- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #21
Then it is good that it is backfiring on Cruz. Go PAC.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Now, going back to when Cruz was 18 years old, he wanted to ... rule the world
Cruz is not acceptable. The Senate would go Dem 56 to 44, and the House would be in jeopardy. If Cruz got the nomination, I think Bloomberg would step in as the centrist alternative.
The more one learns about Ted Cruz, the more one realizes how awful he is.
I actually doubt this is true. At least, it is only true for dumb people, at best. How horrible Ted Cruz is has been apparently for a long time, and there is nothing more to be learned about him to verify the fact.
Your attack on grammar is a weak attempt at trying to hide the fact that you have nothing of value to contribute to this forum.
You repeatedly defend the greatest phony, coward, liar, scoundrel in president history
and voted for him twice! --- and you are going to tell us what "horrible" means?
You repeatedly defend the greatest phony, coward, liar, scoundrel in president history
Let me guess....you're talking about Obama. If so, I don't defend him. What I do is to tell people to SHUT THE FUCK UP when all they've got is the kind of stupid shit you're saying. Because there are so many better ways to criticize the man. Stupidity like yours is what got Obama re-elected. Trailer trash like you convinced reasonably minded undecided voters that opposing Obama was something low class morons did. Because all you could produce was the type of rabble that only a low class piece of trash could ever think up.
and voted for him twice! --- and you are going to tell us what "horrible" means?
If by "twice" you mean "never" than sure.
Agreed. I'd say the same about not having the moral character to be a Senator....except he's from Texas............Cruz has not the moral character to be president of the US.
My error is that from faint memory it seems every thread I’ve recall you on, I am in the opposition
That's because Cruz has the same 38% that make up evangelical voters in this state that Perry did. That means they only needed about 20% of the remaining 62% of the voters.Agreed. I'd say the same about not having the moral character to be a Senator....except he's from Texas............Cruz has not the moral character to be president of the US.
The more one learns about Ted Cruz, the more one realizes how awful he is.
I actually doubt this is true. At least, it is only true for dumb people, at best. How horrible Ted Cruz is has been apparently for a long time, and there is nothing more to be learned about him to verify the fact.
Your attack on grammar is a weak attempt at trying to hide the fact that you have nothing of value to contribute to this forum.
Attack on grammar? No. The fact is that there is a lower boundary of technical accuracy below which language is no longer intelligible, except through mutual slop. You are approaching that boundary.
I am not attacking your grammar. I am attacking your lack of intellect by pointing out two demonstrations thereof; specifically that you are just now figuring out "how awful" Ted Cruz is, as well as the fact that you are just barely communicating in a human form.
If you had a fraction of the intellect you think you have
That Cruz has no business being president has been evident for quite some time.