/johnny
Intelligent conservatives ought to be able to discuss any subject under the sun moon and stars, regardless of how contentious it is. That has always been the way of this forum as long as I've been coming here.
Putting an entire subject off limits for mere discussion isn't exactly an attribute of a free republic, or a free people.
I certainly don't believe that Jim Rob would yank someone's account for simply discussing the subject of NBC, as regards Ted Cruz, though I think there's a strong likelihood that he'd zot a poster if they insisted upon arguing that Ted Cruz is ineligible to hold the office of President.
In the overall sense of this country's near-term future, such arguments are tantamount to treason against the greatest good for our people, and the bedrock foundational principles upon which the nation was conceived and founded.
I get that.
In my view, Ted Cruz exemplifies the sort of citizen the Framers intended to hold the office of President. In his short time in office, he's proven beyond doubt that he embodies the very best of the essential American character. Next to Governor Sarah Palin, I've seen no one better.
If he chooses to run for President in 2016, or joins a ticket with Governor Palin at the top, I'll be his most ardent supporter.
For myself, I've had to set aside the word wrangling and more arcane definitions of citizenship to take a deeper view of what a Ted Cruz presidency would mean for the republic. I've asked myself, 'What would the Framers do?' I believe they'd take the measure of the man and pronounce him eminently fit for office.