False Prophet ?

I disagree. I don't think states should be allowed to negotiate their own version of human rights. I think Lincoln would agree. You're either equal as a human being or you're not. There's no gray area.



And what about, say, education? Would you really want to live in a country that allows states to outlaw teaching about evolution?

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/fighting-over-darwin-state-by-state/

The list goes on.
that's just one side of it. Check out all the outrageous federal law applied to a whole diverse cultural and geographic country, especially EPA. That "one size fits all" is hard for many of us to bear (or bare.) I'll give you a few basic human rights, but don't get carried away.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I don't think states should be allowed to negotiate their own version of human rights. I think Lincoln would agree. You're either equal as a human being or you're not. There's no gray area.



And what about, say, education? Would you really want to live in a country that allows states to outlaw teaching about evolution?

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/fighting-over-darwin-state-by-state/

The list goes on.


Your problem is not with Cruz. It's with the Constitution.
 
BTW Lincoln concluded the Gettysburg Address by saying " ...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I'm pretty sure when he said "of the people, by the people, for the people" he didn't mean "unless some appointed federal judge decides that he knows better."

I'm also fairly certain that his hair would have curled at the prospect that the Bible would be banned from schools, that Christians would be forced to serve homosexuals and that the Constitution mandated gay marriage.
 
Cruz states the exact position a constitutional conservative should hold.
And really any American who respects our constitution should hold. Your live in Canada so you don't really get to vote on this one.


while I personally believe abortion to be killing a human life. I live choose to live in America and therefore I and we should follow the Constitution. This really is not for the Federal Govt to decide. If California had voted for Gay marriage instead of the courts so be it. I would still live here.


I disagree. I don't think states should be allowed to negotiate their own version of human rights. I think Lincoln would agree. You're either equal as a human being or you're not. There's no gray area.



And what about, say, education? Would you really want to live in a country that allows states to outlaw teaching about evolution?

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/fighting-over-darwin-state-by-state/

The list goes on.




Ted Cruz Busted On Secret Tape Admitting That His Core Positions Are Fake


cruz-pout.jpg


In a secret recording, Ted Cruz admitted that he doesn’t really believe what he is trying to sell to Republican voters and that if elected president, a Cruz administration would not fight same-sex marriage. He also backed off of his positions on issues like abortion and common core.

Politico released more of the secret tape of Ted Cruz talking to donors at a New York fundraiser, and it confirmed what many have long suspected. Sen. Cruz is faking it to get elected.

According to Politico:

During the question period, one of the donors told Cruz that gay marriage was one of the few issues on which the two disagreed. Then the donor asked: “So would you say it’s like a top-three priority for you — fighting gay marriage?”


“No,” Cruz replied. “I would say defending the Constitution is a top priority. And that cuts across the whole spectrum — whether it’s defending [the] First Amendment, defending religious liberty.”

Soothing the attendee without contradicting what he has said elsewhere, Cruz added: “People of New York may well resolve the marriage question differently than the people of Florida or Texas or Ohio. … That’s why we have 50 states — to allow a diversity of views. And so that is a core commitment.”

….

A well-known Republican operative not affiliated with a 2016 campaign said by email when sent Cruz’s quote: “Wow. Does this not undermine all of his positions? Abortion, Common Core — all to the states? … Worse, he sounds like a slick D.C. politician — says one thing on the campaign trail and trims his sails with NYC elites. Not supposed to be like that.”

Ted Cruz’s top priority has always been advancing his own career, so it isn’t much of a surprise that the positions that he is selling Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina aren’t the same as what he is telling people behind closed doors.

Hold on to your hats, because it turns out that Ted Cruz plays fast and loose with the truth.

Anyone who has followed Cruz’s rise already is well aware that the senator from Texas has treated facts like an unnecessary detail; the secret tape is devastating for his presidential campaign because it undermines Ted Cruz’s trustworthiness with his own voters.

What may work in Cruz’s favor is that he can attack the messenger and claim that the Politico story is more media bias and proof that the press is out to get him, but a tape of his own voice denying the same positions that he is selling to conservative voters across the country is devastating.

Ted Cruz is a fake. He is exactly what he has been telling socially conservative Republican primary voters that he isn’t. Sen. Cruz is nothing more than another ambitious DC insider who say whatever he needs to say to get elected.
 
Last edited:
especially EPA
Yes, especially the EPA. Until smoking was banned in restaurants, you could ask to sit in the non-smoking section. But if you were unfortunate, you would be placed right at the border between the smoking and non-smoking sections. The table nearest you could be full of smokers. And so it is with states. What good is a comprehensive state-run EPA if the states surrounding you are the equivalent of tables filled with smokers?
 
I disagree. I don't think states should be allowed to negotiate their own version of human rights. I think Lincoln would agree. You're either equal as a human being or you're not. There's no gray area.



And what about, say, education? Would you really want to live in a country that allows states to outlaw teaching about evolution?

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/fighting-over-darwin-state-by-state/

The list goes on.
I want to live in a country where we are not suffering the tyranny of the few. Battles that have already been fought and decided need to be put to rest knowing that absolute perfection is unattainable. A very small number of activists walk around looking for reasons to complain. There will always be reasons to complain. I don't care whether it's abortion, race relations, or a gay couple wanting a cake. Enough already. You can get your abortion so quit bitching. Abortion is legal so quit bitching. There is no more state sanctioned racism. Quit bitching. Black people have just as much right to be here as anyone else. Quit bitching. Homosexuals can find a place to marry. They can find a cake and they can do these things without any real inconvenience. Quit bitching. Gay people are here, they're Okay, and they're just as human as the rest of us. Quit bitching. Pissy ass activists on both sides need to SHUT THE FUCK UP!
 
Pissy ass activists on both sides need to SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I imagine most people would indeed STFU if there were not others actively and regularly seeking to marginalize them in one way or another, overtly or otherwise. It would be refreshing to move on to other things. But if someone was stepping on your toes and trying to "put you in your place," I suspect your reception would be less than warm.
 
Yes, especially the EPA. Until smoking was banned in restaurants, you could ask to sit in the non-smoking section. But if you were unfortunate, you would be placed right at the border between the smoking and non-smoking sections. The table nearest you could be full of smokers. And so it is with states. What good is a comprehensive state-run EPA if the states surrounding you are the equivalent of tables filled with smokers?

When I first moved to North Carolina in 1990, most of the restaurants had signs saying "A non-smoking section is not provided." This is because the majority of restaurants at that time were owned by traditional tobacco families (or people connected with them). Most of the population of the state at that time strongly supported the tobacco industry and viewed the passing of laws requiring a "no-smoking" section to be a sin against the farmers of our state. However the state law at the time stated you had to post your policy out front of your establishment - and one of the allowed choices was that a non-smoking section is not provided.
 
Yes, especially the EPA. Until smoking was banned in restaurants, you could ask to sit in the non-smoking section. But if you were unfortunate, you would be placed right at the border between the smoking and non-smoking sections. The table nearest you could be full of smokers. And so it is with states. What good is a comprehensive state-run EPA if the states surrounding you are the equivalent of tables filled with smokers?
I hate it when they make you eat at a restaurant
 
in the 21st century, it means legal pot, but I agree we must be ever vigilant against those states righters who are trying to reinstitute slavery.

Nice strawman. Do you work for the Obama administration? These Ventura supporters are really something else.
 
Back
Top