Posted on 03/29/2016 8:58:05 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Either a real "D@mn you, autocorrect" moment or one *helluva* Freudian slip. :-)
Senator Cruz: "Ordinarily I would say Reverse Cowgirl because I'm from Texas. But now I have to go with Missionary because I'm the Anointed One."
That reminds me of the old joke:
Q. Why do Baptists make love lying down?
A. So no one will think they're dancing!
Oh, you mean keep a closer eye on him. Well, since the kids have a full-time nanny anyway, it won't matter, right?
Yes, but it was never a surprise: and Trump never made his own anointed status his chief selling point.
Trump was not responsible for the NE article.
Talk to your buddy, Rubio.
I've seen and heard him deny these allegations!
Big difference than your boss who brags about his tom cat behavior and nary an apology toward the men and children whose homes he's defiled!
Denying these specific allegations are not relevant to that question.
Well, he did call the article “complete trash and utter lies” so I’d say that’s a denial.
Not when it comes out of a lawyer's mouth. And not when it comes out of a liar's mouth. And especially not when it comes out of a lyin' lawyer's mouth.
Cruz has a few 'tell' words. Like pResident Dumbo with notion, you have Saint Ted with utter. Does anyone think he or any President could "utterly destroy ISIS"? You can hurt them bad but nothing that matches that phrase of total absolute completeness. That is proof he uses that word in a not necessarily truthful context.
For Cruz, utter is a rehearsed, focus-group tested buzzword used in speeches. When he uses it, the statement should be taken as a scripted speech, and not necessarily containing honesty. The fact he used it after undoubtedly rehearsing this crisis response over the previous weekend means IMHO that it is not really a denial.
Subsequent proof is the refusal to answer the UK DailyMail reporters multiple times, reporters with much more integrity than our alleged free press, who have experience asking the right questions to well-practiced liars across the pond.
I'd set the chance of this thing being true, Ted Cruz affairs, at 90/10. And the only thing reducing it from 100% is the fact he is a conservative and that means there is a slim possibility that leftists like Soros created the entire backstory and fed it to Rubio.
However, let's be real. We already have Gingrich and Livingston and Haley, perverts like Hastert and Foley, and too many more to list. All of them were complete and ( pardon the pun ) utter surprises! So I don't get why Cruzers are so adamant that he could never do this. That is illogical. They all do it to us all the time.
Lewandowski was charged. Because you thinks it’s menial, doesn’t mean he wasn’t charged. Cruz’s “alleged” affairs is rumor. Unless you have concrete proof? Then cough it up. Apparently, you’re still missing the point. Of course.
Yep, he was charge all right. But he was charged because she pressed charges. It's not like he committed a crime in front of a cop and arrested. You're obviously female so you may not understand this, but give it a try anyway ...
There's a knock on your door, cops arrest your son for assaulting some girl in his class. He is charged because some young lady pressed charges a few days after some encounter with your boy.
You have a look at the security footage in the classroom and see what we all saw on that Florida footage. The girl is merely brushed aside and with a smile on her face does nothing, doesn't grab her arm in pain, call for medical treatment, doesn't yell at your son, instead she goes twitter bomb the anti-Trump universe, I mean your kid's social circles and show up on local TV badmouthing your son. Yay. Justice. How's it feel? ( Note that the above only works well if it is your son who is charged by some SJW safe-space female classmate. The reverse case is too laughable thanks to political correctness. )
Any one person can press charges, that's all it takes. Heck, anybody can get a grand jury containing multiple people to indict an innocent person on the slimmest evidence. Need we name all the falsely accused (R) political persecutions, later acquitted? Jeez Louise. Yet you take all these well-known facts and still swallow the Cruz spin.
P.S. I really hate to nitpick but seeing you're not big on details I want to mention that your tagline is in error ...
(The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land)
... quaint phrase but the Constitution is not law. It is the framework created by the several States and We The People birthing the three branches who Legislate laws, Execute them, and Judge their Constitutionality. The Constitution predates each and every Federal law that exists. It is actually FedGov's schematic and birth certificate.
I'm not sure why that phrase is popular because it kind of flushes basic civics down the toilet. It is a kinda dangerous line of thinking because it inevitably leads to a day when Congress can legislate the Constitution directly, bypassing Amendments, and thus, bypassing We The People.
I do not agree.
Read my previous posts.
Read my previous posts.
You “quoted” me as saying this is a story planted by Trump when I said no such thing and never once ever referred to Trump
I said no such thing.
We disagree because of previous reasons stated.
In addition, to anti-Cruz people, even if he treated a NE accusation with a loud and direct “no,” they would not be swayed (as previously stated) and we would be where we are today, treating the NE like it is serious venue and no anti-Cruz minds would change
Can you see any anti-Cruz types on this thread changing their opinion on the subject and saying: “Well, Cruz said no so that’s it, let’s move on.”
This is going to blow wide open just as soon as the opportunist handlers gets to one of these women and paints the picture on money and momentary fame, including a book or TV/movie deal.
Stand by for a ramming Mr. Cruz.
That’s not the audience. The audience would be on-the-fence women voters and many evangelicals who would cross Cruz off their list if they thought he was an adulterer. Making a timid denial or dodging the question goes much more in to saying “these allegations are true” than a bold and emphatic denial. If Cruz loses the women and the evangelicals, he’s toast.
Yes.
Because at least that point there would be a definitive statement that was not total lawyer-speak, and each individual could judge the veracity of the statement in their own heart.
It's too bad Ted hasn't given anybody that option. Sure seems like that would have been easiest and most effective if he really had nothing to hide.
A few concise words is infinitely preferable to a barrage of lawyer-esque words, which are additionally combined with massive deflection onto a person who has become a catch-all boogeyman, and who has no connection whatsoever to the story's content.
And, instead, failing to answer the question at all by submissively deferring to "Mama Carly" to repeat the same deflection again, along with some scripTED quips, instead of personally uttering a simple, concise, definitive phrase, served on a silver platter by the reporter, that probably would have satisfied most of skeptics if it seemed sincere and truthful enough.
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.