Look, Cruz plays dumb no global warming because that s what it takes to rile up the repub tea party voting base.
And THAT is how the repubs can win the national election in 2016.
NOT by running a RINO who tries to please everyone by being a Hilary Lite while hatin' on the base ideals of the party. We saw in 2008 and 2012 that the repub base will NOT come out and vote.
So while YES, while it's a little funny how little credibility Cruz will give to science, it's how he can win the election.
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz On His Former Student Ted Cruz : “Off The Charts Brilliant”…
PIERS MORGAN: You're a top lawyer. When he is basically taking an established law like ObamaCare -- whether you like parts of it or not, or even the whole thing --and you're using that as a stick to shut down the American government, that is taking it a bit far, isn't it?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Not only that, but I think it raises very serious constitutional questions of the kind that Ted Cruz should be interested in. Could you imagine Hamilton and Madison sitting around and drafting the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. They’re talking about how the government has to pay its debts, how it has to secure the credit of the United States, how the House of Representatives is to originate bills on revenue.
Nobody in a million years would have contemplated the power of Congress to shut down the government, to create doubts about our creditworthiness. I think you can make a very strong argument that what Ted Cruz is doing is deeply unconstitutional. Whether a court would accept that or say it's a political question is another issue, but Cruz is a principled man. He ought to look at the Constitution and look into his heart and ask himself 'what would Alexander Hamilton have done?'
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz On His Former Student Ted Cruz : “Off The Charts Brilliant”…
I think he could sell himself to the masses but it will take work. I think its going to be Walker but its early. Cruz needs to push the pile...we can't nominate a Rino regardless.
Cruz KNOWS that the people in the tea party hated romney and hated mccain.
Cruz KNOWS that the people in the tea party are passionate and more motivated than any other voting group, including libs and RINOs.
Cruz KNOWS that by mocking science, laughing at higher education, ridiculing all those "elite" things, he can win the nomination and probably the general election too. Do I believe that Cruz is that clueless on science? of course not. Do I believe the highly educated cruz is really that flippant on such trivial manners? Nope. But I do believe he's going to dumb it down for the primary season, then become a sharp, focused canddiate for the general election.
Cruz is very smart, and staying consistent while Rand and Rubio have flirted centrist over and over. Cruz' position on amnesty is his best asset, he's stayed steady while Rubio, Rand, Jeb and Christie all turned liberal.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/168917/four-years-gop-support-tea-party-down.aspx
Support for Tea Party among GOP is falling.... hanging your hat on the Tea Party to get elected would be a mistake in my opinion.
phase 1 – beat the rinos
phase 2 – beat the commies
Cruz believes in America. Obama believes in islam.
cruz :D :D :D :D :D not a chance in hell
dude, we know a RINO cannot win. Mccain and Romeny both lost, and things have only gone MORE dem since amnesty delivered 4 million more dem voters.
Dems should be SCARED of Cruz. Very scared. He will mobilize the base - they'll donate, they'll knock on doors, they'll rally. Remember how many repubs were ashamed of romney? Won't be the case here. Only 11% of repubs are against the tea party, that number is great news for a Cruz.
Anyone so feared by the Left, the MSM, the RINOs/Rockefeller Republicans and the trolls on this board must be worth supporting.
bush won twice and he wasn't much of a conservative
oh but he was far more conservative than mccain or romney. "compassionate conservative" who sent people to the chair, from TX and had a conservative daddy.
Bush was WAY more conservative than romney or mccain when he ran. In 2000, bush was the "i'm not the wet spot that clinton was" and in 2004, it was "i'm al-qudas wrst nightmare!" Both strongly conservative, both got the base to rally.
We know a RINO cannot win, only a fcking fool would smile and gloat that Jeb or Christie can get the base to bother.
We know a RINO cannot swing liberal/dem voters... a war hero and a business genius couldn't do it, a bush sure can't Lol.
We know the base is THIRSTY for a win, and libs are lackluster. Hard to get them excited for hilary.
oh but he was far more conservative than mccain or romney. "compassionate conservative" who sent people to the chair, from TX and had a conservative daddy.
Bush was WAY more conservative than romney or mccain when he ran. In 2000, bush was the "i'm not the wet spot that clinton was" and in 2004, it was "i'm al-qudas wrst nightmare!" Both strongly conservative, both got the base to rally.
We know a RINO cannot win, only a fcking fool would smile and gloat that Jeb or Christie can get the base to bother.
We know a RINO cannot swing liberal/dem voters... a war hero and a business genius couldn't do it, a bush sure can't Lol.
We know the base is THIRSTY for a win, and libs are lackluster. Hard to get them excited for hilary.
most repubs didn't see bush as a conservative,he spent money like a drunken sailor
Not a personal attack on Cruz, but I have a brother in law who is a multi millionaire Mensa member and would be considered "brilliant" by acadamia standards, who doesn't have the common sense god gave a turnip in many aspects of life and I wouldn't trust him to make rules and regulations for me, much less run the country
Anyone so feared by the Left, the MSM, the RINOs/Rockefeller Republicans and the trolls on this board must be worth supporting.
Cruz will never get the nomination and if he did the majority of conservatives would stay home or vote for the Dem
btw - I'm praying to satan every day that Republicans are dumb enough to nominate Cruz
My opinion.. I have little respect for Americans when it comes to their voting and our government. We re-elected criminals, we re-elect unethical politicians, we accidently vote people in because we recognize the name and it's actually a totally different person, we vote party lines because our fathers did, we don't bother to vote in many cases.. "We" have created a system where Cruz is unelectable. ANY politician who is extreme on either end, liberal or conservative is unelectable. We are so divided as a nation due to many factors, media opinion makers and spinners chief among them. A candidate who alienates too many people with their stance will not get elected. This is exactly why you can hear the same politician give a speech for Iron Workers in Detroit, and he contradicts what he just said yesterday to buisness owners in New York. They tell us what we want to hear in order to have the best chance of getting elected. So will Cruz get elected? Nope. But for a short while, the Tea Party will feel really good until they lose.
My opinion.. I have little respect for Americans when it comes to their voting and our government. We re-elected criminals, we re-elect unethical politicians, we accidently vote people in because we recognize the name and it's actually a totally different person, we vote party lines because our fathers did, we don't bother to vote in many cases.. "We" have created a system where Cruz is unelectable. ANY politician who is extreme on either end, liberal or conservative is unelectable. We are so divided as a nation due to many factors, media opinion makers and spinners chief among them. A candidate who alienates too many people with their stance will not get elected. This is exactly why you can hear the same politician give a speech for Iron Workers in Detroit, and he contradicts what he just said yesterday to buisness owners in New York. They tell us what we want to hear in order to have the best chance of getting elected. So will Cruz get elected? Nope. But for a short while, the Tea Party will feel really good until they lose.
Terrible post, as Obama is about as extreme liberal as one can get, and he got elected, so your theory is worthless.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/p480x480/10846303_902175026460504_4443874994405459987_n.jpg?oh=2056ce64c588f168011ab316bb0ec0c5&oe=55331859&__gda__=1430314980_4168f33fc837cb49e61aeebe89a5df66)
Terrible post as Obama is about as extreme liberal as one can get, and he got elected, so your theory is worthless, plus:
Terrible post as Obama is about as extreme liberal as one can get, and he got elected, so your theory is worthless, plus:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/p480x480/10846303_902175026460504_4443874994405459987_n.jpg?oh=2056ce64c588f168011ab316bb0ec0c5&oe=55331859&__gda__=1430314980_4168f33fc837cb49e61aeebe89a5df66)
Terrible post as Obama is about as extreme liberal as one can get, and he got elected, so your theory is worthless, plus:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/p480x480/10846303_902175026460504_4443874994405459987_n.jpg?oh=2056ce64c588f168011ab316bb0ec0c5&oe=55331859&__gda__=1430314980_4168f33fc837cb49e61aeebe89a5df66)
True. Twice.
I disagree with your post and here is why... Obama could be the biggest liberal to ever walk the face of the planet.... Cruz could be the biggest conservative. The difference in the 2.. Obama didn't run as an extreme Liberal, he sold himself to the middle of the road, regardless of what he was thinking. Of course in the 1st election, it helped tremendously that he was following Bush. We would have voted Bugs Bunny in to get away from that mess.
Obama had a record as being one of the most liberal Senators, and he still got elected, he even said he was going to "fundamentally transform this Country". Anyone with a brain knew what that meant.
Study: Obama most liberal senator last year
A new study suggests Obama had the most liberal voting record in 2007.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/31/study-obama-most-liberal-senator-last-year/
Obama had a record as being one of the most liberal Senators, and he still got elected, he even said he was going to "fundamentally transform this Country". Anyone with a brain knew what that meant.
Study: Obama most liberal senator last year
A new study suggests Obama had the most liberal voting record in 2007.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/31/study-obama-most-liberal-senator-last-year/
Exactly. If you really paid attention to what he was advocating, he was a big government liberal. He was an extreme social liberal. No big secrets. He didn't run a campaign (or govern) like Clinton, who moved away from the fringe.
Nothing posted here supports the claim that Obama The POTUS is "about as extreme liberal as one can get"
Drone Strikes,
Crack down on Whistleblowers/Journalist
Double down in Afghanistan
Had to "evolve" to support gay marriage
just a few off the top of my head
none of which sound like "about as extreme liberal as one can get"
Yep, and as Senator Obama not only had a liberal voting record, he had "the most liberal voting record in 2007" and he got elected.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/31/study-obama-most-liberal-senator-last-year/
Yep. He ran on a platform of socialized medicine. He did lie about not raising taxes, but he didn't hide the fact he would be playing class warfare. He also said as candidate that his first act as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (another false statement), which puts him on the fringe, far left of most Americans.
The Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 1964/S. 1173) was a bill in the 110th United States Congress which "declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health."
It prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.
It also authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action."[1]
Earlier versions of the bill were introduced in 1989 and 1993.[2]
Trump brings birther charge against Cruz
Real estate tycoon Donald Trump cast doubt Monday on whether Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) can run for president because he was born in Canada.
FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, can everyone finally AGREE with me that trump is nothing more than a fuckin liberal PLANT by NBC to undermine the GOP?
The first day of the top tea party voice announcing he wants to dethrone the obama/hilary legacy, and what gets the headline? A fcuknig pretend Republican - a lifetime anti-gun liberal that turned repub recently, paid tens of millions annually by NBC - shitting all over him with already disproven birth certificate allegations?
This is SO OBVIOUS. I would personally like to facefck any of you repubs that support trump. You deserve it. He's trashing the top chance to beat the dems in 2016, after being a lifetime climate change supporter, after being a big shill and making GOP look bad over and over...
Shit, am I the ONLY one that sees this? LOL
yes, you are the only one
Trump is crazier than a shit house rat
He's not a liberal plant
He's just your standard issue right wing moron
Give me an example of an extreme right wing political viewpoint.
Global warming skeptic? Most people are.
Supports second amendment? Most people do.
Against amnesty? Most people are.
Against Obamacare? Most people are.
Abolish IRS? Oh please, I can hear the hurrahs before they are even shouted.
So, lefties, please tell me how Ted Cruz is an extremist and out of sync with the american people?
what :D a majority of people do believe in global warming
Poll: 53 Percent Of Americans Don’t Believe In Man-Made Global Warming
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
why did you try to slip in the man made when that's not what you posted originally nor is it what your man cruz believes,you know he doesn't believe in global warming at all, man made of not.nice try anyway
explane why you changed the wording,come on it's not that hard you know why you did it :D
explane why you changed the wording,come on it's not that hard you know why you did it :D
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/Once again, Give me an example of an extreme political viewpoint held by Cruz?
The survey the author cites isn’t “scientists” as stated in the title of the op-ed, it is a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. That’s like surveying tobacco company CEO’s about the dangers of smoking. It would be a reasonable piece about the opinion of petroleum engineers in Alberta if that was made clear, instead that was hidden. I wonder why?
“Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.”
Mr. Taylor,
As in previous weeks, your editorial rests on misrepresentation of the facts. As billb notes, the survey was conducted by APEGA, a professional organization of engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta. According to the study you cite:
“[T]he petroleum industry – through oil and gas companies, related industrial services, and consulting services – is the largest employer, either directly or indirectly, of professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta.”
Failing to mention this fact is a clear case of misrepresentation. Why are you so eager to mislead Forbes readers? Obviously these survey results cannot honestly be extrapolated to engineers and geoscientists in general as you are trying to do.
“By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”
This assertion is directly contradicted by the APEGA report itself which summarizes the results as follows:
27.4% believe it is caused by primarily natural factors (natural variation, volcanoes, sunspots, lithosphere motions, etc.), 25.7% believe it is caused by primarily human factors (burning fossil fuels, changing land use, enhanced water
evaporation due to irrigation), and 45.2% believe that climate change is caused by both human and natural factors.
Mr. Taylor, in case you are unaware, a “majority” constitutes 50% or more of a sample. In this instance, there is no majority opinion regarding the primary cause of climate change among the APEGA members who responded to the survey. Once again you are misinforming Forbes readers in order to prop up the Heartland Institute’s favored policy of free market environmentalism.
Mr. Taylor, if you have a good argument in favor of free market environmentalism, you should make it. However, your weekly attempts to mislead the public about climate science strongly suggest you don’t have a good argument.
Wow, you did not actually read the article did you? Here’s a paragraph that should have given you a hint about the sample the authors used:
To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.
This is pretty classic denialist cherry-picking. The authors surveyed a group a geoscientists in Alberta that were largely drawn from industry. This is nothing like the Oreskes surveys which evaluate the position of a cross-section of experts and consistently find that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept the consensus. This is like surveying the tobacco companies on whether or not they believe smoking causes cancer. You also failed to contact the author of the paper for comment (I did, and pointed her to this coverage).
For those interested in what the study actually says, I would suggest actually reading it, rather than accepting this summary at face value. I would describe the paper as demonstrating that within a population of geoscientists in Alberta, largely coming from the oil and gas industry, there are 5 general ways of viewing global warming, or “frames”. The most common of these frames is actually the one most consistent with the IPCC consensus at 36%, that green house gases are the driver of global warming and we need to do something about it. Another 5% believed that regulation for green house gases was necessary even if there still is uncertainty or nature as a dominant driver of climate change. Other frames included a one based on fear of economic regulation (10%) that is largely hostile to the IPCC consensus, and another that nature was the primary driver of global warming (24%), man is insignificant, and these respondents used emotionally-heated language and religious metaphor to attack believers in global warming. There were also frames that could be described as fatalist (17%), global warming is real, but we can’t really do anything about it etc.
Those most likely to believe the “nature” and “economic” frames were white, male, more likely to be in industry at the upper tiers of their corporations.
So, to summarize, this paper demonstrated that when surveying a population, largely consisting of geoscientists and engineers working for the the oil and gas industry, the most common view of global warming (between 36 and 41% if you add the two frames) is that it’s real and we need to do something about it. About 34% of respondents were hostile to the idea of green house gas-cause global warming and the consensus science, and these individuals were more likely to be in the upper tiers of these corporations. Finally, about 17% of respondents said we’re screwed either way (the rest couldn’t be grouped or denied adequate expertise to respond).
In other words, it kind of shows the exact opposite of what Taylor suggests, and could not possibly be generalized to scientists as whole.
Do you ever bother to read the comments on articles that you post (or read)
Here are the first three comments on the article:
I guess you not going to answer,doesn't matter I know why you did it as does anybody who reads this :D the same reason you went from Global warming skeptic? Most people are to a Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming
Global warming skeptic? Most people are.
Supports second amendment? Most people do.
Against amnesty? Most people are.
Against Obamacare? Most people are.
Such eloquent writing skills.
he'll just try to lie his way out of it,that seems to be what he does ;D
thats a plane without wings.....come on dude!
Dems should be SCARED of Cruz. Very scared.
Have you seen the stories over the past few days?
Rush, Levin and laura ingraham all destroying Bush, calling him a RINO, saying that repubs cannot make that same mistake again.
I heard a great item... repubs have won big FIVE times since 1980. EVERY TIME they won women. 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2010 - EVERY TIME they had a very conservative ticket, with 2010 being that mid-term tea party big year. And think of the years where repubs went RINO... 2008, 2012, both bad defeats, both with a RINO.
Cruz or Lose. Walker, maybe, but IMO he hasn't been vetted nationally yet... I don't fear Cruz skeletons in closet. With walker, I do. He admitted he thought about using violence to get a peaceful protest to riot level... anyone that careless surely has ten years of mistakes following him. Cruz, he's just too "goober" to have that kind of reckless past.
Lol you just chided me for old threads. Now u do it. I'm sorry your hero Carson ended up a lying psychopath. Next time, u should obey my prediction. Reign base is really that stupid.
I'm playing your stupid little game. That makes me as dumb as you. The difference is I realize it's stupid, and I'll quit in a few minutes. But you'll still be a dishonest idiot. :)
Republicans had the PERFECT candidate in Cruz. CNN announced he just dropped out. You and your people were too ignorant to choose a conservative. Choose Cruz, or you will lose. And now you lose.
Everyone who quietly said "I like some of trump's ideas...", this is on you. Enjoy it.
Oh shut up you lying troll. ::)