Cruz Burns CNBC Moderators: This is Why Americans Don't Trust the Media

[yota691]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SODPwHG-sL8 

Cruz Burns CNBC Moderators: This is Why Americans Don't Trust the Media

Published on Oct 28, 2015

[DinarDavo]

Don't screw with Ted.

[leanonme]

I am glad Ted has the guts to put the biased moderators on the spot! Go Ted, GO!

[Shabibilicious]

Crazy Cruz has finally made his mark during this debate season.  And I believe he is brilliant in the way he's doing it....slow and steady wins the race.  I think he will swoop in and slowly snap up many of the Trump supporters.  As always, just my opinion.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Whatshername]

Crazy Cruz has finally made his mark during this debate season.  And I believe he is brilliant in the way he's doing it....slow and steady wins the race.  I think he will swoop in and slowly snap up many of the Trump supporters.  As always, just my opinion.  

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Good Morning Shabs.  You always refer to Ted as “Crazy Cruz”… why is that?  What has he ever said or done that makes you think he’s mentally deficient or unstable? 

[Shabibilicious]

Good Morning Shabs.  You always refer to Ted as “Crazy Cruz”… why is that?  What has he ever said or done that makes you think he’s mentally deficient or unstable? 

 

In the grand scheme of things, I actually gave him credit for his campaign tactics, but somebody must have missed that part, judging from the ruby.  Now, to your question.  Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor for starters....and the denouncing of his Canadian citizenship bothers me a bit.  I also believe he will be even worse than Obama when it comes to negotiating with the other party.  Because of his constitutionalist stance, which I applaud and understand, he will never bend.......that is dictatorial, not leadership.  Now, I also refer to Ozzy Osborn as "Crazy Train".....I hope none of his fans get offended.  I should be more careful.    

 

GO RV, then BV

[RV ME]

In the grand scheme of things, I actually gave him credit for his campaign tactics, but somebody must have missed that part, judging from the ruby.  Now, to your question.  Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor for starters....and the denouncing of his Canadian citizenship bothers me a bit.  I also believe he will be even worse than Obama when it comes to negotiating with the other party.  Because of his constitutionalist stance, which I applaud and understand, he will never bend.......that is dictatorial, not leadership.  Now, I also refer to Ozzy Osborn as "Crazy Train".....I hope none of his fans get offended.  I should be more careful.    

 

GO RV, then BV

I am confused.  You say a Constitutionalist who doesn’t bend is a dictator?  What does that make a President who ignores the Constitution and violates it with executive orders?  Now that I think about it, it appears that you are the one who is confused.

[Jaxinjersey]

In the grand scheme of things, I actually gave him credit for his campaign tactics, but somebody must have missed that part, judging from the ruby.  Now, to your question.  Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor for starters....and the denouncing of his Canadian citizenship bothers me a bit.  I also believe he will be even worse than Obama when it comes to negotiating with the other party.  Because of his constitutionalist stance, which I applaud and understand, he will never bend.......that is dictatorial, not leadership.  Now, I also refer to Ozzy Osborn as "Crazy Train".....I hope none of his fans get offended.  I should be more careful.    

 

GO RV, then BV

Shabs... many will disagree with your perspective of the Constitution!  RESISTING bending, or shaping, or compromise of the Constitution IS the leadership many are looking for.  You say you applaud and understand it, yet say it's dictatorial?!  Would you please clarify?  Personally. I don't want any "leader" that will negotiate with evil... thieves... liars... deception... etc.  You don't compromise to the "left" of the Constitution... you fight to maintain its designated position, and have the "left" come back to you!

[Shabibilicious]

I am confused.  You say a Constitutionalist who doesn’t bend is a dictator?  What does that make a President who ignores the Constitution and violates it with executive orders?  Now that I think about it, it appears that you are the one who is confused.

 

I did not say a non-bending constitutionalist is a dictator......I said he would be if he is PRESIDENT and refuses to bend and deal with the other party.  Pretty simple really.....not much reading comprehension skills required to understand the gist of my original post.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Jaxinjersey]

I am confused.  You say a Constitutionalist who doesn’t bend is a dictator?  What does that make a President who ignores the Constitution and violates it with executive orders?  Now that I think about it, it appears that you are the one who is confused.

You beat me to it RV ME!  

[dog53]

Teds not my primary pick but I loved it during the debate that he pointed out the obvious.

It just really pi$$ed me off watching the difference between how they conducted the democratic debate

compared to this one. The media is completely out of control. When they were not insulting the candidates they were simply repeating the same questions as last time.

It made me sick watching it. As far as I was concerned they all shined bright. except for rand paul.    Not so much.  

[Shabibilicious]

Shabs... many will disagree with your perspective of the Constitution!  RESISTING bending, or shaping, or compromise of the Constitution IS the leadership many are looking for.  You say you applaud and understand it, yet say it's dictatorial?!  Would you please clarify?  Personally. I don't want any "leader" that will negotiate with evil... thieves... liars... deception... etc.  You don't compromise to the "left" of the Constitution... you fight to maintain its designated position, and have the "left" come back to you!

 

How on earth would he ever achieve such a lofty goal.....with 535 members of congress with differing opinions?  Let's be realistic about this.  You're all living in a fantasy land if you think all of those members will be replaced with constitutionalists....therefore they will have a voice and will have to be dealt with, plain and simple.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Jaxinjersey]

How on earth would he ever achieve such a lofty goal.....with 535 members of congress with differing opinions?  Let's be realistic about this.  You're all living in a fantasy land if you think all of those members will be replaced with constitutionalists....therefore they will have a voice and will have to be dealt with, plain and simple.  

 

GO RV, then BV

Lofty goal?  The Constitution?  Not sure how to take your comment Shabs.  The point is to FIGHT for it... not necessarily always achieving.  That's the "politics" of it... which is the reality of it.  As soon as you give up or compromise, you then yield to a new reality, unfortunately... and THAT is the danger.  New "normals" are much too indoctrinating!  RESIST!!!

[Shabibilicious]

Lofty goal?  The Constitution?  Not sure how to take your comment Shabs.  The point is to FIGHT for it... not necessarily always achieving.  That's the "politics" of it... which is the reality of it.  As soon as you give up or compromise, you then yield to a new reality, unfortunately... and THAT is the danger.  New "normals" are much too indoctrinating!  RESIST!!!

 

Tell that to the House Freedom Caucus that just put all their eggs in the Paul Ryan basket.  He's certainly more conservative that Boehner could have ever hoped to be.....but he's not exactly what they were looking for, so they settled for less.  You mentioned "left" of the constitution, but not a peep about "right" of the constitution.  Why is that?  And please don't tell me there isn't one.  If it weren't for the constitution and the subsequent drift from it's center, there would be no need to identify the differing directions.  Extremes in either direction lead to tyranny.  You're one of the people on this board I have mad respect for, Jax.  And your opinion is always appreciated....but sometimes our combined bullheadedness muddies the waters and for that I apologize for my part.  

 

GO RV, then BV  

[RV ME]

You beat me to it RV ME!  

 

 

I did not say a non-bending constitutionalist is a dictator......I said he would be if he is PRESIDENT and refuses to bend and deal with the other party.  Pretty simple really.....not much reading comprehension skills required to understand the gist of my original post.  

 

GO RV, then BV

It appears that Jax and I have the same comprehension problem, so I take that as being in good company.  Perhaps it is your communication skills that are lacking rather than our deficient comprehension skills.

 

The state of our Union is in shambles because for too long professional politicians have  ignored the Constitution when following it does not suit their needs.  To say having a President who insists on following the law of the land rather than compromising with 535 professional politicians does not resemble a dictatorship in way shape or form.

 

And I do not consider it extreme to not compromise the Constitution.  It is only a “living document” in that it specifically details the process for its revisions.  That process does not include ignoring parts, “getting around” it with EO’s, or being bastardized by the Judicial branch.  I consider these actions as extreme and bordering on tin horn dictatorship.

[Shabibilicious]

On this point we have reached agreement, it is now and has always been.......my lackluster communication skills.    

 

GO RV, then BV 

[divemaster5734]

Incredible.

 

Not that Cruz stood up against the painfully obvious attack on the entire Republican party by the "moderators" shallow questioning, not to mention the outright lies perpetrated as "fact" used to "question" stance.

 

What's even more shocking is the response, "his constitutionalist stance, which I applaud and understand, he will never bend.......that is dictatorial, not leadership."

 

That is one of the most naive, limited, narrow, baseless, and hypocritical statements I have ever heard.

 

It completely ignores the reality that America's "educational" system was taken over by agenda driven progressives 100 years ago.

Essential knowledge, math, English, civics, and legal standing have been watered down, eliminated, and altered, to today, where much of what was common knowledge and basic skill is not even taught in ANY level of classroom.

I'll dig up the 8th grade test from 1890

In it the tester had to calculate crop yield using solid algebra, they had to write a secured party line of credit, among other tasks.

There are people with an AA that still do not posses those abilities without a calculator, and have no clue what a "secured party" even is.

 

Either we live by a constitution or we don't.

Either we educate our kids correctly or we don't.

The only "hard liners" against America are the communists, they need to go back to school. and should be called out for using hate to climb to power.

 

These commies need to understand, we are in fact tired of their continued destruction of America.

They are as vile as the KKK they accuse any white person who doesn't agree with them of being.

 

I've never heard of a "dictator" that supports individual empowerment and freedom.

 

Unless you want to label George Washington as one, in which case I'm glad he didn't give up, I'm sure the British would have been ecstatic to "work out a deal".

Then you can call Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, all our military, and every other Patriot who served to protect Freedom a "dictator" wannabe.

 

You might have some problems convincing everyone that every single freedom fighter just wanted to be the next dictator though.

 

I'm betting they would wonder if there were some medications you might have missed instead....JMHO

 

 

.

 

[Shabibilicious]

I'm betting they would wonder if there were some medications you might have missed instead....JMHO

 

You do "humble" very well.    

 

GO RV, then BV

[RV ME]

On this point we have reached agreement, it is now and has always been.......my lackluster communication skills.    

 

GO RV, then BV 

OK, now that we reached common ground on that , I would like to ask why it would be a bad thing for a President to not compromise with Congress on important matters affecting the Country?

 

Take the recent, and regularly occurring, raising of the debt ceiling.  The reason Congress passed a law (and the President signed it) was to force the Federal Government to live within its means.  Instead, we have Presidents (of both parties) that compromise with Congress to raise the debt limit every time the ceiling is reached making the law nothing but window dressing for the professional politicians.  Would you consider it extreme if the President informed Congress he would veto raising of the debt limit and insist Congress cut the waste and spending in the federal outlays rather than rubber stamping more debt to be piled on the next generation (and the generation after that , and after that and …..)?

[Jaxinjersey]

Tell that to the House Freedom Caucus that just put all their eggs in the Paul Ryan basket.  He's certainly more conservative that Boehner could have ever hoped to be.....but he's not exactly what they were looking for, so they settled for less.  You mentioned "left" of the constitution, but not a peep about "right" of the constitution.  Why is that?  And please don't tell me there isn't one.  If it weren't for the constitution and the subsequent drift from it's center, there would be no need to identify the differing directions.  Extremes in either direction lead to tyranny.  You're one of the people on this board I have mad respect for, Jax.  And your opinion is always appreciated....but sometimes our combined bullheadedness muddies the waters and for that I apologize for my part.  

 

GO RV, then BV  

Here ya go Shabs... I've written this a couple of times on here.  And yes, there is "right" (facism, etc.) of the Constitution... it just doesn't apply very much in today's new "normal" erosion to the left (progressive, liberalism, socialism, etc.)... "Right" of the "Left" is simply just trying to get back to the standard!

 

 Posted by Jaxinjersey on 12 July 2015 - 09:44 AM in Politics, 2nd Amendment (Gun Control)

LGD... all we have to remember is that the Constitution represents the conservative demarcation on the right/left paradigm.  Anything left of that is liberal/progressive... so really, there is only LEFT.  When we "compromise", they have already gained... which is why "compromise" is a dirty, disingenuous word in REAL politics, to fool the citizenry into believing everything "bipartisan" is fair with happy endings.  No... it is nothing more than kumbaya krap...

 

When more people can honestly recognize this false movement of demarcation... we will gain back to it's intended position.

 

Keep up the good fight!  The Constitution Trumps All!  

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=20836&search_app=forums&userMode=content&sid=0df58932d76b01d26e83092f9c4d9b80&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&st=175#ixzz3pyV6lEHJ

[Shabibilicious]

OK, now that we reached common ground on that , I would like to ask why it would be a bad thing for a President to not compromise with Congress on important matters affecting the Country?

 

Take the recent, and regularly occurring, raising of the debt ceiling.  The reason Congress passed a law (and the President signed it) was to force the Federal Government to live within its means.  Instead, we have Presidents (of both parties) that compromise with Congress to raise the debt limit every time the ceiling is reached making the law nothing but window dressing for the professional politicians.  Would you consider it extreme if the President informed Congress he would veto raising of the debt limit and insist Congress cut the waste and spending in the federal outlays rather than rubber stamping more debt to be piled on the next generation (and the generation after that , and after that and …..)?

 

I'm sure, based on my rudimentary communication skills, I am going to fumble trying to get my opinion across lucidly.  I would like to see a slimmed down balanced budget with a mid range goal of erasing our national debt.  I would not use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip.  I don't believe defaulting on our payments is the proper move.  I would also like to see special interest groups and lobbyists run out of town on a rail.  Super PACs, which candidates are beholden to, even Ted Cruz, would be a thing of the past.  I probably didn't do a very good job of describing my vision, but there it is.    

 

GO RV, then BV 

[Jaxinjersey]

I'm sure, based on my rudimentary communication skills, I am going to fumble trying to get my opinion across lucidly.  I would like to see a slimmed down balanced budget with a mid range goal of erasing our national debt.  I would not use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip.  I don't believe defaulting on our payments is the proper move.  I would also like to see special interest groups and lobbyists run out of town on a rail.  Super PACs, which candidates are beholden to, even Ted Cruz, would be a thing of the past.  I probably didn't do a very good job of describing my vision, but there it is.    

 

GO RV, then BV 

Good job Shabs!  

[new york kevin]

This response alone has raised Mr Cruz's candidacy for me. I suspect that I am not alone.

[Shabibilicious]

This response alone has raised Mr Cruz's candidacy for me. I suspect that I am not alone.

 

This is the very point I was trying to make with my first post.  In hindsight, that inauspicious "Crazy Cruz" beginning was an unfortunate misnomer.       Oh well.....woulda, shoulda, coulda.    

 

GO RV, then BV 

[nstoolman1]

I'm sure, based on my rudimentary communication skills, I am going to fumble trying to get my opinion across lucidly.  I would like to see a slimmed down balanced budget with a mid range goal of erasing our national debt.  I would not use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip.  I don't believe defaulting on our payments is the proper move.  I would also like to see special interest groups and lobbyists run out of town on a rail.  Super PACs, which candidates are beholden to, even Ted Cruz, would be a thing of the past.  I probably didn't do a very good job of describing my vision, but there it is.    

 

GO RV, then BV 

I gave you a plus. I think you were very lucid, in this post     .