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