Posted on 09/02/2018 2:13:51 PM PDT by gattaca
Edited on 09/02/2018 4:56:39 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
With the help of Parkland survivor and gun control activist David Hogg, a GoFundMe raised $9,760 to put Donald Trump's tweets bashing Ted Cruz up on a billboard in Texas.
The GoFundMe, organized by political group USA Latinx, raised the money in less than 24 hours. The campaign was a response to Trump endorsing Cruz through Twitter. On Friday, the president announced a "major rally" that would take place in "the biggest stadium in Texas we can find."
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
“please leave me be... argue with him, not me.”
The Sundance you referred me to is not on this forum (at least not that I know of). Why are you? Do you think this forum exists just so you can spout off foolish recommendations and point those who disagree with your opinions to some third party.
“Cruz did not have the numbers for the nomination.”
We are discussing a senate race. The Republican presidential primary has been over for a couple of years now. This is not your forum, so don’t tell people who disagree to go away and leave you alone. This is a discussion forum that works BOTH ways. It is not your personal soapbox. If you don’t like this arrangement, YOU can go and leave others be. Here, in the real world, opposing Cruz has real and devastating consequences. I have asked you and others who keep attacking him to suggest a better alternative.
Possibly more than 80% of the Republicans in the senate are GOPe. Even most of these are better than the Democrat alternative. Why certain members of this forum are literally obsessed with attacking Cruz—who has consistently voted pro-life, pro-1st amendment, pro-2nd amendment, pro-family, pro-conservative—I can not for the life of me understand. Even if the outlandish accusations you and others make were 100% true, it would not justify your obsession and misdirected focus.
For example, John Cornyn is a Texas RINO up for reelection in 2020. He is also gunning to be majority leader when McConnell retires (i.e. dies). McConnell also is better than people like Harry Reid in that he accomplished things like preventing Obama from naming another Supreme Court Justice. Cornyn, likewise, is not the worst possible candidate for the job. He would make a fairly decent Democrat candidate as most of the GOPe politicians would. Most GOPe are just Democrats who identify as Republican where Democrats can’t win. Some are total sellouts, like John McCain and Mitt Romney.
“do your homework from The Conservative Treehouse and try to deny his arguments about Cruz”
It is possible for us to respectfully disagree over where Ted Cruz falls in the spectrum of conservatism and look at the pragmatic outcome of him winning or losing. Cruz losing this election would be broadcast as a HUGE loss for Trump and an excuse for the GOP to further abandon conservatism. The MSM would be spreading the GOPe meme that the Republican party has to adapt to the times and be “MORE moderate” (i.e. liberal).
Can you disagree that this would be the outcome of Cruz losing? Can you give any reason why a member of this forum should push for such an outcome? I’m not demanding that, or even asking you to, agree with my views about Cruz. I’m simply asking for common sense about the outcome of the mid-term election.
Not doing this again with you. If you don’t know who Sundance/The Conservative Treehouse is, then you missed the entire conservative Trump social media push in 2016.
Mark Levin tried to dox Sundance and criticized Sarah Palin for retweeting his stuff...
Sarah Palin retweeted his stuff during the campaign because he was correct on all points about the GOPE having a “splitter strategy” for JEB to win.
Here on FR there is a large Sundance fan base.
Please do your homework about Cruz off The Conservative Treehouse and leave me alone. He is right and so am I.
Reported you this time for personal abuse... but mentioned some of your previous and idiotic personal abuse.
“Reported you this time for personal abuse”
The only abuse here is your unrelenting and unrepentant attack on a specific conservative, Ted Cruz, who President Trump and America NEEDS to keep his seat in the Senate.
Criticisms of a public figure are not the same as breaking FR rules for making personal attacks upon FReepers, i.e. slander. Reporting you again.
“Reporting you again.”
For what? Not liking what I have to say?
Not liking that FR allows other to speak who disagree with your opinion?
You went on a personal vendetta against a conservative who President Trump and America needs to win.
When anyone disagrees and makes a case against the foolish position you’ve staked, that’s NOT a personal attack. It’s pointing out what you are doing right here in front of everyone.
The fact is that Trump is supporting Cruz.
Trump is in fact planning a large rally to show his support and that former rivals are now working on the same side for the same cause.
The fact is that Cruz losing his senate seat would be a devastating defeat for Trump and conservatism.
Anyone here advocating that is harming the conservative cause and Trump’s presidency.
Criticism of a public figure is not a “personal vendetta” but what you have attempted to do to me on FR... amounts to it.
You have repeatedly tried to make a personal attack upon me here, you have attempted to slander my character. Numerous times. Just because I can back up my opinion of Cruz with facts.
Cruz is a fake Tea Partier and RINO. That’s my opinion of his public behavior as a public figure. Deal with his behavior, such as standing with McConnell in Miississippi 14... while all you have is insane and strident personal attacks against me for my opinions.
“you have attempted to slander my character. Numerous times.”
Isn’t accusing someone of slander and act of slander? Or would it depend on whether the accusation is true? And if the answer is that it depends on whether accusations are true, then wouldn’t that also apply to the specific critiques of character flaws that are being demonstrated by a person on this forum but are being rebuffed with accusations of “slander”?
“all you have is insane and strident personal attacks against me for my opinions”
How can a rational person simultaneously accuse someone of “personal attacks” while attempting to label that person as “insane” and “strident”? Do rational people make such statements?
“Criticism of a public figure is not a ‘personal vendetta’ but what you have attempted to do to me on FR... amounts to it.”
It is possible to criticize a public figure such as Ted Cruz without it being a personal vendetta. I have. But it is also possible for some people on this forum make it a personal vendetta. There is no blanket immunity.
In practical terms, a personal attack is whatever the administrator considers it to be.
I’d say if a person were to call a member of this forum the Devil or Anti-Christ, that would be an example of a personal attack.
I’d also say that such a person not having the integrity to admit that this behavior was wrong and apologize for it, and then accusing someone else of “personal attacks” would make such a person a HYPOCRITE.
I’d also say that a person who delights in dredging up two-year-old campaign garbage to insult a candidate and hides behind excuses of that candidate being a “public figure” while also mocking and maligning those who disagree AND then complains of “personal attacks” is both thin-skinned AND hypocritical.
Just because a person is entitled to have opinions and express them, does not mean such a person has the right to demand that others not disagree with them or point out the flaws in these opinions.
And since we are discussing opinions we are entitled to, I have another. My opinion is that people who go on discussion forums and demand to have the first and last word on every subject and can never admit their obvious wrongs have severe ego problems—probably narcissistic and borderline sociopathic. My opinion is that people who insist on making others endure their tedious opinions but then tell others not to reply, or to go away, or that they are not going to bother reading a response demonstrates that such a person does not have the maturity or emotional stability to be a useful contributor to such a forum. Such a person is simply hijacking a forum that belongs to someone else.
“it’s a mistake for Trump to back Cruz.” [from #54]
I’ll stick with President Trump rather than the OPINION you expressed that the president is wrong to support Ted Cruz.
I think the rally he holds with tens of thousands of people who do not share your opinion will validate President Trump’s decision, the candidacy of Ted Cruz, and me, along with every reasonable person on this forum who KNOWS that Cruz losing this race would be a disaster for Trump and America with devastating consequences.
Most people on this forum have the good sense to recognize the obviousness of this. Even many who can’t stand Ted Cruz openly state they will support him because the alternative is unthinkable.
Too bad there are HYPOCRITES and NARCISSISTS who participate on conservative forums, trying to blend in with conservatives, and are apparently compelled by their DELUSIONS to keep attacking someone who sane people understand must win this election.
I’ll allow you and others on this forum decide who these things apply to based on the behavior of such persons. That way it is not personal, unless of course a person’s own conscience condemns him or HER.
I said your personal attacks are insane and strident.
And weird.
But notice I didn’t discuss your character, only your behavior.
You, on the other hand, have slammed/slandered me personally and I have reported both old and new posts.
That you nosed into my discussions with people I actually care a lot about on their “bloodless Resrurrected Christ” threads... of which I corrected them strongly, as Paul tells us to do, and then proved them absolutely wrong about their theory...
All I can say is by your logic, Paul was “slandering” those who preached a different Gospel than what had already been preached when he said:
“If I or an angel from heaven preaches any other gospel than that which has already been preached, let him be accursed”.
See, we are to correct doctrine. And I did so, accurately.
Which brings me back to Cruz.
I really really would love to debate someone on Cruz’s “Christian doctrine” that allowed him to have a Mormon pray over him as Beck did with that strange Freemason-y ritual.
How a man stands with Christ is the true measure of a man, and again, Cruz stepped in occultic poop.
Now back to you, a personal attack is never an attack on someone’s logic. It is a personal attack or personal abuse when you slam that FReeper personally.
Which you have done, over and over and over. End of story.
Finally, Ted Cruz is a RINO and fake Tea Partier and Trump is making a “story of the snake” mistake in “trusting” lyin’ Ted.
LOL and P.S. where did I call someone personally “anti Christ”? No where. I said that this teaching or belief in a Frankenchrist — a bloodless resurrected Jesus belief or teaching is anti Christ, because it borders on denying Jesus is come in the flesh.
Your grades in English syntax and grammar must have been very poor.
Please stop bugging me. Face it, all you want to do is make this about me and attack me.
This is all about your misplaced trust in Cruz.
“where did I call someone personally ‘anti Christ’?”
In the post to which you are responding I did not say that YOU did anything. I simply gave an example of what someone might say that would constitute a personal attack.
So, if someone hypothetically called someone antichrist or Satan, that would be a personal attack. And if she were to claim to not have done so even when she did, she would be a liar. And if she were to accuse others of personal attacks she would be a hypocrite.
These are just simple, logical statements. Choose to apply them in whatever manner you wish.
“Your grades in English syntax and grammar must have been very poor.”
A person who claims to have spiritual discernment but always gets clairvoyant guesses wrong should discontinue such practices.
For the record, I have a 4.0 GPA as an English major.
I have also completed other educational tracks which I don’t care to discuss or disclose in full detail, but needless to say that when it comes to writing there are various settings in which formal and informal linguistic styles are appropriate or not.
It is characteristic of people with severe narcissistic tendencies to lash out at those who disagree with them and to attempt to find fault. Such people have a deep need to be affirmed, but they often offend those around them by their habitual demands to be the center of attention and to be listened to with respect. Such people do not treat others in the same way they demand to be treated by others. Ultimately narcissists surround themselves with miserable sycophants who usually have no choice but to endure the abuse of the narcissists.
Occasionally people with such tendencies manage to get and accept help. But usually they just destroy everyone around them. And the acceptance and approval they deeply need never exists because they will not do the difficult task of changing their behavior.
“all you want to do is make this about me and attack me. This is all about your misplaced trust in Cruz.”
It is logically impossible for all of something to be about 2 diametrically different things. Your above statements do not even need to be refuted because they are self-defeating. You have disproved yourself.
My so-called “trust” in Cruz extends no further than his commitment to carry out his duties as a senator guided by the conservative principles he has committed to. To the extent he does so, he will have my support. And if otherwise he will have my criticism.
Rational people KNOW that Cruz’ seat is a MUST-WIN.
For anyone on a conservative forum to be attacking him at this point in time is truly insane.
“I have reported both old and new posts”
There is NOTHING in my new post that is or will be construed by anyone else as a personal attack. I took great care to be sure of this.
A person who makes false accusations is a liar.
“That you nosed into my discussions”
These things referred to as “my discussions” are on a public forum. There is a saying about people who live in glass houses. That goes doubly for public statements. Public statements are going to be scrutinized and critiqued.
“I really really would love to debate someone on Cruz’s ‘Christian doctrine’ that allowed him to have a Mormon pray over him as Beck did with that strange Freemason-y ritual.”
That would be interesting for a number of reasons. First, in order for a debate to occur, participants must actually listen to the other side. People who shout their odious opinions from a soap box (especially one that doesn’t even belong to them) and then stop their ears are not engaging in debate.
Second, I supported and voted for Cruz against Dewhurst in his first primary for the senate race. I voted for him as a senator. And I made sure to bring others with me to support him in some of the contests. At no time did I ask myself if Cruz would make a great theologian or church minister. That never occurred to me.
There are certain people on this forum who place their own flawed Bible interpretation up on a pedestal while simultaneously slandering not only conservative leaders like Ted Cruz but godly Bible teachers as well. God will judge these false prophets and prophetesses as He said He would like that woman Jezebel in Revelation.
“I corrected them strongly, as Paul tells us to do, and then proved them absolutely wrong about their theory...”
Where does Paul tell “us” to go around correcting everyone “strongly”?
He told men of God who were appointed over churches to correct those within the congregations for which they were responsible. These were men (not women) such as Timothy and Titus. And they had been appointed over churches. They were not sent out to correct everyone out in the world either.
1 Timothy 3:15
I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13
For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”
1 Timothy 2:12
And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
You brought up religious threads and wove them into your slander of me on FR... which should have been well apart from our original discussions of Sowell and Cruz.
LOL again to your false accusations that I have “slandered” Ted Cruz.
Your logic is idiotic, as is your belching back of scriptures that have nothing to do with this discussion.
Face it, you can’t stand that I know wherefore what I’m talking about with Ted Cruz, as does Sundance/The Conservative Treehouse.
In today’s news, Senator Ted Cruz leads the way when defending President Donald Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee. Great job Sen. Cruz. Real conservatives and supporters of our president solute you.
“You... your slander of me... your false accusations... Your logic is idiotic... you can’t stand”
These accusations of slander, repeated continuously, are themselves, in my view, slander and personal attacks.
An example of “repeated” is when someone says the same essential thing over and over like in this post
#96 “slander”
#93 “attack me”
#92 “slammed/slandered me personally” and more
#90 “personal attack” and “slander”
#87 “personal attacks” and “slander”
#85 “personal abuse”
It appears one of my posts was removed because it crossed the line of “personal attacks”. So be it. I will learn from this and correct myself. Ordinarily replies and references to such posts are ALSO removed.
So, the thing you are complaining about has been removed. Unless you count your six repeated posts bringing up a matter that has been resolved.
I have seen others recommend to people to report abuse on themselves. In my opinion, some people could benefit from that advice.
“You brought up religious threads... which should have been well apart from our original discussions of... Cruz”
The thread you are referencing appears to have been pulled today, by Jim Robinson: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3668053/posts. I think I’ll lay low on commenting on that thread. But feel free if you really want to draw attention to your participation in it.
“You brought up religious threads”
On this current thread it appears that religion was first introduced here:
“I really really would love to debate someone on Cruz’s ‘Christian doctrine’ that allowed him to have a Mormon pray over him as Beck did with that strange Freemason-y ritual.”
Wasn’t that your post on #92? I’m having trouble following the logic of now saying religion should not be brought into this and the Bible is irrelevant.
The only thing I posted earlier on this thread about religion before it was introduced by someone other than me is when I used the illustration of how calling someone antichrist or the devil is a personal attack. And I gave those as generic examples without accusing anyone in particular of doing so. It’s quite a long stretch to construe this statement as bringing religion into a conversation.
“your belching back of scriptures that have nothing to do with this discussion”
It would be amusing, if it were not so sad and phrased so repulsively, to see someone flee from addressing the actual scriptures which PRECISELY address the issues under discussion, especially when the person fleeing just got through boasting about a desire to “debate someone on Cruz’s ‘Christian doctrine’”. What an odd contradiction.
Regardless, I am not the one who brought the subject up.
How people respond to the Bible is very revealing because it cuts to the heart. When people lash out at it, it says a lot about those people. The Bible is the book that reads us. False teachers masquerade as if they embrace the Bible, but they really just twist it to suit their own purposes.
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
I’m really happy to see how Cruz led the fight to get President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee his proper confirmation hearing. Also, I’m very excited about a Texas-Trump-Cruz rally. Will be awesome for all true conservatives everywhere.
Go Ted Cruz. Real conservatives are behind you and not behind your adversaries like Beto O’Rourke, Hogg, and Planned Parenthood.
Good. Now quit posting to me, as I said eons ago.
“Good.”
Not sure what is intended here, but I’m hoping it is a hint of support for Cruz doing a good job today. If so, that would be a breakthrough. Begrudging agreement is so much better than carrying grudges.
“Now quit posting to me.”
Some people would do well to take their own advice. It comes across as attempting to provoke when people post with no point other than to tell someone else to stop posting. I suggest that each member of this forum can make that decision on his or her own.
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.