When Ted Cruz does these shows, the interviewers seem to do most of their show prep by studying memes on the Occupy Democrats Facebook page. As do their producers. And all their friends. And the audience. And pretty much anyone in their general vicinity. Oh, entertainment industry! Stephen Colbert was no different, and after asking Cruz about Ronald Reagan, asked him if he think his opponents are evil and diabolical.
Cruz didn’t take the bait…
When others throw rocks and insults, I don’t respond in kind. And that’s true of both Republicans and Democrats, when others attack me I make it the point to keeping the focus on substance, keeping the focus on ‘how do we turn this country around?’ People are fed up. What they want are jobs and economic growth. And you mentioned before, you said ‘Cruz, your a very conservative guy.’ Listen, what I’m fighting for are simple principles: live within our means, stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids, and follow the Constitution.
I do give Colbert credit. When they were discussing gay marriage and Ted Cruz, Ted refused to take Colbert’s strawman question at face value and instead gave an measured and intelligent answer about the 10th amendment and states rights, immediately the audience started to boo (since liberals hate measured intelligence), he told them to stop and to be respectful. He wasn’t Ellen Page – the short, lesbian Canadian who tried to corner Cruz at a BBQ, for those of you who need a refresher.
The usual liberal BS aside, Ted Cruz still hit it out of the park and gave people the opportunity to see the actual Ted Cruz. Not the glorified Mr. Rogers who showed up to the debates, but the real, on-point Ted Cruz who’s developed a loyal following for being consistent.
Not the Ted Cruz that liberals – and a lot of Republicans – lie about.
The author of this piece as well as Ted Cruz would do well to read up on the founding fathers fear of the “tyranny of the majority” and why the Supreme Court exists.
The author of the previous comment, should recognize that the “tyranny of the most vocal minority” has no more legitimacy than the aforementioned “tyranny of the majority”. Any tyranny is not acceptable. The Supreme Court does not exist to write law or enforce law, or fabricate new “rights” through judicial advocacy, Ted Cruz is likely the most knowledgeable candidate in the GOP field and of course, as such represents a clear and present danger to the progressive agenda and therefore must be vilified and marginalized at all costs.
What “tyranny” exists when a group is granted rights without rejecting those rights to any others? The “tyranny of the majority” in this case was responsible for denying access to a government provision. The “vocal minority” in this case has not denied access or rights, nor have they asked for that, they have simply asked for the same access.
That’s assuming that the “government provisions” are a right. The whole point of the tax benefits for marriage was to encourage stable families for the raising of children. The were never intended to be a way for the government to endorse homosexuality. If two dudes or two ladies want to get married go ahead, but they have no right to demand things from the rest of the country.
Indeed, the procreation of new taxpayers is the only legitimate reason for government to be involved in licensing human relationships.. for a fee. Tax benefits for enduring physical, mental and financial rigors of procreating and raising new taxpayers is the only reason that such tax benefits exist; there is no other legitimate reason. However, not everyone, who wants those benefits as a tax loophole, is willing to actually do what is expected to earn such benefits. And that group is usually the same that condemn big corporations for doing the same thing: gaining tax benefits while not contributing the due requirement to have justified such tax breaks. Withholding tax payments, without providing commensurate societal benefits in exchange. A penchant of the greedy among us.
Only those relationships which will increase the demands on infrastructure, while providing new taxpayers for the future, need to be licensed. Civil unions with contracts makes sense. Marriage is of a different purpose. At least since the beginning of marriage. (see ‘rice at weddings’)
I would disagree on two fronts. First, it’s not that provisions are a right – but it is that equal access to them is a right. The debate about why the government might offer legal protection for the provision can be debated – even if you claim it is only for the stability of families, that can’t eliminate homosexual relationships given that they are home to many children, etc.
The only thing really being demanded is recognition that the union is legal and a family has been created. As is frequently cited, such recognition is critical to inheritance, medical visitation, access to healthcare and benefits, etc. There is no legitimate purpose in denying these provisions to two people who wish to share them simply because they are the same sex.
The Supreme Court’s purpose is to verify the constitutionality of a law. States were creating laws that were unconstitutional. The SC said those laws have no merit. The result was not a new law, only that states that try to tell who can be married had to shut up and let everyone have the same rights. 5 appointed justices didn’t create any law. They merely struck down laws, deemed them unconstitutional, and made this country a more equal nation.
Removing government from the “marriage business” would have done that. Instead, the SC mandated what is allowed and must be done. There is a difference. It’s ok, liberty is tricky, and few actually get it.
Please cite in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is granted the power of judicial review.
The Supreme Court (nor any other court) cannot arbitrarily review laws. A case was brought by individuals affected by anti-gay marriage laws. If they weren’t affected by the law, they would not have standing to bring the case, but they were, so they did. The suit alleged that the law was unfairly affecting them because they believed it was a violation of the 14th Amendment. Once that happens, the court is forced to make a ruling as to whether or not the law violates the US Constitution or not. The Supreme Court is effectively obligated to review cases that are appealed to them if multiple lower courts are conflicting, or if its a particularly contentious issue that they wish to settle in a more credible manner… and that’s what they did.
Except that it has been hailed as “The legalization of Gay Marriage” when what it *actually* means was “The illegalization of making gay marriage illegal.”
And there is a big difference.
IF the Supreme Court actually did what you said it did, then there is no enforcement for states or churches to marry a gay couple. But ohhh are there lawsuits doing so.
IF the Supreme Court actually did what you said it did, then it would still be a states rights issue and an issue that would need to be voted on. But nope, there’s lawsuits going on where such “anti-gay marriage” laws were overturned to *force* the church or state to marry these gay couples.
Our country runs on case law. Meaning very little *new* shows up, and everything is based on what happened prior. This makes for a consistent law system.
This law system is using the Supreme Court’s Ruling to force states into doing things that they have no right to.
The difference of “Oh I *can* marry the two of you, but I don’t want to *and you can’t make me*” is being lost on the left, and is being forced upon people legally (see: lawfully) via our judicial system.
oh Micheal,
what a diabolical Pandora’s box the left has opened. Even now owners of Concealed Carry Permits are gathering to demand that same right. That is if the USSC can wave it’s scepter and demand across the board equal access to rights NATIONWIDE, then the open carry and concealed carry rights of one state apply to all the states.
That is what they are saying at least. And I can see a few other future scenarios where the USSC errases the States 10th Amendment rights.
This should be fun.
And the Chief Justice rightly pointed out that none of the ruling’s foundations had any basis in the Constitution. or law; or that the courts can modify, or write law. They can only say that a law is not constitutional. Yet, as the Chief justice and 3 others pointed out, such a right does not exist in the Constitution. Therefore it goes to the sates, sovereign in their own right to write laws which the Supreme Court does nto have the authority to do, constitutionally. What is not specifically provided for in the Constitution, falls to the States. Yet most states, that had same sex marriage laws, had them imposed on them by a single judge, not by the wishes and votes of the state’s citizens. Removing the principle of government, by the people, of the people, and for the people, as done by the SCOTUS decision of Justice Kennedy’s opinion, is unconstitutional.
He also needs to reconcile the 10th amendment with the 14th.
The 14th amendment was written and ratified to give black slaves equal rights and equal protection. Period. Not gay, not foreigners.
Hilarious… read up…. Only if Fox orated a truthful story would the idiots and a$$ wholes of the modern Republican Party know of tyranny of the masses, or religious freedoms for non-Christians.. I believe your beef is with Roger Ailes, and Rupert Murdoch….
If the mayority are tyrants, then why that the unelected group of lawyers use their mayority to rule over that other mayority that are the people. That is tyranny; doesn’t it?
and how much of the reaching across the isle have Dems done. F U Colbert you hypocrite!!!! Did Dems “reach” across the isle to Repubs on Obamacare? Nope! So here’s your answer Colbert, (btw you asked that question because you KNOW Dems are loosing big this time) Repubs will reach across the isle the same amount as Dems these past 8 years.
Thinking like that leads the country to where it is now. People need to understand that the point of Congress is to improve the country. Everyone needs to reach across the isle. It can not be an eye for an eye. Republicans cannot say that because the Democrats did not work bipartisan that they will not. Both parties need to work together. If every single law becomes republicans vs democrats, nothing will get done. This is why Washington did not want political parties to form. Americans are so competitive and have this inherent belief that we are correct that the arguing leads to negative work.
What, to make it even MORE of a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies while actually covering patients even less?! GTF out of here.
They didn’t reach across the isle because they saw the opportunity to provide health care for millions of Americans that otherwise would suffer immeasurably.
You don’t question the idea of the fire department being tax funded, because you recognize that you don’t have the resources to combat a fire.
Health insurance for individuals in poverty follows the same logic. These people are unable to care for themselves and their children without sinking irreparably into debt.
This is literally a life and death situation that exceeds the importance of your isle reach across tally.
Suffer immeasurably? Life and death? OMG, get over yourself.
“opportunity to provide health care for millions of Americans that otherwise would suffer immeasurably.”
Except it doesn’t do that. It has kicked millions off the insurance they did have and raised the cost for everyone who pays for their own insurance. The only people that were helped by the bill were the people who were under the expanded medicaid at the expense of taxpayers.
Yes they did, but the GOP demanded throwing the whole bill out and start anew. You do remember the summit don’t you? Ted Kennedy’s health certainly changed things, but Obama was WAY too co-operative with the other side during the early part of his administration when he had control of both houses.
As for the author, if what Ted Cruz said/did/does he considers a home run then the DEMS need only a single to win in 2016. Ted Cruz is a fraud.
Yeah, like when GWB wanted to privatize a small part of Social Security. The left really reached across the aisle then.
Audience act like clapping seals . So rude and stupid.
LIke the people on this page that spew with hatred. Depressing to see so many set faith in a party, and hating all those who challenge it. This author works for one side and pushes their agenda. No different form the liberal agenda.
Patrick, Do you really believe that the brilliant Constitutional lawyer, Ted Cruz, does not know why the Supreme Court exists? He knows why it exists, and he knows when they over step their Constitutional authority, such as in the homosexual marriage case.
I believe that brilliant Constitutional lawyer, Ted Cruz, knows the law and completely understands the role of the Supreme Court and their legal decision that the laws in some states were in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law. I believe that the brilliant Constitutional lawyer doth protest too much. Ted Cruz scares me more than any of the Republicans, because unlike the majority of the field he is actually smart enough to know just how awful of a human being he is and he does it anyway.
When he talks about going around the country and hearing from people that he should be an obstructionist — does it ever occur to him (again, I assume it does and he simply pretends it doesn’t) that he has a self selecting opinion base. He only talks to the base he drums up with his rhetoric. If he talked to Rand Paul’s constituency, he’d hear different things, let alone HIllary or Bernie Sanders.
I didn’t hear his outrage about the Citizens United decision. The majority of REPUBLICANS were against it in addition to virtually all Democrats. When Bernie Sanders proposed an amendment which explicitly said that Congress should have the right to put reasonable limits on fundraising and spending on political campaigns, and that nothing in this amendment should be construed as violating the 1st Amendment — Cruz and most other Republicans railed about how Sanders was trying to repeal the 1st Amendment. He knew better. His outrage about 5 unelected lawyers in Washington DC making laws is VERY selective. You heard lots of liberal outrage about the Citizens United, lots of fervor about a new Constitutional Amendment to override the decision, but NO ONE suggested that the decision was not the law of the land, as Cruz suggests about this decision he disagrees with. Give me a break
All I see is Ted Cruz worming his way out of taking a stance for civil rights. He could have scored big by simply stating his support of equality, but he didn’t. Love to see how you spin your content, Crowder.
Things that are unequal in nature cannot be made equal by judicial fiat.
Senator Cruz should have brought up about President Reagan”s amnesty was that it was part of a one time deal. He would grant amnesty and Congress would enforce immigration laws. He did. They didn’t.
You do realize that leaving gay marriage for the states to decide goes against the whole “United States” idea, right? And that we’ve already tried the idea of having individual states decide their own way: it resulted in the Civil War.
The audience BOO’d him when he said “I believe in democracy.” What happened to America!?
Chad, I think they audience felt Ted was ducking the question and that’s why they started to boo him.
They wern’t booing democracy dumb ass, they were booing Ted Cruz for being full of shit. “I believe in democracy” yeah so do i and everybody else but that’s not relevant
Ted Cruz was corrected three times in that interview. He got owned.
No he didn’t you moron
Ted Cruz shut down the government trying to take affordable health care away from Americans. That’s all anyone needs to know about him. His political career died for the majority of Americans that night.
I love how he handled that. Take note, Obama. That’s how a leader speaks.
There’s a great article that CNN posted about this interview. It explains how Ted Cruz got booed and all that this article fails to mention. Using the names of logical fallacies in your post is a good start but, as teachers always say, the real issue is with application. Your journalism 101 class would have covered this material. So like when Ted redirects to the constitution and Colbert gets him back on topic is an example of a straw man fallacy committed by Ted since he did not want to answer the question. He even does it again before getting booed. Notice after he was allowed to finish his statement, he stated that “I don’t think we should entrust governing our society to five unelected lawyers in Washington.” There are 9 justices implying that he thinks that the “left” has stacked the court and hopefully not that he didn’t know there are 9 justices. Just doing some homework for you since it appears you get your material from “The Comical Conservative”.
The “five lawyers” he references are the four liberals who always vote in lock-step, and Anthony Kennedy, the so-called “swing vote on the court.”
meanwhile in iran……..
wow -so now tell us about Reagan funding the Taliban, delaying the release of 52 American hostages, destroying the Glass-Steagall Act, mortgage rates of 18% or 138 of his cronies in legal trouble –
I really like how Stephen stopped the audience from booing Ted Cruz. I thought it showed a lot of class.
You are a disgusting excuse for a human being and scum like Cruz should not be allowed on TV, much less allowed to run for office. You should be ashamed of yourself. I’m sure your family is you repulsive piece of trash.
Dan,
You sound like a really nice person;one somebody can have a nice civil discussion with. People like you restore my faith in humanity.
Troy,
Maintenance of state sovereignty is the purpose of the “whole ‘United States’ idea,” you historically illiterate buffoon. Hence why the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution exist, and why the States even ratified the document in the first place.
It wasn’t state sovereignty that caused the War of Southern Secession, it was Northern industrial and cultural interests attempting to destroy that state sovereignty that did.
If you really want to fight another war here in the States over Washington imposing a redefinition of marriage on the States to try and legitimize faggotry, then be my guest.
Respect state sovereignty, respect the Constitution, or die screaming.
Yeah yeah… Southern state sovereignty — they just couldn’t stand the idea of letting go of ENSLAVING human beings — something even the founders of country 87 years prior KNEW was wrong.
Why is it the people who are so eager to be obstructionist, or secessionist are always just plain wrong. Legally wrong, morally wrong… just wrong. Get over it.
The 14th Amendment says all people in the US must be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Why does it make you feel like a bigger person to treat people you don’t even know, or worse get the government to treat them badly on your behalf?
Egregious. This article praises Cruz for his views on working across the aisle with liberals, but then goes on to make a cheap shot joke at their expense: “since liberals hate measured intelligence”.
The author realizes that what will sell his blog post here is mobilizing a conservative base to cheap reactionary anger and laughter, rather than actually respecting and working with those whom we disagree.
These are presidential candidates during a very precarious time in our history, and we’ve turned the fate of our nation into a race for who can make their side the angriest, in order to get blog hits, in order to sell, and I quote from this article’s ad base: “Rare Photos Reveal Sexiest Women Of…” and “The Hottest Girls Caught Doing the…”
This is one of the saddest articles I have read thus far, and from a website multiple friends of mine have recommended as fair and unbiased.
Karl, thought the very same thing. I went to this particular website to read some possible dissenting opinion that I could possibly use to explore my own platform, to see if any valid points were shared. Sadly, it is the self-same FOX-machine formula that tries to weave big words within a thinly-veiled sexist, racist, emotional approach to contemporary politics.
I am also curious whether anyone thought to ask Mr. Cruz if he thought it was all right for the Supreme Court to decide the 2004 election.
Chris, it’s encouraging to know there are other folks out there looking to explore other opinions and make up their own minds, as opposed to mindlessly spewing one media view or the other. Thanks for replying, honestly.
Great point about the 2004 election. What makes things constitutional or unconstitutional has of course nothing to do with the thing itself, but but with how they serve the individual politician’s needs, unfortunately.
Here is the problem with Cruz’s arguments about same sex marriage and the Constitution. There is case law that expands over the past century where the Court has defined that the Constitution provides every American the right to marriage. In 1923, the Supreme Court in Nebraska v Meyers states that the Due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides life, liberty, and property, and the Court interpreted that one of those liberty interests for all Americans is the right to marry. Many cases followed (see Loving v Virginia; Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur; Zablocki v. Redhail; M.L.B. v. S.L.J to name a few) that all reiterated this concept. So in Obergfell v Hodges, all the Supreme Court did was find that because due process applies to all Americans, and all same sex coupled are Americans, then they have the rights and liberty under Due Process to be married. This did not redefine marriage as the Bible states it. It did not create a law because the Court does not make laws. Now the effect of the ruling was that any state law (like Kentucky) that precludes a same sex couple from their due process rights of marriage is now (and has effectively always been) in conflict with the Constitution. Article 6 section 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy clause) states that any law in conflict with the Constitution is pre-empted and cannot be upheld. This is not a 9th Amendment issue. The Supreme Court in Griswold v Connecticut ruled that the 9th Amendment does not allow a state to deny a person their rights protected under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. It is not a 10th Amendment issue because the 10th Amendment does not give the states the power to trump Due Process rights of the Constitution. So bottom line for somebody who strives to follow the Constitution, Ted Cruz is very quick to mislead his supporters into believing that the Constitution allows states to discriminate against same sex couples, when the law and jurisprudence of this country clearly show he is wrong.
Amazing how many people clap and cheer like they’re at a football game when Colbert brings up taxing the hell out of them. We literally have a country of mental slaves.
And you mentioned before, you said ‘Cruz, your a very conservative guy.’
Typo: you’re
I like how you had to point out that Ellen Page is “short,” as if that has the slightest relevance to anything. You’re a massive hack.
The problem with leaving it to the States, as Cruz says, is that some states need to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing.
We had to fight a war to end slavery, and pass a constitutional amendment to ensure the folks down South treated people like people. And a hundred years after that we still had to force them to do that from a federal pulpit.
Ted Cruz doesn’t believe in his own rhetoric: He only touts judicial tyranny when he disagrees with the decision (and if that isn’t demonizing his opponents, I don’t know what is).
Whoever wrote this is retarded.
Liberals booed because states (namely in the South) have a terrible track record of affording basic human rights to minorities. If state rights were preserved pre-Civil War, we would still be waiting for those states to free their slaves.
So when human rights are not being afforded to American citizens, it is not a state issue. It is a place where the Federal government needs to step in.
Yes, practice your religion. But if it infringes upon the rights of other humans, your “rights” are now wrong.
Let’s talk a little about world history… Why don’t we keep heading back to when it was fine to have slaves in the United States of America, you could own them but certainly not marry them. Shall we just keep heading backwards in society. Let’s talk marriage, before the USA existed? Was this even anything do with congress? Or even religion? This stuff existed long before the USA came to be yet now you are arguing the terms of the definition of marriage? Seriously go read some history books!
I don’t think “nails it” means what you think it means. That was a largely civil discussion between two people. No one owned anyone. Everything has to be so dastardly and dramatic, no? Strawmen, and bait, and the like? The only dramatic moment was some barely audible booing (sounded more like chatter to me) that was quickly quelled by Colbert and didn’t detract from the discussion. This hyper-analysis of who wins every interview is really getting tiresome.
Liberals are like pigs lining in the slaughterhouse. They are quick to be subjuated by muslims are so ignorant to want Sharia law. They have no use in their existence .If you fuck them. they will fuck you. They are always oposite of what is good, they taste bitter in the world of sweetness.They are Godless majority of them. You will find them more in hell.
Last I checked, Christians are trying to legislate their religious book and instate their own sharia law. You have no room to speak honey.
Ted Cruz is a clown. He has no interest in liberty, just promoting himself. Listen to the silly self-aggrandizing way he speaks. Like he’s a vaudeville performer. No thanks. Try again.
Let’s hand it to Steven Colbert for actually reigning in his audience that was a classy moment. Points from me for Steven Colbert who I didn’t think would act that way.
Ted Cruz has 0% chance to get the nomination. Ted Cruz is rightfully despised by a wide swathe of the population.
When he speaks, you can hear the theme to Deliverance.
Ted Cruz is the Man. i’ll support a Trump or a Fiorina or a Rubin, but Cruz is my preference. He’s tough without insults. He’s principled and steadfast. I just wish he didn’t sound like a TV evangelist. I guess it’s just his manner of speaking. Nobody’s perfect.
Many of the comments about how bad liberals are, how bad Muslims are, about how bad godless people are, are why conservatives have changed so much in the last 30 years and how far they are from the principled ideals that they started, Liberals are really not that liberal. They are centrists. I think there really should be a third party of rational conservatives that don’t want Christian sharia law and that party will leave the crazy people to the fringe to be marginalized. The same way that the true far left wing was marginalized in this country. They extremists, whether they be Muslim, Communist or Tea Party, are all bad for this country.
^you’re
Christianity is a club. A privately run program with it’s specific belief system. There are many clubs around the world (Mormon, Baptist, Catholics) that have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. And they all have their own comprehension of the Bible. Our government has no business telling us how to interpret it. Why would LGBT want to do an activity in a club that they despise makes no sense to me. They have every right to make a new club – say the Church of LGBT, that interprets Bible differently and provides an LGBT wedding. That would be a wonderful thing (and they would probably have the best reception parties ever). As for private businesses, if that business makes it clear that they are a member of such club they could advertise “We support Christian, Mormon, LGBT, etc cakes/flowers/etc” This is a solution that doesn’t take away religious rights, and keeps the government out of our private lives”. But today we see LGBT waging war on Christians – if you don’t like the club policies don’t join in them, don’t attack them, make your own. Let me add, that government had no business in marriage – PERIOD, except for the legal issues that could and usually do arise in the future. A document legally binding one person to another is all that our government be concerned with. As for that document – yes – it should be accepted by any government agency and that is what I had assumed this supreme court decision was all about, the legal document. I wonder, would the LGBT Church, allow a marriage between an Islamic Club forced marriage between a child and a 50 year old man? For your sake, I hope so. Because, baby, THAT’s PROGRESS!
lol Faggots are a funny lot. So they can get “married” now, huh? ok, I hope you have many babies and a happy descendece… Wait, I forgot, you can’t have that! lol
Did people seriously boo him for saying “I believe in democracy”?
“live within our means, stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids, and follow the Constitution”
Lol, its funny because ted cruz’s policies will do exactly this… bankrupt the future generations. Whoever writes this page, and young republicans who follow it, are literally voting for their own dismal future by having this idiot, or any other GOP religious nut, in office
As apposed to the socialist & Marxist economic policies pushed by the left. You know the ones that have failed everywhere they have been implemented.
Cruz’s whole argument about the tenth amendment is just so incomplete, and he knows it. The tenth of course says that states get to control issues not mentioned in the Constitution… and yet he darn well knows that those laws must still comply with the general provisions of the Constitution. In this case, the issue is equal protection of the law.
The Constitution didn’t say anything about driving, so it’s an issue left to states. Fine. But no state, even by popular vote, could pass legislation that discriminates as to who can get a license or requires a religious test to get one, etc.
He knows this. He’s an ass for pretending he doesn’t.
There was a time when democracy approved of slavery, segregation, and internment. Didn’t make it right.
So now we are booing and hissing against democracy. Jerks.
Ted Cruz: I believe in democracy…
Audience: Booooooooooo!
Wow. Liberals don’t even recognize what they’re booing at, anymore. They see a face their party tells them to hate, and they hate at all costs… Even, in this case, at the IDEA of believing in democracy. This clip makes it very evident that they’ve lost their minds and have been drinking the kook-aid for far too long.
Context matters. He was saying that in response to a question about gay rights.
Question: Was the Supreme Court wrong to end slavery?
Answer: Well, I believe in democracy…
Cruz should have taken Colbert’s false assertion down. Reagan raised one little tax after making massive tax cuts. Liberals always focus on minutia to confuse an issue.
Liberal science understanding of climate change is as fictitious as their most immature imaginings
http://liberalsbackwardsthink.com/2015/09/22/liberal-science-is-a-fiction-of-their-primitive-imaginations/
The fact that the people in the audience are booing at democracy makes me scared for the people of this country, more than anything else.
The guy who says he doesn’t say bad things about other people said this about Vice President Biden: “You don’t need a punchline. You just say his name, people laugh.” He also seems to be paranoid about Obama. Obama hears Cruz’s name and probably shakes his head in disbelief. I have to give it to Cruz though for being against doing anything with the government. He also supported the law breaking clerk in Kentucky who refuses to support the constitutsion and was sentenced to jail for breaking the law.. So either you have your facts so totally screwed up that up is now down and vice versa or Ted Cruz is just like the others a flip floper of the highest order. Obama fooled us liberals that he would try to do anything worthy of the office. Cruz is no different. They get brainwashed once they are inside the government .