TexasCHLforum.com

Robert*PPS wrote: 3) Arguing that standing on principle risks the country is like arguing that one should not rock the boat for fear of capsizing when there is a person at the front laughing hysterically and drilling a hole in the hull.

Not to push the analogy too far but...If someone is drilling a whole in the boat, you might be able to bail fast enough or plug the whole long enough to survive long enough to get to shore and repair it. If you capsize, you are done.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Like him or not, agree with him or not, the simple fact is Cruz is not selling well nationwide. I'm a staunch conservative and I wish those of like mind were in the majority. We are not; most Americans who vote consider themselves moderates and vote accordingly. I think Cornyn may have just cost himself the election, but Texas is not a good barometer for the rest of the country.

Chas.

Charles, you are absolutely right about that. We are NOT in the majority. "We" includes conservative/libertarians such as myself.

The problem is this: democrats in general, and Obama specifically, have sold the country on the idea that government is their mommy and daddy, and that we are now the United States of Free Stuff. Now that the cat is out of the bag, voters see it in their own self interest to continue voting for people who will give them free stuff. And as the economy (not the Dow Jones/Fortune 500/NASDAQ economy, but the real everyday economy that hits everyday Americans in their pocketbooks) tanks further and further, more and more people get added daily to the rolls of those who desire free stuff because they can't earn it for themselves any longer. It is in democrat interests to perpetuate these policies. It is in The Peoples' interests to abolish these policies so that they can get back to work, and regain the liberties they surrendered when they agreed to take Uncle Sam's handouts. However, it lately appears that it is also in the republican party's interests to go along with democrat policies for fear that resisting them will only cause more democrats to get elected, at the expense of republican incumbents.

They are right. That IS what will happen to the republican party if they don't go along to get along. Democrats own this country. They don't like the Constitution. They LOVE big government.......so long as they get to be in control of it.

The republican party is functionally dead. It just doesn't know it yet. It's like a buck that has taken a .300 win mag through the boiler room, and there is lots of running, noise, and thrashing around, but it is only speeding up the end.

Why is this? It's because at some point, the republican party forgot its first principles. Democrats have never forgotten theirs, but the republican party is so far out of touch with its first principles that it can no longer claim them without looking ridiculous from all the egg on their faces. They have become so detached from those principles that the principles themselves have lost credibility in the minds of a majority of the voters. Why? Because all they see on TV is republicans saying one thing, but doing another. The democrat party has lasted as long as it has because it appeals to man's baser instincts, and that is an easy "get." So long as the republican party provided an alternative for the higher-minded, it was a viable party. But when the republican party lost its way by claiming to be higher-minded while acting like democrats, they not only no longer provided an alternative, but they also looked like hypocrites......and nobody wants to listen to a hypocrite, except other hypocrites. THAT is why so many loyal and faithful republicans are so deeply disappointed with their party these days. I used to be one of them, until I realized that it isn't going to change and I gave up on it.

To not "risk the country" as Cedar Park Dad put it earlier IS to accept the continuing slide into socialist mediocrity.

Personally, I'm not willing to accept that. If that means the demise of the republican party, I'm OK with it. It will be replaced by something better in touch with the principles of a libertarian leaning conservatism. It has happened before.

jerry_r60 wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote: 3) Arguing that standing on principle risks the country is like arguing that one should not rock the boat for fear of capsizing when there is a person at the front laughing hysterically and drilling a hole in the hull.

Not to push the analogy too far but...If someone is drilling a whole in the boat, you might be able to bail fast enough or plug the whole long enough to survive long enough to get to shore and repair it. If you capsize, you are done.

I can swim.

Robert*PPS wrote:1) There comes a time, and in this case an issue, where pure political tactics aren't enough. There comes a time when, in the face of those who firmly stand in opposition to your values, you stand on principle, and you make that stand with conviction. Without principle, any political party that wins elections will be problematic to the foundations of liberty and freedom that the United States embodies.

2) Cruz is standing on principle. Cornyn is playing political Stratego. I will remember this in the poll booth.

3) Arguing that standing on principle risks the country is like arguing that one should not rock the boat for fear of capsizing when there is a person at the front laughing hysterically and drilling a hole in the hull.

To overturn a law you need a majority passed by both the House and Senate, signed by the President, and vetted COnstitutionally by the courts (if sued upon).

This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I could balance the budget without getting rid of Medicare.

You're living in a dream world.

Very doable. You wouldn't like what else gets cut though.

It does not matter if you left Medicare alone.

In the not so distant future if the debt ceiling is increased time and time again there will not be enough revenue generated to even pay the interest on the debt. Your claim to balance the budget and leave Medicare alone is an empty claim not based on facts.

Anygunanywhere

Mmm..no.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/ ... rest-costs

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... -stacks-up

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... for-reform

Head meet sand.
Anygunanywhere

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I could balance the budget without getting rid of Medicare.

You're living in a dream world.

Very doable. You wouldn't like what else gets cut though.

problem is, many of us don't believe medicare is the job of the feds.

first step; determine WHAT is the job of the feds?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

What constitution are you reading?

The actions the House took to not fund barrycare ARE constitutional.

Anygunanywhere

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote:1) There comes a time, and in this case an issue, where pure political tactics aren't enough. There comes a time when, in the face of those who firmly stand in opposition to your values, you stand on principle, and you make that stand with conviction. Without principle, any political party that wins elections will be problematic to the foundations of liberty and freedom that the United States embodies.

2) Cruz is standing on principle. Cornyn is playing political Stratego. I will remember this in the poll booth.

3) Arguing that standing on principle risks the country is like arguing that one should not rock the boat for fear of capsizing when there is a person at the front laughing hysterically and drilling a hole in the hull.

To overturn a law you need a majority passed by both the House and Senate, signed by the President, and vetted COnstitutionally by the courts (if sued upon).

This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

And if you don't like sausage-making, look the other way. This IS how laws get passed....and overturned.....and this would hardly be the first time "defunding" was used—in a constitutional context no less—as the open shot in a campaign to overturn something. Some times those efforts succeed, and sometimes they don't. But just because they don't succeed, that doesn't make the effort unconstitutional. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Act like it.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

What constitution are you reading?

The actions the House took to not fund barrycare ARE constitutional.

Anygunanywhere

Has that ever been done before?
What happens when the Senate say no?
And when the Democrats decide to uniltarally defund the military how will you object?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote:1) There comes a time, and in this case an issue, where pure political tactics aren't enough. There comes a time when, in the face of those who firmly stand in opposition to your values, you stand on principle, and you make that stand with conviction. Without principle, any political party that wins elections will be problematic to the foundations of liberty and freedom that the United States embodies.

2) Cruz is standing on principle. Cornyn is playing political Stratego. I will remember this in the poll booth.

3) Arguing that standing on principle risks the country is like arguing that one should not rock the boat for fear of capsizing when there is a person at the front laughing hysterically and drilling a hole in the hull.

To overturn a law you need a majority passed by both the House and Senate, signed by the President, and vetted COnstitutionally by the courts (if sued upon).

This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

And if you don't like sausage-making, look the other way. This IS how laws get passed....and overturned.....and this would hardly be the first time "defunding" was used—in a constitutional context no less—as the open shot in a campaign to overturn something. Some times those efforts succeed, and sometimes they don't. But just because they don't succeed, that doesn't make the effort unconstitutional. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Act like it.

When has a major piece of legislation been overturned via defunding?
What happens when the Senate doesn't go along for the ride?

EDIT: I like that this thread has not generally gotten personal. Good deal.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote:1) There comes a time, and in this case an issue, where pure political tactics aren't enough. There comes a time when, in the face of those who firmly stand in opposition to your values, you stand on principle, and you make that stand with conviction. Without principle, any political party that wins elections will be problematic to the foundations of liberty and freedom that the United States embodies.

2) Cruz is standing on principle. Cornyn is playing political Stratego. I will remember this in the poll booth.

3) Arguing that standing on principle risks the country is like arguing that one should not rock the boat for fear of capsizing when there is a person at the front laughing hysterically and drilling a hole in the hull.

To overturn a law you need a majority passed by both the House and Senate, signed by the President, and vetted COnstitutionally by the courts (if sued upon).

This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

What exactly is he saying that advocates "attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutional means"?

Bankrupting the country seems much more anti-American and "unconstitutional" than advocating people stand on priciples. Hyperbole is much of our problem and the dems/socialist/statists are great at using it.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

What constitution are you reading?

The actions the House took to not fund barrycare ARE constitutional.

Anygunanywhere

Has that ever been done before?
What happens when the Senate say no?
And when the Democrats decide to uniltarally defund the military how will you object?

The senate cannot decide to defund. All spending originates in the House. If the senate removes funding provisions the measure returns to the house for approval.

Hint: It is in the constitution.

Anygunanywhere

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote:1) There comes a time, and in this case an issue, where pure political tactics aren't enough. There comes a time when, in the face of those who firmly stand in opposition to your values, you stand on principle, and you make that stand with conviction. Without principle, any political party that wins elections will be problematic to the foundations of liberty and freedom that the United States embodies.

2) Cruz is standing on principle. Cornyn is playing political Stratego. I will remember this in the poll booth.

3) Arguing that standing on principle risks the country is like arguing that one should not rock the boat for fear of capsizing when there is a person at the front laughing hysterically and drilling a hole in the hull.

To overturn a law you need a majority passed by both the House and Senate, signed by the President, and vetted COnstitutionally by the courts (if sued upon).

This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

I need not act like it.....I live it. Defunding Obamacare is an exercise of the congressional constitutional power of money and commerce. I vote for representatives of that congress. I communicate with them that a phony record alone will not satisfy me on this issue. I want to see a genuine effort to avoid this monstrosity. That is standing on principle, and in no way does it violate any part of the constitution.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

What constitution are you reading?

The actions the House took to not fund barrycare ARE constitutional.

Anygunanywhere

Has that ever been done before?
What happens when the Senate say no?
And when the Democrats decide to uniltarally defund the military how will you object?

The senate cannot decide to defund. All spending originates in the House. If the senate removes funding provisions the measure returns to the house for approval.

Hint: It is in the constitution.

Anygunanywhere

You're correct.
1. The Senate doesn't have to pass the House's spending measure,which is how it will be in this case.
2. In the future when the House is retaken by the Democrats, whats to stop them from doing the same?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

What constitution are you reading?

The actions the House took to not fund barrycare ARE constitutional.

Anygunanywhere

Has that ever been done before?
What happens when the Senate say no?
And when the Democrats decide to uniltarally defund the military how will you object?

The senate cannot decide to defund. All spending originates in the House. If the senate removes funding provisions the measure returns to the house for approval.

Hint: It is in the constitution.

Anygunanywhere

You're correct.
1. The Senate doesn't have to pass the House's spending measure,which is how it will be in this case.
2. In the future when the House is retaken by the Democrats, whats to stop them from doing the same?

Democrats are known for skirting the constitution but I will comment.

If the democrats do so and it is constitutional then fine.

The chances of democrats abiding by the constitution are slim and none.

Anygunanywhere

Robert*PPS wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote:1) There comes a time, and in this case an issue, where pure political tactics aren't enough. There comes a time when, in the face of those who firmly stand in opposition to your values, you stand on principle, and you make that stand with conviction. Without principle, any political party that wins elections will be problematic to the foundations of liberty and freedom that the United States embodies.

2) Cruz is standing on principle. Cornyn is playing political Stratego. I will remember this in the poll booth.

3) Arguing that standing on principle risks the country is like arguing that one should not rock the boat for fear of capsizing when there is a person at the front laughing hysterically and drilling a hole in the hull.

To overturn a law you need a majority passed by both the House and Senate, signed by the President, and vetted COnstitutionally by the courts (if sued upon).

This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

I need not act like it.....I live it. Defunding Obamacare is an exercise of the congressional constitutional power of money and commerce. I vote for representatives of that congress. I communicate with them that a phony record alone will not satisfy me on this issue. I want to see a genuine effort to avoid this monstrosity. That is standing on principle, and in no way does it violate any part of the constitution.

Sure it is. The minority party is attempting to overturn a law without the required votes and threatening to shut down the entire US government to do so.

If you don't like a law you pass another law that is approved by both houses and signed by the President.

This will fail and the Republicans (Cruz and the House in particular) will look stupid.
The House should shut up and merrily follow up with a bill that keeps that keeps or even increases the sequester.