The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: TomSea on September 16, 2017, 03:21:01 pm
-
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
The Twitter account representing Republican Senator Ted Cruz liked a hardcore porn video late Monday night
In a Wednesday interview Cruz admitted he believes consenting adults should do what they like in the bedroom
Cruz claimed an aide was responsible for the accidental 'like' and joked that he could have used the social media attention during the 2016 primary
He unliked the controversial post just 40 minutes after it went up
In July of 2016, Cruz said: 'Pornography...has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life [sic] of millions'
By Jessica Finn For Dailymail.com
Published: 20:29 EDT, 13 September 2017 | Updated: 01:08 EDT, 14 September 2017
Ted Cruz has addressed his past views on bedroom etiquette that resurfaced after his Twitter account 'liked' a pornographic video.
The Republican Texas senator told CNN one of his staffers made an 'honest mistake' and insisted it would never happen again.
He then discussed his time as solicitor general in Texas when he defended a law restricting the use of sex toys.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4882398/Ted-Cruz-adults-wish-bed-porn-like.html#ixzz4sr6CzNCt
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Shades of Jimmy Swaggart, glad Christie exposed this guy.
-
You need to get some help for your Ted Derangement Syndrome.
On the other hand, it is entertaining.
-
On the other hand, it is entertaining.
In a dull-witted, Kardashian sort of way.
-
In a dull-witted, Kardashian sort of way.
Yes, but I don't have cable, so I can't be picky. :)
-
When you mention Trump, this guy comes to mind.
(https://www.famousbirthdays.com/headshots/george-lindsey-5.jpg)
-
You need to get some help for your Ted Derangement Syndrome.
On the other hand, it is entertaining.
You do remember, don't you, that Ted wanted to ban the sale of bedroom sex toys? Ted flip flops again.
-
Shades of Jimmy Swaggart, glad Christie exposed this guy.
Your obsession with Cruz is beyond creepy. Seek help.
-
@TomSea No one ever hit the wrong spot on a smartphone screen? Sheesh.
A nothingburger.
Or was this just brought up so the toys 'r' us crowd could strap on another one to go after Cruz?
After all Donny hasn't exactly been up to snuff lately, so attack someone else, right? It's how the media smokescreen works.
Good thing he didn't bring up furries, or y'all would be all over him.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
You do remember, don't you, that Ted wanted to ban the sale of bedroom sex toys? Ted flip flops again.
Just keep them out of the vending machines in the elementary schools. ****slapping
-
@TomSea No one ever hit the wrong spot on a smartphone screen? Sheesh.
A nothingburger.
Or was this just brought up so the toys 'r' us crowd could strap on another one to go after Cruz?
After all Donny hasn't exactly been up to snuff lately, so attack someone else, right? It's how the media smokescreen works.
Good thing he didn't bring up furries, or y'all would be all over him.
*****rollinyes*****
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.
-
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.
I thought since Ted Cruz ultimately did endorse Trump. he was no longer an adversary. Perhaps Ted didn't genuflect a sufficient number of times to the king to please the Trump cult.
-
Shades of Jimmy Swaggart, glad Christie exposed this guy.
You are one funny guy!
-
Just keep them out of the vending machines in the elementary schools. ****slapping
Oh, don't muddy "the narrative" with mere facts.
-
Oh, don't muddy "the narrative" with mere facts.
Oh, sorry, they were older, but acting like gradeschoolers.
Sex toys vs. guns at protest against "campus carry" law (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/university-of-texas-ut-campus-carry-law-sex-toy-protest-concealed-carry/)
I'll spare the forum the images...
-
I thought since Ted Cruz ultimately did endorse Trump. he was no longer an adversary. Perhaps Ted didn't genuflect a sufficient number of times to the king to please the Trump cult.
The question is regarding Sen. Cruz's apparently conflicting positions on privacy: adults can do whatever they want in the bedroom so long as they don't use adult sex toys.
Doesn't sound consistent to me and, worse, it appears that at one time Cruz was fine with the state inserting itself — couldn't resist that one — into people's private sex lives.
-
Shades of Jimmy Swaggart, glad Christie exposed this guy.
You really need to get a life, ya know. A sex life, perhaps? :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
@TomSea No one ever hit the wrong spot on a smartphone screen? Sheesh.
A nothingburger.
Or was this just brought up so the toys 'r' us crowd could strap on another one to go after Cruz?
After all Donny hasn't exactly been up to snuff lately, so attack someone else, right? It's how the media smokescreen works.
Good thing he didn't bring up furries, or y'all would be all over him.
*****rollingeyes*****
It's called distraction, deflection and yes.... even "wag the dog"....lol.
And it ain't working, much to the chagrin of the Trump fanatics.
-
The question is regarding Sen. Cruz's apparently conflicting positions on privacy: adults can do whatever they want in the bedroom so long as they don't use adult sex toys.
Doesn't sound consistent to me and, worse, it appears that at one time Cruz was fine with the state inserting itself — couldn't resist that one — into people's private sex lives.
Golly, I wonder why you and a couple others are sooo concerned with Sen. Cruz's apparently conflicting positions on privacy, while ignoring Trumps obvious conflicting positions on what he sold to the people while campaining vs. what he is shoveling now?
-
Golly, I wonder why you and a couple others are sooo concerned with Sen. Cruz's apparently conflicting positions on privacy, while ignoring Trumps obvious conflicting positions on what he sold to the people while campaining vs. what he is shoveling now?
I find it highly ironic that the orange cultist here are lecturing us on Cruz' morality, when their leader brought the WH a nude model for FLOTUS, while adding his fame for GRABBING the P____Y
-
Golly, I wonder why you and a couple others are sooo concerned with Sen. Cruz's apparently conflicting positions on privacy, while ignoring Trumps obvious conflicting positions on what he sold to the people while campaining vs. what he is shoveling now?
Because their right to have a rubber schlong is more important than the schlonging America is getting! Nothingburger should be a franchise.
-
Sorry, Tom: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281429.0.html
-
Sorry, Tom: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281429.0.html
I hate to bring up old sins, but back in June 2016 TomC called everyone who didn't support DJT was the same as alQaeda or ISIS..... And no, there was no hypberbolic intent.
-
I hate to bring up old sins, but back in June 2016 TomC called everyone who didn't support DJT was the same as alQaeda or ISIS..... And no, there was no hypberbolic intent.
At least he's consistent.
-
Learned something new about Teddy..... banning sex toys. Quite a resume.
Does anyone know if Teddy came out for this ban before or after Heidi was found by police sitting at the edge of a highway and determined she was a danger to herself? (This could explain a lot)
-
Ted Cruz says 'consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the bedroom'
Hey, something else I can agree with Ted Cruz about! Ted Cruz for President, 2020!
:thumbsup:
-
I thought since Ted Cruz ultimately did endorse Trump. he was no longer an adversary. Perhaps Ted didn't genuflect a sufficient number of times to the king to please the Trump cult.
He will forever be known as "Lyin' Ted" to the Orange Brigade.
-
Learned something new about Teddy..... banning sex toys. Quite a resume.
Does anyone know if Teddy came out for this ban before or after Heidi was found by police sitting at the edge of a highway and determined she was a danger to herself? (This could explain a lot)
You might want to find out what you're talking about before you talk about it. Just sayin'.
-
He will forever be known as "Lyin' Ted" to the Orange Brigade.
Cruz is sort of an orange shibboleth.
-
Learned something new about Teddy..... banning sex toys. Quite a resume.
Does anyone know if Teddy came out for this ban before or after Heidi was found by police sitting at the edge of a highway and determined she was a danger to herself? (This could explain a lot)
Yes, he does have quite a resume, but I guess you Trump fans never bothered to read it. Maybe if you did, you might realize that you elected a horse's backside instead of a guy with smarts -- the right smarts to lead this nation.
I still want to know why Trump fans still think Cruz is the enemy. Why do you all still feel the need to beat this man down? Cruz lost the nomination. Trump won. Trump is the president now. Why can't you all let go?
Maybe you all need psychiatric help -- perhaps more than Heidi Cruz ever did.
-
He will forever be known as "Lyin' Ted" to the Orange Brigade.
Never mind that their god Trump lied to them.
-
You might want to find out what you're talking about before you talk about it. Just sayin'.
Start with the link below @Sanguine ... the prevailing opinion was it wasn't right to politicize Heidi's battle with depression:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/29/its-cruel-to-politicize-heidi-cruzs-depression/
You can find many other articles of interest on Al Gore's magnificent Internet.
-
Never mind that their god Trump lied to them.
The ends justify the means in The Art of The Deal.
-
2016 is so last year...
-
He will forever be known as "Lyin' Ted" to the Orange Brigade.
Nah. Ted should have no problem overcoming this. :smokin:
But the Maple Leafs sure are touchy today. :laugh:
-
Learned something new about Teddy..... banning sex toys. Quite a resume.
Does anyone know if Teddy came out for this ban before or after Heidi was found by police sitting at the edge of a highway and determined she was a danger to herself? (This could explain a lot)
Classy
-
Start with the link below @Sanguine ... the prevailing opinion was it wasn't right to politicize Heidi's battle with depression:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/29/its-cruel-to-politicize-heidi-cruzs-depression/
You can find many other articles of interest on Al Gore's magnificent Internet.
What are you talking about? You apparently weren't responding to my comment.
-
The Maple Leafs dragged Melania Trump into this discussion @RoosGirl
I hope you're not suggesting turnaround isn't fair play.
Utterly bizarre.
-
I still want to know why Trump fans still think Cruz is the enemy. ....
We don't, never did.
-
Utterly bizarre.
You grabbed that before it was deleted. That is a disturbing, behind the curtain view of Unhingedville.
-
Utterly bizarre.
You'll notice @Sanguine (because you seem to watch me like a hawk) that I deleted that post---the anti-Flotus remarks were on another thread.
Thanks so much for keeping up! Nice to know I've got an audience. :laugh:
-
We don't, never did.
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
Thanks, I needed the laugh.
-
You'll notice @Sanguine (because you seem to watch me like a hawk) that I deleted that post---the anti-Flotus remarks were on another thread.
Thanks so much for keeping up! Nice to know I've got an audience. :laugh:
Ummm, you pinged me to your comment, RiV.
-
We don't, never did.
So explain to me the chronic need to beat him down.
-
You grabbed that before it was deleted. .../
Thanks for noticing @RoosGirl (because you, too, seem to watch me like a hawk) that I deleted the post---the anti-Flotus remarks were on another thread.
Thanks so much for keeping up! Nice to know you're a regular part of my audience. 888high58888
(PS: I'm going to logoff in a bit ... Saturday night fun is calling. Hope you can bear the boredom this will cause .... 88devil )
-
So explain to me the chronic need to beat him down.
I do not have one.
-
Thanks for noticing @RoosGirl (because you, too, seem to watch me like a hawk) that I deleted the post---the anti-Flotus remarks were on another thread.
Thanks so much for keeping up! Nice to know you're a regular part of my audience. 888high58888
(PS: I'm going to logoff in a bit ... Saturday night fun is calling. Hope you can bear the boredom this will cause .... 88devil )
Yeah, I wondered if there was more to the comment that would explain what I was seeing in Unhingedvilled, but sadly there wasn't. Weirdness picking on Heidi because the leader of Unhingedville's wife had something said about her that wasn't nice.
-
I do not have one.
Then why the crack about Heidi Cruz?
What next, Trump fans? Are you now going to bring up Cruz's father? Maybe you should mention his plot with Oswald to kill JFK.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Yeah, I wondered if there was more to the comment that would explain what I was seeing in Unhingedvilled, but sadly there wasn't. Weirdness picking on Heidi because the leader of Unhingedville's wife had something said about her that wasn't nice.
Could your style be rubbing off on me @RoosGirl ??? Dear Lord, I'll have to think about this. :pondering:
Have a fun Saturday night. See ya tomorrow .... :seeya:
-
Then why the crack about Heidi Cruz?
What next, Trump fans? Are you now going to bring up Cruz's father? Maybe you should mention his plot with Oswald to kill JFK.
Go have some fun .... it's Saturday night and you sound like you could use some. Enjoy! ^-^
-
Go have some fun .... it's Saturday night and you sound like you could use some. Enjoy! ^-^
I am having fun -- watching Trump fan insanity.
Not to worry. Got some real fun for Saturday night lined up. Hope the rest of you can live without me for a few hours.
88devil
-
Then why the crack about Heidi Cruz?
What next, Trump fans? Are you now going to bring up Cruz's father? Maybe you should mention his plot with Oswald to kill JFK.
*****rollingeyes*****
In Trump-speak, "hitting below the belt" is a clean way to say "grabbing the *****".
-
I do not have one.
So you admit you don't do it out of "need," you do it for fun?
-
We don't, never did.
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.
-
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.
It's not a contradiction, but you probably know that.
Why don't you seem to care about all of the contradictions in Donald Trump's history?
-
Never mind that their god Trump lied to them.
The first "Lyin' Ted" was a lie. I didn't bother to even try to keep count....
-
Never mind that their god Trump lied to them.
Lied to them and is lying to them still to this very moment!
-
You do remember, don't you, that Ted wanted to ban the sale of bedroom sex toys? Ted flip flops again.
Totally misunderstood. He was fighting carbs and wanted to ban dill dough.
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/41V43qwkLhnhbmwBU_mdgQ--/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz00ODk-/https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/1/2240449_bab7263591_z.jpg.cf.jpg)
-
Totally misunderstood. He was fighting carbs and wanted to ban dill dough.
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/41V43qwkLhnhbmwBU_mdgQ--/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz00ODk-/https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/1/2240449_bab7263591_z.jpg.cf.jpg)
888high58888
-
It's not a contradiction, but you probably know that.
Why don't you seem to care about all of the contradictions in Donald Trump's history?
Don't think I don't have my disagreements with Trump. Just as I have had many disagreements with Bush. But I still supported him and defended him against media lies and attacks.
Trump's made many mistakes. Tax reform should have been his first priority, not healthcare. His selection of a senator in Jeff Sessions was poor judgment, despite his desire to reward Sessions for his unwavering support during the campaign. Senators don't make good investigative prosecutors, they're lazy legislators, he didn't have the temperament plus it's been awhile since Sessions been a states attorney general. (Jeff, what happened to you?) I also think the wall is a bad idea; there are better, less 5th century ways to secure the border.
There's a bunch of other things. But on the plus side, he's not a politician, he's a fighter and a good tactician and I support broadly his agenda. So, I won't lend my voice to the forces trying to destroy him. I frankly don't understand the constant criticism, I don't see what it accomplishes except to carry the leftist progressives' water.
-
Shades of Jimmy Swaggart, glad Christie exposed this guy.
@TomSea
Glad you were a supporter?
And will be again, since you veer crazily between deriding him and complimenting him. I give it a week.
-
You do remember, don't you, that Ted wanted to ban the sale of bedroom sex toys? Ted flip flops again.
@jpsb
No, you're lying again. He never tried to "ban" sex toys. As solicitor general of Texas, he had to uphold the law, and it was state law at that time.
Why are you lying?
-
You really need to get a life, ya know. A sex life, perhaps? :silly: :silly: :silly:
@XenaLee
LOL
-
Learned something new about Teddy..... banning sex toys. Quite a resume.
Does anyone know if Teddy came out for this ban before or after Heidi was found by police sitting at the edge of a highway and determined she was a danger to herself? (This could explain a lot)
@Right_in_Virginia
You think? I don't know if a lousy sex life, or lack of one at all, would make someone have an episode like that. She would be more likely to become bitter and angry, acting out her issues because she wasn't getting any.
-
Thanks for noticing @RoosGirl (because you, too, seem to watch me like a hawk) that I deleted the post---the anti-Flotus remarks were on another thread.
Thanks so much for keeping up! Nice to know you're a regular part of my audience. 888high58888
(PS: I'm going to logoff in a bit ... Saturday night fun is calling. Hope you can bear the boredom this will cause .... 88devil )
@Right_in_Virginia
This just sounds so defensive I can't even...
I read your post wrong for a second. When I looked at it, I thought you said you were going to loofah in a bit for Saturday night fun. I was kind of hopeful for you.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
This just sounds so defensive I can't even...
I read your post wrong for a second. When I looked at it, I thought you said you were going to loofah in a bit for Saturday night fun. I was kind of hopeful for you.
Sounds like a Bill O'Reilly kind of Saturday night.
-
Utterly bizarre.
Bizarre, but not unusual, behavior. Rather typical behavior, in fact.
-
Sounds like a Bill O'Reilly kind of Saturday night.
*shudder*
-
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.
-
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.
Irrelevant to elected office anymore. We've had a rapist, closeted bisexual, and two serial leches in the WH over the past twenty years.
-
@jpsb
No, you're lying again. He never tried to "ban" sex toys. As solicitor general of Texas, he had to uphold the law, and it was state law at that time.
Why are you lying?
@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.
-
Ted Cruz says 'consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the bedroom
Paraphrasing the language of the Supreme Court's leading alphabet soup lobby apologist, Anthony Kennedy, from the Lawrence v. Texas decision that established sodomy as a constitutional right.
-
@jpsb
If you could describe Ted Cruz with on word, what would it be? :whistle:
-
@CatherineofAragon
But then Ted took a pass on Lawrence v Texas, which opened the door same sex marriage, gay rights, etc.
And the lies keep coming.
-
@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.
A Trump supporter calling Cruz a phony is pretty damn ironic if you ask me. Ever watch the Peter Sellers movie "Being There"? Well DJT is a blend of Chauncey, Forrest Gump., and POTUS from Idiocracy. The ultimate Accidental President.
(http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/1/10/Idiocracy_SAW_01.jpg/600px-Idiocracy_SAW_01.jpg)
-
@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.
Wow, what alternate reality are you living in? I give Ted a lot of credit, but I don't think anyone rational tries to endow him with the same super powers you folks seem to believe the Trump has. All by himself Ted could have stopped the queer mafia? Always when Trump is sucking like a hoover you guys try to tear down others so Trump doesn't look so small. To quote your guy "Sad"! **nononono*
-
Wow, what alternate reality are you living in? I give Ted a lot of credit, but I don't think anyone rational tries to endow him with the same super powers you folks seem to believe the Trump has. All by himself Ted could have stopped the queer mafia? Always when Trump is sucking like a hoover you guys try to tear down others so Trump doesn't look so small. To quote your guy "Sad"! **nononono*
I am coming to conclusion that this strange obsessive fixation DJT and his supporters have with Cruz is some kind of psycho-sexual thing.
-
And the lies keep coming.
Was Cruz the solicitor general of Texas when Lawrence v Texas when to the Supreme Court? Did Harris county ask the solicitor general of Texas (Cruz) to help argue the case? Did Cruz help Harris county with the case?
Answer these questions before you call me a lair. CRUZ is a PHONY.
-
All by himself Ted could have stopped the queer mafia?
Pretty hard to do when you happen to be working at the Federal Trade Commission at the time. But why let 'truth' get in the way of a good Ted Cruz bash.
-
Pretty hard to do when you happen to be working at the Federal Trade Commission at the time. But why let 'truth' get in the way of a good Ted Cruz bash.
And you call me a liar, Cruz was the solicitor general of Texas when Lawerance v Texas was argued before the Supreme Court.
Ted Cruz: Anti-Gay Marriage Crusader? Not Always (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-29/ted-cruz-anti-gay-marriage-crusader-not-always)
-
Was Cruz the solicitor general of Texas when Lawrence v Texas when to the Supreme Court? Did Harris county ask the solicitor general of Texas (Cruz) to help argue the case? Did Cruz help Harris county with the case?
Answer these questions before you call me a lair. CRUZ is a PHONY.
Question 1: No.
Question 2: No.
Question 3: No.
John Cornyn was Attorney General when this case went to the Supreme Court. Cornyn refused to have his office argue the case. Harris County district attorney Charles Rosenthal wanted to lose the case because he was sympathetic to the plaintiff's case. So there is no way in hell he would have wanted someone like Ted Cruz arguing his side.
Since I have answered these questions, is it now OK to call you a liar?
-
Then why the crack about Heidi Cruz?
What next, Trump fans? Are you now going to bring up Cruz's father? Maybe you should mention his plot with Oswald to kill JFK.
*****rollingeyes*****
888high58888
-
Was Cruz the solicitor general of Texas when Lawrence v Texas when to the Supreme Court? Did Harris county ask the solicitor general of Texas (Cruz) to help argue the case? Did Cruz help Harris county with the case?
Answer these questions before you call me a lair. CRUZ is a PHONY.
You seem to be a bit confused AGAIN!
Yes he was Solicitor General of Texas at the time and worked for a man named John Cornyn who was Attorney General then and it was he who refused to allow his office to defend the case!
-
Question 1: No.
Question 2: No.
Question 3: No.
John Cornyn was Attorney General when this case went to the Supreme Court. Cornyn refused to have his office argue the case. Harris County district attorney Charles Rosenthal wanted to lose the case because he was sympathetic to the plaintiff's case. So there is no way in hell he would have wanted someone like Ted Cruz arguing his side.
Since I have answered these questions, is it now OK to call you a liar?
1) You Lie; Cruz was Texas Solicitor General when Lawrence v Texas was litigated.
Wiki
In 2003, while Cruz was Texas Solicitor General, the Texas Attorney General's office declined to defend Texas' sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Texas_Solicitor_General
I'll not bother with the rest of your lies. CRUZ IS A PHONY.
-
1) You Lie; Cruz was Texas Solicitor General when Lawrence v Texas was litigated.
Wiki
In 2003, while Cruz was Texas Solicitor General, the Texas Attorney General's office declined to defend Texas' sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Texas_Solicitor_General
I'll not bother with the rest of your lies. CRUZ IS A PHONY.
YOU are an idiot! The Attorney general of Texas at the time was none other than John Cornyn and HE is the fellow who refused to allow his office to defend the case!
-
You seem to be a bit confused AGAIN!
Yes he was Solicitor General of Texas at the time and worked for a man named John Cornyn who was Attorney General then and it was he who refused to allow his office to defend the case!
BULL, as Texas Solicitor General Cruz could take any case he wanted, Cruz bailed out on the most important traditional values case ever. CRUZ IS A PHONY. And it was Greg Abbett not John Cornly that was AG of Texas at the time.
And you are calling me an idiot when you have no clue as to who was AG at the time, wow.
-
Oh goody, another trip to Unhingedville.
-
BULL, as Texas Solicitor General Cruz could take any case he wanted, Cruz bailed out on the most important traditional values case ever. CRUZ IS A PHONY. And it was Greg Abbett not John Cornly that was AG of Texas at the time.
And you are calling me an idiot when you have no clue as to who was AG at the time, wow.
ABSOLUTELY not! The Solicitor General works for and takes direction from the Attorney General!
-
And you call me a liar, Cruz was the solicitor general of Texas when Lawerance v Texas was argued before the Supreme Court.
The case went to the USSC on December 2, 2002. Amicus briefs began being accepted at that time. The Attorney General of Texas refused to cooperate with the case lest it harm his Senate run.
Ted Cruz remained at the FTC until the end of January before taking over the Solicitor General position. As Solicitor General, he operated under the direction of the Attorney General's office - the same office that had already recused itself from involvement in the case.
Oral arguments began on March 26, 2003. When the case was argued, yes, Ted Cruz was Solicitor General. But no, the Texas Attorney General did not change course. And no, Ted Cruz was not asked to argue the case.
So to say that Ted Cruz took a pass on Lawrence v. Texas is a pure unadulterated lie. And anyone claiming as such is a liar.
-
1) You Lie; Cruz was Texas Solicitor General when Lawrence v Texas was litigated.
Wiki
In 2003, while Cruz was Texas Solicitor General, the Texas Attorney General's office declined to defend Texas' sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Texas_Solicitor_General
I'll not bother with the rest of your lies. CRUZ IS A PHONY.
So what part of 'Texas Attorney General's office' are you having difficulty with?
-
BULL, as Texas Solicitor General Cruz could take any case he wanted, Cruz bailed out on the most important traditional values case ever. CRUZ IS A PHONY. And it was Greg Abbett not John Cornly that was AG of Texas at the time.
And you are calling me an idiot when you have no clue as to who was AG at the time, wow.
5
Unhinged Orange Cultist frothing at the mouth. Proud of yourself?
BTW.... TRUMP IS A PHONY, and I'd bet 85% of the US population agrees.
-
BULL, as Texas Solicitor General Cruz could take any case he wanted, Cruz bailed out on the most important traditional values case ever.
The truth simply isn't in you.
-
So what part of 'Texas Attorney General's office' are you having difficulty with?
LOL.... Reading comprehension is just one symptom of Orange Dilusionment Syndrome.
-
BTW.... TRUMP IS A PHONY
Trump is nowhere near as much of a phony as are his sycophants.
-
The case went to the USSC on December 2, 2002. Amicus briefs began being accepted at that time. The Attorney General of Texas refused to cooperate with the case lest it harm his Senate run.
Ted Cruz remained at the FTC until the end of January before taking over the Solicitor General position. As Solicitor General, he operated under the direction of the Attorney General's office - the same office that had already recused itself from involvement in the case.
Oral arguments began on March 26, 2003. When the case was argued, yes, Ted Cruz was Solicitor General. But no, the Texas Attorney General did not change course. And no, Ted Cruz was not asked to argue the case.
So to say that Ted Cruz took a pass on Lawrence v. Texas is a pure unadulterated lie. And anyone claiming as such is a liar.
Cruz had a opportunity to fight for traditional values and he took a pass. CRUZ IS A PHONY.
All you have to do is google "Lawrence v. Texas Cruz". I have already documented your lies, I am done with you. Bye
-
ABSOLUTELY not! The Solicitor General works for and takes direction from the Attorney General!
So are you willing to admit you were wrong to say John Corlyn was Tx AG when Cruz was Solicitor General? Any conversation we might have starts with you admitting I was right and you were wrong.
-
The question is regarding Sen. Cruz's apparently conflicting positions on privacy: adults can do whatever they want in the bedroom so long as they don't use adult sex toys.
Doesn't sound consistent to me and, worse, it appears that at one time Cruz was fine with the state inserting itself — couldn't resist that one — into people's private sex lives.
Over a year ago, when I thought the GOP stood for something, Senator Cruz was my least favorite Republican. I have come to respect him more for his years of support for Israel and his opposition to abortion, but I must agree with you aligncare, it is truly sad to see a politician with an inconsistent philosophy on an issue. Even worse is a politician who has an inconsistent philosophy from week to week, day to day, hour to minute...sometimes back to back tweets.
-
Cruz had a opportunity to fight for traditional values and he took a pass.
Another lie. Again, that makes you a liar. Ted Cruz took over as Solicitor General eight weeks after the Supreme Court took the case. He played no role in submitting any amicus briefs already filed, and had done zero work reviewing the case. As Solicitor General, he worked for the Attorney General's office which had already recused itself from the case. The only way Cruz could have argued the case would be if he resigned from the FTC in December 2002 and joined the legal team fighting the case.
All you have to do is google "Lawrence v. Texas Cruz". I have already documented your lies, I am done with you. Bye
You haven't documented jack shit. All you did was pull a quote from wikipedia that anyone including yourself could have written. It was a quote which you clearly did not bother to read because it discredits your very own argument. Your quote again says that the Attorney General's office declined to defend the law. So to say that Ted Cruz opted out is a flat out lie. Which of course makes you a liar, which you proved yourself from your asinine wiki post.
-
Ted Cruz says 'consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the bedroom'
Hey, something else I can agree with Ted Cruz about! Ted Cruz for President, 2020!
:thumbsup:
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.
-
So are you willing to admit you were wrong to say John Corlyn was Tx AG when Cruz was Solicitor General? Any conservation we might have starts with you admitting I was right and you were wrong.
John Cornyn was not AG when Cruz became Solicitor General. However, John Cornyn was AG when the AG office decided not to participate in the Supreme Court case.
-
You haven't documented jack shit.
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.
-
@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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/post-hoc/)
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 (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1447056.html) - not Lawrence v. Texas. You can't even tell the truth about that.
-
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.
-
Sorry, Tom: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281429.0.html
Yep, thanks for posting sanity in the midst of the opposite. @Sanguine
-
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! ^-^
-
So explain to me the chronic need to beat him down.
Soon as you explain the chronic need to bring/prop him up.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
:beer:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
I think they are going ballistic because their backs are against to wall, trying to defend the undefendable. If I was in that boat (trying to defend DJT), I'd be pissed too.
-
Someone call the institution, and bring the white binding vests.
The sound of Trump chucking those campaign promises into the trash can is very...unsettling.
-
I think they are going ballistic because their backs are against to wall, trying to defend the undefendable. If I was in that boat (trying to defend DJT), I'd be pissed too.
@catfish1957
Yup, that's it exactly.
I don't understand why they're trying to defend someone who used them and lied to them. If someone did that to me, I'd be done with them.
Whatever, I guess.
-
@catfish1957
Yup, that's it exactly.
I don't understand why they're trying to defend someone who used them and lied to them. If someone did that to me, I'd be done with them.
Whatever, I guess.
Stockholm syndrome?
-
Stockholm syndrome?
@debrawiest
It must be? It's like nothing we've seen before.
-
So are you willing to admit you were wrong to say John Corlyn was Tx AG when Cruz was Solicitor General? Any conversation we might have starts with you admitting I was right and you were wrong.
Dude I gave up on trying to have conversation with you LONG ago!
And NO you are not right! It was none other than John Cornyn who made the decision not to defend the case!
-
Ben Shapiro retweeted the Wall Street Journal's report that Trump will not pull out of the Paris climate accord.
More red hats hit the fire, and Ted Cruz girds up to absorb the fallout...
-
Ben Shapiro retweeted the Wall Street Journal's report that Trump will not pull out of the Paris climate accord.
More red hats hit the fire, and Ted Cruz girds up to absorb the fallout...
Sorry, but our TBR Trumplet contingent says that the WSJ is fake news. :silly:
-
Ben Shapiro retweeted the Wall Street Journal's report that Trump will not pull out of the Paris climate accord.
More red hats hit the fire, and Ted Cruz girds up to absorb the fallout...
Unfortunately that seems to be the way it works around here.
-
Unfortunately that seems to be the way it works around here.
Excellent observation. Every time DJT takes a heat for a left turn, a hit piece on Cruz happens.
These Orange Briefers are getting as predictable as a TOS Freepathon
-
Sorry, but our TBR Trumplet contingent says that the WSJ is fake news. :silly:
@catfish1957
Oh, my mistake, lol.
Yet @jpsb had no problem going with a Daily Kos/Mother Jones smear against Cruz.
-
Excellent observation. Every time DJT takes a heat for a left turn, a hit piece on Cruz happens.
These Orange Briefers are getting as predictable as a TOS Freepathon
It's damned hard for any objective person to not notice! Just sayin!
-
You seem to be a bit confused AGAIN!
Yes he was Solicitor General of Texas at the time and worked for a man named John Cornyn who was Attorney General then and it was he who refused to allow his office to defend the case!
Incorrect:
Ted Cruz. ... Cruz served as Solicitor General of Texas, from 2003 to 2008, appointed by Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott. He was the first Hispanic, and the longest-serving, Solicitor General in Texas history.
-
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
Lol....don't take it seriously or personally. I got accused of the same thing (making personal attacks) when I first arrived here....merely for dissing Trump. THEY are the ones taking it personally and ergo, calling attacks against Trump "personal attacks" against them. I call it TDDS - Trump Defensiveness Derangement Syndrome/
-
Incorrect:
Ted Cruz. ... Cruz served as Solicitor General of Texas, from 2003 to 2008, appointed by Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott. He was the first Hispanic, and the longest-serving, Solicitor General in Texas history.
OK! Did Abbott make the decision not to defend the Lawrence vs Texas Case or was that his predecessor John Cornyn? Either way it WASN"T Cruz!
-
I think they are going ballistic because their backs are against to wall, .../
The only ones going ballistic are the Cruz supporters.
The obsessive need to continue to pit the Senator against the President and refight battles with the President's supporters is self-defeating @catfish1957 Your boat simply isn't able to power itself on its own, so you'd be wise to stop insulting would be allies.
Here's the reality: Ted Cruz is neither saint nor sinner. He is a career politician; and as such Cruz's actions will always serve his ambitions. The best you can rationally hope for is that his interests intersect frequently with yours. This is the total magic of Ted Cruz. :shrug:
-
OK! Did Abbott make the decision not to defend the Lawrence vs Texas Case or was that his predecessor John Cornyn? Either way it WASN"T Cruz!
The case was Lawrence vs TEXAS.
Are you telling me the solicitor General of Texas could not have walked into the AG office and said "I want to represent Texas in Lawrence vs TEXAS case. Really? The biggest most important gay mafia case ever? I am not buying that. Cruz and Abbett took a pass and because of that we have open homosexuals in our military, same sex marriage, etc. Harris county asked Cruz/Abbett to help with the case, crickets.
-
The case was Lawrence vs TEXAS.
Are you telling me the solicitor General of Texas could not have walked into the AG office and said "I want to represent Texas in Lawrence vs TEXAS case. Really? The biggest most important gay mafia case ever? I am not buying that. Cruz and Abbett took a pass and because of that we have open homosexuals in our military, same sex marriage, etc. Harris county asked Cruz/Abbett to help with the case, crickets.
Yep! That's exactly what I'm telling you!
-
The only ones going ballistic are the Cruz supporters.
The obsessive need to continue to pit the Senator against the President and refight battles with the President's supporters is self-defeating @catfish1957 Your boat simply isn't able to power itself on its own, so you'd be wise to stop insulting would be allies.
Here's the reality: Ted Cruz is neither saint nor sinner. He is a career politician; and as such Cruz's actions will always serve his ambitions. The best you can rationally hope for is that his interests intersect frequently with yours. This is the total magic of Ted Cruz. :shrug:
Here is what I can tell you about Ted Cruz as a politician! Thus far he has done in office EXACTLY what he said he would do while campaigning for that office! That stands in stark contrast to your Beau Trump!
-
Yep! That's exactly what I'm telling you!
Well then I guess you will buy any old excuse lying Ted comes up with.
-
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.
The problem is that unlike the governors you mention, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, et al are a small minority in a much larger group,the vast majority of which don't give a flying fig about the voters who elected them. But take a look at the legislation Ted Cruz has sponsored and co-sponsored and his votes on legislation sponsored by others. He has done his best to represent the people who voted for him. If that legislation failed, the blame belongs to the liberal Republican crooks, not to Ted Cruz and his allies.
As for being too good to vote for the nominee -- hogwash. It's not a matter of being "too good." I for one would have been happy to vote for the nominee if I thought in good conscience he was right for the job. But IMO, neither Trump nor Hillary was right for the job. I am not going to vote for anyone I think is a lying, cheating, incompetent scumbag. Contrary to what you and others might think, we have more than just two choices in an election. And I think you are going to see in future elections, more and more people are going to look beyond those two choices. You can blame Trump and his rabid supporters for that. Whatever happens -- even if it turns out to be complete Democrat rule in 2020 -- Trump and his worshipers will own it.
-
Well then I guess you will buy any old excuse lying Ted comes up with.
Unlike you, I KNOW Ted Cruz and would trust him with my life! There are very few men on this planet I would say that about!
-
The case was Lawrence vs TEXAS.
Are you telling me the solicitor General of Texas could not have walked into the AG office and said "I want to represent Texas in Lawrence vs TEXAS case. Really? The biggest most important gay mafia case ever? I am not buying that. Cruz and Abbett took a pass and because of that we have open homosexuals in our military, same sex marriage, etc. Harris county asked Cruz/Abbett to help with the case, crickets.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they've been telling you now, for about 2 pages, that it wasn't up to Cruz, nor would it be up to anyone in the Solicitor General position to go against the AG wishes. But you go ahead with your Cruz hate, nothing will change your mind, and it's entertaining.
-
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they've been telling you now, for about 2 pages, that it wasn't up to Cruz, nor would it be up to anyone in the Solicitor General position to go against the AG wishes. But you go ahead with your Cruz hate, nothing will change your mind, and it's entertaining.
Cruz had a chance to stop the homosexual agenda and he did nothing. And that is the bottom line on Ted Cruz.
-
@catfish1957
Yup, that's it exactly.
I don't understand why they're trying to defend someone who used them and lied to them. If someone did that to me, I'd be done with them.
Whatever, I guess.
Don't forget that Trump himself pretty much called them thoughtless and stupid when he said he could shoot someone and they would still support him.
Unfortunately, he seems to have been right about them, and we're seeing it at work.... **nononono*
@CatherineofAragon
-
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
If the f'n shoe fits...WEAR IT! It's ALL you do.
You've been warned by nobody less than @mystery-ak to cut the crap with the "orange" references, etc., in referring to President Trump's supporters/voters.
And yet....here we are.
-
"the obsessive need to pit the senator against the president "
Lol, this was actually posted by the Trump follower who implied Heidi Cruz had a breakdown on the side of the road because Ted doesn't cut it in the bedroom. Gotta love it!
#comedysunday
-
You haven't documented jack shit. All you did was pull a quote from wikipedia that anyone including yourself could have written. It was a quote which you clearly did not bother to read because it discredits your very own argument. Your quote again says that the Attorney General's office declined to defend the law. So to say that Ted Cruz opted out is a flat out lie. Which of course makes you a liar, which you proved yourself from your asinine wiki post.
But he did use really big letters.
-
If Cruz is the king of the Gay Mafia, Dapper Don is surely a capo, don't recall Cruz holding up a rainbow flag during the campaign.
(http://cdn.gospelherald.com/data/images/full/20116/donald-trump.jpg)
Just a little off topic but last night on Trumpbart quite a few Trumpers were accusing Bannon of working with the Koch Brothers and Mercer to primary Trump with Cruz in 2020, their Cruz paranoia is reaching the tin foil hat level as is evident here also.
-
Don't forget that Trump himself pretty much called them thoughtless and stupid when he said he could shoot someone and they would still support him.
Unfortunately, he seems to have been right about them, and we're seeing it at work.... **nononono*
@CatherineofAragon
@musiclady
Yes, he did. Trump understands his fans, and he has all along. He said in his book that he knows what people want to hear & what to tell them.
The statement you reference is that of a con man openly bragging to his marks that his con is a success. I wouldn't tolerate that from anyone in real life, and certainly not from some politician.
-
Here is what I can tell you about Ted Cruz as a politician! Thus far he has done in office EXACTLY what he said he would do while campaigning for that office! That stands in stark contrast to your Beau Trump!
It doesn't stand in stark contract to the President, @Bigun although I can understand why you'd say this. Every time one member of the media throws out a shiny new anti-Trump "story", the rest of the media catches it and runs with it. By the time it's proven untrue, hundreds of posts have been made here (and other places) condemning the President and ridiculing his supporters. There is a new feeding frenzy every day. One would almost think it's intentional.
So far, to highlight just a few efforts, he's done pretty damn well against some formidable opposition on both sides of the swamp. He ended dozens of Obama's EO's, including growth stifling regulations and the EPA, he's pulled us out of TPP and the Paris Climate Accord, he's renegotiating NAFTA, he fought like hell for and met repeatedly with the Republican caucus to repeal and replace Obamacare .... but the Republican Senatorial caucus wasn't having any of it.
He's nominated dozens of federal judges .... but our esteemed Republican Senate has neither time nor interest in helping to fundamentally change the makeup of the federal bench. (Imagine what the President could accomplish with a functioning Senate)
The President ended Obama's EO on DACA and placed it in the hands of Congress .... who had been begging for the ball.
Tax reform requires (thanks to McConnell's obstinance) 60 votes in the Senate ... so he's looking to pick off Democrat Senators to help pass it. He's playing the cards he's been dealt .... but to so many this move proves he's Satan reincarnated.
And, yes, Bigun, the wall will be built.
I don't understand why a successful President Trump and a successful Senator Cruz cannot coexist. They worked quite well together trying to repeal/replace Obamacare. They were very respectful--dare I say friendly--when together in Houston after Harvey. We shouldn't be pitting these two against each other, we should be encouraging their alliance.
And, last but not least, I like President Trump. I still find his "candor" refreshing and I still believe him and in his agenda. If that makes him my "beau" Bigun ..... so be it. ^-^
-
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.
/snicker
-
If Cruz is the king of the Gay Mafia, Dapper Don is surely a capo, don't recall Cruz holding up a rainbow flag during the campaign.
(http://cdn.gospelherald.com/data/images/full/20116/donald-trump.jpg)
Just a little off topic but last night on Trumpbart quite a few Trumpers were accusing Bannon of working with the Koch Brothers and Mercer to primary Trump with Cruz in 2020, their Cruz paranoia is reaching the tin foil hat level as is evident here also.
@corbe
That might explain what we're seeing.
-
Well, although I have been safely out of internet range up in Quebec for the past ten days, I can see that not much has changed around here in post-modern America.
Our President is still driving people to extremes, tangible ground between seething hatred and mindless worship notwithstanding.
If you think Trump is bad, you ought to get a load of Monsieur Trudeau.
-
If the f'n shoe fits...WEAR IT! It's ALL you do.
You've been warned by nobody less than @mystery-ak to cut the crap with the "orange" references, etc., in referring to President Trump's supporters/voters.
And yet....here we are.
Hey calling you and your ilk orange is kind, versus the truly descriptive "duped naive " collective.
-
Cruz had a chance to stop the homosexual agenda and he did nothing. And that is the bottom line on Ted Cruz.
Okay. Sure.
-
"the obsessive need to pit the senator against the president "
Lol, this was actually posted by the Trump follower who implied Heidi Cruz had a breakdown on the side of the road because Ted doesn't cut it in the bedroom. Gotta love it!
#comedysunday
And said that about Heidi Cruz because someone said something mean about Melania. :silly:
-
And said that about Heidi Cruz because someone said something mean about Melania. :silly:
OMG @RoosGirl ... get a life. Vapid is no way to go through forums.
-
OMG @RoosGirl ... get a life. Vapid is no way to go through forums.
Sez the vapidity expert.
-
Hey calling you and your ilk orange is kind, versus the truly descriptive "duped naive " collective.
Why must you call the President's supporters anything at all @catfish1957 ?
Have you nothing else to offer?
-
OMG @RoosGirl ... get a life. Vapid is no way to go through forums.
Any candidate who would hire Stone/Pecker as campaign strategist is reflective of the candidate and his supporters. People don't forget.
Deal with it.
-
Why must you call the President's supporters anything at all @catfish1957 ?
Have you nothing else to offer?
Since the supporters of Trump(D) are generally immune to logic, and even to common sense, what else is there?
-
STOP THE PERSONAL INSULTS
STOP THE THREATS OF VIOLENCE.....THIS IS THE FIRST AND ONLY WARNING
-
The case was Lawrence vs TEXAS.
Are you telling me the solicitor General of Texas could not have walked into the AG office and said "I want to represent Texas in Lawrence vs TEXAS case. Really? The biggest most important gay mafia case ever? I am not buying that. Cruz and Abbett took a pass and because of that we have open homosexuals in our military, same sex marriage, etc. Harris county asked Cruz/Abbett to help with the case, crickets.
I guess you still don't understand the relationship between boss and employee. Cruz could say he wanted to represent Texas in this case, but if HIS BOSS, the Attorney General, said his office was not going to represent Texas in that case, Cruz would have been barred from doing so on his own. It would have been improper and possibly illegal for Cruz to disobey his boss and try to represent Texas in this matter. In business, he would have been fired. In this case, he might have lost his job, his license to practice law and maybe he would have faced jail time.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Were you perhaps never a subordinate to someone else?
Oh and I'm not sure Greg Abbott would have been able to override the previous AG's decision.
-
I guess you still don't understand the relationship between boss and employee. Cruz could say he wanted to represent Texas in this case, but if HIS BOSS, the Attorney General, said his office was not going to represent Texas in that case, Cruz would have been barred from doing so on his own. It would have been improper and possibly illegal for Cruz to disobey his boss and try to represent Texas in this matter. In business, he would have been fired. In this case, he might have lost his job, his license to practice law and maybe he would have faced jail time.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Were you perhaps never a subordinate to someone else?
Oh and I'm not sure Greg Abbott would have been able to override the previous AG's decision.
I've walked into my bosses office plenty of times and told him/her what I wanted to do and what I was going to do. And I've had folks that worked for me walk into my office and do the same. Cruz absolutely could have walked into Abbett office and gotten the OK to represent Texas.
But both Abbott and Cruz played it safe and homosexual agenda scored the winning touchdown. Nothing has been the same since Lawrence vs Texas. The assault on Christian values went into high gear once the Marxist left realized that no one on the right of any note was going to oppose them. Cruz was new on the job so Abbott deserves more blame then Cruz but Cruz could have done something had Cruz really wanted to do something.
-
I guess you still don't understand the relationship between boss and employee. Cruz could say he wanted to represent Texas in this case, but if HIS BOSS, the Attorney General, said his office was not going to represent Texas in that case, Cruz would have been barred from doing so on his own. It would have been improper and possibly illegal for Cruz to disobey his boss and try to represent Texas in this matter. In business, he would have been fired. In this case, he might have lost his job, his license to practice law and maybe he would have faced jail time.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Were you perhaps never a subordinate to someone else?
Oh and I'm not sure Greg Abbott would have been able to override the previous AG's decision.
If the AG told Cruz no...the only way Cruz could have gotten in on the case would have been to resign his position and then file an Amicus brief.
Otherwise his hands were tied.
-
I've walked into my bosses office plenty of times and told him/her what I wanted to do and what I was going to do. And I've had folks that worked for me walk into my office and do the same. Cruz absolutely could have walked into Abbett office and gotten the OK to represent Texas.
But both Abbott and Cruz played it safe and homosexual agenda scored the winning touchdown. Nothing has been the same since Lawrence vs Texas. The assault on Christian values went into high gear once the Marxist left realized that no one on the right of any note was going to oppose them. Cruz was new on the job so Abbott deserves more blame then Cruz but Cruz could have done something had Cruz really wanted to do something.
Cool story bro...
-
I've walked into my bosses office plenty of times and told him/her what I wanted to do and what I was going to do. And I've had folks that worked for me walk into my office and do the same. Cruz absolutely could have walked into Abbett office and gotten the OK to represent Texas.
This is one of many ways Government operates differently from Business.
-
Cool story bro...
The only excuse I would find plausible is that both Abbott and Cruz knew the case was an unwinable waste of time. But no one is making that argument and I'd need to hear it from someone creditable (NeverTrumpers/Cruzers are not creditable).
-
I've walked into my bosses office plenty of times and told him/her what I wanted to do and what I was going to do. And I've had folks that worked for me walk into my office and do the same. Cruz absolutely could have walked into Abbett office and gotten the OK to represent Texas.
But both Abbott and Cruz played it safe and homosexual agenda scored the winning touchdown. Nothing has been the same since Lawrence vs Texas. The assault on Christian values went into high gear once the Marxist left realized that no one on the right of any note was going to oppose them. Cruz was new on the job so Abbott deserves more blame then Cruz but Cruz could have done something had Cruz really wanted to do something.
You're still wrong, but after all these posts and you still don't get it, I'm done trying to explain it to you. Believe what you want. I think most of the rest of us know better.
-
This is one of many ways Government operates differently from Business.
Says the expert on everything. FYI I spent more than a few years at NASA (Houston and NASA HQ in D.C.)
-
So what? Explain how working at NASA equates in any way to the inner workings of an Attorney General's office?
*****rollingeyes*****
-
The only excuse I would find plausible is that both Abbott and Cruz knew the case was an unwinable waste of time. But no one is making that argument and I'd need to hear it from someone creditable (NeverTrumpers/Cruzers are not creditable).
Your credibility and objectivity is about on the level of the MSM.
Just saying.
You talk about the bluster and bravado you supposedly displayed to your boss.
You left out what happened afterwards. Which was probably you still didn't get what you wanted.
Going into your bosses office and telling him what he's going to do for you and what he's going to LET you do is only successful in the movies.
In the real world it gets you squat.
-
@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.
Kinda. It would be like someone buying a piece of land, assured it was the highest point around, even though it would be wrapped in fog half the year. They build their house there, waiting for the mist to clear and take in the view, only to discover they are surrounded by higher peaks.
Do they move?
No.
They dynamite the higher peaks around theirs.
-
Your credibility and objectivity is about on the level of the MSM.
Just saying.
You talk about the bluster and bravado you supposedly displayed to your boss.
You left out what happened afterwards. Which was probably you still didn't get what you wanted.
Going into your bosses office and telling him what he's going to do for you and what he's going to LET you do is only successful in the movies.
In the real world it gets you squat.
I don't wish to be insulting but it is a competence thing. Your boss may be pissed but your bosses boss isn't.
-
Kinda. It would be like someone buying a piece of land, assured it was the highest point around, even though it would be wrapped in fog half the year. They build their house there, waiting for the mist to clear and take in the view, only to discover they are surrounded by higher peaks.
Do they move?
No.
They dynamite the higher peaks around theirs.
Great parable.
-
Stockholm syndrome?
More like "battered wife syndrome"...."But Officer, don't take him to jail, I love him....."
**nononono*
And GOP voters in general have been the abused in the relationship for so long they think they're getting a good deal. 'At least she didn't break all the bones in her face like B****' s wife did...(when she ran into the plank he was holding). **nononono*
-
You're still wrong, but after all these posts and you still don't get it, I'm done trying to explain it to you. Believe what you want. I think most of the rest of us know better.
I try to keep that in mind. I'm not going to change a closed mind, nor shine any light into its corners. But I can make sure to offset false statements with facts and rational opinions for those whose minds are open to reason.
-
I don't wish to be insulting but it is a competence thing. Your boss may be pissed but your bosses boss isn't.
In most corporate environments that's known as "going over your bosses head." I'll bet you're a real joy to work with.
-
I try to keep that in mind. I'm not going to change a closed mind, nor shine any light into its corners. But I can make sure to offset false statements with facts and rational opinions for those whose minds are open to reason.
That's a pretty good observation, as usual. It's about time for me to give up too.
-
The case was Lawrence vs TEXAS.
Are you telling me the solicitor General of Texas could not have walked into the AG office and said "I want to represent Texas in Lawrence vs TEXAS case. Really? The biggest most important gay mafia case ever? I am not buying that. Cruz and Abbett took a pass and because of that we have open homosexuals in our military, same sex marriage, etc. Harris county asked Cruz/Abbett to help with the case, crickets.
Not defending that travesty of a case was the correct thing to do.
-
I don't wish to be insulting but it is a competence thing. Your boss may be pissed but your bosses boss isn't.
Regardless of how competent you are, there is a chain of command, too, even in industry.
I'd like to have the money wasted when I laid out the case that something would be a disaster and was overruled (millions of dollars). I have been the only person in the room who was right on more than one occasion, and events proved it.
It's why I have no use for braying blowhards who can drown out reason if they are only loud enough.
-
Are you telling me the solicitor General of Texas could not have walked into the AG office and said "I want to represent Texas in Lawrence vs TEXAS case. Really? The biggest most important gay mafia case ever?
Are you telling me that you can defy your boss's orders? The AG refused to take the case. The AG is the SG's boss; the SG follows the AG's orders or gets fired. If the AG blocks access to the case, the SG cannot go around him. Even if it were in theory possible, it would be insubordination and a firable offense.
-
Regardless of how competent you are, there is a chain of command, too, even in industry.
I'd like to have the money wasted when I laid out the case that something would be a disaster and was overruled (millions of dollars). I have been the only person in the room who was right on more than one occasion, and events proved it.
It's why I have no use for braying blowhards who can drown out reason if they are only loud enough.
Fortunately for me I was in a position to do something about it. It sounds like you were not so lucky.
I'm a (was) programmer. So I get to write the code the way it should be written. And yes I pissed a lot of people off, until they realized I was right. More then once I saved the companies butt by going rouge and doing things I did not have permission to do. For example in my spare time I wrote and API for our system. I tried to talk the head of the company into using my API, no luck. So I went around her and talked the PC developers into using it. I got my a$$ chewed good for that, but I knew we would get killed in the market place without an API. You just can not sell a huge document manage system without an API. A big software system needs to be layered. UI->API->Business Code->Data Store anything else is suicide via spaghetti code. Oh the API became a big selling point since a lot of other systems back then (90s) did not have one.
A lot of techies work for managers that do not have a clue on how to write modern software systems and could not program their way out of a wet paper bag. My career finally came to an end with I was stuck with a really dumb manager. Now mind you I worked at the company I (and two others) founded on a product I invented. But the a$$ I was working under INSISTED I do things his way, well his way was just horrible code so I refused and got canned. LOL. A few years later the company was sold to investors in India.
-
The "whatever you want" issue sounds fine for about one minute until a thinking brain starts applying that reality to everything else.
This thinking brain wonders what part of the Constitution makes adultery, STIs, etc., part of the Senate's job.
-
So, it cost you your job, but you sure showed him who's boss....
It may have taken a long, roundabout course, but you eventually confirmed why Cruz did what he did/didn't do.
-
So, it cost you your job, but you sure showed him who's boss....
It may have taken a long, roundabout course, but you eventually confirmed why Cruz did what he did/didn't do.
I was 60 and had other irons in the fire. I also reengineered the entire system and have the much improved source code right here on my computer. I'm thinking about going open source with it.
-
@catfish1957
Yup, that's it exactly.
I don't understand why they're trying to defend someone who used them and lied to them. If someone did that to me, I'd be done with them.
Whatever, I guess.
It is hard to come to terms with being suckered. Nobody would want to own that. I can imagine if it was me I would probably be holding out with hope that somehow these things are misunderstood.
I have friends, family and church family who voted for Trump. They believed what he said for sure. And I never liked Trump but hoped he would do what he promised on immigration, defunding for abortion, prosecuting Hillary Clinton, prosecuting the IRS woman............
One thing I disagreed with my fellow Christians on was being allowed to endorse political candidates. You can talk about issues as they relate to Christianity and the Bible without endorsing candidates. You can have speakers at your church who are politicians talking about specific issues like abortion or transgender bathrooms or the sanctity of marriage. Anyone can come to your church but they should not be using Gods house to campaign for election.
-
So, it cost you your job, but you sure showed him who's boss....
It may have taken a long, roundabout course, but you eventually confirmed why Cruz did what he did/didn't do.
Some people...
-
This thinking brain wonders what part of the Constitution makes adultery, STIs, etc., part of the Senate's job.
It doesn't. I know nothing about Cruz and ban of sex toys. I always think of the limits of Government as it relates to God and the Constitution. We are granted rights by our Creator. God doesn't place limits on peoples freedoms but there will be consequences for their choices. They and they alone will be judged for what they do.
If people want to buy sex toys they can.
Government limits should be placed for safety of the community. They should be placed to protect others from having to pay or be held responsible for others negative actions which hurt the community. I believe also if things are a health issue to the community the government has a duty to protect its community. I don't think it is right for gays to have parades where they expose themselves in the street. Decency laws say they should be arrested. Families and children have a right not to see it.
If there is something that is being done that puts others in danger then limits must be placed. But God gives people free will to make their own choices in life. To choose Him or not choose Him. The Bible is a book for believers, not for the World.
However if I am forced to engage in others choices by the government it is wrong. At that point I no longer have freedom in this country. If I choose not to take pictures for a gay wedding or bake a cake it is my choice. There are plenty of bakeries and photographers. I should never be sued or prosecuted by the government. Our country is going down the wrong road for sure.
-
It doesn't. I know nothing about Cruz and ban of sex toys. ...
There is an excellent article that goes into this story: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281429.0.html
-
It doesn't stand in stark contract to the President, @Bigun although I can understand why you'd say this. Every time one member of the media throws out a shiny new anti-Trump "story", the rest of the media catches it and runs with it. By the time it's proven untrue, hundreds of posts have been made here (and other places) condemning the President and ridiculing his supporters. There is a new feeding frenzy every day. One would almost think it's intentional.
So far, to highlight just a few efforts, he's done pretty damn well against some formidable opposition on both sides of the swamp. He ended dozens of Obama's EO's, including growth stifling regulations and the EPA, he's pulled us out of TPP and the Paris Climate Accord, he's renegotiating NAFTA, he fought like hell for and met repeatedly with the Republican caucus to repeal and replace Obamacare .... but the Republican Senatorial caucus wasn't having any of it.
He's nominated dozens of federal judges .... but our esteemed Republican Senate has neither time nor interest in helping to fundamentally change the makeup of the federal bench. (Imagine what the President could accomplish with a functioning Senate)
The President ended Obama's EO on DACA and placed it in the hands of Congress .... who had been begging for the ball.
Tax reform requires (thanks to McConnell's obstinance) 60 votes in the Senate ... so he's looking to pick off Democrat Senators to help pass it. He's playing the cards he's been dealt .... but to so many this move proves he's Satan reincarnated.
And, yes, Bigun, the wall will be built.
I don't understand why a successful President Trump and a successful Senator Cruz cannot coexist. They worked quite well together trying to repeal/replace Obamacare. They were very respectful--dare I say friendly--when together in Houston after Harvey. We shouldn't be pitting these two against each other, we should be encouraging their alliance.
And, last but not least, I like President Trump. I still find his "candor" refreshing and I still believe him and in his agenda. If that makes him my "beau" Bigun ..... so be it. ^-^
The problem with what you wrote is that Trump confirms with his tweets. Like he already confirmed that there would be a wall. He said they are going to fix portions of the existing fence.
VDonald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump · Sep 14
More
The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built.
24,454 replies 23,736 retweets 102,348 likes
Reply
24K
Retweet
24K
Like 102K
Renovations, but he continues to tell different stories about the wall. It would be impossible to know the truth. But since he typed it himself putting it in writing on his twitter page I believe the wall is patches in the existing fence.
-
I've walked into my bosses office plenty of times and told him/her what I wanted to do and what I was going to do. And I've had folks that worked for me walk into my office and do the same. Cruz absolutely could have walked into Abbett office and gotten the OK to represent Texas.
And do you know IN FACT that DIDN'T HAPPEN? Have you considered that perhaps Cruz DID walk in but was denied? Or that Cruz had enough on his plate already, and couldn't become involved?
At best, your blaming of Cruz is by inference only (by association), and that with no knowledge of internals or of any circumstance.
Such an accusation is simply absurd.
-
Fortunately for me I was in a position to do something about it. It sounds like you were not so lucky.
I'm a (was) programmer. So I get to write the code the way it should be written. And yes I pissed a lot of people off, until they realized I was right. More then once I saved the companies butt by going rouge and doing things I did not have permission to do. For example in my spare time I wrote and API for our system. I tried to talk the head of the company into using my API, no luck. So I went around her and talked the PC developers into using it. I got my a$$ chewed good for that, but I knew we would get killed in the market place without an API. You just can not sell a huge document manage system without an API. A big software system needs to be layered. UI->API->Business Code->Data Store anything else is suicide via spaghetti code. Oh the API became a big selling point since a lot of other systems back then (90s) did not have one.
A lot of techies work for managers that do not have a clue on how to write modern software systems and could not program their way out of a wet paper bag. My career finally came to an end with I was stuck with a really dumb manager. Now mind you I worked at the company I (and two others) founded on a product I invented. But the a$$ I was working under INSISTED I do things his way, well his way was just horrible code so I refused and got canned. LOL. A few years later the company was sold to investors in India.
As a consultant you have the power to strongly recommend for or against a particular action. You often get to lay out your case for your recommendation. In some instances I was literally shouted down, and proved to be right in the long run. Had I been listened to, or had I the authority to make the decisions, I could have saved companies millions in wasted effort, and quite possible made them millions with other recommendations.
I still know of an untapped unconventional gas field that no one listened about.
-
There is an excellent article that goes into this story: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281429.0.html
So he defended an existing law even though he didn't necessarily agree with it, maybe?
I am only holding him responsible for not disciplining whoever liked porn on his page. I would not have staff like that when my own personal belief, faith and family ideals are contrary to it. Contradiction.
I still would vote for Ted Cruz in a second.
-
And do you know IN FACT that DIDN'T HAPPEN? Have you considered that perhaps Cruz DID walk in but was denied? Or that Cruz had enough on his plate already, and couldn't become involved?
At best, your blaming of Cruz is by inference only (by association), and that with no knowledge of internals or of any circumstance.
Such an accusation is simply absurd.
Maybe you're right maybe, but the accusation is not absurd. Cruz represented Texas in its' banning of selling or advertising sex toys but did not represent Texas in its' banning of sodomy? Something does not compute.
-
As a consultant you have the power to strongly recommend for or against a particular action. You often get to lay out your case for your recommendation. In some instances I was literally shouted down, and proved to be right in the long run. Had I been listened to, or had I the authority to make the decisions, I could have saved companies millions in wasted effort, and quite possible made them millions with other recommendations.
I still know of an untapped unconventional gas field that no one listened about.
Wait for prices to go up and then ..... Wildcat!
I would hate being a consultant way to much time in hotels and airplanes.
-
The problem with what you wrote is that Trump confirms with his tweets. Like he already confirmed that there would be a wall. He said they are going to fix portions of the existing fence.
VDonald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump · Sep 14
More
The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built.
24,454 replies 23,736 retweets 102,348 likes
Reply
24K
Retweet
24K
Like 102K
Renovations, but he continues to tell different stories about the wall. It would be impossible to know the truth. But since he typed it himself putting it in writing on his twitter page I believe the wall is patches in the existing fence.
I thought the 1.6 billion came from this: May 26, 2015
https://visawolf.com/immigration-reform-by-executive-order/ (https://visawolf.com/immigration-reform-by-executive-order/)
Executive Order to Secure the US-Mexico Border
I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the United States Constitution, including Article II, Sections 1 & 2, and laws of the United States, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. §1182(f) and 8 U.S.C. §1185), 3 USC §301, 10 USC §111, 10 U.S.C. §2802, the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7418(b)), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1323(a)), the Noise Control Act (42 U.S.C. §4903), the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. §6961(a)), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. §300(j)(6), and CERCLA (42 U.S.C. §9620(j)) and the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §1536(j)), hereby proclaim and order as follows.
Section 1-101 Border Security Improvements
(a) Findings.
1) I hereby find that the national security of the United States is threatened by the lack of a secure physical barrier along the US-Mexico Border and that it is in the national interest to construction such a barrier.
2) I hereby find that the national security of the United States is threatened by a shortfall in funding to construct a barrier along the US-Mexico border and the funding of laws ordering the Executive to strengthen border security and detain and remove persons unlawfully present in the United States. This shortfall shall be called the “Border Security Shortfall.” Any activity undertaken to remedy the Border Security Shortfall shall be known as “Border Security Shortfall Activity.”
3) I hereby find that all Border Security Shortfall Activities are in the paramount interest of the United States and therefore suspend the application of the following laws from these activities: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Noise Control Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA. I hereby find that exemption from the provisions of the Endangered Species Act is necessary, for reasons of national security, to carry out out these Border Security Shortfall Activities.
(b) Authority. Underthe United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, as Commander in Chief, the President is empowered and obligated to allocate funding authorized and appropriated to the Department of Defense to address any threat to the national security of the United States. Under 10 USC §111(b)(10), the President is authorized to designate any national security activity under the Department of Defense.
(c) Summary. Section 1 of this Executive Order directs that the shortfall infunding to strengthen border security and detain and remove persons unlawfully present in the United States be paid from funds authorized and appropriated by Congress to the Department of Defense.
(d) Order. I hereby order the current and annual calculation of the Border Security Shortfall, that any Border Security Shortfall Activity is hereby deemed an activity of the Department of Defense under 10 USC §111(b)(10), and that the cost of any such Border Security Shortfall Activity be paid from funds authorized and appropriated by Congress to the Department of Defense. I hereby order the Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of Defense to implement changes in the government’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and 10 USC §111(b), consistent with Section 1 of this Executive Order. The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that sufficient resources and personnel are allocated to carry out these functions.
(e) Delegation of Authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of Defense are hereby designated and empowered to exercise in respect of the subject matter of Section 1 of this Executive Order the authority conferred upon the President by §215(a)(1) of the INA and 10 USC §111(b), respectively.
(f) Notice. The 60 day advance Notice to Congress of the Border Security Shortfall Activity is hereby provided per 10 USC §111(c).
Section 1-102
(a) TheAttorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are directed to publish a joint Notice in the Federal Register detailing the Border Security Shortfall, including the law(s) passed by Congress and the annual budget to fully fund any Border Security Shortfall Activity required by such laws.
(b) The Notice described in Section 102(a) of this Executive Order shall be published within 60 days of the effective date of this Executive Order, and within 60 days after the start of any federal fiscal year thereafter.
Section 1-103.
The Secretary of Defense is directed to publish a Notice in the Federal Register detailing the accounts of the Department of Defense which will be reduced by any Border Security Shortfall Activity, within 60 days of publication of Notice under Section 1-102 of this Order.
Section 1-104.
The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are directed to reasonably spend all funds allocated to all Border Security Shortfall Activities from the budget of the Department of Defense, within 30 days of publication of Notice under Section 1-103 of this Order.
______________________________
Barack H. Obama
President of the United States of America
Or is this ANOTHER 1.6 billion?
-
Maybe you're right maybe, but the accusation is not absurd. Cruz represented Texas in its' banning of selling or advertising sex toys but did not represent Texas in its' banning of sodomy? Something does not compute.
Because the argument for banning sex toys is easier to make on neutral grounds than for anti-homosexual laws.
-
Maybe you're right maybe, but the accusation is not absurd. Cruz represented Texas in its' banning of selling or advertising sex toys but did not represent Texas in its' banning of sodomy? Something does not compute.
It computes fine. He had limited or no autonomy in either circumstance.
-
I thought the 1.6 billion came from this: May 26, 2015
https://visawolf.com/immigration-reform-by-executive-order/ (https://visawolf.com/immigration-reform-by-executive-order/)
Or is this ANOTHER 1.6 billion?
All I can say is we have been duped by Donald Trump. It appears he is only executing the action which has already been given approval by Obama and Congress already. Patches in the fence.
-
Well then I guess you will buy any old excuse lying Ted comes up with.
Such as? Let's hear it once and for all. Where is the lie?
-
As a consultant you have the power to strongly recommend for or against a particular action. You often get to lay out your case for your recommendation. In some instances I was literally shouted down, and proved to be right in the long run. Had I been listened to, or had I the authority to make the decisions, I could have saved companies millions in wasted effort, and quite possible made them millions with other recommendations.
I still know of an untapped unconventional gas field that no one listened about.
I have never understood the logic of going to the doctor (hiring a consultant) and then refusing to follow his advice but, like you, I have had that experience many times.
-
Because the argument for banning sex toys is easier to make on neutral grounds than for anti-homosexual laws.
Gov bans certain behaviors all the time. Nothing new about that. If gov thinks the behavior is bad for society (drug use, prostitution, suicide) it will ban that behavior.
I am tired of this topic, no minds are going to be changed and the argument is becoming circular. I think Abbott and Cruz took a pass on a not very PC case, probably would have lost in court anyway, but I would have liked to see them try. Looking back with 20/20 they should have tried.
-
Cruz had a chance to stop the homosexual agenda
How so? Should he have quit his job at the FTC, petitioned the USSC to remove Charles Rosenthal as lead council for the defense, and appoint Cruz in his place?
-
I have never understood the logic of going to the doctor (hiring a consultant) and then refusing to follow his advice but, like you, I have had that experience many times.
:shrug: It is frustrating, but as long as the check doesn't bounce, it's their money. Did I say it's frustrating? As a consultant, it's easy to get painted with projects that you counseled against, and inevitably someone in the company will take the credit for the good you do.
-
Gov bans certain behaviors all the time. Nothing new about that. If gov thinks the behavior is bad for society (drug use, prostitution, suicide) it will ban that behavior.
I am tired of this topic, no minds are going to be changed and the argument is becoming circular. I think Abbott and Cruz took a pass on a not very PC case, probably would have lost in court anyway, but I would have liked to see them try. Looking back with 20/20 they should have tried.
I think the blame for not taking the case should reside with the guy who had the authority to give the go/no-go order. That's at the top, for whatever reason.
-
Maybe you're right maybe, but the accusation is not absurd. Cruz represented Texas in its' banning of selling or advertising sex toys but did not represent Texas in its' banning of sodomy? Something does not compute.
The accusation may not be absurd, but to argue the point for 200 posts, doing one's best to insult every other person on the way, is. The only thing that's clear is that nobody here can know exactly why things happened the way they did.
-
Because the argument for banning sex toys is easier to make on neutral grounds than for anti-homosexual laws.
Apparently not. :whistle:
-
Maybe you're right maybe, but the accusation is not absurd. Cruz represented Texas in its' banning of selling or advertising sex toys but did not represent Texas in its' banning of sodomy? Something does not compute.
What doesn't compute is your thinking process here. For instance.... if you "think" that you are getting back at the anti-Trumpers ....ie anyone that supports Cruz.... you're wrong about that, too.
You refuse to accept the fact, truth and reality that Cruz did NOT have the authority to do what you claim he should have done. Get the >bleep< over it already. Sheesh.
:nono: MOD2
Ooops....hehe. Sorry about that.
-
The accusation may not be absurd, but to argue the point for 200 posts, doing one's best to insult every other person on the way, is. The only thing that's clear is that nobody here can know exactly why things happened the way they did.
I try to be civil and hardly ever personally insult anyone. I sometimes use sarcasm when I lose patience with a poster. Referring to you as "the expert on everything" was sarcasm. You dish it out pretty good, never figured you to be a thin skinned snowflake.
-
I try to be civil and hardly ever personally insult anyone. I sometimes use sarcasm when I lose patience with a poster. Referring to you as "the expert on everything" was sarcasm. You dish it out pretty good, never figured you to be a thin skinned snowflake.
@Cyber Liberty is the farthest one here from a thin-skinned snowflake.
-
@Cyber Liberty is the farthest one here from a thin-skinned snowflake.
It's a fair trade, in my book. I call him pedantic, he calls me a thin-skinned snowflake. :shrug:
-
Trump now has more Conservative accomplishments than Cruz,
Trump has rolled back Obama's executive orders, acted on social conservative issues.
Here's a challenge for you, Tom. You list all of Trump's Conservative accomplishments. And I will make a bet with you that I can find double that number coming from Ted Cruz.
Likewise, you list all the liberal positions that Ted Cruz has held. And I will wager that I can find triple that number coming from Donald Trump.
So how about it? You keep repeating this lie that Trump has more Conservative accomplishments than Cruz. Let's hear it. Name them. Post your list. Then we can compare the actual evidence instead of hearing you reiterate your Trump fantasies.
-
It's a fair trade, in my book. I call him pedantic, he calls me a thin-skinned snowflake. :shrug:
Quit playing the victim. I never called you a thin skinned snow flake. I said I didn't (has in
did NOT) figure you for a thin skinned snow flake. Keep playing that victim card and
I might change my mind.
-
Quit playing the victim. I never called you a thin skinned snow flake. I said I didn't (has in
did NOT) figure you for a thin skinned snow flake. Keep playing that victim card and
I might change my mind.
Oh, my bad. You were being sarcastic again (sarcasm about being sarcastic. A new word! Metasarcasm):
I try to be civil and hardly ever personally insult anyone. I sometimes use sarcasm when I lose patience with a poster. Referring to you as "the expert on everything" was sarcasm. You dish it out pretty good, never figured you to be a thin skinned snowflake.
Whatevah. You really have to work on your sarcasm skills. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Here's a challenge for you, Tom. You list all of Trump's Conservative accomplishments. And I will make a bet with you that I can find double that number coming from Ted Cruz.
Likewise, you list all the liberal positions that Ted Cruz has held. And I will wager that I can find triple that number coming from Donald Trump.
So how about it? You keep repeating this lie that Trump has more Conservative accomplishments than Cruz. Let's hear it. Name them. Post your list. Then we can compare the actual evidence instead of hearing you reiterate your Trump fantasies.
There is quantity and then there is quality.
Name one thing that Cruz has done to advance the conservative agenda that matches up
with Trumps' court appointments. The Supreme Court in particular.
-
Gov bans certain behaviors all the time. Nothing new about that. If gov thinks the behavior is bad for society (drug use, prostitution, suicide) it will ban that behavior.
I am tired of this topic, no minds are going to be changed and the argument is becoming circular. I think Abbott and Cruz took a pass on a not very PC case, probably would have lost in court anyway, but I would have liked to see them try. Looking back with 20/20 they should have tried.
That's fine. Looking back they shouldn't have tried, and furthermore, the charges should never have been brought. There was stupidity all around except for the states decision to let the idiot county sink on its own.
-
Quit playing the victim. I never called you a thin skinned snow flake. I said I didn't (has in
did NOT) figure you for a thin skinned snow flake. Keep playing that victim card and
I might change my mind.
Oh... my... :silly:
-
That's fine. Looking back they shouldn't have tried, and furthermore, the charges should never have been brought. There was stupidity all around except for the states decision to let the idiot county sink on its own.
I don't want to jump to any conclusions here but it sounds like you are OK with the
homosexual agenda. Am I mistaken?
-
There is quantity and then there is quality.
And there is Conservative, and then there's Trump.
Name one thing that Cruz has done to advance the conservative agenda that matches up
with Trumps' court appointments. The Supreme Court in particular.
See Logical Fallacies: Moving the Goal Posts (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts)
(http://oi56.tinypic.com/1slj61.jpg)
-
Oh... my... :silly:
Is nice to have you on this thread, you bring so much to the discussion.
-
Is nice to have you one this thread, you bring so much to the discussion.
Much obliged.
-
Quit playing the victim. I never called you a thin skinned snow flake. I said I didn't (has in
did NOT) figure you for a thin skinned snow flake. Keep playing that victim card and
I might change my mind.
Most excellent! :beer: :laugh:
-
And there is Conservative, and then there's Trump.
See Logical Fallacies: Moving the Goal Posts (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts)
I'll take that as a concession that you can not name one thing Cruz has done that
was as important to conservatives as Trumps' court appointments.
-
I don't want to jump to any conclusions here but it sounds like you are OK with the
homosexual agenda. Am I mistaken?
You don't want to jump, but you're going to jump.
I subscribe to that fine old American, and former conservative, value that what happens between consenting adults is generally none of the governments business, and I see those who go after private consensual sexual relationships between people they don't like, such as gays, as being moral reprobates down there with the likes of ISIS.
Now you can play whatever games you want to with that.
-
I'll take that as a concession that you can not name one thing Cruz has done that
was as important to conservatives as Trumps' court appointments.
I see that logic is not your strong suit. Do I really have to explain the idiocy of your statement?
-
You don't want to jump, but you're going to jump.
I subscribe to that fine old American, and former conservative, value that what happens between consenting adults is generally none of the governments business, and I see those who go after private consensual sexual relationships between people they don't like, such as gays, as being moral reprobates down there with the likes of ISIS.
Now you can play whatever games you want to with that.
I'm not playing games and I agree with you re bedroom. However the homosexual agenda has nothing to do with the bedroom. It is all about normalizing deviant behavior and criminalizing anyone who opposes that behavior.
-
I'm not playing games and I agree with you re bedroom. However the homosexual agenda has nothing to do with the bedroom. It is all about normalizing deviant behavior and criminalizing anyone who opposes that behavior.
And Lawrence v. Texas was about keeping the government out of people's private business. Criminalizing consensual homosexual sexual conduct between adults is what 7th century barbarians like ISIS do.
-
And Lawrence v. Texas was about keeping the government out of people's private business. Criminalizing consensual homosexual sexual conduct between adults is what 7th century barbarians like ISIS do.
For the record, Georgia's sodomy law was used primarily against heterosexuals.
-
I see that logic is not your strong suit. Do I really have to explain the idiocy of your statement?
You wanted so and so to make a list, well fine I made a very short list but I insist that quality be taken into consideration. Cruz talks a good game but what has he really done for conservatives compared to Trump? Of course Cruz as a senator is not in a position to do as much as Trump but I am not willing to let anyone use that against Trump. Bottom line is Trump moving a conservative agenda not Cruz.
-
And Lawrence v. Texas was about keeping the government out of people's private business. Criminalizing consensual homosexual sexual conduct between adults is what 7th century barbarians like ISIS do.
Every civilization I am aware of had a taboo on homosexual behavior to one extent or the other. With the exception of some Greek city states. The Greeks believed that the female human was inferior to the male human. Ergo incapable of "true love" good only for sex and making babies. Only a male male relationship was capable of a higher love. So they did not place a taboo on
homosexual behavior. I haven't really studies the norms of ancient China or Egypt so I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
-
Name one thing that Cruz has done to advance the conservative agenda that matches up
with Trumps' court appointments. The Supreme Court in particular.
He voted in favor of the same lone Supreme Court appointment Donald Trump nominated. So they're even.
-
You wanted so and so to make a list, well fine I made a very short list but I insist that quality be taken into consideration.
That is what is known as 'moving the goal posts'. See: Logical Fallacies above.
Cruz talks a good game
While Trump does not.
but what has he really done for conservatives compared to Trump?
Quite a bit, actually. Trump simply picked a name from a list, while Cruz helped compile that list.
Of course Cruz as a senator is not in a position to do as much as Trump
Correct. Thus, the idiocy of your statement. You grant a higher quality to Trump for being in a position to do something Cruz was not. Yet had Cruz been in that position, he wouldn't have had to rely on a list that someone else handed him. So it no longer becomes a question of who would appoint the more Conservative judge, but rather who won the Presidential election. And that question does not at all address who is the more Conservative. But then you knew that already.
but I am not willing to let anyone use that against Trump.
Wait just a damn minute. YOU were the one who brought it up. YOU are the one who chose to introduce this fallacy to use it against Cruz.
Bottom line is Trump moving a conservative agenda not Cruz.
LMAO! Yeah, right. So which part of Trump's 'conservative' [sic] agenda do you consider to be the most Conservative? His abandonment of free trade? His reversal on DACA? His putting the wall on hold? His deal with Schumer and Pelosi to do away with the debt ceiling just like Obama?
-
He voted in favor of the same lone Supreme Court appointment Donald Trump nominated. So they're even.
He also wrote an oped praising John Roberts for being a true conservative that would never compromise himself (no bonus points for Ted). Trump has appointed more the just Gorsuch to the courts.
-
Most excellent! :beer: :laugh:
I guess I was insulted. I didn't even notice the "slight," such as it was, until he brought it up again. And again.
I'd guess the three of us combined have about 50-60 years of this forum stuff, and if things like that bothered any of us we'd have collapsed from nervous breakdowns decades ago.
-
LMAO! Yeah, right. So which part of Trump's 'conservative' [sic] agenda do you consider to be the most Conservative? His abandonment of free trade? His reversal on DACA? His putting the wall on hold? His deal with Schumer and Pelosi to do away with the debt ceiling just like Obama?
So called "free trade" is over rated. Disappointed with DACA but I will wait and see how it plays out. He is not putting the wall on hold, fake news. I thought the debt deal to get hurricane victims funds was smart.
-
I guess I was insulted. I didn't even notice the "slight," such as it was, until he brought it up again. And again.
I'd guess the three of us combined have about 50-60 years of this forum stuff, and if things like that bothered any of us we'd have collapsed from nervous breakdowns decades ago.
:beer: :laugh:
-
I guess I was insulted. I didn't even notice the "slight," such as it was, until he brought it up again. And again.
I'd guess the three of us combined have about 50-60 years of this forum stuff, and if things like that bothered any of us we'd have collapsed from nervous breakdowns decades ago.
I have 30, this place is peaches and cream compared to usenet news back in the day.
-
I don't want to jump to any conclusions here but it sounds like you are OK with the
homosexual agenda. Am I mistaken?
@jpsb
Looks like you're a fan of Mother Jones and Daily Kos, since you're trying to promote a crap story they came up with.
-
He also wrote an oped praising John Roberts for being a true conservative that would never compromise himself (no bonus points for Ted).
And Trump said his sister would be a "phenomenal" Supreme Court Justice.
As for Roberts, I don't see a case where Roberts compromised himself. Care to enlighten us? Even with the Obamacare decision, he based it upon longstanding legal precedence, saying that plaintiff had no standing until after a tax went into effect. I strongly suspect that if the tax case returned to the Supreme Court, he would declare it unconstitutional. But then that is an entirely different matter.
Anyway, I will take Roberts any day of the week and twice on Sundays over Maryanne Barry. I will never have to worry about Roberts declaring partial birth abortion a Constitutional right.
-
@jpsb
Looks like you're a fan of Mother Jones and Daily Kos, since you're trying to promote a crap story they came up with.
This really is no different from arguing with a liberal.
-
And Trump said his sister would be a "phenomenal" Supreme Court Justice.
As for Roberts, I don't see a case where Roberts compromised himself. Care to enlighten us? Even with the Obamacare decision, he based it upon longstanding legal precedence, saying that plaintiff had no standing until after a tax went into effect. I strongly suspect that if the tax case returned to the Supreme Court, he would declare it unconstitutional. But then that is an entirely different matter.
Anyway, I will take Roberts any day of the week and twice on Sundays over Maryanne Barry. I will never have to worry about Roberts declaring partial birth abortion a Constitutional right.
Sure, he rewrote Obama care so he could vote for it. If that is not a conservative judge compromising himself I don't know what would be. That is the very definition of an activist judge legislating from the bench.
-
Sure, he rewrote Obama care so he could vote for it.
Please show me which part he wrote.
-
@jpsb
Looks like you're a fan of Mother Jones and Daily Kos, since you're trying to promote a crap story they came up with.
Is that all you got? Weak. True is true.
-
Please show me which part he wrote.
Do you're own research, but I'll give you a hint, Ocare penalty turned into Ocare tax.
-
For the record, Georgia's sodomy law was used primarily against heterosexuals.
For the record, that's just as stupid and barbaric as using it against homosexuals. Why is it such a hard argument to make that government has no business sticking its nose into the consensual sexual activities of adults?
-
This really is no different from arguing with a liberal.
I certainly hope you do better arguing with a liberal than you do arguing with me.
-
Every civilization I am aware of had a taboo on homosexual behavior to one extent or the other. With the exception of some Greek city states. The Greeks believed that the female human was inferior to the male human. Ergo incapable of "true love" good only for sex and making babies. Only a male male relationship was capable of a higher love. So they did not place a taboo on
homosexual behavior. I haven't really studies the norms of ancient China or Egypt so I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
Your point being? Just because they were uniformly barbaric back then doesn't mean we have to continue being barbaric now.
-
For the record, that's just as stupid and barbaric as using it against homosexuals. Why is it such a hard argument to make that government has no business sticking its nose into the consensual sexual activities of adults?
Governments have every right to enforce the norms of society and do penalize behavior
that is detrimental to said society. Nobody cares what you do in your bedroom but we
do care about STD like aids, metal illness and dancing around naked in public.
-
This really is no different from arguing with a liberal.
@Hoodat
Agreed, unfortunately.
-
Do you're own research
You want me to find something that doesn't exist? Sounds like something I would hear from someone at DU. In yet another shift of the goal posts, you accuse Roberts of re-writing Obamacare, yet you can't identify the part that Roberts wrote. But instead of manning up, you ask me to do your research for you? Bwaahaaahaaaaa!!! Seriously, what is your DU handle?
but I'll give you a hint, Ocare penalty turned into Ocare tax.
A penalty is a tax.
tax
noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tax?s=t
Now that we have that out of the way, maybe you can tell us how Cruz's statement on Roberts is somehow worse than Trump's statement on Barry.
-
Governments have every right to enforce the norms of society and do penalize behavior
that is detrimental to said society. Nobody cares what you do in your bedroom but we
do care about STD like aids, metal illness and dancing around naked in public.
Actually, no, this society does not have the same power to impose norms on individuals, that is what the constitutional rights are about in large part.
And if you want to worry about STDs and AIDS, then worry about that and not about whether two grown men want to suck each other's willies in private.
-
Your point being? Just because they were uniformly barbaric back then doesn't mean we have to continue being barbaric now.
What makes you think being a moral civilization is the same as being barbaric? There are certain things a man should not do. Now if you want to do that in private, who cares, but trying to normalize deviant behavior is a very bad idea.
-
Do you're own research, but I'll give you a hint, Ocare penalty turned into Ocare tax.
@Oceander explained to me once, with great patience, that Roberts applied the law correctly when he did that.
-
Actually, no, this society does not have the same power to impose norms on individuals, that is what the constitutional rights are about in large part.
And if you want to worry about STDs and AIDS, then worry about that and not about whether two grown men want to suck each other's willies in private.
Of course it does, what part "government of the people, by the people, for the people" do you not get?
Once we get rid of the tyrants on the bench, maybe we can get back to sane government.
-
@Oceander explained to me once, with great patience, that Roberts applied the law correctly when he did that.
Now I know why you are wrong about that. /s
I think all go with Scalia on this
“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” Scalia wrote. “This Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”
-
Now I know why you are wrong about that. /s
Didn't say I bought it. /s
:beer:
-
For the record, that's just as stupid and barbaric as using it against homosexuals. Why is it such a hard argument to make that government has no business sticking its nose into the consensual sexual activities of adults?
I wasn't arguing against you. I was simply pointing out that anti-sodomy laws do not automatically linked to the homosexual agenda. There was a case in Georgia where a husband raped his estranged wife. The jury could not convict him of rape since he was still legally married to the victim. But they had no problem convicting him of violating the sodomy law. Without that law, the man would have gone free.
The argument was brought up by another poster that a failure to defend the Texas sodomy law was the equivalent of siding with deviant homosexual behavior. That claim is patently false.
-
Didn't say I bought it. /s
:beer:
OK that's better.
-
What makes you think being a moral civilization is the same as being barbaric? There are certain things a man should not do. Now if you want to do that in private, who cares, but trying to normalize deviant behavior is a very bad idea.
So you think it should be illegal for a wife to give her husband head? Wow.
-
The argument was brought up by another poster that a failure to defend the Texas sodomy law was the equivalent of siding with deviant homosexual behavior. That claim is patently false.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
The "good men" did nothing.
-
OK that's better.
We really are on the same side, jp. If there was a foxhole I had to be to be in, I'd like nobody better to share it with.
-
So you think it should be illegal for a wife to give her husband head? Wow.
This is a family friendly forum so I'll not go into the details other than to say I am using the old school definition of sodomy. Not the new PC definition.
-
We really are on the same side, jp. If there was a foxhole I had to be to be in, I'd like nobody better to share it with.
thanks, I happen to like the agenda Trump campaigned on. But you are correct we are on the same team and so is Ted Cruz and yes Donald Trump too. My fox hole days are behind me. I pulled a rifle out of the gun safe the other day and I could barely see the sights. Hope I never have to use it. Oh and it took me three tries to open the safe. LOL.
-
This is a family friendly forum so I'll not go into the details other than to say I am using the old school definition of sodomy. Not the new PC definition.
The 'old school' version of the Texas law outlawed oral sex between husband and wife.
-
This is a family friendly forum so I'll not go into the details other than to say I am using the old school definition of sodomy. Not the new PC definition.
So Claymore charges are out. Got it. :laugh:
-
The 'old school' version of the Texas law outlawed oral sex between husband and wife.
Old school as in Biblical.
-
And Trump said his sister would be a "phenomenal" Supreme Court Justice.
As for Roberts, I don't see a case where Roberts compromised himself. Care to enlighten us? Even with the Obamacare decision, he based it upon longstanding legal precedence, saying that plaintiff had no standing until after a tax went into effect. I strongly suspect that if the tax case returned to the Supreme Court, he would declare it unconstitutional. But then that is an entirely different matter.
Anyway, I will take Roberts any day of the week and twice on Sundays over Maryanne Barry. I will never have to worry about Roberts declaring partial birth abortion a Constitutional right.
The first break from precedent was in declaring a penalty which had been repeatedly described as and called a penalty by its authors in the Senate is suddenly a 'tax', the very thing we had been repeatedly told by the authors of that part of the legislation and its proponents it most assuredly was NOT.
In doing so, Roberts effectively rewrote the law. That is not the job of the SCOTUS: it may rule on the Constitutionality of the law, but writing it is the domain of the Congress. A penalty for violating a law is one thing, a tax upon those who are in noncompliance is another. It is a fine difference when the law covers all citizens, but a difference, nonetheless.
In addition, since the now Justice-deemed Revenue measure ("TAX") originated in the Senate, that, too is in violation of the Constitution, which specifies taxes and other revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate is free, of course to impose a penalty for the violation of a law, but not to impose taxes. That is the purview of the House of Representatives.
In addition, whether or not I have insurance is something I should not be forced to surrender for the purpose of being penalized (5th Amendment), and possibly a HIPAA violation as well. This angle was not pursued, because, after all, who would rule it was constitutional to be penalized for NOT buying something just because you were breathing and not engaging in any special activity which might require some mitigation of risk, and who would think the Supreme COurt of the United States of America ( :patriot: Land of the free/Home of the Brave) would ever rule in favor of a tax for just being alive?--especially when we had been told for months the damned thing was a "PENALTY".
Roberts should have been kicked off the bench over that ruling, and still should be, IMHO.
-
Of course it does, what part "government of the people, by the people, for the people" do you not get?
Once we get rid of the tyrants on the bench, maybe we can get back to sane government.
So then you have no problem with a state or city deciding that if you're going to sell cakes commercially, that you have to sell to all comers and can't just pick and choose based on your private beliefs. After all, the people in several cities have decided that it should be illegal to refuse to sell cakes to gay people. Aren't the people of those cities entitled to enforce their agreed-upon norms?
-
Old school as in Biblical.
The word 'sodomy' does not appear in the Bible.
-
So then you have no problem with a state or city deciding that if you're going to sell cakes commercially, that you have to sell to all comers and can't just pick and choose based on your private beliefs. After all, the people in several cities have decided that it should be illegal to refuse to sell cakes to gay people. Aren't the people of those cities entitled to enforce their agreed-upon norms?
Someone walks into your store and wants to buy a cake sitting there, sell them the cake. It they want you to bake a special cake you should have the right to say no.
-
So then you have no problem with a state or city deciding that if you're going to sell cakes commercially, that you have to sell to all comers and can't just pick and choose based on your private beliefs. After all, the people in several cities have decided that it should be illegal to refuse to sell cakes to gay people. Aren't the people of those cities entitled to enforce their agreed-upon norms?
In case you haven't noticed, that's what the courts are doing: Forcing bakers to sell to all comers, thus making them slaves, involuntary labor. Unless they can afford to fight it. Maybe some attorneys will come defend them pro bono? Ha. Ha.
-
The word 'sodomy' does not appear in the Bible.
Two angels were sent to Sodom to investigate and were met by Abraham's nephew Lot,
who convinced the angels to lodge with him, and they ate with Lot.
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed
the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter.
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to
thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'
I'm guessing you can figure out what the bolded part means.
-
In case you haven't noticed, that's what the courts are doing: Forcing bakers to sell to all comers, thus making them slaves, involuntary labor. Unless they can afford to fight it. Maybe some attorneys will come defend them pro bono? Ha. Ha.
It's not making them slaves, it's telling them that if they want to engage in commercial activity, then they have to be fair about it and not pick and choose. If they don't like it, then they can stop selling cakes commercially.
When you engage in commercial activity you become subject to a lot more limitations than you do in your private life.
-
Two angels were sent to Sodom to investigate and were met by Abraham's nephew Lot,
who convinced the angels to lodge with him, and they ate with Lot.
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed
the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter.
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to
thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'
I'm guessing you can figure out what the bolded part means.
@Hoodat is correct, however, the name of the practice was derived from the name of a place they did it. It does not appear in the Bible with the terminal 'y'. They were among the first 'flamers', and it made them famous.
-
Someone walks into your store and wants to buy a cake sitting there, sell them the cake. It they want you to bake a special cake you should have the right to say no.
And the people of several cities have disagreed with you. If you want to bake cakes commercially in those cities, then you don't get to pick and choose. Such is life. The simple solution is to come up with other reasons, like scheduling, for why you can't do it; the less simpler solution is to close the business and do something else. In fact, one solution would be to come up with a comprehensive menu of the different cakes you will bake, and then tell customers that they can only pick from that list, that you don't do cudtom-order cakes any more. List about 30 cake variations and you'll basically cover most of the cakes that would have been custom-ordered, but without having to do any custom work.
-
The first break from precedent was in declaring a penalty which had been repeatedly described as and called a penalty by its authors in the Senate is suddenly a 'tax', the very thing we had been repeatedly told by the authors of that part of the legislation and its proponents it most assuredly was NOT.
@Smokin Joe
So far, so good. However, it really doesn't matter what the liars who wrote the law called it. A penalty is still a tax.
In doing so, Roberts effectively rewrote the law. That is not the job of the SCOTUS: it may rule on the Constitutionality of the law, but writing it is the domain of the Congress.
It doesn't matter whether you call it a penalty or a tax. The established legal precedent is that a penalty/tax cannot be challenged until it goes into effect. The question you should be asking yourself is 'Why haven't Republicans refiled the case with the Supreme Court now that the tax has gone into effect?"
A penalty for violating a law is one thing, a tax upon those who are in noncompliance is another. It is a fine difference when the law covers all citizens, but a difference, nonetheless.
I respect your argument. Truly, I do. However, it does not change the fact that the penalty had not yet gone into effect when the case came before the Court. It also does not change the fact that it is well within the authority of Congress to levy taxes and penalties. I may vehemently disagree with the decision Congress made, but they still have the power to do what they did. It is the responsibility of the fourth branch of government to do something to change it.
In addition, since the now Justice-deemed Revenue measure ("TAX") originated in the Senate, that, too is in violation of the Constitution, which specifies taxes and other revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate is free, of course to impose a penalty for the violation of a law, but not to impose taxes. That is the purview of the House of Representatives.
I agree wholeheartedly with this line of reasoning. Yes, the bill originated in the Senate. Yes, that makes the bill unconsitutional. Unfortunately, no on argued that point before the Court. We were had. Republicans wanted this just as much as Democrats did.
In addition, whether or not I have insurance is something I should not be forced to surrender for the purpose of being penalized (5th Amendment), and possibly a HIPAA violation as well. This angle was not pursued, because, after all, who would rule it was constitutional to be penalized for NOT buying something just because you were breathing and not engaging in any special activity which might require some mitigation of risk, and who would think the Supreme COurt of the United States of America ( :patriot: Land of the free/Home of the Brave) would ever rule in favor of a tax for just being alive?--especially when we had been told for months the damned thing was a "PENALTY".
Agreed.
Roberts should have been kicked off the bench over that ruling, and still should be, IMHO.
The Republicans in Congress who sold us out should be the ones who get kicked out. I would have stood on the Senate floor for days with a water jug and a bucket to piss in reading Atlas Shrugged in its entirety five, six, seven times or more just to prevent that bill from coming to a vote. Unfortunately, there wasn't a single Republican Senator who thought the same way.
-
It's not making them slaves, it's telling them that if they want to engage in commercial activity, then they have to be fair about it and not pick and choose. If they don't like it, then they can stop selling cakes commercially.
Hold your horses there, Oce. This wasn't about them not selling to a particular person. This was about forcing them to make a cake that they did not make. The bakers did not refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. But they did refuse to decorate the cake in the way the couple demanded. They had a standard set of decorations and were not willing to deviate from that standard set.
This case was never about equal protection. It was about forcing a business to deviate from its company standard. It was a horrendous decision and an affront to equal protection.
-
Hold your horses there, Oce. This wasn't about them not selling to a particular person. This was about forcing them to make a cake that they did not make. The bakers did not refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. But they did refuse to decorate the cake in the way the couple demanded. They had a standard set of decorations and were not willing to deviate from that standard set.
This case was never about equal protection. It was about forcing a business to deviate from its company standard. It was a horrendous decision and an affront to equal protection.
Again, i don't see a dramatic difference. If you're going to engage in commercial activities you can be compelled to do things you couldn't be compelled to do if your private life was involved.
I don't think the underlying rule is correct, but the fact is I don't see a violation of any constitutional rights.
-
It's not making them slaves, it's telling them that if they want to engage in commercial activity, then they have to be fair about it and not pick and choose. If they don't like it, then they can stop selling cakes commercially.
When you engage in commercial activity you become subject to a lot more limitations than you do in your private life.
I get that. You define slaves your way, I define them mine. The difference is I will have to lay out tens, or hundreds of thousands of dollars to assert my way, you can kick back and define it however you want. The Process is the Punishment. You have yet to address that point, and I have a whole sheet of hundred dollar bills that say you never will.
No imbalance there at all. Nope.
Slaves. That's what everybody who's not you has to see it.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Roberts should have been kicked off the bench over that ruling, and still should be, IMHO.
Big Bump to that.
-
It's not making them slaves, it's telling them that if they want to engage in commercial activity, then they have to be fair about it and not pick and choose. If they don't like it, then they can stop selling cakes commercially.
When you engage in commercial activity you become subject to a lot more limitations than you do in your private life.
So, if I am a sculptor, I can't decline to sculpt something which offends me?
Only being free to create what the State demands you must create sounds like living under the Kims.
That is NOT Liberty.
-
And the people of several cities have disagreed with you. If you want to bake cakes commercially in those cities, then you don't get to pick and choose. Such is life. The simple solution is to come up with other reasons, like scheduling, for why you can't do it; the less simpler solution is to close the business and do something else. In fact, one solution would be to come up with a comprehensive menu of the different cakes you will bake, and then tell customers that they can only pick from that list, that you don't do cudtom-order cakes any more. List about 30 cake variations and you'll basically cover most of the cakes that would have been custom-ordered, but without having to do any custom work.
Your freedom of conscience is not sold to the state for the opportunity to hold a job. That's crazy talk. It is the opposite of freedom. Should a photographer be forced to produce pornography? Should a singer be forced to perform for Trump or Hillary? Is the desire for a specific vendor's cake so fundamental a right that the vendor should have to do anything no matter what kind of violation of his own conscience before God...and that "right" somehow trumps any right of the vendor just because it is commerce? So bow to the state's morality or starve? That's your idea of freedom? Only those who embrace perversity get to make money in today's America? Count me among the starving then. God will judge us. I'll stand with Him.
-
If the right to not worship is implicit in the right to worship as one chooses, then it should be equally implicit in the right to free speech is the Right to not say something, by extension, the same right should exist in other forms of expression, to wit: in the right to create, and the right to not create. To imply that anyone can be forced to engage in commerce with anyone else against their will is anathema to our Bill of Rights.
And that includes Obamacare, too.
-
Your freedom of conscience is not sold to the state for the opportunity to hold a job. That's crazy talk. It is the opposite of freedom. Should a photographer be forced to produce pornography? Should a singer be forced to perform for Trump or Hillary? Is the desire for a specific vendor's cake so fundamental a right that the vendor should have to do anything no matter what kind of violation of his own conscience before God...and that "right" somehow trumps any right of the vendor just because it is commerce? So bow to the state's morality or starve? That's your idea of freedom? Only those who embrace perversity get to make money in today's America? Count me among the starving then. God will judge us. I'll stand with Him.
Good post! There are limits to everything. And we are free to have limits in this country. Or we used to be.
-
If the right to not worship is implicit in the right to worship as one chooses, then it should be equally implicit in the right to free speech is the Right to not say something, by extension, the same right should exist in other forms of expression, to wit: in the right to create, and the right to not create. To imply that anyone can be forced to engage in commerce with anyone else against their will is anathema to our Bill of Rights.
And that includes Obamacare, too.
Right on! Right on! Right on! 888high58888
-
So, if I am a sculptor, I can't decline to sculpt something which offends me?
Only being free to create what the State demands you must create sounds like living under the Kims.
That is NOT Liberty.
Amen.
-
Your freedom of conscience is not sold to the state for the opportunity to hold a job. That's crazy talk. It is the opposite of freedom. Should a photographer be forced to produce pornography? Should a singer be forced to perform for Trump or Hillary? Is the desire for a specific vendor's cake so fundamental a right that the vendor should have to do anything no matter what kind of violation of his own conscience before God...and that "right" somehow trumps any right of the vendor just because it is commerce? So bow to the state's morality or starve? That's your idea of freedom? Only those who embrace perversity get to make money in today's America? Count me among the starving then. God will judge us. I'll stand with Him.
Great post. And good to see you again. :-)
-
Again, i don't see a dramatic difference. If you're going to engage in commercial activities you can be compelled to do things you couldn't be compelled to do if your private life was involved.
So if I ask a bakery to add boysenberry icing to a cupcake they sell, and they refuse, then they should be ordered to pay me $135,000 at the point of a gun?
-
So if I ask a bakery to add boysenberry icing to a cupcake they sell, and they refuse, then they should be ordered to pay me $135,000 at the point of a gun?
See that sheet of Hundreds upthread? They say he doesn't answer that one either.
-
Your freedom of conscience is not sold to the state for the opportunity to hold a job. That's crazy talk. It is the opposite of freedom. Should a photographer be forced to produce pornography? Should a singer be forced to perform for Trump or Hillary? Is the desire for a specific vendor's cake so fundamental a right that the vendor should have to do anything no matter what kind of violation of his own conscience before God...and that "right" somehow trumps any right of the vendor just because it is commerce? So bow to the state's morality or starve? That's your idea of freedom? Only those who embrace perversity get to make money in today's America? Count me among the starving then. God will judge us. I'll stand with Him.
Great post! Spot on!
Welcome back!
-
Your freedom of conscience is not sold to the state for the opportunity to hold a job. That's crazy talk. It is the opposite of freedom. Should a photographer be forced to produce pornography? Should a singer be forced to perform for Trump or Hillary?
Should a doctor be forced to perform abortions?
-
Roberts should have been kicked off the bench over that ruling, and still should be, IMHO.
There was a lot of commentary citing 636th dimensional underwater chess for that one to, at the time... Turns out it was just piss poor.
-
There was a lot of commentary citing 636th dimensional underwater chess for that one to, at the time... Turns out it was just piss poor.
Yeah, so poor that instead of dumping Obamacare, root and branch (no severability clause in that monster--now I don't see that as incompetence, but arrogance--would have meant that if part of it went, it all would have.), we got stuck with the destruction (for a lot of us) of our health care. If there are leper colonies in Hell, I hope those sh*tbirds all get a turn.
-
I have 30, this place is peaches and cream compared to usenet news back in the day.
I am a veteran of Usenet too!
...starting to have deja vu. :laugh:
-
We really are on the same side, jp. If there was a foxhole I had to be to be in, I'd like nobody better to share it with.
NOW...we're getting somewhere! :beer:
-
I am a veteran of Usenet too!
@DCPatriot @jpsb
That explains A LOT!
:beer:
-
Yeah, so poor that instead of dumping Obamacare, root and branch (no severability clause in that monster--now I don't see that as incompetence, but arrogance--would have meant that if part of it went, it all would have.), we got stuck with the destruction (for a lot of us) of our health care. If there are leper colonies in Hell, I hope those sh*tbirds all get a turn.
Well, yeah... But the point being, Roberts was hailed as the most Conservative thing evar.. *NOT*.
And that's a mark I hold against Cruz, btw.
-
Well, yeah... But the point being, Roberts was hailed as the most Conservative thing evar.. *NOT*.
And that's a mark I hold against Cruz, btw.
Well, he looked good until he went off the beam...Way off.
-
Well, he looked good until he went off the beam...Way off.
That's right. But also why I will wait and see wrt Gorsuch... I don't buy into the hype anymore.
I think it was @Chosen Daughter that used the term 'No True North'... I find that a particularly apt descriptive. I'll see how Gorsuch's compass works before I give him credit.
-
@DCPatriot @jpsb
That explains A LOT!
:beer:
Very funny! :laugh:
My experience was limited to major league baseball (Orioles newsgroup)...never politics.
-
That's right. But also why I will wait and see wrt Gorsuch... I don't buy into the hype anymore.
I think it was @Chosen Daughter that used the term 'No True North'... I find that a particularly apt descriptive. I'll see how Gorsuch's compass works before I give him credit.
888high58888 That's why I have been holding off, too.I am guardedly optimistic, with the emphasis on 'guardedly'.
-
I am a veteran of Usenet too!
...starting to have deja vu. :laugh:
Cool, I used to post in the WhiteWater group and the Rush Limba group, it was brutal. I kinda miss usenet news it was a great resource back in the day. Any time I got stuck on a programming problem I could go there and get almost immediate help.
-
@DCPatriot @jpsb
That explains A LOT!
:beer:
Yup, My tag line in the political groups was "Nominated: 1994 Worst Writer on the Net". and it was true!
-
Because their right to have a rubber schlong is more important than the schlonging America is getting! Nothingburger should be a franchise.
888high58888
-
I get that. You define slaves your way, I define them mine. The difference is I will have to lay out tens, or hundreds of thousands of dollars to assert my way, you can kick back and define it however you want. The Process is the Punishment. You have yet to address that point, and I have a whole sheet of hundred dollar bills that say you never will.
No imbalance there at all. Nope.
Slaves. That's what everybody who's not you has to see it.
Can they quit baking cakes and go into some other line of business? Then they're not slaves.
-
Cool, I used to post in the WhiteWater group and the Rush Limba group, it was brutal. I kinda miss usenet news it was a great resource back in the day. Any time I got stuck on a programming problem I could go there and get almost immediate help.
It sure was.
Google was just a gleam in Larry Page's eye, back then.
I belonged to the BMW 'auto' group and learned a lot about their M-series models...and fought bitterly with statheads on the baseball groups.
The statheads savaged Mike Bordick as the replacement for Cal Ripken, Jr. at shortstop, hitting .236 with an OPS of just 636 in his maiden season with the Orioles.
Today, Mike Bordick is in the Orioles' HOF, and hold the record for the best defensive shortstop in Orioles' history. NOT Cal Ripken, Jr..
:laugh:
-
Can they quit baking cakes and go into some other line of business? Then they're not slaves.
LOL. Right.
-
Can they quit baking cakes and go into some other line of business? Then they're not slaves.
@Oceander
So if I ask a bakery to add boysenberry icing to a cupcake they sell, and they refuse, then they should be ordered to pay me $135,000 at the point of a gun?
And how much higher should the fine be for a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion?
-
@Oceander
So if I ask a bakery to add boysenberry icing to a cupcake they sell, and they refuse, then they should be ordered to pay me $135,000 at the point of a gun?
And how much higher should the fine be for a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion?
If you want to be silly, then have at it.
-
@Oceander
So if I ask a bakery to add boysenberry icing to a cupcake they sell, and they refuse, then they should be ordered to pay me $135,000 at the point of a gun?
And how much higher should the fine be for a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion?
I guess you're supposed to go get a job as a Walmart greeter after you wipe out your business paying the fine. This is how great companies are built.
-
I guess you're supposed to go get a job as a Walmart greeter after you wipe out your business paying the fine. This is how great companies are built.
Move to a friendlier place that doesn't penalize you that way. Or start a different business.
I'm not arguing that it's fair, or nice, or shouldn't happen, but there is no constitutional violation in requiring a commercial business that sells custom-made cakes to sell to all reasonable customers without preference.
Life isn't a bowl of cherry icing.
-
I'm not arguing that it's fair, or nice, or shouldn't happen, but there is no constitutional violation in requiring a commercial business that sells custom-made cakes to sell to all reasonable customers without preference.
Please show me the legal statute that requires a commercial bakery to put boysenberry icing on a cupcake.
-
Move to a friendlier place that doesn't penalize you that way. Or start a different business.
I'm not arguing that it's fair, or nice, or shouldn't happen, but there is no constitutional violation in requiring a commercial business that sells custom-made cakes to sell to all reasonable customers without preference.
Life isn't a bowl of cherry icing.
Doesn't matter in the long run. State-sanctioned Marriage will be gone in 10-20 years anyway. :shrug:
"Freedom of Association" is already a dead letter, been on its deathbed since the 60's.
-
Doesn't matter in the long run. State-sanctioned Marriage will be gone in 10-20 years anyway. :shrug:
"Freedom of Association" is already a dead letter, been on its deathbed since the 60's.
One's marriage is pretty weak if the only thing standing between it and dissolution is the sanction of the government.
-
but there is no constitutional violation in requiring a commercial business that sells custom-made cakes to sell to all reasonable customers without preference.
@Oceander
So where is the legal requirement? Where is the Oregon law that forces bakers to create cake toppings that they do not offer?
(Hint: There isn't one)
-
@Oceander
So where is the legal requirement? Where is the Oregon law that forces bakers to create cake toppings that they do not offer?
(Hint: There isn't one)
Your example is extreme, IMO.
The 'problem' seems to be in the wording and/or figurines on said cake.
If you bake cakes for profit, and you know how to read, you're bound to decorate it as the customer prefers.
-
@Oceander
So where is the legal requirement? Where is the Oregon law that forces bakers to create cake toppings that they do not offer?
(Hint: There isn't one)
As I understand it, they flat out refused to provide the same services to a gay couple that they provided to everyone else simply because this couple was gay. And as I understand it, that is against the law there.
Too bad. They should have been more up-to-date on the laws that affected their business.
-
As I understand it, they flat out refused to provide the same services to a gay couple that they provided to everyone else simply because this couple was gay.
Then you do not understand it correctly. The bakery offers a custom set of toppings. The couple asked for a topping that was not part of that custom set. In other words, they demanded something that was not on the menu. At no point did the bakery refuse to provide a cake because of the sexual preference of the customers (which is a private matter anyway and would be unknown to the bakers).
And as I understand it, that is against the law there.
Again, your understanding is in error. There is no Oregon law which forces a food establishment to sell something not on the menu. Which is why your statement about there being no Constitutional violations is pointless.
Too bad. They should have been more up-to-date on the laws that affected their business.
Perhaps you are the one who needs to be more up-to-date on the law since you are having a very difficult time identifying the law that was violated here.
Again, the couple was not denied service. They asked for a cake. They were sold a cake. But the bakery refused to provide a topping on the cake that they did not offer.
So back to the cupcake example. If I purchase a cupcake from a baker who refuses to put boysenberry icing on it, should they be required to pay me $135,000 at the point of a gun?
-
The 'problem' seems to be in the wording and/or figurines on said cake.
If you bake cakes for profit, and you know how to read, you're bound to decorate it as the customer prefers.
So if I ask for boysenberry icing, and the baker refuses because they don't offer boysenberry icing on their menu, then they should be required to pay me $135,000 at the point of a gun?
-
So if I ask for boysenberry icing, and the baker refuses because they don't offer boysenberry icing on their menu, then they should be required to pay me $135,000 at the point of a gun?
Heck no! I'm with your POV on this. If you don't carry it in your inventory of 'icings'? Not guilty!
And the customer should pay 100% of attorney fees of the baker.
-
It sure was.
Google was just a gleam in Larry Page's eye, back then.
I belonged to the BMW 'auto' group and learned a lot about their M-series models...and fought bitterly with statheads on the baseball groups.
The statheads savaged Mike Bordick as the replacement for Cal Ripken, Jr. at shortstop, hitting .236 with an OPS of just 636 in his maiden season with the Orioles.
Today, Mike Bordick is in the Orioles' HOF, and hold the record for the best defensive shortstop in Orioles' history. NOT Cal Ripken, Jr..
:laugh:
IMO... Mark Belanger was the best defensive SS in O's history. He and Brooks Robinson anchored what is probably the greatest right side of the diamond defense in MLB history
-
Heck no! I'm with your POV on this. If you don't carry it in your inventory of 'icings'? Not guilty!
And the customer should pay 100% of attorney fees of the baker.
The law, as currently understood, demands bakers of cake to provide whatever toppings desired by the customer, whether it's on the menu or not. If the baker doesn't like it, then he can welcome his new profession as a Walmart greeter. I'm not sure if this situation is due for any improvement, now that the courts have arrogated the power to decide that to themselves. The mentioned Boysenberry example is very real, not "silly" as has been otherwise noted.
If a business cannot afford to argue its case before a court, that's just too bad. Courts cannot be held responsible for every undercapitalized company. I think that's how a politiccian described it.
-
IMO... Mark Belanger was the best defensive SS in O's history. He and Brooks Robinson anchored what is probably the greatest right side of the diamond defense in MLB history
No argument from me, there, @catfish1957
"The Blade" was also one of Earl Weaver's favorite players and said one of the reasons he retired was having to approach players he loved to tell them "it's over".
Alas.... Mike Bordick was savaged by hardcore O's fans.
Today, he co-hosts games and is enshrined in the Orioles Hall of Fame.
-
If a business cannot afford to argue its case before a court, that's just too bad.
If any profession should be socialized, it should be law, not medicine.
-
The law, as currently understood, demands bakers of cake to provide whatever toppings desired by the customer, whether it's on the menu or not. If the baker doesn't like it, then he can welcome his new profession as a Walmart greeter. I'm not sure if this situation is due for any improvement, now that the courts have arrogated the power to decide that to themselves. The mentioned Boysenberry example is very real, not "silly" as has been otherwise noted.
If a business cannot afford to argue its case before a court, that's just too bad. Courts cannot be held responsible for every undercapitalized company. I think that's how a politiccian described it.
Can't argue with that, @Cyber Liberty
-
Can they quit baking cakes and go into some other line of business? Then they're not slaves.
Try to put yourself in the position of someone who has principles, counsellor. I understand this can be difficult, and that that is an occupational hazard, but for these people there are simply things they will not create and that they will not do.
Are there cases you won't take? Could any of those be presented as 'discriminating'?
I realize a significant amount of lawyering is just making sure the appropriate blanks get filled in, the 'i's are dotted and 't's are crossed, etc., but imagine that there is something you just won't do, and someone comes in the door and tries to hire you to do it. It isn't illegal, but it so offends your sensibilities that you just won't.
You get sued. You are free to find another profession, too.
Don't you have the right to decline the case? to recuse yourself?
-
@DCPatriot
Hard Core Astros fan since 1964. Still, back in the day the Orioles were my favorite AL team. And the reason was Belanger and Robinson. I remember tales where switch hitters would hit left against a left hander, just to avoid those guys. Boog was an easier direction.
And the fact they had one of the greatest starting staffs in history. I can say with pretty good certainty, that we will never see a team with 4- 20 game winners again.
-
If any profession should be socialized, it should be law, not medicine.
A government lawyer? That gives me a real secure feeling, NOT.
-
@DCPatriot
Hard Core Astros fan since 1964. Still, back in the day the Orioles were my favorite AL team. And the reason was Belanger and Robinson. I remember tales where switch hitters would hit left against a left hander, just to avoid those guys. Boog was an easier direction.
??
-
Your example is extreme, IMO.
The 'problem' seems to be in the wording and/or figurines on said cake.
If you bake cakes for profit, and you know how to read, you're bound to decorate it as the customer prefers.
There is an obligation to create something only if you accept the commission, only if you take the job. There was no contractual obligation to provide a cake in the first place. They refused to provide it.
They were under no obligation to bake the cake, nor decorate it.
That's likesaying if a Jewish sculptor has someone walk in the door and try to commission a monument to the medical advances made by Dr, Mengele, then the sculptor is automatically obligated to do so, whether they agreed to do so or not, no matter how offensive the subject may be to them personally, and no matter how predictable that Mr Shapiro wouldn't be interested in sculpting that.
That is the sort of thing that has been adjudicated. That those who create must cater to everyone who wants something created, no matter how personally offensive they find the thing they are being forced to create. Maybe that's because attorneys generally have no such qualms.
-
The law, as currently understood, demands bakers of cake to provide whatever toppings desired by the customer, whether it's on the menu or not.
That is not at all what the law says. It may be what the judge says, but it is not what the law says.
-
Alas.... Mike Bordick was savaged by hardcore O's fans.
There's a name I haven't heard in a long time. I had him pegged as a Rotisserie stud at a bargain price since there were no shortstops at the time who could hit (save Barry Larkin and Ozzie Smith). Too bad it never panned out.
-
@DCPatriot
Hard Core Astros fan since 1964. Still, back in the day the Orioles were my favorite AL team. And the reason was Belanger and Robinson. I remember tales where switch hitters would hit left against a left hander, just to avoid those guys. Boog was an easier direction.
And the fact they had one of the greatest starting staffs in history. I can say with pretty good certainty, that we will never see a team with 4- 20 game winners again.
:beer:
As with several others here on the forum....if not for President Donald Trump, we'd be good FRiends. :laugh:
-
:beer:
As with several others here on the forum....if not for President Donald Trump, we'd be good FRiends. :laugh:
:beer:
In my book baseball trumps (no pun intended) politics any day.
-
And the fact they had one of the greatest starting staffs in history. I can say with pretty good certainty, that we will never see a team with 4- 20 game winners again.
(http://caimages.collectors.com/psacertimages/57068_951x1597.jpg)(http://caimages.collectors.com/psacertimages/56786_944x1595.jpg)
(http://images.psacard.com/s3/cu-psa/cardfacts/1971-topps-547-pat-dobson-35702.jpg)(http://www.baseball-cards.com/jpgs/1971t/1971-570-7.jpg)
All four fine pitchers. But none could hold a candle to what this guy did that year, which will go down as the greatest athletic feat ever in the history of sports.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IRm09afSi2Q/TwPnsBrXFdI/AAAAAAAAkB8/iVSCktcXghA/s1600/ellis-71.jpg)
-
All four fine pitchers. But none could hold a candle to what this guy did that year, which will go down as the greatest athletic feat ever in the history of sports.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IRm09afSi2Q/TwPnsBrXFdI/AAAAAAAAkB8/iVSCktcXghA/s1600/ellis-71.jpg)
No argument here. i've never dropped acid, but still can't fathom how he pulled it off
BTW...there is a documentary on Netflix about the event.
-
As someone who has dropped acid, I can't fathom how he pulled it off either.
-
In my book baseball trumps (no pun intended) politics any day.
Indeed! :beer:
-
@Oceander
So if I ask a bakery to add boysenberry icing to a cupcake they sell, and they refuse, then they should be ordered to pay me $135,000 at the point of a gun?
And how much higher should the fine be for a doctor who refuses to per4form an abortion?
@Oceander
The whole problem with your "change professions" argument is that at what point should I chose to leave my chosen profession?
If I wait until the court case is complete, my closing down my business doesn't get me out of the settlement.
Should I shut down my business when the lawsuit is filed?
Should I shut down my business when the request is made?
What aspect of my freedom should I surrender in order to avoid the court's judgement?
If I am surendering ANY freedom to another man's desires,
Then. I .am. a. Slave....
-
That is not at all what the law says. It may be what the judge says, but it is not what the law says.
In practical terms, the word of a "Judge" is the law, unless you are able to make the financial investment to appeal the ruling, and then it's a crapshoot what the higher Judge will do. It's not Just, but these are Courts of Law, not Courts of Justice. I've started calling them "Courts of Karma," because often a Judge will decide a particular case based on events outside of the case to "level the playing field."
-
@Oceander
The whole problem with your "change professions" argument is that at what point should I chose to leave my chosen profession?
If I wait until the court case is complete, my closing down my business doesn't get me out of the settlement.
Should I shut down my business when the lawsuit is filed?
Should I shut down my business when the request is made?
Imagine incurring $250,000 in student loan debt to get through medical school, yet being forced from your profession for refusing to perform an abortion.
-
In practical terms, the word of a "Judge" is the law, unless you are able to make the financial investment to appeal the ruling, and then it's a crapshoot what the higher Judge will do.
Yes, I get that. Just for the record though, I wanted to point out again that there is no law requiring food service companies to provide items not on the menu. Oceander had inferred that there was no Constitutional prohibition against formulating such a law - oblivious to the fact that no such law had ever been enacted.
-
Imagine incurring $250,000 in student loan debt to get through medical school, yet being forced from your profession for refusing to perform an abortion.
That particular example is really ugly, because Student Loans cannot be discharged in a Bankruptcy. It's owed no matter what happens.
-
Yes, I get that. Just for the record though, I wanted to point out again that there is no law requiring food service companies to provide items not on the menu. Oceander had inferred that there was no Constitutional prohibition against formulating such a law - oblivious to the fact that no such law had ever been enacted.
Totally agree. Judges have moved well beyond the laws and Constitution, as written, to install whatever Karmic Justice they deem necessary to create "fairness." That there is no Statue or mention in the Constitution can prevent Judges from seeing whatever Emanations and Penumbras they want to get the desired result.
This has effectively made this a Nation of Men, no longer a Nation of Laws.
-
Your example is extreme, IMO.
The 'problem' seems to be in the wording and/or figurines on said cake.
If you bake cakes for profit, and you know how to read, you're bound to decorate it as the customer prefers.
I'm also free to tell you to get the hell out of my shop and don't come back!
-
I'm also free to tell you to get the hell out of my shop and don't come back!
No shoes
No shirt
No service
What's this world coming to?
-
I'm also free to tell you to get the hell out of my shop and don't come back!
@Just_Victor beat me to it! :laugh:
I understand, but that's not refusing based upon skin color or sexual preference.
(although I thought "Ladies Nite"...where they got drinks at 50% and no cover charge, was on legal shaky ground)
-
No shoes
No shirt
No service
What's this world coming to?
Give it time...someone will challenge that right of an eating establishment to refuse service because of those things as well.
-
No shoes
No shirt
No service
What's this world coming to?
This old guy asks that question every single day. **nononono*
It's not pretty, when the largest voting bloc is indoctrinated in Leftist ideology PLUS....they've not experienced a large scale conflict where tens of thousands of our finest perish.
They weren't joking .... History indeed repeats itself.
I've always maintained that they should STILL interrupt all cable and video broadcasts everyday at midnight and play the National Anthem while showing those planes crashing into the World Trade Center.
We wouldn't be here today. :patriot:
-
@Just_Victor beat me to it! :laugh:
I understand, but that's not refusing based upon skin color or sexual preference.
(although I thought "Ladies Nite"...where they got drinks at 50% and no cover charge, was on legal shaky ground)
I don't have to tell you why! Just a plain "get the hell out" is sufficient!
-
Give it time...someone will challenge that right of an eating establishment to refuse service because of those things as well.
I believe because the common defense would be grounds of common decency and to insure hygiene in the surroundings.
Wearing your pants below your cheeks, IMO, is in the same league, if not ballpark.
-
I believe because the common defense would be grounds of common decency and to insure hygiene in the surroundings.
I agree. It's one of those things I like to bring up when someone here starts to bring up the fact that a baker can't refuse the right to back someone a cake.
I ask them if that's the case why hasn't McDonalds been sued for the right to refuse service on the shirts shoes thing.
Crickets.
Wearing your pants below your cheeks, IMO, is in the same league, if not ballpark.
Dumbest.Fashion.Trend.Ever.
I cured my boys of that by pantsing them in pubic in front of their sisters. Never had to tell them to pull their pants up again. :laugh:
-
I agree. It's one of those things I like to bring up when someone here starts to bring up the fact that a baker can't refuse the right to back someone a cake.
I ask them if that's the case why hasn't McDonalds been sued for the right to refuse service on the shirts shoes thing.
Crickets.
Meh....I don't 'see' the comparison, @txradioguy
The baker can't claim hygiene reasons. He's basing on his own set of principles.
If a shoeless guy walks in to buy a doughnut....he can refuse. But not asking for a gay wedding cake theme.
Dumbest.Fashion.Trend.Ever.
I cured my boys of that by prancing them in pubic in front of their sisters. Never had to tell them to pull their pants up again. :laugh:
LOL! It's even funnier when it's white guys. :laugh:
-
@Just_Victor beat me to it! :laugh:
I understand, but that's not refusing based upon skin color or sexual preference.
The skin color part I get. Unless someone is dressed head to toe in a Storm Trooper outfit, you pretty much know what a person's skin color is when they walk in the door. But sexual preference? Unless they drop their drawers and start getting it on by the cash register, there is no way to know for sure what a person's sexual preference is. Unless of course they volunteer this information up front because they are trying to cash in on being a victim.
Personally, I don't give a damn who you sleep with (as long as it isn't my daughter or wife). But my business is an extension of me. And I cannot be compelled to add boysenberry icing to a cupcake if that is not part of the menu I offer.
(Sidenote: Have you noticed that you never see any female Storm Troopers? Someone should sue George Lucas)
-
Dumbest.Fashion.Trend.Ever.
I cured my boys of that by pantsing them in pubic in front of their sisters. Never had to tell them to pull their pants up again. :laugh:
I have a friend who is a middle school principal. One day, he confronted a group of boys who were wearing their pants low exposing their boxers. He asked them if they knew where that trend started. The boys shook their heads. He explained that in prison when a male prisoner gets the urge for another male prisoner to bend him over and have sex with him, he signals his desire by wearing his pants low just like theirs.
Those boys pulled those pants up fast and tightened their belts. Never did they wear their pants low again.
-
Meh....I don't 'see' the comparison, @txradioguy
The baker can't claim hygiene reasons. He's basing on his own set of principles.
If a shoeless guy walks in to buy a doughnut....he can refuse. But not asking for a gay wedding cake theme.
I just feel that if a business owner decides he doesn't want to do business with a particular customer...for whatever reason...they should have the right not to.
LOL! It's even funnier when it's white guys. :laugh:
LOL! Yes it sure is.
-
I have a friend who is a middle school principal. One day, he confronted a group of boys who were wearing their pants low exposing their boxers. He asked them if they knew where that trend started. The boys shook their heads. He explained that in prison when a male prisoner gets the urge for another male prisoner to bend him over and have sex with him, he signals his desire by wearing his pants low just like theirs.
Those boys pulled those pants up fast and tightened their belts. Never did they wear their pants low again.
Amazing how a little factual information can put an end to something like that.
-
I just feel that if a business owner decides he doesn't want to do business with a particular customer...for whatever reason...they should have the right not to.
LOL! Yes it sure is.
Once you start parsing the justifiable reasons for refusing service from a provider to a requestor, you are simply justifying forced servitude.
And it's not about whether I agree or disagree with the reasons. Either we believe in freedom, or we don't, period.
-
@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
Your timeline is wrong.
Texas Attorney General declined to the case, before Greg Abbott was in office, same year, but Abbott arrive later, after it had already been filed with SCOTUS.
Lawrence V Texas was filed with SCOTUS in July, 2002.
Cornyn was Attorney General of Texas then.
Abbott became Attorney General December, 2002.
Cruz became his Solicitor General January of 2003.
But, hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good ol' Cruz bashing story.
-
@DCPatriot
Hard Core Astros fan since 1964. Still, back in the day the Orioles were my favorite AL team. And the reason was Belanger and Robinson. I remember tales where switch hitters would hit left against a left hander, just to avoid those guys. Boog was an easier direction.
And the fact they had one of the greatest starting staffs in history. I can say with pretty good certainty, that we will never see a team with 4- 20 game winners again.
@catfish1957
@DCPatriot
I admired that O's team a lot, for all the reasons you 2 have mentioned.
-
@catfish1957
@DCPatriot
I admired that O's team a lot, for all the reasons you 2 have mentioned.
:beer:
-
Your freedom of conscience is not sold to the state for the opportunity to hold a job. That's crazy talk. It is the opposite of freedom. Should a photographer be forced to produce pornography? Should a singer be forced to perform for Trump or Hillary? Is the desire for a specific vendor's cake so fundamental a right that the vendor should have to do anything no matter what kind of violation of his own conscience before God...and that "right" somehow trumps any right of the vendor just because it is commerce? So bow to the state's morality or starve? That's your idea of freedom? Only those who embrace perversity get to make money in today's America? Count me among the starving then. God will judge us. I'll stand with Him.
GREAT post, @RAT Patrol !!
And WELCOME BACK!!!!
(I've missed you!)
-
@jpsb
Your timeline is wrong.
Texas Attorney General declined to the case, before Greg Abbott was in office, same year, but Abbott arrive later, after it had already been filed with SCOTUS.
Lawrence V Texas was filed with SCOTUS in July, 2002.
Cornyn was Attorney General of Texas then.
Abbott became Attorney General December, 2002.
Cruz became his Solicitor General January of 2003.
But, hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good ol' Cruz bashing story.
888high58888
Someone's gonna need a little ice for that bruise.
-
I agree. It's one of those things I like to bring up when someone here starts to bring up the fact that a baker can't refuse the right to back someone a cake.
I ask them if that's the case why hasn't McDonalds been sued for the right to refuse service on the shirts shoes thing.
Crickets.
Dumbest.Fashion.Trend.Ever.
I cured my boys of that by pantsing them in pubic in front of their sisters. Never had to tell them to pull their pants up again. :laugh:
We just told the kids it was the way some guy in the joint advertised he wanted a new boyfriend.
Amazing how fast that cleaned up. :silly: