Ted Cruz citizenship fiasco continues...

[Jughead]

Weiner could beat Cruz.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Weiner could beat Cruz.

Well, Biden, HRC, or most any democrat could beat Cruz.

The voters spoke loud and clear in 2010 and again in 2012: they don’t want to have anything to do with TPM candidates, TPM candidates cost republicans the Senate in 2010 and 2012, and it will cost them the WH in 2016 should they run a TPM candidate such as Cruz.

 

[rdean]

Where's tinyd?!!! I want her opinion on this now!!!

Cruz Preparing To Renounce Canadian Citizenship

Discuss...

obama set the precedent.

Deal with it.

Unlike McCain and now Cruz, Obama was actually born in the US.

 

[birddog]

Where's tinyd?!!! I want her opinion on this now!!!

Cruz Preparing To Renounce Canadian Citizenship

Discuss...

obama set the precedent.

Deal with it.

Unlike McCain and now Cruz, Obama was actually born in the US.

Where's your proof, or do you just believe Obama? Certainly, the Hawaii BC was a fake, so don't go there!

 

[freedombecki]

We all know Ted's kidding.

Every night, he goes home, cracks open a Molson, eats a plate of poutine, and watches hockey on the Center Ice package he bought from DirectTV.

Maybe he's the man who can unite the USA and Canada into being one huge anathema to terrorists. Everybody wins!

Go Ted Cruz!

 

[Toro]

We all know Ted's kidding.

Every night, he goes home, cracks open a Molson, eats a plate of poutine, and watches hockey on the Center Ice package he bought from DirectTV.

Maybe he's the man who can unite the USA and Canada into being one huge anathema to terrorists. Everybody wins!

Go Ted Cruz!

I totally agree.

When Ted Cruz becomes President and Canada and the US become one country, the new country will be called "Canada," the capitol will be in Ottawa, the flag will look like this

, and you will have a queen.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

obama set the precedent.

Deal with it.

Unlike McCain and now Cruz, Obama was actually born in the US.

Where's your proof, or do you just believe Obama? Certainly, the Hawaii BC was a fake, so don't go there!

Oh goody goody, the birther nutters are still making total assssholes of themselves.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Antichrist means to go against the law while claiming to enforce the law."

That is exactly what Cruz has done and will do. I doubt he is antichrist's little brother, but he is as bad as Joe McCarthy.

Come on....if you're going to make up a definition,at least make it somewhat believable.
But I guess thats asking to much from you.....

Dear HWGA and JS:
Sorry if this was not clear enough for you.
From my experience, I have found as many "definitions or names" for Jesus as there are for God; so the same would be true for their OPPOSITES.

For Jesus/Christ:
Restorative Justice, Justice with Mercy, Equal Justice, Peace and Justice,
Charity, Conscience or Collective Conscience/Consciousness

For Antichrist:
Injustice, Hypocrisy, Oppression, any kind of abuse of authority, law or power especially governmental office, where relationship abuse, bullying by coercion or exclusion generally falls under "control" issues where people abuse power for political or personal "control"
(ie. instead of basing social contracts on "consent of the governed", equal representation and Constitutional inclusion)

if Christ = conscionable then
Antichrist = unconscionable

Any abuse to suppress or deny "due process and the right to petition to redress grievances" are general signs of "controlling or abusive" behavior -- abuse of fear or force to compel people into submission instead of resolving conflicts and basing decisions on the mutual respect, consent and inclusion of the people IN the relationship.

Is any of that more SPECIFIC to you
as to what "antichrist" behavior represents?

Everyone I know may have a different way of looking at what God/Jesus represents
so I would expect the same diversity in defining what Satan/Antichrist represent.
(same with what Holy Spirit represents, as well as its opposite or the False Prophet.
In general God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit tend to represent positive values or concepts
while Satan/Antichrist/False Prophet represent their opposites. I have not found one way to define these three things that covered all people, so I tend to list all variations in order to seek universal inclusion of at least the most common meanings behind these symbols)

Sorry if I left out whatever principles or values you believe in; it was not my intention to exclude. I am happy to add your interpretation to the list to be more inclusive.

Please let me know if any of the above descriptions hits close to your idea of what causes political bullying, abuse of power, and hypocrisy/injustice or "false government."

What do YOU call these things that are the equivalent of what "antichrist" means?

 

[emilynghiem]

Unlike McCain and now Cruz, Obama was actually born in the US.

Where's your proof, or do you just believe Obama? Certainly, the Hawaii BC was a fake, so don't go there!

Oh goody goody, the birther nutters are still making total assssholes of themselves.

Dear Luddly:
It's not just physical birthplace in question
but the SPIRIT of whether people uphold their duty of office to
ENFORCE Constitutional laws and principles for ALL people and interests nationwide
NOT JUST THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA.

If Jake sees Ted Cruz as putting political agenda before the Constitution,
then at least have the equality of judgment to see Obama comes across
the same way, as putting political agenda above Constitutional inclusion of ALL views,
including the opposition.

If people are going to be SO BIASED as to NOT be able to include ALL PEOPLE OF ALL VIEWS EQUALLY under Constitutional representation and protection,
I don't believe such people should be in office imposing their biases on public policy.

At the very least, they should have facilitators or mediators assigned to resolve conflicts so that public policies truly reflect the PUBLIC CONSENSUS and not just a majority of one party "bullying over dissenters" by political force, majority vote, or media campaigns.

Shouldn't public policy be based on CONSENT of all the taxpaying public?

Have we gone so long with this trend of coercion and exclusion, that's all we rely on to make decisions anymore?

Luddly, if you were in a partnership with a person who made decisions this way, by "coercing you against your will or beliefs by force or by threat" instead of listening and including your objections and dissent/consent, wouldn't you COMPLAIN the relationship was ABUSIVE?

If the only way you could be heard and defended in such a relationship was to BULLY BACK wouldnt you consider such a relationship to be UNHEALTHY? wouldn't you seek counseling to fix the problems and make decisions in a more healthy and balanced way, instead of forcing decisions back and forth by ganging up on each other?

Really Luddly?

What does it take to explain how this bullying is unhealthy and obstructive to the democratic/due process? how long can we continue thinking this is the only way????

How can either you or I be supportive of stopping the bullying or abuse of women and children by these same tactics, yet condone the constant reliance on them in politics???

????

Please work with my Luddly, as a fellow prochoice liberal/progressive Democrat I really really need to understand this mindset so I can help stop bullying and abuse that I see is related to this same behavior. Please help me understand, can you please explain?

 

[JakeStarkey]

emilynghiem, I love reading you and watching your mind in action.

One error, though, on your part: Cruz is not on the side of the angels.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

emilynghiem, I love reading you and watching your mind in action.

One error, though, on your part: Cruz is not on the side of the angels.

Unlike Obama, right?

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem, I love reading you and watching your mind in action.

One error, though, on your part: Cruz is not on the side of the angels.

Opponents of Obama say the same thing about him and the Constitution.

Can we at least agree it is equal, that both sides feel the other is EXCLUDING or discrminating against their political/religious viewpoint(s) and it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for govt to be abused to discriminate on the basis of beliefs in this way?

Is that at least FAIR to say that opponents of EITHER Cruz or Obama are being "discriminated against" by not having their interests represented equally in govt decisions made by bullying one side/viewpoint/bias over people/representatives of the other side or viewpoint?

[P.S. thanks for your comment about watching my mind in action; but in my personal reality, I admit I am having a terrible time, my conscience in utter turmoil over the state of the nation. I am not enjoying this process and seriously seek support to write out a petition and/or a resolution to fellow members of both major parties to address this whole bullying issue and exclusion/discrimination based on political beliefs that I believe should be equally respected or removed from public policy if agreements cannot be reached on how laws are written. I have been suffering a terrible moral dilemma, that is almost depressing me, and would like to make it my new year's resolution to call for fellow party members with equal concerns to "spell out" the problems and solutions, especially the SPECIFIC views that people hold differently and will not change due to religious differences that should be respected ON BOTH SIDES. So this bullying back and forth is ended by acknowledging the root cause of the conflicts, which again I find to be fundamental religious differences that will not change by forcing one way or the other through public policy. I have ALWAYS had a real problem with this, and find myself especially struggling right now, so thanks for seeing someone positive in it, albeit humorous? Hopefully I can get past it, but right now it is almost depressing how deeply entrenched these biases are, where people don't even recognize or respect the conflicting views as religiously equal, but truly believe "their way is right and the other way is wrong and needs to be legislated against." ]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where such "discrimination" takes place, Congress and SCOTUS are the remedies.

 

[Dot Com]

If Ted can casually throw Canada under the bus just to statiate the the xenophobes in his zany base then he is too craven to hold any post of trust higher than he already has.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cruz for president, eh.

 

[Yurt]

If Ted can casually throw Canada under the bus just to statiate the the xenophobes in his zany base then he is too craven to hold any post of trust higher than he already has.

and who made that claim? my hunch is no one, just another made up nonsensical post from you.

 

[Dot Com]

Wonder what his next move will be?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Where's your proof, or do you just believe Obama? Certainly, the Hawaii BC was a fake, so don't go there!

Oh goody goody, the birther nutters are still making total assssholes of themselves.

Dear Luddly:
It's not just physical birthplace in question
but the SPIRIT of whether people uphold their duty of office to
ENFORCE Constitutional laws and principles for ALL people and interests nationwide
NOT JUST THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA.

If Jake sees Ted Cruz as putting political agenda before the Constitution,
then at least have the equality of judgment to see Obama comes across
the same way, as putting political agenda above Constitutional inclusion of ALL views,
including the opposition.

If people are going to be SO BIASED as to NOT be able to include ALL PEOPLE OF ALL VIEWS EQUALLY under Constitutional representation and protection,
I don't believe such people should be in office imposing their biases on public policy.

At the very least, they should have facilitators or mediators assigned to resolve conflicts so that public policies truly reflect the PUBLIC CONSENSUS and not just a majority of one party "bullying over dissenters" by political force, majority vote, or media campaigns.

Shouldn't public policy be based on CONSENT of all the taxpaying public?

Have we gone so long with this trend of coercion and exclusion, that's all we rely on to make decisions anymore?

Luddly, if you were in a partnership with a person who made decisions this way, by "coercing you against your will or beliefs by force or by threat" instead of listening and including your objections and dissent/consent, wouldn't you COMPLAIN the relationship was ABUSIVE?

If the only way you could be heard and defended in such a relationship was to BULLY BACK wouldnt you consider such a relationship to be UNHEALTHY? wouldn't you seek counseling to fix the problems and make decisions in a more healthy and balanced way, instead of forcing decisions back and forth by ganging up on each other?

Really Luddly?

What does it take to explain how this bullying is unhealthy and obstructive to the democratic/due process? how long can we continue thinking this is the only way????

How can either you or I be supportive of stopping the bullying or abuse of women and children by these same tactics, yet condone the constant reliance on them in politics???

????

Please work with my Luddly, as a fellow prochoice liberal/progressive Democrat I really really need to understand this mindset so I can help stop bullying and abuse that I see is related to this same behavior. Please help me understand, can you please explain?

Let's recap this thread, shall we?

He wrote: "...the Hawaii BC was a fake..."

I wrote: "...the birther nutters are still making total assssholes of themselves..."

And, Emily took that straightforward exchange and wandered off into cyberspace with it.

Sorry, but you're gonna be taking that trip without me.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Wonder what his next move will be?

Hopefully, to Toronto.











.

 

[Yurt]

If Ted can casually throw Canada under the bus just to statiate the the xenophobes in his zany base then he is too craven to hold any post of trust higher than he already has.

and who made that claim? my hunch is no one, just another made up nonsensical post from you.

and dot com pulls another jakestarkey...makes a claim and doesn't back it up

no wonder you two are such fast friends