Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I would watch Sanders and O'Malley on the D side of the house. If the NYT and other typically pro-Clinton media continue to hammer her, someone might feel froggy enough to jump.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
I suspect we'll see Sanders announce within the next 2 weeks. I'd go so far as to say it's nearly a given with some of his recent statements.
O'Malley.... I'm a little more dubious on. I'd say a coin flip. I personally think it would be a bad idea (politically), but I am sure he'll get some speaking gigs and maybe get that book published, so financially it makes good sense for him.
Which, in the end, is what it's all about, right?
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
The majority of that graph covers a period of time in which Clinton was never going to run for President. The closing of the gap between "favorable" and "unfavorable" can mostly be attributed to the belief that her resignation was about positioning herself for a Presidential run, which caused her to be treated as a potential Candidate. This would have fundamentally changed the nature of the questions asked about Hillary, and strength of the responses to those questions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/25 06:05:03
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
Werewolves of London is popular but not that popular.
Oh she is quite popular, I just wonder how things would change is she decided after all to run? also, would she work with Hillary to make a total first?
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
Short version: Rubio claims he can be ready to be commander-in-chief on Day One whereas governors cannot possibly be ready to handle US foreign policy. Walker claims governors must innately have the ability to lead, and not just to "make speeches."
I wonder how they handle the fact that HRC has foreign policy experience as a First Lady, as a senator, and as a Secretary of State?
Part of that article shows the various candidates' foreign policy "credentials." Most of which seem to consist of "sat on a Senate committee." Of them, the only two that seem to stand out to me as having some real cred are Jeb Bush and HRC.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Think last thing Hillary need is her performance as Sec of State coming up. Which kind of coincide with financial transaction from various countries around the world to the "Clinton" charity organization.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Jihadin wrote: Think last thing Hillary need is her performance as Sec of State coming up. Which kind of coincide with financial transaction from various countries around the world to the "Clinton" charity organization.
Eh, is it really all that different from politicians accepting campaign donations from corporations? Or is the difference because we like to think those corporations have America's best interests at heart when they cut that check?
(both are just as bad, in my opinion)
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
As has been the case for the most part, Republican Politicians seek to shift money to their Corporate pals and the already Uber wealthy, with some of the "Conservative Democrats" helping them make "Corporate Welfare" while robbing the social safety nets to do so.
At least the Democrats will try and toss the regular Joes like us a crumb or two off the table, and that is why i tend to like Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren but I would take HRC over a Ted Cruz anyday, too bad Canada stuck us with him along with Bieber
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/26 03:19:03
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
shasolenzabi wrote: As has been the case for the most part, Republican Politicians seek to shift money to their Corporate pals and the already Uber wealthy, with some of the "Conservative Democrats" helping them make "Corporate Welfare" while robbing the social safety nets to do so.
At least the Democrats will try and toss the regular Joes like us a crumb or two off the table, and that is why i tend to like Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren but I would take HRC over a Ted Cruz anyday, too bad Canada stuck us with him along with Bieber
Dude... the Democrats have filthy rich companies / unions / uber-wealth too.
And no GOP is campaigning to rob/devalue safety nets...
And no GOP is campaigning to rob/devalue safety nets...
Quite a few conservative politicians have campaigned on the basis of eliminating such safety nets. In the event that they are eliminated, where do you suppose supporting funds will go?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
And no GOP is campaigning to rob/devalue safety nets...
Quite a few conservative politicians have campaigned on the basis of eliminating such safety nets. In the event that they are eliminated, where do you suppose supporting funds will go?
Which one now advocating this?
IF anything, most conservative candidate wants to reduce the size of government spending. There's a distinction.
IF anything, most conservative candidate wants to reduce the size of government spending. There's a distinction.
Yes there is, but to pretend that US conservatives don't emphasize the US social safety net as a source of "waste" with respect to government spending is willfully ignorant.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
IF anything, most conservative candidate wants to reduce the size of government spending. There's a distinction.
Yes there is, but to pretend that US conservatives don't emphasize the US social safety net as a source of "waste" with respect to government spending is willfully ignorant.
Nah... you're just projecting.
You see... politicians like to "throw money" at problems, where savings could be achieved if the program was rewritten. It never happens because its generally political suicide. 'Cuz, you get ads like this mediscare:
The Neo-cons love to complain about waste for the safety nets to help the poor, the elderly(of which at 61 I now sort of qualify) and the disabled(Of which I am disabled), yet when a war looms there is ALWAYS money spent on the warmachine which came from the money they shaved off the safety net programs, and that is the robbing of which i speak.
Democrats and progressives have been campaigning to save the safety net programs, while those like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, McConnell, to name but a few of the large list, seek to cut, cut , cut, and always the tax cuts are for the Uber rich while they shift the tax burden onto the middle class and working poor.
And government shrinkage? again, under them they seek expanding military and militarized law enforcement, and they never seem to want to seek peaceful solutions, when the Crimea erupted, they criticized more law abiding sanctions and wished we had a man like Putin in charge, Our Republicans and on Fox News wanted a man like a dictator left over from the cold war(which I served in Germany, babysitting Pershing Missiles).
So the money the Republican House and Senate have eliminated from the Food Stamp program will be spent on war,,,,our troops families rely on those food stamps BTW(the less well paid troops that is.)
All they did with shrinking the government was to "privatize" aka Corporatize some jobs from government to companies who seek to make profits at the expense of doing the job as well as government did, forgoing safety of the public for their money making. Prisons, water, sewage, etc even the Politicians in Congress are served food by a foreign corporate instead of in house cafeteria workers as they used to. (They are getting a food worker strike soon as the company does not pay enough apparently.
I am not projecting, simply sharing what has been going on that Fox does not cover.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh one more thing, the Rich Corporates on the "right" have no respect for the fact that our society allowed them the opportunity to make their billions, so some proper tax paying instead of dodging it is not too much to ask of them.
The difference of the rich on the "left"? they recognize this and many will pay their fair share as they do not wish to see the collapse that will be if we keep on the road to Oligarchy, Plutocracy, and rampant out of control Corporatism.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/26 13:44:55
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
IF anything, most conservative candidate wants to reduce the size of government spending. There's a distinction.
To be fair, when any politician says they want to reduce spending, what they really mean is they want to cut the spending they don't like while increasing the spending they do like, so there is still no net gain. Personally, I believe we can cut both military and social spending, with no loss in effectiveness if we can also eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse, and spend the money more intelligently. Impose harsher sentences on those committing the Medicare/welfare/etc. fraud and we'll save billions there as many people will decide it's not worth it. Make Congress stop telling the military what to buy and we'll save billions there, too (if the Air Force says Plane X is the better plane they want, then Congressman Bob whose district makes Plane Y should just have to suck on it).
Oh, and that "throw granny off the cliff" commercial was hilarious. I really loved the last branding at the end, as if "AgendaProject" (whoever that actually is) couldn't possibly sound like a reasonable organization (well, at least they admit upfront they have an agenda).
And no GOP is campaigning to rob/devalue safety nets...
Oh, and for the obligatory cheeky response: Ted Cruz wants to eliminate a net....net neutrality, that is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/26 14:54:33
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Short version: Rubio claims he can be ready to be commander-in-chief on Day One whereas governors cannot possibly be ready to handle US foreign policy. Walker claims governors must innately have the ability to lead, and not just to "make speeches."
I wonder how they handle the fact that HRC has foreign policy experience as a First Lady, as a senator, and as a Secretary of State?
Part of that article shows the various candidates' foreign policy "credentials." Most of which seem to consist of "sat on a Senate committee." Of them, the only two that seem to stand out to me as having some real cred are Jeb Bush and HRC.
Hilary may have experience, but what did she accomplish? Our current POTUS bypassed this by being a fresh face, and being a change to previous Administrations; something Hilary cannot claim.
Hilary may have experience, but what did she accomplish? Our current POTUS bypassed this by being a fresh face, and being a change to previous Administrations; something Hilary cannot claim.
I asked much the same question a page or so back: what has any of these candidates truly accomplished that qualifies them to lead our country in war, in peace, in good economic times, in bad economic times, through natural disasters, and through man-made disasters? Sitting on Senate committees, slapping your name on a few bills, and making speeches on the Senate floor just doesn't cut it anymore, in my opinion. More than anything else, we really need the next President to be a uniter, not a divider.
Ironically, I think some of the Rs are hoping to do well for the exact reasons you said: "by being a fresh face, and being a change to previous Administrations" The Ds can't try for the second, but some may hope for the first.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Tannhauser42 wrote: I asked much the same question a page or so back: what has any of these candidates truly accomplished that qualifies them to lead our country in war, in peace, in good economic times, in bad economic times, through natural disasters, and through man-made disasters? Sitting on Senate committees, slapping your name on a few bills, and making speeches on the Senate floor just doesn't cut it anymore, in my opinion. More than anything else, we really need the next President to be a uniter, not a divider.
Ironically, I think some of the Rs are hoping to do well for the exact reasons you said: "by being a fresh face, and being a change to previous Administrations" The Ds can't try for the second, but some may hope for the first.
Looking at it from the eyes of a political amateur who has only started to follow US politics since he moved here I can see that a lot of the R candidates being fresher faces could mount serious opposition to Hilary. While voters may be more forgiving of first and second term politicians not having stand out political achievements, someone who has been in the political spotlight for decades in a variety of roles should have managed to achieve something concrete that can be pointed to as a metric of what can be expected from their Administration.
Serious question; given our currently highly partisan political environment could any genuinely bi-partisan candidate get nominated by their party?
Tannhauser42 wrote: I asked much the same question a page or so back: what has any of these candidates truly accomplished that qualifies them to lead our country in war, in peace, in good economic times, in bad economic times, through natural disasters, and through man-made disasters? Sitting on Senate committees, slapping your name on a few bills, and making speeches on the Senate floor just doesn't cut it anymore, in my opinion. More than anything else, we really need the next President to be a uniter, not a divider.
Ironically, I think some of the Rs are hoping to do well for the exact reasons you said: "by being a fresh face, and being a change to previous Administrations" The Ds can't try for the second, but some may hope for the first.
Looking at it from the eyes of a political amateur who has only started to follow US politics since he moved here I can see that a lot of the R candidates being fresher faces could mount serious opposition to Hilary. While voters may be more forgiving of first and second term politicians not having stand out political achievements, someone who has been in the political spotlight for decades in a variety of roles should have managed to achieve something concrete that can be pointed to as a metric of what can be expected from their Administration.
Serious question; given our currently highly partisan political environment could any genuinely bi-partisan candidate get nominated by their party?
Seeing how polarized things are I very much doubt we can get someone not covered in the muck out there in the Capital.
As for the social programs, they make it really hard to get the stuff rolling, and they do make sure you are actually in need, any little thing can tip you off the programs, such as Food stamps etc. Most in depth studies have shown very few abusers out there, heck, from personal experience, the monthly amount is not that high, so it runs out fast between rent/bills/food/medicines, etc. One will never get rich, or be that comfortable on help from the safety nets with this present economy. It is mainly mis-direction from think tanks paid for by the Koch Bros that color things so, I tend to never trust Heritage foundation, ALEC, CATO or AFP due to those ties.
Took several years of appeals, a lawyer who got some of the lump sum, and calls to the governor and my senators to help things, that and medical evidence for the Congestive Heart Failure+Hypertension+COPD+Edema+Peripheral Artery Disease+Asthma+Severe Osteo-Arthritis, and the final kicker is the Deep Vein Thrombosis (Bloodclot) in my left elbow aimed at either my heart or brain or lungs, but they don;t want to mess with it, just monitor it. Plus as a result from all that, I also have Morbid Obesity as walking or standing is painful like glass in the joints. (Yes, I am waiting to get the go ahead for MRI and hopefully some arthroscopic surgery to shave the spurs down so I can do walking excercises). So my political views may seem left leaning, but now you know, I don't agree with the ideology that I ought to just go off and die as some politicals have blurted.
(I swear, at times they sound like children more than actual leaders at times.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/26 19:34:12
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
Tannhauser42 wrote: Sitting on Senate committees, slapping your name on a few bills, and making speeches on the Senate floor just doesn't cut it anymore, in my opinion.
There is no more pressing business in this country then getting random things named after Ronald Reagan, sir.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Apparently, this is the most transparent administration ever…to our adversaries.
Russian Hackers Read Obama’s Unclassified Emails, Officials Say
WASHINGTON — Some of President Obama’s email correspondence was swept up by Russian hackers last year in a breach of the White House’s unclassified computer system that was far more intrusive and worrisome than has been publicly acknowledged, according to senior American officials briefed on the investigation.
The hackers, who also got deeply into the State Department’s unclassified system, do not appear to have penetrated closely guarded servers that control the message traffic from Mr. Obama’s BlackBerry, which he or an aide carries constantly.
But they obtained access to the email archives of people inside the White House, and perhaps some outside, with whom Mr. Obama regularly communicated. From those accounts, they reached emails that the president had sent and received, according to officials briefed on the investigation.
White House officials said that no classified networks had been compromised, and that the hackers had collected no classified information. Many senior officials have two computers in their offices, one operating on a highly secure classified network and another connected to the outside world for unclassified communications.
But officials have conceded that the unclassified system routinely contains much information that is considered highly sensitive: schedules, email exchanges with ambassadors and diplomats, discussions of pending personnel moves and legislation, and, inevitably, some debate about policy.
Officials did not disclose the number of Mr. Obama’s emails that were harvested by hackers, nor the sensitivity of their content. The president’s email account itself does not appear to have been hacked. Aides say that most of Mr. Obama’s classified briefings — such as the morning Presidential Daily Brief — are delivered orally or on paper (sometimes supplemented by an iPad system connected to classified networks) and that they are usually confined to the Oval Office or the Situation Room.
Still, the fact that Mr. Obama’s communications were among those hit by the hackers — who are presumed to be linked to the Russian government, if not working for it — has been one of the most closely held findings of the inquiry. Senior White House officials have known for months about the depth of the intrusion.
“This has been one of the most sophisticated actors we’ve seen,” said one senior American official briefed on the investigation.
Others confirmed that the White House intrusion was viewed as so serious that officials met on a nearly daily basis for several weeks after it was discovered. “It’s the Russian angle to this that’s particularly worrisome,” another senior official said.
While Chinese hacking groups are known for sweeping up vast amounts of commercial and design information, the best Russian hackers tend to hide their tracks better and focus on specific, often political targets. And the hacking happened at a moment of renewed tension with Russia — over its annexation of Crimea, the presence of its forces in Ukraine and its renewed military patrols in Europe, reminiscent of the Cold War.
Inside the White House, the intrusion has raised a new debate about whether it is possible to protect a president’s electronic presence, especially when it reaches out from behind the presumably secure firewalls of the executive branch.
Mr. Obama is no stranger to computer-network attacks: His 2008 campaign was hit by Chinese hackers. Nonetheless, he has long been a frequent user of email, and publicly fought the Secret Service in 2009 to retain his BlackBerry, a topic he has joked about in public. He was issued a special smartphone, and the list of those he can exchange emails with is highly restricted.
When asked about the investigation’s findings, the spokeswoman for the National Security Council, Bernadette Meehan, said, “We’ll decline to comment.” The White House has also declined to provide any explanations about how the breach was handled, though the State Department has been more candid about what kind of systems were hit and what it has done since to improve security. A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment.
Officials who discussed the investigation spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the hacking. While the White House has refused to identify the nationality of the hackers, others familiar with the investigation said that in both the White House and State Department cases, all signs pointed to Russians.
On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter revealed for the first time that Russian hackers had attacked the Pentagon’s unclassified systems, but said they had been identified and “kicked off.” Defense Department officials declined to say if the signatures of the attacks on the Pentagon appeared related to the White House and State Department attacks.
The discovery of the hacking in October led to a partial shutdown of the White House email system. The hackers appear to have been evicted from the White House systems by the end of October. But they continued to plague the State Department, whose system is much more far-flung. The disruptions were so severe that during the Iranian nuclear negotiations in Vienna in November, officials needed to distribute personal email accounts, to one another and to some reporters, to maintain contact.
Earlier this month, officials at the White House said that the hacking had not damaged its systems and that, while elements had been shut down to mitigate the effects of the attack, everything had been restored.
One of the curiosities of the White House and State Department attacks is that the administration, which recently has been looking to name and punish state and nonstate hackers in an effort to deter attacks, has refused to reveal its conclusions about who was responsible for this complex and artful intrusion into the government. That is in sharp contrast to Mr. Obama’s decision, after considerable internal debate in December, to name North Korea for ordering the attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment, and to the director of national intelligence’s decision to name Iranian hackers as the source of a destructive attack on the Sands Casino.
This month, after CNN reported that hackers had gained access to sensitive areas of the White House computer network, including sections that contained the president’s schedule, the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said the administration had not publicly named who was behind the hack because federal investigators had concluded that “it’s not in our best interests.”
By contrast, in the North Korea case, he said, investigators concluded that “we’re more likely to be successful in terms of holding them accountable by naming them publicly.”
But the breach of the president’s emails appeared to be a major factor in the government secrecy. “All of this is very tightly held,” one senior American official said, adding that the content of what had been breached was being kept secret to avoid tipping off the Russians about what had been learned from the investigation.
Mr. Obama’s friends and associates say that he is a committed user of his BlackBerry, but that he is careful when emailing outside the White House system.
“The frequency has dropped off in the last six months or so,” one of his close associates said, though this person added that he did not know if the drop was related to the hacking.
Mr. Obama is known to send emails to aides late at night from his residence, providing them with his feedback on speeches or, at times, entirely new drafts. Others say he has emailed on topics as diverse as his golf game and the struggle with Congress over the Iranian nuclear negotiations.
George W. Bush gave up emailing for the course of his presidency and did not carry a smartphone. But after Mr. Bush left office, his sister’s email account was hacked, and several photos — including some of his paintings — were made public.
The White House is bombarded with cyberattacks daily, not only from Russia and China. Most are easily deflected.
The White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies put their most classified material into a system called Jwics, for Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System. That is where top-secret and “secret compartmentalized information” traverses within the government, to officials cleared for it — and it includes imagery, data and graphics. There is no evidence, senior officials said, that this hacking pierced it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/26 21:38:34
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Serious question; given our currently highly partisan political environment could any genuinely bi-partisan candidate get nominated by their party?
It's...possible. I don't think it would be someone who is in D.C., though. It would probably have to be a governor. I can't see the Rs doing it at all, as they have too many subgroups to appease, and any R that may have, at one time, said "maybe the Ds aren't so bad" would completely lose the Tea Party vote. McCain was probably their best chance at it, and then they screwed the pooch by adding Palin to the ticket. Maybe if McCain tried again? The Ds have a better chance of it, but by "better," I mean the difference between "a snowball's chance in hell" and "a snowball's chance in a couple of degrees cooler hell, but still hell".
Waukee, Iowa (CNN)Sen. Ted Cruz argued Saturday that Democrats have become so extreme and "intolerant" of religious views that "there is no room for Christians in today's Democratic Party."
"There is a liberal fascism that is dedicated to going after believing Christians who follow the biblical teaching on marriage," the Texas Republican said in his speech before a Christian conservative audience in Waukee, Iowa.
Cruz joined eight other presidential candidates and potential contenders on stage at the Iowa Faith and Freedom summit, where speakers railed against what they see as threats to religious liberty. For his part, Cruz alluded to business that faced pushback for declining to cater to same-sex weddings.
Many of the speakers also pointed to the recent debate over an Indiana religious liberty law that was designed to protect those who objected to participating in same-sex marriage ceremonies. But the law came under fire from critics who said it was discriminatory against same-sex couples, and its language was subsequently tweaked.
As the Supreme Court gets ready to hear oral arguments on whether to overturn same-sex marriage bans in states, Cruz introduced legislation last week that would protect bans in place.
Cruz urged the audience to "fall on our knees and pray" ahead of the Supreme Court's final ruling on the issue, which is expected this summer.
"We need leaders who will stand unapologetically in defense of marriage," he said.
Maybe I'm just dense, but it seems to me that these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." would also mean that, as a lawmaker, you cannot use your religion to create and define law.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Cruz went to Manhatten mooching money from some top hotel owners who happen to also be gay for his presidential campaign even though he would not by his own words ever recognize a marriage or union between them.
I really wish they all would put on Nascar like suits with patches showing who they sold themselves all to.
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
