Free Republic

Sounds like vigilante justice to me, you know, the thing that the Klan used to do.

Are you actually suggesting what the klan is known for is justice? It's one thing to oppose antifa; but to provide moral sanction for the klan is something else entirely.

Outstanding! It's a fine idea to use RICO lawsuits to undermine state sovereignty. What are your thoughts on the 10th amendment?

What have I said that is incorrect and what is your evidence for refuting it? I have yet to see "charts, links and graphs".

Personally I like Cruz but I don't believe deception is a convincing political argument, nor do I believe that Cruz is opposed to the trade agreements which depend on FTA for passage. This letter is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite history.

Let me refresh your memory www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3303139/posts?q=1&;page=1#1.

I don’t have the time or inclination to go round-and-round with you

Thank you for acknowledging that I am correct.

I followed this issue closely and have commented on a number of the threads here related to it. I realize that Ted Cruz voted against FTA the 2nd time. But to suggest that he is “firmly against fast track” is an outright lie. I know this because I spent the better part of a week lambasting him for supporting it! As much as you would like to deny this you cannot honestly do so.

Obviously I don't have as much of a financial interest as the president of a large industry association. However, I do very clearly recall that Ted Cruz was strongly supportive of fast track and had numerous articles on his campaign website to explain his support (several were posted here). It wasn't until the very end that he changed his vote because of “corrupt Washington backroom deal-making”. In case you have forgotten he also voted for fast track the first time it went through the senate. Don't know about you but I would not call this “firmly against fast track” as the letter states.

You can’t exactly say “Sen. Ted Cruz stood firmly against fast track.” In fact he was a proponent. While I’m glad he came around on this I suspect his vote had more to do with backroom dealing and strong opposition than the substance of the trade agreements.

Seems silly. He’s attacking Jeb’s #1 issue, illegals. I don’t see how that helps Jeb. And I don’t think it’s a surprise that Jeb’s numbers have fallen, especially since Trump got in the race.

It makes perfect sense. Those who place a high priority on anti-immigration would not support Jeb anyway. He is there to suck up (conservative leaning) votes from candidates other than Jeb. He doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected and he will likely drop out once enough candidates have been eliminated. Just like Newt.

I’m inclined to believe this, just like Newt in 2012.

They’re not whores they’re pimps.

I know of 2 small business owners that can’t find some that wants to W O R K..they all be wanting the $$$ but not put out the work effort.

I suggest they suggest they reevaluate their compensation package if they wish to attract quality applicants. You get what you pay for.

Maybe it was a mistake. But you know damn well that if you or I had done this with personal property it would result in a contempt charge.

Price controls are bad in a free market. Although in case you missed it, the health care industry we have is not what one could accurately describe as free market.

The following came from a WSJ article a few months ago.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/pharmaceutical-companies-buy-rivals-drugs-then-jack-up-the-prices-1430096431

On Feb. 10, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. bought the rights to a pair of life-saving heart drugs. The same day, their list prices rose by 525% and 212%.

Early last year, Mallinckrodt PLC paid $1.4 billion for Cadence Pharmaceuticals, though the Ofirmev pain injections that were the crown jewel of the deal were projected to have just $110.5 million in 2013 revenue, according to a Mallinckrodt conference call with analysts discussing the deal. Three months later, the list price for a package of 24 Ofirmev vials jumped almost 2½ times to $1,019.52, according to health-care data firm Truven Health Analytics, which publishes average wholesale prices based on information from drug companies.

Horizon Pharma PLC upped the price of Vimovo pain tablets after buying the rights from AstraZeneca in late 2013. On Jan. 1, 2014, its first day selling Vimovo, Horizon raised the list price for 60 tablets to $959.04, a 597% increase, according to Truven.

The PhRMA argument that their pricing is necessary for research is simply not true in many cases. What is true is that over the past five years this industry has outperformed the S&P by 3.5:1. This is simply another tool in the transfer of wealth from the shrinking middle class to the 1%. I’m not a fan of price controls or intervention in free markets Venezuela is a prime example of how this works. However the way things are structured now is not going to turn out well for us. The American consumer cannot afford to subsidize the entire world’s price controls.

Answer this drug warriors: Do you think the Federal government has a right to tell you what you may or may not consume? If you do, please tell me where in the Constitution that government right is located.

I think it's past time for a serious discussion on The merits of social conservatism verses constitutional conservatism. It seems to me that the former takes nearly as much interest in controlling behavior as the typical statist.

The GOPE controls the levers of power of the Republican Party.

This was demonstrated by their change to convention rules following the last election. Any candidate that is accepted by the party has already been vetted to toe their line which is oligarchy. The candidate who is sincere about challenging their corruption will be shunned. If you ever witness this that is the man who deserves our vote.

I may draw some heat here but the Libertarian party is constitutionally conservative. Obviously that platform doesn’t resonate well with the social conservatives. What you are suggesting is a social conservative (first) party. I agree that it is necessary to define and prioritize platforms though.

Here’s the problem. Much of the previous discussion over the past week degenerated into name calling when the talking points were questioned. There was, and still continues to be, attempts to misdirect the debate from treaties to Cruz’s position. Perhaps I’ve become cynical and untrusting but I do not put faith in ANY politician. Most of the support for FTA had little to do with TPP/TiSA/TTIP but was based solely on Ted’s talking points. If you were in this category you deserve to be sheared like the sheep you are. What I find amazing is how far this rhetoric went.

The biggest problem with politics is that we tend to view it akin to sports. You root for the home team regardless. This is why we have politicians that are largely unresponsive and a congress with a 15% approval rating. I’m pleased that Cruz has come around on this issue in spite of the fact that his excuses are a poor attempt to save face. It still shows that politicians can still be influenced by we the people. It makes no difference how intelligent a person is if they allow their reason to be subrogated to a politician’s talking points. Hopefully we can learn from this.

I believe that any argument which relies on the state interest is dependent on the premise that we exist to serve or benefit the state. This is a backwards proposition, government exists to benefit us. Law should be for our interest rather than the state. Simply put, an argument that relies on state interest is statism.

Additionally, we have some trouble-makers whose only goal is to try and damage Ted Cruz whom they see as a threat to their candidate as well. These aren't interested in learning or even an honest debate.

Speaking of honest debates you're primary argument for this seems to be that Ted Cruz supports it. Do you have anything better to offer?

Good info, but alas - many won’t let facts get in the way of their knee-jerk attempts to take down the most conservative choice we’ve had in decades...

This is not about trolling Cruz it’s about holding our politicians accountable. Yes, I have criticized his position on trade and the Freedom act because I believe they are wrong. I’m also under the impression the consensus here would agree with me concerning these issues. I find it sad and at times infuriating that some of us refuse to question Cruz about these votes yet have no problem criticizing Obama, the GOPe, or any other dem over the same issues. This is highly hypocritical. It is also this mentality that has given us a congress of unresponsive politicians and allowed the GOPe to flourish.

I like Cruz and would like to see him as president… but only to the extent he is able to legislate in my interest. As Americans we have a duty to correct our politicians when they go astray. Our failure to do so is the leading cause of dysfunction in government. I am not suggesting you drop support for the man. But quit trying to defend his position when it is wrong! Call him out for it before he turns into just another career politician serving his own interests like so many others.