Posted on 03/10/2014 4:35:26 PM PDT by Mariner
On Saturday, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference by a landslide for the second consecutive year. Conservative firebrand Texas Sen. Ted Cruz came in second, but he actually gained the most ground of any candidate year-over-year.
On Sunday, Cruz began making a play to draw foreign policy distinctions between himself and Paul, both of whom are considered two of the GOP's top presidential prospects.
"I'm a big fan of Rand Paul. He and I are good friends," Cruz said on ABC's "This Week" Sunday. "I don't agree with him on foreign policy. I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world. And I agree with him that we should be very reluctant to deploy military force abroad. But I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did. ... The United States has a responsibility to defend our values."
Cruz's comments came two days after Paul thrilled the CPAC audience by blasting President Barack Obama's drone policy. However, Paul didn't mention the preeminent ongoing geopolitical conflict — the crisis in Ukraine.
Paul's noninterventionist views on foreign policy have attracted a libertarian-leaning crowd. In the CPAC straw poll, 57 percent of respondents, when asked about the U.S.'s "role in the world," identified with this statement: "N early 70 years after the end of World War II, it's time for our European, Asian and other allies to provide for their own defense."
Only 37 percent, on the other hand, agreed with this statement: " As the world's only superpower, the U.S. needs to continue to bear the responsibility of protecting our allies in Europe, Asia and other parts of the world."
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
From my post #108 that I believe you did not read entirely.
Of course I read it, and responded to the strange post you made ignoring yet again the issue with childish avoidance.
In post 12 I told you. “”You keep slipping around the marriage issue, again, federal law HAS to address marriage at the federal level, for instance for military personnel.
Would you ever grant homosexual military the same spousal rights as heterosexual members?””
You must not know anything about military life, the military has to deal with married personnel and their spouses in housing, security, travel, health care, everything.
The feds have to have their own definitions of marriage for the military, federal employment, immigration, and they always have.
There was NEVER a time when the Federal government was not making law regarding marriage at the federal level.
You make that assertion as if it's absolute fact because you said so. That's like saying government must continue to fund Social Security indefinitely. Or that the USA can never default on its' debt.
I knew I was wasting my time on you.
It is absolute fact, the military could not operate by suddenly deciding that in it’s eyes, everyone is single and always will be.
The feds have to decide if a person trying to immigrate is married or not.
Do you really think the founders didn’t know the constitution, or the realities of life when they were writing marriage law at the federal level in 1780, 1784, 1798, 1802?
Well yeah, I won’t reject GOD and country, and conservatism and start supporting social liberalism.
Anything to avoid answering the simple question to reveal how far your pro-gay agenda goes.
With hetro marriage in the military being fully recognized, do you support the military not recognizing gay marriage while they do recognize normal marriage?
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.