U.S. Senate Race

[Slowplay]

I thought I was for Ted Cruz for a long time, even overlooked the whole Goldman Sachs thing (his firm represents them, his wife is a VP), then he started bragging about Mark Levin endorsing him. Seriously, I can't think of any neocon more vile than Mark Levin, wants to bomb everyone.

Thats' when I found Addison. He's' not polling good, not getting publicity, but I'm voting my conscience for Glenn Addison.

Thanks - you have reinforced my support for Cruz.

Paulbots and liberals call Mark Levin the pejorative "neocon" (which is funny, because Mark Levin has voiced opposition to many of the overseas interventions/actions by the Obama admin, often in agreement w/ Ron Paul). Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation has also been on the front lines fighting Obamacare, filing amicus briefs early & often. Sorry, can't take your opposition to Ted Cruz seriously.

Serious question - what has Addison done to defend the 2nd Amendment?

I know what Ted Cruz has done (District of Columbia v. Heller).

[74novaman]

Paulbots and liberals call Mark Levin the pejorative "neocon" (which is funny, because Mark Levin has voiced opposition to many of the overseas interventions/actions by the Obama admin, often in agreement w/ Ron Paul).

The second I hear the word "neocon" used, it pretty much lets me know I can safely ignore whatever follows. I've never met 2 people with the same definition for the word (some say its those who favor foreign intervention, some say its a "social conservative", or a bankster, or someone who works for halliburton, etc...). Its a made up, non descriptor used SOLELY as a way to insult a conservative or Republican without articulating what it is he stands for that you have a problem with.




*As a disclaimer*

Some may look at my own posts and see that I refer to liberals as statists. The difference is, since leftists and liberals support more government intervention in most any level of life and business, calling them statists merely describes their support for govt power and control. Calling someone a "neocon" is like calling them a "doo doo head". It means nothing beyond an insult.

[lbuehler325]

I thought I was for Ted Cruz for a long time, even overlooked the whole Goldman Sachs thing (his firm represents them, his wife is a VP), then he started bragging about Mark Levin endorsing him. Seriously, I can't think of any neocon more vile than Mark Levin, wants to bomb everyone.

Thats' when I found Addison. He's' not polling good, not getting publicity, but I'm voting my conscience for Glenn Addison.

Thanks - you have reinforced my support for Cruz.

Paulbots and liberals call Mark Levin the pejorative "neocon" (which is funny, because Mark Levin has voiced opposition to many of the overseas interventions/actions by the Obama admin, often in agreement w/ Ron Paul). Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation has also been on the front lines fighting Obamacare, filing amicus briefs early & often. Sorry, can't take your opposition to Ted Cruz seriously.

Serious question - what has Addison done to defend the 2nd Amendment?

I know what Ted Cruz has done (District of Columbia v. Heller).

That's a lot of love for Mark Levin. Isn't this the same guy who supports Romney (one of the two worst of the original Republican candidates with respect to the 2nd Amendment), and then ask about Addison's stance on 2A. With respect to the 2A, I can respect what Cruz has done and the position he's taken. As a strict Constitutionalist though, I would imagine Addison will be a strong defender of our 2A rights.

[G26ster]

Webster

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE
1
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2
: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
— neo·con·ser·va·tism noun
— neoconservative adjective
First Known Use of NEOCONSERVATIVE
1952

[atticus]

Interesting question, whether to support Romney or not. It's the end of May, the fall election is a little over 5 months away, and Romney will be the Republican nominee. If not Romney, then who? Obama? Really? Levin is a fine, fine man. I take his view on Cruz very seriously. But criticize him for supporting Romney? Are you serious? We need all hands on deck to get rid of Obama.

[Slowplay]

I thought I was for Ted Cruz for a long time, even overlooked the whole Goldman Sachs thing (his firm represents them, his wife is a VP), then he started bragging about Mark Levin endorsing him. Seriously, I can't think of any neocon more vile than Mark Levin, wants to bomb everyone.

Thats' when I found Addison. He's' not polling good, not getting publicity, but I'm voting my conscience for Glenn Addison.

Thanks - you have reinforced my support for Cruz.

Paulbots and liberals call Mark Levin the pejorative "neocon" (which is funny, because Mark Levin has voiced opposition to many of the overseas interventions/actions by the Obama admin, often in agreement w/ Ron Paul). Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation has also been on the front lines fighting Obamacare, filing amicus briefs early & often. Sorry, can't take your opposition to Ted Cruz seriously.

Serious question - what has Addison done to defend the 2nd Amendment?

I know what Ted Cruz has done (District of Columbia v. Heller).

That's a lot of love for Mark Levin. Isn't this the same guy who supports Romney (one of the two worst of the original Republican candidates with respect to the 2nd Amendment), and then ask about Addison's stance on 2A. With respect to the 2A, I can respect what Cruz has done and the position he's taken. As a strict Constitutionalist though, I would imagine Addison will be a strong defender of our 2A rights.

This is hilarious to me - First we have a person claiming they were for Ted Cruz, but then had a 'change of heart' after a Mark Levin (someone this person hates) endorses Cruz. That is just simply absurd to me.

Now we have you, continuing on that path and making someone that endorsed Ted Cruz the target by making additional errant statements.

For someone that claims to be supportive of a candidate that's a "Constitutionalist," you either know next to nothing about Landmark Legal or don't really agree with their efforts.

Also, I'll side with a candidate that has proven their positions over someone you "would imagine" would be strong in their positions.

[Slowplay]

Interesting question, whether to support Romney or not. It's the end of May, the fall election is a little over 5 months away, and Romney will be the Republican nominee. If not Romney, then who? Obama? Really? Levin is a fine, fine man. I take his view on Cruz very seriously. But criticize him for supporting Romney? Are you serious? We need all hands on deck to get rid of Obama.

I can count the number of conservatives (or self proclaimed conservatives) that had Romney as their number one (or even second) choice going into the primaries on one hand. Like you said, now that Romney will be the nominee there is only one sensible vote to cast.

[74novaman]

Interesting question, whether to support Romney or not. It's the end of May, the fall election is a little over 5 months away, and Romney will be the Republican nominee. If not Romney, then who? Obama? Really? Levin is a fine, fine man. I take his view on Cruz very seriously. But criticize him for supporting Romney? Are you serious? We need all hands on deck to get rid of Obama.

I can count the number of conservatives (or self proclaimed conservatives) that had Romney as their number one (or even second) choice going into the primaries on one hand. Like you said, now that Romney will be the nominee there is only one sensible vote to cast.

Yep. I would have preferred Romney wasn't the nominee, but he is and Texas didn't get to weigh in before the issue was settled. Now that its between a dedicated socialist who doesn't like the country as it was founded or a soft Republican, I'll go for a soft R. If he does a terrible job, we can always hope a true conservative challenges him in the primary in 4 years...but I do know one thing about Romney. As much as I don't like some of his opinions, he cannot do a worse job than Obama has.

[tacticool]

Like you said, now that Romney will be the nominee there is only one sensible vote to cast.

Secession?

[APynckel]

For me, it's Cruz all the way. Dewhurst has had plenty of chances to prove his conservative mettle over the years and failed miserably. Most recently, border security, sanctity cities, proposed wage tax and TSA.

Cruz is consistent in his beliefs and actions. He is a fighter and I believe he will not backdown when the going gets tough.

.

Cruz got my vote. Anyone that Rand Paul will support, I will support (as sheepish as that is).

I voted for Paul in the primary, because he believes in and won't trounce the constitution, like Romney has in Massachusetts. I'm surprised ANYONE on this forum would support that anti-gun fanatic.

[chasfm11]

For me, it's Cruz all the way. Dewhurst has had plenty of chances to prove his conservative mettle over the years and failed miserably. Most recently, border security, sanctity cities, proposed wage tax and TSA.

Cruz is consistent in his beliefs and actions. He is a fighter and I believe he will not backdown when the going gets tough.

.

Cruz got my vote. Anyone that Rand Paul will support, I will support (as sheepish as that is).

I voted for Paul in the primary, because he believes in and won't trounce the constitution, like Romney has in Massachusetts. I'm surprised ANYONE on this forum would support that anti-gun fanatic.

I didn't get to set up the choice. But between Romney and Obama.... Hmmm... let me see..... NO CONTEST! If nothing else, remember the last two Supreme Court appointments, what they were and who made them. Believe me, there is another Kagan or Sotomayor out there and it is only going to take one more and bye, bye 2nd Amendment.

If for no other reason than sweeping house, I'd like to see Cruz get it over Dewhurst.

[APynckel]

For me, it's Cruz all the way. Dewhurst has had plenty of chances to prove his conservative mettle over the years and failed miserably. Most recently, border security, sanctity cities, proposed wage tax and TSA.

Cruz is consistent in his beliefs and actions. He is a fighter and I believe he will not backdown when the going gets tough.

.

Cruz got my vote. Anyone that Rand Paul will support, I will support (as sheepish as that is).

I voted for Paul in the primary, because he believes in and won't trounce the constitution, like Romney has in Massachusetts. I'm surprised ANYONE on this forum would support that anti-gun fanatic.

I didn't get to set up the choice. But between Romney and Obama.... Hmmm... let me see..... NO CONTEST! If nothing else, remember the last two Supreme Court appointments, what they were and who made them. Believe me, there is another Kagan or Sotomayor out there and it is only going to take one more and bye, bye 2nd Amendment.

If for no other reason than sweeping house, I'd like to see Cruz get it over Dewhurst.

That's fine, but you (in Tx) still have a vote for the primary nomination. If you don't like Romney, DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!

[chasfm11]

For me, it's Cruz all the way. Dewhurst has had plenty of chances to prove his conservative mettle over the years and failed miserably. Most recently, border security, sanctity cities, proposed wage tax and TSA.

Cruz is consistent in his beliefs and actions. He is a fighter and I believe he will not backdown when the going gets tough.

.

Cruz got my vote. Anyone that Rand Paul will support, I will support (as sheepish as that is).

I voted for Paul in the primary, because he believes in and won't trounce the constitution, like Romney has in Massachusetts. I'm surprised ANYONE on this forum would support that anti-gun fanatic.

I didn't get to set up the choice. But between Romney and Obama.... Hmmm... let me see..... NO CONTEST! If nothing else, remember the last two Supreme Court appointments, what they were and who made them. Believe me, there is another Kagan or Sotomayor out there and it is only going to take one more and bye, bye 2nd Amendment.

If for no other reason than sweeping house, I'd like to see Cruz get it over Dewhurst.

That's fine, but you (in Tx) still have a vote for the primary nomination. If you don't like Romney, DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!

I didn't but that isn't going to change anything in the Fall. It is still going to be R or O.

[APynckel]

I didn't but that isn't going to change anything in the Fall. It is still going to be R or O.

Only if you vote for R.

Accepting the notion that you have no impact, is only letting the GoP establishment get what it wants.

[lbuehler325]

I didn't intend to knock on Cruz or Levin. I was only pointing out the utter contradiction of claiming the 2A is of supreme importance and then talk up an endorsement from somebody who's also endorsed the biggest anti-gunner Republican governor in our nation's history. Seems a bit short-sighted to me.

Acknowledging the fact that Cruz is a far better choice than Dewhurst, I still contest that a strict Constitutionalist and liberty candidate is the best choice for those of us who want our federal government limited to its Constititutionally authorized roles (including not infringing upon our right to own/carry/use firearms).

I will say that if Addison were not in the race, it would be Cruz, hands down. I just question his integrity (remember, he is a lawyer, and one who's spent his life either as a corporate or government one at that... just a step above ambulance chasers) and who he answers to (which is why I lean heavily toward Addison). I guess I just live in a world of right and wrong, trying to stay out of the grey areas whenever possible.