texas-senator-ted-cruz-announce-presidential-run-report

[rightwinger]

Cruz is going to scare normal America crazy.

Anytime one of you would like to explain these comments, feel free to do so!

All I am hearing is a bunch of "boogedy-boogedy... ooo.. he's s-s-scarry!"

Can any of you nitwits rub two brain cells together and tell us what is so frightening about Cruz?

Cruz and nuclear weapons

Now THAT is scary

NOWHERE near as scary as this!

Amazing what passes for political humor among conservatives




.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Cruz is not Barry Goldwater, so I am not worried about nukes.

He is the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy, which means that he is a threat to all of our civil liberties. He believes in the Cult of the Leader, with himself out front.

Kasich, Bush, even Walker is preferable.

McCarthy is a very good comparison. That whole "Friends of Hamas" stunt was just about all I needed to hear from him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cruz is not Barry Goldwater, so I am not worried about nukes.

He is the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy, which means that he is a threat to all of our civil liberties. He believes in the Cult of the Leader, with himself out front.

Kasich, Bush, even Walker is preferable.

Perry is preferable

Santorum is preferable.

 

[Boss]

Hilarious stuff!

I really liked the homage to Reagan/Nukes fear... took me back... very nostalgic indeed!

 

[Boss]

I also love the cute way liberals believe they have serious objectivity on who is preferable for the GOP to run for president. You see, I'm kind of jealous I can't be that funny... it's just that, everytime I think up someone more preferable than Hilary, no matter how goofy and ridiculous, they actually ARE a better alternative! Alas, the humor is lost.

 

[rightwinger]

I also love the cute way liberals believe they have serious objectivity on who is preferable for the GOP to run for president. You see, I'm kind of jealous I can't be that funny... it's just that, everytime I think up someone more preferable than Hilary, no matter how goofy and ridiculous, they actually ARE a better alternative! Alas, the humor is lost.

We pick your presidential candidate

Don't you realize that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss is just adorable acting all buff. Frank and Antares would be all over him.

 

[Antares]

Poor Twink, need some attention?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I mention Antares and twink action, and he is all there, like immediately!

I am straight, you are not, and that is OK, little roo twink. I won't swink with you.

 

[Antares]

I mention Antares and twink action, and he is all there, like immediately!

I am straight, you are not, and that is OK, little roo twink. I won't swink with you.

You're straight

You are more active in every gay thread than anyone else lil boy

 

[JakeStarkey]

I mention Antares and twink action, and he is all there, like immediately!

I am straight, you are not, and that is OK, little roo twink. I won't swink with you.

You're straight You are more active in every gay thread than anyone else lil boy

Yup, I am straight, little twink, and you are not opposed to marriage equality at all, are you? You are adorable as you try to skirt your attraction for the manly chest, you and Doogie Howser.

 

[ChrisL]

ANYHOW, the guy is sure getting his name out there. Everybody is talking about him.

 

[Antares]

I mention Antares and twink action, and he is all there, like immediately!

I am straight, you are not, and that is OK, little roo twink. I won't swink with you.

You're straight You are more active in every gay thread than anyone else lil boy

Yup, I am straight, little twink, and you are not opposed to marriage equality at all, are you? You are adorable as you try to skirt your attraction for the manly chest, you and Doogie Howser.

Poor Jake.....so many boys, so little time.

 

[Pogo]

More like a GAIN of Independent votes. Didn't notice the November 2024 election ? Try to keep up.

It hasn't happened yet.

If you are talking about the 2014, history tell us that the 6th year of a two term President is bad electorally for his party. Reagan lost just as many seats as Obama did.

Your ignorance is profound son.

HA HA. Anyone can look back in history, and find something that fits your design. One could also find some that don't. The November election was a rejection of Democrat idiocy regarding race relations, national security, immigration, etc. YOU are who is being ignorant.

The November election was what we call a "mid-term". Whichever party has the White House loses seats in the mid-term. It's happened with every POTUS as long as there have been these two parties. You could look it up.

It doesn't happen like this. This was a landslide.

Maybe not the "crazy" far right but all you need is some patronizing....every bone he throws to the far right is a loss of independent votes.

More like a GAIN of Independent votes. Didn't notice the November 2024 election ? Try to keep up.

It hasn't happened yet.

If you are talking about the 2014, history tell us that the 6th year of a two term President is bad electorally for his party. Reagan lost just as many seats as Obama did.

Your ignorance is profound son.

HA HA. Anyone can look back in history, and find something that fits your design. One could also find some that don't. The November election was a rejection of Democrat idiocy regarding race relations, national security, immigration, etc. YOU are who is being ignorant.

It has happened something like six times through our history since we devolved into the two-party system circa 1920.

Here is an article that explains it in terms easy enough for even someone like you to understand it....

Six-Year Itch Plagues Presidents in Midterms - NationalJournal.com

I doubt you'll read it since it's late and you have nobody there to help you with the big words.

But lets take a look at what you're saying...2014 was a rejection....when Hillary wins in 2016; what will that tell you? That the GOP was rejected? If not, please explain how it could be anything else.

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we do not maintaining our outreach to women and minorities, the Senate elections are set for a land slide back to the Dems. That will happen if we have any of the Angle, O'donnell, Mourdock, Miller stupidities next year. of the 33 elections, 19 GOP and 1 Dem are up for grab. If the Dems get six of those 20 seats, they have the Senate.

 

[protectionist]

Even your God Reagan made overtures towards the middle and raised taxes when necessary, supported gun control and nuclear disarmament

Would Cruz do the same?

I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about when you say "overtures toward the middle."

I predict Cruz is not going to do a damn thing you will like or appreciate... How's that?

Conservatism gets a bad rap because little militant mush-brain liberals like you get to run around distorting reality and turning Reagan into a tax-raising, gun-controlling, anti-nuke activist... and you fuckwits control the media.

What conservatives have been missing is a strong national voice who can explain conservative philosophy to the millennials and delineate for others the nuanced difference between a philosophy and ideology. Is Cruz that person? I don't know, we'll see in time.

But this "overtures toward the middle" bullshit needs to be confronted and challenged... exactly what in the hell are you talking about? Because it sounds like what you want is for Cruz to turn into Lindsey Graham or John McCain and capitulate to Democrats on things while falling all over themselves to apologize for being out-of-touch conservatives. I don't think Cruz plans to do that.

Why do conservatives live in their own little world and believe that political realities do not apply to them?

The political reality is that staunch conservatism will help you win red states. Republicans already win red states.

If you want to be President, you need to win two out of three battleground states. To do that, you need to steal the moderates away from the Democrats

Holding firm to your conservative values will not do that

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

 

[protectionist]

Reagan was a liberal.

You've been huffing glue.

I gave my reasons and they are indisputable. You gave nothing but hot air.

No, they are very disputable. They're borderline lies, actually. But I see absolutely no reason to sit here and argue something so totally irrelevant. If you want to believe Reagan was a liberal, that's your problem not mine. If you convince other idiots to believe that, more power to you and the idiots. You didn't convince me of anything except that you are an idiot at best and at worst, a dishonest player.

Looks like maybe YOU are telling the lies right here.

1. Are you saying Reagan didn't give amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens ?

2. Are you saying he didn't oppose the Briggs initiative ?

We could start with just those 2. Note: a yes answer to either, makes you the laughingstock of this forum (if you aren't already) Or maybe you could just pack it in, and admit you're too much of a dumbass to be in this forum.

 

[protectionist]

It hasn't happened yet.

If you are talking about the 2014, history tell us that the 6th year of a two term President is bad electorally for his party. Reagan lost just as many seats as Obama did.

Your ignorance is profound son.

HA HA. Anyone can look back in history, and find something that fits your design. One could also find some that don't. The November election was a rejection of Democrat idiocy regarding race relations, national security, immigration, etc. YOU are who is being ignorant.

The November election was what we call a "mid-term". Whichever party has the White House loses seats in the mid-term. It's happened with every POTUS as long as there have been these two parties. You could look it up.

It doesn't happen like this. This was a landslide.

More like a GAIN of Independent votes. Didn't notice the November 2024 election ? Try to keep up.

It hasn't happened yet.

If you are talking about the 2014, history tell us that the 6th year of a two term President is bad electorally for his party. Reagan lost just as many seats as Obama did.

Your ignorance is profound son.

HA HA. Anyone can look back in history, and find something that fits your design. One could also find some that don't. The November election was a rejection of Democrat idiocy regarding race relations, national security, immigration, etc. YOU are who is being ignorant.

It has happened something like six times through our history since we devolved into the two-party system circa 1920.

Here is an article that explains it in terms easy enough for even someone like you to understand it....

Six-Year Itch Plagues Presidents in Midterms - NationalJournal.com

I doubt you'll read it since it's late and you have nobody there to help you with the big words.

But lets take a look at what you're saying...2014 was a rejection....when Hillary wins in 2016; what will that tell you? That the GOP was rejected? If not, please explain how it could be anything else.

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

 

[Boss]

If we do not maintaining our outreach to women and minorities, the Senate elections are set for a land slide back to the Dems. That will happen if we have any of the Angle, O'donnell, Mourdock, Miller stupidities next year. of the 33 elections, 19 GOP and 1 Dem are up for grab. If the Dems get six of those 20 seats, they have the Senate.

"We?" ...As if you speak for Republicans? lol

When you use terms like "outreach to women and minorities" it makes me think you want social justice and believe the government is there to implement it. As a conservative, I disagree with that viewpoint. I think government shouldn't cater to special interests and seek social change. At least not at the national level, I suppose a case may be made for this sort of thing at the state level, providing that's what the people voted for. The Federal government has limited powers and shouldn't be exploited for social reform, and I stand firmly opposed to that on every level.

What I think you're going to find with Cruz is that he is far more "libertarian" than you think. The left has portrayed him as "far right extreme" because... well, that's what the left always does to those who threaten them. They got rid of Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller because they were too "far right" for the party.

I don't know... Politicians saying stupid shit? Ya think? Duh, man! We already know that the left-wing liberal media is going to certainly find plenty of gaffes, statements, things taken the wrong way by people who are perhaps not as accustomed to having every word parsed... count on it! That's going to happen, dude.

What you need to decide is, are you going to let shit like that influence how you vote? If so, why not just put a brass ring through your nose so the liberals can lead you around easier? We're facing a pretty fucking important election in 2016. If something doesn't change the Liberal regime which has taken over, our country is GONE! One way or the other, it's OVER for us as a nation. Can you not see that?

 

[Boss]

Reagan was a liberal.

You've been huffing glue.

I gave my reasons and they are indisputable. You gave nothing but hot air.

No, they are very disputable. They're borderline lies, actually. But I see absolutely no reason to sit here and argue something so totally irrelevant. If you want to believe Reagan was a liberal, that's your problem not mine. If you convince other idiots to believe that, more power to you and the idiots. You didn't convince me of anything except that you are an idiot at best and at worst, a dishonest player.

Looks like maybe YOU are telling the lies right here.

1. Are you saying Reagan didn't give amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens ?

2. Are you saying he didn't oppose the Briggs initiative ?

We could start with just those 2. Note: a yes answer to either, makes you the laughingstock of this forum (if you aren't already) Or maybe you could just pack it in, and admit you're too much of a dumbass to be in this forum.

Regan's Amnesty ; He agreed to a one-time amnesty in a bipartisan gesture to a Democrat congress in order to resolve our illegal immigration problem. The amnesty was granted and the rest of the legislation was simply ignored and not enforced. When it came time for future congresses to appropriate the funding for more border security and such, they balked.

Briggs Initiative: Was a 1978 Proposition in California that would have BANNED GAYS from teaching in public schools. Reagan was opposed... is there something fucking wrong with a conservative being opposed to a ban on people based on perceived sexuality? Sorry... I never got that memo!

Neither of these prove Reagan was a Liberal. They do prove that Conservatism is not ideologically driven like Liberalism.