Conservative legend Thomas Sowell turns on Ted Cruz

The Daily Caller ^ | 2-19-2014 | Jamie Weinstein

[montag813]

I soured on Cruz when I saw he wanted to “double” legal immigration and greatly increase H1-B visas.

[Sivad]

With all due respect you do not understand that the Founding
Fathers included the framers of the the Constitution and
that document is rife with compromise.

[Olog-hai]

Making such a claim with no examples turns the claim specious, with equal respect.

World leaders remain astounded at the US Constitution’s brilliance, but know that it would mean their statist designs would come to an end if they ever adopted it in earnest.

[Olog-hai]

There would have to be a good reason to do that. Such a move could not be arbitrary.

I was not fond of Cruz’s undue tribute to Mandela myself.

[SeaHawkFan]

Maybe Sowell needs a bit more time to understand that Cruz is the real deal.

[little jeremiah]

Cruz just sided with Soros backed protestors in Ukraine.

And he made another bad judgement about something not long ago...memory ain’t kicking in though.

[little jeremiah]

Was it the wrong side in Syria? I know Rand Paul did, and I think Cruz might have too.

[servo1969]

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/02/19/cruz-control-n1796356/page/full

This is the full article by Sowell in case anyone wants to read it.

[P-Marlowe]

I respect Sowell enough to grant him some consideration- but I am not sure I agree with him on this one.

Not sure if you agree?

What kind of squishy opinion is that. Mark Levin (without mentioning Sowell by name) said his opinion was so far off base that he couldn't believe it.

Apparently Sowell thinks that Boehner and McConnell and Karl Rove and the GOPE are the saviors of the Republic and that Ted Cruz is just standing in their way.

He backtracked in a second opinion today, but the fact of the matter is that Sowell is getting excoriated on all the websites that publish his articles.

Personnally I believe that Sowell owes Ted Cruz a public apology for his Nazi analogy in the first article. If anyone is going to lead us down the road to a totalitarian tyranny it is the squishy cowards like McConnell and Boehner and not the solid courageous patriots like Cruz and Lee.

[Sivad]

Now you are being argumentative for the sake of argument.
Did you skip the 8th grade?

Here we go:
1. The Great Compromise settled the representation dispute by
settling on a bi-cameral (Senate/House) legislature.
2. Southern slaves were treated as 3/5 of a man for the purposes
of population count. That was a compromise.
3. The Northern anti-slave folks agreed to wait until 1807
to address the slave trade issue, a compromise.
4. The relative powers of the 3 branches of government which
emerged was due to compromise.
5. Various agreements involving trade and taxation like
export tariffs were compromises.

I could cite more but you already know. You got caught with
your myopic glasses on and tried to bluff me down. That
won’t work. I am currently in the hospital for an intestine
issue and I have all sorts of time to respond. But try not to
get too silly. I can get bored.

[Olog-hai]

Modern definitions of what were agreed back in the 1780s are somewhat lacking; using the word “compromise” implies that a better solution could have been in the offing. (The three-fifths “compromise” was due to taxation as well as population count, of course.)

Civics classes replacing “republic” with “representative democracy”, with retrospect to my past pre-college education, makes me question everything.

I stand by my statement with respect to the founding fathers. Any compromise when it came to the war of independence, and no USA. (Perhaps it would be interesting to drive a right-hand-drive car on the left side of the road? We still have some railroads that run on the left hand side.)

[Olog-hai]

Back in post 95 you implied that Sowell’s “conservative card” was being “yanked”. Nobody said anything of the sort; rather it looks to me as if he’s voluntarily turning it in.

Also, bringing up the Founding Fathers minor “compromises” with respect to the Constitution is really a canard. Going further back to what I said in post 88 (about the Founding Fathers ideology), whatever tiny “compromises” exist in the US Constitution has nothing to do with their unified ideology about creating the USA as a republic for a moral and religious people. So thanks for the distractive argument. The Dems continue to be ideologically pure out of the Marxist doctrine they continue to push, and that cannot be denied; the only way to fight them is to return to what the Founding Fathers were all about when it comes to the actual foundation of the USA.

[S.O.S121.500]

It just proves that even smart men can be bought off and end up doing the GOPe’s bidding.

My opinion of Thomas Sowell has just plummeted.

---

SHUPNOOB

[House Atreides]

“Oh sure, you’re a genius. That’s why you fail to understand Sowell’s main point, and thusly throw out a LIFETIME of the man’s record based on your interpretation. I don’t necessarily agree with his main point, but he does have one. The difference between you and me is that, for all my possible mental deficiencies, I’m still not dumb enough to throw around silly accusations of Thomas freaking Sowell being a RINO.”
******************************************************************

Mama always said “pay attention to detail”. I DID NOT ACCUSE Sowell of “being a RINO”—he frequently has opinions that are based on a conservative political principles.

What I DID SAY, in effect, is that Sowell has (in the linked article and for God knows what reasons) begun to carry the GOPe’s water for them as he unleashed HIS attacks and accusations against Ted Cruz. And he is using what have been, in essense, GOPe and “mainstream media” talking points in their war on the Tea Party and on Ted Cruz. Those who cannot recognize that MAY be mentally deficient-—or at least deluding themselves.

[House Atreides]

“SHUPNOOB”
****************************
Ahh...very well reasoned and quite persuasive.

[onyx]

I wish I would have seen this posting 130 posts back, because it sure would have been helpful, not to mention fair, to post the the links to original columns by Dr Thomas Sowell, along with the hit piece by the gossipy Daily Caller.

FWIW, I think the good Dr Sowell is mistaken about Senator Cruz, but the Daily Caller is turning into quite a gossipp rag.


Sowell: Cruz Control?
February 18, 2014 | Thomas Sowell


Sowell: Cruz Control? Part II - GOP leaders ignore his appeal at GOP's own peril
February 19, 2014 | Thomas Sowell

[onyx]

"One Voice Silenced, Millions Awakened" on FaceBook wrote the following:

WE have seen Ted Cruz KNEELING in prayer in the front of the White House.

We have seen Ted Cruz STANDING all night, and all alone against Obamacare.

WE have seen Ted Cruz SITTING, while others applauded revealing their soullessness, and utter contempt for the American people.

In each instance Ted Cruz was alone in his statesmanship decorum.

TRUTH in a decadent day usually stands alone.

Those who are standing, and applauding are what our founders feared.

Ted Cruz is what our founders dreamed of.











We are the Sovereigns & the Resistance!
PLEASE Make Your Donation This Morning!

GO MONTHLY, if you possibly and reliably can!

[Olog-hai]

I read those. They are bad enough, and somewhat “gossipy” themselves.

[Sivad]

With your backtracking, your retro-qualifying statement going from
all Founding Fathers to those only associated w/the Declaration of
Ind and your shoddy attempt to characterise “compromise” you
could certainly qualify for a debating team.....a liberal debating team,
unfortunately.

[Olog-hai]

I could say that for you. After all, your discourse on here started with a criticism of so-called ideological “purity” and digressed into “compromise this/that” with no credit due to the foundation of the USA. Are you trying to claim that the USA started as some aimless, ideologically-impure thought experiment?