Heidi Cruz Says Ted Will ‘Show This Country The Face Of The God That We Serve’

A few people are... Just like a few people are claiming this is a sign of a Theocracy... Better off ignoring the idiots.

 

So you admit there are "a few" theocrats in the GOP?

 

Not what i said. Fearmongering was the context.. Take a good look at the end of that post it might sink in.

 

Okay, then ask plainly....are there ANY people who have theocratic tendencies in the Republican Party?

Yes or No?

 

no, it is far more than just a few

 

These same far right zealots will whine an bleat about the destruction of a single human cell ( The Mighty Zygote - a strand of human DNA enclosed by a cell wall that is the same as most other human cells but this DNA has certain codes turned on starting a process that may, if all goes well, create the human given in that DNA blueprint. All other cells have this blueprint as well but they just do not have the creation codes turned on)

We must protect the sanctity of the life of this single human cell ! The sanctity of Human life (an odd term a sperm is human life but they don't seem to care much about it)

Yet ... when they have an opportunity to help a living breathing human trying to escape bad conditions for a better life they all of a sudden no longer care much.

 

It depends on the policies. That's the problem with secularists. They think nothing good can come from religion. They say as much every day here. It's called being blinded by...are ya ready for it...HATE. You're such a hater you can't even see the good in things.

 

Red and Blue are both puppets of the Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster that runs this country. This monster was not created by some "Cabal" or "Star Chamber". It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed.

Make into congress and insider trading becomes legal. You (or your buddy) can award a contract to ABC company and invest before the news hits the street. "I want in on that game" ! Sure you will have a lone voice from time to time calling out such practices. Many point to that voice and say "LOOK LOOK" freedom of speech.

That lone voice is then quickly drowned out by the cacophony on the take. To be honest I would not say anything either. Self interest and Greed.

Every time some regulation or tax law is mad the oligopolies are sitting at the table, and they have the right to be there. The problem is that the person who is supposed to be representing the interest of "we the people" is often in the pocket of, or influenced by the oligopoly.

The Oligopoly does not win every table. Over time however, table after table, the rules of the game get skewed in favor of the Oligopoly.

One of the most glaring examples is the military head of this Monster - from the Pentagon through the Defense Contractors. In 2000, Total Military Spending was 350 Billion. Under Bush it rose to 900 Billion and under Obama to over 1 Trillion. Both the Oligopolies and the Bureaucracy work together (again as a function of self interest and greed) to create justification (usually fear) for this massive feed rate.

There is no massive army preparing to invade. In 2000 our military was not weak. Had we maintained 2000 spending levels (increasing with inflation) we could have freed up roughly 550 Billion/yr over 15 years = 8 Trillion.

This money could have been used on infrastructure, technology, education, and ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium. Instead it was fed to the monster.

The difference being that the Roman mob was far more intelligent (in specific areas) than today's rabble. In Roman times education was a status symbol. The centuries old schools of Philosophy were still open (logical fallacy and how to construct a valid argument). These basics filtered down even to those that were not literate. They discussed politics and civics.

Today a kid goes through 12 years of school and we can not manage to teach them these basics. How is one to wade through the cacophony of fallacy and irrational arguments spewed out by Politicians and the mass media without these basic tools ?

The Roman oratories were full of complex (or at least semi complex) ideas. 4 or 5 decades ago our leaders too spoke eloquently.

Now it is like like listening to a PC kindergarten teacher.

 

President Obama OFTEN talks about religion, about him "walking with God," that Jesus is his "savior." That he prays for guidance. Boasting of the wonderfulness of the religion of Islam. That the Islam prayer "is the most beautiful of all."

Where is the outrage?

 

Things weren't that bad in the 50's.

 

Sounds like a full blown cult the Right would be voting for. What a bunch of nuts those two are.

 

Based on title alone;

Anyone that knows about the time Jesus was born would say the same about Bernie. Jesus said, "Give everything you have to the poor and follow me". He also said, "It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man getting into heaven"....

 

Not that i have seen... Are you suggesting names? Or are you just getting your post count up? Hmmm?

- - - Updated - - -

No its just a few suggesting there is a call for a Theocracy and just like politicsusa they are idiots.

 

There is no outrage because everyone knows obama is lying. Cruz is not religious either but he knows if he can fake it good enough several religious voters will swoon over him just like they do televangelists.

 

I agree and even within Christianity, there is diversity of practices from Catholic to Free Spirit, from orthodoxy to new age. That being said, religion is not only personal, but societal as well. But society is also separate from government. It is why that I am not in favor of abortion, I also do not see it as my business to dictate to others how I feel. Ask my opinion and I will give it to you, ask me for a policy statement and I will consider all sides and all points of view. But somehow we have veered off course from that perspective and see that we must be pure ideologues, like the Cruz's, before we can put country first over party.

 

Well, unless you were black in the South.

Or gay.

Or a woman who wanted more from life than to be a domestic goddess.

College enrollment for women ages 18-19 ranged between 21% and 30% during the 1950s, while for men it started around 35% and climbed sharply, hitting 47% or so by 1960. It was abysmal for women ages 20-21 -- their enrollment was 10% or so by 1960. This suggests that most women who DID go to college went to two-year institutions -- the kind schooling that produce stenographers and secretaries, not bachelor degrees.
http://www.postsecondary.org/last12/1131101age.pdf

As with any era, the 1950s had its good points and its bad points. But it often seems as if most people who remember the 1950s fondly were white children of suburban parents -- and they don't seem to realize what a bubble they lived in.

 

Man, I hope God looks like Orville Reddenbacher.

 

I can agree with this totally. Politicians are there to do what is best for the country period, they need not preach their religious or anti religious beliefs. Also we need to stop making decisions based off emotion and just simplify things and ask 2 simple questions which are "How will this help the country and it's people" and "what are the repercussions" . It need not go any farther than that. If we did that we would be much better off. But as of right now all politicians ask is "how will this help MY VOTERS and DONORS and MY PERSONAL AGENDA" without even looking at the potential harm it may cause or worry about the other half of the United States.

It seems we are having a cold war within ourselves.

 

No, not in the very least. The problem with the military budget is the acquisition process, not the players in the process. Companies know that they can bill the government for any and all over expenditures with no questions asked even though the concepts are sound. If you ever took a look at the history of projects in the modern era, from 1890 to present, on military acquisitions, not many, in fact very few, projects came under budget. almost all was over budget by 150% or more. Payments for soldiers, training, military upkeep, and maintenance of buildings is about 1/3 of the Military budget. the rest is for direct acquisition of projects and payments of proposed projects that get the look after because of those all important jobs.

That being said, the role of military has to change. That is why I have proposed eliminating the traditional division format and go with independent brigades without compromising our economic, political, and military interests abroad. This would also mean getting away from heavy tracked vehicles like tanks and IFV's and go back to wheeled vehicles that are lighter, more maneuverable, yet still pack the offensive firepower that is required. The 4 Star generals may not like it, but there is always a James Doolittle out there that can make the point succinctly. For the Navy, we can still keep the 10 carrier format, but we will also need to invest heavily in ships like the USS Independence (LCS 2), among others. Submarines are also a must, but I am a big believer that submarines are also going to have to be multifunctional like the USS Virginia class. But those admirals want and only want the carriers just like the admirals of old wanted those big battlewagons called battleships instead of a new ship called the carrier. Thankfully, Congress did not listen to the admirals, but to the commanders, Lt commanders, and someone like "Spig." It is those officers I trust more than anyone else, from my experience, yet Sanders would not even listen to him because it goes against his ideology, not practicality.

However, what I see here is in this analogy. We are both playing the game of chess. I know and understand the rules of Chess, not to mention the various moves, attacks, and defenses, than you know of. And yet, because of your rudimentary level of the game of chess, you obfuscate that lack of knowledge as cheating, oligarchy, rigged, etc. On the contrary, it is simply that the rules are there and that the two sides are unequal because of the knowledge, not the rules.

The Romans were not as smart as you think they were. If they were, they would not have believed in the Orator's remarks of Octavian against Mark Anthony, would they? Or believe roman citizens against Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Rome's first dictator. The Romans craved power and money in their pocketbooks despite the fact that Roman society was very ridged. A lanista could not become a plebeians, or vice versa. We have the same today, the simple 30 seconds of ads with one liners and people go "ga ga." This is on both sides, Republican and Democrat.

As for education, we do need improvements, but those improvements have to come from the parents. Too many parents believe that school is simply another form of surrogate parenting than teaching. Kids today are told that having an education is not important, but one should master basketball, football, or any other sport in order to have a shot. Sports are good, but they often substitute sports for education. As one player said, I went to the University of Missouri to study football. Same goes for high school, middle school, and grade school. It cannot be fixed by Washington, but by parents alone. And that is where the problem lies.

 

Do ayatollahs and mullahs have wives? If they do, it seems the wives at lease know when to shut up.

 

so she is saying God wants her husband to be President? let me Guess TrusTed told her that

 

I think you gotta admit, religious zealotry is at the bottom of a lot of psychosis. And it ain't all coming from Hollywood. I'm thinking of women who drown their babies in particular.

 

The Commies have an equal or greater belief in their economic system and their beloved Marxist candidates like Hillary and Bernie.

If you don't like Cruz, or Christianity---then don't vote for him.

 

I would crush you like a bug in a game of chess (Unless you have a rating above 2100 or so in which case it might be a good game)

I do not think you understood my post in general.

You talk about "rules of the game" but do not even address the specific rules I mentioned which skew that game or the process. Agree or disagree but say something other than "I know the rules and you don't" and then completely fail to back up that claim by addressing the " rules - (and I mentioned just a few) that I mentioned.

You talk about how we need all these ships but, fail to address the fact that the spread of technology (anti-ship missiles in particular) has made these ships all but obsolete (or at least seriously at risk) against a major military power.

I talked about some economics. You did not comment on the economic equation. One thing I did not mention was the historical cycle whereby economic/military empires die, from Rome to Britain.

Technological innovation leads to military superiority which leads to economic hegemony. With one gunship the Brits could take over an entire African nation (fighting back with sticks and stones).

The natural tendency is for technology to spread. At some point in the future the African nation gets the gatling gun. Now it takes not "one gunship" but, an entire armada and casualties will be high. This is expensive and the return on investment has been reduced.

The cost of projecting power then, increases.

Right now for the US, the cost of projecting power ridiculously high. We can not even attack a weak nation like Iraq (decimated by a war a decade earlier sanctioned ever since, fighting back with 1960's equipment) without nearly breaking the bank.

Against a "semi-real enemy" that has some capacity to fight back ? Say hello to the poor house.

Trying to maintain the same level of power projection in the face of the spread of technology is "The Biggest Threat" to the security of the US. Period ... end of discussion. There is no military historian (with half a brain) that will not attest to this.

The downfall of most every major military/economic power throughout history has been due to the same relative factors and we are just repeating history.

 

Again I think you missed the point of my post. Citing one example of the raging masses believing an orator's remarks in one situation and claiming "I guess they were not so smart" is not only logical fallacy, it completely misses the area's of intelligence I was referring to.

Then you go on to say "education needs improvement" but make no comment on what those improvements need to be but, more importantly, make no comment on the "specific" improvements I brought up.

That being an understanding of the "basics" of Philosophy (logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument) and Civics (Legitimacy of Authority, Individual rights and freedoms, Social contract and so on)

How on earth are parents going to deliver an understanding in such concepts when they themselves do not understand them ?