KorbenDallas Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Will voters want Cruz appointing Supreme Court justices now? hhmm.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Rafael appears to be a complete dolt at a key executive function which is selecting managers. His use, or, being used by Glenn "Howdy Doody" Beck, combined with the incredible blunders in messaging and adding in a stench of flat out distortions of photos, mailings, etc. I thing I am almost done with Rafael. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Wow...Rafael has discovered that not only is Trump going to be exposed by releasing his taxes because clearly he would put down all his donations to organized crime by buying cement from one of the "major crime families" in NY... Really? I forgot their are two (2) cement stores in NY City one has a sign over it that says Run By Organized Crime and the other one down the block has a sign that says Run By Pure God Fearing Folks and Trump chose the first one...really? Then he follows up with this piece of, what can we call this, his belief that the NY Times has this secret recording of off the record conversations with the Editorial Board... hmm is that not an illegal tape? http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/cruz-new-york-times-release-tape/2016/02/29/id/716683/?ns_mail_uid=6735229&ns_mail_job=1657480_02292016&s=al&dkt_nbr=zto5ezcw I think his prophet Glenn "Howdy Doody" Beck had better start praying on this one. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Rafael Cruz, II, Jr., apparently has some deeper ties to Texas' Bushes than I ever knew, or, Stone is blowing smoke. Again, I am slowly moving, regretfully, to put a little distance between my absolute adoration of Mark Levin's knowledge and ideas and his complete support of Rafael. What has me somewhat confused is that Levin has never been a Bush guy. As a Reagan man, being part of his administration, he was an anti-Bush man. However, Bush and Rafael are closely tied. So is Rafael's wife. They met as Bush staffers. This is according to Stone. Now Roger Stone has been known to spin stories. Quote The Bush-Cruz connection is clear. Ted was George W.’s brain when he ran for president. A top policy adviser, Ted maneuvered for Solicitor General in Bush World but settled for a plum at the Federal Trade Commission. Ted’s a Bush man with deep ties to the political and financial establishment. Ted and wife Heidi brag about being the first “Bush marriage” – they met as Bush staffers. Cruz was an adviser on legal affairs while Heidi was an adviser on economic policy and eventually director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under Condi Rice. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/10/ted-cruz-a-bush-by-another-name/#ixzz42kj9qNBZ The author gets a little over the top... Quote Cruz has become quite adroit at saying one thing while his history shows him doing the other. Rather than the outsider he claims to be, Ted Cruz is the ultimate insider, former top Bush 41 policy aide and globalist, Ivy Leaguer, and establishment insider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone Quote Roger Jason Stone, Jr. (born 1952) is an American political consultant,[2]lobbyist and strategist, noted for his use of opposition research, usually for candidates of the Republican Party.[3] He is currently a member of the Libertarian Party.[4] usually has his black/blue wide white pinstripe suit on...not too smart a dresser in my opinion...the stereo-typical movie organized crime look never attracted me... A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Time for a chuckle... Quote An eighth grade teacher was leading a discussion on the qualifications for being president of the United States. After the teacher commented that a person must be a natural-born citizen. One of the students raised her hand, "Does that mean that if you were born by Caesarean section that you can't be president? Trying to elevate the discourse and humor... A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 When will the Rafael's team realize that the "insiders," if they actually exist, are using him to blunt Trump and, essentially, deliver Trump to the "long knives" and blade sinister of the convention sharks. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Wisconsin is winnable for Cruz and California is in play. Neither he nor Donald may win outright unless Donald implodes some more which is possible. Hooray for the good guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 53 minutes ago, Peter said: Neither he nor Donald may win outright unless Donald implodes some more which is possible. Peter, Donald imploded? When? If Cruz gets all the delegates in Wisconsin, I'll admit he imploded a little. If Trump gets a third or so, I'll just say his bad week was a wake-up call. The good thing about producers like Trump is they course-correct, but not based on focus-groups and balls-cutters. They go with common sense. The last thing we need is another Neutered One running for office. The good thing about Neutered Ones is they never win elections. Can you imagine a Neutered One as president? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Kasich doesn't care much for Cruz, does he? Look at his recent attack ad (all right, all right, it's a super PAC ad): I don't know, folks. Even with my current restrictions about Cruz, there's just something plain old stompdown wrong with the execution of the metaphor in that video. It would help if the nose becoming a noose didn't look like a sausage or a penis getting a crooked erection. Man, the things going on in my mind... starting with deep throat... (I'm stopping right there.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 I thought of William Jefferson Clinton and some of the women's testimony in deposition...might have been Monica, or, Jones. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Michael wrote: Peter, I disagree with another assumption here. I don't say shame on those who stayed home. I say shame on the establishment geniuses who played backroom games and offered neutered Republican candidates to run. Shame... You are making an assumption that this poll number is set in stone for the next 8 months. What political poll number ever did that? As Rand would say, check your premises. And check Trump's poll numbers in the beginning You are also making assumptions. Here are some of the assumptions you and others are making: If he started out low in the polls, and has more supporters now, then he will gain in the polls later. That the people who voted for McCain and Mitt will come out to vote for Trump. Those Trump haters, like responsible establishment Republicans, 73 percent of women, 90 percent of blacks, and a vast majority of Hispanics, will change their minds and vote for Trump. Or that the addition of Rubio, Cruz, or Carly as Veep, will assuage those voters. Trumps unfavorable numbers with the entire electorate will diminish. The so called establishment types will back Trump with their money and votes (an estimated 500 Million dollars is required to be elected President). Trump’s ability to wear “Teflon” is increasing as he becomes even more gaff prone. Trump will learn the subjects he is talking about. And that’s just for starters. Here are a few of my assumptions. If Hillary is indicted or irreparably damaged, Bernie Sanders can still trounce Trump. A plurality of voters will decide that they despise that man who is running for Top Celebrity Apprentice. The red button, phone to the Kremlin, fear mongering and uncertainty that was exhibited when Goldwater and Reagan ran for President will manifest itself, TIMES FIVE with Trump . . . and with good reason. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 What kind of ads will the Trump haters run? Here is an idea. A dozen or more nuclear bombs detonated on the Atlantic Shelf will cause a monstrous mud slide that could imitate the huge wave an asteroid strike would create. Peter What if Huge Asteroid Hits Atlantic? You Don't Want to Know, By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD. Published: January 8, 1998 WASHINGTON, Jan. 7— If a huge asteroid should crash into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, say goodbye to Broadway, the beach house on Long Island and just about everything else on the East Coast as far inland as the foothills of the Appalachians. The coastal lands would be devastated not by the actual impact, some 1,500 miles away, but by a relentless succession of colossal waves traveling at the speed of jet aircraft and towering much higher than the Empire State Building. In the aftermath, a few hours later, the receding water from these tsunami waves would leave almost nothing standing. Though this may sound like the story line for Hollywood's next disaster movie, such a projected catastrophe has been churned out by computers at Los Alamos National Laboratory, a place in New Mexico that would remain high and dry. Scientists described the results of the computer simulations here today at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. Dr. Jack G. Hills, a Los Alamos geophysicist, said the tsunamis, often referred to as tidal waves, would be far more devastating than any earthquake, volcano or previously known flood in human history. Coastlines in Europe would also be wiped out, particularly in Ireland, France, Portugal and Spain. The simulations were conducted as part of studies at Los Alamos on the problems of detecting nearby asteroids that could endanger Earth and possibly knocking them off course with a nuclear missile. The laboratory was founded to develop nuclear weapons, but no such use of them for asteroid-defense has been authorized. For the computer simulations, Dr. Hills, working with Dr. Charles Mader, a retired Los Alamos scientist and specialist in tsunamis, created models showing how impacts by asteroids of different sizes would generate tsunamis that, from previous experience, gain power as they reach offshore continental shelves. Models of coastal topography were included to show how far inland flooding was likely to occur. The worst-cast simulation assumed the impact of a rocky asteroid three miles in diameter. It would lose little energy plunging through the atmosphere and would gouge out a crater on the Atlantic floor. An asteroid about twice that size slammed into the Gulf of Mexico and Yucatan 65 million years ago, presumably causing global extinctions. Within three hours, the simulations showed, tsunamis would deliver walls of water and a crash of debris to the East Coast, from New England through the Carolinas. The more gentle continental shelf off Florida should temper the effects on that state's coastline, except in the Miami area, which would be devastated. Fortunately, asteroid impacts of that magnitude occur on an average only once every 10 million years. But the chance of a relatively small asteroid hitting the ocean is 2,000 or 3,000 times more likely. One that is 1,300 feet wide would wipe out the coasts on both sides of the Atlantic. ''Any asteroid over 600 feet in diameter, we have a real problem,'' Dr. Hills said. The laboratory has begun comparable simulations of the effects of an asteroid in the Pacific on Hawaii and the West Coast. The entire Los Angeles basin would be swamped. ''Our colleagues at Caltech in Pasadena might make it,'' Dr. Hills said, ''but U.C.L.A., no.'' Tsunamis are usually caused by underwater earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. One of the worst on record began with an earthquake off the coast of Chile in 1960 and produced waves of up to 40 feet as far away as Japan, where it killed at least 140 people. end quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 51 minutes ago, Peter said: You are also making assumptions. Here are some of the assumptions you and others are making: Peter, This is where we think a lot differently. I don't think in those terms from the top down. This is the God perspective. I am God and I am looking down on all of humanity. Those little suckers over there work one way and those other little suckers over there work differently. All I have to do is figure out the formula on how to run the magic wand and they jump as I command. So how can I manipulate them to move from one place to another? How can I get women, gays, Latinos, Muslims, etc. etc. etc. (not individuals, but groupthink collectives) to like my candidate? In other words, if I can't convince them--individual by individual--that my vision is better for America than the Democrats, how can I fool them into supporting my guy? Let me appeal to their collective hot buttons... I'm not saying you're that ridiculous, but all of your Chicken Little worries are premised on the arguments of people who are. In fact, have you noticed that the people who do that consistently get Trump wrong and consistently lose to him? It's been going on since last June. Time after time after time after time after time. How many times do you guys need the shellacking to realize something else is going on? Here's the real assumption I make. I believe Trump will use different tactics in the general election than the ones he used to knock out 14 competing candidates so far in the primary. There are different variables and he is wicked smart in detecting them. But there is one thing he will not change: instead of collectives, he will continue to appeal to the individual. Trump actually does look at collectives, though. But his perspective is to look at collectives through the eyes of the individual--not through the eyes of God--and judge them accordingly. In this view, he judges things and events in terms of: What's in it for the individual? In the God view, everything is filtered through: How can God (i.e., the puppet-masters) get their guy in irrespective of value? Take immigration, for instance. In Trump's view, how does a flood of illegal immigrants help or hurt the individual? In the God view, how does the issue of illegal immigrants play with the poll numbers? As to tactics, if you read Trump's books, you will see that he breaks negotiations down into stages and uses different tactics for each stage. And he generally wins. In fact, you yourself think he needs to change tactics for this stage of the election since it is getting down to the wire. You think Trump needs to stop doing this and stop doing that and so on. My God, look at the polls the establishment puts out! The sky is falling! (Meanwhile, Trump is meeting with Priebus, setting up his future foreign policy advisers, etc., all the while still on the campaign trail and doing media left and right. He's seeing a hell of a lot the press isn't reporting.) I suppose if Trump were John McCain or Mitt Romney, the Preeminent Losers, he would be listening to the God puppet-masters and jumping through their hoops as they tell him. That is, he would be sculpting his image to fit the collectives so he can manipulate them, all the while walking on eggshells. But he's Trump and he wants to win this thing for real. In his view, the first principle of winning is do not imitate losers. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Ah, the Cruz for President thread. I wish you would go back to the last four threads created image on the home page. I think it would increase readership. Michael wrote about the Emperor’s clothes: In his view, the first principle of winning is do not imitate losers. end quote But there are so many choices Trump could make and he is making bad ones. There was his recent woman and abortion gaff, then his retraction and restatement, and that IS imitating losers. Peter Notes. From Gaff Track. Trump heard a shout in the audience about Cruz. She just said a terrible thing. You know what she said? Shout it out because I don’t want to say. OK. You’re not allowed to say—and I never expect to hear that from you again. She said he’s a pussy. That’s terrible. Terrible! I have many friends that live in Salt Lake. I have a lot of friends, I have a lot of friends. By the way, Mitt Romney is not one of them. Did he choke? Did this guy choke? He’s a choke artist, I can’t believe. Are you sure he’s a Mormon? Are we sure? Two Corinthians, right? Two Corinthians 3:17, that’s the whole ballgame. Where the spirit of the Lord—right?—is, there is liberty! I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me, To a Jewish audience: I’m a negotiator like you folks were negotiators. Is there anyone in this room who doesn’t negotiate deals? Probably more than any room I’ve ever spoken. I don’t want any of your money. Stupidly, you want to give money. Trump doesn’t want money. You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money. About a crippled reporter, Trump said, Now the poor guy, you ought to see this guy. ‘Ah, I don’t know what I said! I don’t remember!’ Trump said, doing what looks a lot like a mocking physical impression of Kovaleski. We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule. And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago. It has not been easy for me ... My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars. At an event in Rochester, New Hampshire, a man said this to Trump: We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims. You know our current president is one. You know he’s not even an American …. Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us. That’s my question: When can we get rid of them? Trump answered, in typically non-specific fashion, We’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things, but didn’t contradict the idea that President Obama, an American-born Christian, is a non-American Muslim, nor did he disagree that Muslims are a problem. About Carly. Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! Yeesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 12 minutes ago, Peter said: Notes. From Gaff Track. Trump heard a shout in the audience about Cruz. She just said a terrible thing. You know what she said? Shout it out because I don’t want to say. OK. You’re not allowed to say—and I never expect to hear that from you again. She said he’s a pussy. That’s terrible. Terrible! I have many friends that live in Salt Lake. I have a lot of friends, I have a lot of friends. By the way, Mitt Romney is not one of them. Did he choke? Did this guy choke? He’s a choke artist, I can’t believe. Are you sure he’s a Mormon? Are we sure? Two Corinthians, right? Two Corinthians 3:17, that’s the whole ballgame. Where the spirit of the Lord—right?—is, there is liberty! I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me, To a Jewish audience: I’m a negotiator like you folks were negotiators. Is there anyone in this room who doesn’t negotiate deals? Probably more than any room I’ve ever spoken. I don’t want any of your money. Stupidly, you want to give money. Trump doesn’t want money. You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money. About a crippled reporter, Trump said, Now the poor guy, you ought to see this guy. ‘Ah, I don’t know what I said! I don’t remember!’ Trump said, doing what looks a lot like a mocking physical impression of Kovaleski. We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule. And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago. It has not been easy for me ... My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars. At an event in Rochester, New Hampshire, a man said this to Trump: We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims. You know our current president is one. You know he’s not even an American …. Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us. That’s my question: When can we get rid of them? Trump answered, in typically non-specific fashion, We’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things, but didn’t contradict the idea that President Obama, an American-born Christian, is a non-American Muslim, nor did he disagree that Muslims are a problem. About Carly. Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! Yeesh. Peter, You have no idea how this makes me want to vote for Trump even more. And I'm not alone. Millions and millions and millions of voters feel like I do. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 14 minutes ago, Peter said: There was his recent woman and abortion gaff, then his retraction and restatement, and that IS imitating losers. Peter, (In the voice of Crocodile Dundee before showing his big-ass knife). Nah... That's not imitating losers. Following John McCain with Mitt Romney. Now that's imitating losers. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Ted Cruz is very different from McCain or Mitt. He is THE CHOICE for responsible Objectivists, minus the evangelical component, of course. I think he will always be the guy who wants to start the Rotarian, VFW, or Republican meeting with a brief prayer. But he is so pro capitalist, so pro reason, so articulate, that he should be the candidate of choice. If you mix in his rebellious streak I think he is the guy Trump can only wish he were. Cruz is speaking in Fargo, North Dakota: “We are one justice away from . . .” and he rattled off the consequences. Fox also just had a Cruz campaign manager on to speak. Finally, Fox is not going to let Donald suck all the oxygen out of the room. Kelly will be re-interviewing Cruz soon. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 I hear Jeb likes Ted... And Ted likes Jeb back just fine... Ted likes Jeb so much, he hired his brother, Neil Bush, for his finance team. That's going to be fun, "so pro capitalist, so pro reason, so articulate" and all... In Trump's view, the first principle of winning is do not imitate losers. In Ted's view, hire them as advisors. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Peter said: Ted Cruz is very different from McCain or Mitt. He is THE CHOICE for responsible Objectivists, minus the evangelical component, of course. I think he will always be the guy who wants to start the Rotarian, VFW, or Republican meeting with a brief prayer. But he is so pro capitalist, so pro reason, so articulate, that he should be the candidate of choice. If you mix in his rebellious streak I think he is the guy Trump can only wish he were. Cruz is speaking in Fargo, North Dakota: “We are one justice away from . . .” and he rattled off the consequences. Fox also just had a Cruz campaign manager on to speak. Finally, Fox is not going to let Donald suck all the oxygen out of the room. Kelly will be re-interviewing Cruz soon. Peter Peter: Our own OL scholar in Virginia, will refuse to vote for Rafael because of his abortion and "gay" marriage positions. I find it laughable that you will just sweep that under your portable Objectivist rug and claim that there is nothing to see hear. You do realize that Rafael will be savaged by Evita's machine. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 A guy named Mike Renzulli used to post here on OL, but he has gone in an ortho direction with Objectivism and doesn't feel comfortable in our environment here. He was extremely respectful when he communicated this and he and I are still friendly through Facebook. Mike is giving the fundies fits because he supports Trump and is not in favor of Cruz. And he is very, very patient when talking about it. During one discussion I read (I try to stay out of these discussions for obvious reasons ), they were talking about Cruz's approach to religion. Mike said he grew up in a conservative Christian home and his father was clergy. And here was his main objection to Cruz: Quote Cruz is a dominionist Christian and they seek to re-assert the dominion of Christ's authority on Earth which is a achieved by political action. Think of it as a Christian version of political Islam. And that nailed the root of my unease with Cruz, that and Cruz's comfort level with deception and dirty tricks. The religious people surrounding Cruz believe in "end time transfer of wealth" to true Christians and that these privileged Christians must "take dominion" over all aspects of public life (politics, culture, education, etc.). Here is a pretty good WaPo article by John Fea from Feb. 4 on it: Ted Cruz’s campaign is fueled by a dominionist vision for America (COMMENTARY) From the article: Fea said: ... not all evangelicals are the same. Donald Trump appeals mostly to those connected with the Christian prosperity movement, a form of evangelicalism that celebrates the accumulation of wealth as a sign of God’s blessing. Marco Rubio appeals to suburban, educated, middle- and upper-middle-class evangelicals. These evangelicals normally avoid the Pentecostal prayer meetings of the prosperity crowd and change the channel when televangelists show up on their big screens. Cruz resonates with the evangelical culture warriors. He mixes what New York Times columnist David Brooks describes as political “brutalism” with a belief that he is engaged in a fight with the devil for the soul of the nation. It is only a matter of time before Cruz assumes the role of the Old Testament prophet Elijah and tries to cast down fire from heaven to destroy the “prophets of Baal” who oppose his campaign. When Cruz says he wants to “reclaim” or “restore” America, he does not only have the Obama administration in mind. This agenda takes him much deeper into the American past. Cruz wants to “restore” the United States to what he believes is its original identity: a Christian nation. . . . Cruz wants Americans to believe the country has fallen away from its spiritual founding and he, with God’s help, is the man who can bring it back. Anyone who has watched Cruz on the stump knows that he often references the important role that his father, traveling evangelist Rafael Cruz, has played in his life. During a 2012 sermon at New Beginnings Church in Bedford, Texas, Rafael Cruz described his son’s political campaign as a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The elder Cruz told the congregation that God would anoint Christian “kings” to preside over an “end-time transfer of wealth” from the wicked to the righteous. After this sermon, Larry Huch, the pastor of New Beginnings, claimed Cruz’s recent election to the U.S. Senate was a sign that he was one of these kings. . . . Rafael Cruz and Larry Huch preach a brand of evangelical theology called Seven Mountains Dominionism. They believe Christians must take dominion over seven aspects of culture: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government. The name of the movement comes from Isaiah 2:2: “Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains.” . . . Cruz’s approach to politics is inseparable from this theology. His goal is to lead a Christian occupation of the culture and then wait for the Second Coming of Christ. The more I learn about this brand of Christianity, the more uneasy I get with it. Even though Glenn Beck is a Mormon, he is clearly on board with this thinking. And that is one of the reasons I have distanced myself from him. Mike Renzulli is right. A good case could be made for an equivalence between Seven Mountains Dominionism and political Islam. The form varies as do the respective religions, but the theocratic root remains the same. There is a difference between religion as a belief system and religion as an ideology. Speaking of Mike, here is a Facebook group he made that gives certain fundies fits: Objectivists and Ayn Rand fans for Donald Trump I like it. Obviously, I joined. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Oddly enough, I see nothing inherently wrong with what Cruz does in the video below. I think he's right to rehearse and do various takes. CNN's montage, though, will keep up an undercurrent of media nibbling at Cruz's credibility. The subtext is that everything is staged in Cruz's life. I want to bash Cruz for this for electoral reasons , but I can't. All I see is good professionalism on display, even with CNN's selective editing. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 (edited) 3:35: "Don't make us kiss now." Edited April 3, 2016 by william.scherk "Don't make us kiss now." Pissed my pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Whoa William. That video was derogatory! Don’t you support Cruz? The nerve. Richard A. Viguerie in his FedUp Pac has some interesting suggestions after his article, “Mr. Trump, What Made America Great in the First Place?” Here are few of his topics for all the candidates, especially our very own Teddy Bear to consider: Reclaiming The Constitution From The Scofflaw Political Establishment. A Century Of Progressives’ Misusing The Law To Violate The Constitution. A Law Governing Government For Our Posterity. Contempt For The Constitution As Law Is Endemic In The Political Class. Government Is The Biggest Lawbreaker. Government Lawbreaking Is Lucrative For Cronies. The Constitution Is Law, Not A Blueprint To Be Ignored. The Rightful Skepticism Of The Anti-Federalists. end quote I think Ted Cruz consistently discusses these topics while Trump is on a selective tenth grade civics class level and Kasich doesn’t register in my memory bank. You have got to read the zinger in the last paragraph of the following Ghs letter and then I condense it at the end. Did you know there are still anti federalists around? Smith, George H. wrote: Virtually every one of their predictions about the growth of governmental power that would occur under the Constitution has come to pass, and they correctly identified the reasons for this, such as the "general welfare" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause. The Antifederalists were amenable to changes in the Articles, but they wanted to close the loopholes that the Constitution left for the expansion of power. The dire warnings of the Antifederalists were widely dismissed as anti-government hysteria, but it was not long before Hamilton, in his defense of federal subsidies for private businesses, presented his detailed defense of the Implied Powers Doctrine. According to this doctrine, the Constitution implicitly vests Congress with powers that far exceed the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8. This broad interpretation of the general welfare clause, which effectively renders the enumerated powers (Art. 1, Sec. 8) null and void by vesting Congress with indefinite and undefined powers, was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1936. The majority decision declared: Hamilton maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised for the general welfare. Many Antifederalists, such as Mercy Warren, saw this coming and insisted that the Constitution should be rewritten so as to leave no doubt that Congress had only those powers that were expressly delegated to it. I discussed these issues in some detail in the four Knowledge Products tapes that I wrote on the Constitution -- two on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and two on the text of the Constitution itself. My four tapes (around 200 manuscript pages) were part of an eight tape set, and in 1988 this set, after receiving the approval of a committee of leading historians, became the official Bicentennial tapes on the U.S. Constitution. I mention this in case you think that an anarchist is incapable of writing good history. Some time ago, during an earlier incarnation of our debate, I urged you to read the Antifederalists and to become more educated about how the Constitution was written and ratified. You obviously ignored my advice. Fine, that is your prerogative -- but waving the American flag in my face is no substitute for knowledge. America, considered in terms of her fundamental principles, will find no greater champion than I. You would know this if you ever listened to some of my lectures on American history, such as the three I delivered for over a decade at Cato summer conferences. A set of these used to be available from Laissez-Faire Books, but I don't know if they still are. I have always detested patriotism rooted in ignorance -- that jingoistic, "love it or leave it attitude" that should never be expressed without first putting on boots and a cowboy hat. By studying and teaching early American history, I have done more to honor this country than you ever have, or ever could. If anything, the fact that I am an anarchist enables me to appreciate early American history even more. The antiauthoritarian spirit of anarchism runs deep in American history. We see it in the antinomianism of Roger Williams; in the revolutionary ideology of the colonial period; in the "that government is best which governs not at all" attitude of Thoreau; in the radical Jeffersonian individualism of William Leggett and the Loco-Focos; in the voluntary experimental communities of Josiah Warren, Moses Harman, and other social nonconformists; in the "Constitution of No Authority" of Lysander Spooner; in the condemnation of the Constitution as "a covenant with death and an agreement with hell" by William Lloyd Garrison and other abolitionists whose passionate belief in self-ownership often cost them their lives; and in many other fountainheads of American freedom. Then some ignoramus like you happens along and, while tap-dancing to "God Bless America," tells me to love it or leave, and that I cannot appreciate America if I don't blindly believe in the mythology of the U.S. Constitution. Ghs end of a beautiful quote. Imagine candidate Ted, (G.H.Smith) Cruz in a debate saying: Waving the American flag in my face is no substitute for knowledge. I have always detested patriotism rooted in ignorance -- that jingoistic, "love it or leave it attitude" that should never be expressed without first putting on boots and a cowboy hat. Some ignoramus like you Trump, happens along and, while tap-dancing to "God Bless America," tells me to love it or leave it, and that I cannot appreciate America if I don't blindly believe in the mythology of Trump's ability to do anything politically right. Well, eff you. Vote for me, America and I will make America great again! Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 I put one line in bold. Excerpts from “None Of The Above,” by Derek Hunter written on April 03, 2016: . . . It appears almost certain no candidate will stroll into Cleveland with a majority of delegate votes. To hear the media tell it, this will lead to chaos and, perhaps, “riots,” if this or that candidate doesn’t win. But this isn’t something for which the Republican Party is unprepared. If no candidate has a majority – 1,237 delegates – the possibilities are endless . . . . The week before every GOP convention the rules committee meets to decide the rules for that particular convention. The committee covers every boring detail of the process and considers every serious proposal put forth – with input from party insiders across the country. . . . . Currently, rule 40(b) states, “Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.” As currently constituted, this would mean, barring a major hot streak of victories from Ohio Gov. John Kasich, the only people who stand a chance to be presented for consideration for the nomination are Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. . . . . .That rule 40(b) will be changed is pretty much a foregone conclusion, but how it will be changed remains unknown. The same goes for all convention rules. So might I suggest the following: Add “after the third ballot, rule 40(b) becomes null and void, and all delegates are unbound.” If, before the convention, no one has majority support from the delegates – both pledged and unpledged – candidates will have three rounds of votes to secure support from delegates pledged to candidates who’ve dropped out. If, after their third try, no candidate is able to garner a majority, open up the options to anyone. I know this will upset supporters of Cruz and Trump, but it doesn’t matter. It will be messy. It will be a fight. And it could end up with a “fresh face” emerging as the consensus nominee. But it also could result in a coalition forming around a candidate who could put Republicans over the top earlier. Knowing the floodgates will be flung open after a third vote will force nominated candidates to push harder, sooner. Nothing motivates like a hard and fast deadline. It’s not a conspiracy to say convention rules are going to be changed; it’s a fact. Everyone knows this, and everyone has known this. Anything you may hear to the contrary is someone who is ignorant or lying. Best to lay this out now, be open about it, then hope it doesn’t become an issue, because either way, Cleveland is going to be a fight and “none of the above” is not an option. end quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 I thought this was interesting as I went through old posts. Peter On Owl in 2005, Jonathan Kinlay wrote: If we care to, we can witness the plot of Atlas Shrugged being re-enacted with uncanny consistency before our eyes in the hell-hole that was once Zimbabwe. Over twenty five years Mugabe and his thugs have looted every asset they can lay their hands on, without a moment's thought for the rights, property or lives of those they rob. Now Mugabe and his mob have murdered the last few of the country's remaining producers in order to seize their homes and farms and factories in the name of "land rights" for "war veterans", only to find themselves, savages in modern dress that they are, unable to understand or operate the machinery they have stolen. Those that can flee, taking with them the know-how and skills that maintained a semblance of civilization in that dark continent. A country that was once the bread basket of Africa is reduced to feasting on the carcasses of the businesses and farms it has plundered, selling off everything down to the floor tiles, while its emaciated people prepare themselves for inevitable starvation, murmuring the only feeble word of protest they know: "hungry". As we enter the endgame and we know only too well what happens next: the lights go out and the final desperate slaughter begins. All we can do is pray for it to be over quickly - and for the return of John Galt. 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