You got lied to, and you bought it. The quote is wrong, and they did that for a reason. Here is an audio of what he actually said...

Cruz said that the back-to-back decisions (re-writing Obamacare and the gay marriage ruling) "SOME OF the darkest 24 hours in our nations history", caps added by me for emphasis.

Here is the unedited audio...

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...yfp-t-337&fp=1

If I were you, I'd be upset with that website for playing me for a sucker and lying to me.

Alan Dershowitz is a very liberal professor at Harvard Law, who said that Cruz is one of the most brilliant students he ever had. Cruz won't be in the race for long, not enough people like him. But he respects the US Constitution, which enrages liberals, like the ones who run that website you cited.

Also Nebe, if you are curious to know why Cruz is so troubled by what SCOTUS did...it's not because he hates gays, but rather, because he respects the Constitution.

I am in favor of gay marriage. If it were put to a vote here in CT, I would cast a vote to legalize it. That being said, I am equally sickened by what SCOTUS did, because they had no constitutional authority to do so. It's a state issue, not a federal issue. And these 9 judges are not elected, they are appointed for life. So, what scares people like me and Ted Cruz, is the notion that 9 people who are not answerable to anyone, can decide when the Constitution really exists and when it doesn't. That's territory better left to elected officials, who can be voted out if we don't like what they are doing.

Good point. I agree about that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT discredited the characterization of Ted Cruz in the article you posted, and he presented further, constitutional, reasoning for Cruz's comment with which you agreed.

All it took was the insertion of two relevant words left out by the article to totally change the perspective on what Cruz actually said. It is that kind of manipulation of language by SCOTUS judges which distorts the meaning and the principles underlying the Constitution, and which provides cover for the politicians' transformation of our democratic republic into a centralized "democracy"--a democracy of the worst kind. One in which the "people" cede their responsibility of local and personal self governance to a centralized bureaucracy. In effect, rule strictly by simple majority opinion over the entire diversity of individuals and populations which comprise the nation of supposedly free people. And because the majority opinion is based on distorted language which ridicules and destroys principles that protect against the tyranny of the majority, the democracy is a form of mobocracy.

And the mob, mostly comprised of "good" intentioned people (what Lenin referred to as useful idiots) is kept under the influence of the central bureaucracy by its steady stream of good intentioned propaganda and its constant distortion of language to destroy old and burdensome notions and principles of individual freedom in favor of the easy, by simple vote, handouts and privileges granted by the central government.

Your article is full of such language and ideological distortion:


By Paul Thomas


"Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz called it "the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history". Was he referring to:

• The outbreak of the Civil War.

• The assassination of Abraham Lincoln or John Kennedy or Martin Luther King.

• The 1929 Wall St crash.

• Pearl Harbour.

• 9/11.

• The realisation that the immensely costly and destructive Iraq War was launched on the basis of a lie."

So the author gives a list of bullet points which, in his opinion, outrank the SCOTUS decisions in "darkness." Of course, he doesn't actually discuss the possibility of "darkness" in the SCOTUS decision because, I assume, he doesn't think they were dark at all. On the contrary, one is left with the impression they were the essence of light.

In any case, we are to think they are darker than the Court's decisions and, ergo, Cruz is some sort of idiot for claiming otherwise.

"None of the above: according to Cruz, America's darkest day was when the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriage."

Jim's pointing out the two words "one of" destroys the premise of the author's attempt to ridicule.

"Thus the extension of health insurance, previously the preserve of the rich, "

This is language distortion to the max. It's a blatant lie. Health insurance was not a preserve of the rich before the ACA.

"and marriage, previously the preserve of the straight, is [the Court's decisions] worse than war, depression, assassination and mass murder."

This is distortion by implication and concocted definition. He implies that marriage somehow existed as an open state of being, then defines it as a "preserve." And that the "preserve" was (unfairly?) claimed by "the straight". This is a reversal of how language works. Words attempt to define what exists. He seems to think that the word "marriage" somehow existed before there was something which it defined. And after that reversal of linguistic function, he defines marriage as a "preserve" which can be expanded to include things that the word never before described. He, like the Judges, redefines marriage. He can, as a propagandist, redefine and twist words however he wishes. But when Judges do so, the basis of law is destroyed. But the author, Thomas, doesn't seem to think that such judicial distortion ranks as a dark day. That the destruction of the basis for law is anywhere near, or at all, as dark as his bullet points.

And what does fellow Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee believe will "bring death to America":

• Bird flu.

• Climate change.

• Isis.

• North Korean nuclear missiles.

• Obesity.

• Psychopathic gunmen wrapped in the Confederate flag.

Again, none of the above: Huckabee was referring to the just-announced nuclear deal with Iran. He wasn't alone. It appears all 17 Republican presidential hopefuls believe the treaty painstakingly negotiated by the US, Russia, China, Britain and France is not merely not worth the paper it's written on, it's positively catastrophic.

This is an extension of the metaphorical bullet points technique which is an introduction of them as a piling on that is disconnected from any need to use them. Whether any of his bullet points will bring death to America has nothing to do with whether the nuclear deal will.

It will - Huckabee again - "wipe Israel off the map". It's worth pointing out that Israel, itself often accused of being a terrorist state, has a nuclear arsenal whereas Iran doesn't and, by virtue of this treaty, won't have for at least a decade.

Israel being accused of being a terrorist state does not diminish the potential for Iran to wipe them off the map. Another non-sequitor intended to deflect and inject moral equivalence. Well, gee . . . If Israel can wipe Iran off the map, why shouldn't Iran be able to wipe Israel off the map? I don't know . . . have we been hearing Israel constantly shouting death to Iran?

So apart from bringing death to America and Israel, are there any other flaws? You bet: it will lead to widespread war in the Middle East.

Leaving aside the fact that war in the Middle East is the current and normal state of affairs, this assertion begs the question of how the critics would deal with Iran and its nuclear programme. Well, by making war in the Middle East even more widespread or, as the 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain put it, singing along to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

Oh gosh . . . war in the Middle East is "normal" (according to the author) so we may as well encourage nuclear proliferation there. This could even bring a "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb" each other out of existence as a final end to that perpetual war. Good choice.

Fittingly, given that the Republicans are now essentially a party of religious fundamentalism,

Blatant lie in the form of outlandish generalization. Thomas is warming up to hyper-propaganda mode here.

their candidates are partly taking their lead from Zionist Israel and Wahhabist Saudi Arabia who are terrified - hopefully with good reason - that the Iran deal foreshadows a seismic realignment which reduces their malign influence on US Middle East policy.

AHA! Zionist and Wahhabist! That says it all. In a couple of inflammatory words. Nothing else going on there. Sums it up. And taking their lead . . . the Republican candidates are puppets of Zionists and Wahhabists. Propaganda getting hotter.

But their kneejerk (Ooooh . . . kneejerk. a favorite propaganda accusation denunciations also signal a frightening Ooooh . . . frightening.abandonment of diplomacy as a means of defusing tension, avoiding conflict and managing international affairs. The mindset seems to be that diplomacy should be reserved for friendly nations with whom you have interests in common. Right, right, the Republican candidates would never stoop to diplomacy. This guy really knows their mindset . . . even better than they know themselves. That they remain disposed towards armed intervention Sanctions are armed intervention? Weren't sanctions a part of the diplomatic negotions? Oh, that's right . . . the Repubs only use war.which has accelerated rather than suppressed Islamic militancy He knows this not as a talking point but as a fact? Hasn't the "normal" state of war in the Middle East been accelerating ever since Israel became a state? Armed intervention (which slowed it down until the intervention stopped) has caused the acceleration?shouldn't come as a surprise since persisting with policies that achieve the exact opposite of what was intended is something of an American speciality. Yup, especially the progressive American left and its destruction of rule of law and governing by whim.

The takeover of American conservatism by evangelical Christianity, Fox News and a handful of shadowy billionaires has transformed the Republicans into the party of wilful ignorance: doctrinal purity is more valued than intelligence; tolerance has been supplanted by persecutory moralising; paranoia has replaced realism.

His statement here is almost true. Except that the " wilful ignorance: doctrinal purity is more valued than intelligence; tolerance has been supplanted by persecutory moralising; paranoia has replaced realism" applies more so to the very people this author presumably supports.

This process may be reaching its logical conclusion with the emergence of property billionaire Donald Trump as the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination.

He's an evangelical Christian, has doctrinal purity, believes in military intervention . . . etc. etc.? He's the logical conclusion to all that stuff? Man . . . the distortion of language, the lying, the propaganda, the need to use the Marxist terminology . . . the would-be socialist unveils himself.

Trump personifies everything the rest of the world despises about America: casual racism, crass materialism, relentless self-aggrandisement, vulgarity on an epic scale. He is the Ugly American in excelsis.

You might expect a tycoon/buffoon cross to be a political player in some Latin American failed state or backward former Soviet republic, places with no democratic tradition or public institutions that have stood the test of time and no such thing as "the people" in the sense of an educated, civic-minded citizenry.

The fact that so many Republicans are comfortable with the thought of this monumentally unqualified individual in the Oval Office shows how warped the party has become. To borrow the rhetoric of their candidates, the party is now an existential threat to America's leadership of the global community.

The grand finale ends in a crescendo of moralistic accusations against a man who the author claims to be the conclusion to American Conservatism . . . and yet he fails to see the other Republican candidates scurrying to denounce Trump themselves . . . strange.

Well, not so strange. His version "of an educated, civic-minded citizenry", if he subscribes to progressive government, is a people who are educated into a statist mind of evolved Marxism. A state of being influenced by the distortion of words and abandonment of principles.

How can you not like this guy? Seriously... Give this a watch.

http://youtu.be/OQaTkOWKa8o
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To make it simple, nothing new here from Sanders , move along typical Lib/ Socialistic BS.

Throw employer and taxpayer $$$$$ at it and all is well, except one thing .

Employers will have to raise prices, hitting the middle class, and employers
will have to lay off workers, cut back on growth and not be able to higher new
people. All lands on enterprise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXo5fe7dYWk&sns=em
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I find him difficult to believe

The notion of creating a great environment with no poverty, and all we need to do is tweax tax rates on the zillionaires to achieve it, does sound awesome. I'm just not sure it's realistic, for sure no one has been able to pull it off. In fact. if you look at states in our country with the highest tax rates (NY, NJ, CT, MA, IL), are those states doing so swell?

Nebe, it's kind of tragic, I bet most of us have very similar visions for how we wish things looked. We just have different ideas of how to achieve it.

I have a brother who I love and admire, he is an administrator in the New Haven CT public sachools. Great brain, greater heart. He loves Bernie Sanders too.

Maybe Bernie isn't as consistent as he is touted to be, nor as "independent.":

http://socialistworker.org/2006-2/61...eSanders.shtml

But that's OK. Consistency is not, in itself, a good thing. It depends on what you are consistent about. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said " A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Being consistent as a "little statesman" about foolish notions on how to govern is not something to be proud of. To consistently advocate "socialist" policies for a nation whose framework is built upon individual freedom is a foolish consistency.

Lol.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

truly the key....

Freedom is the buzzword of fools.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just googled that out of curiosity.....you might be the first with that quote,,,, although I'm sure many tyrants have made similar statements

Nebe - what is freedom? What is the state of existence where you don't have freedom?

Freedom in my opinion is the ability to do what you want as long as it is not hurting your neighbor. Freedom is allowing bass master and fish wee wee to have a raging province town wedding. Freedom is a Jewish family, a Muslim family, a Muslim family and a bunch of hippies living in the same sub division neighborhood with a condo association.
Freedom is not imposing your religious beliefs on others, holy wars based on oil fields and political oligarchy serving a few handful of interests. That's fascism ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at a list of Sanders top donors, all labor unions. Isn't that being beholden to a small handful of interests? How is that any different than being beholden to big banks?

for real Jim ? You can't see the difference? Unions, while not perfect stand up for workers rights. What to banks stand up for except stealing or children's future with government bailouts because they are too big to fail. That means they can get away with zero accountability.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Freedom may be the buzzword of some fools, especially those who equate it with license. But it is also a word, if used wisely, that describes a universal human yearning to be rid of oppression, whether from such oppressions as hunger or fear as FDR envisioned freedom to be, or, as the Founders intended, from human coercions among which would be despotic government. But the two views disagree on the source of freedom.

The Founders believed the source was beyond the capacity of humans to give. That freedom was essentially inalienable and should only be limited by societal agreement. That we are essentially born free to do whatever we are capable of doing, but, in order to preserve that freedom for ourselves and others, that we should be responsible for our actions, and agree not to impinge on others' freedom to do the same.

FDR and his progressive cohorts, believed that the source of freedom was government. And therefor, the people are free to do what the government allows. A rather harsh version of this is explained on a quote attributed to Stalin:

So, society (and not just "bourgeois" society) sets the limits of individual choice, even (and maybe especially) while those limitations are invisible to casual view. These limitations are seen as the utmost of freedom, because they are accepted by members of the society as the "definition" of "freedom". If the limits of your chains are the definition of freedom - then, by definition, the length of your chains is "freedom".

The question is who puts the chains on whom. The Founders say that the chains are put on government which is in turn allowed to place very limited chains on the people. Marxists, socialists, progressives say that government is unlimited in its choice of chains for the people.

Both systems, the constitutional and the progressive, still depend, at least outwardly, on votes by the people. But if all that is required to enchain the people is the gathering of votes, then freedom in the founding sense, is at the mercy of the highest bidders and/or the most determined or persuasive tyrant. That is the condition the progressives have created and is the most advantageous to their power.

Constitutionalism, on the other hand, if adhered to, safeguards against that despotism.

Whether Bernie would govern progressively or constitutionally is the important distinction on which you should vote, not on nice promises of what he will give you.

If freedom is merely a buzzword for you and not worth an iota of a promised security which you are not capable of achieving yourself, Bernie may be your man.

I still believe that Franklin's "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" applies to your choice.

Speaking of your mention of license. I read the other day that a license is when the government takes away one of your freedoms and sells it back to you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice promises that all the hard working people will provide for you with the
sweat of their brows.

Trickle up VS. Trickle down.
How has trickle down worked for the economy? Ho has generated the new wealth in the last 10 years? Not you. Not me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You can't see the difference?"

Not really. A union and a big corporation are both looking out for their own interests, both are likely to elect politicians who will act in pursui tof those interests.

"Unions, while not perfect stand up for workers rights"

I'm a worker. No union does anything for me, except, in the case of public unions, jack my taxes up. Unions advocate for their members often at the terrible expense of everyone else, and they aren't bothered by that at all.

Aetna, Travelers, and The Hartford are headquartered in CT. They haven't done anywhere near the damage to our state, that the unions have done.

"What to banks stand up for except stealing or children's future"

Here in CT, my kids each owe the state thousands and thousands of dollars, to pay for the insane perks that the labor unions bought from corrupt democrats. I don't know how Bank Of America has done anything remotely malignant to my kids.

"How has trickle down worked for the economy?"

Here's how. If someone gets to keep more of their own money, they will either spend it, invest it, or save it in the bank. All help the economy.

How does saving money help the economy?!?!?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If I put my money in the bank, say a savings account...that's the money banks use to make loans. That makes it possible for the banks to give someone a mortgage to buy their dream house, it gives banks the capital they need to make business loans, student loans, car loans, boat loans, etc.

Unless people put their money in a mattress or a coffee can, and no one does that, that money is in circulation, and it absolutely helps the economy. Does that make sense? Not sure I explained it well.

I don't buy for one second that the government can do a better job of spending my money than I can. Thus, I believe the economy is better off if individuals get to keep (and therefore inject into the economy) as much of their money as is reasonable.

Now, if the govt takes more of my money, it will obviously spend that (here in CT, they will spend it two or three times!), so that's helping the economy too. But why would anyone presume that govt spending is superior to individuals spending their own money?

Makes sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We don't always agree, but you seem like a truly open-minded, willing-to-listen guy. I know I could learn a lot from you in that regard. I respect that.

i try to look at everything objectively.
While money in banks may help with mortgages, loans, etc.. In my opinion the way to really get the economy humming is to somehow get people's pay rate higher and get those people to spend their money at family owned mom and pop businesses... Eat and shop local, and to buy American.
These trade agreements like the TPP is nothing but a way for American companies to continue outsourcing jobs overseas and import cheaper crap.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"the way to really get the economy humming is to somehow get people's pay rate higher"

Agreed.