Nope, I make them for free as a form of contribution. I see a bunch of people on twitter using this one as an avatar.
Posted on 09/30/2015 3:19:01 PM PDT by VinL
CALLER:...Out of all the conservative candidates that we have, which do you think -- and I'm deliberately choosing my words this way. Which do you think is the most hostile and intolerant toward liberalism?
RUSH: Well, can I rephrase that? Because those words "hostile" and "intolerant" do not describe the person that I would answer that question about. I know what you mean. You really want to know who among other candidates is most anti-liberal, is the most opposed to liberalism as part of his existence, policy and everything else? And there's one clear answer. Put your hand up if you know who it is. Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is the answer to your question, Roberto. If you're looking for the Republican candidate who is the most steadfastly opposed to liberalism, whose agenda is oriented toward stopping it and thwarting it and defeating it, it is Ted Cruz.
If that's your criteria.
Now, if you want to ask, "Does that make him the most conservative?" That's another question. To a lot of people, that alone would make him the most conservative candidate of the bunch, too. The two probably do go together. But it doesn't mean he's the only one. There are some other candidates who are also anti-liberal in our field, both generally and issue to issue. But blanket, overall, I mean, an honest answer to your question would be Ted Cruz, pure and simple. Very clever of you, Roberto. I understand what you're doing out there, buddy. It's a very, very clever maneuver. You are a brilliant, brilliant caller out there. I know exactly what your game is, and I went ahead and played anyway. I answered your question right up front, top to bottom.
If Cruz got Rush Limbaugh to say something complimentary about him, that is quite a feat, since Rush has mentioned his name hardly at all, much to my disappointment. So you might say he picked up an important follower there.
The fact that he mentioned him in a way that really helps him...calling him such a dedicated conservative...is icing on the cake.
I am going to attempt something here, even though I don’t think it will work:
The Constitution has not changed at all regarding “Treaties.” What is necessary to pass them has not changed. What has changed, to the disgrace of congress for some time, is they allowed treaties to be called something else...agreements, deals, understandings, etc.
I understand there have been such euphemistically named bills on 123 occasions. Until we face the semantics on this, we can not solve the problem. As John Kerry stated
“It’s impossible to pass a treaty.” Ergo, let’s change the name of the bill. That is, in my opinion, the disgrace.
If I am wrong, it is not beneath me to apologize.
Very nice graphic :)
I only heard about 5 minutes today, but I did hear that. And Rush is soo right.
...damndest thing....without a doubt Cruz is more in line ideologically with Rush, Levin, Hannity, etc - you'd think this would be a slam dunk.
“The Constitution has not changed at all regarding “Treaties.”
No it hasn’t; it took the Corker bill to make an end-run around the Constitutional treaty protection.
“Actually, he’s not. He’s building a formidable grass roots army and organization. He’s a lawyer and a master debater. By training, he methodically and assiduously builds his case. Wait for the trial, then we’’ll see who wins.”
Playing along with your analogy, I am afraid that the prosecution has struck a plea deal with the client, while the attorney is — like you said — still methodically and assiduously building his case for the trial.
HA! That's a fact. In all my years here I have found there is but a small, stalwart band of rock-ribbed Conservatives... And those whom they are willing to vote for will win... And those whom they won't vote for lose. Doesn't matter about the din... It doesn't have anything to do with the hue and cry. I don't see many of those folks voting for anyone but Cruz.
It's too bad, too... It keeps FR from doing what it's supposed to do - Support Conservatism. People say Cruz can't get traction. The blame for that resides right here on FreeRepublic.
Dear Lord you two....it takes about 2 seconds to find the answer to this question you’ve been beating the hell out of for weeks.
And just try and tell me that Cruz has been weak on Iran.
BTW, it passed 98-1 so maybe you guys are making a mountain out of an ant hill?
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-why-i-voted-yes-for-corker-iran-bill/
Good thing Cruz has more than that alone going for him. Including enough campaign cash to compete for the nomination.
“You don’t get away with that- answer the question— is Obama in violation of the Iran Agreement. Yes or no?”
Yes, according to Andrew McCarthy. He was in violation WHEN Cruz and the Republicans voted for the bill, therefore, since they had full understanding of all circumstances, their “yes” vote ratified his violation. The agreement is in effect unless and until another president gets in with the will to change things.
But the sanctions are over, which was Obama’s goal. Now, Iran can use the money to further terrorism, develop their nuclear program, among other things.
Playing along with your analogy, I am afraid that the prosecution has struck a plea deal with the client, while the attorney is
****************
Respectfully, you need to take time to reconsider your reply-— in this case, the client and the attorney are one in the same.
I would not say I’m making any mountain out of this...
It just irks me a bit, but understanding more does soothe the issue.
Indeed, irrespective of post .25, and like explanations, I made another donation to Cruz just yesterday.
The bottom line for me is, Ted, the first entrant, is the ONLY one of the bunch who really understands how federalism is supposed to work, understands Constitutional fine points, and has any, IMHO, shot at jerking this leviathan back to Article-1 Section-8 size.
that was mostly directed at the other guy - a boring mindless one note samba.
The fact is, the Corker Bill passed 98-1. That means a lot of good senators saw just enough in the bill to vote for it. So it didn’t matter what Cruz did. BTW, Cruz did fight for an amendment to the bill that would have made it much better. That amendment did not pass, but he may have had to make some concessions to help his amendment.
The bottom line, what is the Corker Bill about? IRAN! Is anyone really saying there’s a better Senator than Cruz in Iran? No, no one is saying that.
Yep... but there are plenty here that would trade principle for expediency... Populism is the death of principle.
Remember that we are both trying to fit the legal analogy to the political setting. Here, the “client” is the conservative base. While the “attorney” Cruz is preparing for the long trial, the client has compromised and chosen the “plea deal” (Trump), which looks appealing enough. After all, the base has “no choice” but to overlook bad aspects of Trump (i.e. latent liberalism barring the immigration issue).
.
>> “If you can’t get others to follow, it doesn’t accomplish much” <<
.
Pure straw!
Cruz is the only one that has accomplished anything at all in defense of our liberties, and he has done much, all of it in the cases he has argued before the SCOTUS.
If it were not for the genius and perseverance of Cruz, we would be under the venue of the world court, and the people of Washington D.C. would probably still be unable to have guns.
.
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.