Octopus Overlords

Sweet, he is going all in, rejecting all but the far right lunatic fringe of the GOP. Even wrapping himself in the confederate flag:

In the debate over the Confederate flag in South Carolina after the Charleston church massacre, Mr. Cruz was almost alone among the major presidential candidates in not endorsing South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley‘s call for taking the flag down from the state Capitol grounds.

I think Ted tends to overestimate how far "going rogue" will get him.

I do support the effort to remove that flag from state institutions. Just imagine if some German states still had swastikas as part of their flags. (Yes I know it's not an equivalent representation, although I am sure there were plenty of proud Aryan stock who would have loved to see that happen).

I don't support the mass insanity of ripping that flag down in every circumstance. It has a place in American history, there is no need to resort to ISIS methodology.

killbot737 wrote:there is no need to resort to ISIS methodology.

This is incredibly offensive, and I'm sick of hearing it. If you have a problem with companies emptying their stock, then talk to them, but fuck off with this notion that a) removing some nylon chinese made flags from store shelves is somehow impacting American History and b) that this is some left wing conspiracy in the same vein as ISIS.

Nothing says mature discussion of political issues like comparing peoples' actions to terrorists.

I'm saying destroying all references to the Confederate flag is offensive. It existed, it continues to exist. Destroying stained glass windows where it has been included is insanity and belongs in the ISIS manual of operations. Again, I want the flag to exist as an historical symbol, just like the Japanese rising sun flag. Historically.

Removing the direct or indirect influence of the Stars and Bars from the USA's government is a GOOD THING.

killbot737 wrote:I'm saying destroying all references to the Confederate flag is offensive.

That's not possible so chill out.

If you have specific issues with specific instances, then deal with those issues, but liking what's happening to the confederate flag as the same thing ISIS is doing is far more offensive than having some apps pulled from the Apple store.

I have no idea why this feeding frenzy is happening to the Confederate Battle Flag. I don't much care, but I don't support it and I don't understand it. If people want to hoist the flag on private property, have at it. If Amazon wants to pull the flag completely, have at it. If people want to boycott Amazon because they pulled all their flag and flag-like merchandise, have at it.

Nothing is gained when we pretend that there is a war on American history, because there isn't. History will remain intact, even shitty history about the losing side, so if your real concern is history, you're good, you're safe. If you don't like that people don't like the flag, well, that's a shame, but bringing the mindless destruction of ISIS into the conversation like it's somehow relevant or even similar is unacceptable. It's a shitty thing to do and it only serves to make the conversation about emotion rather than thought. Labeling the "other side" as terrorists is a time honoured tradition in conflict, whether political, ideological or cultural. And not in a good way.

killbot737 wrote: Destroying stained glass windows where it has been included is insanity and belongs in the ISIS manual of operations.

First, those stained glass windows were made in 1953, nearly a century after the civil war ended. Their value as historical references to the confederation are virtually nil. Their existence is historical in that they represent the mindset during 1953, so there might be value in that.

That said, they are calling to replace the stain glass. I am unsure who owns what, but I have no problem with the appropriate authorities replacing stuff they don't like, whether it's because it looks crappy, has racist overtones, memorializes men that they don't want memorialized, whatever. If they want to smash them with a hammer, then that sucks. If they don't want them on display any more, well that's their right (assuming the Rev. has that level of authority). I assume they would be put in a museum, or sold to a private collector, or smashed with a hammer. 1953 confederate flags are less historical than mid-1800's confederate flags, so they are less worth preserving.

For the record this conversation has already happened in the Charleston thread in Everything but Gaming. You can go there for a lot more pros and cons on this subject. Some you might even agree with.

I don't have a skunk in the Confederacy fight. Erasing history is wrong. ISIS erases history, and it appears to me that many groups in the USA have jumped on the same bandwagon regarding that flag. Thus I put them in the same history-erasing bucket. There is nothing terrorism-related in my analysis. I am equivocating the ISIS history-erasing behavior to the behavior of organizations I have read about in the news. Nothing more, nothing less.

In Soviet Russia, history erases you.

killbot737 wrote:I am equivocating

No, you are not.

Max Peck wrote:

killbot737 wrote:I am equivocating

No, you are not.

Quite right. I am directly comparing the two.

Ted Cruz on the ACA and Gay Marriage: "Today Is Some Of The Darkest 24 Hours In Our Nation’s History"

Holman wrote:Ted Cruz on the ACA and Gay Marriage: "Today Is Some Of The Darkest 24 Hours In Our Nation’s History"

What a pompous asshole. Ted Cruz. Not you.

Holman wrote:Ted Cruz on the ACA and Gay Marriage: "Today Is Some Of The Darkest 24 Hours In Our Nation’s History"

Pearl Harbor was a stroll on the beach compared to Americans getting health care and the right to choose a partner.

killbot737 wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

killbot737 wrote:I am equivocating

No, you are not.

Quite right. I am directly comparing the two.

Not very well, unless I misread you and you meant "this stuff is nothing at all like IS." Blowing up monuments is the least of IS's affronts to humanity. When the kneejerk anti-flag activists start up with decapitations, mass executions, enslavement, suicide bombings and the like, then a comparison to IS would be apt. Until that happens, such comparisons stink of being facile, disingenuous reactionary talking points.

In other words, it's the sort of thing that Ted Cruz would say. (That's a joke. I don't actually think Ted Cruz would compare someone who doesn't like the Confederate battle flag to IS, but he used to be a Canadian, so I get to make fun of him. Plus it let's me post on topic...)

This will change everything.

Wow. What weird timing. I didn't realize this was something he long cared about and it's only just after this week that it's now Twitter-important.

.
.
.
.

The Ted Cruz logo is an America-flavored tear.

I would have guessed a burning flag.

I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to subject #SCOTUS justices to periodic judicial anal retention elections.

Fixed.

Isn't an upside-down flag a distress signal?

It is.

Holman wrote:

.
.
.
.

The Ted Cruz logo is an America-flavored tear.

It's a drop of blood, with an inexplicable blue area.

El Guapo wrote:It's a drop of blood, with an inexplicable blue area.

Entirely explicable:

Blue blood is an English idiom recorded since 1834 for noble birth or descent; it is also known as a translation of the Spanish phrase sangre azul, which described the Spanish royal family and other high nobility who claimed to be of Visigothic descent, in contrast to the Moors. The idiom originates from ancient and medieval societies of Europe and distinguishes an upper class (whose superficial veins appeared blue through their untanned skin) from a working class of the time. The latter consisted mainly of agricultural peasants who spent most of their time working outdoors and thus had tanned skin, through which superficial veins appear less prominently.

Robert Lacey explains the genesis of the blue blood concept:

It was the Spaniards who gave the world the notion that an aristocrat's blood is not red but blue. The Spanish nobility started taking shape around the ninth century in classic military fashion, occupying land as warriors on horseback. They were to continue the process for more than five hundred years, clawing back sections of the peninsula from its Moorish occupiers, and a nobleman demonstrated his pedigree by holding up his sword arm to display the filigree of blue-blooded veins beneath his pale skin—proof that his birth had not been contaminated by the dark-skinned enemy.

Obviously, Ted Cruz is signalling that he is born to rule and will initiate a reconquista, reclaiming America from the Moors (and SCOTUS).

Or he's a Manchurian candidate Mongolian horselord by way of a circumpolar assault via Canada.

You really don't see the word "circumpolar" often enough.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Hey Donald, The Cruzer has got your back, buddy.

Cruz/Trump 2016?

Is American worthy?

Walker Cruz would remind me of Pablo Cruise from the 70's

Yesterday was NOT Ted Cruz's day.

Ted Cruz just wanted a roll-call vote on Sunday. Instead, he got a smackdown.

Republican leaders, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), delivered what senators described as punishment for Cruz’s brazen floor tactics — the Texas senator first accused McConnell of lying and later sought to change Senate procedures in order to push for an Iran-related amendment.

So when Cruz came to the floor looking for 16 senators to agree to hold a roll-call vote, only three raised their hands. McConnell, sitting at his desk, turned around and peered at Cruz, who looked stunned at what had just happened. The Senate dispensed with his effort by a voice vote and quickly moved on, doing the same to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a Cruz ally who sought to use arcane procedures to force a vote on defunding Planned Parenthood.

The report I heard this morning went on to state that Orrin Hatch then scolded Cruz in a withering attack that left out names, but made it pretty damn clear that he thought Cruz was just playing for the cameras in a desperate bid to get back the votes he feels he's losing to Trump's antics.

I love it. Cruz is fighting for his position in the presidential race...and it's mostly because he's been outTrumped by Trump. He's trying to use the same tactics as The Donald, but he's failing miserably at it.

Naw. Trump is the best thing that could have happened to Ted Cruz. As the field narrows, Cruz will be the only serious candidate positioned to scoop up Trump voters.

Fighting against the GOP establishment is part of Cruz's brand anyway.

I don't believe that's the case. Cruz's schtick was the whole "outsider sticking it to the establishment!" thing. Now Trump is doing it too, but he's better at creating a real side show to go along with it. One that appeals to the lowest common denominator that's holding the GOP hostage these days. I think Cruz calling McConnell a liar on the senate floor was his (mis)calculated attempt at generating the same buzz that Trump's inflammatory sound bites have, and getting those votes. Hatch pointed that out even, in not so many words.

Unfortunately, he can't see the forest for the trees and he's alienated even more people...and in the case of those who supported his attempt to call for a vote and then found themselves shut down yesterday, he's showing them that they aren't backing the right horse.

I really think Trump's ascendancy is bringing about the fall of Cruz. Cruz just doesn't realize it, or refuses to risk losing those who back Trump now in case Trump pulls out/is thrown out of the race.

The problem with being an outsider going to Washington is that you can easily find yourself opposed to your own party. You know, the ones that control the coffers of the party for election donations when the next primary comes around. It would warm the cockles of my heart to see him not even make it to the general election in 2018.

Unfortunately, he's the vice chariman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is the Republican Hill committee for the United States Senate, working to elect Republicans to that body.
...
The NRSC helps elect Republican incumbents and challengers primarily through fundraising. Other services include campaign activities using media and communications, as well as research and strategy planning.

Chairman Roger Wicker (MS) isn't a Tea Party candidate, however, so maybe they will boot him to the curb.

Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders both oppose reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank, and for essentially the same reason: corporate welfare. I'm in a tizzy.

I'm actually swayed by the idea that failing to reauthorize it tied one hand behind our back on the global economic stage. Not that I have much love for government handouts to corps, but if everyone else around the world is getting the benefit, we'd be stupid not to play the same game. Now if we want to outlaw it at the WTO level, I could certainly back that play.

Ordinarily I can oppose Cruz and support Sanders categorically, so it's like my pole stars went out. Don't make me think for myself!

I favored reauthorizing Ex-Im before I read that Bernie opposed it, so I'm going to stick with that for the same reason that you cited.

Can't we just call it the Bank of Boeing since that is pretty much what it is?