Peter Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 An observation and a FEW important questions for ALL Objectivists. Cruz will be 45 when elected and 46 when sworn in. Donald Trump would be 70 when sworn in. (He will be older than Reagan but he is no Reagan. So, the end is near, he will have health problems, he will have dementia, as verified by web md. joke) Vote for Cruz because of his experience and youth. And as Cruz just said, "We have a real choice." But why vote for Cruz in the Primary and fight to the death to achieve his win at the Convention? Who was our most philosophical President? Was it Thomas Jefferson? Perhaps. And Cruz would be in the Jeffersonian mold but with a more complete philosophy. He is a proud fan of Rand. Ted Cruz is probably the best Objectivists will see in their lifetimes UNLESS Cruz begins a dynasty of Constitutionalists. He could pave the way for Rand Paul who would then be 61 years old in 2024. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 I do not think Trump’s wife will help convince any women to vote for Trump. The opposite may be true. Her eye makeup made her look like a pretty raccoon in her speech for The Donald. “He vill paunch you back ten times harder!” Roger wrote: But...but...but...I thought that Herr Drumpf was "the master of the deal." Well, I guess that name-recognition and rudeness only take you so far. end quote And Robert wrote: If Donald the Entitled doesn't get his act together, pronto, he'll be best advised to drop out of the race. end quote Ah, Roger and Robert. You’se guys inspire me. This is sort of a rock lyric, from Meghan Trainor’s “All About That Bass": Trump has that clump, that clump, no treble, Trump has that clump, just the bass, no treble. Scrap that clump off your feet before coming into the white house. Of course the bass is his redneck male support and no treble signifies his lack of women supporters. He still has negatives of 73 percent with women. If I were Ted Cruz, would I accept a VP nod from Trump? I would really have to think about that. The rock solid Republican vote, and the Hispanic, Objectivist, CALIFORNIAN, more women, etc. vote might consider voting for Trump if Cruz were his running mate. I just hope it never gets to that point. Cruz could cement a Trump victory. Vote Cruz. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Cruz has one million answers but Trump has no clue. Trump is proudly ignorant, and a blithe spirit as regards world peace. But the following guy is not my favorite commentator either . . . but to reiterate. “Lock Out The Establishment In Cleveland!” by Pat Buchanan: Trump and Cruz, though bitter enemies, are both despised by the establishment. Yet both have a mutual interest: insuring that one of them, and only one of them, wins the nomination. No one else. And if they set aside grievances, and act together, they can block any establishment favorite from being imposed on the party, as was one-worlder Wendell Willkie, “the barefoot boy of Wall Street,” in 1940 . . . All Trump and Cruz need do is instruct their delegates to vote to retain Rule 40 from the 2012 convention. Rule 40 declares that no candidate can be placed in nomination who has failed to win a majority of the delegates in eight states. end quote There you go: a mutual goal for Trumpeters and the rational electorate that support Randite, Constitutionalist Ted Cruz. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 33 minutes ago, Peter said: Donald Trump would be 70 when sworn in. Peter, This is not a trivial matter. If it's Trump vs. Clinton, both parties will have settled for gerontocracy. People do stay healthier longer than than they did in the days of William Henry Harrison or Franklin D. Roosevelt, but there is still extra risk in having a President who is over 70. If there have been any Trump health scares, they've been kept out of the news. Hillary's already had some. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Robert wrote: This is not a trivial matter. If it's Trump vs. Clinton, both parties will have settled for gerontocracy. end quote And that old codger duet is not acceptable. They both sound like old farts. “You keep that effing dog off my estate lawn or I will set a trap for him. Do you hear me? I’ll shoot his mangy ass! Mumble mumble. Poopin’ in my yard right near the mailbox. The bastard. And he bit my two beautiful little poodles too.” Some Fox commentators, (always five women and one man) are wondering why Trump does not give policy statements? How is he going to build the wall? How is he going to do any of the dozens of grandiose schemes he has elucidated? Blank out. Check your premises. I think someone said Trump has 60 percent of the wins in the primary so far. Let him go no further than 49 percent in New York. We are hiring somebody to do a very important job that will affect our great grandchildren. The choice is not, “Do we want to go from socialist Obama to socialist Hillary and Bernie or to the loud, brash unknown that is Trump?” What a dilemma that would be. Cruz is the near perfect alternative to socialism and Trumpian Statism. Cruz would give us limited constitutionalist government to protect individual rights. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Dec 3. 2015. "As a presidential candidate, I have instructed my long-time doctor to issue, within two weeks, a full medical report-it will show perfection." Nooooo doubt. He never did release a full medical report. Lyin Trump. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/images/uploads/Health_Record.pdf Harold Borenstein, (Trump personal physician) and given to Trumpisms. ) "If elected, Mr Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual EVER elected to the presidency." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 But Trump won't go out without a fight. What kind of maniac will he be at a contested convention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 52 minutes ago, Peter said: Some Fox commentators, (always five women and one man) are wondering... Peter, You mean the man is outnumbered by the women? Are you talking about the show called Outnumbered? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 I'm pretty sure Bernie is a socialist, he became a DINO just to run , yeah ? But I think Hillary just plays a socialist on tv, until or when it doesn't work( does her namesake foundation actually spend the money it raises?) pretty sure she is federal animal , and you get the feeling she feels entitled to her role. Senator Cruz is a fairly young man , why does/did he feel such urgency for this election cycle, doesn't he like being a Senator?, constitutionalism and opportunism aren't mutually exclusive right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 That is what it is called, Outnumbered. And it has four women and a man. How would Trump do? Morning ladies. Oooh. Is one of you having her period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Peter, LOL... Nah... Trump would be charming to them. Look how Mika eats out of his hand when he goes on Morning Joe. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Wow. Cruz heard a lot of hecklers at a restaurant in the Bronx. One guy yelled, “You are not welcome here!” I am sure Ted wishes he could take back the New York values jab at Trump. I suppose that line of reasoning works for Trump too, but what does Trump really wish he had not said? No fair! New York is April 19th and a candidate must reach 20 percent to receive any convention delegates and I read that if any candidate gets over 50 percent in any one district they get all three allocated delegates. Cruz and Kasich are around 20 percent each in the polling. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Peter, Gosh. That was quick. I thought a turning point was reached last night, Trump was toast and a new Cruz day was dawning in brilliant bold rays over the Republican primary. (I couldn't resist... ) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 If you are a Cruz supporter, this video by Rachel Maddow is something you should definitely look at. (Note, as I often say, I am not a Maddow fan in terms of her politics--they stink, but once in awhile, she does some very good reporting and comes up with stuff you can't get elsewhere.) I'm not going to play the game anti-Trump people play with Trump supporters all the time and say, "Your really need to look at XXX about Trump," then when you go to XXX, it's nothing but standard talking points against Trump or an explanation about why Trump supporters are mentally/morally/spiritually inferior in some manner.) Maddow has done a fine piece of information gathering on one of Cruz's main weaknesses, his election history. I haven't seen this information with her particular dot-connecting anywhere else so far. Forget if she is for or against Cruz (when I saw it, she didn't seem to favor or bash him, but I might not have perceived a bias because I'm caught up with Trump--just trying to keep it honest). I believe Cruz's lack of election history, and the oddball manner he won his Senate seat, is a weakness real enough to be perceived as a major handicap on second looking--not by typical anti-Cruz people (they're looking at the National Enquirer ), but by establishment Cruz supporters. And that means it is going to go into the mainstream media meatgrinder and stay there for a spell. So Cruz supporters should learn this basic information to prepare for the onslaught. I think it would be a humongous mistake to rationalize this out of existence or ignore it. But I'm not a Cruz supporter, so people may do what they will. Doing nothing will favor my guy in the end. See? I'm not a bad guy. I'm giving a heads up. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Now for an anti-Cruz moment. I already posted Ann Coulter's article, "Moonies for Cruz," in the Trump thread, so I didn't want to do it double. But since Sarah tweeted it, here's her tweet. Ann Coulter - April 6, 2016 - MOONIES FOR CRUZ https://t.co/bf4QG9zm0O— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) April 7, 2016 Don't expect this one to be like the Maddow one above. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Michael, Rachel Maddow is probably smarter than the rest of the MSNBC crew put together. She also knows what her mission is this election season: make sure the crown is placed on Hillary's head (after she's extracted a maximum of Clintonian concessions to the hard Left). Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 5 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Rachel Maddow is probably smarter than the rest of the MSNBC crew put together. She also knows what her mission is this election season: make sure the crown is placed on Hillary's head (after she's extracted a maximum of Clintonian concessions to the hard Left). Robert, I agree with both comments. Still, Maddow did send a well-reasoned and well-documented heads up to Cruz supporters whether she wanted to or not. (I suspect "not." Er... nah... I'm sure "not"... ) They ignore this at their peril. I don't mind if they do, though. I'm a Trump supporter. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 The blurb at the end has less than 500 as a poll sample so take it with one grain of salt as as to not raise your blood pressure. I maintain that by every objective metric EXCEPT the "Trump the wrecking ball hypothesis," Cruz is the better choice. Peter (Reuters) By Chris Kahn - A third of Republican voters who support Donald Trump could turn their backs on their party in November's presidential election if he is denied the nomination in a contested convention, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. The results are bad news for Trump's rivals as well as party elites opposed to the real estate billionaire, suggesting that an alternative Republican nominee for the Nov. 8 presidential race would have a tougher road against the Democrats. "If it’s a close election, this is devastating news" for the Republicans, said Donald Green, an expert on election turnout at Columbia University. The Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted March 30 to April 8 asked Trump’s Republican supporters two questions: if Trump wins the most delegates in the primaries but loses the nomination, what would they do on Election Day, and how would it impact their relationship with the Republican Party? Sixty-six percent said they would vote for the candidate who eventually wins the nomination, while the remaining third were split between a number of alternatives such as not voting, supporting a third-party candidate, and switching parties and voting for the Democratic nominee. . . . . The online poll of 468 Republican Trump supporters has a credibility interval of 5.3 percentage points. End quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 8 minutes ago, Peter said: ..Cruz is the better choice. Peter: Which Northeastern States would Rafael be competitive in versus Evita? A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 I can't watch this without cracking up. Like or dislike Cruz, believe or not believe in the sex scandal, this is a funny-ass way of stringing out the buzz in that strategy. I love these ladies... However, I imagine Cruz supporters will not be amused. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Just to be a brat, here's a pro-Cruz thing. Beck says Cruz is wracked with inner doubts by the sheer burden of what God put on him, just like Moses was. That Cruz feels he's too imperfect for the job. Does he feel that way? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Forbes on Fox just referenced Reagan’s speech for BaAuH2o. The numbers have changed but the message is still relevant. You can google the following to see all of Reagan’s speech. So who is more like Reagan and Rand? Ted Cruz by a landslide. Peter Some snips from Time for Choosing by Ronald Reagan October 27, 1964 Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks. I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good." But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury--we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value. As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers. Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves--and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. Now, we have no better example of this than the government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming is regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we have spent $43 in feed grain program for every bushel of corn we don't grow . . . . . . . . Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights are so diluted that public interest is almost anything that a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes for the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he is now going to start building public housing units in the thousands where heretofore we have only built them in the hundreds. But FHA and the Veterans Administration tell us that they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosures. For three decades, we have sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They have just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over $30 million on deposit in personal savings in their banks. When the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed. We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing? But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead . . . . . . . . Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! And they are doing just that. A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary...his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee $220 a month at age 65. The government promises $127. He could live it up until he is 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis so that people who do require those payments will find that they can get them when they are due...that the cupboard isn't bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can. At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the non-earning years? Should we allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under these programs, which we cannot do? I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program was now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road. In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate planned inflation so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents' worth? I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we are against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in Soviet colonies in the satellite nation . . . . . . . . No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. Federal employees number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force is employed by the government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier overplanted his rice allotment. The government obtained a $17,000 judgment, and a U.S. marshal sold his 950-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19 at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do. . . . . Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple. If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender. Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all. You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. Thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 31 minutes ago, Peter said: So who is more like Reagan and Rand? Ted Cruz by a landslide. Peter, Shouldn't that be "So who TALKS more like Reagan and Rand?" Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Ah grasshopper. It takes a mongoose to kill a Trumpian King Cobra. Cruz Control. Cruz News. But even more importantly, Cruz missiles comprised of intelligence, consistency, objectivity, passion, and the right stuff. Dump Trump. Cruz in 2016. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 11 hours ago, Peter said: Ah grasshopper. It takes a mongoose to kill a Trumpian King Cobra. Cruz Control. Cruz News. But even more importantly, Cruz missiles comprised of intelligence, consistency, objectivity, passion, and the right stuff. Dump Trump. Cruz in 2016. Peter Cruz the Evangelical. Cruz Message intelligent??? Cruz is a believer in the the Forever War. He wishes to sit on the Iron Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now