Monmouth poll: Cruz overtakes Trump in Iowa

[Absentglare]

Honestly, i feel like you're both a little bit off.

For one, the idea that he read green eggs in ham to his daughter during a filibuster isn't a good reason to disagree with Cruz. That's hardly a policy issue and i actually agree with you (cpwill) that it's a great thing for a father to do.

Problem with that is, it doesn't seem like it was a real filibuster, which makes it seem like a PR stunt and therefore just grandstanding like he (disneydude) said.

Either way, i don't think it's that big of a deal. I'm more concerned with his thoughts on major issues like education or the economy.

Sorry i forgot to cite links there for the claim that it was not a real filibuster-

Cruz Talkathon Eclipses Length of Paul Filibuster - Washington Wire - WSJ

Ted Cruz Reads ‘Green Eggs and Ham’ on Senate Floor — And That’s Not the Weird Part | TIME.com

 

[ARealConservative]

Pulling off the interesting trick of uniting evangelicals and libertarians, Cruz takes supporters who would likely otherwise flow to both Paul and Huckabee - an interesting split. Apparently an endorsement from Rep King helped out, too, which is another interesting bit. Cruz taking support from a bit of all three legs of the stool.

he has essentially co-opted Paul's foreign policy position, surprised you are cool with that.

 

[cpwill]

he has essentially co-opted Paul's foreign policy position, surprised you are cool with that.

Carpet bombing ISIL is Paul's position?

 

[ARealConservative]

Carpet bombing ISIL is Paul's position?

he wanted to formally declare war on ISIL over a year ago. Once you declare war, you win it with overwhelming force. Military leaders will decide if carpet bombing is the correct strategy.

Trump and Cruz are currently leading the polls. they both claim Iraq was a mistake, regime change is a mistake, and sound more and more like Rand Paul when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[Dittohead not!]

he wanted to formally declare war on ISIL over a year ago. Once you declare war, you win it with overwhelming force. Military leaders will decide if carpet bombing is the correct strategy.

Trump and Cruz are currently leading the polls. they both claim Iraq was a mistake, regime change is a mistake, and sound more and more like Rand Paul when it comes to foreign policy.

and not so long ago, a Republican stating that Iraq was a mistake would have been drummed out of the party. Interesting how the attitude towards that issue has changed.

 

[cpwill]

he wanted to formally declare war on ISIL over a year ago. Once you declare war, you win it with overwhelming force. Military leaders will decide if carpet bombing is the correct strategy.

Trump and Cruz are currently leading the polls. they both claim Iraq was a mistake, regime change is a mistake, and sound more and more like Rand Paul when it comes to foreign policy.

[emoji38] so.... When Paul moves closer to being a hawk, that's actually others moving to his position..... . Okay. Whatever you have to tell yourself.

 

[ARealConservative]

[emoji38] so.... When Paul moves closer to being a hawk, that's actually others moving to his position..... . Okay. Whatever you have to tell yourself.

Thinking congress should declare wars, and when we go to war, we go with overwhelming force doesn’t make him a hawk. Pointing out he called for war with ISIL over a year ago just shows that you were ignorant about how similar Cruz and Paul are on this issue.

I didn’t expect you to actually admit the reality, but you don’t have to. The reality remains the reality while your head stays in the sand.

 

[cpwill]

Thinking congress should declare wars, and when we go to war, we go with overwhelming force doesn’t make him a hawk. Pointing out he called for war with ISIL over a year ago just shows that you were ignorant about how similar Cruz and Paul are on this issue.

I didn’t expect you to actually admit the reality, but you don’t have to. The reality remains the reality while your head stays in the sand.

Hey man, as I said - if that's what you have to tell yourself, then you do what you have to do I'm just glad to see our libertarian friends recover from their post-Bush falling-off-the-horse-on-the-other-side kick, I'm not here to mess it up.

 

[Caine]

I think you could definitely make a strong argument that the 10th Amendment makes license issuance a prerogative of State Authority. That's not a religious teaching, that's Federalism.

Yet then you run into the 14th amendment and discrimination.

So you recognize and approve of the source of your own beliefs, but not that of others. That's almost as interesting as your ahistorical view of the NT.

The "SOURCE" of my own belief is nature. There is no religious scripture.... are you sure you know what a deist is exactly?

I don't discourage anyone from being whatever religion they so choose to be, but when those beliefs get mixed in with the law of a land that is for people of all faiths, that is where I take issue.

Not now, and not ever should a particular religion's position on an issue that has political relevance be considered as a reason for limiting the freedoms of the people of the United States.

I didn't serve my country so that religious bigots could have the right to limit the freedoms of the people.

 

[ARealConservative]

Hey man, as I said - if that's what you have to tell yourself, then you do what you have to do I'm just glad to see our libertarian friends recover from their post-Bush falling-off-the-horse-on-the-other-side kick, I'm not here to mess it up.

wow, that is the weakest retort I have ever seen from you.

what else could you do? Paul is all for declaring war on ISIS and it might win brownie points with the red meat crowd to say stuff like punch russia in the face, or carpet bomb until sand glows, but that is just rhetoric.

a declaration of war against our enemy is sound policy.

 

[cpwill]

Yet then you run into the 14th amendment and discrimination.

The 14th Amendment does not say "No Discrimination". Nor does it strip from states primacy over the licenses they issue. Under the modern doctrine of Judicial Supremacy many folks have seen it as a vehicle to change the Constitution to support their policy of the moment, but the text itself does not support that.

The "SOURCE" of my own belief is nature.

No, it is what you believe about nature. Which puts you in the same boat as Cruz.

I don't discourage anyone from being whatever religion they so choose to be, but when those beliefs get mixed in with the law of a land that is for people of all faiths, that is where I take issue.

And, again, this is where you are saying that YOUR beliefs are legitimate sources of legitimate policy, but not others.

That is where the Constitution, and the LIMITS it puts on the government through mechanisms such as the 10th Amendment, becomes important.

I didn't serve my country so that religious bigots could have the right to limit the freedoms of the people.

Your service speaks well of you, but, as a fellow vet, is irrelevant to the question.

 

[Caine]

No, it is what you believe about nature. Which puts you in the same boat as Cruz.

Nope... Im not making a religious argument for limiting the freedom of tens of thousands of Americans.

And, again, this is where you are saying that YOUR beliefs are legitimate sources of legitimate policy, but not others.

Apparently you intentionally failed to realize that I want NO religion to have influence in policy. Including my own. I have no "scripture" that tells you what and how to think anyways.... my religion is based on the nature of the world and common sense. There are no "laws" or tenants of any kind.

That is where the Constitution, and the LIMITS it puts on the government through mechanisms such as the 10th Amendment, becomes important.

Yes, and congress shall not respect the establishment of religion. And yet they vote based on how the pope wants them to. (Theoretically, I am aware most are not catholic).

 

[cpwill]

Nope... Im not making a religious argument for limiting the freedom of tens of thousands of Americans.

No, you are making one for limiting the freedom of hundreds of millions of Americans. Both of your arguments stem from your beliefs about how human nature actually works, Cruz informed by his Christianity and you by your Deism.

Apparently you intentionally failed to realize that I want NO religion to have influence in policy. Including my own.

:shrug: this is false. You very much want your own beliefs put into policy. For example, your belief that states should recognize same sex marriage.

You are willing for your conclusions, which you arrive at due to your beliefs to be put into policy, but you wish to deny this to others with whom you disagree.

I have no "scripture" that tells you what and how to think anyways

:shrug: which is irrelevant.

.... my religion is based on the nature of the world and common sense.

:lamo

Yes, and congress shall not respect the establishment of religion

You really should bother to read the Constitution if you are going to try to lean on it as your defense. Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There shall be no national church, but the text is very much not that Congress shall not respect establishments of religion, and in fact, several of the Founders were rather explicitly clear on that point.

Our nation was founded on the notion that sovereignty flowed from the people to the government, not the other way around. The government does not get to strip sovereignty from the people because other people disapprove of their a priori beliefs. We have no more rightful ability to strip Cruz's legitimate right to push for the policies he believes in because he is Christian than we do to strip yours because you are not.

And yet they vote based on how the pope wants them to.

I struggle to think of a single Catholic legislator about whom this might be said.

 

[Absentglare]

The 14th Amendment does not say "No Discrimination". Nor does it strip from states primacy over the licenses they issue. Under the modern doctrine of Judicial Supremacy many folks have seen it as a vehicle to change the Constitution to support their policy of the moment, but the text itself does not support that.

No, it is what you believe about nature. Which puts you in the same boat as Cruz.

And, again, this is where you are saying that YOUR beliefs are legitimate sources of legitimate policy, but not others.

That is where the Constitution, and the LIMITS it puts on the government through mechanisms such as the 10th Amendment, becomes important.

Your service speaks well of you, but, as a fellow vet, is irrelevant to the question.

The SCOTUS already ruled that you're completely wrong about the 14th amendment-

"The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a mar- riage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawful- ly licensed and performed out-of-State."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It is ironic to declare that the other poster is appealing purely to their own personal belief. It seems the SCOTUS ruling has more weight than your beliefs.

 

[Absentglare]

No, you are making one for limiting the freedom of hundreds of millions of Americans. Both of your arguments stem from your beliefs about how human nature actually works, Cruz informed by his Christianity and you by your Deism.



:shrug: this is false. You very much want your own beliefs put into policy. For example, your belief that states should recognize same sex marriage.

You are willing for your conclusions, which you arrive at due to your beliefs to be put into policy, but you wish to deny this to others with whom you disagree.



:shrug: which is irrelevant.



:lamo



You really should bother to read the Constitution if you are going to try to lean on it as your defense. Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There shall be no national church, but the text is very much not that Congress shall not respect establishments of religion, and in fact, several of the Founders were rather explicitly clear on that point.

Our nation was founded on the notion that sovereignty flowed from the people to the government, not the other way around. The government does not get to strip sovereignty from the people because other people disapprove of their a priori beliefs. We have no more rightful ability to strip Cruz's legitimate right to push for the policies he believes in because he is Christian than we do to strip yours because you are not.



I struggle to think of a single Catholic legislator about whom this might be said.

You don't get to exercise a religion where you get to violate the law. That's theocratic and anti-American.

You don't get to make exceptions for privileged beliefs. Either you open the floodgate for marijuana religions, bigamy, polygamy, Islamic jihad, Sharia Law, etc or you accept the separation of church and state that our nation has honored for hundreds of years.

 

[Jack Hays]

You don't get to exercise a religion where you get to violate the law. That's theocratic and anti-American.

You don't get to make exceptions for privileged beliefs. Either you open the floodgate for marijuana religions, bigamy, polygamy, Islamic jihad, Sharia Law, etc or you accept the separation of church and state that our nation has honored for hundreds of years.

It seems to me that the separation of church and state enables the "floodgate" and, after approving same sex marriage, there's no constitutional bar to any of that.

 

[Absentglare]

It seems to me that the separation of church and state enables the "floodgate" and, after approving same sex marriage, there's no constitutional bar to any of that.

Approval of same sex marriage is an extension of equal treatment across gender.

The constitution does not recognize any method of worship that violates the law. It states that a method of worship will not be outlawed because it is a method of worship.

 

[Jack Hays]

Approval of same sex marriage is an extension of equal treatment across gender.

The constitution does not recognize any method of worship that violates the law. It states that a method of worship will not be outlawed because it is a method of worship.

SCOTUS has already approved drug-using religions for Indians. After SSM, there's no reason polygamy should not come next. I don't object, btw.

 

[Absentglare]

SCOTUS has already approved drug-using religions for Indians. After SSM, there's no reason polygamy should not come next. I don't object, btw.

The SCOTUS upheld the ban on peyote :

"The First Amendment forbids government from prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion. This means, of course, that government may not regulate beliefs as such, either by compelling certain beliefs or forbidding them."

"The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. Citing the 1878 Reynolds v. United States decision, "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.[3]" Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emp...artment_of_Human_Resources_of_Oregon_v._Smith

The reason that Native Americans have an exemption for peyote has to do with subsequent legislation, not the constitution itself.

 

[Jack Hays]

The SCOTUS upheld the ban on peyote :

"The First Amendment forbids government from prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion. This means, of course, that government may not regulate beliefs as such, either by compelling certain beliefs or forbidding them."

"The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. Citing the 1878 Reynolds v. United States decision, "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.[3]" Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emp...artment_of_Human_Resources_of_Oregon_v._Smith

The reason that Native Americans have an exemption for peyote has to do with subsequent legislation, not the constitution itself.

Conceded. But the larger point stands.

 

[Caine]

It seems to me that the separation of church and state enables the "floodgate" and, after approving same sex marriage, there's no constitutional bar to any of that.

It is not any business of yours, or mine, who marries whom.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is not any business of yours, or mine, who marries whom.

I agree.

 

[Jack Hays]

2016 Election
[h=2]Thousands Of Ted Cruz Supporters Play A Game That Might Win Iowa[/h] By Clare Malone