Reply With Quote
Damn this guy ed that Carpenter girl? She's sexy as .
ing creepy ass Ted.
Damn this guy ed that Carpenter girl? She's sexy as .
ing creepy ass Ted.
Teddy its just a simple yes or no question
To be honest, I would fess up to that affair and make her my main. Carpenter is a massive upgrade over Heidi.
That money though.
She hasn't been helping cruz at all and his wife just cancelled all upcoming campaign appearances
He has big ears, Obama must be the father.
p.s. you do know he gets genetics from his mother, too, right?
The main reason I thought it was fake is because Ted is not attractive but apparently that doesn't matter. I really learned a hard lesson today.
The woman apparently has a fetish for married men
edit - saying it's a hoax, gotta wait a little more for the dominos to fall
Last edited by Mitch; 03-29-2016 at 10:34 PM.
Christian supremacist theocrat always inciting paranoia, and hate against all Muslims
Ted Cruz resorts to rhetoric about ‘no-go zones’
In January, not long after the terrorist attack in Paris, Fox News’ Steven Emerson had a deeply unfortunate, and internationally ridiculed, exchange about England’s Muslim population, for which he later apologized. But of particular interest was Emerson’s argument that Britain has “no-go zones … where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”
The problem, of course, is that this was plainly wrong. Fox News went so far as to issue an on-air correction, telling viewers there is “no credible information to support the assertion” that “no-go zones” exist in Europe.
But Republican presidential candidates don’t need credible information to make false assertions. Bobby Jindal, for example, spent some time last year warning audiences about “no-go zones” in Western Europe, despite the fact that they don’t exist.
This week, in an op-ed for the New York Daily News, Ted Cruz embraced the same talking point (via Hunter).
One of the causes of this horror has been European bureaucrats restraining law enforcement from fully engaging with the Muslim community in “no go” zones. As a result, for years, a radical, theocratic, violent ideology has spread in some mosques and Muslim neighborhoods throughout Europe. Terrorists have exploited these isolated enclaves to recruit followers, formulate plots and orchestrate attacks. […]To be sure, Molenbeek’s security significance matters a great deal, but to suggest that non-Muslims simply don’t go to the city is ridiculous – Muslim residents make up “around 25 to 30 percent” of the area’s population.
There is no better example of these “no go” zones than one neighborhood in the city of this latest horrific attack – the municipality of Molenbeek in the city of Brussels.
Why in the world do American conservatives keep pointing to “zones” that don’t exist? Because this is part of a domestic agenda.
Note, for example, that Cruz’s op-ed went on to argue, “Many European leaders are now recognizing that passively allowing the Islamist threat to fester was a serious error.
We cannot make the same mistakes in America. In the wake of the Brussels attacks, I called for vigorously guarding against the political correctness that has plagued Europe.”
Well, what Cruz actually called for was empowering law enforcement to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods” in the United States – a rather ridiculous proposal that drew sharp rebukes from, among others, law enforcement and President Obama.
The point, of course, is to make Americans as afraid as possible, even if that means pointing to European “zones” that don’t exist, as a way to justify policies in the U.S. that far-right policymakers want anyway: a more expansive surveillance state, blocking refugees, immigration restrictions, etc.
But to get there, politicians like Cruz find it necessary to throw around references to imaginary “no-go zones,” because the truth isn’t nearly scary enough to produce the results the right wants.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Krazy Kruz isn't fringe, the bull , lies, propaganda, hate, paranoia, racism, etc, he peddles is standard Repug/Fox fare.
Cruz makes his case against an abortion rape exception
Last year, Marco Rubio raised a few eyebrows when he argued that if a woman is impregnated by a rapist, the government has the authority to force her to take the pregnancy to term, regardless of her wishes. This week, Ted Cruz made clear he has the same position.
During an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, the host sought clarification from the Texas senator about this controversial aspect of his platform. From the transcript via Lexis Nexis:
KELLY: [Y]ou don’t favor a rape or an incest exception to abortion and for people like me, this may be a problem in getting behind President Ted Cruz. They think you may be too far right on social issues.
CRUZ: Well, listen, let’s talk – you know, when it comes to rape, I’ve spent a lot of years in law enforcement. I was the solicitor general in the state of Texas and I have handled cases with horrific cases of rape, of people who committed child rape, people – I went before the U.S. Supreme Court and argued in defense of state laws imposing capital punishment for the very worst child rapists. And when it comes to rape, rape is a horrific crime against the humanity of a person and needs to be punished and punished severely but at the same time, as horrible as that crime is, I don’t believe it’s the child’s fault. And we weep at the crime. We want to do everything we can to prevent the crime on the front end and to punish the criminal, but I don’t believe it makes sense to blame the child.
The host responded that people who support exceptions to an abortion ban will argue that Cruz’s policy would force women “to go through unspeakable trauma to carry her rapist’s baby for nine months.” The senator then changed the subject a bit, saying states should debate their own limits on reproductive rights.
When it comes to evaluating Cruz as a general-election contender, the senator is extremely far to the right on most of the major issues of the day, and this is no exception – some polling suggests 83% of Americans believe women impregnated by a rapist should be legally allowed to terminate that pregnancy.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Christian Taliban Krazy Kruz pandering to the kinds of people who say rape and a rape baby are gifts from God, so do God's will and have the rape baby (nobody's gonna help you pay for it, raise it. God will pay for it).
"States-rights" -- the ultimate cop out. Justifies everything from Slavery to no exception anti-abortion policies.
Its possible you live under a rock.
Trump looks like 70 year old Umpalumpa. Money and power are important to some skankish road lizards. Bill Clinton was the total picture of health, and look what slimed their way to him...
You sound like a good woman.
Trump is an attractive man outside of the money - especially compared to Cruz, who looks sleazy.
He is Fkn a gazillion years old.
Does your daughter desire the man?
Dont make me sick...Trump attractive? Jesus... My wife finds him utterly disgusting. Mainly because he is an old man. Damn, women raping old men in nursing homes. Are you female?
Yes, I'm female. Orange tan notwithstanding, he has attractive features. Of course, he has wrinkles and lines - he's 69 years old - not bad looking for that age. Much better looking than Cruz, Kasich or Bernie.
I'm thinking Trump concurs
So you want your daughter with him?
And my wife thinks he looked basically normal as a younger man.
She does concur that Cruz is absolutely disgusting though, so I acquiesce on that one.
Ted is getting slapped in NY.
He's in the Bronx.
What are the odds he's coming out of there without at least getting stabbed?
http://pix11.com/2016/04/06/ted-cruz...campaign-stop/
He's in the Bronx.
What are the odds he's coming out of there without at least getting stabbed?
http://pix11.com/2016/04/06/ted-cruz...campaign-stop/
Holy .
What does my daughter have to do with this? There are lots of guys her own age - what would she want with someone so old (and married)?
The ‘Personhood’ problem Ted Cruz doesn’t know how to solve
when it comes to formidable Republicans, Ted Cruz wouldn’t be much better.
Ted Cruz refused to answer eight direct questions Thursday about whether or not he’d support personhood bills – legislation that would give Cons utional rights to fertilized eggs – despite pledging to support it last year.
“I told you I’m not going to get into the labels, but what I will say is we should protect life. But I’m not interested in anything that restricts birth control,” he said after being pressed at length by Chuck Todd in the MSNBC town hall that will air in full Thursday at 8 p.m.
“And I’m not interested in anything that restricts in vitro fertilization because I think parents who are struggling to create life, to have a child, that is a wonderful thing.”
Chuck Todd, to his credit, made a valiant effort to get a straight answer out of the Texas senator. Cruz, an experienced lawyer, wouldn’t budge.
And we know why. Last summer, en route to picking up an endorsement from a far-right group, Ted Cruz signed a pledge promising to “support a personhood amendment to the U.S. Cons ution.”
As Right Wing Watch reported at the time, the do ent the Republican presidential candidate signed affirmed the belief that “a continuum of human life and personhood begins at the moment of fertilization.” By endorsing the pledge, Cruz gave his word to protect “the civil rights of the pre-born at an embryonic or fetal level.”
In practical terms, as long-time readers no doubt recall, we’re not just talking about a policy that bans abortions – though that’s part of it.
“Personhood” policies also put at risk common forms of birth control.
What’s more, this wasn’t the first time Cruz expressed support for these kinds of policies.
The far-right senator voted against a measure to protect workers’ access to contraception in 2014, and in 2013, he referred to common forms of birth-control as “abortifacients.”
And so we’re left with something of a contradiction.
On the one hand, Ted Cruz says he isn’t interested in “anything that restricts birth control” or IVF treatments.
On the other hand, Ted Cruz has publicly pledged to try to change the United States Cons ution to protect embryos as Americans with civil rights, which would very likely restrict birth control and IVF.
How does Cruz reconcile the competing positions? By saying he doesn’t want to talk about it.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
"religious liberty" is a dog-whistle for Christ-inspired hate of and discrimination against (black, brown, poor) women's vaginas and LGBT.
"religious liberty" is as much of a coded lie as are "states rights", "law and order", "hard on crime", "welfare queens in cadillacs", "young bucks", etc.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
