During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay.
FReepers are not as stooooooooopid as you apparently choose to think they are (yes, "choose," since the word "problem" was CLEARLY USED IN THE ARTICLE posted at the top of this thread, THIRD PARAGRAPH, first line ...). You are MISTAKEN, and it is very clear and easy to confirm that you are mistaken.
please explain to everyone how the article on NYT site does NOT contain the words “No problem” but the article posted here on FR DOES contain those words then? It seems pretty clear to me that the article written by Maggie has changed- who changed it finny? The NYT? The thread starter on FR? Someone sure as heck changed-
During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay.
FReepers are not as stooooooooopid as you apparently choose to think they are (yes, "choose," since the word "problem" was CLEARLY USED IN THE ARTICLE posted at the top of this thread, THIRD PARAGRAPH, first line ...). You are MISTAKEN, and it is very clear and easy to confirm that you are mistaken.
Check the article at the link, not as posted at the top of this thread. You will note that the text posted on FR is different than the NYT article. The word "problem" does not appear.
Now I am inclined to believe that the NYT caused this problem rather than the OP, so I sent the following to the Cruz campaign:
In yesterday's NYT article entitled "Ted Cruz Is Guest of Two Gay Businessmen", the third paragraph began with "During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay." Sometime early this mornng, that text was changed to "During the gathering, according to two people present, Mr. Cruz said he would not love his daughters any differently if one of them was gay."
The original text achieved wide distribution in the blogosphere, e.g. Red State, and had the effect of suppressing support for Sen. Cruz.
The NYT did not note or acknowledge that they made the change, though they did so for two other corrections to the same article.