Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cruz at CPAC

Comments Filter:
  • Would he be the first US president with Canadian citizenship?

    I wouldn't have believed it could be possible to find someone with an even bigger ego than Obama's. But we're a nation of hucksters now, so I suppose this is to be expected.

      • Yes, that was Cruz' statement last September. Except, here is a much more recent article (less than one month ago) from the Dallas News:

        http://trailblazersblog.dallas... []

        Canadian immigration lawyers say they're baffled why it's taking Sen. Ted Cruz so long to renounce his Canadian citizenship. The Republican Texas senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate vowed several months ago to terminate his dual citizenship. He says he's hired lawyers and is preparing the paperwork. But experts in Canada say

        • Is it possible that he was either unaware, or didn't take it seriously?
          After all of the bashing for those concerned about the no-talent rodeo clown's birth, I can't tell if Lefties actually care about this, or are just wallowing in recreational irony.
          For the record, I'm shaving with Occam's Razor: the likeliest option to me is that Obama is a dope-smoking piece of work from Hawaii, who tarted up his literary biography to seem exotic, and used his original hard copy birth certificate for rolling paper. I r
          • Is it possible that he was either unaware, or didn't take it seriously?

            How does that sound to you? Sound it out and ask yourself.

            If you hate the egoist-in-chief, are you really prepared to sign on with another, just because he makes noises that soothe your soul? Ted Cruz is every bit as empty as Obama. They're really two of a kind if you look half a centimeter beneath the surface.

            I made a big mistake supporting Obama. Will you make the same one, just so I won't feel as bad?

            • I made a big mistake supporting Obama. Will you make the same one, just so I won't feel as bad?

              Well, he did support Bush, McCain, and Romney, whom he now declares are "progressives" in order to maintain his posturing, but of course he still idolizes Reagan. Voting for any of the major parties is a clear sign nothing was learned over the years. And we should all know by now what voting for the "lesser evil" will get you. Alas, the republicans and democrats will continue to dominate, keeping things as evenly

              • What was your alternative, again?
                • Wow, short memory!

                  • I have no recollection of being impressed enough to remember.
                    • Yes, I figured the loss of privilege and status would cause you to dismiss it out of hand. So be it, it's up to you to offer a better alternative :-)

                    • Oh wait, an alternative is not what you're after. You're looking to stabilize the status quo and mitigate the demographic threat that could turn the tables.

                    • What demographic threat is this? Are we not all human? Sorry, for all that others cheerfully create this kind of noise, and draw considerable political power from it (oh yes), I am not the racist here.
                    • Oh please, we've been through this. It is obvious what your tea party is afraid of.

                    • by Arker ( 91948 )
                      Cheap innuendo, and wildly off the mark.

                    • No it's not. I've listened to what those people say. They're a bunch of bigots. Another fork of the old dixiecrats who couldn't get what they wanted from the republicans after Nixon screwed up.

                    • by Arker ( 91948 )
                      Yes, it is.

                      "Those people." Listen to yourself. For shame.

                      I am not saying you cant find some conservative bigots. You can find plenty of liberal ones too. But you're stuck on the no-true-scotsman fallacy here. Let me guess, anyone that isnt a bigot is by your definition not tea party? That puts you snugly in the same category as one of my redneck neighbors who swears he doesnt have anything against black people BUT (insert long confused rant about 'those people' and the things 'they' do.)

                      It's just as prejudi
                    • Electing Mia Love to U.S. Congress?
                    • Can you offer specific, published quotes supporting whatever your point may be?
                    • Nah, fustakrakich is just trolling.
                    • Yes! I am mimicking! I am nothing but a reflection....

                    • Yeah, she's got religion, don't she? Heh, but is it the right one? :-)

                    • You were pretty much done at 'nothing'.
                    • Apparently not, according to the codpiece media.
                    • Not at all, the reflection is not nearly as distorted as your cultural view of things.

                    • Can you characterize the distortion, because, subjectively, it's all clarity.
                    • Can you characterize the distortion...?

                      I don't have to...It's there for all to see []... Preaching hate contributes to the delinquency of minors.

                    • What exactly do you expect from the "media"? And since this woman draws money from the same trough as the others and parrots the same standard diversionary talking points, what do you expect from her?

                    • I expect them to identify useful leaders through shrill denunciations of them.
                    • Flash enough money, and the media will denounce anybody you want. Sounds like that is how business works in this world.

                    • We've just got to support straight shooters. I presume you'll subscribe to Sarah Palin's new show?
                    • LOL!! Sara Palin, "Straight shooters"!! That's good one :-)

                      Dude, they are of the same crowd with the same money from the same people. Please, stop...

                    • As you say. Can we vote for you, in your ideological purity, then?
                    • You are more than welcome to vote for anybody you wish. And I have to admit, you can't go wrong with Romney []

                    • Also, apparently, one cannot win with Romney. Minor issue there.
                    • You gotta pick the right one... One that shows how to lead by example... People will always follow the example, hardly ever the words when there's a conflict.

                    • Romney let the Left frame the argument. Now, whether he did that because he's just Ward Cleaver and doesn't grasp life outside a Leave It To Beaver context, or whether he's just a Progressive who was running interference for ObamaCare is kind of a moot point. I had no confidence in his reform-fu before he earned the nomination, and find no comfort in the I-told-you-so card.
                      In fact, other than twisting the knife in damn_registrars for being such a pathological liar, I take no pleasure in being correct that
                    • Damn! I thought you read the link....

                      And don't think about Obama. The next one will be worse, and so on. It has been that way at least since LBJ. And your spiel reflects a lack of knowledge of whom he serves. You're still following mass media's lead and focusing on personality.

                    • You still insist on framing matters in ways that are not true. And your "just randomize it" argument is far less realistic than the Convention of States []. So it's not clear which one of us is further off.
                    • Your "convention of states" is the same old BS, and it's California's Prop. 13 on meth. It is nothing but tinkering. States politicians are just as corrupt as federal ones, because they are elected by the same people. 50 bickering corrupt fiefdoms certainly is no better than one big one.

                    • 50 bickering corrupt fiefdoms certainly is no better than one big one.

                      I strongly disagree with you here.
                      50 little fiefdoms cannot achieve the kind of global corruption you find in DC. And the culpable throats are much closer to the voters. Think about it. Please.

                    • Study a bit of history of Europe, or pre-Eisenhower USA, please. I was wrong, you want to go back to the middle ages..

                    • Indeed, old age is the pits, and I gaze back fondly on middle-aged days.
                    • ...old age is the pits...

                      Beats the alternative...

                    • The alternative will be fine in its time, for me anyway. And, I sincerely hope, you.
            • I made a big mistake supporting Obama. Will you make the same one, just so I won't feel as bad?

              So you're argument is Cruz might be an Obama of the right, roping in a lot of people and then carrying on as a progressive?
              I'm confident that, were he to play it like that, he'd not win re-election.

              • So you're argument is Cruz might be an Obama of the right, roping in a lot of people and then carrying on as a progressive?

                No, that he's an Obama of the Right, incompetent, self-absorbed and unable to make a difference on any of the important issues that matter to either of us.

              • Cruz will follow orders just like everybody else who is allowed that high up the totem pole. It is by design, not defect.

                "Obama of the right"... As if there is an Obama on the "left"... You're a funny guy... So hopelessly mired in personality. You loath one, while idolizing its identical twin.

                • False equivalence. Cruz actually has a résumé, as opposed to being a media Frankenstein. Regret that the distinction eludes you.
                  • His resumé means squat. They serve the same villains. Regret that the similarity eludes you.

                    • What evidence do you have, so far, against Cruz?
                    • What evidence do you have against Obama? Whatever it is, it's the same for both.

                    • How do you want the report sorted/grouped?
                    • Well, there you go. You can apply the same thing to anybody with real wealth/power. There is no other way to acquire it.

                    • Just not true, sir. There are plenty of people who hold power without having wealth. A conspicuous, though by no means sole, example would be the Pope. You're just too stuck in your hormonal ruts to understand non-fleshly dimensions of power.
                    • The pope has no wealth? Gee, who are all those people waiting on him hand and foot? You know, the money doesn't have to be in his name. Simple control will do. The pope heads one of the wealthiest institutions on earth. Please, don't try to convince me he lives a life of poverty. And his power is largely, if not totally ceremonial. He can keep the job only while plays ball. I'll believe this "Francis" phenomenon is for real when the vatican divests itself of Wall Street investments and real estate holdings

                    • No, the Pope does not have a salary [].
                      Not even sure the guy has a bank account.
                      Clearly we're not speaking of any general case here; merely pointing out that there are more dimensions to the question of power than your over-simplified, carnal model encompasses.
                    • He has all the wealth he could ask for. Obviously you're not reading my post.

                    • What wealth does he personally, legally possess, exactly?
                    • He possesses temporary control of the vatican. He possesses anything he wants, all the way up to a harem of young boys, and they will be brought to him. He does NOT possess any real power. He cannot just route out the Borgias that sit behind the curtain. He takes orders also. Licio Lucchesi's position is more secure than his. Like any other corporation, this institution is a business, and their boardroom meetings are hardly any more "religious" that that of Hustler Magazine. And you were the one who told m

                    • Can you show where the Pope legally holds possession over these objects you claim he possesses? You're trying to sodomize a man's reputation here with an accusation of pederasty (I daresay he'd forgive you this scurrilousness, but you really should pray that the Holy Spirit would cleanse your mind of this unrighteousness, in my opinion)
                      You do understand that we're arguing around an old question []. And I'm poking at your limited, wholly materialistic weltanschauung.
                    • The "law" is irrelevant. He is there, enjoying all the fruits of wealth and power. He just has to follow orders. I'm not doing anything to his reputation that he hasn't already done. He is a man, no different from any other. He represents Vatican Inc. This is a business. You can keep on believing the fairy tales like you do with Reagan and the republicans all you want. It changes nothing.

                    • Now, I never claimed the Vatican was not a business. I went to my church's business meeting Sunday night, in fact. You're attempting to shift the question off of what the Pope legally, personally owns, and whether or not there is power other than temporal wealth.
  • ... very proud Cruz is my Senator.
    • :-) Makes sense.

      He still sounds like Nathan Lane in The Birdcage. He also makes a good case for repealing the 17th Amendment, no Smitty?

      • Actually -- had we had state legislature electing senators, our former Solicitor General, Ted Cruz, still would have beaten the ever more unpopular David Dewhurst.

        Other Senators that likely wouldn't have been elected include the RINO Kay Bailout Hutchinson. Cornyn probably still would have won, even if I preferred Stockman this time around.
        • ...I preferred Stockman this time around.

          Ah yes, a very handsome man []!

          You know, it would be truly tragic if you actually believe the stuff you post.

          So, do you brown bag your lunch?

          • The only thing that's "tragic" is how bad your side (the Democrats) are going to get their asses kicked in November.
            • :-) "your side" (the democrats)...

              Dude! You are cracking me up here! You really aren't paying attention, are you?

              The democrats.... oh murrrder!! Hee Hee Hee HA HA HA!

              You people think you're any different... That's still as funny as farting on a crowded subway.

              • Are you really trying to convince people that you didn't vote for B. Hussein Obama?
                • OMG! You think I did??? Man! This is a blast! Keep it comin'! You are a real piece of work, you are.

                  • Well, I figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

                    I guessed you were just a run of the mill idiot type of Obama voter. But apparently, you're a Lyndon LaRouche supporter, which just means you're insane as well as an idiot.
                    • :-) You get better with every post, buddy. If you ever open a comedy club, I'll be there cheering you on, my man. Y'all are a real hoot. Too bad Hee Haw went off the air.

                      Lyndon LaRouche... tee hee hee... Well, I guess as long as you're alive, there's always a chance you morans [] will get a brain.

                      Stay funny... and peace!

                  • Please elaborate on every Presidential election you've voted in and who you voted for. I'll go first -- primary vote in parens.

                    1996: (Phil Gramm) Bob Dole
                    2000: (George W. Bush) George W. Bush
                    2004: (didn't vote, as I signed a petition to try and get Nader on the ballot as a giant "Fuck You" to Democrats) George W. Bush
                    2008: (Fred Thompson) John McCain
                    2012: (Rick Perry) Mitt Romney

                    Your turn.
  • Brown bag a lunch and feel the love...

    That's not bigotry []...

They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.