of us who eschew reading the liberal rags such as WaPo, HuffPo, and the NYT and listening to MSM news channels such as the C(ommunist) N(ews) N(etwork) because of their propensity to dish out fake news are familiar with stories of all the weapons that "fell" into the hands of our enemies on Obama's watch! Whether that was accidental or not is something we may never truly know. But even if it was accidental, that is completely unacceptable! Yeah, I know, accidents can't always be prevented, but we should do everything we can to reduce the risk! Those same weapons were used to kill or maim AMERICAN SOLDIERS or our coalition allies! I AM TOTALLY AGAINST TAXPAYER DOLLARS GOING TO COUNTRIES THAT HATE US AND WANT TO KILL US - AND THAT INCLUDES MOST, IF NOT ALL, MUSLIM-DOMINATED COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER "USUAL SUSPECTS" THAT ARE (or support) OUR ENEMIES! I VOTE YEA ON SENATOR PAUL'S BILL! But I suspect most liberals, including my own Representative and Senators, will vote against it. I hope I'm wrong. . . .
    Like (39)
    Follow
    Share
    This sounds logical. Using Tax Dollars is an insult to taxpayers and our military. But maybe the question should be expanded too include profits from illegal drug sales, corruption in charity collection, and even illegal sale of cigarettes. Throw in arm sales and stolen energy such as oil and human trafficking.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes we should not fund terrorists. We armed rebels against Russia and got Al Qaeda. We armed rebels against Syria and got ISIS. How many more times do we need to make this terrible mistake? The lesson of 9/11 should have been never to arm rebel groups again. Listen up, John McCain, that strategy has never worked and it never will.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    I appreciate the sentiment behind this bill, but I don't think it's helpful to tie our hands like this.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    The language of the bill is too broad, and I can easily see this being misapplied.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Obviously any responsible military or civilian authority would avoid arming the enemy. The bill defies common sense and unduly restricts authorities from making judgments based on complex conditions. A stupid piece of legislation.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Duh!
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to be EXTREMELY careful about who we support as allies.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    The vague and ambiguous wording of this bill leads me to think that a hidden agenda is at work. Although on the surface, it seems common sense. The question is: why do we need a bill to say this? Is Congress & the Administration acting otherwise? Or are they just trying to Court their white supremacist Nazi hardcore backers? Without a lot more transparency, this bill should not be passed.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Will that include the saudis?
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    While this sounds like a common sense bill we should think deeply about the diplomatic repercussions.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    We shouldn't be giving money to any of those countries in the Middle East what so ever. Except for Israel because they are a valuable ally and they are the only Jewish country which is being persecuted by all the other countries in the Middle East.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Does this mean that the United States will be legally required to withdraw support from Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, and Pakistan? Good move if it does.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE