I've said it before and I'll say it again. Cruz must be smart, but I have yet to really see it. The only way I see it is if he's playing a part to get anti-govt. Texans to give him money, and doesn't really believe the stuff he says, or the lies he tells. He has a reputation as a great debater. He didn't appear particularly great in the first Republican debate. I keep waiting for him to live up to his reputation. I'm sure he must be smart and must be a great debater. I'm just not sure I've seen it yet.
Are we sure Rafael is not really a Manchurian candidate sent by the Cuban communists to take over America. He isn't even really American. I think we need to be scared of this Canadian Cuban Communist.
1) Ted Cruz blurs the line between businesses being able to discriminate and religious institutions. The latter has all the right in the world to refuse to do anything with same-sex couples and still does, exactly as they have done with interracial couples in the past before. This was reinforced by the recent Supreme Court ruling. Then he goes onto say businesses should be able to discriminate against whoever they want because in their long history of being profit-taking enterprises, they have suddenly become moral extensions of the owner and not checked by any regulations. Which is exactly what would have continued with segregation had it not been for sensible regulation--and which is exactly why regulations have to exist. What is the prevailing interest of the business at hand? Profit. A faith organization exists to enforce its norms on society, but a business exists to make money. If you don't want to make money and suddenly feel a burning urge to discriminate against same-sex marriage, start a faith organization. "There are plenty of other florists around." Remember: you always have options. 2) Then pull the ISIS and Iran card, because people who are opposed to selective interpretation of faith to oppress same-sex marriage are obviously the next in line to extremist Islam. Did you just try to draw a moral equivalence between actively fighting for the rights of same-sex couples and supporting ISIS? From my viewpoint, Ted Cruz kicked his own ass. Nobody should ever pull the "well we're taking about gay rights, but WHAT ABOUT ISIS" card in a debate and be expected to win, it doesn't make any logical sense. Of course, because Ellen Page of all people stuttered and didn't see the illogic Ted Cruz wins. Presidential politics for the modern age. No wonder that guy is polling nothing.
Cruz is referring to the fact that many on the left overlook or defend the intolerance toward gays and women among Muslims. That's real oppression. Not giving the people the freedom to not make a pizza for a wedding. I am pro gay marriage so fall between Cruz and Page.
Somebody should tell Cruz that only a few decades ago, homosexuals were being castrated and lobotomized en masse for being who they were in America. Not sure where that falls into with real oppression. And no, that strawman doesn't work. Who "overlooks" or "defends" the intolerance towards gays and women among Muslims? "Many on the left." what? You mean the "many on the left" who argue that Saudi gender policies are a crime against humanity? "Some commentators have argued that Saudi gender policies constitute a crime against humanity, and warrant intervention from the international community. They criticize the U.S. government for publicizing oppression by enemies such as the Taliban, even though its allies, like Saudi Arabia, have similar policies. Mary Kaldor views gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia as similar to that enforced by the Taliban in Afghanistan." As opposed to, if we're vapidly generalizing, the "many on the right who own businesses and love free-marketeering": "As with Saudi Arabia, white-ruled South Africa viewed external criticism as a violation of its sovereignty and interference with its internal affairs. And U.S. corporations in South Africa, as with their Saudi Arabian counterparts, pleaded that they had no choice but to defer to the local "culture." I generally think applying a set of beliefs to one group of people is general bulls**t. You see "some" people can think Muslims shouldn't have to be killed by drones and endless war and tortured in dark sites but also align up against Muslim beliefs on gender and sexuality. But here's a clear-cut case where it isn't bulls**t: How can it even logically follow that somebody who stands for same-sex marriage in America would "defend" ISIS on their stance on killing homosexuals? It defies all logic to claim that. And for some reason that card flopped here and people consider it a "win".
1) Before 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, and patients were forcibly confined. Even though lobotomies started petering out in the late 1950s, Dr. Walter Freeman was still executing them for years later. And he would have had "ethical" cover to do so until 1973. 2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie...-gay-aversion-therapy-revealed_b_3497435.html 3) Oh, so we are trying to draw a moral equivalence between actively fighting for the rights of same-sex couples and supporting ISIS. Swell! let it be known that I am one of the many on the left who support the murder of homosexuals by ISIS AND same-sex marriage.
I think you should read your own links. These activities were carried out by rich families persecuting their own members to avoid stigma and shame for all sorts of reasons. Rosemary Kennedy had her brain hacked into. The 1940's is more than a "few decades" ago.
ohhh right, lobotomies and castrations happened to everybody, it just happened to be the case that there was a period of time where homosexuality was deemed a mental illness (up to 1973) and cruel and unusual punishments awaited for homosexuals as a result for no reason but that's okay, because lobotomies were just a thing for everybody that was classified as mental in those long old days. Here, from my own article-> hey, because we're quibbling over the decades, let me say "up to the late 1950s, it would've been medically acceptable to lobotomize homosexuals for simply being who they were, and up to 1973, it was totally acceptable to torture and shock them for no reason other than their sexual preferences." Does that lighten somehow the "oppression" homosexuals faced in America for you? Is it less "real" now? Here, from my own article again: And if we're going to get real on-point and on-message, please let me know how people who fought against this in America would support ISIS in killing homosexuals. There needs to be a Godwin's law for ISIS. I can't justify my irrational discrimination against homosexuals? Doesn't matter. ISIS does far worse! They murder instead of sending severe electric shocks to the genitals. You PROBABLY support ISIS killing homosexuals if you advocate for gay rights. :/
They didn't happen to everybody. They happened to rich patients who had families who were mostly ashamed of them and were to afraid to leave their comfortable wealth to live their own life. I mean first you are trying to equate Muslim treatment of homsexuals to here by using weasel words like "a few decades" and "en masse" that never have any meaningful definition. Now you are equating aversion therapy to castration and lobotomy. The overlap of Victorian morals and social status with "modern" science was pretty bad, it didn't really hurt the guy working in a factory though.
A few decades ago isn't a weasel word. LOL. Fine, up to 1973. You happy? And en masse is a clinical system that had one individual lobotomize more than a thousand homosexuals just by himself. (40% of 4,000-20,000 patients Dr.Freeman treated over his career = > 1000). Now all of a sudden, you've come up with some vague cognitive dissonance: it's alright because one hint (Rosemary) seems to indicate to me that this could only happen to rich people. so, hey, at least it didn't affect the working man. Because it's not like anti-sodomy laws ever caught up with poor people. But I guess at least we can agree that it was "pretty bad" to shock people's genitals for their sexual preferences. I never tried to equate Muslim treatment of homosexuals to the treatment here. My statement was a reply to the following. This is why I specifically added: To allege that homosexuals in America have never undergone "real oppression" is frankly a surreal expression when you understand the history of the gay rights movement. People who ridicule, lighten, and ignore the history of same-sex oppression in America have more in common with ISIS than anybody who supports the movement, seeing as we're all gung-ho on that kind of a debating tactic. :/ Getting back to my main point, it's frankly stupid that a mainstream politician can come out and say something as illogical as "oh gay rights, but wait you probably ignore ISIS!" but I guess that's what happens when the "debate king" of the faith movement looks around and sees no logical arguments for continuing discrimination against homosexuals. And his "war against religious liberty" doesn't even exist.
Ted Cruz's college debate skills translate to the real world about as well as a professional auctioneer trying to sell Fredericksburg Peaches on the side the highway. His abysmal performance in the first republican debate has empowered anyone with a strong opinion and some moxie to challenge his positions regardless of location knowing that Cruz will flounder without his stack of point/ counterpoint cue cards. Cruz's days of coasting along using nothing but sex appeal and tea party bumper sticker slogans are long over.
So the most notorious doctor whose name is synonymous with lobotomy did 1000 procedures. To you that means "a few decades ago, homosexuals were being castrated and lobotomized en masse" Yeah certainly no weasel words there. Most of us live in the present and are concerned with the present where your reality doesn't exist. You prefer to complain about the conditions 50 years before you were born in a country you don't live in.
There are a bunch of BS laws on the books all over the country that are not being enforced... But a valid concern to who, besides the LGBT community...? And why do they get to push themselves to the forefront of political conversations...? Many believe the bible is one of the best books ever written in the western world... So the bible being someone's favorite book isn't beyond the realm of belief.
If you're so concerned about the present, why didn't you address the 95% of my post that is about the present of Ted Cruz making an illogical mess out of himself?
Cruz's training is in parliamentary debate, i.e. extemporaneous, i.e. no notes. Cruz's point re: ISIS/Iran is that they are the biggest threat to gay rights, and have only gotten stronger during the Obama administration. So why is the focus on forcing florist/bakers to violate their religious beliefs?
Oh right, nobody has tried to bring civil claims against ISIS or Iran in the American judicial system. Maybe that will stop them. "The focus", focus of what? The media that has ISIS in 22,900,000 results on Google News? The military and DoD that is now intently focused on making "bakers" violate their god-given right to open a business to make money and exclude homosexuals from attending said business while expecting to continue making money (because God knows having your own special faith organization isn't enough exclusion!)? Is every domestic issue a block against addressing international issues? Because if you can't address anything domestically without fighting ISIS, I don't want to hear anything about the irrelevant debt level until every member of ISIS is dead. And does your position on one domestic issue where you can exert action then make you utterly incapable of extending the logic and attention of your beliefs to other issues? Good to know that Cruz and his illogic extends to his supporters.
