Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Tx Sen Cruz tells Limbaugh the "inconvenient truth" about pending immigration bill

2

Replies

  • SideOfBaconSideOfBacon Member Posts: 111 Member
    Personally, I think this is all a political show. The Senate wants to have something passed so they can use it in their future campaigns. Harry Reid specifically told his staffers work on something that can pass the Senate, forget the House. There's no way this passes the House and they know it. I think Boehner even said he thought it had a chance in the House with Democrat support and the Tea Party quickly corrected him and he changed his tune.

    If the House can't pass the Farm Bill, immigration doesn't have a chance. For that reason, I'm really not worried about this.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Compromise is part of LIFE. Maybe some people here live totally alone and never have personal relationships, marriages, work with other people, and so on. They exist in total isolation and have no need to compromise with other people during their life. Keen. But most of us live or work with others. I'm not saying that I'm a great example but I'm now in a close, live-in, personal relationship with a lovely gal, and I compromise ALL THE TIME. So does she.

    Yes life has compromises, but in the political arena, you are confusing compromise with surrender. You are getting nothing in return for your GOP loyalty.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    To translate, we need to elect pragmatists, not ideologues. I agree!

    Yes, but there is still a problem. The Republicans have ceded to the liberals the right to define the language and make all the rules, so the Democrats will simply continue to tell the public that conservatives are always ideologues, because after all, George W. Bush was a Christian who re-started the Crusades against his ideological enemy.

    Talking points will be distributed to the media, and the 50% of the population who made up the majority in the last election will say, "Yeah!" and no sincere pragmatist will ever convince them otherwise...unless he is able to give them trinkets and cash with his message.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Let us talk a bit about the "theocrats"...
    Up through Carter, they belonged to the Democrats. Starting with Reagan, they became part of the Republican party. Since then, they basically took over the place. Tea Party? That was a nice grass roots thing all about smaller government, less taxes, and fiscal responsibility. What the hell happened? The theocrats infiltrated after 2010 and turned every one else off. Romney? Not a perfect candidate, but he seemed like a decent guy and has a damn good head for getting business back to business in this country. Obama has no clue about that at all. Given the two, Romney was a better choice-- all else being equal, we need freaking jobs! What happened? He kissed theocrat butt to get the nomination which alienated pretty much everyone else. After that, they didn't turn out to vote because they didn't want to vote for a Mormon.

    The Democrats can have them back. Quit letting them push you around, and make this our own.

    So they chose not to vote for a Mormon and stayed home, in turn helping elect a closet Muslim.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Omigosh with the conspiracy crap.

    He is not a Muslim.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Yes, but there is still a problem. The Republicans have ceded to the liberals the right to define the language and make all the rules, so the Democrats will simply continue to tell the public that conservatives are always ideologues, because after all, George W. Bush was a Christian who re-started the Crusades against his ideological enemy.

    Talking points will be distributed to the media, and the 50% of the population who made up the majority in the last election will say, "Yeah!" and no sincere pragmatist will ever convince them otherwise...unless he is able to give them trinkets and cash with his message.

    Yeah, too damn many Republicans worry too much about what Democrats think. I say hell with the left's opinion, this isn't a popularity contest, or maybe it is and that's the whole problem.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Omigosh with the conspiracy crap.

    He is not a Muslim.

    Prove that statement Buffy! Whose side are you on anyway???
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Prove that statement Buffy! Whose side are you on anyway???

    Wow. Because i don't believe he's a Muslim, I'm not on your "side"?

    Secondly, the burden of proof is on YOU. You are making the accusation, so you have to prove he's a Muslim. What you got?
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    Sen. Cruz also said the voters should flood Congress with phone calls to tell their Representatives how they feel about this legislation. He suggested this would get their attention and cause them to think how to vote on this issue.

    I wonder how many posting on this topic have contacted their Senator's and H.R. Rep? And encouraged their friends to do the same? This past week I have contacted all of my Congressmen on several issues I am upset with.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Nomadac wrote: »
    Sen. Cruz also said the voters should flood Congress with phone calls to tell their Representatives how they feel about this legislation. He suggested this would get their attention and cause them to think how to vote on this issue.

    I wonder how many posting on this topic have contacted their Senator's and H.R. Rep? And encouraged their friends to do the same? This past week I have contacted all of my Congressmen on several issues I am upset with.

    Even though I feel my U.S. Senators and my U.S. Rep. are pretty bullet proof, I still give them an earful regularly. I think they know me by name.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Wow. Because i don't believe he's a Muslim, I'm not on your "side"?

    Secondly, the burden of proof is on YOU. You are making the accusation, so you have to prove he's a Muslim. What you got?

    No Buffy, I don't have to prove anything, it's only my opinion. Just like you don't have to prove he Isn't a muslim. It's your opinion. But when you state your opinion to me like it's Fact chiseled in stoned and we should all drop to our knees when you speak,Then I'm gonna come back to you like a smart A.. Actually, I don't really believe he's anything. He checks the wind regularly to see which way is the most politically expedient. But sometimes he's a little more "Muz" friendly than I'm comfortable with, since he IS STILL our President, whether I like it or not.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    It's easy. Obama's a libtard. Don't you know anything Buffy?

    More gang mentality, oh well, some things never change.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    You were the first one to bring in the religion aspect. Not Buffco. Your statement:
    snake284 wrote: »
    So they chose not to vote for a Mormon and stayed home, in turn helping elect a closet Muslim.
    is stated as a fact. Not an opinion. YOU are the one who stated something like it was true. Buffco merely responded. But, as many have seen, when someone returns things to you like you serve to them, you get all whiny and complain about people attacking you when you launch the first salvo.

    This may be "gang mentality" to you, but Buffco and CPJ are offering more cogent, logic-based arguments without the vitriol that you tend to sling.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Er, no. SOME of the Republican party is not my type at all. But here in Texas we've got Ted Cruz, a genuine conservative and Teaparty member who won. He's the sort of Republican whom I support.

    And I continue to insist... Tell me truly about the success that the Libertarian party's had... Name ONE state that voted Libertarian for a presidential nominee. Name ONE Libertarian US senator.

    Compromise is part of LIFE. Maybe some people here live totally alone and never have personal relationships, marriages, work with other people, and so on. They exist in total isolation and have no need to compromise with other people during their life. Keen. But most of us live or work with others. I'm not saying that I'm a great example but I'm now in a close, live-in, personal relationship with a lovely gal, and I compromise ALL THE TIME. So does she.

    I also compromise with my editor in my writing, compromise with my neighbors, compromise with people in the store or bar or restaurant, too. And when I was working full time, I compromised with my colleagues.

    What's so damn sacred about refusing to compromise in your politics? Politics is a complex interdependent situation and NOBODY wins an election without effecting SOME sort of compromise. This doesn't mean giving up principles. It does however mean sliding some druthers and wants back and forth on the scale so that agreement can be reached between two or more groups.

    Voting our "conscience" is a sham, because there is nobody who's perfect for whom we can vote anyway. Even the ideal candidate represents a set of variations on the "ideal" individual.

    I much prefer to compromise and vote for the BEST possible candidate rather than either refuse to vote or write in M. Mouse or some other candidate who's never going to win. If some here can sleep soundly knowing they helped elect yet another Democrat, hey, be my guest.

    Maybe where some of you live it will take generations to change the Republican party. Here in Texas it took ONE election to get Ted Cruz in the Senate.

    I'm sorry but I am NOT going to waste my vote by casting it for someone who has ZERO chance of being elected.

    I'm not dissing the Libertarian or Green or Jesus party or whomever. If you can show me ONE successful election result nationally for ANY 3rd party, and by that I mean a statewide election like US Senate, I'd be happy to hear about it. Show me ONE state that's gone for any candidate rather than Democrat or Republican in recent times.

    Results do matter. And if you're not elected, you can NOT get things done.

    I agree Sam. In MY opinion, and it is just that, an opinion, it is a waste to vote for a third party anybody, in national politics.
    I might as well vote for the Dummycrats.

    I'm not wasting my vote, it's all I've got!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,985 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    This country was founded on Libertarian principles. At this point, passing Libertarian type laws translates into REPEALING the crap we have now.

    Over the years, the relegious coalitions in America have destroyed the concept of liberty, all backed by the GOP. Prohibition I & II have/has spawned more violence, tyrannical laws, LE spending, incarceration, interference with foreign countries, and general police-statism than all the liberal leaning laws combined. Do not mistake this statement for defense of liberal nonsense. Just don't tell me the GOP as a whole is interested in individual freedom.
    I couldn't have stated this better - in fact, I couldn't have stated this nearly as well!

    Republicans and Democrats. Just two different forms of slavery. Pick your poision, America.

    I didn't join the Libertarians to side with the "winners" - I joined the Libertarians to side with what is (mostly) RIGHT.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,985 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Libertarians need to run as Republicans. That is what we need. Libertarians also need to join the Republican party and stop letting the theocratic, good ole' boy, country club people run their theocratic, good ole' boy country club candidates every election. Third party just don't work-- we have to revolt within an existing party to make anything change. We need to take control and marginalize the idiots.
    This sounds good on paper - but it hasn't been working. If you don't thump the Bible, you don't get far with the Republicans. Witness McCain's Y2K campaign as a for instance.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,985 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Let us talk a bit about the "theocrats"...
    Up through Carter, they belonged to the Democrats. Starting with Reagan, they became part of the Republican party. Since then, they basically took over the place. Tea Party? That was a nice grass roots thing all about smaller government, less taxes, and fiscal responsibility. What the hell happened? The theocrats infiltrated after 2010 and turned every one else off. Romney? Not a perfect candidate, but he seemed like a decent guy and has a damn good head for getting business back to business in this country. Obama has no clue about that at all. Given the two, Romney was a better choice-- all else being equal, we need freaking jobs! What happened? He kissed theocrat butt to get the nomination which alienated pretty much everyone else. After that, they didn't turn out to vote because they didn't want to vote for a Mormon.

    The Democrats can have them back. Quit letting them push you around, and make this our own.

    :that:

    I admired Reagan - very much - but he was the one who let the the Christianists into the GOP. And Yep, the Tea Party was Libertarian in its beginning, but has now been co-opted by the GOP/Theocratic establishment. The GOP is finished, there "ain't no fixin' it".
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,985 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    It is easier to build a new house on a clean lot than to renovate a rundown, termite ridden, rat-infested, leaky roofed, crap-hole that has a family of 'possums living under the porch. You can't ever completely get rid of the creaky floors or the vermin. It may take longer to get a roof over your head, but it will be a place worth living in.

    Remember Ron Paul during the primaries? The GOP (and FOX news) marginalized him and his supporters. He was barely questioned during debates. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about Paul, but he wasn't given equal time in any of the events. The same treatment was given to all the other non-establishment Republicans.

    How can you say that primaries are the solution when the GOP manipulates the game? The party decides who they think is most electable instead of giving all the candidates equal time and let the members pick the nominee.

    You got that right! I think "parties" are part of the problem - but I don't have the solution for THAT issue...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Yes life has compromises, but in the political arena, you are confusing compromise with surrender. You are getting nothing in return for your GOP loyalty.

    Yes I am. I am very aware of the difference between compromise vs surrender. For example, last November, lots of Republicans "surrendered" the presidency to Obama. Texas voted for Romney. California? Ha.

    But as part of my, er, "surrender", I helped elect a conservative Teaparty member Republican as US Senator and Ted Cruz is already leading opposition to the terribly flawed immigration bill.

    I'm not a blind Republican loyalist, and I made my vote count the best during the primary, where Republicans selected a true conservative over a namby-pamby one.

    Please keep us informed on the success you have in California electing Libertarians instead of Democrat party hacks.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Sam....

    CaliFFL's posted, a few times, that he now lives in Idaho. Even says so in the "Location" field under his name. Like yours says "Houston." He did live in California, but he's been moved away for a few years.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,985 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Let me explain what is wrong with this statement.

    You are attacking an ideology (Christianity) with your ideology (Atheism). There should be no place in national politics for either.

    Fail. Total fail.

    I'm not an atheist - something it seems that virtually ALL monotheists assume when someone calls them on their theocracy.

    I'm VERY far from atheism. What I am isn't important - what is is to keep religion, ANYONE'S religion, out of politics. I also have no use whatsoever for Marxists - which as you correctly note, dominate the Democratic party.

    No Theocrats, no Marxists, no Bibles, no Korans, no socialism.

    In other words, "none of the above".

    Next?
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    This sounds good on paper - but it hasn't been working. If you don't thump the Bible, you don't get far with the Republicans. Witness McCain's Y2K campaign as a for instance.
    The only reason that is happening is because the theocrats are the only ones motivated enough to make things happen in that party. We need to be more motivated and more vocal than them. Make them the ones to hold their nose and pull the lever for a change. These are not conservatives. Again, if you look at history, these are the same people that gave Carter his victory back in 1976. They took over the Republican party from there. They also crapped up the Tea party. If it ever does gain influence, I promise that they will invade the Libertarian party as well. You have to use their tactics against them or nothing is ever going to change.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,985 Senior Member
    You may have a point there, Jerm. The older I get, the less I know - except I'm so disgusted with the whole mess that I could just puke...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    This sounds good on paper - but it hasn't been working. If you don't thump the Bible, you don't get far with the Republicans. Witness McCain's Y2K campaign as a for instance.

    McCain's loss had nothing to do with religion. He ran an inept and lifeless campaign, casting himself as mr-nice-guy Republican who agreed with Obama on everything and failed to fight with a strong campaign.

    Romney did the same.

    If either had been highly religious with their campaigns they would have lost more votes than it would have earned them.

    This country was founded on many religious principles but the basic strengths of our great republic is that we use those religious principles without cloaking ourselves in them.

    Bill O'Reilly's a good example of being overboard. As a devout Roman Catholic, he's strongly opposed to abortion. Fine, he's entitled to his personal tenets. But sure as grass is green, he'll maneuver nearly all the discussions on his program until he can insert "abortion rights" into the mix.

    Memo to Bill: Most of us don't CARE about the abortion debate as it relates to federal politics. For most conservatives, it's a lesser issue than defense, lower taxes, responsible government, honest and open conduct.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    He's talking about the 2000 campaign, not the 2008. The one where McCain didn't court the religious vote and was defeated by George Bush in the primary.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Fail. Total fail.

    I'm not an atheist - something it seems that virtually ALL monotheists assume when someone calls them on their theocracy. etc etc

    Excellent point and I agree.

    Myself, I "try" to be a practicing Christian (Episcopalian) and have a reasonably strong faith, or so I hope. But I don't think that I should impose my brand of theocracy and put it into law. That's not how we do it here, or at least that's not how we're supposed to do it. My church allows abortion and is open to gays and such. But there are plenty of other religious people (Muslims for example) who think otherwise. Regardless, government has to "get out" of the religion business.

    Of course, strident atheism is a "religion" all its own and many Democrats try to impose that system of beliefs on us.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    This has been an excellent thread, gang, and it shows how wide our tent can be, yet we can debate our differences and still respect each other.

    In the central point of this thread as it's evolved, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

    I think (as do others here) that voting 3rd party or not voting at all as protest is only asking for an endless string of Democrats in office. I also do not see the Libertarian party per se as having any chance at all to become strong enough in the foreseeable future to actually elect a national candidate. I therefore think that it's necessary for us to work within the Republican party to transform it rather than try to affect it from the outside by supporting a 3rd party.

    But others here have a different opinion. Which is fine. I'll reserve judgment but I'm also eagerly awaiting news of ANY 3rd party candidate who wins a national election. I think "no way nohow" but others remain optimistic. My response to that is "Where's the beef?" (show me a 3rd party winner).
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    I therefore think that it's necessary for us to work within the Republican party to transform it rather than try to affect it from the outside by supporting a
    3rd party.

    Kinda like a Christian joining the Church of Satan to convert it into embracing Jesus. :troll:
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Ron Paul showed them the way, but his foreign policy was simply not acceptable to Republicans or conservative leaning independents. etc etc.

    I generally liked Ron Paul's domestic agenda but I could not accept his foreign policy, especially his blase attitude about Israel and his oddly friendly way of seeing Iraq or Syria.

    Many "libertarian" (small-l) concepts are excellent, but I often take exception to the "Libertarian" (large-L) tenets. For the most part, many libertarian views related to decreasing the size of government and limiting govermental intrusion into our private lives are perfectly in sync with basic conservative beliefs.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Kinda like a Christian joining the Church of Satan to convert it into embracing Jesus. :troll:

    Well, isn't that what Jesus was often criticized for -- spending time with tax collectors and other "sinners"?

    And yeah, the troll image is appropriate. If you think that the Republican party is totally corrupted, you're living in the wrong state... oh, wait, you live in California. No wonder you feel that way. The vast majority of California Republicans try to be "Democrat-lite".
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement