Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by peterchunt 9 years, 3 months ago
    I can recall an interview with someone who admired Ayn Rand (don’t recall who that was) and being asked if he would run as an Objectivist. His answer was that he would never be elected. He knew that once the media got wind of being an atheist, that would spell the end of his chances. Whether we like it or not, most Americans expect a candidate to be a Christian. Recall the speculation early in Obama’s campaign as to was he Christian or Muslim. He quickly stated he was a Christian (even if he is not) because that would have ended his chances at getting elected. So all this talk about religion to me is background noise. I look to see what values the person stands for (ethical and honest), and will he stand for our Constitution, promote a smaller government, and protect this country.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      There is a big difference between someone who harbors politically correct religious beliefs versus someone who throws it in your face in an evangelical fit in the name of a presidential campaign.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by peterchunt 9 years, 3 months ago
    Too be honest I don’t give a damn about his religious crusade. What I do care about are what are his ideas, his program for dealing with the serious problems facing America, how will he work with those who may not support everything he is pushing in enacting those programs (legally and constitutionally). A lot of the things that candidates say are politically motivated, so lets study the issues, not the lofty sound bites. I’m not religious or anti-religious; religion is just something I rarely think about, but I do recognize that 80% of Americans are Christians, so it will be used for political purposes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      Unfortunately his religious fervor _is_ part of his ideas. It is incompatible with rational thought and undermines whatever else better he may be. By loudly and publicly tying the individualist, Constitutional right to religion he also undermining the kind of intellectual advances in cultural reform that are necessary, setting up the usual false alternative of religion versus the left presenting itself as reason and practicality for dealing with real world problems.

      80% of voters may be nominally Christians, but they are for the most part normal, secular people trying to live their lives here on earth in a secular country, not obsessed with religious evangelism. Cruz's wild-eyed preacher persona is going to turn a lot of them away. Few voters want someone who comes across as a fanatic of any kind. He may be appealing to the evangelicals, but that's it..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by sumitch 9 years, 3 months ago
        But Obama's great oratory and pocket full of lies that got him into office gets a pass. Makes perfect sense to me. Let's all go out and campaign against Senator Cruz because he's not afraid to show his thanks to God.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          This thread has nothing to do with Obama. It is about Cruz's own decision to substitute religious fervor for the kind of campaign that is desperately needed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 3 months ago
      Exactly. And as several commenters on The Blaze have pointed out, he has yet to speak an original idea. Teddy boy, if you have any, now would be a good time to lay them on the table.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by peterchunt 9 years, 3 months ago
        Unfortunately most, if not all, candidates for the Republican nominee will be supporting religion. As I said I can live with that, even though I am an atheist. I look to their ideas, which will take time. I haven’t said I support Cruz, and indeed, I right now favor some other candidates, but I am waiting to see all the policies of all the candidates, and then make the decision which is probably who is the least worst.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          That is all we can do (for an election), but I don't think they are all that bad in promoting and relying on religion. Jindal and Santorum (who was once very good in some ways before having some kind of Catholic vision that probably cost him his Senate seat) have both already exhibited similar outbursts, but not most of the rest. At the other extreme have been establishment candidates like Bush and Christie who are very dangerous in other ways for their Pragmatic statism and pandering.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
      80% claim to be Christians. What % then go out and vote for the lesser or greater of evils. We have a Government that talks but does not produce. A party that thinks talking about something is doing something and now, although overtly anti-religion claims to be religious.

      The statistics don't support each other.

      He's still a Republican. Hillary is still a Democrat. Figure it out for yourself.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
        Hillary isn't running in the Republican primary.

        Both parties pay lip service to religion but generally don't embrace an evangelicalism like a demagogic preacher.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 3 months ago
          Both parties pay lip service to religion but generally don't embrace an evangelicalism like a demagogic preacher.

          ... wow, the all got ME fooled, then!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
          Does it matter? They are both part of the left wing Government Party. Comedy like the two masks smiling and frowning, same actor same stage same play. i see no evidence the Republicans have moved to the center much less the right. they are still believers in government controlling people. the rest is just street theatre and meaning once the sun replaces the lamp posts. Lesser of two evils only means the voter chose to support evil.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 3 months ago
          There's news. Who would have guessed that Hillary isn't running in the Republican party. Last I heard she hasn't said she's running for anything. But Hillary is a proven liar so she's the obvious pick of the two.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 3 months ago
    But because he emphasizes religion in this one ad and that makes him a problem. Right. Great logic. Have you bothered to listen to any of his interviews? Have you checked out his voting record? Have you heard him lie about anything? Do you have anything to hang him for other than a belief in God?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaltyDog 9 years, 3 months ago
    I have my beliefs and I don't pretend to understand anyone else's mysticism. With that said, one thing that I can say from experience: whenever someone starts out a business deal by telling you what a great Christian they are, GRAB YOUR WALLET!!!
    I've learned over long experience to simply say, "Don't tell me, show me."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 3 months ago
    Cruz surely PO'd a lot of PC libtards! LOL!
    Christians are supposed to keep their mouths shut.
    Well, not me either.
    Freedom!
    Have a nice Easter, by the way.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      He is running for President of the United States, not exercising freedom of speech to promote a religion. He doesn't just happen to have nominal religious leanings, he is militantly promoting a fanatical religion. That does not belong in a secular country (not that it belongs anywhere) and will only be destructive.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 3 months ago
    I always get the creeps from him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      For all the elements of his better side embracing Constitutional principles, he is going to give a lot people the creeps acting like an evangelist and improperly tying the two together.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 3 months ago
        So with this performance, do you really believe that his embrace of Constitutional principles is heart felt? Or is it just more pandering? Good post by the way.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          From his past record he does seem to strongly support constitutional government, at least as it was so supposed to function historically. Atlas Shrugged had at least a sense of life appeal to him, but I can't say from what I know of him that he understands or supports rational individualism and the absolute rights of the individual as the moral basis.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by sumitch 9 years, 3 months ago
        The nation was founded on Christian principles and the constitution was written by Christians. How is that improperly tying the two together.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 3 months ago
          No so.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 3 months ago
            LetsShrug is correct. This country may have been founded on Christian principles during the era of the Pilgrams (1620-1670) but those were not the same ones applied during the days of constructing the Constitution. The Constitution was NOT written by Christians. How do I know this? I believe, (don't quite remember the exact number) 98% of the founding fathers were MASONS. Masons are not Christians! They are Gnostic. Ever see the "G" in the middle of their square & compass? Yeah, that's what the G stands for and not God.

            I could go on, but would rather not hijack the post.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          The country was founded on the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason and individualism that overthrew the previous dominance of the Church for centuries. The "Christian principles" of otherworldly mysticism, asceticism, duty and submission were the philosophy of the Dark ages.

          It was not possible for a philosophy of primitive mysticism to lead to a country establishing the right to the pursuit of one's own happiness here on earth with spectacular improvements in science and human progress under capitalism, all in in a relatively brief period, and it is not possible to defend that now from an intellectual outlook of primitive mysticism. The cultural dominance of Christianity kept the western world in squalor and misery with essentially no progress for over a millennium.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 3 months ago
          Ah, usually the accusation is "Judeo-Christian Principles" and many of the Founding Fathers reported themselves not as Christians, but Deists.
          ... Believers in 'some kind of Supreme Being,' but not necessarily JC and his troupe.

          ah, whatever....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
          You'll never get these folks here to admit it, despite the fact that only two of the delegates didn't list their religion as explicitly Christian, nor the references in both the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. That's fine - let it go. Those who do their homework on the matter know the real history.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by H2ungar123 9 years, 3 months ago
      And you don't (or do) get the creeps from the
      WH creep=in=Chief?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
        There are a lot of things about Obama that give us the creeps and worse. But what is meant here is a different sense of that phrase: someone who talks with contrived flourishes of dramatic rhetoric and a glazed expression like he's crazed and out of touch with reality, trying to emotionally manipulate like an evangelical preacher building up a crescendo as his listeners lose their sense of reality and drift into a fervent trance. It's the Jim Jones kind of creepiness and isn't restricted to politics.

        He seems to have developed his style deliberately, just when we need the opposite: someone who can lead with rational explanation.

        That is the creepiness he is exuding, despite the fact that behind it he is an intelligent man who understands and supports Constitutional principles better than most of them, but you have to wonder if he is stable and consistent enough to credibly act on them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 3 months ago
          Question arises--Integrity??
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
            I think he is willing to put his convictions into action, as illustrated in his lonely battle in the filibuster against a massive budget increase. His religious fervor has led him to put that side of him into his campaign opening. It appears that he does have integrity, but with some very bad values and principles mixed with the good.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
    Of course. It's only logical.
    He is campaigning to be the "lesser" of two EVILs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      He's campaigning for what he believes in. What we are left with is the lesser of two evils.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
        As a DemRep, he is campaigning against almost everything America stands for, and there will be more than 2 candidates. If you vote, vote against evil, not for it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          An obsession with religion is against what the country stands for. Much of his constitutional views are against everything the left stands for. There will be many candidates in the primaries, but most likely only two opponents in the general election with a realistic chance to win.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
            If you continue to waste your vote on one of two evil choices there will never be anything but evil choices with a realistic chance to win.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
              If you want to stop evil choices and fight their consequences once in office you have to do a lot more than either voting or refraining from voting every four years. That is not the cause of evil choices. An election and the limits of the choices you are in fact confronted with at any point in time are only a consequence of the culture and politics of the nation -- and those actively engaged in politics for good or bad.

              At the time of an election one can only try to stop the worst, when there is a significant difference, from among the choices we are in fact limited to and which cannot be changed. But there is much, much more to do the rest of the time.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
                I agree that one should do more than vote.

                I completely disagree that one should vote for evil. Both Dem and Rep has proven to be far worse than promised and the GOP continue to rely on voting for the lesser of two evils to keep them in power. GOP is a fraud in my view because they pretend to be anti-state. If you continue to waste your vote on one of two evil choices there will never be anything but evil choices with a realistic chance to win.
                Look at results and voting for the lesser of two evils has proven repeatedly to be disasterous for liberty. Continuing to do so after looking at results is an irrational waste.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                  No one who knows what is going on believes that voting for either side is a vote to restore freedom. Casting a vote within the alternative available, when it makes a difference, is not a wasted vote and not a "vote for evil". It is recognition of reality and the fact of a what a vote does in determining which of the two possibilities you will have to live under. Bush, the moderate manager of existing statism, was no Obama, Kerry or Gore. Voting "for" Bush was not a sanction of evil for anyone other than those who actually liked his political philosophy. A vote is not a sanction or philosophical endorsement. Please refrain from misrepresenting this.

                  We are discussing in this thread Ted Cruz's choice to launch his campaign in the Republican primary with a deliberate diversion into frenzied religion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
                    Bush was a disaster, arguably exceeded by Obama, but that remains to be seen. Bush started an endless war on false pretenses, and destroyed what remained of the Bill of Rights. The Bush administration will likely be remembered as the worst in the history of the republic to date, definitely worse than all in the 20th century Congratulations on your magnificent voting record. You are welcome to vote as you wish of course but as long as you encourage others to waste their votes I will speak out against doing so. You claim you do not "sanction or philosophical endorse" statists, but your voting consistently for statists and encouraging others to vote for statists in spite of the horrid record of doing so conflicts with your statement. It appears that you are exactly the mindset that the GOP needs to retain power since their claims to defend liberty against statism is similarly conflicting.

                    I will not refrain from speaking what I believe is right regardless of your wishes.
                    Ted Cruse is running for POTUS as a Republican, the statist party that lies about that fact. History shows how well the GOP has grown the state and destroyed the Bill of Rights and pandered to large corporate looters. I invite you to state the record and prove the value of voting for the GOP.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                      A vote is NOT a "sanction". People who vote are NOT responsible for who is on the ballot.

                      Your repetitive accusations are unresponsive, off topic and offensive.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
                        You choose to vote for a DemRep instead of another candidate. You choose the candidate from a party with a history of false promises and statist expansion of government. If you want less government intrusion don't vote for statist looters.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                          We choose from among those who have a chance to win the election. Refraining from voting "for" one of them does not make any of them go away. Attempting to influence the outcome of what we have to live under, knowing fully well what the limitations are and that it does not change the current corrupt system, does not endorse or sanction either of the candidates or the current parties and system. I understand your frustration, but accusing people who vote as sanctioning statism regardless of their reasons is false and offensive, in addition to remaining off topic in this thread.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
                            As long as you vote as the statists want you to there will not be any chance of victory for a liberty candidate. You clearly believe your method is right in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
                            You have given no facts to support your position.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 3 months ago
    Um...so his Dad would have bolted and not hung around and his mother would have been a single mom if not for Jesus Christ? How so?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
      That's definitely the $64 billion question.
      Or are we not supposed to ask?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 3 months ago
        Probably option 2. It's just not nice to question anything when christ is getting the credit.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
          Another reason to put very strict limits on campaign spending, say $1 million for POTUS candidates, $500k for senate, $250k for house-rep.
          Either the tv networks will expose their game and lower costs, or candidates will not enrich the biased bastards with funds from honest people.
          More likely government would force their media toys to give free time to candidates, but that would likely be equal time, and even that is better than the current idiotic system. Open the door to lots of candidates, and loose the dogs of war.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by TomSwift 9 years, 3 months ago
    He looks like a freakin' pervert. I can visualize him leering at strippers in a dingy dive bar or furtatively buying magazines in brown wrappers. He also reminds me of Heinlein's Nehemiah Scudder. The scary thing is that Heinlein predicted that Scudder would be elected in 2012. He also predicted that when that happens, there would be no election in 2016. I doubt he has a prayer (see what I did?) of being elected but that people can see him as a credible candidate is scary.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 3 months ago
    Very good, Ted. An entirely logical beginning - let's see how you develop this.

    You see: peterchunt and I (and others) would vote for him based on his actual agenda; most people vote based on emotion. Therefore, the segment of the population he needs to 'win' is the emotionally connected segment, not the rationally analytical portion of the country. So this is possibly a canny beginning to a successful campaign:
    You come out with a strong emotional appeal to acquire the support of the Christian community, and then you propose conservative financial and political policies to be the viable alternative to Hillary for the non-religious conservatives. OK, this does meant that you probably have to be anti-abortion...the Christian community will not tolerate any other stance. I can live with that for a few years if it means getting rid of the EPA (as 'too being expensive to maintain'), Common Core, HIPAA, ACA, Article 21, etc.

    Jan, willing to segue on intersection between anti and pro abortion policies
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by sumitch 9 years, 3 months ago
    Amazing. The man announces that he's running for president and all the conversation that ensues is about religion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      All the conversation about his running for president, which he had previously announced, is not about religion. He made it about religion in his first campaign ad.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 3 months ago
        And you slam him for daring to mention it without bothering to find out anything about him.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          We know that there are aspects to him that are good, as previously discussed. That is what he is undermining by turning his campaign into a religious fest, which is destructive. We need someone who will articulate rational values and principles for a free society and what he intends to do about it, not a fervent reversion to mysticism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
      I agree and disagree. I don't know what to think. I have seen so many politicians pandering for votes from religious groups. If I knew Cruz, I would be able to tell if he is sincere. I know he is a politician so I lean toward thinking he is saying what he thinks will get him more votes without any regard to ethics or morality.
      If I was running for POTUS, I would avoid all mention of religion because I think it has little to do with doing the job of POTUS. I would concentrate on actions demonstrating that I acted in a way that proved I could be trusted to do the job of POTUS. Part of that would be to prove my ethics and my philosophy. That philosophy would either prove or disprove my acceptability to someone who is religious. If being the same religion as a voter is the most important criteria to a voter then that voter would not be the target for my ad.
      Clearly I will not be selected by the GOP as their candidate in this timeline.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
        I don't think he's pandering for votes without regard for ethics. He means it,. His campaign emphasis may be somewhat skewed appealing to the evangelicals in the primary, but he clearly has an unhealthy fervor for it..

        If he were nominated to the Supreme Court and started emphasizing religion instead of the Constitution it would be a big problem for a lot of people.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo