Meet The New Nullification, Just as Unconstitutional as the Old Nullification | ThinkProgress

 

So the link above QUOTES Mr Cruz directly and then says where he is wrong in his understanding of the Constitution and you think they're being "biased?" Tell me what part of their assertion that you disagree with.

ThinkProgress again. And some people laughed when I referred to you as liberal. :laugh:

 

I am not a lawyer, not even a bad one. I know that Cruz is an outstanding lawyer and I am not going to waste my time debating with you over whether a liberal website with an ax to grind understands the law better than Cruz does. I know that they do not. So if the best arguments that you have that Cruz is "whacky" and does not understand the law comes from liberal bloggers, then don't expect anybody to take your rants against Cruz seriously.

ThinkProgress again. And some people laughed when I referred to you as liberal. :laugh:

 

I am not a lawyer, not even a bad one. I know that Cruz is an outstanding lawyer and I am not going to waste my time debating with you over whether a liberal website with an ax to grind understands the law better than Cruz does. I know that they do not. So if the best arguments that you have that Cruz is "whacky" and does not understand the law comes from liberal bloggers, then don't expect anybody to take your rants against Cruz seriously.

 

It doesn't matter who the link is to if we all agree they didn't change his quote. Are you saying they misquoted him?

 

I smell class avoidance on your part. I've clearly asked you whether you believe he said what they say they quoted FROM HIS WEBSITE. Do you or do you not?

For the record, we don't need to continue to tell me how smart he is. I'm not saying he's not smart.

I thought you might concede that point once I cited his resume. So now, your opinion of Cruz has shifted from "whacky" to dishonest? Is that correct? Or he still whacky but at the same time smart and dishonest? Just curious, how do you rate Obama's intellect and honesty and what do you base your assessment?

It's just easier to be a simple thinker and yell "LIBERAL" instead .

 

 

Like you he has no freaking clue as to how I lean.

 

Clyde unless you post things that go against what you believe it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know on almost every issue you would be what is classified as a modern Liberal.

You were perfectly clear. Your link was to a left wing blog, which along with other left wing blogs is on a crusade to convince us that Ted Cruz is nuts. You are using the same left wing sources to make the argument that you know that Ted Cruz does not understand states rights as well as you do. Yes, your approach is perfectly clear. Forgive me if I am more inclined to accept the ultra liberal Alan Dershowitz's assessment of Cruz over your own.

 

Again I'll ask: Do you believe he said that the govt wants to take away golf courses and paved roads? They say they got it from his website which, conveniently for you and Mr Cruz, has had that link taken down.

Clyde unless you post things that go against what you believe it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know on almost every issue you would be what is classified as a modern Liberal.

 

I expect more thinking from you , my man. Show me where I've said something that proves I'm either a liberal OR a conservative. I'll wait.

I thought you might concede that point once I cited his resume. So now, your opinion of Cruz has shifted from "whacky" to dishonest? Is that correct? Or he still whacky but at the same time smart and dishonest? Just curious, how do you rate Obama's intellect and honesty and what do you base your assessment?

 

 

Pay attention, son. I've been PERFECTLY CLEAR on this.

 

Whacky: govt taking away golf courses and paved roads

Dishonest (because I think he's smart) the issue of what the states can do TODAY to get around ACA.

 

Don't conflate my posts. I've made it quite clear.

It doesn't matter who the link is to if we all agree they didn't change his quote. Are you saying they misquoted him?

 

I smell class avoidance on your part. I've clearly asked you whether you believe he said what they say they quoted FROM HIS WEBSITE. Do you or do you not?

 

Cruz has the resume and knowledge to make an educated opinion on nullification. In fact his legal background is much more impressive than our current president. The author who's opinion you hold so highly what is their background compare to Cruz? Some credentials would help.

Cruz has the resume and knowledge to make an educated opinion on nullification. In fact his legal background is much more impressive than our current president. The author who's opinion you hold so highly what is their background compare to Cruz? Some credentials would help.

 

The "author" quoted directly from Article 1. What part of that do you think they got wrong when stating the states can get around a presidential veto?

ThinkProgress again. And some people laughed when I referred to you as liberal. :laugh:

 

I am not a lawyer, not even a bad one. I know that Cruz is an outstanding lawyer and I am not going to waste my time debating with you over whether a liberal website with an ax to grind understands the law better than Cruz does. I know that they do not. So if the best arguments that you have that Cruz is "whacky" and does not understand the law comes from liberal bloggers, then don't expect anybody to take your rants against Cruz seriously.

Nullification is a losing issue, especially if it originates in Texas, where secession talk is taken seriously. Wackiest region of the country right now is Texas-Oklahoma. It's like the four U.S. senators from those two states live in a reconstructed trans-Mississippi "New South" instead of the USA.

It doesn't matter who the link is to if we all agree they didn't change his quote. Are you saying they misquoted him?

 

I smell class avoidance on your part. I've clearly asked you whether you believe he said what they say they quoted FROM HIS WEBSITE. Do you or do you not?

I have clearly said that I believe that it is unwise to let a politically biased blogger add context to a short quote. The Agenda 21 document is 127 pages long and written in an obscure dialect of "governmentese." What reason do I have to believe that Cruz's analysis is wrong or that ThinkProgress accurately characterized his quote? You obviously trust the blogger and want to believe the worst about Sen. Cruz, but there is no reason for me to do the same. See, I can also create a broken link to Cruz's website: Ted Cruz Claims He Was Kidnapped by Aliens

I expect more thinking from you , my man. Show me where I've said something that proves I'm either a liberal OR a conservative. I'll wait.

 

You can't be serious ? Name any major issue that we are dealing with right now and give me an example when your opinion was conservative . You have a right to your opinion , we disagree on almost every topic on this forum outside of 4th amendment issues , war on drugs and gay marriage. But on basically every topic you either strongly side with the liberal view point or willing to give the liberal stand point on that issue the benefit of the doubt. Rarely do you give conservative leaders that same benefit of the doubt as we see in this very thread with Senator Cruz.

 

Again I don't dislike you because of these stances I just don't agree with them. But I think any reasonable person could assess a very large majority of the time you side with the democrat stance which would give an educated asummption you are liberal or at the very least a very strong left leaning moderate.

Back to the Agenda 21 issue. His being against it is fine. Had he simply said he thinks it needs to be revoked or changed then he comes across as rational and having an opinion that you and I can agree or disagree with.

 

Where he crosses into whacky world (which is different than not being super duper intelligent) is taking the giant leap that he did. That type of leap gives me great pause when thinking of a person who wants to run this country.

You can't be serious ? Name any major issue that we are dealing with right now and give me an example when your opinion was conservative . You have a right to your opinion , we disagree on almost every topic on this forum outside of 4th amendment issues , war on drugs and gay marriage. But on basically every topic you either strongly side with the liberal view point or willing to give the liberal stand point on that issue the benefit of the doubt. Rarely do you give conservative leaders that same benefit of the doubt as we see in this very thread with Senator Cruz.

 

Again I don't dislike you because of these stances I just don't agree with them. But I think any reasonable person could assess a very large majority of the time you side with the democrat stance which would give an educated asummption you are liberal or at the very least a very strong left leaning moderate.

 

Let's just name a few hot topics and I'll state where I stand:

 

Gay marriage: state issue but I've got no problem with it.

Religion: practicing Catholic

Abortion: against it morally - do NOT think we can jail mothers for having one.

Drugs: Marijuana should be legal. All others - illegal.

NSA spying: 100% against it. Violates the constitution IMO.

DUI checkpoints: Same as NSA spying.

Taxes: Too many

Military: Pro military. No problems with war IF its based on actual intel

Death penalty: Against it not for religious reasons but because they are too many errors that result in a "not guilty" person being killed.

 

 

So from that you've got me pegged? Hell, I don't have me pegged.

 

The mistake you have made and many others over the years have made is your belief that I take a side. What you call taking a side is me stating flawed info or flawed logic. Not the same. You have no clue how I have voted nor how I WILL vote in the future.

 

Be smarter than that. You've obviously intelligent.

The "author" quoted directly from Article 1. What part of that do you think they got wrong when stating the states can get around a presidential veto?

 

My problem is with your leap to the word Looney. Cruz is a highly decorated lawyer with substantial constitutional law experience . Who based on his education and experience formed an opinion on nullification. Now you can say you disagree with his opinion on the constitution just like I do often with the 4 liberal supreme Court justices. But to make the leap to Looney based on some ones opinion on a subject matter they are fully qualified to form said opinion on. Is nothing more than trivial character assanination and honestly beneath you .