Ted Cruz Absolutely ETHERS Reporter

[QUOTE=andgar923]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.[/QUOTE]
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:

[QUOTE=Dresta]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 [I]ever[/I] 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).[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=andgar923]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:[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=fiddy]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:[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=andgar923][B]Slavery was abolished was it not?[/B]

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

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:

[QUOTE=andgar923]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[/QUOTE]
liberal in the 21st century=scum

[QUOTE=andgar923]A strict constitutionalist= idiot

The constitution was made to adapt and change, not be iron clad.[/QUOTE]
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).

[QUOTE=andgar923]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 [B]I stopped following politricks years ago.[/B][/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Maksimilian] i also believe that some folks are also born attracted to little kids.[/QUOTE]
They call themselves child lovers lmao

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

[QUOTE=andgar923][B]It was a simple question that should've been answered without any issue.[/B]

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.[/QUOTE]
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".

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:

[QUOTE=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:[/QUOTE]


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.

[QUOTE=Nanners]ted cruz has such a punchable face

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

[QUOTE=fiddy]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
[B]3. are not allowed to raise kid[/B]
4. dont organize pointless graphic street parades "yey i like to take it up the ass" :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
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:

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]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.[/QUOTE]


lol @ love everyone unconditionally :lol

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

[QUOTE=Godzuki]lol @ love everyone unconditionally :lol

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


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.

[QUOTE=fiddy]Indeed, is he a jew by any chance?[/QUOTE]
Canadian, so pretty much the same thing

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

[QUOTE=DeuceWallaces]Nice to see all our resident euro-trash and dumb-asses lecturing Americans on the politics of Ted Cruz.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=BigTicket]He didn't ether anybody, he tried to dodge a question.[/QUOTE]
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.

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

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

[QUOTE=Take Your Lumps]Meanwhile, state-sponsored Saudi beheadings are swept under the rug for obvious reasons.

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

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

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

"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!

[QUOTE=Maksimilian]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.[B] Theyre in the background so people dont realize.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, especially when the total number of Jewish Vice Presidents and Jewish Chief Justices of the Supreme Court is precisely zero.

[QUOTE=Dresta]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).[/QUOTE]

Stop your rambling.

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

[QUOTE=NumberSix]Yes. Before that, the constitution made no mention of slavery at all.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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

[QUOTE=Maksimilian]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.[/QUOTE]

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

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

So spare me your pseudo-science.

[QUOTE=NumberSix][b] 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.[/b]

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.[/QUOTE]

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

And no, I have nothing against polygamy.

[QUOTE=ProfessorMurder]There are so many garbage people in this thread.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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!".

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.