Essentially, Bob, you've failed as an analyst. Your writing is a long screed about pink elephants. You'll be surprised when Trump wins in November. And even more surprised when he's re-elected because the country has done so well under him.

You'll be focused on every remaining flaw, howling in the wilderness.

On the other hand, we have Ted Cruz. Ted is the polar opposite of Donald Trump. He’s a true believer, doctrinaire, an ideologue with total intolerance and disdain for anything, or anyone who is against his interpretation of conservatism. He is disciplined and works from a script and is analytical.

Ted Cruz entire political career has embraced radical right extremist positions. He has not accomplished much from a legislative standpoint because he frankly does not believe in Government’s ability to do anything. Take a look at his time in the Senate; what has he done other than to take the nation to the fiscal brink for no purpose other than to gain attention?

His interpretations of the Constitution I find alarming especially in light of the fact he is a lawyer. His views on the Second Amendment are some of the most radical views around. He thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a convicted felon, terrorist, or mentally ill. Thankfully, his views are minority views even among gun owners.

In other words, Cruz is a real conservative. The author got one thing right: that does make him the polar opposite of Donald Trump.

His [Cruz'] interpretations of the Constitution I find alarming especially in light of the fact he is a lawyer. His views on the Second Amendment are some of the most radical views around. He thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a convicted felon, terrorist, or mentally ill. Thankfully, his views are minority views even among gun owners.

Gee Bob, if you are going to make stuff up, why did you stop where you did? Why not go on to assert Cruz thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a prison inmate? When you are just making stuff up, go for the gusto!

bob snozzle

Jim Robinson

I was told yesterday that Trump is a liberal Democrat.

My reply:

Build the wall.

Enforce the law.

Deport them all.

End sanctuary cities.

End anchor babies.

Slap a moratorium on muslim immigration.

Cut the taxes.

Cut the spending.

Cut the regulations.

Cut the government.

Cut the debt.

Cut the EPA.

Repeal ObamaCare.

Get the feds out and allow health insurance to be sold over state lines.

Send education back to states.

Get a handle on trade.

Make trade deals in our own best interests.

Bring back capital.

Bring back manufacturing.

Bring back jobs.

Strengthen the economy.

Defend the second amendment.

Defend religious freedom.

Appoint constitutional conservative judges.

Rebuild our military.

Bomb the shit out of ISIS (and take their oil).

End political correctness.

Take the GOP head-on.

Take the media head-on.

Take the liberals head-on.

And win, baby, win.

All of the above on a shoestring budget compared to most of the 16 competitors he’s defeated (after they spent 100's of millions of donor bucks).

No PACs.

No big donors.

No party support.

What’s democrat about any of the above?

What’s not conservative?

What’s not to like?

And I’ll add a few more:

Redo the horrid Iran deal.

Take a serious look at NATO.

Require our allies to pay more for their defense.

Rebuild the Reagan Coalition and attract blue collar workers by making America first again on manufacturing, trade, secure borders, economy and jobs, jobs, jobs!

Make America Great Again!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3421722/posts

Damn Jim !!!

Looks like you nailed it.

This is exactly what I think.

Add restore a free press

15 posted on 04/16/2016 6:29:19 PM PDT by stockpirate

To: stockpirate

“Add restore a free press!”

And to do that, make the press just like the rest of us in terms of being liable for lying. Sue a few of them, and watch how much “more accurate” reporting becomes!

PM PDT by vette6387 (Obama can go to hell!)

Take a look at his time in the Senate; what has he done other than to take the nation to the fiscal brink for no purpose other than to gain attention?

The government was nowhere close to the 'fiscal brink' except for endless government spending will eventually land us on the brink . The fact is that if Congress refuses to use the power of the purse ,it is a powerless institution. Check out how often there was a government shutdown in the past . The irony is that the government probably saved money in those days.

They are popular: that's why he won.

He won because Roger Stone knows how the system is rigged:

"Stone , who going back to his class elections in high school has been a proponent of recruiting patsy candidates to split the other guy’s support..."

“I’m still kind of a neophyte,” Stone admits, “still
kind of thinking everything’s on the level. ’Cause the truth
is, nothing’s on the level.” At a 1979 meeting at Cohn’s Manhattan
townhouse, he was introduced to major mobster and
Cohn client Fat Tony Salerno. “Roy says to Tony, ‘You know,
Tony, everything’s fi xed. Everything can be handled.’ Tony
says, ‘Roy, the Supreme Court?’ Roy says, ‘Cost a few more
dollars.’ ”
http://stonezone.com/docs /WS_RS_article.pdf

Why not go on to assert Cruz thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a prison inmate?

Well, it DOES say "shall not be infringed", and there's no asterisk there that says *unless you're a convicted felon.

In other words, Cruz is a real conservative. The author got one thing right: that does make him the polar opposite of Donald Trump.

That means Cruz doesn't want a wall.

Cruz favors trade deals that sell out American workers.

Cruz doesn't want to make America great.

Cruz doesn't support second amendment.

Cruz wants Muslim refugees to come here.

Cruz wants more Chinese imports.

No wonder lying Ted lost.

The government was nowhere close to the 'fiscal brink' except for endless government spending will eventually land us on the brink . The fact is that if Congress refuses to use the power of the purse ,it is a powerless institution. Check out how often there was a government shutdown in the past . The irony is that the government probably saved money in those days.

Cruz was good on that one.

Trump will cut spending.

Jim Robinson

Hows that ol' geezer doing?

Hows that ol' geezer doing?

looks
like

like
a
lot
people

because
of
the
trump

revolt
revolution

getting

smart
better

love
boris

ps

the
Clintons
will
be
getting
their
just
desserts

whippings

Well, it DOES say "shall not be infringed",

Yes, the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms that the colonists brought with them into the union cannot be infringed. There was no colonial right for a felon, a lunatic, a terrorist, or a prison mate to keep and bear arms. No such right was brought forth into the union by the colonials.

But, but, the amendment says "SHALL NOT be infringed"!

But the amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

What is it that shall not be infringed?

One needs to determine what was intended by the term "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to determine what shall not be infringed. As stated in 1802 and quoted in Lynch v. Clarke in 1844, "The constitution is unintelligible without reference, to the common law."

By the interpretation of some, one must find the Framers intended to protect, and did protect, a right that did not then exist and had never existed in the colonies, the several states or the United States.

It was the colonial common law right to keep and bear arms that was carried forth into the union.

Lynch v. Clarke, New York Legal Observer, Vol 3, 236, 245 (1844)

In 1795, Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in delivering his charge to the grand jury, in the Virginia Circuit, went into an elaborate dissertation on the jurisdiction of the federal courts over crimes, and after enumerating such as he deemed cognizable by the circuit court, he continued as follows: "In the foregoing catalogue, murder, man slaughter, robbery, piracy, forgery, perjury, bribery and extortion, are mentioned as crimes and offences; but they are neither defined nor described. For this reason we must refer to some pre-existing law for their definition or description. To what pre-existing law should this reference be made? This is a question of immence importance and extent. It must receive an answer, but I cannot, in this address, assign my reasons for the answer which I am about to give. The reference should be made to the common law. To the common law then let us resort for the definition or description of the crimes and offences which in the laws of the United States have been named, but have not been described or defined. You will in this manner, gentlemen, be furnished with a legal standard, by the judicious application of which you may ascertain with precision the true nature and qualities of such facts and transactions as shall become the objects of your consideration and research." (3 Wilson's Works, 357, 371.) And in the debates on the judiciary in 1802, to which I have before alluded, Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, in an able speech in the House of Representatives, said on this subject, (what was not disputed, so far as facts were concerned,) that "the judges of the United States have held generally that the Constitution of the United States was predicated upon an existing common law. Of the soundness of that opinion I never had a doubt. I should scarcely go too far were I to say, that stript of the common law, there would be neither constitution nor government. The constitution is unintelligible without reference, to the common law. And were we to go into our courts of justice with the mere statutes of the United States, not a step could be taken, not even a contempt could be punished. There would be no form of pleading, no principles of evidence, no rule of property. Without this law the constitution becomes a dead letter. For ten years it has been the doctrine of our courts that the common law was in force." (Debates on the Judiciary, 1802, p. 372. And see 1 Story's Comm. on the Const., 140, 141,; § 157, 158, and note 2; 2 ibid, 262 to 267 ; § 794 to 797 ; Rawle on the Const. 258.)

Quotes from State Constitutions

Connecticut - 1776

Paragraph 1. Be it enacted and declared by the Governor, and Council, and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, That the ancient Form of Civil Government, contained in the Charter from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the People of this State, shall be and remain the Civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the People thereof, independent of any King or Prince whatever.

- - - - -

Delaware 1776

Art. 25. The common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.

- - - - -

Maryland, 1776

III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by jury, according to the course of that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practised by the courts of law or equity; and also to acts of Assembly, in force on the first of June seventeen hundred and seventy-four, except such as may have since expired, or have been or may be altered by acts of Convention, or this Declaration of Rights—subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State: and the inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property, derived to them, from or under the Charter, granted by his Majesty Charles I. to Cæcilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.

- - - - -

New Jersey, 1776

XXI. That all the laws of this Province, contained in the edition lately published by Mr. Allinson, shall be and remain in full force, until altered by the Legislature of this Colony (such only excepted, as are incompatible with this Charter) and shall be, according as heretofore, regarded in all respects, by all civil officers, and others, the good people of this Province.

XXII. That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practised in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter; and that the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as a part of the law of this Colony, without repeal, forever.

- - - - -

New York, 1777

XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the state law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. That such of the said acts, as are temporary, shall expire at the times limited for their duration respectively. That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected. And this convention doth further ordain, that the resolves or resolutions of the congresses of the colony of New York, and of the convention of the State of New York, now in force, and not repugnant to the government established by this constitution, shall be considered as making part of the laws of this State; subject, nevertheless, to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State may, from time to time, make concerning the same.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)

5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Blasphemer! That's a Catholic way of looking at it, adding in all that tradition.

This is a Protestant country! Sola Scriptura!

It says "...shall not be infringed"! Which means that convicts can have arms. It means Tsarnaev has the right to a nuke!

Oh, wait. No. He's a MUSLIM. The Founders were all Christians. "the People" means "natural born Protestant Christians". "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Which is to say: "A fully armed white Protestant male populace, being necessary to preserve the sovereignty of the state to do whatever said white Protestant males want to do within their territory, the right of all of the white Protestant males to have any sort of weapon they can imagine is absolute and ordained by God, and nobody can pass any laws to change any of that until the Rapture."

You really believe that clever individuals through private manipulations run the world. I don't.

"Everything can be handled.’ Tony says, ‘Roy, the Supreme Court?’ Roy says, ‘Cost a few more dollars.’ ”

How many political campaigns have Cohn, Stone, and Manifort infested... in the U.S.A. and elsewhere?

Don't know. Don't care.

They're men doing a job.

The Founders were all Christians. "the People" means "natural born Protestant Christians"

"Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read "” departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

--Thomas Jefferson

http://www.google.com/search? q=Jeferson+indidels+of+every+denomination

What does "infidel of every denomination" mean?

They're men doing a job.

Unprincipled prostitutes.

Don't know. Don't care.

And stupid is as stupid does.

What does "infidel of every denomination" mean?

Within the context, it means one who is nominally a member of some religious denomination, but who is either not faithful to the tenets of that denomination, or doesn't believe them at all.

In Jefferson's time, virtually nobody proclaimed himself an atheist, certain their was no God. Most people with severe doubts identified with the denomination of their birth or choice, but then simply ignored it. That would be an "infidel of a specific denomination".

And stupid is as stupid does.

You call me stupid. I'm highly intelligent. When people call me stupid, it reveals their lack of discernment.

Why go there?

Do you think any of the 5 people reading this site is going to take your word for it that because you say somebody is "stupid" that that person is therefore stupid?

Do you think that calling a man stupid to his face is going to persuade him of anything? (If you do, that's very stupid of you, because men do not work that way.)

What is it that you are aiming for on this site? Is it to demonstrate the superiority of your ideas? If your ideas were strong, you would not feel the need to resort to personal insult.

"the People" means "natural born Protestant Christians"

It means FAIL, again, in the context of Your Worshipfulness.

"the People" includes infidels of EVERY denomination:

"Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read "” departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

--Thomas Jefferson

http://www.google.com/search? q=Jeferson+indidels+of+every+denomination

It means FAIL, again, in the context of Your Worshipfulness.

It's chum for trolls.

I'm highly intelligent.

Rom 1:22 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools NIV

How's that work out per the rest of Romans chapter 1?

It's chum for trolls.

It's a fundamental AMERICAN principle.

Wisely constituted by America's founders to prevent lying Jesuit Commies like you from doing bidness ala the state-establishment.

What is it that you are aiming for on this site?

How's that work out per the rest of Romans chapter 1?

Splendidly, thank you.

“And Ye Shall Know the Truth, and the Truth Shall Make You Free”

Well, keep talking with me and maybe some of it will rub off on you.

It's a fundamental AMERICAN principle.

"FAIL in the context of Your Worshipfulness", is a fundamental American principle?

Fundamental American principles are not generally so muddy.

Splendidly, thank you.

CDC Statistics documenting the various Due Penalties indicate otherwise.

You are byeltsin's slightly more lucid alter ego.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean. I'm sure you mean to be unpleasant and to be leveling some sort of accusation. But I'm not Typhoid Mary, such that the CDC would be interested. And even if I were infected with some terrible disease, there are not penalties for that from law enforcement.

You say weird and incomprehensible things. I'm glad the Internet is anonymous, because I can see you working yourself into a frenzy over some sort of fantasy and going on a one-way walk.

>>>>Center for Disease Control? "Due Penalties"?

You say weird and incomprehensible things.

www.cdc.gov/std/

Rom 1:27 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. NIV