Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rep. Peter King fears Ted Cruz, Rand Paul stronger
Politico ^ | June 11, 2014 | JONATHAN TOPAZ

Posted on 06/11/2014 6:23:04 PM PDT by lilyramone

Rep. Peter King on Wednesday said the Republican Party cannot allow Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to take over following House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s defeat. “We can’t allow Eric’s defeat last night allow the Ted Cruzes and the Rand Pauls to take over the party, or their disciples to take over the party,” the moderate New York Republican said on MSNBC.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: ira; sinnfein; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last
To: Gene Eric

What a time wasting troll, you had just acknowledged that he was pro-choice on another thread, even as you were refusing to admit it here, and avoided admitting it.

To: Gene Eric
**Really? I thought the Paul family was Pro-Life?**

Rand Paul is pro life for himself and pro choice for everyone else.
His most recent position was the same as Nancy Pelosi’s.
Look it up.
64 posted on 6/12/2014 1:13:08 PM by P-Marlowe

To: P-Marlowe
I believe you. Thanks.
66 posted on 6/12/2014 1:15:12 PM by Gene Eric (Don’t be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies

To: Gene Eric
**The Paul family is unambiguously Pro Life.**
No they aren’t, and you have had that proven to you, so why post a falsehood?
Rand Paul is all over the place on abortion, and is clearly not what we consider pro-life.
49 posted on 6/12/2014 1:18:09 PM by ansel12


61 posted on 06/12/2014 2:53:57 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Seriously? That’s what you were referring to when you mentioned something was “proven” to me?


62 posted on 06/12/2014 3:14:18 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

You can’t read posts 37 and 51 and see that they are a transcript from a CNN interview with Rand Paul?

The man who you now admit is pro-choice?

Libertarians and their endless, dishonesty and games.


63 posted on 06/12/2014 3:29:12 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I know the OP posted a Politico story. I have no idea where your CNN references came from.

You indicated Paul’s Life position was “proven” to me. I won’t disagree the “proof” was evident in the dialog you pasted into post #61. I suppose that’s the basis for the “liar” charge given it’s the only recent post on the matter directed to me. Remember, you said it was “proven to [me]”.


64 posted on 06/12/2014 3:46:05 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

We have gone over this, but I’ll try again, you are saying that you never saw what I had posted in post 37 today or on other threads, and didn’t see it on this thread, nor any other factual challenges to Rand being “unambiguously pro-life”?


65 posted on 06/12/2014 3:56:26 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; P-Marlowe; jpsb
courtesy ping to P-Marlowe, jpsb

ansel12, you made a mistake in the posting timeline when you accused me of spreading "falsehoods." That mistake was apparently the basis for your continued charge of branding me a "liar."

What you pasted in #61 is correct; however, you failed to show that a material post of mine, which is the basis for your "falsehood" charge, occurred hours beforehand. I can only suppose you realized this prior to posting #51, but decided to continue your overly aggressive ways shifting the attention away from your oversight. You also referenced another thread, and posted misleading information about the basis for your "liar" charge.

Anyway, enjoy the rest of your day, and stop wasting my time with gratuitous charges of lying.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

ansel12's pasted evidence in #61, but also including my initial statement ansel12 unwittingly omitted.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
this thread

To: jpsb

The Paul family is unambiguously Pro Life.

46 posted on 6/12/2014 2:15:30 AM by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
other thread injected by ansel12 into this thread @ #61

To: P-Marlowe
>> His views on abortion are even worse than his views on immigration.

Really? I thought the Paul family was Pro-Life?

28 posted on 6/12/2014 3:46:22 PM by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
other thread injected by ansel12 into this thread @ #61

To: Gene Eric

Really? I thought the Paul family was Pro-Life?

Rand Paul is pro life for himself and pro choice for everyone else.
His most recent position was the same as Nancy Pelosi’s.
Look it up.

64 posted on 6/12/2014 1:13:08 PM by P-Marlowe

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
other thread injected by ansel12 into this thread @ #61

To: P-Marlowe

I believe you. Thanks.

66 posted on 6/12/2014 1:15:12 PM by Gene Eric (Don’t be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
this thread - see post #61 above.

To: Gene Eric

**The Paul family is unambiguously Pro Life.**
No they aren’t, and you have had that proven to you, so why post a falsehood?
Rand Paul is all over the place on abortion, and is clearly not what we consider pro-life.

49 posted on 6/12/2014 1:18:09 PM by ansel12



66 posted on 06/12/2014 5:03:23 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

I accused you of lying for posting that Rand Paul is unambiguously pro-life, something that we have known is not true for some time here at FR, and your avoidance of correcting yourself.

Now you want to say my cut and pasted posts from the other thread are wrong? How?

I’m just glad that you admitted that Rand Paul is not pro-life, but it would be nice you to retract your claim on this thread now.


67 posted on 06/12/2014 5:32:36 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

What a time wasting troll, you had just acknowledged that he was pro-choice on another thread, even as you were refusing to admit it here, and avoided admitting it.

To: Gene Eric
**Really? I thought the Paul family was Pro-Life?**

Rand Paul is pro life for himself and pro choice for everyone else.
His most recent position was the same as Nancy Pelosi’s.
Look it up.
64 posted on 6/12/2014 1:13:08 PM by P-Marlowe

To: P-Marlowe
I believe you. Thanks.
66 posted on 6/12/2014 1:15:12 PM by Gene Eric (Don’t be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies

To: Gene Eric
**The Paul family is unambiguously Pro Life.**
No they aren’t, and you have had that proven to you, so why post a falsehood?
Rand Paul is all over the place on abortion, and is clearly not what we consider pro-life.
49 posted on 6/12/2014 1:18:09 PM by ansel12

61 posted on 6/12/2014 2:53:57 PM by ansel12


68 posted on 06/12/2014 5:34:32 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

not the ones i know personally. don’t tar us all. he’s a politician and they mostly all move left as they live in lala dc land. i have one foot in both l and r because the l’s taught me more about right to travel, irs corruption, etc. than any conservative i have ever met. maybe it’s just the pa libertarians.


69 posted on 06/12/2014 11:12:06 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kvanbrunt2

You don’t seem to understand, the reason they don’t call themselves “conservative”, is because they oppose conservatism, that is why they call themselves libertarian, because they are to the left of conservatives on many issues, and only share their economics.

Why do you think that Reagan was a conservative and not a libertarian?


70 posted on 06/12/2014 11:16:21 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: kvanbrunt2

To make it more clear, every single position that Rand Paul has moved left on, is him moving closer to the libertarian position on that issue.

It is his libertarianism that he is revealing.


71 posted on 06/12/2014 11:22:58 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

you have outlined some of them. and the immigration thing is DC money. If that is what he is after then... i’m not a fan of rand or his dad. just sayin that “ls” that i know - know more about the law, argue the law and stand up against more government corruption — in court, in protests, in life and are consistent in what they believe — more than anyone else i know personally (and i’ve met the local “rs” here in philly) and they do it giving up their land, money, and time. but i live in philly so to see that is a blessing.


72 posted on 06/12/2014 11:37:05 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: kvanbrunt2

That’s all well and good that we all know some nice democrats and libertarians, but it doesn’t change what those two posts just explained.

Here is the formal libertarian position on immigration.

COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER

IMMIGRATION:
“”THE ISSUE: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

THE PRINCIPLE: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

SOLUTIONS: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

TRANSITIONAL ACTION: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””


73 posted on 06/12/2014 11:40:26 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

sorry your doing L party i’m doing people. are you registered Republican? can i blame you for all the pubbie stuff. including the George W and his goldman saks crap. he couldn’t pick any else to head up treasury? come on. Reagan had a california crowd at least.


74 posted on 06/12/2014 11:47:42 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

party not the actual people i know.


75 posted on 06/12/2014 11:57:06 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: kvanbrunt2

No I’m not a republican, I have no idea what your complaint about Reagan is and the libertarian party is the ideal, individual libertarians measure their purity or lack of it, by how closely they align with it’s positions of libertarian purity.

Libertarians are to the left of conservatives on social issues and national defense, Rand Paul is to the right of most libertarians so far, and yet you seem to agree that he is liberal.

He sure isn’t a conservative.


76 posted on 06/12/2014 11:57:48 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson