Ted Cruz’s rainy day socialism: How a right-wing fanatic learned to stop worrying and love redistribution When New Jersey was underwater, Cruz slammed federal relief spending. Now he's asking for some of his own. BOB CESCA For the first time ever, I agree with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., and Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Tex.. Specifically, as deadly floods drown parts of Texas, I absolutely agree that President Obama and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ought to spend taxpayer funds redistributed from citizens in other states, including from leftists in Massachusetts, New York and California, to help with flooding relief in Cruz and Abbott’s sovereign state of Texas. Indeed, many of us generally agree that when the chips are down, it’s important to have (what’s that phrase?) a safety net, in case a particular crisis is seemingly insurmountable. It would be unfair and inhumane to demand that Texas pick itself up by its bootstraps — or, in the GOP’s favored parlance, to stop being so lazy and to get back to work. Who knew these guys were such uniters? Yes, Cruz and Abbott, who each vaulted to their lofty stations on small-government, taxed-enough-already Tea Party platforms, have requested federal relief funds and services from the Obama administration. Abbott, for his part, has already met with Obama to discuss the deployment of disaster relief to flood-stricken areas. Meanwhile, Cruz was explicit with his demands this week: Said Cruz: “The federal government’s role, once the Governor declares a disaster area and makes a request, I am confident that the Texas congressional delegation, Sen. Cornyn and I, and the members of Congress both Republicans and Democrats will stand united as Texans in support of the federal government fulfilling its statutory obligations, and stepping in to respond to this natural disaster.” It’s Friday as I’m writing this, so I might be a little slow on the uptake, but a system in which taxpayer money that’s pooled into a common fund and redistributed fairly to other citizens and states in need… there’s an “-ism“ for that. (And it for sure isn’t “laissez-faire capitalism.”) What do they call it when everyone pays taxes into, say, the treasury of Cruz’s birth nation of Canada and, drawing from those commonly pooled resources, everyone gets free healthcare or federal relief when they need it?
"We have a president who has no clue what he is doing. I do know what to do and I would know how to bring ISIS to the table, or beyond that defeat ISIS. It is a foolproof way of winning. They'll be defeated very quickly. And I'm not going to tell you what it is tonight." — Donald Trump
Dennis Hastert Hid His Skeletons As He Helped Push GOP's Anti-Gay Agenda WASHINGTON -- During the 2004 elections, George W. Bush's campaign, managed by a closeted gay man, pushed a series of anti-gay ballot initiatives across the country. The House of Representatives, led by a male speaker who allegedly sexually assaulted a male minor, moved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage after beating back attempts to strengthen hate crimes legislation. And the White House, led in part by a vice president with a lesbian daughter, eagerly encouraged a conservative evangelical base hostile to gay rights. Though only slightly over a decade ago, that election seems increasingly like the relic of a far-off era as the country moves closer toward acceptance of legalizing marriage equality nationwide. But it's being revisited in light of recent revelations that former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) may have sexually abused at least two male students during his time as a high school teacher and wrestling coach, and later lied to the FBI about the hush money he was paying one of them. "The hypocrisy is breathtaking in its depth," said Elizabeth Birch, former president of the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. As speaker of the House from 1999 to 2007, Hastert didn't just go along and vote the party line on various bills; he decided which pieces of legislation made it to the floor for a vote. During his tenure, he was a clear foe of the LGBT community.
^ I kind of surprised that the gay community would claim him as one of their own. If the allegations are true, Hastert is a pedophile/child molester. The gay community has spent years, decades, to highlight the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. Guess the politics of it all trumps that.
I think it's great that what General Stanley McChrystal regards as a very difficult problem to solve, Our Man Trump thinks is a cinch. http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...on-learning-curves.291997/page-2#post-4131474 But then, McChrystal didn't have his own TV show; he just doesn't have the necessary training.
If we are serious about ISIS, we could start nonstop bombing and completley obliterate them as a fighting force. Or we could follow Obama's policies, which have turned them from nothing into what is basically a sovereign state carved out of Syria and Iraq.
Yeah, I imagine that would probably be the Trump Doctrine. And because you and Trump so readily know what General Stanley McChrystal does not: Excerpt: "...We are struggling. We are doing those things we're very good at right now — we're very good at bombing, we're very good at doing certain things because you do those things in going after senior leaders. The problem is they don't address their ability to communicate, to get more recruits; they don't address their ability, right now, to regenerate to create new franchises in different areas, which is their great strength. I think we're going to have to take a much wider view of ISIS, and stop thinking of ISIS as a traditional force or entity, don't worry as much about the piece of ground that they own, as much as the entity, the ideas they're propagating are what you've got to go after..." http://www.businessinsider.com/stanley-mcchrystal-isis-is-brilliant-2015-5
OK, first off, I don't really care about ISIS. They are sunni shock troops funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, our ostensible allies, to act as counterweight to Iran. That is why Turkey, SA, the Gulf states and even Israel are not all that enthusiastic about addressing ISIS. If we were serious about defeating them, we would mount a real bombing canpaign, with hundreds of sorties a day instead of the handful we are mounting. I'm not advocating that as a policy, only pointing out that our air effort is woefully inadequate if we are serious about defeating them. As for McChrystal, you guys seem to have forgotten he was fired by Obama for insurbodination. Exactly when did he become the go-to guy for democrats? Are you suggesting Obama made a mistake in firing him for personal pique? Personally, I am not that big a fan of McChrystal or Patreus. They are linked to the whole over-intellectualized counter-insurgency strategy, which is nation-building with guns. There is not one example of it being done successfully, and everywhere we have tried it it has been an expensive failure. The way to win a war is to utterly destroy the enemy. I think Trump understands that. Our generals, steeped in political correctness and obsessed with international law, don't seem to get it.