Cruz

[TexasTiger 16,124]

Who likes this guy?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks

[AURaptor 1,137]

Oh yeah, a hit piece from the New Yorker. That's fair and objective. The problem with Ted is he is the only adult in the race, and everybody else wants to stay up late past bedtime and eat ice cream and cookies. No wonder everybody doesn't like him.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Who likes this guy?

http://www.newyorker...everyone-thinks

Gotta tell ya I am totally shocked a NY publication would publish a negative piece about Ted Cruz....shocked I tell ya. I take all that with a grain of salt and should be given that option especially since you take much more serious talk about the possibility of criminal behavior w/i the democrat party so cavalierly.

[TexasTiger 16,124]

Educate yourselves and google "Cruz Iowa voting violation"

Cruz Iowa voting violation

You can then pick sources from cities you hate less.

[selias 2,398]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

[AURaptor 1,137]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Educate yourselves and google "Cruz Iowa voting violation"

Cruz Iowa voting violation

You can then pick sources from cities you hate less.

Its a frickin campaign mailer that's got all the folks who favor the corn subsidies panties in a twist..little more than that IMO.

[selias 2,398]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

[TheBlueVue 177]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

Disagree..not that I'm cheer leading the current republican party because Im sick to death of it actually but in principle I disagree.

[selias 2,398]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

Disagree..not that I'm cheer leading the current republican party because Im sick to death of it actually but in principle I disagree.

Just a quick look at the Repub platform tells you where they stand on individual liberty

"even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard"

"We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet"

In other words "think of the children" and "you cannot be trusted to handle your own affairs"

[TheBlueVue 177]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

Disagree..not that I'm cheer leading the current republican party because Im sick to death of it actually but in principle I disagree.

Just a quick look at the Repub platform tells you where they stand on individual liberty

"even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard"

"We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet"

In other words "think of the children" and "you cannot be trusted to handle your own affairs"

Actually there is a thing called having the courage of your conviction. Gay marriage is still very contentious as it relates to judicial activism involved in the way it was passed by the Supreme Court. I have no problem with banning gambling over the internet unless it can be regulated. Cynical much bro?

[selias 2,398]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

Disagree..not that I'm cheer leading the current republican party because Im sick to death of it actually but in principle I disagree.

Just a quick look at the Repub platform tells you where they stand on individual liberty

"even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard"

"We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet"

In other words "think of the children" and "you cannot be trusted to handle your own affairs"

Actually there is a thing called having the courage of your conviction. Gay marriage is still very contentious as it relates to judicial activism involved in the way it was passed by the Supreme Court. I have no problem with banning gambling over the internet unless it can be regulated. Cynical much bro?

We are not a nation built on religious foundations or a theocracy. The opposition to homosexual marriage has reached farcical status. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. It's the same view I have on firearms ownership...don't like guns? Don't buy one.

[TexasTiger 16,124]

Educate yourselves and google "Cruz Iowa voting violation"

Cruz Iowa voting violation

You can then pick sources from cities you hate less.

Its a frickin campaign mailer that's got all the folks who favor the corn subsidies panties in a twist..little more than that IMO.

One has to have morals and integrity to see it.

[TheBlueVue 177]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

Disagree..not that I'm cheer leading the current republican party because Im sick to death of it actually but in principle I disagree.

Just a quick look at the Repub platform tells you where they stand on individual liberty

"even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard"

"We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet"

In other words "think of the children" and "you cannot be trusted to handle your own affairs"

Actually there is a thing called having the courage of your conviction. Gay marriage is still very contentious as it relates to judicial activism involved in the way it was passed by the Supreme Court. I have no problem with banning gambling over the internet unless it can be regulated. Cynical much bro?

We are not a nation built on religious foundations or a theocracy. The opposition to homosexual marriage has reached farcical status. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. It's the same view I have on firearms ownership...don't like guns? Don't buy one.

You are wrong there my friend. James Madison was the architect of the Constitution....read up on what he said about the basis of that document. You'll see that you're clearly misguided. If you believe we live in a physical world and science can explain everything that's fine but, the founders of this nation clearly did not. We are not a theocracy but the laws of the country are rooted in judeo- Chrisitan values.

The issue is not with gay marriage itself, its with the way the law was completely discounted to get there. We are after all, a country of laws are we not?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Educate yourselves and google "Cruz Iowa voting violation"

Cruz Iowa voting violation

You can then pick sources from cities you hate less.

Pure politics. All's been fair in war and politics, and this is nothing new. I strongly suspect Pate is pro Ethanol, and is only taking a cue from the big govt types in the GOP who want to sink Cruz's campaign.

[selias 2,398]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

Disagree..not that I'm cheer leading the current republican party because Im sick to death of it actually but in principle I disagree.

Just a quick look at the Repub platform tells you where they stand on individual liberty

"even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard"

"We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet"

In other words "think of the children" and "you cannot be trusted to handle your own affairs"

Actually there is a thing called having the courage of your conviction. Gay marriage is still very contentious as it relates to judicial activism involved in the way it was passed by the Supreme Court. I have no problem with banning gambling over the internet unless it can be regulated. Cynical much bro?

We are not a nation built on religious foundations or a theocracy. The opposition to homosexual marriage has reached farcical status. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. It's the same view I have on firearms ownership...don't like guns? Don't buy one.

You are wrong there my friend. James Madison was the architect of the Constitution....read up on what he said about the basis of that document. You'll see that you're clearly misguided. If you believe we live in a physical world and science can explain everything that's fine but, the founders of this nation clearly did not. We are not a theocracy but the laws of the country are rooted in judeo- Chrisitan values.

The issue is not with gay marriage itself, its with the way the law was completely discounted to get there. We are after all, a country of laws are we not?

All are equal in the eyes of the law. As long as homosexuals are denied marriage, they are relegated to second class citizens. While I would love to get religion out of the government and let the religious folk do what they like with "marriage", our laws are not written that way. Separating the religious marriage from the secular civil union would require rewriting far too much of the state and legal code. Basically, the religious folks hitched their wagon to the wrong horse. Once government started approving marriages, it ceased to be a religious institution. You cannot have equal benefits under the law when you prohibit a segment of the population from receiving those benefits (tax, estate, next of kin, etc...) without due process.

[Shift 368]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

Disagree..not that I'm cheer leading the current republican party because Im sick to death of it actually but in principle I disagree.

Just a quick look at the Repub platform tells you where they stand on individual liberty

"even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard"

"We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet"

In other words "think of the children" and "you cannot be trusted to handle your own affairs"

Actually there is a thing called having the courage of your conviction. Gay marriage is still very contentious as it relates to judicial activism involved in the way it was passed by the Supreme Court. I have no problem with banning gambling over the internet unless it can be regulated. Cynical much bro?

We are not a nation built on religious foundations or a theocracy.

Dead wrong, my friend.

[homersapien 12,924]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

Disagree..not that I'm cheer leading the current republican party because Im sick to death of it actually but in principle I disagree.

Just a quick look at the Repub platform tells you where they stand on individual liberty

"even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard"

"We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet"

In other words "think of the children" and "you cannot be trusted to handle your own affairs"

Actually there is a thing called having the courage of your conviction. Gay marriage is still very contentious as it relates to judicial activism involved in the way it was passed by the Supreme Court. I have no problem with banning gambling over the internet unless it can be regulated. Cynical much bro?

We are not a nation built on religious foundations or a theocracy. The opposition to homosexual marriage has reached farcical status. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. It's the same view I have on firearms ownership...don't like guns? Don't buy one.

You are wrong there my friend. James Madison was the architect of the Constitution....read up on what he said about the basis of that document. You'll see that you're clearly misguided. If you believe we live in a physical world and science can explain everything that's fine but, the founders of this nation clearly did not. We are not a theocracy but the laws of the country are rooted in judeo- Chrisitan values.

The issue is not with gay marriage itself, its with the way the law was completely discounted to get there. We are after all, a country of laws are we not?

I just love it with the secret theocrats reveal themselves.

[selias 2,398]

Dead wrong, my friend.

For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

[homersapien 12,924]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

Disagree..not that I'm cheer leading the current republican party because Im sick to death of it actually but in principle I disagree.

Just a quick look at the Repub platform tells you where they stand on individual liberty

"even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard"

"We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet"

In other words "think of the children" and "you cannot be trusted to handle your own affairs"

Actually there is a thing called having the courage of your conviction. Gay marriage is still very contentious as it relates to judicial activism involved in the way it was passed by the Supreme Court. I have no problem with banning gambling over the internet unless it can be regulated. Cynical much bro?

We are not a nation built on religious foundations or a theocracy.

Dead wrong, my friend.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

You stupid heathen commie libtards, if this here country weren't founded as a Judao Christian nation then why in God's name did the founders put "In GOD We Trust" on hour money? How come they done wrote "One Nation Under GOD" in hour plegde of alliegience? You make me sick always trying to reright history to your liken.

[TheBlueVue 177]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

Disagree..not that I'm cheer leading the current republican party because Im sick to death of it actually but in principle I disagree.

Just a quick look at the Repub platform tells you where they stand on individual liberty

"even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard"

"We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet"

In other words "think of the children" and "you cannot be trusted to handle your own affairs"

Actually there is a thing called having the courage of your conviction. Gay marriage is still very contentious as it relates to judicial activism involved in the way it was passed by the Supreme Court. I have no problem with banning gambling over the internet unless it can be regulated. Cynical much bro?

We are not a nation built on religious foundations or a theocracy. The opposition to homosexual marriage has reached farcical status. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. It's the same view I have on firearms ownership...don't like guns? Don't buy one.

You are wrong there my friend. James Madison was the architect of the Constitution....read up on what he said about the basis of that document. You'll see that you're clearly misguided. If you believe we live in a physical world and science can explain everything that's fine but, the founders of this nation clearly did not. We are not a theocracy but the laws of the country are rooted in judeo- Chrisitan values.

The issue is not with gay marriage itself, its with the way the law was completely discounted to get there. We are after all, a country of laws are we not?

All are equal in the eyes of the law. As long as homosexuals are denied marriage, they are relegated to second class citizens. While I would love to get religion out of the government and let the religious folk do what they like with "marriage", our laws are not written that way. Separating the religious marriage from the secular civil union would require rewriting far too much of the state and legal code. Basically, the religious folks hitched their wagon to the wrong horse. Once government started approving marriages, it ceased to be a religious institution. You cannot have equal benefits under the law when you prohibit a segment of the population from receiving those benefits (tax, estate, next of kin, etc...) without due process.

You forgot one key component of your analysis and that is the traditional meaning of the word marriage. Regardless if It has always been a religious institution, it has always meant the union of one man and one woman. The problem is the Supreme Court has taken to arbitrarily changing the meaning of words in order to make this a federal issue which it is not. Words matter...they have meanings...I understand the political expediency of having the leeway to simply change the meaning of words to fit your desired objective but the precedent this sets opens up the opportunity to simply change meanings of any word word in question to arrive at desired legal destinaiton. For you, I'm sure this is not a problem unless and until they change the meaning of a word that means something to you to mean something altogether different.

One dissenting opinion written objecting to making gay marriage a federal issue stated that there are a lot of reasons it was upheld but none of them had anything to do with the Constitution. The law is already there and none have to be re-written just leave it up to the states and not make it a federal issue. Thats the basis of my objection is having a federal govt getting involved in every room of our lives...Im against that. We are either a country of laws or we are not and the Constitution enumerates the power to the federal govt which are few and limited and those of the states which is why the tenth amendment said thus:The Tenth Amendment declares, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words,states have all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The states were envisioned as the laboratories of democracy. I dont see anything in the Constitution that allows the fed govt to re-establish a new meaning to marriage...do you? I do understand, however, that people like you who are pro gay marriage dont GAS about the Constitution..I get that.

In the end the objections are less about the religious aspect of the issue and more about a govt that is not doing what it is supposed to be doing like providing public safety, enforcing our borders etc and doing things it has really has no authority to do like making gay marriage a federal issue.

[selias 2,398]

IMO, this is the worst batch of POTUS candidates I've seen.

Maybe on the Dem side, but there are a minimum of 6 GOP candidates far better than we've seen in the past 30 years.

The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems. The only difference in the two parties is how they want to pilfer your wallet and run your life.

Disagree..not that I'm cheer leading the current republican party because Im sick to death of it actually but in principle I disagree.

Just a quick look at the Repub platform tells you where they stand on individual liberty

"even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard"

"We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet"

In other words "think of the children" and "you cannot be trusted to handle your own affairs"

Actually there is a thing called having the courage of your conviction. Gay marriage is still very contentious as it relates to judicial activism involved in the way it was passed by the Supreme Court. I have no problem with banning gambling over the internet unless it can be regulated. Cynical much bro?

We are not a nation built on religious foundations or a theocracy. The opposition to homosexual marriage has reached farcical status. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. It's the same view I have on firearms ownership...don't like guns? Don't buy one.

You are wrong there my friend. James Madison was the architect of the Constitution....read up on what he said about the basis of that document. You'll see that you're clearly misguided. If you believe we live in a physical world and science can explain everything that's fine but, the founders of this nation clearly did not. We are not a theocracy but the laws of the country are rooted in judeo- Chrisitan values.

The issue is not with gay marriage itself, its with the way the law was completely discounted to get there. We are after all, a country of laws are we not?

All are equal in the eyes of the law. As long as homosexuals are denied marriage, they are relegated to second class citizens. While I would love to get religion out of the government and let the religious folk do what they like with "marriage", our laws are not written that way. Separating the religious marriage from the secular civil union would require rewriting far too much of the state and legal code. Basically, the religious folks hitched their wagon to the wrong horse. Once government started approving marriages, it ceased to be a religious institution. You cannot have equal benefits under the law when you prohibit a segment of the population from receiving those benefits (tax, estate, next of kin, etc...) without due process.

You forgot one key component of your analysis and that is the traditional meaning of the word marriage. Regardless if It has always been a religious institution, it has always meant the union of one man and one woman. The problem is the Supreme Court has taken to arbitrarily changing the meaning of words in order to make this a federal issue which it is not. Words matter...they have meanings...I understand the political expediency of having the leeway to simply change the meaning of words to fit your desired objective but the precedent this sets opens up the opportunity to simply change meanings of any word word in question to arrive at desired legal destinaiton. For you, I'm sure this is not a problem unless and until they change the meaning of a word that means something to you to mean something altogether different.

One dissenting opinion written objecting to making gay marriage a federal issue stated that there are a lot of reasons it was upheld but none of them had anything to do with the Constitution. The law is already there and none have to be re-written just leave it up to the states and not make it a federal issue. Thats the basis of my objection is having a federal govt getting involved in every room of our lives...Im against that. We are either a country of laws or we are not and the Constitution enumerates the power to the federal govt which are few and limited and those of the states which is why the tenth amendment said thus:The Tenth Amendment declares, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words,states have all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The states were envisioned as the laboratories of democracy. I dont see anything in the Constitution that allows the fed govt to re-establish a new meaning to marriage...do you? I do understand, however, that people like you who are pro gay marriage dont GAS about the Constitution..I get that.

In the end the objections are less about the religious aspect of the issue and more about a govt that is not doing what it is supposed to be doing like providing public safety, enforcing our borders etc and doing things it has really has no authority to do like making gay marriage a federal issue.

Once we started conferring both state and federal benefits for marriage, it ceased being simply a religious institution. Brown vs Board of Education eliminated any separate but equal argument.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Cruz wins Iowa.

[selias 2,398]

Cruz wins Iowa.

Better than Trump