Reasons I like Ted Cruz for POTUS

[Derideo_Te]

Yup, Mertex, we find Mojo2 playing Concern Alinsky Troll of the far right.

He is probably a plant for the far left.

He is probably just a plant.....period!

 

[Mertex]

Yup, Mertex, we find Mojo2 playing Concern Alinsky Troll of the far right.

He is probably a plant for the far left.

You know, you have a point there. I completely forgot.....I am for Ted Cruz, and MOJO2 is right....Ted Cruz is "The Man"........

 

[Mojo2]

Just one more example of why I like Ted Cruz.


Ted Cruz Full Interview w/ Candy Crowley - CNN - 10/6/13 - YouTube

Ha,ha, the liar. He claims we should reduce government spending, and his little temper tantrum cost the US $24B......yeah, you should like him more because obviously you hate America.

It was the Resident and the Senate who refused to compromise and refused to negotiate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Just one more example of why I like Ted Cruz.


Ted Cruz Full Interview w/ Candy Crowley - CNN - 10/6/13 - YouTube

Ha,ha, the liar. He claims we should reduce government spending, and his little temper tantrum cost the US $24B......yeah, you should like him more because obviously you hate America.

It was the Resident and the Senate who refused to compromise and refuse to negotiate.

Wasn't it Reagan who came up the policy of never negotiating with terrorists?

 

[Mojo2]

Ha,ha, the liar. He claims we should reduce government spending, and his little temper tantrum cost the US $24B......yeah, you should like him more because obviously you hate America.

It was the Resident and the Senate who refused to compromise and refuse to negotiate.

Wasn't it Reagan who came up the policy of never negotiating with terrorists?

So, why are you trying to further the rancor and widen the chasm between the two sides any more than they are by calling the Dems. terrorists?

Why?

Because you have a rooting interest in watching us destroy ourselves if that can be orchestrated?

Hmmm???

You are from where, again?

 

[Mertex]

It was the Resident and the Senate who refused to compromise and refuse to negotiate.

Wasn't it Reagan who came up the policy of never negotiating with terrorists?

So, why are you trying to further the rancor and widen the chasm between the two sides any more than they are by calling the Dems. terrorists?

Why/

Because you have a rooting interest in watching us destroy ourselves if that can be orchestrated?

Hmmm???

You are from where, again?

That's great.....the GOP is self-destructing and instead of noticing it and doing something about it.....they point fingers....like that's going to reverse the trend...

 

[Mojo2]

You're probably right. I think "both" parents have to be Americans for someone born abroad to be considered "natural-born" - so that would rule Cruz out since his father was born in Cuba. However, I'm sure TPs will have no problem twisting the requirements around to make Teddy qualifiable, but the fact remains that he is still a Canadian citizen.


Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States,
Requirements to Become President of the United States

Troll much?

Yeah, you seem to be doing that quite regularly! Troll.

(Apparently you don't like facts! )

I like these just fine.

The Congressional Research Service has weighed in on the issue with a 50-page report. Here are the most pertinent passages:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.”
​

“It does not specifically deal with the issue of someone born outside the United States to one American parent,” CNN notes. “But if Cruz could claim citizenship at birth, according to the argument, he could claim to be natural born.”

Cruz, for his part, has dismissed critics who question his eligibility.

“My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen,” Cruz told ABC in July. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate. The facts are clear.”

He added, “I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage.”

–

Now CNN Weighs In: Is Ted Cruz Eligible to be President? | TheBlaze.com

 

[Mojo2]

Wasn't it Reagan who came up the policy of never negotiating with terrorists?

So, why are you trying to further the rancor and widen the chasm between the two sides any more than they are by calling the Dems. terrorists?

Why/

Because you have a rooting interest in watching us destroy ourselves if that can be orchestrated?

Hmmm???

You are from where, again?

That's great.....the GOP is self-destructing and instead of noticing it and doing something about it.....they point fingers....like that's going to reverse the trend...

There you go again with your typical librul exaggeration!

What you call self destruction is like your dog shedding fur. We're just brushing the dog and getting that unwanted, unneeded fur off our beautiful friend and member of the family quicker and more expediently.

So, it looks to you liberal, Occupy movement, Obama loving, rat nest Persian owning cat women and men like we are self destructing.

Rest easy ol' girl the GOP is going to be fine.

Just wait and see!

In fact, just hold your breath until 2014!







And pointing fingers at a 'sleeper' enemy agent is the patriotic thing to do so that others won't mistake your divisive diatribe for the expressions of a real American.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The current government shutdown threatens to stall the already slow economic recovery from the Great Recession. But more is at stake here. Political philosophers from Aristotle to Locke have defined the nation-state as the highest form of political community. Locke, whose views are embedded in America’s Declaration of Independence, saw government as a result of a communal compact—a social contract—among peoples. What is happening in America is that this social contract is being voided, largely through the initiative of rightwing Republicans from the deep South and rural Midwest. America is not likely to become Afghanistan, but it could easily become Italy or Greece or even Weimar Germany." Shutdown Standoff: One of the Worst Crises in American History. | New Republic

No, America is not likely to become Afghanistan, nor could it become Italy or Greece or even Weimar Germany, as that’s rather over the top.

But there is merit to the observation that the social contract is being voided by the right, or at least they’re attempting to void the contract.

This is consistent with conservative hostility toward Supremacy Clause jurisprudence and the Framers’ original intent that the American people are citizens of a single Nation foremost, not only residents of a given state.

Cruz represents the politics of division embraced by the GOP, and the right’s fear of diversity and dissent; this in conjunction with the reckless and irresponsible government shutdown, the threat to force the Nation into default, and his unwillingness to pursue responsible governance, Cruz is indeed unfit to be president.

 

[Mojo2]

"The current government shutdown threatens to stall the already slow economic recovery from the Great Recession. But more is at stake here. Political philosophers from Aristotle to Locke have defined the nation-state as the highest form of political community. Locke, whose views are embedded in America’s Declaration of Independence, saw government as a result of a communal compact—a social contract—among peoples. What is happening in America is that this social contract is being voided, largely through the initiative of rightwing Republicans from the deep South and rural Midwest. America is not likely to become Afghanistan, but it could easily become Italy or Greece or even Weimar Germany." Shutdown Standoff: One of the Worst Crises in American History. | New Republic

No, America is not likely to become Afghanistan, nor could it become Italy or Greece or even Weimar Germany, as that’s rather over the top.

But there is merit to the observation that the social contract is being voided by the right, or at least they’re attempting to void the contract.

This is consistent with conservative hostility toward Supremacy Clause jurisprudence and the Framers’ original intent that the American people are citizens of a single Nation foremost, not only residents of a given state.

Cruz represents the politics of division embraced by the GOP, and the right’s fear of diversity and dissent; this in conjunction with the reckless and irresponsible government shutdown, the threat to force the Nation into default, and his unwillingness to pursue responsible governance, Cruz is indeed unfit to be president.

You have seen it clearly but bass ackwards.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, Mertex, we find Mojo2 playing Concern Alinsky Troll of the far right.

He is probably a plant for the far left.

You know, you have a point there. I completely forgot.....I am for Ted Cruz, and MOJO2 is right....Ted Cruz is "The Man"........

 

[Derideo_Te]

It was the Resident and the Senate who refused to compromise and refuse to negotiate.

Wasn't it Reagan who came up the policy of never negotiating with terrorists?

So, why are you trying to further the rancor and widen the chasm between the two sides any more than they are by calling the Dems. terrorists?

Why?

Because you have a rooting interest in watching us destroy ourselves if that can be orchestrated?

Hmmm???

You are from where, again?

You avoided the question because it exposes the hypocrisy of the extreme right's position. The extreme right makes unreasonable demands and then accuses others of being unreasonable when they stand up for what is in the best interests of the American people.

As far as having a vested interest in watching the extreme right destroy themselves politically you are correct. The nations that are governed by the extreme right are the opposite of what America is all about. The extreme right wants to turn America into another Iran. So yes, I am interested in watching them destroy themselves politically because I don't want to see America become another Iran with extremist rightwingers in charge.

Make no mistake that as a fiscal conservative I want to bring this nation back onto a sound economic footing. But the extreme right's attempts to destroy the nation's credit, destroy jobs, destroy the economy and throwing temper tantrums about the ACA is not going to make that happen. The way forward is through compromise. The extreme right is either part of the problem or part of the solution. At present the extreme right is only interested in unreasonable divisiveness and rancor. Until that changes they will continue to be part of the problem in my opinion.

 

[Mojo2]

Wasn't it Reagan who came up the policy of never negotiating with terrorists?

So, why are you trying to further the rancor and widen the chasm between the two sides any more than they are by calling the Dems. terrorists?

Why?

Because you have a rooting interest in watching us destroy ourselves if that can be orchestrated?

Hmmm???

You are from where, again?

You avoided the question because it exposes the hypocrisy of the extreme right's position. The extreme right makes unreasonable demands and then accuses others of being unreasonable when they stand up for what is in the best interests of the American people.

As far as having a vested interest in watching the extreme right destroy themselves politically you are correct. The nations that are governed by the extreme right are the opposite of what America is all about. The extreme right wants to turn America into another Iran. So yes, I am interested in watching them destroy themselves politically because I don't want to see America become another Iran with extremist rightwingers in charge.

Make no mistake that as a fiscal conservative I want to bring this nation back onto a sound economic footing. But the extreme right's attempts to destroy the nation's credit, destroy jobs, destroy the economy and throwing temper tantrums about the ACA is not going to make that happen. The way forward is through compromise. The extreme right is either part of the problem or part of the solution. At present the extreme right is only interested in unreasonable divisiveness and rancor. Until that changes they will continue to be part of the problem in my opinion.

Well, I must hand it to you. You have real reasons for posting as you do.

They are mistaken reasons, but still, you have some rationale for feeling as you do.

Now, it is up to me to show you that you are mistaken and how you are mistaken.

If I do this, will I be wasting my time or will you give the information I would produce for you here a fair appraisal?

I don't ask you to 'sign it before you read it' or anything. I just want your promise you will read it completely and consider it soberly and seriously.

Agree?

 

[Derideo_Te]

So, why are you trying to further the rancor and widen the chasm between the two sides any more than they are by calling the Dems. terrorists?

Why?

Because you have a rooting interest in watching us destroy ourselves if that can be orchestrated?

Hmmm???

You are from where, again?

You avoided the question because it exposes the hypocrisy of the extreme right's position. The extreme right makes unreasonable demands and then accuses others of being unreasonable when they stand up for what is in the best interests of the American people.

As far as having a vested interest in watching the extreme right destroy themselves politically you are correct. The nations that are governed by the extreme right are the opposite of what America is all about. The extreme right wants to turn America into another Iran. So yes, I am interested in watching them destroy themselves politically because I don't want to see America become another Iran with extremist rightwingers in charge.

Make no mistake that as a fiscal conservative I want to bring this nation back onto a sound economic footing. But the extreme right's attempts to destroy the nation's credit, destroy jobs, destroy the economy and throwing temper tantrums about the ACA is not going to make that happen. The way forward is through compromise. The extreme right is either part of the problem or part of the solution. At present the extreme right is only interested in unreasonable divisiveness and rancor. Until that changes they will continue to be part of the problem in my opinion.

Well, I must hand it to you. You have real reasons for posting as you do.

They are mistaken reasons, but still, you have some rationale for feeling as you do.

Now, it is up to me to show you that you are mistaken and how you are mistaken.

If I do this, will I be wasting my time or will you give the information I would produce for you here a fair appraisal?

I don't ask you to 'sign it before you read it' or anything. I just want your promise you will read it completely and consider it soberly and seriously.

Agree?

I agree to consider it sober and seriously. Please note that this will mean verifying sources and cross checking references. Sources that are biased or fail fact checking will be disregarded for the purposes of making a sober and serious assessment of what you provide since that would just be a waste of my time.

Fair enough?

 

[Mojo2]

You avoided the question because it exposes the hypocrisy of the extreme right's position. The extreme right makes unreasonable demands and then accuses others of being unreasonable when they stand up for what is in the best interests of the American people.

As far as having a vested interest in watching the extreme right destroy themselves politically you are correct. The nations that are governed by the extreme right are the opposite of what America is all about. The extreme right wants to turn America into another Iran. So yes, I am interested in watching them destroy themselves politically because I don't want to see America become another Iran with extremist rightwingers in charge.

Make no mistake that as a fiscal conservative I want to bring this nation back onto a sound economic footing. But the extreme right's attempts to destroy the nation's credit, destroy jobs, destroy the economy and throwing temper tantrums about the ACA is not going to make that happen. The way forward is through compromise. The extreme right is either part of the problem or part of the solution. At present the extreme right is only interested in unreasonable divisiveness and rancor. Until that changes they will continue to be part of the problem in my opinion.

Well, I must hand it to you. You have real reasons for posting as you do.

They are mistaken reasons, but still, you have some rationale for feeling as you do.

Now, it is up to me to show you that you are mistaken and how you are mistaken.

If I do this, will I be wasting my time or will you give the information I would produce for you here a fair appraisal?

I don't ask you to 'sign it before you read it' or anything. I just want your promise you will read it completely and consider it soberly and seriously.

Agree?

I agree to consider it sober and seriously. Please note that this will mean verifying sources and cross checking references. Sources that are biased or fail fact checking will be disregarded for the purposes of making a sober and serious assessment of what you provide since that would just be a waste of my time.

Fair enough?

Okay. Although, I think your FIRST priority would be to be fair to yourself and your country but if being fair with me will help you see yourself to the truth then all will be good in the final analysis.

Does the WAY the ACA biil was 'born' into being matter to you at all?

If it was created with the goal of being slipped past GOP objections using any legislative trickery necessary to get it passed and on to the Resident's desk to be signed, does that give you enough reason to object to its being implemented?

Let's take this step by step.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mojo2 is about to get schooled.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, I must hand it to you. You have real reasons for posting as you do.

They are mistaken reasons, but still, you have some rationale for feeling as you do.

Now, it is up to me to show you that you are mistaken and how you are mistaken.

If I do this, will I be wasting my time or will you give the information I would produce for you here a fair appraisal?

I don't ask you to 'sign it before you read it' or anything. I just want your promise you will read it completely and consider it soberly and seriously.

Agree?

I agree to consider it sober and seriously. Please note that this will mean verifying sources and cross checking references. Sources that are biased or fail fact checking will be disregarded for the purposes of making a sober and serious assessment of what you provide since that would just be a waste of my time.

Fair enough?

Okay. Although, I think your FIRST priority would be to be fair to yourself and your country but if being fair with me will help you see yourself to the truth then all will be good in the final analysis.

Does the WAY the ACA biil was 'born' into being matter to you at all?

If it was created with the goal of being slipped past GOP objections using any legislative trickery necessary to get it passed and on to the Resident's desk to be signed, does that give you enough reason to object to its being implemented?

Let's take this step by step.

The ACA was first conceived by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990's as an alternative to "Hilarycare". It was subsequently enacted into law in MA by Romney and was successful enough for him to be proud of that accomplishment. So if that is what you mean by "being born" then yes, it does matter. It demonstrates what can be done when both Republicans and Democrats work together to compromise a viable alternative to "HMO's Gone Wild".

As for the obstruction that occurred when the exact same plan was proposed as a viable and feasible alternative to the national problem of HGW that has "born" on the day of Obama's inauguration when a group of Republicans plotted to obstruct everything that Obama proposed. The objections were purely partisan political gamesmanship as opposed to being based on substance and therefore of no merit as far as the legislative outcome was concerned.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, I must hand it to you. You have real reasons for posting as you do.

They are mistaken reasons, but still, you have some rationale for feeling as you do.

Now, it is up to me to show you that you are mistaken and how you are mistaken.

If I do this, will I be wasting my time or will you give the information I would produce for you here a fair appraisal?

I don't ask you to 'sign it before you read it' or anything. I just want your promise you will read it completely and consider it soberly and seriously.

Agree?

I agree to consider it sober and seriously. Please note that this will mean verifying sources and cross checking references. Sources that are biased or fail fact checking will be disregarded for the purposes of making a sober and serious assessment of what you provide since that would just be a waste of my time.

Fair enough?

Okay. Although, I think your FIRST priority would be to be fair to yourself and your country but if being fair with me will help you see yourself to the truth then all will be good in the final analysis.

Does the WAY the ACA biil was 'born' into being matter to you at all?

If it was created with the goal of being slipped past GOP objections using any legislative trickery necessary to get it passed and on to the Resident's desk to be signed, does that give you enough reason to object to its being implemented?

Let's take this step by step.

However onerous you and others on the right may have subjectively perceived the ACA to be, that subjective perception does not justify shutting down the government and threatening the economic well-being of the Nation.

The issue isn’t the merits of the ACA, the issue is the reckless and irresponsible tactics employed by the extreme, and indeed, radical, right.

 

[Mojo2]

I agree to consider it sober and seriously. Please note that this will mean verifying sources and cross checking references. Sources that are biased or fail fact checking will be disregarded for the purposes of making a sober and serious assessment of what you provide since that would just be a waste of my time.

Fair enough?

Okay. Although, I think your FIRST priority would be to be fair to yourself and your country but if being fair with me will help you see yourself to the truth then all will be good in the final analysis.

Does the WAY the ACA biil was 'born' into being matter to you at all?

If it was created with the goal of being slipped past GOP objections using any legislative trickery necessary to get it passed and on to the Resident's desk to be signed, does that give you enough reason to object to its being implemented?

Let's take this step by step.

The ACA was first conceived by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990's as an alternative to "Hilarycare". It was subsequently enacted into law in MA by Romney and was successful enough for him to be proud of that accomplishment. So if that is what you mean by "being born" then yes, it does matter. It demonstrates what can be done when both Republicans and Democrats work together to compromise a viable alternative to "HMO's Gone Wild".

Let's decide what the truth is on this point.

Did the Heritage Foundation 'invent' Obamacare?

The Heritage Foundation has THIS to say about what you've been told is the truth.

Don’t Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate

Is the individual mandate at the heart of “ObamaCare” a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation?

In a word, no.

The U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest. The answers to the first and last can come from me. After all, I headed Heritage’s health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare “adopts the ‘individual mandate’ concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation,” Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate “has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation.” Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

The fact that you believe this is likely due to your listening to the liberal media, specifically, the two individuals I've highlighted in red.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Muslim nation? Are you a birfer, your moron?