Printable View
[QUOTE=sweggeh]I think this Ted Cruz fella might be gay. Thats the vibe I get from this video.[/QUOTE]
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:
A strict constitutionalist= idiot
The constitution was made to adapt and change, not be iron clad.
[QUOTE=andgar923]A strict constitutionalist= idiot
The constitution was made to adapt and change, not be iron clad.[/QUOTE]
To adapt? Accepting people with mental disorder (homosexual) means to adapt?
[QUOTE=ThePhantomCreep]Appeal to tradition = fallacy
Social norms are dynamic
[QUOTE=fiddy]To adapt? Accepting people with mental disorder (homosexual) means to adapt?[/QUOTE]
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=andgar923]No matter how you want to categorize them as, YES.
The forefathers had adapting to the times in mind.
[B]Otherwise there'll still be slavery[/B], no child labor laws, etc.etc.etc.etc.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by this?
[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]
This dude just gone full retard.
[QUOTE=NumberSix]What do you mean by this?[/QUOTE]
Slavery was abolished was it not?
3/5 of a person
[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]
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=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.