Posted on 09/09/2015 2:30:16 PM PDT by AJFavish
I’m not a U. S. Senator and I wouldn’t have been seeking a next move. Having already failed my duty, why would I?
I'm surprised that such a senior and esteemed FReeper would say such a thing!
Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute. The SENATE doesn't require 2/3 approval, the CONSTITUTION does.
The Corker "law" is such foolishness I can't believe anybody here even discusses it.
Since it pretends to do what a law cannot, it is simply a nullity.
Its just a bit early to be making earthshaking statements about tne NEW potus....at least for my money.
I KNOW that were Ted Cruz Elected...he might suggest that while Obama had his pen and his phone...that he has a “political” “MACHETE” and the will to use it.
Slash And Burn!!!
Ah DO, I’m disappointed - that was a short career. -:)
You voted against the agreement, so you did your duty — but in that you lost, you give up and let Iran have the bomb?
Jim, I don’t have an argument with you on the point you raise.
Where I have a problem related to that argument is that Cruz voted in the affirmative on a bill designed to do just what you cay it can’t.
Why in the Sam Hell would he vote for it then. Ted should know better than anyone what you mentioned here is true. Why would he vote for the bill then?
Vin, Cruz voted for it.
Deal with it.
I already have.
So he would be able to say:
"Having voted on the prevailing side of the bill, I move that this body now reconsider its previous action on this measure"...?
What does that gain you when the bill is already passed, and you’ve got Mitch McConnell leading your team?
You don’t vote for bad legislation, if you’re against it.
And keep one of Romney’s promises: a universal, permanent waiver for Obamacare. But those are the things we do after lunch (but before dinner.)
Now DO- Cruz voted for it- that’s a matter of record. I accept that- and have absolutely no problem with it.
What I don’t ascribe to is the maniacal ravings of some who say that, because he voted for the agreement, he’s (1) establishment; (2) COC; (3) pro-Iran or (4) any other such nonsense. This guy’s a patriot- more than you, me or anyone else on the board.
The reality is:
1. We are dealing with a lawless president, backed by Dems and unopoosed by the GOP.
2. Whether it’s a treaty, agreement or whatever else one wants to label it is irrelevant, — because this President will bypass Congress.
Now, within those parameters, Ted Cruz, and a couple of others, are trying to scuttle the deal. It is absolutely incredible to me that people on the board are castigating the one guy who is putting himself on the line to fight against Iran getting the bomb.
Now, to the extent you think my reaction constitutes “spin”, I can assure you, respectfully, that I don’t care who you, or anyone else on the board, wants to vote for in the primary.
I’m only defending an honorable man who is fighting an honorable fight— how he chooses to fight it— is up to him.
But, I certainly will defend him against those keyboard generals, who have no answers and aren’t involved in the fight, but instead, sit back and spew out venom at the very man trying to defend their freedoms.
You do, if you know that your side will lose the vote anyway, with or without your vote, but you are reserving your right to bring back the bill and disable or kill it in the future.
VinL, we all come to our keyboards to discuss what politicians have done. Now that I bring up an issue regarding Cruz that’s somehow reduced to being a key-board general?
Was I a keyboard general when I addressed things McCain, Clinton, Romney, and Obama had done?
What is this forum for, if we can’t address what our candidates have done. Literally hundreds of issues have been brought up about Trump. Were the folks who brought them up just key-board generals?
Sometimes it’s best to just agree that what your guy did was wrong and leave it at that. All the defense in the world isn’t going to explain it away, and in the end it just appears that the candidate was trying to have it both ways. Vote for making it easier to approve of the Iran deal, and then professing to be one of the loudest voice against it.
“No(xW) DO- Cruz voted for it- that’s a matter of record. I accept that- and have absolutely no problem with it.
Okay, then every time someone on our side votes for something they shouldn’t, I guess we’re supposed to immediately assume they know more than us and collectively issue a “NEVER MIND” order, so we have perfect harmony.
Well, not going to operate by those rules.
When someone on our side screws up, I’m going to be talking about it.
If that makes me a Leftist in your eyes, so be it.
Let me know how that works out...
I don’t believe in it.
It’s just another tool in the parliamentary procedure “toolbox” under Mason’s rules. It’s the way it is, and there’s nothing wrong with it.
Believe it or not, it’s just another one of those facts...like the Sun rises in the East.
I don’t know if it’s going to work out or not, but he’s not just sitting back with the spineless weenies and doing nothing.
The problem I have with this logic, is that we can never again take anyone to task for voting for bad legislation, because they can all claim it was only a ploy.
Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, it just doesn’t matter what they vote for, because after all they are only doing it so they can come back and ask for a review.
That’s silly.
The bill was approved 98 to 1.
I guess the only guy who voted against it is the real bad guy here.
Nope.
Are you the one who thanked me for a donation a few days ago?
I am reading your posts on several threads and you are reiterating the same thing repeatedly.
I take it you do not like Ted Cruz. After reading your personal page, I am somewhat surprised. Oh well, you can’t tell everyone by intuition.
As they say, you’re entitled.
in the end it just appears that the candidate was trying to have it both ways. Vote for making it easier to approve of the Iran deal, and then professing to be one of the loudest voice against it.
**************
No, if he wanted it both ways, he would have voted against it, and it would have passed away.
Secondly, he is not “professing to be one of the loudest voices against it (the agreement)”; just the opposite, he’s trying to enforce it. He knew Obama would breach the agreement by not revealing all of the deal, which puts Obama in violation of federal law. Cruz, a top flight attorney, set this up-— McCarthy in National Review said that today.
You,just tonight, were given an opportunity to explain how you would go about stopping Obama, and you punted, you gave up.
Cruz, on the other hand, has taken the unwinnable hand— and turned it into a winner.
No one said you’re a leftist— you’re merely being myopic—
Cruz is taking on Obama, the left and the GOP at their own game-— you’re just not seeing it.
By the way, if there were no Corker bill, Obama would have released the frozen funds to Iran in July.
See my post 37
Maris, I don’t think it’s reasoned to take one candidate to task for things he has done, then get weak kneed where it comes to what other candidates have done.
I have stated that I still support Cruz for the V.P. slot on Trump’s ticket, but I am willing to be honest about what took place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.