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

Skip to comments.

Cruz Sends Scarborough and Maddow of MSNBC Into Conniptions
The New American ^ | Mar. 17, 2013 | Thomas R. Eddlem

Posted on 03/17/2013 7:28:53 AM PDT by EXCH54FE

Texas Senator Ted Cruz's question to California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein on the Second Amendment in a March 14 hearing forced MSNBC hosts into conniptions,

At the heart of the congressional debate are the questions: Does the Second Amendment prohibit the federal government from passing laws related to firearms, leaving the role exclusively to the states? Or does the Second Amendment grant Congress the authority to pass laws banning guns whenever it believes it appropriate?

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The term, “the right of the people,” when the framers included it in the Bill of Rights, they used it as a term of art. That same phrase, “the right of the people,” is found in the First Amendment: “the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances.” It's also found in the Fourth Amendment, “the right of the people to free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” And the question I would pose to the senior Senator from California [Feinstein] is, would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or the Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books, and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the First Amendment?

The Harvard Law School-educated Cruz's question sent MSNBC's Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough into an on-air meltdown, where Scarborough essentially argued that it doesn't matter what the Second Amendment says.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: California; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; california; communism; communists; coup; dianefeinstein; guncontrol; progressiveagenda; secondamendment; tedcruz; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last
Cruz calmly responded by pointing out that Feinstein had not even answered the question:

I think nobody doubts her sincerity or her passion. And yet at the same time, I would note that she chose not to answer the question that I asked, which is: In her judgment would it be consistent with the Constitution for Congress to specify which books are permitted and which books are not.

Finally, Feinstein responded: “The answer is obvious. No.”

1 posted on 03/17/2013 7:28:54 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
Cruz calmly responded by pointing out that Feinstein had not even answered the question:

Ted Cruz did the old passive-aggressive..... sticking the shiv in while smiling.  pResident JugEars does this all the time in his phony bullshyte self-effacing way. Donks hate when the tables are turned on them and they get back what they dish out.

Cruz definitely climbed in my estimation of him. He and Rand Paul get how the game should be played in DC (District of Criminal) and (hopefully) will catch the younger voters attention

2 posted on 03/17/2013 7:35:50 AM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

The insprational thing about Cruz and what sets him apart from most of his colleagues is that he has the mindset of a winner. He clearly understands that politics is a contact sport and to win you have to be smarter and stronger than your opponent. You have to be on offense to score points.

Unfortunately Republicans’ natural posture is to be on defense, if they’re even on the field at all. Most of the time they are content being spectators in the grandstands.

Cruz is exactly the type of unapologetic warrior we need to stand up to the Democrats and the viscious jackals in the media.


3 posted on 03/17/2013 7:37:42 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Cruz is also driving the Moldy class insane. It is a good thing...


4 posted on 03/17/2013 7:37:56 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
sticking the shiv in while smiling. pResident JugEars does this all the time in his phony bullshyte self-effacing way.

Yup.

5 posted on 03/17/2013 7:38:29 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

DC (District of Criminal)
********
Den of Corruption


6 posted on 03/17/2013 7:39:27 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Democrats are accustomed to being on offense, and of course always claiming the moral highground. Really fun to watch one of their own getting ambushed and having to step back and play defense.


7 posted on 03/17/2013 7:42:05 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starboard

You are absolutely correct. Cruz came out swinging from day one and hasn’t stopped (thank you Sarah).

THIS is the type of NEW leadership our party needs.

OUT with the ole GOPe’s....... in with the new young WARRIOR bloods!


8 posted on 03/17/2013 7:43:17 AM PDT by NoGrayZone (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

I saw Scarborough’s performance the other morning on morning joe about Cruz and its clear the joe has become MSNBC. He has crossed to the other side or at the least has revealed which side he has always been on. It was hard to watch of course that station always is.


9 posted on 03/17/2013 7:43:34 AM PDT by Racer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

An added bonus!


10 posted on 03/17/2013 7:44:00 AM PDT by NoGrayZone (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Racer1

Anyone on MSLSD had already “crossed over” the moment they inked their contract.


11 posted on 03/17/2013 7:46:05 AM PDT by NoGrayZone (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

The next day Feinstein was still stewing and admitted as much. She’s been on the shelf way past her expiration date. The Senate is full of old fools and I am convinced half of them are on meds that mess up their mind. Voinovich, Pelosi, Arlen Spector being fine examples. John McCaine too

In many House and Senate Offices the senior staff does 99% of the real work such as reading & analyzing a bill and telling the Rep or Senator how to vote and what to say. Also dealing with angry constitiuents and brushing them off because the man our Reps and Senators really wants to see is the lobbyist and preferably with a satchel of campaign fund cash. The Rep or Senators job is just to show up on Capital Hill sometimes, ask questions at hearings that will get him TV face time, to see/network with money laden lobbyists all the time, and to go out for lunch and at night to /network and do dirty deals with the other dirty denizens of DC


12 posted on 03/17/2013 7:46:49 AM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
Scarborough and Maddow, will you just...

13 posted on 03/17/2013 7:47:09 AM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoGrayZone
OUT with the ole GOPe’s....... in with the new young WARRIOR bloods!

Anyone who's played a sport knows that it's better to play offense than defense.

But the GOPe, like so many losing coaches, like to play prevent.

14 posted on 03/17/2013 7:48:13 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Starboard

I need to go and watch Sarah at CPAC video again. LOVE when Cruz came out and gave her the credit for his win.

Sarah was correct when she said you don’t need a title to affect change.

Cruz is a shining example of that!


15 posted on 03/17/2013 7:48:23 AM PDT by NoGrayZone (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NoGrayZone

I was firmly in the Cruz camp, as were many others, BEFORE Sarah jumped on the bandwagon! Just sayin’.


16 posted on 03/17/2013 7:49:40 AM PDT by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

Yes.....and WE need to change that. WE need to STOP supporting what the ole GOPe’s shove up our collective a$$...... even if it costs us an election.

Enough is enough.


17 posted on 03/17/2013 7:51:13 AM PDT by NoGrayZone (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Just wait till the NBC scab pickers jump on Cruz’s parentage...


18 posted on 03/17/2013 7:51:52 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Starboard

It is WAY BEYOND TIME that the pushback against the liberal agenda take on the form of a Rachel Corrie smashing bulldozer. The Constitution was built to prevent the exact kind of government we currently have.

The Amendments are explicitly worded, and easily understood. that we have allowed ONE INCH of any type of control on free speech, gun control, or impediments to our freedoms was a terrible oversight on the American People’s watch. Now that we’re seeing the intended outcome of allowing even ONE INCH, and the lib agenda taking a hundred miles, we need two hundred more Cruz types to be elected and NOT GIVE an inch in pushing back. Put them against the wall and do not let them away from it until they’re pummeled into submission.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means what it says. Enforce it.


19 posted on 03/17/2013 7:53:05 AM PDT by Big Giant Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

It has gown tiresome that anyone who disagrees with the leftarded position on any issue, is simply stupid.

When the reality is that the leftards are the ones who are stupid, and wrong in every tenet of their faith in an achievable utopia.


20 posted on 03/17/2013 7:53:29 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (Obama has turned America into an aristocracy of the unaccomplished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar

I understand. However, even with all your support, as well as others, he was still in last place.

Sarah changed that. Cruz gives her credit from taking him from the back of the line, to the front.

That comes from Cruz himself.

Of course, without support from you, I and others, our new WARRIORS will get no where.

Together we stand, divided we fall.


21 posted on 03/17/2013 7:55:26 AM PDT by NoGrayZone (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

Unfortunately, I believe politics will soon become a blood sport.


22 posted on 03/17/2013 7:57:30 AM PDT by NoGrayZone (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

as in moldy oldies? Senile Senators and the like? Dottering old dimwits who feel they have the right say anything they damn well please and tell any spin or lie because they have earned it by virtue of being in the eighth decade? I had an old aunt who would freely hand out abuse.... Because she earned that right she figured

Of course lots of nice older people and I’m headed this way myself but these power hungry oldster Senators are the kings of DC. Everyone smooches your arse and defers to you when you are a US Senator and the longer you are there the more it goes to your over-medicated head. Like Diane Feisnstein whose husband is worth 300 million plus from doing business in China years ago.

So gun grabbing DiFi could care less if you are left unarmed while she always travels with body guards and 99% of the time is in places where no thug could get to her anyways. She could care less because for years everyone has been telling her how brilliant and how fantastic she is and what a great servant of the people she is.


23 posted on 03/17/2013 7:58:30 AM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Feinsteinian liberal double-speak gobbledegook:

The proposed gun control bill doesn’t “prohibit” the guns it prohibits.

It simply “exempts” the 2,271 it doesn’t prohibit.

So in her mind there is no prohibition.

The bill just doesn’t exempt the guns she decided we shouldn’t have.

That makes it perfectly clear and acceptable - to a word twisting, constitution stomping liberal.


24 posted on 03/17/2013 7:59:46 AM PDT by Iron Munro (I miss America, don't you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

A brilliant argument and question from Cruz. Inasmuch as the Nazis (and Feinstein is ostensibly Jewish, if not a Jew) burned banned books.

Equal treatment of the concept of the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE... used in other Rights.

Feinstein was too dumb for the question, didnt’ answer it, then when she did, had to change her answer. Because the answer is... she is a tyrant... and believes that our Rights
and the Bill of Rights are a Bill of “suggestions” malleable to any current times. She showed her arrogance, petulance,and willful stupidity in her reply— and the left is left to call it sexism-— no honey, it’s f’n stupid and we GOT YOU dead to our Rights!

Cruz’s argument will be underlined in the Senate... because Congress has never established “banned books” in session, or banned speech in the same fashion as delineating specific firearms to be “prohibited”.

Even firearms that ARE so called prohibited (by the NFA or 1934 Acts) have conditions for the exercise of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (with a special license classification provided for, for the citizen who wishes to own one— another arguable point as to its constitutionality).


25 posted on 03/17/2013 7:59:46 AM PDT by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoGrayZone

Semper Fidelis et Semper Paratus!


26 posted on 03/17/2013 8:01:01 AM PDT by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
If Conservatives are to succeed we must no longer give a damn what the Main Stream Media says about us.

The best quote I can think of, for this time, is from Admiral David Glasgow Farragut "Damn the torpedoes full steam ahead"


27 posted on 03/17/2013 8:01:55 AM PDT by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoGrayZone
I need to go and watch Sarah at CPAC video again. LOVE when Cruz came out and gave her the credit for his win.

He was being nice. This was his race from day one.

Sarah was correct when she said you don’t need a title to affect change.

Cruz is a shining example of that!

Cruz has had titles...the current, "Senator."

28 posted on 03/17/2013 8:03:55 AM PDT by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Big Giant Head

pushback against the liberal agenda
******
If you ever look at the post-article comments on stories that are published by liberal oriented sites like Yahoo or left leaning outlets (e.g., CBS affiliates), you may be surprised at the preponderance of anti-Obama comments. More than a few comments are downright nasty. Just this week I read through some comments on a particular story that were, incredibly, 100% against Obama! Every single one.

This constantly surprises me and provides anadotal evidence of a broad based pusback forming within the country. I think lots of people are growing weary and suspicious of out of control statist policies. A certain level of fatigue appears to be setting in.


29 posted on 03/17/2013 8:09:49 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
would it be consistent with the Constitution for Congress to specify which books are permitted and which books are not.

Answer is, "It depends." As with any Constitutional issue, this one is an issue of original understand and intent of the framers.

For example, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go into a schoolroom and start yelling whatever you want. That is not what the framers meant by "freedom of speech." The essential intent in freedom of speech was freedom to express one's opinion, especially political opinion without government interference, as long as the method of your expression doesn't interfere with another's freedom.

Obama's socialist government is nowhere near this kind of careful, pro-Constitution, limited government approach to Constitutional interpretation. But it's the kind of analysis that should take place whenever there is some legitimate question about how to apply the Constitution to a situation, guns included.

I like the fact that Mr. Cruz is challenging the loose cannon socialists in their attempt to put aside Constitutional rights, but his questions are not answered in such back-and-white terms as some would like.

30 posted on 03/17/2013 8:10:38 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

31 posted on 03/17/2013 8:11:42 AM PDT by dontreadthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NoGrayZone
I don't mean to argue with you. I like Sarah. But...

I have a lot of friends who don't like Sarah and were supporters of Cruz from day one.

Cruz was "known" in TX before he ran for the senate.

BTW, you will be glad to know that Cruz proves you can fight the good fight and remain a nice person. He is the son of a Southern Baptist minister...who learned to speak English.

Ted is very bright...and exceptional debater.

32 posted on 03/17/2013 8:14:52 AM PDT by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

***It simply “exempts” the 2,271 it doesn’t prohibit.****

Those of us who have been around since the first demand to register only handguns (1962) know that if they get a ban on the assault rifles, the day the bill is signed into law, the next day they will start clammering for a ban on the “protected” firearms.

It has always been about handguns. Assault rifles are just a decoy to try and get their anti-gun foot in the door.

Once they get a ban on AWs then they will use the same reasons to go after handguns.

John Kennedy killed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.

Charles Whitman, killed 14, wounded 32 others mostly with a bolt action 6mm hunting rifle. Also used a shotgun and an m1 carbine.

Medgar Evers, shot with a 5 shot 1917 bolt action Enfield rifle.

Martin Luther King, shot with a 4 shot Remington 760 pump action Gamemaster rifle.

Bobby Kennedy with a .22 Iver Johnson Cadet revolver.

George Wallace wounded with a 5 shot Charter Arms .38spl revolver.

Howard Johnsons shooter killed nine, wounded thirteen with a 4 shot RUGER .44 mag Deerslayer rifle.

Gerald Ford attacked with a 7 shot 1911 semi auto.

Edmond OK post office with two National Guard 7 shot 1911 pistols.

John Lennon murdered with a 5 shot Charter Arms revolver.

Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady with an RG-14 .22 revolver.

What do they all have in common? NONE over 7 rounds, yet after each one came a cry of panic to ban all of them.


33 posted on 03/17/2013 8:19:00 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (CLICK my name. See the murals before they are painted over! POTEET THEATER in OKC!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
"would it be consistent with the Constitution for Congress to specify which books are permitted and which books are not."

Answer is, "It depends." As with any Constitutional issue, this one is an issue of original understand and intent of the framers.

For example, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go into a schoolroom and start yelling whatever you want. That is not what the framers meant by "freedom of speech."

See what you just did? The question was, what books (objects) can the government ban, and you went on about yelling (an action) in a schoolroom. I submit that shooting a gun in a schoolroom is against the law. The object in question is legal, the action is what is illegal. The proper analogy then is, as with books, which ones can the government ban? Can the government limit the number of books, or number of pages withing each book that a person can own?

The problem with trying to use a free speech analogy to guns is that any law to regulate guns is an infringement. And the right to keep and bear arms is the only one which specifically proscribes any infringement.

34 posted on 03/17/2013 8:22:12 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Thank you for that post, Ruy.

I don’t follow this stuff like I should. ‘Pod.


35 posted on 03/17/2013 8:25:48 AM PDT by sauropod (I will not comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

DiFi’s husband has benefitted fom her insider knowledge! She isn’t a defender of ethics!


36 posted on 03/17/2013 8:27:46 AM PDT by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Creeping incrementalism.

“There are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. “ James Madison


37 posted on 03/17/2013 8:35:24 AM PDT by WCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee
Well, my argument is about original understanding and intent of the Constitution. It applies wherever there may be a legitimate issue on how to apply the text to a particular situation.

For example, it might be worth researching whether there was some clear way to distinguish between the meaning in the 1700's of "arms" and things like cannons. Did the framers mean cannons when they spoke of the right to bear arms? Stuff like that. (Again, NOTHING, like what the socialists are doing because they generally don't seem to care what the Constitution says or means.)

38 posted on 03/17/2013 8:36:10 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

Semi auto rifles with extended magazines have been around since at least 1906.

http://www.guns.com/2012/11/27/rifles-shoot-before-die/

They did not become a “problem” until 1984 when the anti-gunners found them to be the perfect shill to get Federal laws passed over an ignorant public.

Josh Sugarmann
Violence Policy Center Director

“Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

-Josh Sugarmann, “Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation”, March 1989

“The NRA is right...handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns.”

-Josh Sugarman, former communications director for the Coalition Against Gun Violence

Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.

“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.

Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.

So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.

My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”

-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58

“Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handguns].”

-Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., 60 Minutes interview

HCI, around 1984, came out in favor of a ban on semi-auto rifles and shotguns.


39 posted on 03/17/2013 8:38:20 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (CLICK my name. See the murals before they are painted over! POTEET THEATER in OKC!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: lonestar
"I would not be in the U.S. Senate today if it were not for Governor Palin," Cruz said in gratitude.

"A PPP poll found Dewhurst leading Cruz 36 percent to 18 ... The latest poll was conducted April 19-22"

It is beyond idiotic to diss Sarah Palins' contribution to the Cruz campaign in threat after thread. Sarah made the difference in Texas and in other races all over the country. Arguing she did not play a major role in helping elect Cruz just makes you look like an ungrateful fool.

40 posted on 03/17/2013 8:41:17 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

destroy the msm, save the nation.

the msm has to be bypassed and made insignificant.

The more unemployed at cnn, nyt, msnbc, and even fnc the better for all of us.


41 posted on 03/17/2013 8:44:15 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

The liberal gun control advocates know that the 2nd amendment isn’t about hunting prairie dogs or shooting skeet - it’s about defending ourselves, and not just against common criminals, but against our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

And they know full well they have become the domestic enemies the Founders warned against.


42 posted on 03/17/2013 8:45:03 AM PDT by Iron Munro (I miss America, don't you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lonestar
I was firmly in the Cruz camp, as were many others, BEFORE Sarah jumped on the bandwagon! Just sayin’.

Well, sure. So was I. But let's not forget that Cruz wound up neck and neck with Lt Gov David Dewhurst in the primary, which triggered a runoff election. Sarah Palin's vocal support for Cruz was one of the factors which helped tip the vote in his favor in that race.

Ted's grateful for her help, and so am I.

43 posted on 03/17/2013 8:45:58 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

“destroy the msm, save the nation.
the msm has to be bypassed and made insignificant.
The more unemployed at cnn, nyt, msnbc, and even fnc the better for all of us.”

Yup, they are our mortal enemies. They need to be ridiculed, and worse,at every opportunity. IMO, not enough bad things can happen to those people.


44 posted on 03/17/2013 8:48:50 AM PDT by Batman11 (We came for the chicken sandwiches and a Sweet Tea Party broke out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

What is the Moldy class? Are these what I would refer to as establishment Republicans who are sort of clueless about the Tea Party and true conservatism?


45 posted on 03/17/2013 8:57:35 AM PDT by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lonestar

Polls showed that she made a real difference.


46 posted on 03/17/2013 8:58:28 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
Anyone who's played a sport knows that it's better to play offense than defense.

But the GOPe, like so many losing coaches, like to play prevent.

Haha, sounds like you're familiar with ex-San Diego Chargers coach Norv Turner. I've been on a rant to get him fired for years as he is a loser that played defense instead of crushing a team with their offense. When he went soft, he switched to prevent defense always snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

47 posted on 03/17/2013 9:01:44 AM PDT by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lonestar

No, he is not insincere. I know plenty of people in Texas who were all for Perry’s boy, Dewhurst, and had never heard of Cruz. I knew him through Mark Levin.

Republican voters thrive on the news media. They are not called the stupid party for nothing. I’ve had very otherwise smart and successful men tell me recently that since the house in republican Obama won’t ;have power, they’ll stop him. OK.

I can’t get people to listen to Levin. They get stuck thinking people are on their side. McCain! really, he was bad the day Clinton was not impeached and McCain, head of the Armed Services Committee didn’t care. They love him because He got shot down over VN. I think that’s a DQer but I’m mean. Meanwhile he’s insane, but what do I know?

They love Perry. WHY? Not only is he a dope, he is so pro Mexican illegals, he’s ushering in not only and invasion, but Texas’ turning blue. The Bushes. Dana Perino Loves them Why?

What is Jeb Bush doing out there?

And Romney? What? He attacked our candidates tooth and Nail and caved as soon as debate 1 was over. We knew he’d do that. No one followed that story. He’d be caving left and right in the WH. Of course he would. He never attacked the libs, takers, nor Dems. Where did that story go?

Rove has nothing but animosity for the conservatives can’t get that kind of loathing going for the Obama people. But people listen to him.

They were on board with Cruz only after Sarah came out with her endorsement. She’s not from nowhere, she was a governor and she ran for VP and she is fabulous and consistent. Even if she lacks the education and language skills. She is passionate and people listen to her.

Cruz knows that

The media hates her, but they’ll broadcast her statements. Cruz gained only after her endorsement.

Because there are an awful lot of republican voters who thrive on the media.

Here’s what they hear: Bill O’Rielly says just the other day, and I paraphrase: I don’t think Obama is a socialist. I think he is out for the good of the country.


48 posted on 03/17/2013 9:03:54 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Polls showed that she made a real difference.

"Believe in the rabbit's foot if you wish; remember it didn't work for the rabbit." :)

Actually, I think the debates were a game changer. Dewhurst did not do well. He is not a good speaker. Cruz ate his lunch. It was downhill from there with Dewhurst. He is GOPe, BTW.

49 posted on 03/17/2013 9:08:37 AM PDT by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

He flogged the girl to a bloody pulp........ her credibility is forever an issue.

She has tons of totally irrelevant experience in preserving the letter of the Bill of Rights.


50 posted on 03/17/2013 9:10:29 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next 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