Ted Cruz is the MAN.

Why? Well, just watch him totally pwn Dianne Feinstein here.

The honorable *spit* Senator from California later told Wolf Blitzer that she felt like she was being patronized by Sen. Cruz. And really, I just have one thing to say to that.

Suck it up, buttercup, and continue to be thankful you still have yet to get what you deserve.

Advertisements

Tags:

4 Responses to “Ted Cruz is the MAN.”

  1. GomeznSA Says:

    Yep – ‘diefi’ is now complaining that the young upstart was unfairly picking on her…………………..

  2. mick Says:

    His point doesn’t stand. The first and fourth are controversial amendments and do have restrictions. (Obscenity, defamation, free speech zones, going through TSA checkpoints, being 100 miles from the border, etc.) Sen. Durbin states some of this in the end of the video. If he wanted examples of amendments with without restrictions, why not use 3rd, 13th, 15th, 19th, etc?

    • Bob S. Says:

      Mick,

      Obscenity and defamation are misuses of the rights. Simple possession of a firearm is the proper use. Had she called for all violent felons to lose forever their rights, I might support the ‘restrictions’….but what is wants (and Ted Cruz correctly pointed out) is for us to be muzzled because someone else was convicted of defamation.

      The Courts and Congress have consistently kept the rights — 1st and 4th — as open as much as possible and calls for overwhelming government need for any infringement.

      Your cited examples — TSA checkpoints, free speech zones, etc — are example of unconstitutional infringements on our rights in my opinion.

    • mick Says:

      Bob,

      His example of choosing particular books or certain individuals to not be covered by the 1st or 4th doesn’t seem that offensive. It’s comparable to removing the rights of felons. The best analogy I could come up with for him is something like “would you support banning books over a certain page limit” to mock the magazine size bills.

      Regarding proper use, this is where the analogy starts to break down, which is always a problem with not talking about the issue directly. The 2nd is unique in that it is specifically about physical objects, while the 1st and 4th are primarily conceptual. There’s not really any such thing as “possession” of ideas or privacy, so all of it is proper use/misuse.

      And the last bit, you agree that there already are unconstitutional infringements on our 1st and 4th amendment rights. Which also makes this all a moot point. Pointing to a 2nd amendment restriction and saying, “but you wouldn’t restrict the 1st or 4th” is just silly. Which was what I was trying to say in my original post.

      Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful response.
      -Mick

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: