Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I just don't understand why you are using bills introduced or cosponsored as criteria for the value of Cruz actions. By that criteria Tom Coburn might be the greatest person in the senate. And who cares if he is married to a very successful woman in finance, why isn't that a plus. Stick to the big picture and stop the character assassination.
I just don't understand why you are using bills introduced or cosponsored as criteria for the value of Cruz actions. By that criteria Tom Coburn might be the greatest person in the senate. And who cares if he is married to a very successful woman in finance, why isn't that a plus. Stick to the big picture and stop the character assassination.
I just don't understand why you are using bills introduced or cosponsored as criteria for the value of Cruz actions. By that criteria Tom Coburn might be the greatest person in the senate. And who cares if he is married to a very successful woman in finance, why isn't that a plus. Stick to the big picture and stop the character assassination.
Because she knows that in our commie senate republican bills go no where, prince harry won't allow it. She does this because she's a typical lazy commie lib and goes for the low hanging fruit.
All ive seen him do is bloviate because he knows his ideas are dead in the water so he doesn't have to ever explain them in detail. As in what happens after his speeches. Well, besides the gop brand taking unnecessary hits to their reputation.
What does the man have that we need, convince me....
Go!
I just don't understand why you are using bills introduced or cosponsored as criteria for the value of Cruz actions. By that criteria Tom Coburn might be the greatest person in the senate. And who cares if he is married to a very successful woman in finance, why isn't that a plus. Stick to the big picture and stop the character assassination.
Because she knows that in our commie senate republican bills go no where, prince harry won't allow it. She does this because she's a typical lazy commie lib and goes for the low hanging fruit.
Which is why you co-sponsor a bill with the majority; Gramm Rudman Hollings for example. Simpson-Mizzoli is another one that comes to mind. Sarbanes-Oxley.
When you're an "all or nothing" guy and compromise is the #1 thing in your job description, you end up getting a whole lot of nothing because you'll never get it all. Cruz has been an embarrassment to himself, his party (which is saying quite a bit), and people who are sponsoring this hack for a Presidential run are doing two things; making a fool of themselves and simultaneously plotting for 4 more years of a Democrat in the oval.
.Mr. Cruz, the former Texas solicitor general, is recalling the time he argued that a state should not have to follow an order from an international body or the brief he wrote in defense of a Ten Commandments monument on public property, Mr. Cruz’s work before the nation’s highest court during five-plus years as solicitor general has served as the cornerstone of a somewhat unorthodox campaign.
Mr. Cruz worked on so many high-profile cases because he and his former boss, Attorney General Greg Abbott, set out to engage in politically charged issues.
“We ended up year after year arguing some of the biggest cases in the country,” Mr. Cruz said. “There was a degree of serendipity in that, but there was also a concerted effort to seek out and lead conservative fights.”
Mr. Cruz, who has never held elective office, has argued before the Supreme Court nine times, more than any practicing lawyer in Texas or any current member of Congress. Increasingly, arguing before the Supreme Court has become a specialized skill; those with previous experience before the justices are more likely to be called upon to argue before them again, said H. W. Perry, a University of Texas School of Law professor who has studied the court
I just don't understand why you are using bills introduced or cosponsored as criteria for the value of Cruz actions. By that criteria Tom Coburn might be the greatest person in the senate. And who cares if he is married to a very successful woman in finance, why isn't that a plus. Stick to the big picture and stop the character assassination.
Because she knows that in our commie senate republican bills go no where, prince harry won't allow it. She does this because she's a typical lazy commie lib and goes for the low hanging fruit.
Which is why you co-sponsor a bill with the majority; Gramm Rudman Hollings for example. Simpson-Mizzoli is another one that comes to mind. Sarbanes-Oxley.
When you're an "all or nothing" guy and compromise is the #1 thing in your job description, you end up getting a whole lot of nothing because you'll never get it all. Cruz has been an embarrassment to himself, his party (which is saying quite a bit), and people who are sponsoring this hack for a Presidential run are doing two things; making a fool of themselves and simultaneously plotting for 4 more years of a Democrat in the oval.
Because she knows that in our commie senate republican bills go no where, prince harry won't allow it. She does this because she's a typical lazy commie lib and goes for the low hanging fruit.
Which is why you co-sponsor a bill with the majority; Gramm Rudman Hollings for example. Simpson-Mizzoli is another one that comes to mind. Sarbanes-Oxley.
When you're an "all or nothing" guy and compromise is the #1 thing in your job description, you end up getting a whole lot of nothing because you'll never get it all. Cruz has been an embarrassment to himself, his party (which is saying quite a bit), and people who are sponsoring this hack for a Presidential run are doing two things; making a fool of themselves and simultaneously plotting for 4 more years of a Democrat in the oval.
So tell me, which of the amazing bills that were passed in the senate did he miss the boat on? Come on oh wise one this should be a piece of cake for an all knowing one like yourself.
That is the job description for legislators...pass legislation.Because she knows that in our commie senate republican bills go no where, prince harry won't allow it. She does this because she's a typical lazy commie lib and goes for the low hanging fruit.
Which is why you co-sponsor a bill with the majority; Gramm Rudman Hollings for example. Simpson-Mizzoli is another one that comes to mind. Sarbanes-Oxley.
When you're an "all or nothing" guy and compromise is the #1 thing in your job description, you end up getting a whole lot of nothing because you'll never get it all. Cruz has been an embarrassment to himself, his party (which is saying quite a bit), and people who are sponsoring this hack for a Presidential run are doing two things; making a fool of themselves and simultaneously plotting for 4 more years of a Democrat in the oval.
Putting your name on some stupid bill along side some lib wouldn't do much for his credibility in my book..
Which is why you co-sponsor a bill with the majority; Gramm Rudman Hollings for example. Simpson-Mizzoli is another one that comes to mind. Sarbanes-Oxley.
When you're an "all or nothing" guy and compromise is the #1 thing in your job description, you end up getting a whole lot of nothing because you'll never get it all. Cruz has been an embarrassment to himself, his party (which is saying quite a bit), and people who are sponsoring this hack for a Presidential run are doing two things; making a fool of themselves and simultaneously plotting for 4 more years of a Democrat in the oval.
So tell me, which of the amazing bills that were passed in the senate did he miss the boat on? Come on oh wise one this should be a piece of cake for an all knowing one like yourself.
Any one he would have chosen to author...which he chose not to.
Because she knows that in our commie senate republican bills go no where, prince harry won't allow it. She does this because she's a typical lazy commie lib and goes for the low hanging fruit.
Which is why you co-sponsor a bill with the majority; Gramm Rudman Hollings for example. Simpson-Mizzoli is another one that comes to mind. Sarbanes-Oxley.
When you're an "all or nothing" guy and compromise is the #1 thing in your job description, you end up getting a whole lot of nothing because you'll never get it all. Cruz has been an embarrassment to himself, his party (which is saying quite a bit), and people who are sponsoring this hack for a Presidential run are doing two things; making a fool of themselves and simultaneously plotting for 4 more years of a Democrat in the oval.
Putting your name on some stupid bill along side some lib wouldn't do much for his credibility in my book..
.Mr. Cruz, the former Texas solicitor general, is recalling the time he argued that a state should not have to follow an order from an international body or the brief he wrote in defense of a Ten Commandments monument on public property, Mr. Cruz’s work before the nation’s highest court during five-plus years as solicitor general has served as the cornerstone of a somewhat unorthodox campaign.
Mr. Cruz worked on so many high-profile cases because he and his former boss, Attorney General Greg Abbott, set out to engage in politically charged issues.
“We ended up year after year arguing some of the biggest cases in the country,” Mr. Cruz said. “There was a degree of serendipity in that, but there was also a concerted effort to seek out and lead conservative fights.”
Mr. Cruz, who has never held elective office, has argued before the Supreme Court nine times, more than any practicing lawyer in Texas or any current member of Congress. Increasingly, arguing before the Supreme Court has become a specialized skill; those with previous experience before the justices are more likely to be called upon to argue before them again, said H. W. Perry, a University of Texas School of Law professor who has studied the court
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/u...ate-candidate-ted-cruz-and-supreme-court.html
Which is why you co-sponsor a bill with the majority; Gramm Rudman Hollings for example. Simpson-Mizzoli is another one that comes to mind. Sarbanes-Oxley.
When you're an "all or nothing" guy and compromise is the #1 thing in your job description, you end up getting a whole lot of nothing because you'll never get it all. Cruz has been an embarrassment to himself, his party (which is saying quite a bit), and people who are sponsoring this hack for a Presidential run are doing two things; making a fool of themselves and simultaneously plotting for 4 more years of a Democrat in the oval.
Putting your name on some stupid bill along side some lib wouldn't do much for his credibility in my book..
.Mr. Cruz, the former Texas solicitor general, is recalling the time he argued that a state should not have to follow an order from an international body or the brief he wrote in defense of a Ten Commandments monument on public property, Mr. Cruz’s work before the nation’s highest court during five-plus years as solicitor general has served as the cornerstone of a somewhat unorthodox campaign.
Mr. Cruz worked on so many high-profile cases because he and his former boss, Attorney General Greg Abbott, set out to engage in politically charged issues.
“We ended up year after year arguing some of the biggest cases in the country,” Mr. Cruz said. “There was a degree of serendipity in that, but there was also a concerted effort to seek out and lead conservative fights.”
Mr. Cruz, who has never held elective office, has argued before the Supreme Court nine times, more than any practicing lawyer in Texas or any current member of Congress. Increasingly, arguing before the Supreme Court has become a specialized skill; those with previous experience before the justices are more likely to be called upon to argue before them again, said H. W. Perry, a University of Texas School of Law professor who has studied the court
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/u...ate-candidate-ted-cruz-and-supreme-court.html
Well, arguing in front of the Supreme Court more than anyone else has is a good cause. If he had a half-way decent border policy, I'd consider him a viable candidate. If not, I'd rather see a conservative in rather than Obama redux Hillary. If he's a real conservative, that is, who will take some of the tax burden off the people in this country and fight against down-your-throat bills that make light of the constitution that enables them to get past the myopia of Capitol Hill.
WASHINGTON — Texas Sen. Ted Cruz tried to add significant security resources along the U.S.-Mexico border as a Senate committee debated immigration legislation Thursday, but his amendment was rejected.
Cruz proposed tripling the number of Border Patrol agents stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border and quadrupling equipment, “including cameras, sensors, drones and helicopters,” within three years. He also would have required that 700 miles of border fence called for in a 2006 law be finished.
If the Department of Homeland Security failed to comply, 20 percent of its budget for the next year would be shifted as block grants to border states. But the amendment was voted down, 13-5. Sen. John Cornyn was among those supporting his fellow Texas Republican.
Cruz also clashed with New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, who complained that the Texas freshman was falsely accusing the committee of failing to take security seriously.
“Let’s not keep bringing up this false issue,” Schumer said, raising his voice slightly. Border security isn’t the real issue he said, but rather the fact that Cruz won’t support any immigration legislation that offers a path to citizenship for the 11 million people already in the country illegally
So tell me, which of the amazing bills that were passed in the senate did he miss the boat on? Come on oh wise one this should be a piece of cake for an all knowing one like yourself.
Any one he would have chosen to author...which he chose not to.
So you once again show your lazy lib side and chose not to answer my question.
All ive seen him do is bloviate because he knows his ideas are dead in the water so he doesn't have to ever explain them in detail. As in what happens after his speeches. Well, besides the gop brand taking unnecessary hits to their reputation.
What does the man have that we need, convince me....
Go!
So tell me, which of the amazing bills that were passed in the senate did he miss the boat on? Come on oh wise one this should be a piece of cake for an all knowing one like yourself.
Any one he would have chosen to author...which he chose not to.
So you once again show your lazy lib side and chose not to answer my question.
Yes. Without an endgame his speech served no purpose. We took a political hit as a collective so he could elevate himself among the diehards in the base. Hardly a wise trade off
"Diehards" if conservatives are "diehards" then count me in and "we didnt take any "political hit" people dont even remember Obama's stupid shutdown, the Senate wasnt a part of that anyway
I didn't say conservatives were diehards. Diehards are the people that are oblivious to the things going on around them because of their thought process. Hard right & hard left both fall under that catagory.
Just consider Cruz & his speach. Everything he told us most Americans already knew. He didn't offer a solution or anything new. Just the same message of repeal that had already been voted on how many times? He didn't have an exit strategy. And the Americans that have forgotten will be readily reminded by the liberal media.
I am all for repealing that disaster. But im also smart enough to know we don't have the votes to do it currently. So rather than wasting anymore time on it we should focus where we can make progress. We can always come back to obamacare when we have the votes to effectively change it.
He's a Senator with as much experience in Congress as the President.
Cruz speaks for his district in Texas. Period. You don't get to vote for him. If you don't like what he does that's too damn bad. I personally wish we had another Cruz here instead of the piece of crap we do in McCain.One last question.
You say he has common sense. Are you referring to him speaking for hours on end only it was for nothing? In fact soon after he was done we proceeded to take the blame for the shutdown that ensued. All for what? What we all already knew about obamacare? Perhaps to teach us about green eggs and ham? Or to blatently prove a point that there is a time and place for every battle and he wanted to give us an example of what a poorly planned idea can achieve?
Maybe that drew the clear battle lines between people like him and neoconservative drip sellouts like Boehner.
Something to think about.
"Us"?Sorry but that stunt he pulled did NOTHING but make all of us look like idiots.
Step one: Speak for yourself.
Step two: Don't presume that someone else speaks for you.
Step three: ?
Step four: PROFIT!
He speaks for all of us because of his legislative power over us.
