Ted Cruz says 'consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the bedroom' as he promises his account will never like porn again

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon

But then Ted took a pass on Lawrence v Texas, which opened the door same sex marriage, gay rights, etc. Ted is a phony. Ted could have defended Harris countys' Law against sodomy but Ted took a pass even thou he was asked to help. TED IS A PHONY. Ted could have stopped the queer mafia in it's tracks but Ted bailed out. TED IS A PHONY.

@jpsb, you sound agitated.  You going to be okay?

I was going to post some facts to you about your accusation but I see several members have already informed you.  Ask yourself why Cruz would have deliberately avoided arguing such a case. It must have been his well-known pro-gay agenda, I guess?

Then ask yourself why you're promoting a lie that was put forth by Daily Kos and Mother Jones.  Are you that desperate to deflect from the fact that your candidate is bailing on his most important campaign promise to you?  You need to try and smear Cruz with some of Trump's crap?

And I'm still waiting to hear why you lied about Ted trying to ban sex toys.

[Applewood]

You said that Cruz was not the Solicitor General of Texas when Lawrence v Texas was argued before the Supreme court. Not True, see my previous comments where I documented the fact that Ted Cruz was the chief litigator for Texas when the Earth shattering, huge gay mafia win, that beat Texas at the Supreme court. Same sex marriage began with Lawrence v Texas. Thank you Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz was Solicitor General, but he was not Attorney General.  He could not have argued the case if the AG declined to do so. 

Why is this so hard for you to understand? 

[RAT Patrol]

I can agree with that.  I think Ted Cruz should have fired whoever was liking porn on his web page.  It isn't consistent.  I sure would not like anyone misrepresenting me in that way.

The "whatever you want" issue sounds fine for about one minute until a thinking brain starts applying that reality to everything else.  What about adultery?  If adults can do anything, the state can have no real interest in marriage.  Some would be fine with that.  But what about sexually transmitted diseases?  What about unwanted pregnancy?  How can the state have no say but then the state is forced to participate with the results of the actions:  children, diseases, marriage, divorce....etc.?  The leftists started this "privacy of the bedroom" and now they hypocritically expect government to bless all sorts of marriages, to fund contraception, abortion, sex change operations...etc.....as though the greatest freedom in all the world is orgasms any way you want them.  Now the new slogans are all about having a right to health care and to all the fixes for the dastardly results of your adult bedroom behaviors.  Major hypocrisy in all of this.

May I also point out that "consenting adult" is different from state to state.  At least for now.  The next thing the left will push is a national reduction in the age of consent.

Anyway...civilized government has had some interest in what adults do in their bedroom as an asset to ordered liberty, not as an obstruction to it.  But that was back when we collectively understood our rights come from God and that there are self evident laws of nature that no one had a right to violate.  Society had an interest in supporting the most fundamental building block of society -- the family.  And no, that is not you and your dog or whatever other unnatural thing you like.  It is not a zillion sex partners and the tab of fighting the resulting diseases is placed on the collective through government. 

[RoosGirl]

The "whatever you want" issue sounds fine for about one minute until a thinking brain starts applying that reality to everything else.  What about adultery?  If adults can do anything, the state can have no real interest in marriage.  Some would be fine with that.  But what about sexually transmitted diseases?  What about unwanted pregnancy?  How can the state have no say but then the state is forced to participate with the results of the actions:  children, diseases, marriage, divorce....etc.?  The leftists started this "privacy of the bedroom" and now they hypocritically expect government to bless all sorts of marriages, to fund contraception, abortion, sex change operations...etc.....as though the greatest freedom in all the world is orgasms any way you want them.  Now the new slogans are all about having a right to health care and to all the fixes for the dastardly results of your adult bedroom behaviors.  Major hypocrisy in all of this.

May I also point out that "consenting adult" is different from state to state.  At least for now.  The next thing the left will push is a national reduction in the age of consent.

Anyway...civilized government has had some interest in what adults do in their bedroom as an asset to ordered liberty, not as an obstruction to it.  But that was back when we collectively understood our rights come from God and that there are self evident laws of nature that no one had a right to violate.  Society had an interest in supporting the most fundamental building block of society -- the family.  And no, that is not you and your dog or whatever other unnatural thing you like.  It is not a zillion sex partners and the tab of fighting the resulting diseases is placed on the collective through government.

Good post.

[GtHawk]

Ted Cruz was Solicitor General, but he was not Attorney General.  He could not have argued the case if the AG declined to do so. 

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Well, because CRUUUUZZZZ! and Trump says.

[Chosen Daughter]

The "whatever you want" issue sounds fine for about one minute until a thinking brain starts applying that reality to everything else.  What about adultery?  If adults can do anything, the state can have no real interest in marriage.  Some would be fine with that.  But what about sexually transmitted diseases?  What about unwanted pregnancy?  How can the state have no say but then the state is forced to participate with the results of the actions:  children, diseases, marriage, divorce....etc.?  The leftists started this "privacy of the bedroom" and now they hypocritically expect government to bless all sorts of marriages, to fund contraception, abortion, sex change operations...etc.....as though the greatest freedom in all the world is orgasms any way you want them.  Now the new slogans are all about having a right to health care and to all the fixes for the dastardly results of your adult bedroom behaviors.  Major hypocrisy in all of this.

May I also point out that "consenting adult" is different from state to state.  At least for now.  The next thing the left will push is a national reduction in the age of consent.

Anyway...civilized government has had some interest in what adults do in their bedroom as an asset to ordered liberty, not as an obstruction to it.  But that was back when we collectively understood our rights come from God and that there are self evident laws of nature that no one had a right to violate.  Society had an interest in supporting the most fundamental building block of society -- the family.  And no, that is not you and your dog or whatever other unnatural thing you like.  It is not a zillion sex partners and the tab of fighting the resulting diseases is placed on the collective through government.

Good assessment, and for a good portion I agree.  Although this assessment could be a deep conversation all on its own.  Why should we pay for sexual mistakes people make?  Should I pay for abortion?  sexual disease when people are having multiple sexual partners?

We force people to wear helmets when they ride motorcycles.  Why can't we force them to be responsible in sex?  And what about drugs?  The large push to push.................needle exchange.  We are just encouraging irresponsible behavior.

We are headed farther down the road of people not being responsible for their own behavior.  If our freedom is given by our Creator then we are free to make mistakes.  But it is our own failure and we have to own it.

[Smokin Joe]

Face it, few grown men today could run for a high office without it becoming known what adult sights they visited, and even how often. There is a book on the issue called " Every Mans Battle" and that comes very close to the truth.

I must be an exception. None of my computers have been to an 'adult' site since I have had them. Part of that is simply not wanting to have computers I contact clients with or need for work possibly infected with the incredible variety of malware available there, too. If I started sending infected files to oil companies because my computer had been surfing porn, that would be the end of that contract. The other reason is that there are too many grandkids who use the house computers, and they are way too young to be seeing such images.

[Chosen Daughter]

I must be an exception. None of my computers have been to an 'adult' site since I have had them. Part of that is simply not wanting to have computers I contact clients with or need for work possibly infected with the incredible variety of malware available there, too. If I started sending infected files to oil companies because my computer had been surfing porn, that would be the end of that contract. The other reason is that there are too many grandkids who use the house computers, and they are way too young to be seeing such images.

I like Ted Cruz but he isn't consistent with this.  He should have condemned the fact it was liked on his page.  He should have taken action instead of joking about it.  Either you are who you say you are or not.

[Applewood]

I like Ted Cruz but he isn't consistent with this.  He should have condemned the fact it was liked on his page.  He should have taken action instead of joking about it.  Either you are who you say you are or not.

Well, we don't really know whether he took action.  He may well have. 

[Hoodat]

You said that Cruz was not the Solicitor General of Texas when Lawrence v Texas was argued before the Supreme court.

Nope.  Never said that.  I said that Ted Cruz was not the Soliciter General of Texas when Lawrence v. Texas went to the Supreme Court.  I was very specific about that.  Yet now you give a false portrayal of what I said.

Not True, see my previous comments where I documented the fact that Ted Cruz was the chief litigator for Texas when the Earth shattering, huge gay mafia win, that beat Texas at the Supreme court.

See:  Post Hoc Logical Fallacy

Not to mention strawmans and moving goalposts.

Here are your words again:  But then Ted took a pass on Lawrence v Texas

Your statement is a flat out lie.  Even your own wiki citation proves it.  At this point, a person of honor would admit their mistake.  But not you.

And for the record, the case that opened up same-sex marriage was Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - not Lawrence v. Texas.  You can't even tell the truth about that.

[catfish1957]

You said that Cruz was not the Solicitor General of Texas when Lawrence v Texas was argued before the Supreme court. Not True, see my previous comments where I documented the fact that Ted Cruz was the chief litigator for Texas when the Earth shattering, huge gay mafia win, that beat Texas at the Supreme court. Same sex marriage began with Lawrence v Texas. Thank you Ted Cruz.

Your unrelenting attack on one of the most conservative legislators speaks volumes about you.  And I am guessing it is lof a eft or orange nature.

[Sighlass]

Sorry, Tom:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281429.0.html

Yep, thanks for posting sanity in the midst of the opposite. @Sanguine

[DCPatriot]

TBR's orange lackeys are feeling the imploding pressure of the disaster they have help create.  How better to displace blame than go after a DJT adversary.

@mystery-ak

Help!!   @catfish1957 has lost and he can't shut up!    ^-^

[DCPatriot]

So explain to me the chronic need to beat him down.

Soon as you explain the chronic need to bring/prop him up. 

[catfish1957]

@mystery-ak

Help!!   @catfish1957 has lost and he can't shut up!    ^-^

Lost?, Hell I can't keep up with all the left turns DJT is making

Spoken from the chief Lemming, I am not surprised.   

[DCPatriot]

Agreed.

Gee, point out one obvious contradiction in Ted's resume and get accused of hating Cruz. I never hated the man at all.

I value Sen. Cruz and hope Ted Cruz has a long and storied history in the senate. Not much of a chance of ever getting elected president though, for a couple of reasons. One reason, a disqualifying one, would be suicidal for me to spell out here.

Exactly, @aligncare

Neither of us have ever ragged on Ted Cruz' or his resume. 

[aligncare]

Exactly, @aligncare

Neither of us have ever ragged on Ted Cruz' or his resume.

True. During the primaries attacks are unavoidable but expected. But when the dust settles, intra party civility is also expected. Notice I said civility is expected, not agreement. I have many disagreements with Trump and Cruz and every other politician I've ever encountered.

 

[Applewood]

Soon as you explain the chronic need to bring/prop him up.

I don't bring up Ted Cruz.   He has little, if anything, to do with the Trump presidency and anything that has gone wrong with that presidency.  . Seems to me it's the Trump supporters who can't get over Cruz.  Trump and his supporters beat down Cruz during the primaries, and it worked.  Trump won.  Trump went on  to win the presidency.  But Trump supporters just can't savor their victory.  They have to continue with the Ted Cruz beatdown. 

As for popping up Ted Cruz --I don't think he needs propping up.  His record speaks for itself.  Is Cruz perfect?  No.  No one is.  But  he has consistently represented his constituents in Washington to the best of his ability.  There are precious few in DC who can say that.  On the other hand, it looks like Trump is not representing your best interests in Washington.  But instead of holding Trump accountable, you all would rather dredge up the same old horse manure about Ted and look for anything new you can use to tear him down.

Really, I don't know and I don't care whether he might have liked a porn site.  If he did, it's a moral failing and between him, Heidi an God.  If it was a staffer as Ted claims, then it's up to him to deal with that staffer.  It's really none of my business -- or anyone else's, for that matter.   

So how about laying off Ted and deal with your own hero's failings?  Contrary to the deification of Trump by his supporters, Trump isn't God either.  It's time his supporters recognize and acknowledge that.

[TomSea]

I don't bring up Ted Cruz.   He has little, if anything, to do with the Trump presidency and anything that has gone wrong with that presidency.  . Seems to me it's the Trump supporters who can't get over Cruz.  Trump and his supporters beat down Cruz during the primaries, and it worked.  Trump won.  Trump went on  to win the presidency.  But Trump supporters just can't savor their victory.  They have to continue with the Ted Cruz beatdown. 

As for popping up Ted Cruz --I don't think he needs propping up.  His record speaks for itself.  Is Cruz perfect?  No.  No one is.  But  he has consistently represented his constituents in Washington to the best of his ability.  There are precious few in DC who can say that.  On the other hand, it looks like Trump is not representing your best interests in Washington.  But instead of holding Trump accountable, you all would rather dredge up the same old horse manure about Ted and look for anything new you can use to tear him down.

Really, I don't know and I don't care whether he might have liked a porn site.  If he did, it's a moral failing and between him, Heidi an God.  If it was a staffer as Ted claims, then it's up to him to deal with that staffer.  It's really none of my business -- or anyone else's, for that matter.   

So how about laying off Ted and deal with your own hero's failings?  Contrary to the deification of Trump by his supporters, Trump isn't God either.  It's time his supporters recognize and acknowledge that.

The Senators do little to nothing, that means Cotton, Lee, Cruz, Paul, all of them.  Cruz has set himself up to be the Conservatives Conservative yet, it is a fairly public veneer, he has not had to actually do things such as any of the governors who ran like Perry or Walker.  Already, we are seeing Cruz put up on his high horse; and a lot of folks otherwise, are too good to vote for the nominee.

[Silver Pines]

Well, we don't really know whether he took action.  He may well have.

@Applewood

Right.  I don't think it was necessary for him to say he condemned it in those exact terms.  It goes without saying, or he wouldn't have addressed it and said that action was taken.

[TomSea]

Your unrelenting attack on one of the most conservative legislators speaks volumes about you.  And I am guessing it is lof a eft or orange nature.

Conservative and has done squat.  It's just a dance and meaningless.

Also, watch out for the personal attacks from catfish1957; saying nasty things to others is pretty much the modus operandi here, this seems like many cruz supporters.

[Silver Pines]

I am coming to conclusion that this strange obsessive fixation DJT and his supporters have with Cruz is some kind of psycho-sexual thing.

@catfish1957

Bizarre, isn't it?  Just recently it's become really virulent.

Maybe that has to do with the people on social media burning their red hats and admitting they should've supported Cruz.

[catfish1957]

Conservative and has done squat.  It's just a dance and meaningless.

Also, watch out for the personal attacks from catfish1957; saying nasty things to others is pretty much the modus operandi here, this seems like many cruz supporters.

Oh the irony.  Remember in June of 2016, when you said that those not supporting Trump were the same as alQaeda and ISIS?

You got f'n gall, calling me a personal attacker

[TomSea]

Trump now has more Conservative accomplishments than Cruz,

Trump has rolled back Obama's executive orders, acted on social conservative issues.

We hear the broken record of Cruz being the Conservative but now, Trump has the real results, not just Mark Levin's checklist conservativism, if the Senate is broke and not passing bills, that has to be taken into account.

[catfish1957]

Trump now has more Conservative accomplishments than Cruz,

Trump has rolled back Obama's executive orders, acted on social conservative issues.

We hear the broken record of Cruz being the Conservative but now, Trump has the real results, not just Mark Levin's checklist conservativism, if the Senate is broke and not passing bills, that has to be taken into account.

Someone call the institution, and bring the white binding vests.