Ted Cruz for President

[Thumpalumpacus]

> That does nothing to answer the point about the spying and erection of a security state apparatus that Obama has not only continued, but accelerated. Nor does it answer the larger point, that while Republicans and Democrats both serve the corporate masters who grease their palms, while ignoring the wishes of the electorate, largely.

Obama is not a secret Muslim, nor a secret Kenyan.  He's a secret Republican.

Frank

I did, indeed, chuckle softly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The administration of FDR and Teddy R. comes to mind when they did things that technically were unconstitutional that protected the nation.

Of course.  That's no justification for this current stripping of the Constitution.

Of course the difference between the two parties is what actually motivates them. The repukes want to erode civil rights and make people slaves to corrupt corporations. The Dems want to protect the nation and the individuals of this nation. Neither is a valid reason to violate civil rights. But I do recognize the difference.

The Republicans justify their desire to trash individual rights on the same grounds as the Democrats: the security of the state.  The Democrats are perfectly happy making people slaves to corrupt corporations -- say, for instance, by ignoring the offshoring of solid, middle-class jobs, when for a couple of years they had both houses of Congress and a President.  While NAFTA was signed by Bush the Elder, Clinton was a vocal supporter of it, even against the stand of the trade unions that were and are a traditional Democratic power base. That pretty much shows where Clinton's loyalties lay, don't you agree?

The difference between the two parties isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Also, as an aside, I agree with Sab (I think it was) that your "Repuke" etc invective debases your points by painting you, rightly  or wrongly, as  an ideologue.  It cheapens your arguments and makes you look like, well, a far-right Republican shouting "libtard!" or what-have-you. "We have met the enemy, and he is us," as the Kelly quote goes.

[FrankDK]

> The point I was making about Sab possibly being twelve is that he seems to have a very uninformed uneducated view of the world. I can understand him not knowing the actuall workings of our government and even the intricated politics. Because he is not American or even from this continent, BUT he hasn't a grip on history. He ignores the facts about history and just plows in with an uninformed statement. That leads me to believe that he hasn't the education to make an informed statement which inturn makes me think he is too young to have had the education.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with a large segment of the US population, irrespective of age.  30% of Republicans believe that Obama was responsible for the delay of government response to Hurricane Katrina, even though it was in 2005, and he wasn't even running for President then.  70% of Americans believed (at one time) that the US had found WMN in Iraq.  About the same number oppose Obamacare, even though the vast majority agree with the individual provisions therein.  And about 15% consistently report in surveys that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.

As a country, we're losers on the program, "Are You Smarter than a Fifth-grader?"

Frank

[mykcob4]

The administration of FDR and Teddy R. comes to mind when they did things that technically were unconstitutional that protected the nation.

Of course.  That's no justification for this current stripping of the Constitution.

Of course the difference between the two parties is what actually motivates them. The repukes want to erode civil rights and make people slaves to corrupt corporations. The Dems want to protect the nation and the individuals of this nation. Neither is a valid reason to violate civil rights. But I do recognize the difference.

The Republicans justify their desire to trash individual rights on the same grounds as the Democrats: the security of the state.  The Democrats are perfectly happy making people slaves to corrupt corporations -- say, for instance, by ignoring the offshoring of solid, middle-class jobs, when for a couple of years they had both houses of Congress and a President.  While NAFTA was signed by Bush the Elder, Clinton was a vocal supporter of it, even against the stand of the trade unions that were and are a traditional Democratic power base. That pretty much shows where Clinton's loyalties lay, don't you agree?

The difference between the two parties isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Also, as an aside, I agree with Sab (I think it was) that your "Repuke" etc invective debases your points by painting you, rightly  or wrongly, as  an ideologue.  It cheapens your arguments and makes you look like, well, a far-right Republican shouting "libtard!" or what-have-you. "We have met the enemy, and he is us," as the Kelly quote goes.

I have already addressed both issues that you posted about here. I need not say anymore. As far as NAFTA I really don't want to get in a prolonged discussion that I had over 10 years ago.
so you agree with Sab about "repukes", I don't really care.
I know that repukes and democrats are no where the same and to think so is just cynical.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have already addressed both issues that you posted about here. I need not say anymore.

Color me unconvinced.

 

As far as NAFTA I really don't want to get in a prolonged discussion that I had over 10 years ago.

I wasn't asking you to discuss NAFTA.  I was making the point that the most powerful Democrat in the country supported a move that clearly favored corporatists at the expense of hard-working middle-class Americans, and that fact is revealing.

so you agree with Sab about "repukes", I don't really care.

Very well ... like him, you seem unconcerned about tailoring your message to your audience. That's cool.

I know that repukes and democrats are no where the same and to think so is just cynical.

That's your opinion.  My opinion is that fixating on differences that are vanishingly small is naive when the similarities are so monolithic.

Again,

[mykcob4]

I have already addressed both issues that you posted about here. I need not say anymore.

Color me unconvinced.

 

As far as NAFTA I really don't want to get in a prolonged discussion that I had over 10 years ago.

I wasn't asking you to discuss NAFTA.  I was making the point that the most powerful Democrat in the country supported a move that clearly favored corporatists at the expense of hard-working middle-class Americans, and that fact is revealing.

so you agree with Sab about "repukes", I don't really care.

Very well ... like him, you seem unconcerned about tailoring your message to your audience. That's cool.

I know that repukes and democrats are no where the same and to think so is just cynical.

That's your opinion.  My opinion is that fixating on differences that are vanishingly small is naive when the similarities are so monolithic.

Again,

I know you were making a point. I just don't want to agree or rebutt it.
I don't post for an audience.
Sure it's my opinion and if I were so ameanable to do so I could back up my "opinion" with cold hard facts. I know that there are cold hard facts that would counter my "opinion" as well. The one fact is that people in public office are just that, people. The "party" doesn't have a stranglehold on them. Take the Governor of West Virginia Gov. Tomblin goes so contray to his party that it is very difficult to know which party he is a member of. In fact that is the case with just about every elected official of West Virginia.

[josephpalazzo]

I know that repukes and democrats are no where the same and to think so is just cynical.

I always find that pathetic when some idiot equates these two parties. There is doubt that Democrats have a long list of faults, but the Republicans don't believe in government, that's a credo in their platform, and so when they have power, their main goal is make government weak, corrupt and incompetent - known as bleed the beast. Of course the idiots who don't see or too blind to see fall line, hook and sinker for that scam.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

True, many people have done that.  But the quotes from the two posts in a row directly contradict each other, which was my point.

Ah but you missed the finer points.
I always refer to repukes as repukes.

That's ok.  And telling other people to grow up is ok.  But doing both is hypocritical.

[mykcob4]

True, many people have done that.  But the quotes from the two posts in a row directly contradict each other, which was my point.

Ah but you missed the finer points.
I always refer to repukes as repukes.

That's ok.  And telling other people to grow up is ok.  But doing both is hypocritical.

And calling people hypocrites is also hypocritical given past post.

[mykcob4]

I know that repukes and democrats are no where the same and to think so is just cynical.

I always find that pathetic when some idiot equates these two parties. There is doubt that Democrats have a long list of faults, but the Republicans don't believe in government, that's a credo in their platform, and so when they have power, their main goal is make government weak, corrupt and incompetent - known as bleed the beast. Of course the idiots who don't see or too blind to see fall line, hook and sinker for that scam.

Truth. The repukes have been touting the same old lie "that government is the problem" since before Reagan. I wonder why they bother to run for office if they really believe that line.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I know that repukes and democrats are no where the same and to think so is just cynical.

I always find that pathetic when some idiot equates these two parties. There is doubt that Democrats have a long list of faults, but the Republicans don't believe in government, that's a credo in their platform, and so when they have power, their main goal is make government weak, corrupt and incompetent - known as bleed the beast. Of course the idiots who don't see or too blind to see fall line, hook and sinker for that scam.

Truth. The repukes have been touting the same old lie "that government is the problem" since before Reagan. I wonder why they bother to run for office if they really believe that line.

In spite of all the AMPLE evidence, there are those who still believe that Republicans don't believe in government.  Admittedly, Republicans occasionally make speeches to that effect.  But seriously, that's as far as they go.  (And yes, there are one or two exceptions which you will undoubtedly name to prove that the whole rest of the party is the same as the exceptions - won't work, they are exceptions because they are not like the rest of the party.)

To say that Republicans don't believe in government is to say that you believe what a politician says, especially when the politician's words and actions disagree.

And don't try to weasel out of my pointing out that your name calling is inconsistent with your telling people to grow up by saying it is hypocritical for me to point out that it is hypocritical.  That's a very silly version of "I'm rubber you're glue", and there's nothing hypocritical about pointing out hypocrisy.

[frosty]

I don't believe Mr.Cruz is eligible either way for the Presidency due to his birth origins. Also, Jason has a point, partisan discussions are hostile enough without calling people silly names. If the admins are going to enforce the rules against Theist trolls then they should also enforce the rules against Atheist troublemakers as well. The rules are for everybody to follow, after all.

[josephpalazzo]

I know that repukes and democrats are no where the same and to think so is just cynical.

I always find that pathetic when some idiot equates these two parties. There is doubt that Democrats have a long list of faults, but the Republicans don't believe in government, that's a credo in their platform, and so when they have power, their main goal is make government weak, corrupt and incompetent - known as bleed the beast. Of course the idiots who don't see or too blind to see fall line, hook and sinker for that scam.

Truth. The repukes have been touting the same old lie "that government is the problem" since before Reagan. I wonder why they bother to run for office if they really believe that line.

It's like someone who says, I don't believe in religion, and then becomes a priest?!? Now, one can say anything and do exactly the opposite of what one says. And this is also true for all politicians. But then when people vote for politicians whose words are totally disconnected from their actions, that speaks loudly about the mentality of the electorate in this country. Why vote for a politician into government whose purpose is to sabotage the government and then when once in power and can do all the damage,  can turn around and say, "See, I told you so, government doesn't work." How stupid is that? And then they get voted back into power, doubling down on the stupidity!!

[mykcob4]

To say that Republicans don't believe in government is to say that you believe what a politician says, especially when the politician's words and actions disagree.

And don't try to weasel out of my pointing out that your name calling is inconsistent with your telling people to grow up by saying it is hypocritical for me to point out that it is hypocritical.  That's a very silly version of "I'm rubber you're glue", and there's nothing hypocritical about pointing out hypocrisy.

1) Don't ever perceive that you have the authority or even the ability to tell me what to do.
2) So you consider me a hypocrite or hypocritical, well I have the same concept of you on occassion. I wasn't playing a school yard game of "I'm rubber and you're glue..." as you say. I was stating the obvious and that is to say watch your own house, mine is just fine.
Now to the issue of the differences of ideology and action of the two parties.
Repukes have been saying "government is the problem" for decades now. It is something that has been fed and taught to them by huge corrupt corporations. It manefested itself with "W" when he appointed Phil Graham's wife Katharine to head the SEC. Which by design she not only gutted but prevented the bureau from doing it's job. There was virtually no oversight or regulation of the finance industry. This inturn led to the financial meltdown that we are recovering from now. It was no small coencidence that Phil Graham was a lobbiest for a Swiss bank which was at the center of corruption and bad financial practices that included overvalue of stocks, shady speculation investments, among other things.
What the repukes want is to end entitlements, and the safety net. They want to end evironmental protection, workplace safety regulations, consummer protection, corporate taxes, income taxes, benefits for workers, worker organizing, pollution laws and everything that is meant to benefit, provide equal oppertunity for, and protect the individual average person in the USA. They want to limit voting. I'm sure that they would end voting altogether if they could get away with it.
The type of government they do want is a huge military that protects and ACQUIRES assets in foriegn territories and eliminates any obstruction to their corrupt world domination ideology. They want to enslave workers, eliminate individual rights, sway prejudice and injustice against gays and minorities all in the name of socalled "free enterprize." They keep fighting the Civil War because  States Rights is the buzz word meaning they don't want to obey the Constitution of the United States of America. They have it in their mind that each state has authority over the Fed because that would allow each state to employ unconstitutional practices. They call it "free compitition."
Morons buy into this ideological propaganda because the repukes have used False Patriotism and religion as tools to muddle the minds of the people that they keep uneducated, ilinformed, and brainwashed. Large corrupt corporations fund these efforts because it is in their best interest to evade prosecution for their crimes. Ted Cruz is the latest face of this effort. He shut down the government for a time and the entire tea party was elated. Only the financial failures on Wall Street ended Cruz's effort to bring down the government.
Look what is on the target list of the repukes:
Public Education, Community College, PBS & NPR, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, The Enviromental Protection Agency, HUD, OSHA, FEMA, National Parks & Wildlife Service, IRS, Workers Unions, Gay rights, The Equal Rights Amendment, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, Womens Rights, Abortion Rights, Patients Rights, The Civil Rights Act, The 15th Amendment, The Establishment & Commerce Clauses of the US Constitution, and many many more. Rick Perry couldn't name them in a debate but they are all firmly on the list.
Either overtly or by subverssive means this is the goal of the republican party. So yes I call them repukes.
The Democratic Party is FOR the rights of the individual, for equal oppertunity for all, for protection of people and the envoronment, for helping people in need.
There is a huge difference in the two parties.
How each party tries to acheive their goals at times may be simular but they aren't the same, not in the least bit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I always find that pathetic when some idiot equates these two parties.

I find it sad that some people are unable to disagree without being insulting.  I also feel sorry for people unable to see the deeper pattern that is right in front of their eyes.

The fact that you must level insults at those who disagree with you says much more about you than it does about anyone else.