Ted Cruz is Brilliant

[JohnStOnge]

The only thing more brilliant than Ted Cruz is this trolltastic thread.

Well done, JSO

I like to call it "provocative."

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVcJjIxEig[/youtube]

You know. Stimulate discussion.

[JohnStOnge]

I think he should have kind of maintained the grooming style he had when he was in law school. Don't know why he went to the "greaser" hair style. Also think the glasses are a nice touch. I actually think he'd project a better image if he went back to handling hair like he did then and go back to wearing glasses.

[houndawg]

There is no such thing as a politician who says what he means and means what he says.

You need to really stand back and look at how this guy has behaved. You can even refer to the thing Kalm posted with the author hypothesizing that he must not be intelligent because someone who knew him at Harvard Law saying he's saying exactly the same things now as he did when he was in Law School.

This guy OBVIOUSLY does not stick his finger in the air and try to figure out which way the wind is blowing before he stakes out a clear and unambiguous position. And he obviously doesn't care if the position he stakes out causes people to criticize him.

You know, we heard recently that Obama claimed he supported the traditional definition of marriage as involving one man and one woman when that wasn't really his position because he judged it politically advantageous to do so at the time. I think it's very reasonable to believe Cruz wouldn't do something like that.

He plays to his crowd just like the rest of them. Its just easier for him because he doesn't have to remember much.

[kalm]

Great! So he's as faithful as an elephant!





Again…just not real smart.

I"m trying to figure out why you think the quotes you provided support your statement at the end.

Agenda 21 is a non-binding UN resolution from the early 90's signed by 170 world leaders including George HW Bush. Not a single golf course has been forced to closed yet!

But it could still happen, so Republicans are remaining vigilant, banning it from red states, and Glenn Beck made a movie about it:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIgL6qbc3F4[/youtube]



http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12906 ... rate-elite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Net neutrality is obviously another topic you know nothing about. It would allow providers to intentionally slow down certain access and sites. It is nothing like Obamacare, but combining the two in the same sentence is some serious red meat.

Cruz appeals to low information voters.

[Baldy]

Net neutrality is obviously another topic you know nothing about. It would allow providers to intentionally slow down certain access and sites. It is nothing like Obamacare, but combining the two in the same sentence is some serious red meat.

Cruz appeals to low information voters.

Net Neutrality:

[kalm]

Net neutrality is obviously another topic you know nothing about. It would allow providers to intentionally slow down certain access and sites. It is nothing like Obamacare, but combining the two in the same sentence is some serious red meat.

Cruz appeals to low information voters.

Net Neutrality:

Another person who doesn't get it.

[Grizalltheway]

I think he should have kind of maintained the grooming style he had when he was in law school. Don't know why he went to the "greaser" hair style. Also think the glasses are a nice touch. I actually think he'd project a better image if he went back to handling hair like he did then and go back to wearing glasses.

Don't know if I've ever seen a "straight" man put this much thought into another dude's appearance.

[Baldy]

Net Neutrality:

Another person who doesn't get it.

Yes klam, I get it. The gubbamint is gonna save and protect us from those bastards at Comcast, Cox, AT&T, etc.
They're going to make the internet more efficient, cost effective, and more accessible. You know, since they are so good at it and all...

[kalm]

Another person who doesn't get it.

Yes klam, I get it. The gubbamint is gonna save and protect us from those bastards at Comcast, Cox, AT&T, etc.
They're going to make the internet more efficient, cost effective, and more accessible. You know, since they are so good at it and all...

Ummm...NN preserves the status quo.

[Baldy]

Yes klam, I get it. The gubbamint is gonna save and protect us from those bastards at Comcast, Cox, AT&T, etc.
They're going to make the internet more efficient, cost effective, and more accessible. You know, since they are so good at it and all...

Ummm...NN preserves the status quo.

Yeah, just like the ICC didn't develop and protect monopolies in the railroad and trucking industries.

[Skjellyfetti]

I think he should have kind of maintained the grooming style he had when he was in law school. Don't know why he went to the "greaser" hair style. Also think the glasses are a nice touch. I actually think he'd project a better image if he went back to handling hair like he did then and go back to wearing glasses.

Closet homosexual. Confirmed.

[kalm]

Ummm...NN preserves the status quo.

Yeah, just like the ICC didn't develop and protect monopolies in the railroad and trucking industries.

Yeah...that's why the providers were SOOO for NN.

[Baldy]

Yeah, just like the ICC didn't develop and protect monopolies in the railroad and trucking industries.

Yeah...that's why the providers were SOOO for NN.

Ummm, you do realize that the "status quo" is called a tiered service system, correct?

[Grizalltheway]

Yeah...that's why the providers were SOOO for NN.

Ummm, you do realize that the "status quo" is called a tiered service system, correct?

You mean tiered as in you pay a certain amount per month for a certain speed, regardless of what content you're accessing?

[kalm]

Ummm, you do realize that the "status quo" is called a tiered service system, correct?

You mean tiered as in you pay a certain amount per month for a certain speed, regardless of what content you're accessing?

Or the band that produced "Pictures of Matchstick Man"

[JohnStOnge]

Net neutrality is obviously another topic you know nothing about. It would allow providers to intentionally slow down certain access and sites.

I've been following the "net neutrality" thing to some extent because it's been in the news a lot. I think it is the opposite of how you describe it. I think it is promoted as, among other things, preventing providers from doing things like slowing down access to certain sites.

I think the net neutrality movement is going after a boogyman that does not, as a practical matter, exist. I see no reason for the Federal government to propose what it's proposed in terms of regulation.

[kalm]

Net neutrality is obviously another topic you know nothing about. It would allow providers to intentionally slow down certain access and sites.

I've been following the "net neutrality" thing to some extent because it's been in the news a lot. I think it is the opposite of how you describe it. I think it is promoted as, among other things, preventing providers from doing things like slowing down access to certain sites.

I think the net neutrality movement is going after a boogyman that does not, as a practical matter, exist. I see no reason for the Federal government to propose what it's proposed in terms of regulation.

You need better news sources. Why do you think the providers support it a companies like Google are against it?

[JohnStOnge]

A description of "Net Neutrality" from http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neut ... d-know-now" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "

Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn't decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn't be concerned with the content you view or post online.

Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors' content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service.

I don't know if that's "preserving the status quo" or not. The status quo has been that, as far as I can tell, there hasn't been a problem with the sort of things that the "net neutrality" movement is so fired up about. I mean, are any of you guys feeling like you've had a problem?

[JohnStOnge]

You need better news sources. Why do you think the providers support it a companies like Google are against it?

I'm always open to the idea that the news media misrepresent things. However, it seems pretty clear that the proponents of "net neutrality" have been saying we need it to prevent things like intentionally slowing down access.

[kalm]

You need better news sources. Why do you think the providers support it a companies like Google are against it?

I'm always open to the idea that the news media misrepresent things. However, it seems pretty clear that the proponents of "net neutrality" have been saying we need it to prevent things like intentionally slowing down access.

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/arc ... ty/361237/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

At least according to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. I'd been meaning to look this up since I heard about Dershowitz talking about Cruz on the radio. And here it is at http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists ... d_Law.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; among a series of answers to what Dershowitz thinks of famous people he taught:

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas): "Off-the-charts brilliant. And you know, liberals make the terrible mistake, including some of my friends and colleagues, of thinking that all conservatives are dumb. And I think one of the reasons that conservatives have been beating liberals in the courts and in public debates is because we underestimate them. Never underestimate Ted Cruz. He is off-the-chart brilliant. I don't agree with his politics."

It's just too bad Cruz isn't telegenic. That, I think, is a lot more important in today's politics than being brilliant is.

Gotta admit, that my first reaction was to disagree, but, when you think about it, a Canadian Latino who moves to Texas and re-invents himself as a white supremacist, and gets himself elected, has to be a politician of Clintonesque ability, even if his constituency does have the collective IQ of a turnip patch.

[Baldy]

I'm always open to the idea that the news media misrepresent things. However, it seems pretty clear that the proponents of "net neutrality" have been saying we need it to prevent things like intentionally slowing down access.

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/arc ... ty/361237/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Atlantic...seems you're the one who needs better news sources.
Maybe learning what "Net Neutrality" really is would help as well.

[kalm]

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/arc ... ty/361237/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Atlantic...seems you're the one who needs better news sources.
Maybe learning what "Net Neutrality" really is would help as well.

Read the article and get back to me...

[Baldy]

The Atlantic...seems you're the one who needs better news sources.
Maybe learning what "Net Neutrality" really is would help as well.

Read the article and get back to me...

From your article:

Net neutrality is the idea that any network traffic—movies, web pages, MP3s, pictures—can move from one place (our servers) to any other place (readers' computers phones) without "discrimination."

Providers are against net neutrality, the status quo is the tiered service system, "good" progs are for net neutrality, etc.

But, I think it's cute that you're such a Conk on the issue.

[kalm]

Read the article and get back to me...

From your article:

Net neutrality is the idea that any network traffic—movies, web pages, MP3s, pictures—can move from one place (our servers) to any other place (readers' computers phones) without "discrimination."

Providers are against net neutrality, the status quo is the tiered service system, "good" progs are for net neutrality, etc.

But, I think it's cute that you're such a Conk on the issue.

Not sure what you're saying here. Is the internet a part of the commons that should remain open or not?