Two Of The GOP's Top Presidential Prospects Are Engaged In A Very Public Feud

Business Insider ^ | March 10, 2014 | Brett LoGiurato

[Mariner]

On Saturday, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference by a landslide for the second consecutive year. Conservative firebrand Texas Sen. Ted Cruz came in second, but he actually gained the most ground of any candidate year-over-year.

On Sunday, Cruz began making a play to draw foreign policy distinctions between himself and Paul, both of whom are considered two of the GOP's top presidential prospects.

"I'm a big fan of Rand Paul. He and I are good friends," Cruz said on ABC's "This Week" Sunday. "I don't agree with him on foreign policy. I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world. And I agree with him that we should be very reluctant to deploy military force abroad. But I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did. ... The United States has a responsibility to defend our values."

Cruz's comments came two days after Paul thrilled the CPAC audience by blasting President Barack Obama's drone policy. However, Paul didn't mention the preeminent ongoing geopolitical conflict — the crisis in Ukraine.

Paul's noninterventionist views on foreign policy have attracted a libertarian-leaning crowd. In the CPAC straw poll, 57 percent of respondents, when asked about the U.S.'s "role in the world," identified with this statement: "N early 70 years after the end of World War II, it's time for our European, Asian and other allies to provide for their own defense."

Only 37 percent, on the other hand, agreed with this statement: " As the world's only superpower, the U.S. needs to continue to bear the responsibility of protecting our allies in Europe, Asia and other parts of the world."

[ansel12]

If you were not opposing conservatism, then you would be one.

A Libertarian is someone who rejects much of conservatism.

There is no denying that, but only you can tell us the list of social issues that you are left on, and that won’t happen.

Mariner is a rarity among libertarians, he is being somewhat honest about his politics.

[Theodore R.]

If Romney wasn’t enough for you, they’re trotting out Jebbie in 2016.

[Mariner]

From what I can tell even the most Socially Conservative candidate of 2012, Rick Santorum, supported DADT.

Did you vote for ANYONE in the GOP in 2012 for POTUS? In the primaries?

https://news.yahoo.com/santorum-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-foolish-024446697.html;_ylt=A0SO81ADgB5TO2EATrxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzOHI4cGloBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM3N18x

He said he would not expel the openly homo soldier who asked the question.

[ansel12]

You should remember that was a description of Romney’s politics, issues that you didn’t think were very significant in choosing a candidate.

Since you support open homosexuals in the military and praised their service with you, as a libertarian, would you forbid them spousal rights that are granted to married heterosexuals?

[Mariner]

Are you suggesting I would, or did support either of those guys?

You're just taking a cheap shot based on emotion and a one-liner somewhere.

[ansel12]

So you are for Clinton’s gay military.

Since you support open homosexuals in the military and praised their service with you, as a libertarian, would you forbid them spousal rights that are granted to married heterosexuals?

[little jeremiah]

I have studied the homosexual agenda since the mid to late 80s.

You, otoh, are on the side of lefitst and homosexual activists, and the “president”, who favors homosexuals, to advance the pervert agenda, and destroy the military.

I guess you’re not familiar with the facts (or more likely, don’t want to know them), but for those who are interested in the real affect of mentally ill sex perverts in the military, there are links in the link below, and an article at the link. Very informative, in direct opposition to your comments, which are nothing but pro-fag nonsense.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608306/posts?page=1#1

[Mariner]

"Since you support open homosexuals in the military and praised their service with you, as a libertarian, would you forbid them spousal rights that are granted to married heterosexuals?"

I am exasperated as to why you keep putting words in my mouth.

I said I supported DADT. Get it?

And I didn't say those issues were not very significant, did I?

I'm starting to think you're not smart enough to understand the words you read...or you have an agenda to slander those you don't agree with.

And hell yes I would deny them "spousal rights". I don't support the Feds being involved in marriage, at all.

The feds don't have to grant "spousal rights" to anyone. Hetero or homo.

And, are you going to answer my question about whether you placed a POTUS vote in 2012?

[Hugh the Scot]

I’ve quite clearly defined my “libertarianism”. As I recall it elicited a derisive laugh followed by a non-sequitur.

How does this suit you? Every argument that you’ve made against homosexuals serving in the military, could equally be used by the left as an argument to exclude Catholics.

I deplore homosexuality as a sin against God and a crime against nature. However, I did serve honorably (and alongside some homos). Their homosexuality affected my service not one whit. They carried their weapons the same way I carried mine. Does this mean that two men can ever make a marriage? Hell no. The government has nothing to do with what marriage is. My issue with your brand of conservatism is that it grants government authority over matters that government can’t be trusted to handle.

[GAFreedom]

Personally, I don't think the US Military should be used to "defend our values". That's what we did in Kosovo and Libya...darn near in Syria. I think that's both silly and dangerous. I believe we should focus instead on defending our critical interests.

That's my take on things. Let's take care of us first; if we do that, most everything else sorts itself out. Excepting treaties; I'm a stickler for abiding by those. You can't trust someone who doesn't stick to an agreed deal, and that goes for nations too.

[ansel12]

So you did come out for homosexualizing the military, a left position, a libertarian position.

You are wrong about government and marriage, the people who founded this nation didn’t see it that way, and they did not want the Muslims, and later Mormons, dictating marriage law.

Of course, if you don’t care about legal marriage you didn’t have to marry legally, in fact, you still don’t, legal marriage is only for those who care about the government accepting their marriage, people like Jefferson and Washington.

Congress of course has been making laws regarding marriage since 1780, constitutionally I imagine, at least by the standards of 1780 and 1784, 1798, etc.

[ansel12]

You told us about the open homosexuals that you served with under DADT, which isn’t the policy anyway, the next democrat president finished the job that DADT was meant to do, mission accomplished.

DADT was only meant to serve as a temporary delay, a public relations thing, but you must have known that.

You keep slipping around the marriage issue, again, federal law HAS to address marriage at the federal level, for instance for military personnel.

Would you ever grant homosexual military the same spousal rights as heterosexual members?

[Hugh the Scot]

You seem to be suffering from a serious comprehension problem. I certaimly did not advocate for homosexualizing the military.

Beyond that, you do seem to be making my point rather well. congress has been making laws regarding marriage since 1780, and they STILL don’t have it straight.

Nice job of avoiding the main point though. While your positions on abortion and homos and whatnot may be absolutely correct; what, under your preferred set of rules, stops the leftists in your all- powerful government from deciding at some point that homosexuality is the PREFERRED situation? Congress could just pass another law, right? Constitutional limits on government power is the only answer.

[Mariner]

"You told us about the open homosexuals that you served with"

It was two and they were open, but one was sure light in the loafers and fairly obvious to anyone with gaydar.

It was later confirmed at a ship reunion in Las Vegas when he was fairly open about it.

The other was a woman who, anyone could tell, was trying to be a man.

I don't buy your contention that federal law has to address marriage. If the military doesn't address marriage at all, the members could sign a form indicating where they want their insurance to go to, and could also claim a dependent for housing etc.

So no, I am opposed to Federal sanction or interference in marriage in all cases.

Again, did you cast a vote in the POTUS Primaries or General election? If you did, you cast a vote for a supporter of DADT.

Right?

[Pelham]

Agree

[ansel12]

Every argument that you’ve made against homosexuals serving in the military, could equally be used by the left as an argument to exclude Catholics. I deplore homosexuality as a sin against God and a crime against nature. However, I did serve honorably (and alongside some homos). Their homosexuality affected my service not one whit. They carried their weapons the same way I carried mine.

You have a strange way of arguing against homosexuals in the military, and I have no idea what you meant about Catholics, nor even what arguments that I have made on the reasons for keeping homosexuals out of the military, I didn't think that we would even need to get started on explaining How homosexuality in the military hurts us.

Now you want to waste time pretending that we should be discussing just ending marriage period, the true libertarian position of whatever.

People can do whatever now, but you know very well that you won't be removing societally recognized, legal marriage in America.

[freedomfiter2]

I wouldn’t alienate the libertarians. They are a lot closer to conservatives than the big government crony capitalist elites.

[freedomfiter2]

Some libertarian positions are to the right of conservatives.Think conscription and excessive eminent domain.

[ansel12]

I served with some dedicated, patriotic and effective homos.

You kind of stretched that it seems, in your push for the gay agenda.

You also keep refusing to answer about equal recognition for gay service members marriages.

You want to hide behind something impossible politically, and militarily, and that has never existed in America, for the military to ignore and not acknowledge the families of the military personnel.

Every GI treated as single, every base built for the single, every retired military treated as single, every death treated as the death of a single>

You are searching the world of bizarre fantasy for such a fantastical change in America and the American military, as a way to avoid revealing how liberal you really are, it is a silly evasion.