Ted Cruz undecided on Rand's hemp amendment

[Brett85]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/legal-hemp_n_3390826.html

"Even Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a tea party ally of Rand Paul's, told HuffPost that he hadn't made up his mind on Paul's amendment."

[Brett85]

This is kind of surprising since I thought Cruz understood the 10th amendment.

[TaftFan]

Sounds like most of these people haven't even seen it.

[ClydeCoulter]

Come on Cruz, skip the possible income of bribes that may come your way because of your statement, and just get on board with your oath.

[The Free Hornet]

This is kind of surprising since I thought Cruz understood the 10th amendment.

lol

The guy is a motherfucker. Toss in the pile. Move on.

[Brett85]

lol

The guy is a motherfucker. Toss in the pile. Move on.

In that case then we probably only have one good Senator.

[muh_roads]

Come on Cruz, skip the possible income of bribes that may come your way because of your statement, and just get on board with your oath.

This.

[Sola_Fide]

Ted Cruz absolutely sucks. George Bush 2.0

[TaftFan]

Ted Cruz absolutely sucks. George Bush 2.0

Nothing like Bush other than home state.

[Brett85]

It kind of seemed like a red flag when Cruz was proposing alternative gun amendments that would basically federalize certain gun crimes. I started to think then that perhaps he doesn't have a proper understanding of the 10th amendment and the principles of Constitutionally limited government.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Seriously, folks, it's like a revolving door on impressions of Cruz. 'Cruz is an ally! No wait, Cruz isn't an ally anymore.' If he hasn't made up his mind yet, he hasn't made up his mind. That doesn't equate to a Yes or No.

[Brett85]

If he hasn't made up his mind yet, he hasn't made up his mind. That doesn't equate to a Yes or No.

Right, but this shouldn't be the kind of issue that you have to make your mind up about. It's simple, does Cruz support the 10th amendment or not? This isn't a bill to legalize hemp, but is simply a bill to allow the states to legalize hemp if they choose to. Anyone who cares at all about states' rights and the 10th amendment shouldn't hesitate at all to support a bill like this.

[BenIsForRon]

This is a no-brainer. Cruz has a long way to go.

[eduardo89]

Ted Cruz absolutely sucks. George Bush 2.0

Ted Cruz is nothing like Bush.

You win idiotic comment of the year. Second year in a row, I think.

[JoshLowry]

http://uspatent6630507.com/

[JoshLowry]

Ted Cruz is nothing like Bush.

You win idiotic comment of the year. Second year in a row, I think.

Please do not call users comments idiotic.

If Cruz wishes to continue a war on people who wish to stimulate their minds, then he will encounter resistance where there are people who support Liberty.

I can't believe you get your rocks off on this.

[Sola_Fide]

Please do not call users comments idiotic.

If Cruz wishes to continue a war on people who wish to stimulate their minds, then he will encounter resistance where there are people who support Liberty.

I can't believe you get your rocks off on this.

Thank you Josh. Liberty is more important than politics. Hopefully we all here will come to realize this.

[ClydeCoulter]

http://uspatent6630507.com/

Okay, okay, I shared it on FB :D

oh, and I forgot (see) that maybe I could use some of the benefits.

[TaftFan]

Please do not call users comments idiotic.

If Cruz wishes to continue a war on people who wish to stimulate their minds, then he will encounter resistance where there are people who support Liberty.

I can't believe you get your rocks off on this.
Hemp is not a drug!

[JoshLowry]

Hemp is not a drug!

The ambiguous concerns the Senators have are due to "strong opposition" from other government employees. (Law Enforcement)

[Sola_Fide]

Hemp is not a drug!

Tell that to Ted Cruz. Better yet, tell him that free people have the freedom to put anything into their bodies that they want to. George Bush 2.0

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Not surprised. He's a Goldman Sachs boy. Way too friendly within the neocon world. Mike Lee is okay, but he's made some pretty idiotic statements about Snowden, and at best he's pseudo-liberty.

[WhistlinDave]

http://uspatent6630507.com/

I've been telling people about this patent for quite some time... It's the height of hypocrisy for our government to claim cannabis has no legitimate medical use and then simultaneously hold the patent on medical uses for it. They patent it and it's STILL schedule I!! It's like the plot to an unbelievably bad comedy that isn't even remotely funny.

[WhistlinDave]

Hemp is not a drug!

Both Boxer and Feinstein have written back to me (more than once) stating that they can't support legalizing hemp growing because it would make the job too difficult for law enforcement efforts to "eradicate marijuana growing operations, since hemp and marijuana look so similar." And they they go on about blah blah blah "marijuana is a dangerous drug" blah blah blah. Really stupid excuse, from every angle. Idiots. (I hope I'm still allowed to call my Senators' comments idiotic here. LOL)

[anaconda]

What could be the possible reasons for Cruz NOT voting for it?

[eduardo89]

What could be the possible reasons for Cruz NOT voting for it?

Not having read the bill, maybe?

[Sola_Fide]

What could be the possible reasons for Cruz NOT voting for it?

Being anti-freedom?

[compromise]

Not surprised. He's a Goldman Sachs boy. Way too friendly within the neocon world. Mike Lee is okay, but he's made some pretty idiotic statements about Snowden, and at best he's pseudo-liberty.

Cruz is actually far less friendly with the "neocon world" than Lee is. I believe Lee is on good terms (on a personal level probably) with Graham and McCain. I don't mind this tactic used by Lee, I think he's playing along so he can get into GOP Senate leadership, but it's not like Cruz is worse than him.

Have you not noticed that when the neocons go after Rand they also tend to bring up Cruz and not Lee? Kristol calls them both anti-military, McCain calls them wacko birds, Peter King calls them isolationists, Cotton confronts Cruz about his and Rand's views on drone use...

I doubt Cruz is aware as to what Rand's hemp amendment contains. He was probably put on the spot and rather than make himself look bad by saying he didn't know, he said he was undecided.

[Tinnuhana]

Maybe Cruz is just leaving his options open for which way those winds are blowing if he and Rand both end up in a primary debate.

[HigherVision]

Hemp is not a drug!

But it's cousin is. Stupid logic I know but this is why social conservatives are against it. Social conservatism is unAmerican i.m.o. as compared to the original American spirit of rugged individualism. I think there's a difference between those who want to go back to the 50's politically and those of us who want to go back to 1776.

[Brett85]

Tell that to Ted Cruz. Better yet, tell him that free people have the freedom to put anything into their bodies that they want to. George Bush 2.0

Like I said, that's not even the issue at the federal level. Someone like Cruz should understand that it's a jurisdictional issue, that the states have jurisdiction over the issue of drug policy under the 10th amendment, not the federal government.

[QuickZ06]

In other words, Cruz just had his pockets lined by a few lobbyists.

[jkr]

we dont chase people around, kill, & steal over "ERADICATING" HEMLOCK and it can ACTUALLY kill people...


really, if someone cant get this they arent really gonna change ANYTHING...

NEG REP FOR TED ON THIS...

[Anti-Neocon]

BREAKING: Ted Cruz really isn't a believer in liberty. Who would've ever guessed from the innumerable amount of anti-liberty statements that he has said in the past?

NEXT UP: How Schumer really isn't much of a libertarian.

[V4Vendetta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvI7uKbuwvM

[V4Vendetta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP1d1ahWGww

[Brett85]

BREAKING: Ted Cruz really isn't a believer in liberty. Who would've ever guessed from the innumerable amount of anti-liberty statements that he has said in the past?

NEXT UP: How Schumer really isn't much of a libertarian.

He has a solid voting record so far. That's why I'm surprised that he doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of the 10th amendment.

[Feeding the Abscess]

He has a solid voting record so far. That's why I'm surprised that he doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of the 10th amendment.

It's pretty easy to have a solid voting record as a senator when the opposing party runs the Senate and the White House.

[speciallyblend]

forget cruz hemp is a no brainer yes support, , http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?421744-Colorado-MAKE-IT-RIGHT!!-Put-The-Nail-In-The-Coffin-Of-Prohibition&p=5132821#post5132821

[paulbot24]

Come on Cruz, skip the possible income of bribes that may come your way because of your statement, and just get on board with your oath.

He's married to Goldman Sachs (literally) so do you think it is even possible for him to do such a thing?:eek:

[eduardo89]

He's married to Goldman Sachs (literally) so do you think it is even possible for him to do such a thing?:eek:

Yes because every single person who works for GS is evil. Way to collectively condemn 32,400+ people.

[Sola_Fide]

Ted Cruz is nothing like Bush.

You win idiotic comment of the year. Second year in a row, I think.

George Bush in 2000 was less interventionist than Ted Cruz is now. Bush in 2000 never would have said we should invade Syria or Iran. In fact, he was arguing against foreign entanglements. Bush sounded all of the "conservative fundamentals" like free market, second amendment, marriage, etc.

[eduardo89]

George Bush in 2000 was less interventionist than Ted Cruz is now. Bush sounded all of the "conservative fundamentals" like free market, second amendment, marriage, etc.

Bush was running for president campaigning against Bill Clinton's intervention in the Balkans. Most Americans opposed American involvement, with a large majority opposing the possibility of sending ground troops.

Ted Cruz has fought against intervention in Libya and Syria. He's for ending the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democrats have gone on record saying they don't want to bring up AUMF because Cruz and Rand would make them look bad for supporting perpetual war. Cruz might be a little hawkish on Iran, but his stance is identical to Mike Lee's and pretty damn close to Rand's.

Ted Cruz also doesn't just sound conservative on free markets, Second Amendment, and marriage. He actually is, whereas Bush was just rhetoric.

[Sola_Fide]

Bush was running for president campaigning against Bill Clinton's intervention in the Balkans. Most Americans opposed American involvement, with a large majority opposing the possibility of sending ground troops.

Ted Cruz has fought against intervention in Libya and Syria. He's for ending the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democrats have gone on record saying they don't want to bring up AUMF because Cruz and Rand would make them look bad for supporting perpetual war. Cruz might be a little hawkish on Iran, but his stance is identical to Mike Lee's and pretty damn close to Rand's.

Ted Cruz also doesn't just sound conservative on free markets, Second Amendment, and marriage. He actually is, whereas Bush was just rhetoric.

Are you kidding me? Ted Cruz wants to invade Syria:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx83YwkLAp0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Ted Cruz sucks. He is not a liberty candidate at all.

[eduardo89]

I agree with him. If there are chemical weapons the US should destroy them if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda and used against America. He also says that if they do go in to take those weapons out if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda that that should be the sole mission and once that is achieved that the US should leave immediately. Eliminate the threat (or potential threat) and get out. That was Ron Paul's position on Afghanistan and it is the correct position.

Notice also how he says we should not be arming the rebels? I've seen Cruz also say we should not take sides in the civil war.


Ted Cruz sucks. He is not a liberty candidate at all.

Ted Cruz is a solid constitutional conservative with an America-first mentality. He, Rand and Mike Lee are the three best senators the US has seen in decades.

[Brett85]

Ted Cruz is a solid constitutional conservative with an America-first mentality. He, Rand and Mike Lee are the three best senators the US has seen in decades.

He still needs to understand that the states have jurisdiction over the drug issue and not the federal government if he wants to call himself a "Constitutional Conservative."

[ClydeCoulter]

I agree with him. If there are chemical weapons the US should destroy them if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda and used against America. He also says that if they do go in to take those weapons out if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda that that should be the sole mission and once that is achieved that the US should leave immediately. Eliminate the threat (or potential threat) and get out. That was Ron Paul's position on Afghanistan and it is the correct position.

Notice also how he says we should not be arming the rebels? I've seen Cruz also say we should not take sides in the civil war.



Ted Cruz is a solid constitutional conservative with an America-first mentality. He, Rand and Mike Lee are the three best senators the US has seen in decades.

But how could they get into the wrong hands? Because the west, including the U.S., is arming the rebels, and AQ, which reduces the ability of the Syrian government to keep them secure. Create problem, create solution? Ron Paul would certainly not support these combined efforts.

[Warlord]

Eduardo in full meltdown. You can't just invade a country with hundreds of special ops forces to secure weapons. It would require a massive ground invasion and regime change. Otherwise anyone you send in is as good as dead unless you use shock and awe, blah blah which is just another Iraq.

[Warlord]

Nothing like Bush other than home state.

He's worked for Bush and he and his wife have kissed their ass numerous times.

[Warlord]

Cruz is actually far less friendly with the "neocon world" than Lee is.

You really have no idea do you? He's been there 4 months. Get back to me after 2 years at least . He's going to disappoint you.

[QuickZ06]

I agree with him. If there are chemical weapons the US should destroy them if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda and used against America. He also says that if they do go in to take those weapons out if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda that that should be the sole mission and once that is achieved that the US should leave immediately. Eliminate the threat (or potential threat) and get out. That was Ron Paul's position on Afghanistan and it is the correct position.

Notice also how he says we should not be arming the rebels? I've seen Cruz also say we should not take sides in the civil war.



Ted Cruz is a solid constitutional conservative with an America-first mentality. He, Rand and Mike Lee are the three best senators the US has seen in decades.

Dude, really? Look up the term war-lite then get back to us.

[Christian Liberty]

Are you kidding me? Ted Cruz wants to invade Syria:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx83YwkLAp0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Ted Cruz sucks. He is not a liberty candidate at all.

Amen. I'd never vote for him.

His foreign policy totally sucks. Apparently he doesn't even support defense cuts.

[Brett85]

His foreign policy isn't as good as Rand's foreign policy, but he's also not a McCain or Graham type either. For example, he supports cuts in foreign aid, opposes arming the Syrian rebels, opposes nation building in Afghanistan and wants to transition out of there, opposes humanitarian wars, etc. If there's a foreign policy that's exactly half way in between Ron Paul and Lindsey Graham, that's probably where Ted Cruz is. He's clearly not a non interventionist like Ron but also isn't someone who's going to support every intervention and support occupying countries indefinitely.

[Christian Liberty]

His foreign policy isn't as good as Rand's foreign policy, but he's also not a McCain or Graham type either. For example, he supports cuts in foreign aid, opposes arming the Syrian rebels, opposes nation building in Afghanistan and wants to transition out of there, opposes humanitarian wars, etc. If there's a foreign policy that's exactly half way in between Ron Paul and Lindsey Graham, that's probably where Ted Cruz is. He's clearly not a non interventionist like Ron but also isn't someone who's going to support every intervention and support occupying countries indefinitely.

Which still isn't good enough.

[eduardo89]

Dude, really? Look up the term war-lite then get back to us.

I'm not an isolationist. I don't agree 100% with Ron Paul on foreign policy, I honestly think he's a bit naïve on that front. I much prefer Rand and Cruz's foreign policy.

The federal governments top responsibility is national defense and I think a case in which weapons of mass destructions could fall into the hands of our enemy (al-Qaeda) and be used against us warrants destruction of those weapons. I think it makes sense for the military to have a plan in case that happens.

It wouldn't necessitate the invasion and occupation of Syria, I am completely against that, just I'm against the war/occupation of Iraq and the continued occupation of Afghanistan. It might not even necessitate troops on the ground, but air strikes might be sufficient.

I think this should be a last resort and the decision should not be taken lightly, but if the syrian government falls and the country is in anarchy and the weapons unsecured with a big chance of them falling into the hands of al-Qaeda or al-Nusrah then I think the US should destroy them.

[JK/SEA]

Oh yeah. Sticking our nose in every squabble, or a paranoid delusion of 'protecting' U.S. interests has served us well. Effin bullshit. Take a look around you. Can you tell the class how this current fascist foreign policy is not destroying our moral standing, and economic standing?

Anyone who advocates keeping the status quo with regards to the war machine is a traitor, and it is delusional to believe you are 'somehow' a 'good' American.

[T.hill]

Oh yeah. Sticking our nose in every squabble, or a paranoid delusion of 'protecting' U.S. interests has served us well. Effin bullshit. Take a look around you. Can you tell the class how this current fascist foreign policy is not destroying our moral standing, and economic standing?

Anyone who advocates keeping the status quo with regards to the war machine is a traitor, and it is delusional to believe you are 'somehow' a 'good' American.

intolerance and closed-minded views manifest themselves on these forums quite a bit, ussually reulting in ad hominem attacks.

[T.hill]

I'm not an isolationist. I don't agree 100% with Ron Paul on foreign policy, I honestly think he's a bit naïve on that front. I much prefer Rand and Cruz's foreign policy.

The federal governments top responsibility is national defense and I think a case in which weapons of mass destructions could fall into the hands of our enemy (al-Qaeda) and be used against us warrants destruction of those weapons. I think it makes sense for the military to have a plan in case that happens.

It wouldn't necessitate the invasion and occupation of Syria, I am completely against that, just I'm against the war/occupation of Iraq and the continued occupation of Afghanistan. It might not even necessitate troops on the ground, but air strikes might be sufficient.

I think this should be a last resort and the decision should not be taken lightly, but if the syrian government falls and the country is in anarchy and the weapons unsecured with a big chance of them falling into the hands of al-Qaeda or al-Nusrah then I think the US should destroy them.

If you're refering to Ron Paul's foreign policy as isolationist, then I'm afraid your misguided and really just wrong. Non-interventionist policy is a clear and distinct theory from isolationism, North Korea is the closest to isolationist as it gets as a self described self-reliant state. Yet even NK isnt truely isolated.

By implication your correlating Ron Pauls foreign policy with NK's own, which is obviously absurd.

[T.hill]

Also Rand is a 'defensive realist' which inherently is already very similar to non-interventionism. Rands own unique variation of it is essentially non intervetionism.

[QuickZ06]

I'm not an isolationist. I don't agree 100% with Ron Paul on foreign policy, I honestly think he's a bit naïve on that front. I much prefer Rand and Cruz's foreign policy.

The federal governments top responsibility is national defense and I think a case in which weapons of mass destructions could fall into the hands of our enemy (al-Qaeda) and be used against us warrants destruction of those weapons. I think it makes sense for the military to have a plan in case that happens.

It wouldn't necessitate the invasion and occupation of Syria, I am completely against that, just I'm against the war/occupation of Iraq and the continued occupation of Afghanistan. It might not even necessitate troops on the ground, but air strikes might be sufficient.

I think this should be a last resort and the decision should not be taken lightly, but if the syrian government falls and the country is in anarchy and the weapons unsecured with a big chance of them falling into the hands of al-Qaeda or al-Nusrah then I think the US should destroy them.

Do you understand the history of Al-Qaeda? They would have never would have came to exists if Russia had not of gone into Afghanistan. Simple logic really, go into other peoples country's and start bombing them and in return they will pick up arms and fight back. Our foreign policy is creating more and more monsters that hate us throughout the world. If we minded our own business like say the Swiss we would never be on the verge of 17 trillion dollars in debt. And like others have said, no one here is advocating isolationism, non-intervention is the key and this is what Ron Paul preached. Do you really need to go back and watch the videos you post on YT to understand that?

[eduardo89]

Do you understand the history of Al-Qaeda? They would have never would have came to exists if Russia had not of gone into Afghanistan. Simple logic really, go into other peoples country's and start bombing them and in return they will pick up arms and fight back. Our foreign policy is creating more and more monsters that hate us throughout the world. If we minded our own business like say the Swiss we would never be on the verge of 17 trillion dollars in debt. And like others have said, no one here is advocating isolationism, non-intervention is the key and this is what Ron Paul preached. Do you really need to go back and watch the videos you post on YT to understand that?

It is not a simple as that. Ron Paul is naïve if he truly believes that if we simply mind our business there will never be any attacks on the US. The world isn't that simple, and I suggest you read and watch some Michael Scheuer. A non-interventionist foreign policy certainly will reduce hatred against American and make America safer, but as the lone remaining superpower there will always be threats. Enemies such as China will use whatever means possible to undermine US power and using proxies is a tool that will always be used.

I certainly agree with Ron Paul in that we should not be bombing, invading, and occupying countries unless they attack us. But today's threats aren't always state actors and in many cases bombing and invading are necessary to safeguard national security. Ron Paul agrees which is why he voted in favor of invading Afghanistan. Occupation and national building are completely unnecessary, I agree with that too and so does Ted Cruz.

Something that the "ideologically pure" on this forum seem to not understand is that national security also involves economic security and neutralizing potential threats. Taking out Syria's chemical weapons should the Assad regime fall or be unable to safeguard them from al-Qaeda is smart. In the long run it would be cheaper, both in blood and treasure, to neutralize the potential threat before it becomes an actual threat, or God forbid, an attack.

[QuickZ06]

Eduardo you sound like Peter King.

[eduardo89]

Eduardo you sound like Peter King.

How so?

I don't advocate getting involved in the foreign affairs of other countries. I don't advocate nation building. I don't advocate expanding the War on Terror. I don't advocate arming Syrian rebels. I don't advocate occupying other countries.

I do, however, think that the US should use the full might of its military to take out threats to national security.

[TaftFan]

I really dislike discussing FP on this forum because many cannot think critically and just repeat irrelevant talking points.

[JK/SEA]

intolerance and closed-minded views manifest themselves on these forums quite a bit, ussually reulting in ad hominem attacks.

pot..meet kettle.

[JK/SEA]

It is not a simple as that. Ron Paul is naïve if he truly believes that if we simply mind our business there will never be any attacks on the US. The world isn't that simple, and I suggest you read and watch some Michael Scheuer. A non-interventionist foreign policy certainly will reduce hatred against American and make America safer, but as the lone remaining superpower there will always be threats. Enemies such as China will use whatever means possible to undermine US power and using proxies is a tool that will always be used.

I certainly agree with Ron Paul in that we should not be bombing, invading, and occupying countries unless they attack us. But today's threats aren't always state actors and in many cases bombing and invading are necessary to safeguard national security. Ron Paul agrees which is why he voted in favor of invading Afghanistan. Occupation and national building are completely unnecessary, I agree with that too and so does Ted Cruz.

Something that the "ideologically pure" on this forum seem to not understand is that national security also involves economic security and neutralizing potential threats. Taking out Syria's chemical weapons should the Assad regime fall or be unable to safeguard them from al-Qaeda is smart. In the long run it would be cheaper, both in blood and treasure, to neutralize the potential threat before it becomes an actual threat, or God forbid, an attack.

So you advocate the status quo...i'm glad you're happy with the destruction of our economy over paranoid delusions.

[JK/SEA]

I really dislike discussing FP on this forum because many cannot think critically and just repeat irrelevant talking points.

care to elaborate, or are you just repeating irrelevant talking points?

[TaftFan]

care to elaborate, or are you just repeating irrelevant talking points?
Sure...constant strawmen, drawing faulty historical parallels, talking in the abstract about liberty, dealing in absolutes....

[Warlord]

the FP forum is one of the best of the lot.

[compromise]

Do you understand the history of Al-Qaeda? They would have never would have came to exists if Russia had not of gone into Afghanistan. Simple logic really, go into other peoples country's and start bombing them and in return they will pick up arms and fight back. Our foreign policy is creating more and more monsters that hate us throughout the world. If we minded our own business like say the Swiss we would never be on the verge of 17 trillion dollars in debt. And like others have said, no one here is advocating isolationism, non-intervention is the key and this is what Ron Paul preached. Do you really need to go back and watch the videos you post on YT to understand that?

Libya threatened to destroy Switzerland:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926053,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cheesed-muammar-gaddafi-out-to-roll-swiss/story-e6frg6so-1225762509467
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/7325539/World-condemns-Gaddafis-call-for-jihad-against-Switzerland.html
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Swiss_hostages_to_leave_Libya.html?cid=72240

You will always have enemies, no matter how non-interventionist you are.

[QuickZ06]

Libya threatened to destroy Switzerland:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926053,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cheesed-muammar-gaddafi-out-to-roll-swiss/story-e6frg6so-1225762509467
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/7325539/World-condemns-Gaddafis-call-for-jihad-against-Switzerland.html
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Swiss_hostages_to_leave_Libya.html?cid=72240

You will always have enemies, no matter how non-interventionist you are.


Relations between Libya and Switzerland soured in July 2008, when Gaddafi's son Hannibal and his wife were arrested by police in Geneva for allegedly beating their two servants at a local hotel. Gaddafi was so enraged by his son's two-day detention that he immediately retaliated by shutting down local subsidiaries of Swiss companies Nestlé and ABB in Libya, arresting two Swiss businessmen for supposed visa irregularities, canceling most commercial flights between the two countries and withdrawing about $5 billion from his Swiss bank accounts.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926053,00.html

Did you bother to read what you posted.......

[QuickZ06]

How so?

I don't advocate getting involved in the foreign affairs of other countries. I don't advocate nation building. I don't advocate expanding the War on Terror. I don't advocate arming Syrian rebels. I don't advocate occupying other countries.

I do, however, think that the US should use the full might of its military to take out threats to national security.

Unreal, just thought I would never see these types of post on RPF. We have ZERO money to do anything, we are in more debt than the world has ever known. There is no more America World Police and there never should have been because it has put us in the situation we are in today. They would never want to use those chemical weapons against us if we were not doing drone strikes left and right, over throwing leaders, and starting wars, killing hundred of thousands or even millions of civilians throughout the middle east.

[puppetmaster]

It is not a simple as that. Ron Paul is naïve if he truly believes that if we simply mind our business there will never be any attacks on the US. The world isn't that simple, and I suggest you read and watch some Michael Scheuer. A non-interventionist foreign policy certainly will reduce hatred against American and make America safer, but as the lone remaining superpower there will always be threats. Enemies such as China will use whatever means possible to undermine US power and using proxies is a tool that will always be used.

I certainly agree with Ron Paul in that we should not be bombing, invading, and occupying countries unless they attack us. But today's threats aren't always state actors and in many cases bombing and invading are necessary to safeguard national security. Ron Paul agrees which is why he voted in favor of invading Afghanistan. Occupation and national building are completely unnecessary, I agree with that too and so does Ted Cruz.

Something that the "ideologically pure" on this forum seem to not understand is that national security also involves economic security and neutralizing potential threats. Taking out Syria's chemical weapons should the Assad regime fall or be unable to safeguard them from al-Qaeda is smart. In the long run it would be cheaper, both in blood and treasure, to neutralize the potential threat before it becomes an actual threat, or God forbid, an attack.

What we have done and are doing in Afghanistan is nothing like what Ron Paul advocated....period

[compromise]

Did you bother to read what you posted.......

So arresting foreigners who are breaking the laws of your nation is an act of war?

[Sola_Fide]

Eduardo you sound like Peter King.

Thats what I was thinking.

[eduardo89]

What we have done and are doing in Afghanistan is nothing like what Ron Paul advocated....period

I didn't say that.

[surf]

back to this hemp issue - let me just say that this Cruz bitch is seriously lacking cajones.

[HigherVision]

Which still isn't good enough.

It might be the best we can realistically get unfortunately. But if he's against hemp that's just ridiculous.

[Miguel]

So where does Sen. Ted Cruz now stand on hemp? or is he still "fact" finding?

[Aratus]

:toady: is pore ted cruz :toady: ever going to admit :toady:
to having "smoked" the substance :toady: that is rather :toady:
similar to :toady:and more powerful than wild hemp?:toady:

[Brett85]

So where does Sen. Ted Cruz now stand on hemp? or is he still "fact" finding?

I don't know. There's a lot of issues that he hasn't seemed to take a position on.

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

For those who doubt Cruz's steadfast commitment to the Tenth Amendment: he isn't the only liberty-minded senator to have some shortcomings in his understanding of constitutional federalism. Rand, too, has expressed views that are anathema to any originalist interpretation of states' rights: take his blind devotion to repairing the disintegrating roads, dams, bridges, and highways here in America, as opposed to the remote and far-distant trenches of the Middle East. Constitutionally, Congress has free reign to do neither, as evidenced by Madison's unecquivocal veto of an appropriations bill for "internal improvements" in 1817.


Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

Also, I think someone mentioned Ted Cruz's "alternative" to Obama's national gun registry (that is, his efforts to strengthen and salvage the pre-existing NICS - national background check - system). I, too, was a bit troubled by that. Stealing a hubcap from someone's car surely deserves swift legal retribution, but not lifetime disarmament. Neither does brewing up crystal meth on the stove or soliciting sexual favors for cash. I might mention, though, that Rand Paul forged an alliance with him on this, so both warrant criticism for their legislative tomfoolery.

Rand has also lent his support to federal regulation of gas pipes. He's backpedaled on his principled quibbles with the Civil Rights Act (as we saw in the speech he gave at Howard University). He's affirmed his agreement with the Supreme Court decision cementing Social Security into law, as a permanent fixture of our socio-political system. Both senators have their flaws, but if we yank them by the collar enough, maybe we can get them to wise up.

By the way, for those are (understandably) wary of Cruz's past associations with the Bush family: Pat Buchanan cast his vote for Bush Jr. in both presidential elections, even while excoriating and pounding away at him for his illegal wars. He also campaigned for Bush the Elder on strictly pragmatic grounds, and Murray Rothbard, one of Bush's fiercest critics, penned an opinion piece, to the chagrin of many libertarians, stating why he would prefer an encore of the Bush administration over the specter of a Clinton one. I've fallen for the allure of "guilt by association" myself, but let's hope that clarifies things a bit. :p

[fr33]

For those who doubt Cruz's steadfast commitment to the Tenth Amendment: he isn't the only liberty-minded senator to have some shortcomings in his understanding of constitutional federalism. Rand, too, has expressed views that are anathema to any originalist interpretation of states' rights: take his blind devotion to repairing the disintegrating roads, dams, bridges, and highways here in America, as opposed to the remote and far-distant trenches of the Middle East. Constitutionally, Congress has free reign to do neither, as evidenced by Madison's unecquivocal veto of an appropriations bill for "internal improvements" in 1817.



Also, I think someone mentioned Ted Cruz's "alternative" to Obama's national gun registry (that is, his efforts to strengthen and salvage the pre-existing NICS - national background check - system). I, too, was a bit troubled by that. Stealing a hubcap from someone's car surely deserves swift legal retribution, but not lifetime disarmament. Neither does brewing up crystal meth on the stove or soliciting sexual favors for cash. I might mention, though, that Rand Paul forged an alliance with him on this, so both warrant criticism for their legislative tomfoolery.

Rand has also lent his support to federal regulation of gas pipes. He's backpedaled on his principled quibbles with the Civil Rights Act (as we saw in the speech he gave at Howard University). He's affirmed his agreement with the Supreme Court decision cementing Social Security into law, as a permanent fixture of our socio-political system. Both senators have their flaws, but if we yank them by the collar enough, maybe we can get them to wise up a bit.

By the way, for those are (understandably) wary of Cruz's past associations with the Bush family: Pat Buchanan cast his vote for Bush Jr. in both presidential elections, even while excoriating and pounding away at him for his illegal wars. He also campaigned for Bush the Elder on strictly pragmatic grounds, and Murray Rothbard, one of Bush's fiercest critics, penned an opinion piece, to the chagrin of many libertarians, stating why he would prefer an encore of the Bush administration over the specter of a Clinton one. I've fallen for the allure of "guilt by association" myself, so let's hope that clarifies things a bit. :p
The only reason I support Rand is because I think he's lying to get elected (because he's Ron Paul's son).

As for Cruz:

377896118400851968

If Obama attacking 7 or 8 countries during his presidency isn't good enough for the chickenhawk Cruz, one can only expect the bloodthirsty bastard to at least double that number. Fuck that murderous POS.

[Christian Liberty]

The only reason I support Rand is because I think he's lying to get elected (because he's Ron Paul's son).


This is wishful thinking. It might be true, but its still wishful thinking. Rand will still RULE as Rand, even if he is lying.

That said, what Rand says is at least broadly compatible with liberty, Cruz on the other hand...



As for Cruz:

377896118400851968

If Obama attacking 7 or 8 countries during his presidency isn't good enough for the chickenhawk Cruz, one can only expect the bloodthirsty bastard to at least double that number. Fuck that murderous POS.

You nailed it...

[Taco John]

Seriously, folks, it's like a revolving door on impressions of Cruz. 'Cruz is an ally! No wait, Cruz isn't an ally anymore.' If he hasn't made up his mind yet, he hasn't made up his mind. That doesn't equate to a Yes or No.

Cruz is just smart and understands his audience and how to navigate them. It's easy for armchair libertarians who couldn't get elected to criticize someone who has gotten themselves planted on center stage and has constituents to manage.