Toxic Ted and his Tea Party in final throes - RIP Tim Huelskamp

[Bo-4]

This is the first of many my friends - and good riddance to the lot of their intransigent asses.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article93396562.html

ConservativeTreehouse blames it on "Toxic Ted" Cruz and his "Trump Hate" - but it's much simpler than that - Tea Party approval at present? 17%.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/08/02/toxic-ted-cruzs-first-victim-early-returns-show-tim-huelskamp-about-to-be-primaried/#more-119659

[Tahuyaman]

Liberals always seem to prove how much they hate disagreement.

[del]

liberal voted for him



Marshall led in many of the far western Kansas counties where Huelskamp had won his last Republican primary in 2014. Among the few counties the conservative lawmaker carried: Seward, along the state’s southern border, which includes the city of Liberal.
Earlier in the evening, multiple TV and newspaper reporters were kicked out of Huelskamp’s “victory” headquarters in Hutchinson, with little explanation offered (http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article93371577.html).



Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article93396562.html#storylink=cpy

[Common]

The teaparty made me switch to independent from republican. Ted Cruz turned my stomach from the very first time I heard him speak and the dislike and disdain has gotten deeper ever since. I loathe the man and hope he loses re election.

The right clings to this ideal that the teaparty are conservatives. Conservatives do not vote against the working man in every vote like the teaparty has.

The teaparty first attack was we cant afford any more Ponzi Schemes like Social Security and Medicare but of course we can afford hundreds of millions in subsidies for corporations who have never had a losing quarter. They encourage outsourcing as good for country with a global economy. They want huge tax cuts on the rich and remove regulations they say stifle business. They hate unions and want to turn every state into a right to work state, which means EVERYONE works for far less with no benefits. The are dead set against any raise in the minimum wage and vote to stop unemployment for those unemployed by outsourcing.

Everything the teaparty stood for was against the working man. It had to die and because of the teaparty and their far right insanity, the republican party forced out Boehner and got the far worse Paul Ryan and gave the country trump. Trump is where he is because of the teaparty far right.

[Peter1469]

The Democrats are driving the economy off the fiscal cliff at 100mph. The republicans are driving the economy off the fiscal cliff at 60mph.

When you two party clowns destroy the economy the Tea Party(ies) will pick up the pieces and fix it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4

[FindersKeepers]

The teaparty made me switch to independent from republican. Ted Cruz turned my stomach from the very first time I heard him speak and the dislike and disdain has gotten deeper ever since. I loathe the man and hope he loses re election.

.

We're on the same page here -- although I didn't switch parties. Cruz rubbed me the wrong way from the get-go. I'm willing to let any candidate worship their religion as they see fit -- even though I'm not a believer -- but when they try to put their religious beliefs into the law, I get a little itchy.

I liked the fiscal conservatism of the teaparty but I couldn't abide the Religious Right aspect.

Ted always struck me as the sort who'd re-institute the burning of witches, given the chance.

[Peter1469]

Oh, and Ted Cruz is not Tea Party(ies). He is a religious right loon.

[Common]

We're on the same page here -- although I didn't switch parties. Cruz rubbed me the wrong way from the get-go. I'm willing to let any candidate worship their religion as they see fit -- even though I'm not a believer -- but when they try to put their religious beliefs into the law, I get a little itchy.

I liked the fiscal conservatism of the teaparty but I couldn't abide the Religious Right aspect.

Ted always struck me as the sort who'd re-institute the burning of witches, given the chance.

There was alot more than the religious aspect that turned me off cruz.

[exotix]

Harsh ... I mean, @Texan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=979) actually believes Teddy is a messiah ... LOL

[Tahuyaman]

Even though they won't admit it, most people dislike Ted Cruz because of his outspoken religious views.

[Bo-4]

Oh, and Ted Cruz is not Tea Party(ies). He is a religious right loon.

Oh hell Peter TeaTed is the quintessential Bagger!

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/tea-party-patriots-endorses-cruz

http://www.bilgebucket.com/wp-content/uploads/tedcruztexasfederalrelief.jpg

[texan]

Harsh ... I mean, @Texan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=979) actually believes Teddy is a messiah ... LOL


Nah was never on the Cruz wagon and I don;t like that he stopped some of the things that he did. You have to work together on some things.

[Tahuyaman]

but when they try to put their religious beliefs into the law, I get a little itchy.
.

can you give me an example where they tried to put their religious views into law?

[FindersKeepers]

can you give me an example where they tried to put their religious views into law?

The biggest current examples would be limits on abortion, limiting access to morning-after meds and limiting marital rights for same-sex couples.

[Tahuyaman]

The biggest current examples would be limits on abortion, limiting access to morning-after meds and limiting marital rights for same-sex couples.


So, opposition to abortion on demand is confined to those of a religious faith? What world do you live in? Don't you believe life should be protected or at least respected?

Also, until recently, same sex couple were not allowed to legally marry. Was the last 200+ years an example of religious people legislating their views? And seeing that gays can get married, doesn't that throw water on your theory?

Think...... It works wonders.

[AZ Jim]

Truth be known Cruz isn't nearly as religious as he would have us believe. It's just the horse he was trying to ride to the nomination. He thought the religious right was his ticket. He also was (and is) hated in the senate by both parties.

[FindersKeepers]

So, opposition to abortion on demand is confined to those of a religious faith? What world do you live in? Don't you believe life should be protected or at least respected?

No, of course not, but Cruz wanted to implement laws banning abortion based on his religious beliefs.




Also, until recently, same sex couple were not allowed to legally marry. Was the last 200+ years an example of religious people legislating their views? And seeing that gays can get married, doesn't that throw water on your theory?

Think...... It works wonders.

This time around, secular beliefs outscored religious beliefs, but it hasn't always been that way. Many of our laws have been based on religious beliefs. And, not all of them have been detrimental -- but I don't want to get in a big lawmaking discussion.

My opinion is that Cruz would make a very poor president based on his ideas that his religious beliefs are a foundation for lawmaking.

Look what happened to London when they elected a mayor with strong Muslim convictions. Not long after he took office, he banned subway ads with girls in bikinis. That's what happens when you elect someone who will govern based on their religious ideas. There is very little difference between Cruz and Sadiq Khan.

That's why I oppose Cruz.

If people want to restrict abortion based on other reasons -- and there ARE good reasons for restricting abortion -- I don't mind.

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across to you in the way I want to.

[Tahuyaman]

You are overstating Cruz's position.

[Subdermal]

No, of course not, but Cruz wanted to implement laws banning abortion based on his religious beliefs.

Are laws against murder based upon religious beliefs?

[Subdermal]

No, of course not, but Cruz wanted to implement laws banning abortion based on his religious beliefs.




This time around, secular beliefs outscored religious beliefs, but it hasn't always been that way. Many of our laws have been based on religious beliefs. And, not all of them have been detrimental -- but I don't want to get in a big lawmaking discussion.

My opinion is that Cruz would make a very poor president based on his ideas that his religious beliefs are a foundation for lawmaking.

Look what happened to London when they elected a mayor with strong Muslim convictions. Not long after he took office, he banned subway ads with girls in bikinis. That's what happens when you elect someone who will govern based on their religious ideas. There is very little difference between Cruz and Sadiq Khan.

That's why I oppose Cruz.

If people want to restrict abortion based on other reasons -- and there ARE good reasons for restricting abortion -- I don't mind.

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across to you in the way I want to.

You are attempting to segregate law-making from morality and principles - which is impossible - and you are attempting to separate morality from religious belief.

Which is impossible.

My religious belief instructs that my views and beliefs will feel like a stranger in a strange land at the end times.

I believe we are there.

[Chris]

The Tea parties have always been anti-Republican. Crus is Republican. Liberals are confused.

[birddog]

The real Tea Party beliefs about smaller government, smaller taxes, and protecting the Constitution are still valid. It is easy for petty critics to use personality flaws or social views they don't agree with to criticize the TP, but they are essentially "throwing the baby out with the bath water!"

[Subdermal]

The TEA Party is an idea. There is TEA Party in any person who believes that Government is too big and encroaching, and we're taxed far too much.

You'll never defeat this idea, leftists. Your very existence is predicated on fueling its growth.

[Bo-4]

The TEA Party is an idea. There is TEA Party in any person who believes that Government is too big and encroaching, and we're taxed far too much.

You'll never defeat this idea, leftists. Your very existence is predicated on fueling its growth.

Sadly, only one in six Americans likes your "idea" ;-)

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fazcjndrbecqxf6bgxzwaw.png

[Subdermal]

Sadly, only one in six Americans likes your "idea" ;-)

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fazcjndrbecqxf6bgxzwaw.png

I won't even argue with your attempt at spin. No one is suggesting that the idea of small government isn't the majority notion. Your side infiltrated academia, and this is what is the result.

We will continue to feel the effects of such, and it will end badly.

Congratulations.

[FindersKeepers]

Are laws against murder based upon religious beliefs?

The earliest known ones (to date) are tracked to the ancient Code of Hammurabi, and they are thought by many scholars to have been secular. Some laws against murder, of course, can be traced to religious codes. Those same religious codes, unfortunately, can also condone murder.

As humans, we inherently know right from wrong based on the way we want others to treat us -- it's just one form of that universal golden rule that's found in nearly all societies.

[FindersKeepers]

You are attempting to segregate law-making from morality and principles - which is impossible - and you are attempting to separate morality from religious belief.

Which is impossible.

My religious belief instructs that my views and beliefs will feel like a stranger in a strange land at the end times.

I believe we are there.


Morality can certainly be separated from religious belief. Law-making is tough to separate from morality, however.

[Subdermal]

The Tea parties have always been anti-Republican. Crus is Republican. Liberals are confused.

Cruz is a Republican for the same reason I usually end up voting for the Republican. What he really is - like me - is a Constitutional Conservative who understands that being so grants latitude to people of every belief system.

[Subdermal]

Morality can certainly be separated from religious belief. Law-making is tough to separate from morality, however.

No, it cannot. Your morals are both fashioned by religious influence, and by the absence of it. Either way, the point stands.

[Subdermal]

The earliest known ones (to date) are tracked to the ancient Code of Hammurabi, and they are thought by many scholars to have been secular. Some laws against murder, of course, can be traced to religious codes. Those same religious codes, unfortunately, can also condone murder.

It seems as though you're twisting terms by running it through your own moral conclusions. Religious codes condone murder?

Or would the proper characterization be "killing as punishment"?


As humans, we inherently know right from wrong based on the way we want others to treat us -- it's just one form of that universal golden rule that's found in nearly all societies.

No, that's not at all true. Savage history teaches survival of the fittest. Morality came with the recognition of a power greater than ourselves. The 'Golden Rule' is an acknowledgement of that, which is why any iteration of such appeared in religious texts, to be eventually adopted by societies as they became more civilized.

[FindersKeepers]

It seems as though you're twisting terms by running it through your own moral conclusions. Religious codes condone murder?

Or would the proper characterization be "killing as punishment"?

The definition of murder changes with the generations, but in today's world (Western world) killing someone who claims to be a witch or killing a child who misbehaves will be classified as murder. Both are permissible, however, in Judaic law. I do not have to be religious to know that it's wrong to rape young girls, and yet, the Bible tells us God not only permitted, but advocated that His followers kill all the males (including children) of their enemy, but to keep the young virgin girls for themselves. The "morality," in that law, if you can call it morality, fails in the face of true human kindness.

When you can make better "moral" decisions than a religious deity can -- there is a message there.




No, that's not at all true. Savage history teaches survival of the fittest. Morality came with the recognition of a power greater than ourselves. The 'Golden Rule' is an acknowledgement of that, which is why any iteration of such appeared in religious texts, to be eventually adopted by societies as they became more civilized.

The "power greater than oneself" need not be a divine character. It can be a lord of the manor, a slaveholder, or a king.

None of that, however, created morality.

Morality is inborn. It's instinctual.

[FindersKeepers]

No, it cannot. Your morals are both fashioned by religious influence, and by the absence of it. Either way, the point stands.



I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Bo-4]

I won't even argue with your attempt at spin. No one is suggesting that the idea of small government isn't the majority notion. Your side infiltrated academia, and this is what is the result.

We will continue to feel the effects of such, and it will end badly.

Congratulations.

And i said back in 2010 that the Teabagger experiment would end badly.

It has. :)

[Peter1469]

And i said back in 2010 that the Teabagger experiment would end badly.

It has. :)

There will always be some in the US who want fiscal responsibility and limited government.

The takers will implode the economy through unsustainable government spending.

The Tea Party(ies) will be the ones to clean up your mess.