Ted Cruz and war with Iran

[phill4paul]

Well, at least we agree on something.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again. It CAN actually happen from time to time. Lol.

 

[fr33]

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This should come as no surprise. It is what it is. In coalitions, people don't agree 100% of the time.

Ted is closer to Ron Paul on most issues than he is to RINOs like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Chris Christie. On foreign policy, Ted is closer to the neo-conservatives.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

This should come as no surprise. It is what it is. In coalitions, people don't agree 100% of the time.

Ted is closer to Ron Paul on most issues than he is to RINOs like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Chris Christie. On foreign policy, Ted is closer to the neo-conservatives.

Another war will bankrupt any sense of faith in the dollar. It, compounded by the national debt and the college bubble, will be the end of the system. What results, if it were to happen tomorrow would in no way be more free. There are economic implications as well as the predictable strain on civil liberties that a war causes. It is an issue. One understanding Rights could never declare as many statements.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

What are Rafael Ted Cruz's and his modetarly neoconish father Rafael Cruz senior's views on controversial Pastor John hagee and CUFI's racialist armageddon drama in holy land?

 

[James Madison]

This should come as no surprise. It is what it is. In coalitions, people don't agree 100% of the time.

Ted is closer to Ron Paul on most issues than he is to RINOs like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Chris Christie. On foreign policy, Ted is closer to the neo-conservatives.

Willingness to risk WW3 for the sake of a foreign nation is a pretty big issue.

What are Rafael Ted Cruz's and his modetarly neoconish father Rafael Cruz senior's views on controversial Pastor John hagee and CUFI's racialist armageddon drama in holy land?

Cruz is tied to the hip with AIPAC. That's all you need to know.

 

[James Madison]

Notice how he calls them 'interests'. Not rights or liberties, but 'interests'.

Interests = Rape, Pillaging, Death

 

[FrankRep]

Anyone have a News Article or Video of Ted Cruz saying he wanted to preemptively Attack Iran?


My question will be ignored no doubt.

 

[pcosmar]

Where in your quote does he say anything at all about the U.S. going to war against Iran???

Sanctions are an act of war.
And putting a foreign government ahead if the US interests is treason.

 

[vita3]

"Cruz is tied to the hip with AIPAC. That's all you need to know. "

& that's why he's not my huckelberry.

 

[compromise]

Haven't we all come to an agreement that sanctions are war? No? That might be one of those things the the "purgers" might want to consider.

Sanctions are an act of war only if...? Yes/No.

No.

Some of us agree with Justin Amash and Rand Paul that sanctions by themselves are not acts of war.

 

[eduardo89]

No.

Some of us agree with Justin Amash and Rand Paul that sanctions by themselves are not acts of war.

+1

 

[phill4paul]

No.

Some of us agree with Justin Amash and Rand Paul that sanctions by themselves are not acts of war.

I see. Then there is a split on these forums since some believe that they are acts of war based on the reasoning and words of Ron Paul.

 

[eduardo89]

I see. Then there is a split on these forums since some believe that they are acts of war based on the reasoning and words of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul isn't infallible and some of us aren't as isolationist as he is.

 

[Carlybee]

Ron Paul isn't infallible and some of us aren't as isolationist as he is.

I was just told in another thread that we are not to disagree with Ron Paul on endorsements but it's okay to disagree with him on policy? I personally agree with him 100% on foreign policy, but just wondering why the mixed messages.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I think there is a huge difference between "we won't trade with them" and blockading their ports to prevent other countries from trading with them.

 

[phill4paul]

Ron Paul isn't infallible and some of us aren't as isolationist as he is.

I'm not even going to go there........yeesh.

 

[compromise]

I was just told in another thread that we are not to disagree with Ron Paul on endorsements but it's okay to disagree with him on policy? I personally agree with him 100% on foreign policy, but just wondering why the mixed messages.

Rand Paul supports this position. He is the successor to Ron Paul and therefore our current leader. There's no problem with agreeing with him.

Strongly and openly disagreeing with Ron on endorsements is aligning yourself against both Ron and Rand, which of course makes you an enemy of the new liberty movement as a whole.

 

[eduardo89]

I was just told in another thread that we are not to disagree with Ron Paul on endorsements but it's okay to disagree with him on policy? I personally agree with him 100% on foreign policy, but just wondering why the mixed messages.

I think one can disagree with him on both policy and endorsements, but there's a difference between a simple disagreement and healthy debate and what happened with Cuccinelli and the constant attacks and attempt to derail any support for him, especially considering who the Losertarian Party nominated.

 

[compromise]

I think one can disagree with him on both policy and endorsements, but there's a difference between a simple disagreement and healthy debate and what happened with Cuccinelli and the constant attacks and attempt to derail any support for him, especially considering who the Losertarian Party nominated.

I can't believe how some people here hate the Republicans so much they'd support a RINO-turned-Libertarian like Sarvis over a constitutionalist hero like Cuccinelli.