Is Ted Cruz a RHINO?

[Pokesan]

Blitzers is mad at Daywolf for being smarter than him. Wow. Lol.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Daywolf could never be a conservative because he has a double standard. He claims Ted Cruz is a low life and he can't vote for him because of that reasoning

Lyin' Blitzers. That's goin to start sticking, dude. You have already tried this a number of times in this thread, and again I say where is the link of these quotes? Lyin' Blitzers.

Your interpretation of things is foul. All I've said is Ted will never get the nomination.
1. Donald will win and escape a brokered convention.
2. Ted will win and it'll be stolen by his friends at the brokered convention.

I never ever ever said I would not vote for him, Lyin' Blitzers, just that I'll never get the chance to vote for him.

Ok, now back to your full retard rants and lies, bud.

[Pokesan]

Astoundingly correct.

Teddy boy is despised by his own party, it's lunacy to think he'd be the nominee at a brokered convention. It's just not possible.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lyin' Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don't care who you listen/watch/follow, it's trash how you interpret it. All your interpretations are trash.

Your list is not my list though, just crossed out the ones I consider 0's. Only one on the list I do listen to once or twice a week is Hannity, from his radio program, not from Faux.

Levin == Savage. I've had too many disagreements to bother with Levin. At lest Savage, whom I often disagree with, is entertaining. Though been ages since I listened to him.


But you can't ask that, not after saying "whatever you wanna do with your life is your call not mine. " because that's what she want's to do with her life, man! Who are you then to say she can't? Just like all the Sanders people shouting down and stomping on Donald's freedom of speech claiming they have the freedom of speech to do that, to take his away. So be honest and just say no you can't.

In a civil society, you can't just do whatever you want. It's not just that states should be deciding their stance on say gay marriage, but that the feds should not be deciding on what marriage is in the first place and then trying to regulate it and tax it. If California votes it down (and they did), they should have that right if they want that outcome.

But this isn't about that, it's about who is going to control the big nanny state, and the difference between marriage and civil union is simply used as a sacrificial pawn. You're in the wrong camp, you're probably from the far extreme fringes of the libertarian party.

Marriage existed as a sacred religious ceremony thousands of years before the formation of U.S. Governance, therefore any law passed by congress is unconstitutional because it "establishes" all religions that include marriage as an institution of said religion. Any marriage license provided by any state is unconstitutional via 14th amendment (incorporation doctrine). Government should have NOTHING to do with marriage whatsoever.

[Pokesan]

no

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Marriage existed as a sacred religious ceremony thousands of years before the formation of U.S. Governance, therefore any law passed by congress is unconstitutional because it "establishes" all religions that include marriage as an institution of said religion. Any marriage license provided by any state is unconstitutional via 14th amendment (incorporation doctrine). Government should have NOTHING to do with marriage whatsoever.

It is though, just as much as divorce is. There are legal implications, and a level of protection towards the institution as it stands. I think that the last thing Americans want to hear is about a divorce case between a man and his pig. And that's not the worst thing I can imagine...
It's a matter for individual states, not federal empowerment. It's gotta be one or the other, otherwise bad things will happen, it's a given, and will be in some reality show soon to come.

At least with individual states, the matter can be best represented by the people, having more of a voice. On the federal level, it becomes on big mess with judges ruling from the bench and people w/o any voice whatsoever.

Ok, your next lie, I'm waiting. What did I really say this time? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[maskedmelon]

All religious people need to do is take applications and interviews before agreeing to marry a couple. Then just decline to perform the ceremony without givig a reason for couples that do not conform.

Alternatively and probably better for everyone, they just stop performing legal weddings altogether. Instead they offer traditional religious ceremonies that can be defined however they like and all couples go to the court house to be legally married by a judge.

Religious people can do what they want, gay people can do what they want, polygamists are still left out.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lyin' Blitzers. That's goin to start sticking, dude. You have already tried this a number of times in this thread, and again I say where is the link of these quotes? Lyin' Blitzers.

Your interpretation of things is foul. All I've said is Ted will never get the nomination.
1. Donald will win and escape a brokered convention.
2. Ted will win and it'll be stolen by his friends at the brokered convention.

I never ever ever said I would not vote for him, Lyin' Blitzers, just that I'll never get the chance to vote for him.

Ok, now back to your full retard rants and lies, bud.

So the guy (Cruz) you have relentlessly criticized and unscrupulously bashed making false aquisation after false aquisation against, if he wins the nominee you'll vote for him? If so your more retarded then I originally thought. oh wait GOP establishment guy here, vote party line no matter what.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So the guy (Cruz) you have relentlessly criticized and unscrupulously bashed making false aquisation after false aquisation against, if he wins the nominee you'll vote for him? If so your more retarded then I originally thought. oh wait GOP establishment guy here, vote party line no matter what.

what acquisitions? did ted cruz trade votes for gold pressed latinum?

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is though, just as much as divorce is. There are legal implications, and a level of protection towards the institution as it stands. I think that the last thing Americans want to hear is about a divorce case between a man and his pig. And that's not the worst thing I can imagine...
It's a matter for individual states, not federal empowerment. It's gotta be one or the other, otherwise bad things will happen, it's a given, and will be in some reality show soon to come.

At least with individual states, the matter can be best represented by the people, having more of a voice. On the federal level, it becomes on big mess with judges ruling from the bench and people w/o any voice whatsoever.

Ok, your next lie, I'm waiting. What did I really say this time? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Divorce is not a sacred religious ceremony, therefore is completely irrelevant.