Posted on 01/06/2016 5:30:43 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Professional Pandering -- Desperate Cruz, Dependent on Iowa, Flip-Flops on Ethanol Subsidies...
Posted on January 6, 2016 by sundance
In what can only be noted as "typically Cruzian" the Senator who sponsored the "Renewable Fuel Standard Repeal Act", which would have immediately repealed the ethanol mandate, has now reversed course and claims to support continued Iowa Corn Subsidies.
The pandering flip-flop becomes "brutally Cruzian" when the campaign for Ted Cruz denies the current change in position by pointing to a prior change in position; saying, in effect: when Senator Ted Cruz decided to run for President he changed his position, and in 2014 supported a five year phase out of the Renewable Fuel Standard.
So candidate Cruz was against Iowa corn subsidy, 2013; then became for Iowa corn subsidy (with phase out), 2014, and now advocates on behalf of corn subsidy in 2016.
Just like Senator Cruz’s advocacy for the Corker/Cardin amendment (Iran Deal); and just like Senator Cruz’s advocacy for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) within the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal; Ted Cruz is for them, until he becomes against them – only when the consideration of "them" is determined by the general approval of the electorate.
Got it.
"Cruzian" and "Clintonian" are now virtually synonymous.
[...] Farmers and rural communities across Iowa are going to be encouraged by Sen. Cruz's remarks. He is clearly listening to the people of Iowa and understands the importance of the Renewable Fuel Standard to America’s economy and energy independence, as he started the caucus process calling for immediate repeal.
While not perfect, this is a big step forward by Sen. Cruz. (Iowa Corn Lobby)
(more at link)
Where did I do that, you raging loony? Can you quote me?
Read your own posts. Do you suppose Vikings appear in your screed?
.
>>”Your first clue should have been when Editor— a Gentile— was appealing to the New Testament, not the Old.” <<
Where is that mysterious clue to be found Mr. mad man?
The old and New testaments are in absolute perfect agreement on absolutely every point.
“Maybe start up a brand new thread for it, and I’ll happily whip you anti-Trinitarian... “
In a conversation about the Old Testament, Vikings or Hindus arent the Anti-Trinitarians. That leaves one people you are calling cultists Mr Duke.
.
Raging Looney?
You must be gazing in a mirror!
In other words, you are a really stupid person who couldn't prove what you claimed.
I just did.
Okay, so I'm talking to two people who claim to be Christians-- who are members of an anti-Trinitarian "Christian' religious cult-- and you think I want to gas the Jews?
You are stupid.
.
Have you found that golden passage of the word that says that our God is three persons yet?
Waiting...
When did Jews start believing in Jesus? You refered to anti trinitarians as cultists. Jews are also anti Trinitarian. To to be consistant, Jews by your own definition, have to be a cult. That’s antisemitism, Mr Duke.
.
You’ve proven that you are a raging loony.
Wow, you're really stupid. Keep going.
Oh? Are Jews believers in the Holy Trinity? I was busy earlier so I guess I could have missed it.
This is a conservative site. You make conservatives look like bigots. So listen up, bigot, next time you insult the Orthodox Jews on this site with your stupidity, I will do what I can to get you banned. Got it?
Paul's Talmudic understanding and the Word of G_d are sometimes two different things, and I can prove it.
So you really ARE a Hebrew Roots cultist. But I do stand by the statement: all anti-Trinitarian "Christian" groups, of which you claimed to be, are religious cults. That was the context of my post.
Although, it does not follow I think Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc., are "cult" groups, although they're ALL believers in false religious of course, and have no hope of salvation outside of Christ :).
Bad dodge Mr. Duke.
You have no clue what I believe, because you have obviously not read what I have written. So I will close with a word from the site owner, which you can read in full, here:
You are free to argue your points of fact with citations, although you have offered neither. Calling people names or insulting their religion is out of bounds. This is your last warning.
Got it?
All I said was: "you anti-Trinitarian anti-Bacon fools there."
The "you" are the Hebrew Roots cultists :). Nice try with your filthy lies, fool.
Meanwhile, I'm being viciously attacked by religious cultists because I'm not "Christian" enough! No thanks. I'll give it as good as I get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.