Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 408
  1. #76
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    “Ted Cruz’s anus is where his belly button should be”: Trevor Noah just trolled his Planned Parenthood garbage with TedCruzTrueFacts.com

    "Daily Show" also notes most white guys are peaceful bros who just want to lead peaceful lives -- in the suburbs





    http://www.salon.com/2015/12/01/ted_...truefacts_com/

  2. #77
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Ted Cruz: ‘There is no doubt’ Planned Parenthood was ‘selling baby parts

    Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said there is "no doubt" Planned Parenthood was caught "selling baby parts" and that as president, he would direct the U.S. Department of Justice to open an investigation into the group on his first day in office.

    "They were certainly caught on film, that there is no doubt that they were selling baby parts. That is unambiguous," Mr. Cruz told radio host Hugh Hewitt this week. "The videos show senior Planned Parenthood officials selling the parts of unborn children, and it is a federal criminal offense. It's a felony to sell the body parts of unborn children for profit."

    "The media, just like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are trying to politicize this tragic shooting," Mr. Cruz said. "This man was a deranged, homicidal killer, and you and I are both unapologetically pro-life, and that means defending every human life, including the unborn, but also including the police officer and the civilians who lost their lives. And this murder was fundamentally wrong. And the efforts of the media to transform it into their pro-abortion propaganda is as transparent as it is de able."

    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/ted-...e+Raw+Story%29

    mental health kills people, sane white men with guns don't



  3. #78
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Ted Cruz says there is no ‘war on women’ because we don’t have a condom shortage


    Ted Cruz on Monday offered a spirited defense of Republicans on women’s health issues, accusing Democrats of creating a phony “war on women” based on claims that his party wants to restrict access to birth control.

    “The last I checked, we don’t have a rubber shortage in America,” the GOP presidential candidate said during a town hall here, responding to a question about the availability of contraception to women who want it.

    “Look, when I was in college, we had a machine in the bathroom. You’d put 50 cents in and voila!” added Texas’ junior senator, who attended Princeton University and Harvard Law School. “So yes, anyone who wants contraceptives can access them, but it is an utterly made-up, nonsense issue.”

    "Jiminy Cricket! This is a made-up, nonsense example.”


    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/ted-...ndom-shortage/




  4. #79
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Anyone but Ted Cruz

    You’re evaluating candidates for an open job in your company, and you come across one who makes a big impression.

    He’s clearly brilliant — maybe smarter than any of the others. He’s a whirlwind of energy. And man oh man can he give a presentation. On any subject, he’s informed, inflamed, precise.


    But then you talk with people who’ve worked with him at various stages of his career. They dislike him.


    No, scratch that.


    They loathe him.

    They grant him all of the virtues that you’ve observed, but tell you that he’s the an hesis of a team player. His thirst for the spotlight is unquenchable. His arrogance is unalloyed. He actually takes pride in being abrasive, as if a person’s tally of detractors measures his fearlessness, not his obnoxiousness.


    Do you hire this applicant?


    No way.


    And that’s why voters should be wary — very wary — of Ted Cruz.


    He’s surging. I warned you about this. In a poll of Republicans in Iowa last week, he was in a statistical tie with Donald Trump for the lead.


    More and more Republican insiders talk about a battle between Cruz and Marco Rubio for the nomination, or about a three-way, if you will, among Cruz, Rubio and Trump.


    And in the voices of these insiders I hear horror, because Trump and Cruz are nasty pieces of work.


    Cruz will work overtime in the months ahead to persuade you otherwise. The religious right already adores him, but to go the distance, he needs more support from other, less conservative Republicans, and he knows it. Expect orchestrated glimpses of a high-minded Cruz, less skunk than statesman, his sneer ceding territory to a smile.


    You saw this in recent debates. He chided moderators for meanspirited questions. He bemoaned the pitting of one Republican against another. The audacity of those complaints was awe-inspiring: Cruz rose to national prominence with gratuitous, overwrought tirades against fellow party members and with a complete lack of deference to elders in the Senate, which he entered in January 2013, at age 42.

    He likened Senate Republicans who recognized the impossibility of defunding Obamacare to Nazi appeasers. They took note.

    “As Cruz gains, GOP senators rally for Rubio” said the headline of a story this week in Politico, which explained: “The idea of Cruz as the nominee is enough to send shudders down the spines of most Senate Republicans.”
    Support for Rubio is the flower of anyone-but-Cruz dread.

    Anyone but Cruz: That’s the leitmotif of his life, stretching back to college at Princeton. His freshman roommate, Craig Mazin, told Patricia Murphy of The Daily Beast: “I would rather have anybody else be the president of the United States. Anyone. I would rather pick somebody from the phone book.”


    It’s not easy to come across on-the-record quotes like that, and Mazin’s words suggest a disdain that transcends ideology. They bear heeding.


    So does Cruz’s experience in the policy shop of George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign.
    After Bush took office, other full-time advisers got plum jobs in the White House. Cruz was sent packing to the Siberia of the Federal Trade Commission.

    The political strategist Matthew Dowd, who worked for Bush back then, tweeted that
    “if truth serum was given to the staff of the 2000 Bush campaign,” an enormous percentage of them “would vote for Trump over Cruz.”

    Another Bush 2000 alumnus said to me: “Why do people take such an instant dislike to Ted Cruz? It just saves time.”


    His three signature moments in the Senate have been a florid smearing of Chuck Hagel with no achievable purpose other than attention for Ted Cruz, a flamboyant rebellion against Obamacare with no achievable purpose other than attention for Ted Cruz, and a fiery protest of federal funding for Planned Parenthood with no achievable purpose other than attention for Ted Cruz. Notice any pattern?


    Asked about Cruz at a fund-raiser last spring, John Boehner responded by raising a lone finger — the middle one.

    More recently, Senate Republicans denied Cruz a procedural courtesy that’s typically pro forma.


    “That is different than anything I’ve ever seen in my years here,” Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, told The Washington Post.


    Many politicians rankle peers. Many have detractors. Cruz generates antipathy of an entirely different magnitude. It’s so pronounced and so pervasive that he’s been forced to acknowledge it, and he spins it as the price invariably paid by an outsider who challenges the status quo, clings to principle and never backs down.


    No, it’s the fruit of a combative style and consuming solipsism that would make him an insufferable, unendurable president. And if there’s any sense left in this election and mercy in this world, it will undo him soon enough.


    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/02...-ted-cruz.html

  5. #80
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    The Utter Recklessness Of Ted Cruz’s Terrorism Bill

    The first section of Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) Expatriate Terrorist Act (S. 247) is about forcibly stripping American citizenship from suspected terrorists. The merits — or lack thereof — of this proposal are largely beside the point because the Supreme Court has been clear that Congress has no power to do so. In a 1967 decision in Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court held:

    In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Cons ution governs us and we must never forget that our Cons ution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. The Cons ution, of course, grants Congress no express power to strip people of their citizenship, whether in the implied power to regulate foreign affairs or in the exercise of any specifically granted power (emphasis added).

    Cruz often says that “the purpose of the Cons ution, as Thomas Jefferson put it, is to serve as chains to bind the mischief of government.” As the Supreme Court has held, citizenship stripping is the very kind of mischief that Senator Cruz professes to abhor.


    This part of the proposal is thus either uncons utional or, if read to conform with Supreme Court precedent, will do nothing to change existing law regarding the government’s ability to strip citizenship from Americans suspected of joining ISIS or other terrorist groups.


    It’s actually the second provision of the bill, which has mostly gone unnoticed so far, that would affirmatively harm national security.

    It would require the Secretary of State to revoke or deny passports to Americans who are members or attempting to become members of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

    But the secretary already possesses this power and has the discretion to decide when and how to exercise it to best protect national security.

    By eliminating that discretion, this bill would require action even when it would jeopardize ongoing counterterrorism operations. Mandatory revocation or denial would mean that terrorists would learn that the U.S. government has identified them as suspects — tipping off targets to the existence of ongoing investigations and potentially exposing intelligence sources.

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...fers-bad-bill/



  6. #81
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,298


    Smhlol

  7. #82
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,298

  8. #83
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,298

  9. #84
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Ted Cruz Holds Second Amendment Rally Days After Deadly Shooting

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29

    Nothing is too low for this s bag conman, such as stooping down to the very low level of gun fellators.



  10. #85
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Krazy Kruz telling Jan how to run the Fed (which he hates)

    Ted Cruz Explains the Great Recession


    Cruz began a round of questioning by stating that, in the summer of 2008, “the Federal Reserve told markets that it was shifting to a tighter monetary policy. This, in turn, set off a scramble for cash, which caused the dollar to soar, asset prices to collapse and [the consumer price index] to fall below zero, which set the stage for the financial crisis.”



    the problem with Cruz's theory is that it just doesn't make sense.

    Take a look at the chart on the right, which shows the Fed Funds target rate during the period in question.

    In April 2008, the Fed lowered its target rate to 2 percent. Then it waited until October to lower it again.


    So the idea here is that if the Fed had acted, say, three months earlier, that would have saved the world. This ascribes super powers to Fed open market policy

    Cruz would like to blame the Fed, but they bear only a modest responsibility.

    Better culprits include

    underregulation of shadow banking;

    a housing bubble fueled partly by fraud and partly by Wall Street irresponsibility;

    excess systemic leverage; and

    Republican unwillingness to fight the recession with fiscal policy.

    Unfortunately,
    none of those fit Cruz's agenda. So the Fed it is.

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...reat-recession







  11. #86
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Ted Cruz’s Weirdly Insurrectionist Take On The Second Amendment



    A Washington Post profile of Republican presidential candidates’ aggressive rhetoric on gunscontains one of the most remarkable paragraphs written about the 2016 election to date:

    [Sen. Ted] Cruz spoke briefly about the San Bernardino shooting, saying it was the product of “the evil of radical Islamic terrorism.” He warned of the dangers of “disarming the citizenry.” The Second Amendment, he said, not only grants people the right to keep and bear arms to protect their families, homes and lives but also is a “fundamental check on government.”

    Cruz’s statement that a right to bear arms is a “fundamental check on government” echoes views offered by some especially radical elements of the gun rights movement.

    At a speech to the National Rifle Association’s Leadership Forum in 2014, for example, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke told the audience that “you have to be willing to resist any attempt by government to disarm law-abiding people by fighting with the ferociousness of a junkyard dog. For it says in the Declaration of Independence that it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for our future security."

    all five conservative Supreme Court justices joined an opinion recognizing that many “weapons that are most useful in military service” may be banned in the United States.

    Yet it is difficult to see how the Second Amendment could serve as an effective “check” on a government that arms its military with tanks, fighter jets and nuclear missiles if the people who are supposed to do the checking could only fight back with semi-automatic firearms.

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ond-amendment/



  12. #87

  13. #88
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,298

  14. #89
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    This NPR talk with Ted Cruz illustrates perfectly why he’s dumber than your kindergartner on climate change

    Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz told NPR this week that there was no science that said the planet was getting warmer, even though the Associated Press recently determined that he knew less about science than the average kindergartner.

    “I believe that public policy should follow the science and follow the data,” Cruz replied. “I am the son of two mathematicians and computer programmers and scientists. In the debate over global warming, far too often politicians in Washington — and for that matter a number of scientists receiving large government grants — disregard the science and data and instead push political ideology.”

    Cruz said that the liberal politicians and scientists “switched their theory to global warming” because global cooling never panned out.

    “This is liberal politicians who want government power,” he insisted. “Let me ask you a question, Steve. Is there global warming, yes or no?”


    “Absolutely, sure,” Inskeep replied.


    “Okay, you are incorrect,” Cruz shot back. “Actually, the scientific evidence doesn’t support global warming. For the last 18 years, the satellite data — we have satellites that monitor the atmosphere — the satellites that actually measure the temperature showed no significant warming whatsoever.”


    “I’ll just note that NASA analyzes that same data differently,” Inskeep said politely.

    When pressed about evolution, Cruz argued that “any good scientist questions all science. If you show me someone who stops questioning science, I’ll show you someone who isn’t a scientist.”

    “Denier is the language of religion,” he quipped. “It’s treated as a theology but it’s about power and money.”

    Cruz objected, accusing Inskeep of “an ad hominem.”

    “I’m trying to keep power with the single mom waiting tables,” Cruz said.

    Last month, The Associated Press asked a group of climate and biological scientists to score each of the presidential candidates on their scientific knowledge. On a scale of 0 to 100, Cruz scored six, the lowest of any candidate.

    “This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner,” Pennsylvania State University meteorology professor Michael Mann told the AP. “That sort of ignorance would be dangerous in a doorman, let alone a president.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/this...limate-change/

    "single mom waiting tables"

    Sen. Cruz: Minimum Wage Hike Would Cost Jobs for Young People, Hispanics, African Americans

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sen-...ican-americans





  15. #90
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Ted Cruz's three-hour hearing on climate change a pathetic waste of time except for denier shills

    Sen. Ted Cruz chaired a tendentious Senate subcommittee hearing Tuesday on climate change while negotiators in Paris work long hours to put together a worldwide agreement on controlling carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the planet. Anybody who has even cursorily followed the claims of climate-change charlatans wouldn’t have a learned a single thing from the three-hour hearing, led “Data or Dogma.”

    "The only thing that requires a thorough scientific investigation is why Sen. Cruz is having a hearing on climate science,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said during a press conference before the hearing.

    “This is no longer debate across the entire planet. They’re all there. The last group of deniers are the Republican Congress. The last sub-cult of deniers are the Republicans on the Senate Commerce Committee.”

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/1...28Daily+Kos%29

  16. #91
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Ted Cruz Is A ‘Toned Down’ Donald Trump, Say The Senator’s Backers

    To hear Ted Cruz’s backers tell it, the firebrand U.S. senator from Texas is Donald Trump with a pinch of reason and electability.

    The Cruz presidential campaign has the most to gain from Trump’s roundly-condemned pitch to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., several Cruz Iowa backers said in separate phone interviews Tuesday. Their reasoning: By contrast, Cruz’s positions come off as more politically mainstream.


    “This makes Senator Cruz seem much more sane,” Iowa state Sen. Dennis Guth told Bloomberg.


    “Cruz is like Trump, but at a toned down level,” echoed state Sen. Jake Chapman. “He’s not going to say something like that.”

    Jeff King, another prominent Cruz backer and the son of Rep. Steve King, an Iowa powerbroker who has also endorsed the Texan, concurred. “It shows that you never know with Trump. Senator Cruz? He’s consistent,” King said.

    http://www.nationalmemo.com/ted-cruz...ators-backers/

    "consistent"-ly lying

    Krazy Kruz is much more of a Christian Taliban ready to impose Christian Sharia that Trump will ever be.



  17. #92
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Ted Cruz Challenged Science At His Climate Change Hearing. Science Won

    “Facts matter, science matters, data matters. That’s what this hearing is about.”

    That’s how Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the chairman of the Senate’s Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Compe iveness,

    began a Monday hearing he called about the reality of human-caused climate change. Cruz — who is also running for president — does not believe that human-caused climate change is real, which he made clear at Monday’s hearing. He did not make it clear that 97 percent of climate scientists disagree with him, but such is life in the U.S. Senate, where 70 percent of Republicans largely side with Cruz.


    The thing about Cruz, though, it’s that he’s a master of political debate. He spoke forcefully and eloquently at Monday’s hearing about what he said were falsehoods surrounding the scientific consensus on climate change. He even injected some real data into his harsh rhetoric, which made him sound even smarter.


    Much of the information Cruz cited, however, was presented in perplexing ways. He confused completely different geographic locations, took data out of context, and made at least one unintentionally hilarious historical comparison.

    So, with his assertion that “science and data matter” in mind, here is a debunking of some unscientific things Cruz said during his climate change hearing.

    What Ted Cruz Said: A bunch of scientists got stuck in Antarctic ice last year, so John Kerry was wrong about Arctic ice melt.

    “The summer of 2013 has come and gone, and John Kerry was not just a little bit — he was wildly, extraordinarily, entirely wrong. Had the [2014] Antarctic expedition in the picture next to it not believed the global warming alarmists, had they actually looked to the science and the evidence … they wouldn’t have been looked down and been surprised when they got stuck in ice.”

    What Science Says:
    The Antarctic is not the same as the Arctic.


    Climate science deniers across the internet love the story of the Antarctic ice scientists.

    Last year, on their way to study climate change’s impact on Antarctic, the scientists’ ship became frozen in ice, unable to move. They eventually had to be airlifted from the vessel. For Ted Cruz, this seemed like a perfect way to open his hearing: John Kerry said Arctic ice would be gone in 2013. But here are a bunch of scientists, in 2014, frozen in Antarctic ice.


    This is a laughably false comparison. The Arctic and the Antarctic are literally polar opposites, and each is impacted by global warming in fundamentally different ways. From LiveScience: “Strong cir polar winds may be compacting and thickening the Antarctic ice. But the Arctic ice is much more vulnerable to ocean warming, and summer storms only speedup the thaw.”


    Cruz was, however, right about one thing — Kerry was wrong in 2009. Arctic ice is not gone. But Kerry’s statement didn’t represent the mainstream opinion of climate scientists at the time. The mainstream opinion of climate scientists was, and still is, that summers in the Arctic could be ice-free by 2050 if global warming remains at its current level or worsens. That prediction is playing out now — This year’s maximum Arctic sea ice extent was the lowest on record, and the total extent of Arctic sea ice has gradually and dramatically decreased over the last several decades.


    What Ted Cruz Said:
    CO2 isn’t bad, because we’ve had more CO2 in our atmosphere then we have right now.

    “I would note that the history with markedly more CO2 pre-dated the industrial revolution, so it didn’t come from automobiles or the burning of carbon fuels. … I would note those facts are directly contrary to what the global warming alarmists tell us day in and day out, and what the media who echoes those concerns tell us day in and day out.”

    What Science Says: The last time CO2 was this high, humans didn’t exist, and the planet was a terrifying place.

    According to Ted Cruz, the carbon dioxide humans emit can’t be harming the planet, because the planet had more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere before the industrial revolution.

    This is a pretty easy one to debunk. Yes, the earth had more carbon dioxide before the industrial revolution — but that was literally millions of years ago, before humans existed. During that time, “Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world’s seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.” Right now, the amount of carbon in our atmosphere is matched only by that terrifying time in the history of the planet, and before.


    What Ted Cruz Said:
    Arctic and Antarctic ice are both increasing.


    “Here are the inconvenient facts about the polar ice caps. The Arctic is not ice free. This year’s minimum sea ice extent was well above the record low observed in 2011. In the Antarctic, a recent study… indicates that the ice is not only not decreasing, but is in fact increasing in mass, directly contrary to what the global warming alarmists had told us would be happening.”

    What Science Says: Sea ice in the Arctic and land ice in the Antarctic have been dramatically decreasing for decades.

    Let’s just state this for the record: Climate change doesn’t mean that you’ll see higher temperatures and less ice year after year. It means that on average, over many decades, you’ll see higher temperatures and less ice.


    Cruz said that minimum sea ice extent in the Arctic “was well above the record low observed in 2011.” First, Cruz just directly admitted the lowest-ever-recorded minimum sea ice extent in the Arctic was just four years ago. Second, Cruz doesn’t mention that Arctic ice as a whole has been decreasing for decades. As you’ll see in the graph to the right, 2013’s Arctic sea ice minimum was much higher than 2011 — but it was still lower than the historical average. .

    As for Antarctic ice, Cruz is right when he says sea ice is growing. But Antarctic land ice — glaciers, ice sheets, and ice masses that have ac ulated over thousands of years — is decreasing at dramatic rates. And that’s arguably much more important than sea ice, considering Antarctica’s sea ice completely melts every year (one of the many differences from the Arctic, where sea ice is never supposed to melt completely).


    What Ted Cruz Said:
    It doesn’t matter than 97 percent of scientists agree about climate change, because 97 percent of scientists said the sun rotated around the earth in the 1600s.


    What Science Says:
    Scientists did not use the modern scientific method in 1600s.

    This is ostensibly why Cruz disagrees with the fact that multiple peer-reviewed studies show 97 percent of climate scientists agreeing that humans cause global warming: because in 1615, scientists thought the sun rotated around the Earth.

    Today, scientists use the scientific method. This is really great, because the scientific method requires people to back up their evidence using empirical data — they can’t apply their own personal biases to it. To have success using the scientific method, a person with a completely different worldview will be able to replicate what you have found. The scientific method means looking outside yourself to find empirical truth.


    In 1615, by contrast, scientists didn’t use the scientific method. Scientists were philosophers and ideologues, smart white men who sat in armchairs thinking about what made sense to them. After they thought about it for awhile, they’d say things, and then people would believe them or they wouldn’t.


    So in other words, Ted Cruz is essentially saying that the scientific method is no more reliable than a bunch of white dudes sitting in armchairs yelling about how they believe the world works.


    What Ted Cruz Said:
    Satellite data shows no warming for the last 18 years.


    “According to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years. Those are the data. The global warming alarmists don’t like these data, they are inconvenient to their narrative. But facts and evidence matters.”

    What Science Says: Satellite data, ground-based weather station data, and sea-based buoy data all show a steady warming trend over the long term.

    Ted Cruz loves satellite data. He talks about it all the time.

    But like most of Cruz’s statements regarding climate science, his focus on this particular type of data in this particular small time-frame contains an element of truth and ignores larger context. And climate change is all about larger context.


    As a reminder: Climate change doesn’t mean that you’ll see higher temperatures every year. It means that on average, over many decades, you’ll see higher temperatures.


    When Cruz says there’s been “no warming” in 18 years, that’s because 1998 was an abnormally warm year. But if you start, say, in 1950, the long-term, gradual trend in temperatures has gone distinctly upward. And despite 1998 being a very warm year (because of an El Nino), 13 of the 15 warmest years ever recorded all happened since the year 2000. 2015 is set to be the hottest year on record. And according the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.”


    It’s also worth noting that the data Cruz relies on comes from a scientist who has publicly decried Cruz for using his data to make claims that global warming isn’t real. For that scientist,
    the way people interpret his data matters — it’s unclear, however, if it matters to Cruz.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-relationship/



  18. #93
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Ted Cruz’s junk science: GOP candidate denies climate change while citing debunked data and touting his inherited math skills

    Texas senator calls climate change a "theology" and a pseudo-scientific scheme to give liberals more power

    “Well, I believe that public policy should follow the science and follow the data.

    I am the son of two mathematicians and computer programmers and scientists
    .

    In the debate over global warming, far too often politicians in Washington – and for that matter, a number of scientists receiving large government grants – disregard the science and data and instead push political ideology…The scientific evidence doesn’t support global warming. For the last 18 years, the satellite data – we have satellites that monitor the atmosphere.

    The satellites that actually measure the temperature showed no significant warming whatsoever

    …Climate change is the perfect pseudoscientific theory for a big government politician who wants more power. Why? Because it is a theory that can never be disproven.”

    ted_cruzs_junk_science_gop_candidate_denies_climat e_change_while_citing_debunked_data_and_touting_hi s_inherited_math_skills

    Thanks, secessionist, Bible humpin, gun fellatin Texians!


  19. #94
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Top New Hampshire Newspaper Shreds Ted Cruz’s 'Texas Tough Guy Act': 'Tough Talk Is All He Has to Offer'

    chastised Cruz on Tuesday for what it described as “a shift” in his foreign policy proposals on the campaign trail to a more “Texas Tough Guy act.”

    The freshman Texas senator recently told a crowd in Iowa that he “will carpet bomb [ISIL] into oblivion,” if elected president. In his latest campaign ad, Cruz faces the camera directly to send a message to terrorists: “If you wage jihad against us, you’re signing your death warrant.”

    Cruz “spent the past year positioning himself as a fallback option for supporters of Sen. Rand Paul,” the Union Leader editors noted, before blasting Cruz for his “newfound zeal for the fight in Syria.”


    As recently as last week, the Wall Street Journal editorial board similarly slammed Cruz’s apparent reversal on foreign policy in Syria, noting that
    Cruz had just told Bloomberg that, “In my view, we have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war.”

    “This is disingenuous even by Mr. Cruz’s standards,” the Journal wrote, calling for more U.S. intervention in the region.

    But when Cruz delivered the more hawkish tone the neocons at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal demanded this week, the conservative Union Leader cried phony. The paper blasted Cruz for “ratcheting up his already overheated rhetoric,” comparing the Tea Party superstar to liberals for using terms like carpet bombing “with no apparent knowledge of what it actually means.”


    “It’s because tough talk is all he has to offer,” The Union Leader concluded about Cruz’s hawkish turn:

    Cruz has been transparently pandering to Donald Trump, hoping to win his supporters if and when the Trump bubble finally bursts.
    […]
    Cruz, who never lacks the courage to tell people exactly what they want to hear, tends to confuse volume with strength.
    […]

    So now Cruz is beating the drums of war. Will he be as quick to change tactics should the political winds shift again?


    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/top-new-hampshire-newspaper-shreds-ted-cruzs-texas-tough-guy-act-tough-talk-all-he


    And you rightwingnuts call Hillary a pandering LIAR?



  20. #95
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Ted Cruz using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users

    Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign is using psychological data based on research spanning tens of millions of Facebook users, harvested largely without their permission, to boost his surging White House run and gain an edge over Donald Trump and other Republican rivals, the Guardian can reveal.
    A little-known data company, now embedded within Cruz’s campaign and indirectly financed by his primary billionaire benefactor, paid researchers at Cambridge University to gather detailed psychological profiles about the US electorate using a massive pool of mainly unwitting US Facebook users built with an online survey.

    As part of an aggressive new voter-targeting operation,
    Cambridge Analytica – financially supported by reclusive hedge fund magnate and leading Republican donor Robert Mercer – is now using so-called “psychographic profiles” of US citizens in order to help win Cruz votes, despite earlier concerns and red flags from potential survey-takers.

    Do ents seen by the Guardian have uncovered longstanding ethical and privacy issues about the way academics hoovered up personal data by accessing a vast set of US Facebook profiles, in order to build sophisticated models of users’ personalities without their knowledge.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/ted-...e+Raw+Story%29

    If you expose your life on Facebook to the public, you're fair game.





  21. #96
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Ted ‘Carpet-Bomb’ Cruz




    Mr. Cruz is a lawyer and a foreign-policy neophyte. Anyone with any understanding of military strategy knows that “carpet-bombing” is a term used by amateurs trying to sound tough. Indiscriminate bombing has never been a military strategy, and it would be senseless in an age of “smart” weaponry and precise targeting.

    In Syria and Iraq, mass bombing would kill hundreds of innocent civilians and fuel radicalization. That’s why military leaders utter the term “carpet-bomb” only while laughing at Mr. Cruz.

    “That’s just another one of those phrases that people with no military experience throw around,” chuckled retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, a military historian and former commandant of the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.

    On NPR on Tuesday, Mr. Cruz further betrayed his ignorance by saying he could carpet-bomb ISIS without targeting civilians. “I want to carpet-bomb ISIS. Now when you say ‘carpet-bomb cities,’ look, no — no reasonable military endeavor targets civilians. Now, inevitably in war, there are inadvertent collateral casualties. That — it is impossible to wage a war without their being inadvertent collateral casualties.”
    Steve Inskeep, the host, interjected: “But don’t you then end up with the air campaign they already have, where they’re being exceedingly careful not to hit civilians, but they hit a target when they can find a target?”

    Mr. Cruz vehemently disagreed. “
    Let’s go to some facts.

    In the first Persian Gulf war, we launched roughly 1,100 air attacks a day. We carpet-bombed them into oblivion for 37 days.”

    Actually, no, say military leaders. That was highly targeted bombing, which was why the war took so little time.

    At the hearing on United States military strategy against ISIS
    that Mr. Cruz missed on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Paul Selva, assessed Mr. Cruz’s prescription.


    The wanton bombing Mr. Cruz repeatedly refers to, General Selva said, is categorically “not the way that we apply force in combat. It isn’t now, nor will it ever be.”


    Ted Cruz, a man who thinks he’s qualified to be commander in chief, decries terrorists’ taking of innocent lives while agitating for bombing that would kill thousands of noncombatants and radicalize thousands more.

    What he’s saying shows an utter lack of fitness to command America’s armed forces.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/12...cruz.html?_r=0



    Thanks, Bible-humpin, gun fellatin, secessionist Texians



  22. #97

  23. #98
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Ted Cruz’s New Data Strategy: Here Comes Santa Claus

    ST. PAUL — The Cruz campaign is making a list.

    As attendees packed a reception hall in Minnesota on the first night of Senator Ted Cruz’s seven-day, 12-city tour, they were greeted by an uncommon supporter: a costumed Santa Claus, posing with children and more than a few adults beside a fireplace.


    But the campaign’s aim was not exclusively festive.

    To retrieve photos taken with the Santa, visitors were handed cards directing them to Mr. Cruz’s website, where they were asked to provide their names, email addresses and ZIP codes.

    “The Santa’s optically good anyway. It’s a Christmas tour, it makes total sense,” said Jeff Roe, Mr. Cruz’s campaign manager. “But you still have to run a campaign when these are over. You can’t just come out and do rallies and have nothing left when you leave except for a bunch of uneaten cookies. Now we’re going to have living data of people. They’ll have an experience they’ll remember forever.”


    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...s-santa-claus/

    is there anything about this TX Christian supremacist asshole that ISN'T creepy?



  24. #99
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    Religious Right Leaders Rally Behind…Ted Cruz

    After years of angling to prevent that from happening in 2016, ‘several dozen’ Religious Right leaders met in secret in early December and voted to rally around Ted Cruz.”There are literally hundreds of these guys, so several dozen isn’t a quorum, but some of the bigger names are involved in this process, which involved another “secret meeting” (remember, the Establishment just had one of these too). This one was organized by hate group leader and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins.

    The upshot of Cruz’s victory was immediate, said Alberta:

    Three prominent participants — direct-mail pioneer and longtime activist Richard Viguerie, the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown, and The Family Leader’s Bob Vander Plaats – announced their support of Cruz within 72 hours of the meeting at the Sheraton.

    But this barely scratches the surface. An avalanche of endorsements is forthcoming from conservative leaders, including James Dobson, founder and chairman emeritus of Focus on the Family, Ken Cuccinelli of Senate Conservatives Fund, and of course, from Perkins himself.

    It is unclear just how effective the support from NOM will be, given their ongoing fundraising difficulties. After all, the whole reason for their existence is stopping Marriage Equality, and the Supreme Court drove a stake into the heart of that issue. Butthey see Cruz as their savior, someone who will “reverse the same-sex marriage ruling” (and he does promise to do that). Meanwhile, NOM is apparently determined to “stop the persecution of people who refuse to be involved in the lie of same-sex marriage.”

    http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/18/religious-leaders-rally-behind-ted-cruz.html?
    utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign =Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politicus+USA+%29


    No surprise, the grifter bag Christian Taliban mullahs gonna pimp for a Christian supremacist bag.



  25. #100
    Believe. Dirk Oneanddoneski's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    1,110
    not bad

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •