Ted Cruz Absolutely ETHERS Reporter

[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?

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"

[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?

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"

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.

[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).