Criticize Senator Ted Cruz’s bid for Republican nomination

Brandeis University's The Justice Student Newspaper ^ | March 31, 2015 | Abe Clark

[2ndDivisionVet]

Let's all play "Spot The Errors" with this one.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Texas Senator Ted Cruz set off a media firestorm last week by becoming the first to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2016.

Media CDS.

[__rvx86]

But these are the same types who WOULD support a far-left Ted Cruz...worse than Warren?

[a fool in paradise]

Tell President "I won" that he lost the mid-term elections and must bow to the popular electorate in this country. He's more willing to negotiate with the Taliban, terrorists, Communists, et al than he is willing to negotiate with the GOP.

Harry Reid never considered the bills passed by the Republican led house. Barry now stands alone as THE Party of NO.

[urbanpovertylawcenter]

Abe Clark, not anyone’s definition of your average douche bag.

[DaxtonBrown]

Ummm. it’s okay for Obama not to compromise, but when ted does it, it is evil.

[nopardons]

Never forget that Bandeis also unasked Hirsi Ali, to speak, because she just isn’t on the right side, what with speaking against the Muslim terrorist and female mutilation.

[Vendome]

“... in general: being “muddled” by a willingness to compromise is actually a trait we should pursue in a potential president”

Really?

So, show me a few instances where the current resident has exemplified this “so called” trait...

[P-Marlowe]

As a senator, and now as a candidate, Cruz represents an undoing of all the progress we’ve made over the last eight years

Music to my ears!

Cruz 2016!!!!!!!!!!!

[Deagle]

Ah, if not for the negative statements and just plain awful reviews by the leftist media, what would we have to talk about...heh. They just provide the fodder for rebellion!

[2ndDivisionVet]

If Mr. Obama has been in office for eight years, isn’t his time up?

[nathanbedford]

when health and life expectancy were a matter of finances

Which is exactly as it should be. The allocation of resources should be done by the free market wherever possible. Some people make intelligent choices and extend their life expectancy, others are imprudent and leave themselves bereft of the resources needed to obtain healthcare. If we intrude the government into this process we generate unintended consequences, we subsidize profligacy and punish frugality.

The way we allocate goods and services in a free-market economy is by giving every individual a choice and a vote. The individual as consumer casts his vote by spending his dollars or refraining from spending his dollars and so directly exercises influence over the market. His influence, of course, is not perfect or complete but it is far more perfect and more complete than it is if it were reduced to a one-time appearance in a voting booth to elect someone else to make that decision for him for the next two, four or six years.

Finances are also indicia of worthiness. Poor people are often sick because they made bad choices concerning their finances and they tend to make bad choices about their lifestyle. Losers make bad choices. So what Obamacare does is doubly harmful: it distorts the market by punishing frugality and rewarding profligacy and it also relieves the imprudent of the consequences of their actions. In other words, if a hypothetical alcoholic such as Frank Gallagher were to be given a new liver he is enabled to continue his drinking at public expense.

As Obamacare and leftist nostrums in general distort the marketplace, Nathan Bedford's maxim kicks in: the remedy for failed socialism is invariably more socialism. So not only will the government tax more and spend more to solve the problems they've created, the government will restrict our liberties in order to compel behavior. It will tell Frank Gallagher that he may not drink or it will tell the obese they may not eat because to treat their alcoholism or their diabetes will drive up the costs of healthcare. Once the government assumes the right to intrude into the marketplace and allocate healthcare instead of allowing the marketplace to do it, the government pretends it has justification to take away liberty. So we lose the right to smoke, drink soft drinks, eat carbohydrates, or enjoy a traditional school lunch.

The process of allocation of resources by the government does not stop with distorting the insurance marketplace or with depriving us of our liberties, inevitably the government will deprive us of healthcare-the very excuse for Obamacare in the first place. The government will decide whether the aged get new hips, whether stage IV cancer patients get expensive drugs, whether Frank Gallagher gets his new liver. Sarah Palin's death panels are simply inevitable and in the view of the left, desirable.

Yes, health and life expectancy should be matters of personal liberty because to deprive us of our liberty to finance our own health care is indecent.

[Candor7]

The article pans the deaths in Sandy Hook without even mentioning the 2nd amendment. If any teacher or adult there had been carrying, the kid wouldn’t have gotten past go.

Why are these left liberals so stupid?

[2ndDivisionVet]

"...where a shooter used a legally-purchased gun to kill 20 school children and six adult staff members..."

If you'll remember, Adam Lanza didn't "legally purchase" those firearms, his mother did. He murdered her and stole them.

[nopardons]

That he did and anyone still attempting to use the Sandy Hook killing spree as a way to knock Cruz, is a mental midget.

[Candor7]

That is correct, the spin continues. Poor Adam Lanza ( sarc.)

[a fool in paradise]

Obama was the one who put the shutdown in place.

And then Obama was the one who shut down publicly visible landmarks and open spaces out of spite. He spent money to erect “Barrycades” and he’d planned to do so before Ted Cruz ever fillibustered.

[a fool in paradise]

2 years as a Senator.

[2ndDivisionVet]

You think Abe is counting that or is just a dumb*** who sucks at math like he fails at writing?

[OneWingedShark]

Ummm. it’s okay for Obama not to compromise, but when ted does it, it is evil.

There is a saying: compromise between good and evil always is to evil's advantage.

If you're operating under the assumption that Obama is evil, and Cruz is good, then applying the above Obama's compromising benefits evil just as Cruz's compromising does.