Replies

I watched the video that was supplied/linked in virtually every article that claimed Cruz said words he did not.

It was offered as the 'evidence' that Cruz said something, which wasn't said in the video.

"I think a campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment, when the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence–to punch people in the face. The predictable consequence of that is that it escalates and today is unlikely to be the last such instance,” Cruz said in a sorrowful tone...Who else was he talking about?!?!

ANYONE

Anyone at all, so long as they are a candidate.

"today is unlikely to be the last such instance." Someone, some time, some where will raise the crowd to a froth again and those either as part of that frenzy or a frenzy opposed to it will engage in violent acts. From 'Mark Antony at the Forum'(I fear I wrong the honorable men whose daggers have stabbed Caesar...) to the present day and beyond, this is the way things are. Regardless of when or where, the fundamental concept remains the same, doesn't it?

It is like gravity, or opaque objects casting a shadow in light, no matter when or where you encounter the phenomenon, the rule holds.

When you speak of principles or fundamental concepts, the principle or concept applies over a multitude of individual situations.

Yeah, apparently the shoe fit so well, that Trump supporters immediately had a global hissyfit, and the media did not hesitate to distort his comments to the point of taking half a headline in quotes and finishing it with the reporter's BS in one case.

It's great, because I got to make my own list--of news sources I won't train puppies over and websites which are meaningless drivel and a waste of electrons and blogs which write what the other blogs are blogging all without an original thought. It is quite extensive, and they are virtually all pro-Trump. (What a shocker!) I expect to save considerable time in the future.

Like I said, if the shoe fits, wear it.

IF you want to justify Carpenter’s hate list, fine.

I didn't justify Carpenter's hate list.

If you think I did, link and quote it.

It didn't happen.

Oh it was her own idea, but it is based on her loyalty to Cruz...not being a CNN employee.

Wait a minute.

If it was her own idea, how is that Cruz's fault?

Not any more than blaming Jodie Foster for Reagan getting shot (Because John Hinkley wanted a date with her)?

Nor for that matter the actions of people in the streets of Chicago being the responsibility of anyone but the people who are misbehaving. (which Cruz said.)

This isn't behaviour invited by Cruz, endorsed by Cruz, or sanctioned by Cruz. It is something done by another adult of their own volition.

We don't hang someone because their former employee decided to take up a new career as a horsethief.

What an incredible twist of logic that someone now working for an organization traditionally hostile to Republican candidates (CNN) is absolved, and a former employer is blamed when the person doing the dirty deed works for CNN!!

Have you forgotten the Clinton years? Decades of CNN fawning over the Clintons, hostility toward Bush, and sucking up to Obama go out the window. Their employee couldn't be doing this because she works for them. Oh no, it's because she used to work for a Republican?

Are you listening to yourself?

Hate lists...Such a conservative idea...just like trampling free speech which Cruz defended—just like a woman wearing a short skirt deserves what she gets. Carpenter left the Cruz campaign on good terms...glowing comments about it...didn’t leave because she opposed him or his campaign tactics and positions. She is not a liberal.

Oh? Well she damned sure is acting like one, now isn't she? Why did she leave?? For the money? For a steady job? Sold out principle for a paycheck?

I thought hate lists were speech, too? Or is free speech only for those you agree with? Now who is acting like a what?

CNN didn’t force her to tweet that...

But someone she used to work for did? WTF?

People have to be paid to be an operative.

But you said, "...but yeah, I think she is an operative....", so which is it? Is she or isn't she? Maybe only her hairdresser knows for sure?

I think all former employment and affiliation should be disclosed by all networks...for all candidates...Cruz, Kasich and TRump...put it under their name with their other credentials which are often touted on the the tv as person is talking...Who is Carl Rove? How about Frank Luntz being Rubio’s personal opinion maker for years?...For years Stephanopolis has paraded as a journalist...Oh he is not double dipping, but he is a Clinton operative [Wait, I thought you had to get paid? which is it? Make up your mind, already!]...always framing discussions to reflect favorably on democrats in general, Hillary in particular. Heck, he was a Presidentialdebate moderator???? How impartial! LOL Frankly, I see no problem disclosing...I am shocked that you would.

Do I have a problem with that disclosure? Not only no, but Hell no. Disclose away. Record the scroll, because they are going to go by like credits from a movie, only faster, and they will be in fine print you'll need a magnifier to read on a 55 inch screen. Some of these people have longer resumes than the show. The more time spent spewing resumes the less time I have to listen to bs coming out of the TV.

But if you are going to do that, full disclosure of employment history for everyone! That could be interesting.

Would you be so hasty to use the same standards if she was a former Trump employee making up a 'hate list' on another candidate while working for CNN?

LOL! We KNOW the answer--otherwise, you would satisfy your self with the idea that people making up hate lists over any candidate is some off the wall stuff.

That wrong is wrong wherever, whenever it happens.

But that would bring you full circle, not just to situation ethics, but to a principle, where a concept applies to everyone/thing all the time. Which was what Cruz laid down in Chicago.

As for making lists, well, as far as I know, there is no law against making lists. We Conservatives even do that (from Companies to boycott because they used baby parts in their research, Vaccines which don't use baby parts in theirs, Pro-family (traditional family, that is) restaurants, down to 'things to do today'). Unless someone starts using that list as a guide to commit crimes, it is just a list.

But a list of people hostile to a candidate would sure save some time digging through a pile of resumes, wouldn't it?

Why I bet that Ms Carpenter is even on some sort of list (written or otherwise) of yours.