Ted Cruz Absolutely ETHERS Reporter

[NumberSix]

Damn!!!!!!!!


https://youtube.com/watch?v=A9Pr9GRWAbI

[Patrick Chewing]

He's got Reagan attitude, but I'm afraid this country is so pussified now that his tough talk would be considered as bigoted and not politically correct.

The best trait a person can have is to shoot it straight with you. Call a spade a spade and anyone who pretends to be offended needs to downright **** off.

This is how Republicans need to answer these "trap" questions.

[ROCSteady]

Damn.

I don't even like Cruz or TX politicans in general but he handled that great.

Big balls. Gave em nothing, made great points.

Color me impressed for once

[warriorfan]

yea I see you wincing

[ThePhantomCreep]

All I see is Cruz deflecting and getting pissy over a simple question.

[Patrick Chewing]

All I see is Cruz deflecting and getting pissy over a simple question.

And here we go.


He didn't deflect. He actually answered the question later on. But if you think that's a simple question, you're an idiot. Face it, no Democrat is getting that lowball question. Ever.

There is a difference between hating someone, and disagreeing with something like gay marriage. Liberal spin and their web of lies want the sheeple to believe that Republicans hate gays because they oppose gay marriage. That's just like saying Republicans are racist because they oppose Obama. So they weren't racist when they opposed Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, etc.?? Simpletons, like the ones here on ISH eat it up and have this tainted picture of Christians and Republicans and it's because Liberal douchebags paint this false narrative and just run with it till it eventually sticks. How is that fair politics?

[Jailblazers7]

Can't watch the video atm. Summary?

[Patrick Chewing]

Can't watch the video atm. Summary?

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/05/327080-looks-like-ted-cruz-perfect-response-barrage-questions-gay-rights/

[Fudge]

Gay Power!

[falc39]

The Constitution ftw :applause:

[ApexPredator]

The Constitution ftw :applause:

Good way to deflect his personal opinion of gay people :applause:

[falc39]

Good way to deflect his personal opinion of gay people :applause:

Facts making you mad?

I don't even like Ted Cruz as a primary candidate but that's all he needs to say. I don't care about his personal opinion. Reporter should focus on more important issues.

[sweggeh]

I think this Ted Cruz fella might be gay. Thats the vibe I get from this video.

[ApexPredator]

Facts making you mad?

I don't even like Ted Cruz as a primary candidate but that's all he needs to say. I don't care about his personal opinion. Reporter should focus on more important issues.

So he should ignore any issues if there is a more important issue? I guess the President is only allowed to focus on 1 issue then until it is resolved, then he can move on to the next :hammerhead:

[Jailblazers7]

Honestly, a Republican candidate will never lose a general election because of gay rights as long as they're not belligerent.

[falc39]

So he should ignore any issues if there is a more important issue? I guess the President is only allowed to focus on 1 issue then until it is resolved, then he can move on to the next :hammerhead:

No, only you are saying that. Ted addressed the issue and then schooled the reporter on how it relates to the Constitution and state legislatures :hammerhead:

[ThePhantomCreep]

No, only you are saying that. Ted addressed the issue and then schooled the reporter on how it relates to the Constitution and state legislatures :hammerhead:

Since Cruz is such a Constitutionalist, I want to see him argue that the federal government overstepped its bounds on "Loving v. Virginia", a ruling that overturned state bans on interracial marriage. Cruz won't do that because he'll only go so far pandering to the bigots--deep down he knows his "state's rights" argument is shit.

[NumberSix]

Since Cruz is such a Constitutionalist, I want to see him argue that the federal government overstepped its bounds on "Loving v. Virginia", a ruling that overturned state bans on interracial marriage. Cruz won't do that because he'll only go so far pandering to the bigots--deep down he knows his "state's rights" argument is shit.
Why would a constitutionalist argue AGAISNT interracial marriage being legal? :wtf:

It's explicitly outlined in the constitution that interracial marriage can not be made illegal. Marriage being defined as 1 man 1 woman, it's explicitly breaking the equal protection clause to outlaw certain people from participating.

The argument about marriage is about what marriage IS. Not who can participate. It's currently not legal to ban any group of people from participating in the 1 man 1 woman definition of marriage.

[MJ(Mean John)]

Damn. Lol
He roasted my man. Pretty hilarious.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Why would a constitutionalist argue AGAISNT interracial marriage being legal? :wtf:

It's explicitly outlined in the constitution that interracial marriage can not be made illegal. Marriage being defined as 1 man 1 woman, it's explicitly breaking the equal protection clause to outlaw certain people from participating.

The argument about marriage is about what marriage IS. Not who can participate. It's currently not legal to ban any group of people from participating in the 1 man 1 woman definition of marriage.

"The people should decide the issue of marriage, not the courts" - Ted Cruz

"Marriage has been a question for the states since the beginning of this country." - Ted Cruz

As late as 1968, several states (backed by the people) defined marriage as 1 man and 1 woman... of the same race. The states justified this clear violation of the 14th amendment with an argument similar to the crap you just posted.

No one was banned from getting married, as long as they married within their own race. Sound familiar, dumbass?

Ted Cruz should be outaged over "Loving v. Virginia". The federal government clearly usurped the will of the people!

[Dresta]

Since Cruz is such a Constitutionalist, I want to see him argue that the federal government overstepped its bounds on "Loving v. Virginia", a ruling that overturned state bans on interracial marriage. Cruz won't do that because he'll only go so far pandering to the bigots--deep down he knows his "state's rights" argument is shit.
Where do you constantly pull such garbage from? Seriously, the above makes no sense whatsoever - no candidate is going to argue against interracial marriage in the 21st century - are you literally deranged or something? Let me get this right: he's won't argue against interracial marriage and is thus 'pandering to bigots' - impressive logic that :rolleyes:.

Honestly, you're one of the worst froth-at-the-mouth partisans on this site - and it's damn sad to see such a pathetic display from a fellow human being. States rights is the oldest and most important aspect of the Federal Constitution, one that devolved nearly all powers to the states, and still barely passed (because it was deemed to create too great a central power - see the Anti-Federalist papers, Madison at Constitutional convention, etc.). To ignore this debate, deny its importance, or pretend it doesn't exist, is to basically to deny everything that made the United States the United States - its history and design.

The real question is why you feel the need to force your beliefs onto people who disagree with them? Why can't you be happy living a state that allows gay marriage simply because another doesn't? I find it hilarious how the non-religious have become the sanctimonious fanatics, determined to impose their beliefs on others through force ('Might is Right!' - oh, how very moral of you :oldlol: ).

[ThePhantomCreep]

I dont mind homos. I accept that they're apart of human society and that most of them are born that way (Although I still believe you can be influenced to become homo if you're in a certain environment). However its not a human right to abuse and try to change another groups culture and tradition (marriage) for another group.

Christians did not Invent, nor do they own the concept of marriage--my happily married atheist buddies can attest to this. Your argument is invalid.

[Dresta]

"The people should decide the issue of marriage, not the courts" - Ted Cruz

"Marriage has been a question for the states since the beginning of this country." - Ted Cruz

As late as 1968, several states (backed by the people) defined marriage as 1 man and 1 woman... of the same race. The states justified this clear violation of the 14th amendment with an argument similar to the crap you just posted.

No one was banned from getting married, as long as they married within their own race. Sound familiar, dumbass?

Ted Cruz should as outaged over "Loving v. Virginia". The federal government clearly usurped the will of the people!
Pity you didn't read the rest of his post (after what you bolded), because he already explained why what you are trying to argue here is completely nonsensical. But go ahead, keep talking about irrelevant shit from 1968 (before Cruz was even born funnily enough - and yet you still seem to be accusing him and his constituents of being no different to the most racist parts of the country of 1968). I guess this is what people do when they don't actually know anything? Resort to childish and ignorant slander in order to brag about what a moral paragon they are. So ... Damn ... Childish ... Damn ...

[NumberSix]

"The people should decide the issue of marriage, not the courts" - Ted Cruz

"Marriage has been a question for the states since the beginning of this country." - Ted Cruz

As late as 1968, several states (backed by the people) defined marriage as 1 man and 1 woman... of the same race. The states justified this clear violation of the 14th amendment with an argument similar to the crap you just posted.

No one was banned from getting married, as long as they married within their own race. Sound familiar, dumbass?
The definition of what "marriage" is has been clear since the dawn of Western Civilization. At no point in the history of western civilization has there ever been a racial restriction on marriage.

Back to the days of Greeks marrying Persians. The Roman Empire days of marriage between Europeans, norther Africans and middle easterners being commonplace.

In the entire history of western civilization, race has never been a component of marriage. The racist American laws were NOT about what marriage is. It was about who was allowed to participate, which is explicitly unconstitutional.

A more apt comparison to "gay marriage" would be "plural marriage". An argument of DEFINITION. Not who can participate.


Ted Cruz should be outaged over "Loving v. Virginia". The federal government clearly usurped the will of the people!
It's in the constitution. There is nothing to "usurp".

[9erempiree]

I see that he is very mad. He got very offensive.

He didn't own anyone but deflected the question like a true politician.

[ThePhantomCreep]

The definition of what "marriage" is has been clear since the dawn of Western Civilization. At no point in the history of western civilization has there ever been a racial restriction on marriage.

Back to the days of

In the entire history of western civilization, race has never been a component of marriage. The racist American laws were NOT about what marriage is. It was about who was allowed to participate, which is explicitly unconstitutional.

A more apt comparison to "gay marriage" would be "plural marriage". An argument of DEFINITION. Not who can participate. Appeal to tradition = fallacy

Social norms are dynamic – slavery, racial segregation and sexual discrimination were all considered morally acceptable in the past but are now not only morally unacceptable but are also against the law.

Split all the hairs you want, the two bans are largely identical at their cores. In both cases, two consenting adults who love each other are legally not allowed to marry. That's discriminatory and unconstitutional, period.

[Akrazotile]

Since Cruz is such a Constitutionalist, I want to see him argue that the federal government overstepped its bounds on "Loving v. Virginia", a ruling that overturned state bans on interracial marriage. Cruz won't do that because he'll only go so far pandering to the bigots--deep down he knows his "state's rights" argument is shit.


Why are you against states rights?

Please legitimately articulate a reason. Even a brief one. But make a an actual case against it, if youd be so kind.

[NumberSix]

[QUOTE=ThePhantomCreep]Appeal to tradition = fallacy

Social norms are dynamic

[andgar923]

I think this Ted Cruz fella might be gay. Thats the vibe I get from this video.

This.

And for the record... he was deflecting the question. He stuck to his talking points just like instructed.

Btw... why was he so defensive over a simple question? :confusedshrug:

[andgar923]

A strict constitutionalist= idiot

The constitution was made to adapt and change, not be iron clad.

[fiddy]

A strict constitutionalist= idiot

The constitution was made to adapt and change, not be iron clad.
To adapt? Accepting people with mental disorder (homosexual) means to adapt?

[wakencdukest]

[QUOTE=ThePhantomCreep]Appeal to tradition = fallacy

Social norms are dynamic

[andgar923]

To adapt? Accepting people with mental disorder (homosexual) means to adapt?

No matter how you want to categorize them as, YES.

The forefathers had adapting to the times in mind.

Otherwise there'll still be slavery, no child labor laws, etc.etc.etc.etc.

[NumberSix]

No matter how you want to categorize them as, YES.

The forefathers had adapting to the times in mind.

Otherwise there'll still be slavery, no child labor laws, etc.etc.etc.etc.
What do you mean by this?

[andgar923]

Exactly. People think that were supposed to "adapt" to men who **** other men, boys, dogs and trees. I can understand if you want us to "accept" and "tolerate" that people like that exist, but to claim we have to "adapt" to them is ludicrous. Theyre the ones who should be helped to adapt into normal human beings; we shouldnt be encouraging and promoting their mental disorders.

This dude just gone full retard.

[andgar923]

What do you mean by this?

Slavery was abolished was it not?

3/5 of a person

[Dresta]

This.

And for the record... he was deflecting the question. He stuck to his talking points just like instructed.

Btw... why was he so defensive over a simple question? :confusedshrug:
Because it's the only kind of question that ever seems to be asked, and it is an inherently biased and loaded question. His opinion on the matter is on record, and the incessant media focus on these kinds of banalities prevents any kind of intelligent political discussion. It's the epitomization of substance-less identity politics - an example of everything that is wrong with modern politics and media sensationalism. It's tedious, and the same nonsense was pulled in the UK election, where the UKIP leader would spend 20 mins answering the same redundant question again and again. It is the lowest common denominator treatment of politics, and helps explain why people are so ignorant of the theory behind political ideologies and opinions.

But of course, because you don't like the guy, you will applaud this kind of shoddy and unimaginative journalism. It's honestly like if every question Obama was ever asked were 'do you have a personal animosity towards the poor?' 'do you like stirring up racial tensions and divisions?' 'do you ever tell the truth?' - because his economic policies have ****ed over the poor big time, and in regards to race relations, he's only made things worse (and incessantly used racial issues to his political advantage, lying about his past, etc.). Yet, unsurprisingly, he doesn't get this kind of absurd media treatment (nor does Hilary Clinton, despite the long list of disgraceful behaviour she has trailing behind her, and which most of the media completely ignores).

[fiddy]

No matter how you want to categorize them as, YES.

The forefathers had adapting to the times in mind.

Otherwise there'll still be slavery, no child labor laws, etc.etc.etc.etc.
I think if they were alive today, they wouldnt be happy with a lot of things. As for homosexuals, i dont have a problem with them as long as:
1. they keep their private life to themselves
2. are not allowed to marry
3. are not allowed to raise kid
4. dont organize pointless graphic street parades "yey i like to take it up the ass" :rolleyes:

[andgar923]

Because it's the only kind of question that ever seems to be asked, and it is an inherently biased and loaded question. His opinion on the matter is on record, and the incessant media focus on these kinds of banalities prevents any kind of intelligent political discussion. It's the epitomization of substance-less identity politics - an example of everything that is wrong with modern politics and media sensationalism. It's tedious, and the same nonsense was pulled in the UK election, where the UKIP leader would spend 20 mins answering the same redundant question again and again. It is the lowest common denominator treatment of politics, and helps explain why people are so ignorant of the theory behind political ideologies and opinions.

But of course, because you don't like the guy, you will applaud this kind of shoddy and unimaginative journalism. It's honestly like if every question Obama was ever asked were 'do you have a personal animosity towards the poor?' 'do you like stirring up racial tensions and divisions?' 'do you ever tell the truth?' - because his economic policies have ****ed over the poor big time, and in regards to race relations, he's only made things worse (and incessantly used racial issues to his political advantage, lying about his past, etc.). Yet, unsurprisingly, he doesn't get this kind of absurd media treatment (nor does Hilary Clinton, despite the long list of disgraceful behaviour she has trailing behind her, and which most of the media completely ignores).

It was a simple question that should've been answered without any issue.

I didn't know this was 1990 and 'gay' was still a hard topic.

He could've simply answered as he had in the past, and kept it moving... but he was clearly defensive and ducking it.

And f*ck off.

I don't know anything about Cruz or any candidate as I stopped following politricks years ago.

[Patrick Chewing]

This.

And for the record... he was deflecting the question. He stuck to his talking points just like instructed.

Btw... why was he so defensive over a simple question? :confusedshrug:

It's a ridiculous lowball question. And he did answer it when he said that Christian scripture teaches him to love everyone.

Him disagreeing with gay marriage does not equate to him not liking gay people.

[andgar923]

I think if they were alive today, they wouldnt be happy with a lot of things. As for homosexuals, i dont have a problem with them as long as:
1. they keep their private life to themselves
2. are not allowed to marry
3. are not allowed to raise kid
4. dont organize pointless graphic street parades "yey i like to take it up the ass" :rolleyes:

Some (forefathers) would, and some wouldn't.

Some people are simply more liberal (open minded, not the fake liberals we have today) than others.

1. I don't care what you think.
2. It's their business what they do

[NumberSix]

Slavery was abolished was it not?

3/5 of a person
Yes. Before that, the constitution made no mention of slavery at all.

[9erempiree]

I, too, don't follow politics unless it is an election year. Therefore, I would have liked him to answer the question because I don't know where he stands on the issue.

:confusedshrug:

[fiddy]

Some (forefathers) would, and some wouldn't.

Some people are simply more liberal (open minded, not the fake liberals we have today) than others.

1. I don't care what you think.
2. It's their business what they do
liberal in the 21st century=scum

[Dresta]

A strict constitutionalist= idiot

The constitution was made to adapt and change, not be iron clad.
Have you even read the Constitution, or the Federalist papers? It only just barely passed as it was; it wouldn't have come close to passing if the signers knew the states would be superseded by a Federal bureaucratic superstate of absurd proportions (or if it were intended as a one-way and ever-expanding venus fly trap). If the Constitution were infinitely malleable and devoid of static principles then there would have been no point in creating the thing in the first place - they would simply have accepted Federal arbitrary power from the off if what you say were true (which it isn't).

It has within it one means of changing itself, and that is through Constitutional amendments. Good luck passing one of those that takes marriage away from the states. Funny that you think we've progressed politically, when the economic landscape now looks like something out of the Mercantilist era, which was the exact aristocratic system the founders were trying to oppose. Now we have a kind of Mercantilism again, and people like you aren't even aware of it (probably because you're focused on retarded questions about homosexuals and other trivialities, while you are effectively being robbed).

[Dresta]

It was a simple question that should've been answered without any issue.

I didn't know this was 1990 and 'gay' was still a hard topic.

He could've simply answered as he had in the past, and kept it moving... but he was clearly defensive and ducking it.

And f*ck off.

I don't know anything about Cruz or any candidate as I stopped following politricks years ago.
There we go then. You are spouting off about something you don't know anything about. That was clearly a loaded question, and a typical cheap media tactic used to smear people they don't like.

If you can't see why when you're running a Presidential campaign it might be a trifle annoying to never get any serious political questions, but to instead to be effectively slandered by the questioner, again and again and again, then you must be pretty dim. It annoys me just watching all this phoney bullshit - you seem to want more of that crap, i do not.

[fiddy]

i also believe that some folks are also born attracted to little kids.
They call themselves child lovers lmao

[DeuceWallaces]

Nice to see all our resident euro-trash and dumb-asses lecturing Americans on the politics of Ted Cruz.

[NumberSix]

It was a simple question that should've been answered without any issue.

I didn't know this was 1990 and 'gay' was still a hard topic.

He could've simply answered as he had in the past, and kept it moving... but he was clearly defensive and ducking it.

And f*ck off.

I don't know anything about Cruz or any candidate as I stopped following politricks years ago.
The problem is they don't ask democrats these same dumb questions.

Why don't reporters constantly ask Hilary "why were you against gay marriage before, but now you're not? What changed? And why did your change of opinion coincide with the exact moment that public opinion hit the 50% mark".

[Godzuki]

his Christian beliefs against gays parallels ISIS muslim beliefs against gays, both based on their diehard religious beliefs. so its sort of dumb how he deflects the question. just because ISIS is more hardcore and crazy muslim than christians doesn't mean Christians can't be asked that question or be accused of the same hate against them.

he doesn't ether anyone, dude just deflected it onto ISIS.

its funny tho how mainstream America believes so much in freedom of religion and then equality of all people, and won't ever address the issues in how they contradict one another because both must be absolute :rolleyes:

[Patrick Chewing]

his Christian beliefs against gays parallels ISIS muslim beliefs against gays, both based on their diehard religious beliefs. so its sort of dumb how he deflects the question. just because ISIS is more hardcore and crazy muslim than christians doesn't mean Christians can't be asked that question or be accused of the same hate against them.

he doesn't ether anyone, dude just deflected it onto ISIS.

its funny tho how mainstream America believes so much in freedom of religion and then equality of all people, and won't ever address the issues in how they contradict one another because both must be absolute :rolleyes:


For the 100th time, he doesn't deflect the question. Christian teachings teach us to love everyone unconditionally. Nor does it say to throw gay people off rooftops like ISIS does.

So to say that his beliefs parallel ISIS's is absurd.

[fiddy]

ted cruz has such a punchable face

http://ivn.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ted-cruz.jpg
Indeed, is he a jew by any chance?

[NumberSix]

I think if they were alive today, they wouldnt be happy with a lot of things. As for homosexuals, i dont have a problem with them as long as:
1. they keep their private life to themselves
2. are not allowed to marry
3. are not allowed to raise kid
4. dont organize pointless graphic street parades "yey i like to take it up the ass" :rolleyes:
What about kids who need to be adopted? Even if you think gay parents isn't the best, it's certainly better than no parents at all, isn't it?:confusedshrug:

[Godzuki]

For the 100th time, he doesn't deflect the question. Christian teachings teach us to love everyone unconditionally. Nor does it say to throw gay people off rooftops like ISIS does.

So to say that his beliefs parallel ISIS's is absurd.


lol @ love everyone unconditionally :lol

its conditionally, because dedicated Christians don't put their love for 'love everybody' over what their Bible tells them.

[Patrick Chewing]

lol @ love everyone unconditionally :lol

its conditionally, because dedicated Christians don't put their love for 'love everybody' over what their Bible tells them.


Looks like you were suckered into believing that there's a Christian boogeyman out there by the Liberal media.

I find it funny how Cruz mentions radical Islam in his response, and how heinous they are, yet people still feel more comfortable in criticizing Christianity. Must come from that knowledge of knowing that Christians don't chop heads off.

[BasedTom]

Indeed, is he a jew by any chance?
Canadian, so pretty much the same thing

[BigTicket]

He didn't ether anybody, he tried to dodge a question.

[Dresta]

Nice to see all our resident euro-trash and dumb-asses lecturing Americans on the politics of Ted Cruz.
Nice to see our resident tedious, stupid, whiney and effeminate loser with another typically characterless sarcastic jibe at everyone he's oh-so-superior to.

You're a joke dude. I swear the only reason you post on here is in some kind of pathetic attempt boost your clearly quite frail ego. Sad.

[NumberSix]

He didn't ether anybody, he tried to dodge a question.
So, if reporters start repeatedly asking President Obama "do you have a personal animus towards Jews" do you think he should just answer with a simple yes or no every time they continually ask him? Or, do you think at some point he should be like "why the hell do you keep asking me this?"

It's not that they want an answer. It that they hope by constantly asking him, that it puts it in people head that he does.

[Take Your Lumps]

Meanwhile, state-sponsored Saudi beheadings are swept under the rug for obvious reasons.

They're hiring (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/05/19/saudi-arabia-hiring-executioners-as-beheadings-rise/), btw if anyone's interested. Business is a-booming.

[fiddy]

Meanwhile, state-sponsored Saudi beheadings are swept under the rug for obvious reasons.

They're hiring (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/05/19/saudi-arabia-hiring-executioners-as-beheadings-rise/), btw if anyone's interested. Business is a-booming.
Cant smoke weed in there, would sign up if i could.

[andgar923]

It's a ridiculous lowball question. And he did answer it when he said that Christian scripture teaches him to love everyone.

Him disagreeing with gay marriage does not equate to him not liking gay people.
Lowball question? LOL

He didn't answer shit, just gave a politically safe answer.


I don't see a mention of him disliking gays.

For the record I don't care his stance on anything.

[Droid101]

Ted Cruz: "ISIS is executing homosexuals - you want to talk about gay rights?

"Germany has strict regulations on handguns - you want to talk about gun rights?"

"Sweden has 59% tax brackets - you want to talk about tax cuts?"

"North Korea has no private corporations - you want to talk about less business regulations?"

Hey, you can make anything not worth fixing!

[KevinNYC]

Nah you cant be a Jewish president in America bro no chance. Its to obvious. They stick to Vice President, Secretary of State, Chair of the Federal Reserve, Head Justice of the Supreme Court etc. Theyre in the background so people dont realize.
Yeah, especially when the total number of Jewish Vice Presidents and Jewish Chief Justices of the Supreme Court is precisely zero.

[andgar923]

Have you even read the Constitution, or the Federalist papers? It only just barely passed as it was; it wouldn't have come close to passing if the signers knew the states would be superseded by a Federal bureaucratic superstate of absurd proportions (or if it were intended as a one-way and ever-expanding venus fly trap). If the Constitution were infinitely malleable and devoid of static principles then there would have been no point in creating the thing in the first place - they would simply have accepted Federal arbitrary power from the off if what you say were true (which it isn't).

It has within it one means of changing itself, and that is through Constitutional amendments. Good luck passing one of those that takes marriage away from the states. Funny that you think we've progressed politically, when the economic landscape now looks like something out of the Mercantilist era, which was the exact aristocratic system the founders were trying to oppose. Now we have a kind of Mercantilism again, and people like you aren't even aware of it (probably because you're focused on retarded questions about homosexuals and other trivialities, while you are effectively being robbed).

Stop your rambling.

Quite simply, laws change and the constitution can be amended.

[andgar923]

Yes. Before that, the constitution made no mention of slavery at all.
Slaves (blacks) were considered 3/5 of a person, and there was provisions that alluded to slavery.

The southerners wouldn't have signed the constitution otherwise.

[BigTicket]

So, if reporters start repeatedly asking President Obama "do you have a personal animus towards Jews" do you think he should just answer with a simple yes or no every time they continually ask him? Or, do you think at some point he should be like "why the hell do you keep asking me this?"

It's not that they want an answer. It that they hope by constantly asking him, that it puts it in people head that he does.

The difference is Obama doesn't have an animus towards Jews, but Cruz does dislike gay people, and want them to have lesser rights than straight people.

[NumberSix]

The difference is Obama doesn't have an animus towards Jews, but Cruz does dislike gay people, and want them to have lesser rights than straight people.
And you base that on, what?

[ThePhantomCreep]

Exactly. People think that were supposed to "adapt" to men who **** other men, boys, dogs and trees. I can understand if you want us to "accept" and "tolerate" that people like that exist, but to claim we have to "adapt" to them is ludicrous. Theyre the ones who should be helped to adapt into normal human beings; we shouldnt be encouraging and promoting their mental disorders.

You're a dope. Boys, dogs, and trees can't consent to sex. Lumping them in with homosexuals is idiotic and dishonest.

As for mental disorders, one could easily argue that the extreme right is mentally ill

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-entertainment/201206/conservatism-mental-illness

So spare me your pseudo-science.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Your argument is basically the equivalent of "women should be able to be uncles" ignoring the fact that an uncle by definition is a male.

Tons of people legally aren't able to marry. You can't marry your sister or your mom. Even if you both really want to. You can't marry people who are already married. You can't marry an extra wife.

You're not arguing that more people be able to marry. You're arguing that marriage itself be changed into something else.

Unless you're willing to ague as fiercely for men to marry multiple wives, you're gay marriage argument has no merit.

Just when I thought the analogies couldn't get any dumber... :facepalm :facepalm

And no, I have nothing against polygamy.

[falc39]

There are so many garbage people in this thread.

Also, a lot of people who don't understand the purpose of the constitution.

[Droid101]

Ted Cruz has 0% chance of winning a national election for president. He's just fleecing rubes for cash right now, nothing more.

[BigBoss]

Ted Cruz sounds like a smart guy then he goes and says that he's a Christian. That confuses the hell out of me.

[Kblaze8855]

If all he had to say was in the summary link posted thats far from an ether. He was asked a question and went all "There are more important issues!".

[9erempiree]

We all know he's not going to come out and says what he really feels but the OP is saying he 'ethers' a reporter when that is far from the truth. I don't care how he feels about the question that was asked but it was far from an ether. More like dodging the question.

[RedBlackAttack]

Apparently, a Ted Cruz ethering session looks a lot like a rambling deflection of a legitimate question. Who knew? :confusedshrug:


Q: How do you feel about gay rights?

A: The liberal media is obsessed with sex. ISIS is beheading gay people. I'm for the constitution, btw.


Allow me to translate his response...

There are certain social issues far to the right of the current American mainstream, so while I need to pander to the Republican base -- who will turn on me if I waffle on this subject -- I'd prefer not to discuss my stance on gay rights unless surrounded by strictly right-wing audiences. Thank you and have a nice day.

[mehyaM24]

this only proves he can't control himself. :oldlol: he looked completely shook & on the defensive.

had he TRULY "ethered" that reporter, it would've been done with a direct answer and less voice cracking.

[gigantes]

Ted Cruz Absolutely ETHERS Reporter
i'm not sure what "ether" means in your mind, but based on that clip it seems to mean "being called on your own homophobic shit, plunging your foot right in to it, then gleefully dragging it around in front of the cameras."

[Patrick Chewing]

Ted Cruz sounds like a smart guy then he goes and says that he's a Christian. That confuses the hell out of me.


The United States identifies itself as 83% Christian. Are you telling me that you and the other 2.4% of Atheists are smarter than everyone else?? :oldlol:


Unless you can show me your NASA badge, I don't want to hear it.

[ThePhantomCreep]

The United States identifies itself as 83% Christian. Are you telling me that you and the other 2.4% of Atheists are smarter than everyone else?? :oldlol:


Unless you can show me your NASA badge, I don't want to hear it.

The number of Americans who believe in God has dropped to 74% and I'd argue that many of those who do believe use Pascal's Wager to justify their beliefs.

[NumberSix]

Apparently, a Ted Cruz ethering session looks a lot like a rambling deflection of a legitimate question. Who knew? :confusedshrug:


Q: How do you feel about gay rights?

A: The liberal media is obsessed with sex. ISIS is beheading gay people. I'm for the constitution, btw.


Allow me to translate his response...

There are certain social issues far to the right of the current American mainstream, so while I need to pander to the Republican base -- who will turn on me if I waffle on this subject -- I'd prefer not to discuss my stance on gay rights unless surrounded by strictly right-wing audiences. Thank you and have a nice day.
He wasn't asked about gay rights. He was asked if he personally hates gays. It's a wildly inappropriate, and insulting question.

Back when Obama was opposed to gay marriage, he was asked about his position on gay rights, and that's completely fair. Nobody ever asked him if he personally hates gay people.

Cruz didn't remotely dodge. He was asked if he hates gays. His answer was, as a Christian he loves everybody.

[BigBoss]

The United States identifies itself as 83% Christian. Are you telling me that you and the other 2.4% of Atheists are smarter than everyone else?? :oldlol:


Unless you can show me your NASA badge, I don't want to hear it.

1% of the world owns 99% of the wealth. Are they smarter economically then the rest of the world?

Your logic is so flawed. A majority of those Christians are born in families, environments, and societies that are largely Christian based that has built momentum for hundreds, if not thousands of years. That doesn't disappear overnight.

Your stat is wrong Christianity was 76% in 2007, it's at 70% in 2014. It's on decline. Those who identify as having no religion went from 16% up to 22.8%.

I know i'm smarter then you LOL. I'm paying attention to the wealth of information we do have in regards to our socialization from cave man to where we are today. Why are the Egyptians, Greeks, the indigenous in Africa, and the monks in East Asia wrong, but Christians are right? Because they outnumber everyone so by default it has to be correct? You do realize that people thought the world was flat once upon a time ago too and laughed at scientists/astronomers who theorized it was spherical. Just because everyone is buying into something doesn't mean it correct.

My position is that there is a source to all of this but to box myself in and say that in the VASTNESS of space and the Earth's rich history that our creation is due to a God whose sent his son down to die for our sins. Flat out ignorant to reduce ALL of this to a fairy tale. Go look up in the sky and find the star Canis Major which is so fukin far away yet we can see it. There are thousands if not millions of galaxies out there with so many undiscovered planets. We don't know shit!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Rho_Cassiopeiae_Sol_VY_Canis_Majoris.jpg

Some perspective.


Pray to your sky wizard because he really gives a shit about you over that child in Africa hungry and living with AIDS.

I keep reminding myself not to argue with an uneducated fool who speaks in opinions vs facts, but i fall for it every time.. I always tell religious folks this. Go educate your self on the SCOPE of the universe and what has been discovered from chemistry, physics, space exploration and your beliefs will fall apart.

Here is a sunset on Mars.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/MarsSunsetCut.jpg

Some more perspective. Now go pick and choose a passage that can be vaguely explain this ****ing picture and discredit it entirely as if it means nothing when in reality it means EVERYTHING. It means we don't know shit and we're not that unique. We are actually very uninteresting and so insignificant. We're so afraid of admitting that, that we've come up with shit like Christianity to give purpose to our lives to allow us to feel better because the 99% would go ape shit.

Your that dude in the Matrix who takes the blue pill. I take the red pill.

[RedBlackAttack]

He wasn't asked about gay rights. He was asked if he personally hates gays. It's a wildly inappropriate, and insulting question.

Back when Obama was opposed to gay marriage, he was asked about his position on gay rights, and that's completely fair. Nobody ever asked him if he personally hates gay people.

Cruz didn't remotely dodge. He was asked if he hates gays. His answer was, as a Christian he loves everybody.
That's actually not what he was asked. The first question was, "Do you have a personal animosity toward gay Americans." That's a completely fair question based on his past statements and actions.

Cruz has, in the past, gone as far as attacking other politicians for partaking in gay pride parades. Why would he care unless there was some kind of animosity? The constitutions that he apparently loves so much gives those gay men and women the right to free speech and the right to free assembly and expression.

Here was one of his many statements on the issue...

"When a mayor of a city chooses twice to march in a parade celebrating gay pride that's a statement and it's not a statement I agree with."

So, it's not the media who has made sexuality an issue. It's Ted Cruz. And, he'd be happy to talk about it if this were a right-wing audience, because he has often done it in the past. His anti-gay pandering would have looked a lot like the above quote if it were a different media member that serves a different publication asking the questions. The reason he took offense here and flat-out dodged them is because he knows an unpopular view and that people outside of the hardcore Repub base would see/hear it. Period.

[NumberSix]

1% of the world owns 99% of the wealth. Are they smarter economically then the rest of the world?

Your logic is so flawed. A majority of those Christians are born in families, environments, and societies that are largely Christian based that has built momentum for hundreds, if not thousands of years. That doesn't disappear overnight.

Your stat is wrong Christianity was 76% in 2007, it's at 70% in 2014. It's on decline. Those who identify as having no religion went from 16% up to 22.8%.

I'm not smarter, but i'm paying attention to the wealth of information we do have in regards to our socialization from cave man to where we are today. Why are the Egyptians, Greeks, the indigenous in Africa, and the monks in East Asia wrong, but Christians are right? Because they outnumber everyone so by default it has to be correct? You do realize that people thought the world was flat once upon a time ago too and laughed at scientists/astronomers who theorized it was spherical. Just because everyone is buying into something doesn't mean it correct.

My position is that there is a source to all of this but to box myself in and say that in the VASTNESS of space and the Earth's rich history that our creation is due to a God whose sent his son down to die for our sins. Flat out ignorant to reduce ALL of this to a fairy tale. Go look up in the sky and find the star Canis Major which is so fukin far away yet we can see it. There are thousands if not millions of galaxies out there with so many undiscovered planets. We don't know shit!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Rho_Cassiopeiae_Sol_VY_Canis_Majoris.jpg

Some perspective.


Pray to your sky wizard because he really gives a shit about you over that child in Africa hungry and living with AIDS.

I keep reminding myself not to argue with an uneducated fool who speaks in opinions vs facts, but i fall for it every time..
All of your post is addressing a point he never made.

His simple point was the being smart and being Christian isn't contradictory. There is no reason to be confused that somebody could be smart and also be a Christian. One isn't in opposition of the other.

[NumberSix]

That's actually not what he was asked. The first question was, "Do you have a personal animosity toward gay Americans." That's a completely fair question based on his past statements and actions.

Cruz has, in the past, gone as far as attacking other politicians for partaking in gay pride parades. Why would he care unless there was some kind of animosity? The constitutions that he apparently loves so much gives those gay men and women the right to free speech and the right to free assembly and expression.

Here was one of his many statements on the issue...

"When a mayor of a city chooses twice to march in a parade celebrating gay pride that's a statement and it's not a statement I agree with."

So, it's not the media who has made sexuality an issue. It's Ted Cruz. And, he'd be happy to talk about it if this were a right-wing audience, because he has often done it in the past. The reason he took offense here and flat-out dodged the questions is because he knows an unpopular view. Period.
That's actually exactly what he was asked.

He was asked if he has a personal animus towards gays. Google the definition of "animus" and get back to me.


ANIMUS

:a strong feeling of dislike or hatred

If you think it's fair to ask if he personally hates gays, then argue that. Don't pretend that's not what he was asked.

[Patrick Chewing]

I know i'm smarter then you LOL.


:facepalm




I take the red pill.


Labeled Prozac no doubt.

[BigBoss]

All of your post is addressing a point he never made.

His simple point was the being smart and being Christian isn't contradictory. There is no reason to be confused that somebody could be smart and also be a Christian. One isn't in opposition of the other.

It's a complete contradiction in my opinion. People in leadership roles need to understand the human condition and not identify with any religion.

[BigBoss]

:facepalm





Labeled Prozac no doubt.

That's your comeback? :roll:

TKO. Patrick Chewing seeing stars with his momma crying

[Patrick Chewing]

It's a complete contradiction in my opinion. People in leadership roles need to understand the human condition and not identify with any religion.


And thank God for that.


I don't even think YOU know what the hell you're talking about. Way out of your league here. You want to mock Christians as being dumb, but here you are proving how arrogant and childish you are and you're supposed to be the bigger, more morally superior person to me, but you can't help but cast aspersions on people you do not agree with.

Do you understand the human condition? What is it to you?

[NumberSix]

It's a complete contradiction in my opinion. People in leadership roles need to understand the human condition and not identify with any religion.
Well, then you're not very bright. We can clearly see there are many cases of people who are some of the most significant intellectuals of all time and also Christian.

It's inexplicable to think Christians can't be smart while specifically being aware of the existence of incredibly smart Christians.

[Patrick Chewing]

"When a mayor of a city chooses twice to march in a parade celebrating gay pride that's a statement and it's not a statement I agree with."



And where do you interpret a personal animosity towards gays in this statement?


In fact, the statement of animus is actually directed at the Mayor.

[The Iron Sheik]

let gay people get married. they'll want divorces soon after

[ThePhantomCreep]

And where do you interpret a personal animosity towards gays in this statement?


In fact, the statement of animus is actually directed at the Mayor.

A simple question for a simpleton: Why would Cruz take issue with the mayor taking part in a pride parade... if he was cool with gay people?

[Dresta]

:facepalm

The petty pedantry of some of the people on here is downright mindnumbing. The government basically just admitted it's going to doctor the GDP stat because the numbers haven't been good enough lately, not to mention its spying on and robbing of its citizens (especially the poor), through the most disgraceful kind of cronyism (all the growth at the top, inflating massive asset bubbles, huge expansion of luxury living, and concomitant wage stagnation); and yet 'this guy didn't support politicising gay pride parades - tell me why that is - does he hate gays, blablabla...' - this is the sort of thing that people notice and care about.

It's just a complete non-issue. In a decade people will look back and wonder how they spent so much time fighting for something so completely frivolous. For this to be discussed so incessantly on a national level, there has to be something seriously wrong with the intellect of the bulk of American people - it's some real first-rate stupidity, and, exactly what the corrupted elites of Washington and Wall St. want the general population focused on and squabbling over.

[Patrick Chewing]

A simple question for a simpleton: Why would Cruz take issue with the mayor taking part in a pride parade... if he was cool with gay people?


That's a question you'll have to ask Ted Cruz, but luckily this reporter in this clip asked him, and luckily Ted Cruz answered his question by expressing how his faith teaches to love everyone equally.

Even still, the statement about disagreeing with the mayor does not reflect his opinion on gays one way or the other, but Libtards like to reach and label and label some more.

[Norcaliblunt]

Funny to see how some of the more conspiracy theory minded posters stay shilling for the Republican Party, by sticking up for a guy who just ranted about the ultimate boogieman BS in ISIS.

[ArbitraryWater]

Didnt know but this Ted Cruz seems to be a major dumbass.. getting his ass handed everywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peL7Qecg3qQ

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBfx1r1xqiA

pretty hated too

[Out_In_Utah]

:facepalm

[Ass Dan]

Tells reporter they are focused on one topic..
changes conversation to radical islam...
fails to see hypocrisy...

[NumberSix]

Tells reporter they are focused on one topic..
changes conversation to radical islam...
fails to see hypocrisy...
Care to explain how that is in anyway hypocritical?

[D-FENS]

All I see is Cruz deflecting and getting pissy over a simple question.

I agree. He looks super shifty. I feel bad for Americans is this a-hole gets in

[nathanjizzle]

why does he seem so artificial?