Ted Cruz's Own Hometown is Embarrassed of Him

[drillsgt]

No, it's just most of the time I see someone with some sort of military attachment to their name it's some kid who wants to be a Marine because of Halo or something like that.

I see i've missed some more ranting. I had to get off INGO last night because I had a real life 1911 I wanted to work on. We don't need to wager i'm sure you own a gun or two, even Diane Feinstein owns guns. Never played halo but if that motivates some kid to join the Marines more power to him. And are you questioning my military affiliation? I bet you 1000.00 that I am in the military, i'll send you a copy of my LES or a copy of one of my last of 4 DD214's. I could use a little extra money the 1500 is this weekend. Don't question my bank account if later on you say you can't even afford a measly AR-15 right now.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You've done it to yourselves. The media doesn't write blog entries. You guys do. Granted, they may not represent the entirety of the views of it's membership, but they serve you poorly.

Oh please. Pop on over to The Daily Kos or the Huffington Post or some of the more fringy Prog/Lib web sites and read some of their drivel - which somehow doesn't make it to the mainstream media. Selective reporting is standard, according to those who've been there and witnessed it, and being able to select what gets reported and what doesn't influences the low-information voter. Selective polling also helps shape public opinion. You must be aware of this; it's been discussed often enough.

 

[zippy23]

Nope, I just felt like showing just how little support he has, bearing in mind that there's more than a few on here who seem to think people are in love with him right now.

How little support he has? Are you even paying attention? The country is behind him, the majority of the people in this country are AGAINST obamacare, are FOR paying down our debt, are FOR less gov't. Ted Cruz is vocal about it, and the media and the dems and the rhino's hate him because he wants to weaken their power over the people. Think for one second, the tea party ELECTED PEOPLE TO HIGH OFFICE, its obvious there is a HUGE movement in this country to get rid of career politicians who say they are republicans yet vote with the dems. Oh, and one article doesnt show "how little" support he has. He has more support than any other single republican in congress right now. All the rhino's are seat holders with hardly any followers, ted cruz is the man. whats sad is that the common american lives their lives as conservatives, we pay our bills, live within our means, dont give money to people that want to kill us, etc, yet so many of them vote the opposite. sad

 

[zippy23]

You've done it to yourselves. The media doesn't write blog entries. You guys do. Granted, they may not represent the entirety of the views of it's membership, but they serve you poorly.

So when the media reports democrats calling tea party people "anarchists" and "terrorists", the tea party is out rioting, not following laws and blowing people up? Or did i just describe the Occupy Wall Street crowd? Are you really serious? Tea party people want less gov't, they protest as any other group, except they dont crap on cop cars and rape women like the leftist groups do. And YES THE MEDIA DOES WRITE BLOG ENTRIES. There is so much B.S. from the media that you are blind to. How bout simple example, obama has millions of followers on twitter, we have proven that millions are FAKE, NBC doctors video and audio tapes, the media pays people to comment on popular news sites and blogs, and they are all leftist whackos. The tea party has come out countless times calling for less gov't, less debt, no obamacare. They are called horrible names by their opposition, and you claim its their fault? Just as democrats trash bush and the media trashes bush, they trash the tea party. And what have they dont to themselves? They arent killing people, they are peacefully VOTING IN PEOPLE TO HIGH OFFICE!!!! wow

 

[zippy23]

I didn't realize that the internet restricted opinions. I didn't realize that people couldn't buy their way onto TV. I get tired of hearing this bull**** excuse of "media". "Eehhhh meeeddiaa, theee media. They hate us eeeehhhhh." If you can't find an outlet that wants to support the Tea Party, it's probably because the Tea Party's ideals are probably stupid. Let's put it another way, shall we?

You (and others) keep saying: "Everyone one around us says we look like a turd, smell like a turd, and taste like a turd."

Only ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE hate the tea party, and that is liberals, everyone else agrees with their views, less gov't, less debt, MORE FREEDOM, lower taxes. not a single person would say no to this, yet the MEDIA are all leftists, they hate the tea party and call them terrorists and anarchists just as the democrat party does. So by your logic they are because liberals say so? How bout this, we know liberals are nothing but liars, its proven, so whatever they say--the opposite is actually the truth, as in "we need to raise the debt ceiling to pay our bills"-lie, obamacare will be cheaper--lie, taking away guns makes you safer--LIE, its sad that people buy this crap, just as germany bought the same exact lies their dear leader was telling them, and what did the big "H" do? Took over healthcare, took away guns, seems to be a trend here........ Oh and to prove the media does hate republicans and is the problem, lets take a simple example, obama said there were 57 states. Have you ever seen that reported?? Not in the major media at all. Mitt romney speaks the truth about a certain percentage of people never voting for him and the media harps on it forever, a gaffe by the left is not reported, a non gaffe by the right is lied about and turned against them. So disgusting.

 

[Manatee]

Oh please. Pop on over to The Daily Kos or the Huffington Post or some of the more fringy Prog/Lib web sites and read some of their drivel - which somehow doesn't make it to the mainstream media. Selective reporting is standard, according to those who've been there and witnessed it, and being able to select what gets reported and what doesn't influences the low-information voter. Selective polling also helps shape public opinion. You must be aware of this; it's been discussed often enough.

I occasionally read the dKOS diaries, but I get nauseous. There are a few guys over there (RKBA) that attempt to defend gun rights and some of the science and economic diaries are good. But, I'm not a liberal. I detest the extremes on both ends of our political spectrum.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I occasionally read the dKOS diaries, but I get nauseous. There are a few guys over there (RKBA) that attempt to defend gun rights and some of the science and economic diaries are good. But, I'm not a liberal. I detest the extremes on both ends of our political spectrum.

I see. So you believe that those of us who think we're Taxed Enough Already are radicals, eh? I really didn't think that was an extreme idea. Nor do I think that advocating for a smaller federal government is all that radical. Of course, YMMV.

 

[Manatee]

Oh puhleeeze. I mostly object to those who believe that God has approved of them and their ideas. I'm also not fond of those who treat our young men and women as cannon fodder.

Seems to me that a Kentucky senator pretty much feels the same way.

I've probably paid more taxes in my life than you'd imagine. And I bitc**d each time I did.

 

[IndyDave1776]

ACA is Constitutional. I'm sorry you think ONE man overrides MANY others. I often find group-thought to be more reliable and intelligent as a whole than one man (some exceptions apply, just not with Cruz).

Where do you see any authority to do any such thing?

[h=3]Section 8[/h]1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powersvested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[Stickfight]

Where do you see any authority to do any such thing?

Here

If what you quoted is as self evident as you and your Constitution rewriting friends claim, why did the founding document include a judicial branch at all? How is your proposed world, where the executive branch serves justice on the side of the road, better than what we have now?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Here

If what you quoted is as self evident as you and your Constitution rewriting friends claim, why did the founding document include a judicial branch at all? How is your proposed world, where the executive branch serves justice on the side of the road, better than what we have now?

First, the ruling regarding the ACA dealt only with the individual mandate and penalty for noncompliance, fact notwithstanding that finding it constitutional by virtue of it being a 'tax' when the law specifically states that it is NOT a tax is the most disingenuous piece of chicanery to come from the Supreme Court since Wickard v. Filburn.

Second, the Judicial Branch is indeed there for a purpose. That purpose, however, does not include flagrantly disregarding the Constitution and creating law from the bench as, unfortunately, has become de rigueur since Roosevelt succeeded at packing the court.

Third, I do not recall ever proposing summary justice served by agents of the Executive Branch. In fact, I have made my feelings regarding due process, honoring rights including those enumerated in the Fourth Amendment, and fair trials quite clear in spite of the fact that you apparently didn't bother to pay attention. That said, I feel no obligation to defend a position that you have assigned to me which I have never supported.

 

[Stickfight]

But it is, because the same people arguing for the Constitutionality of one thing are grousing about the unConstitutionality of another. I am not referring to the actual status of the law, but the claims people use to justify its existence.

That is a ridiculous misdirection. What law currently found to be Constitutional by SCOTUS have I claimed is not Constitutional? Maybe you should come up with a new word to describe it, changing the meaning of words is the oldest liberalist trick in the book.

Again with the logical fallacy.

Really, which one? I'm stating my personal preference. I am making suggestions for what alternatives there might be because you so far have declined to suggest any other than you yourself deciding for us all what is or is not Constitutional. If you've other ideas I would be happy to read them.

No, I tend to rely on the authors of the Constitution for the meaning and intent.

Except when you don't like the result, right?

But you're perfectly fine letting other strangers whose qualifications may or may not be sound deciding for you.

If selection by the executive branch and confirmation by the legislative can't find qualified candidates, what do you suggest?

 

[jamil]

I didn't realize that the internet restricted opinions. I didn't realize that people couldn't buy their way onto TV. I get tired of hearing this bull**** excuse of "media". "Eehhhh meeeddiaa, theee media. They hate us eeeehhhhh." If you can't find an outlet that wants to support the Tea Party, it's probably because the Tea Party's ideals are probably stupid. Let's put it another way, shall we?

You (and others) keep saying: "Everyone one around us says we look like a turd, smell like a turd, and taste like a turd."

Yet you seem to believe you're a rose. Newsflash: if you look like a turd, smell like a turd, and taste like a turd...you're probably a turd.

Please enumerate the odious tea party ideals. I may agree with you on a few of them, but suspect I can expect some pretty disingenuous spin.

 

[cobber]

Here

If what you quoted is as self evident as you and your Constitution rewriting friends claim, why did the founding document include a judicial branch at all? How is your proposed world, where the executive branch serves justice on the side of the road, better than what we have now?

The judicial branch as originally laid out in the Constitution had original jurisdiction over a few matters. There was nothing in the Constitution that gave it appellate jurisdiction.

 

[88GT]

Wow...three (or 12, depending on your settings) pages and not one mention of why the folks in Calgary are upset with Ted Cruz.

Did they catch him rooting for the Oilers instead of the Flames?

Now that's funny.

That is a ridiculous misdirection. What law currently found to be Constitutional by SCOTUS have I claimed is not Constitutional? Maybe you should come up with a new word to describe it, changing the meaning of words is the oldest liberalist trick in the book.

It isn't about you. It's about the hypocrisy of folks who cry foul when SCOTUS rules against them and then rub it in the opposition's face when they get a favorable ruling. Citizens United comes to mind. IOW, it's Constitutional because SCOTUS said so when the opinion favored them, but the same people will change the standard if the opinion did not favor them.

My argument has always been about the standard. The "SCOTUS said so" argument is weak at best. Because SCOTUS can rule something Constitutional even though every last individual in this nation would know it to be false. I gave an example. Being ruled Constitutional does not mean that the allowable behavior is in line with the Constitution. It simply means 9 guys in robes said it was legal. My standard is the Constitution, not SCOTUS. Nothing more.

Really, which one? I'm stating my personal preference. I am making suggestions for what alternatives there might be because you so far have declined to suggest any other than you yourself deciding for us all what is or is not Constitutional. If you've other ideas I would be happy to read them.

What is the difference between me deciding what it Constitutional and SCOTUS? And where have I ever suggested or argued that SCOTUS needed to be replaced or an alternative method needed for determining Constitutionality?

Except when you don't like the result, right?

No, because by and large, I am in agreement with the authors and founders of this country. Moreover, I can separate personal issues from Constitutional ones. I may not like it, but I don't run around screaming about the injustice.

If selection by the executive branch and confirmation by the legislative can't find qualified candidates, what do you suggest?

Straw man. I am sure they can. The question is whether or not they do. And being selected by POTUS and confirmed by Congress does not make one qualified unless your definition of qualified is nothing more than being picked by POTUS and confirmed by Congress. In which case a mentally disabled individual or a horse could qualify.

 

[John Galt]

Obama is a tyrant yet I'm sure you supported Bush when he signed the Patriot Act, a bill that gave Obama (and future presidents) so many of the powers that you hate that he uses.

You would be wrong.

 

[nsheepdog]

This was a troll post. Mission accomplished with almost 200 replies at this time.

 

[Rhoadmar]

ACA is Constitutional. I'm sorry you think ONE man overrides MANY others. I often find group-thought to be more reliable and intelligent as a whole than one man (some exceptions apply, just not with Cruz).

Just because you say it repeatedly doesn't make it true.

 

[Bogan]

Please enumerate the odious tea party ideals. I may agree with you on a few of them, but suspect I can expect some pretty disingenuous spin.

How about this one:
Tea Party Unity Founder Rick Scarborough Calls for 'Class Action Lawsuit' Against Homosexuality - YouTube

And this:
http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-abortion-tea-party-congressman-demands-mistress-get-an-abortion

 

[Bogan]

Just because you say it repeatedly doesn't make it true.

You're right, but if SCOTUS says it repeatedly, then it's true.