TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote: You are clearly just trying to stir up trouble. Therefore I will no longer respond to your silliness.

Thats me, Mr. Silly Willy.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

You do understand what's involved in a filibuster, right? Some have gone as far as to read the phone book.

How'd that filibuster work out? Oh yea, he voted to consider the bill he was filbustering. What?

It wasn't a true filibuster, as he was given a time limit on how long he could hold the floor. And yes, he voted to consider the bill, so he could vote against the bill. That is actually a pretty common procedure. I don't know if you're deliberately being obtuse on the matter, or if you didn't understand what was gonig on; but focusing on his reading of "green eggs and ham" and ignoring the hours he spoke contemporaneously without a teleprompter on a wide range of topics would seem to indicate that it's one of the two.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

It's probably worth noting that he also memorized the US Constitution while in high school. Have you?

Making it personal I see. Totally irrelevant to the topic but for the matter, yep. Did you? Also read the Federalist papers and good old John Locke.
Took Con Law as well and passed the Texas Bar. Have you? But thats not relevant either.

Yes, it is relevant when you denigrate him for reading Green Eggs and Ham, while ignoring the rest of the speech the intent of that speech. You taking "Con Law" and passing the Texas Bar would be relevant if I were pretending that your posting on an internet forum (or some other mundane action) somehow encompassed your political platform and or knowledge without also having taking Con Law and passing the Texas Bar myself.

I'm impressed if you really have memorized the US Constitution. You posting on this forum about a candidate does not take away from your knowledge of the document, nor does Ted Cruz reading from a non-related book in a filibuster-like speech (an extremely common practice in filibusters) take away from his.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I can live with having a President who is equally adept at understanding the US Constitution and Dr Seuss.

Even better, Grinch for President!

Really, that's your view? You think the Grinch should be President?

ScooterSissy wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

You do understand what's involved in a filibuster, right? Some have gone as far as to read the phone book.

How'd that filibuster work out? Oh yea, he voted to consider the bill he was filbustering. What?

It wasn't a true filibuster, as he was given a time limit on how long he could hold the floor. And yes, he voted to consider the bill, so he could vote against the bill. That is actually a pretty common procedure. I don't know if you're deliberately being obtuse on the matter, or if you didn't understand what was gonig on; but focusing on his reading of "green eggs and ham" and ignoring the hours he spoke contemporaneously without a teleprompter on a wide range of topics would seem to indicate that it's one of the two.

While I respect the old style Filibuster, what was achieved?
How many bills he sponsored have been made law?
What committees does he chair?
How many businesses has he run?

I'm impressed if you really have memorized the US Constitution. You posting on this forum about a candidate does not take away from your knowledge of the document, nor does Ted Cruz reading from a non-related book in a filibuster-like speech (an extremely common practice in filibusters) take away from his.

His knowledge of the constitution is not relevant to the filibuster, or should I say fake filibuster. I didn't bring up the constitution related to it. Another poster did. I do agree that he appears to be a Constitutionalist from what I can find. The Amended Constitution is a work of art no?

Cedar Park Dad wrote: Really, that's your view? You think the Grinch should be President?

Of course not. Assuming we can't get Zombie Nixon, then Darth Vader should be President. Grinch should be VP or Sec of Treasury. I say, if you're going to be a sourpuss lets put you where you can do the most good.

EDIT: I'm bipartisan though. VP Biden should be Secretary of Gaffs

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: How so? What "chart"? There is nothing in that choice other than a desire to motivate Christians to vote.

Evangelical Christians of a certain bent perhaps. Others may have a different view.
(Edited as being unnecessarily harsh for no reason my apologies).

And I'll ask again - what chart, and for a new question - what "bent"?

I'm going to post the excerpts from his speech that contain references to religion. I challenge you to show what "bent" you are speaking of in that speech. I suspect you can't. I suspect you'll run off another tangent in an effort, as has been pointed out, to simply stir things up.

From his speech:

When my dad came to America in 1957, he could not have imagined what lay in store for him. Imagine a young married couple, living together in the 1970s, neither one of them has a personal relationship with Jesus. They have a little boy and they are both drinking far too much. They are living a fast life.

When I was three, my father decided to leave my mother and me. We were living in Calgary at the time, he got on a plane and he flew back to Texas, and he decided he didn’t want to be married anymore and he didn’t want to be a father to his 3-year-old son. And yet when he was in Houston, a friend, a colleague from the oil and gas business invited him to a Bible study, invited him to Clay Road Baptist Church, and there my father gave his life to Jesus Christ.

And God transformed his heart. And he drove to the airport, he bough a plane ticket, and he flew back to be with my mother and me.

There are people who wonder if faith is real. I can tell you, in my family there’s not a second of doubt, because were it not for the transformative love of Jesus Christ, I would have been saved and I would have been raised by a single mom without my father in the household.

And yet, for so many Americans, the promise of America seems more and more distant. What is the promise of America? The idea that — the revolutionary idea that this country was founded upon, which is that our rights don’t come from man. They come from God Almighty.

Today, roughly half of born again Christians aren’t voting. They’re staying home. Imagine instead millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values.

Instead of a federal government that wages an assault on our religious liberty, that goes after Hobby Lobby, that goes after the Little Sisters of the Poor, that goes after Liberty University, imagine a federal government that stands for the First Amendment rights of every American.

Instead of a federal government that works to undermine our values, imagine a federal government that works to defend the sanctity of human life…

..and to uphold the sacrament of marriage.

So what "bent" are you speaking of? Baptist???? There at a LOT of Baptists in the country.

"born again" Who is he referring to?
Thats not Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Episcopalian, atheists, or Lutherans. I don't think thats Methodist or Presbyterians either.

Now I doubt he's trying to exclude them, but starting off at Liberty University and using that language...ok. What is he going to offer the born agains who aren't voting to get them to vote?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

You do understand what's involved in a filibuster, right? Some have gone as far as to read the phone book.

How'd that filibuster work out? Oh yea, he voted to consider the bill he was filbustering. What?

It wasn't a true filibuster, as he was given a time limit on how long he could hold the floor. And yes, he voted to consider the bill, so he could vote against the bill. That is actually a pretty common procedure. I don't know if you're deliberately being obtuse on the matter, or if you didn't understand what was gonig on; but focusing on his reading of "green eggs and ham" and ignoring the hours he spoke contemporaneously without a teleprompter on a wide range of topics would seem to indicate that it's one of the two.

While I respect the old style Filibuster, what was achieved?

At a minimum, it raised public awareness of the issue

Cedar Park Dad wrote:How many bills he sponsored have been made law?

I'm not sure, but most of his time in the Senate was spent under Harry Reid. Few Republican Senators got bills passed at all, and very few of those would be of interest to me, since Reid typically only allowed those with which he agreed to ever reach a floor vote.
There was Senate Bill 2195, passed unanimously by both the Senate and the House, and signed by the President.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:What committees does he chair?

Subcommittee on Oversight, Federal Rights and Agency Activities
Subcommittee on Science and Space

Cedar Park Dad wrote:How many businesses has he run?

None, that I'm aware of.

All of those questions might be relevant (to me) if I was looking for an experienced politician to run, or an experience businessman. I'm looking for neither. Either one of those might be an added asset (depending on the politics and the business), but they aren't the foundation of what I'm looking for in a President.

I'll repeat, he is a rock-solid constitutionalist.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I'm impressed if you really have memorized the US Constitution. You posting on this forum about a candidate does not take away from your knowledge of the document, nor does Ted Cruz reading from a non-related book in a filibuster-like speech (an extremely common practice in filibusters) take away from his.

His knowledge of the constitution is not relevant to the filibuster, or should I say fake filibuster.

Why say either, since it was neither? It was a speech. It resembled a filibuster, but he didn't present it as such, so the only "fake" part of it is the "fake filibuster" that the media presented. Apparently, that false presentation worked for you.

His knowledge of the constitution was relevant to the speech, since much of the speech addressed the opinion that the Obamacare was unconstitutional, plus he spoke of constitutional matters several times in the speech. As a matter of fact, I'd say he spent much more time in the speech on constitutional matters than he did on the topic on which you focused your attention (and derision) - green eggs and ham...

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Really, that's your view? You think the Grinch should be President?

Of course not. Assuming we can't get Zombie Nixon, then Darth Vader should be President. Grinch should be VP or Sec of Treasury. I say, if you're going to be a sourpuss lets put you where you can do the most good.

EDIT: I'm bipartisan though. VP Biden should be Secretary of Gaffs

Seeing who you believe should be President and VP puts the rest of the your posts in context. Thanks.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:"born again" Who is he referring to?
Thats not Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Episcopalian, atheists, or Lutherans. I don't think thats Methodist or Presbyterians either.

You are mistaken, both the Methodists and Presbyterians follow the "born again" belief. But you've completely avoided the question I asked. You said "Evangelical Christians of a certain bent", and then pretend that speech only addressed those. I asked "what bent", you haven't answered. Obviously, he didn't mean buddhists, Muslims, Jews etc, since not of those are "Evangelical Christians"; but that's a moot point. That wasn't all that was in the speech. You try to pretend that's all he spoke of, and that's simply not the case.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Now I doubt he's trying to exclude them, but starting off at Liberty University and using that language...ok. What is he going to offer the born agains who aren't voting to get them to vote?

Read the speech, he offered a lot to them.

How many bills he sponsored have been made law?

Here's an easy way to see that - http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you search for "public law" you'll find the 15 that made it. Not all were earth shaking, but passing more law is not a very good measure of a limited government constitutionalist.

I guess the real problem is America won't support a law abiding President. If a candidate isn't evil enough to break the highest law in the land with a straight face, very few will vote for him.

I would. I'd rather support a losing candidate than a destructive one, but that's just me.

treadlightly wrote:

How many bills he sponsored have been made law?

Here's an easy way to see that - http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you search for "public law" you'll find the 15 that made it. Not all were earth shaking, but passing more law is not a very good measure of a limited government constitutionalist.

I guess the real problem is America won't support a law abiding President. If a candidate isn't evil enough to break the highest law in the land with a straight face, very few will vote for him.

I would. I'd rather support a losing candidate than a destructive one, but that's just me.

I hear you on that

Edit: Didn't realize what I posted was against the rules.

Religion and immigration. IBTL.

I didn't realize amnesty for illegal aliens was an off limit topic. My apologies.

It was my intent and purpose was more about him apparently having two different positions. However, regardless whether we can mention it here or not, that is going to be a major issue in this election.

Sorry if I crossed a line.

Here's a telling visual: