OPEN THREAD… and Ray Rice Debacle, Should it be National News?

Consider this an OPEN THREAD for the weekend…. but first… about this Ray Rice business…

There are so things that makes no sense in this story.

For instance, how is it that no one in the NFL main office couldn’t put together that Rice actually punched his wife in that elevator in the first place?

I mean, if you are seen in a video dragging the seemingly lifeless body of your wife (she was then his girlfriend) out of an elevator and later admit to police that you two were in an altercation, the only possible conclusion is you punched her into unconsciousness in the first place.

It makes no sense that the second video actually showing the punching would make any difference in the punishment because it would have to be understood that the punching took place whether it was seen or not.

Sp, how does the existence of a video make any difference?

Anyway, if you haven’t seen the video…

Sadly, displaying some typical battered woman syndrome, now wife Janay Rice is all upset at everyone for poking into her business.

But were I a big sports fan, I think I would be turning away from that fandom at this point.

Sports has become nothing but PCism, upon PCism. Nearly every story we see is PC garbage–this team’s name is raaaaacist, that sport is bad for kids, this player raped someone, that owner is a raaaaacist… where are reports about, you know, a game or two?

If I were a big sports fan I’d feel that my pastime had been ruined with PCism and I’d have long since lost interest.

Cities That Have Used Military Equipment for Riot Control Might Owe Feds Millions
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Hank_M

    I’m am so sick of hearing and reading about this story.
    With any luck, it’ll go away and I can find out more about how Michael Sam is doing.

  • Commander_Chico

    Warner the White Knight makes an appearance again.

    It’s a matter for the police and the Rice family and their lawyers to sort out.

    • jim_m

      I suggest that you read it again, because Warner is far from being a white knight here.

      • You are asking him to READ??? Surely you jest.

        • Commander_Chico

          the only possible conclusion is you punched her into unconsciousness in the first place.

          No, there are other possible conclusions, including her being dramatic.

          • jim_m

            Multiple witnesses at the scene claimed that she was unconscious. You’re an ass for claiming otherwise. So do you beat your prostitutes?

          • My guess is they beat him.

    • Retired military

      “It’s a matter for the police and the Rice family and their lawyers to sort out.”
      The apocalypse is coming. I actually agree with one complete sentence that Chico posted.
      Next up Dogs and cats living together.
      I am sick of hearing about this, about everything Joan Rivers, about everything Robin Williams.

    • What’s up with you? Who Knows, Who Cares! Just call me the White Bitch, and I bite.

      • Commander_Chico

        Bite me then.

  • jim_m

    obama is trying to form a coalition to go after ISIS.

    Of all people, John Kerry is tasked with making this happen. I would like the secretary to answer one question : How do you ask a someone to be the first man to die for a mistake?

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Yeah, his efforts are going quite well in the Middle East, where Obama’s smart diplomacy has had a real impact on the US’s influence: “’Trust is so low, especially in the Gulf region, for Obama’s leadership quality and the way he manages foreign policy. I don’t think any country is going to put its hand up or neck out by accepting an alliance with the US that easily,” said Mustafa Alani, the director of the security and defence department at the Gulf Research Centre in Geneva.”

    • Walter_Cronanty

      This article is devastating:

      “Barack Obama’s plan to fight Isil is hard to believe

      After dodging any commitment in Syria for three years, Barack Obama’s sudden call for leadership is undermined by his lack of credibility at home and abroad…

      Despite their professions of loyalty in Jeddah this week, Mr Obama’s regional Sunni allies, particularly Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, are unsurprisingly lukewarm about being harried into a conflict which – as they see it – was born out a US decision to abandon Syria and Iraq to Shia excesses.

      And even the plan smacks of desperation. Only a month ago Mr Obama ridiculed the very idea of arming moderate rebels in Syria as a “fantasy”, but now apparently this once silly idea is key to holding Syrian territory when it is recaptured from Isil forces under the cover of US air strikes.

      Perhaps Mr Obama would have a shot of dragging his reluctant allies and a war-weary public with him if they really believed that he would brook no other outcome, but this president’s track record gives them precious little reason to think that’s the case.

      • jim_m

        I liked this comment from Ricochet

        There is, of course, this difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The former invaded Afghanistan and Iraq on a calculation (right or wrong) that upsetting and reordering the status quo in those countries would make the United States more secure. The latter announced — and I emphasize the speech act because this President systematically confuses word with deed — that we would be bombing ISIS on a calculation that such an announcement might help his party in the November election.

        Pretty much nails the feckless poseur.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Umm…more “smart diplomacy.” Part of Obama’s planned coalition includes arming Syrian rebels, including some “moderates”:
          Good thing Congress is going along with this – I’m sure it will end well – bipartisan and all that good stuff. Unfortunately, I don’t think the rebels got the memo:
          “Syrian rebels and jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have agreed a non-aggression pact for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus, a monitoring group said on Friday.

          The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the ceasefire deal was agreed between ISIS and moderate and Islamist rebels in Hajar al-Aswad, south of the capital.”

          • jim_m

            obama arms our enemies as they agree to fight us and not each other. Count on Bruce and Chico to endorse this as good policy.

          • Brucehenry

            Not me. I didn’t support “arming the moderate rebels” a year ago and I don’t support it now. I don’t think there truly ARE any “moderate rebels” in Syria, and I think if we had armed the “moderate rebels” a year ago those weapons would be in ISIL’s hands today.

            But thanks to warmongering pantspissers, Obama is caving in to pressure:


          • jim_m

            I believe, as many from both sides of the aisle, that there were more moderate (or at least more secular) groups in Syria. However, obama refused to support those elements and they were eradicated. Now obama wants to arm al qaeda and it seems that the people he has elected to arm have just signed a non-aggression pact with their comrades in arms.

          • Brucehenry

            I haven’t seen any reports of any “eradication.” I don’t think that’s what happened. A couple of Assad’s generals tried to form this so-called “Free Syrian Army” and grift the West for arms money. Because they ARE Assad’s generals they have failed to attract any indigenous support.

            Syrians are no stupider than Americans. Why would they fight and die to rid themselves of Assad so that they could be ruled by a new, junior strongman?

            I’ve heard a couple of these guys are ISIL sympathizers. No not the white haired dude, the other guys:


          • jim_m

            Remember that when you cast your vote for Hillary then.

          • Brucehenry

            Sadly I must vote for what I see as the lesser of two evils. I haven’t cast an enthusiastic vote for President since my first one, McGovern in 1972.

          • jim_m

            Really? Who do you suppose is the greater evil in the dem primary then?

            I assume you are joking about McGovern, the man who set the record for biggest electoral failure.

          • Brucehenry

            Is there gonna be a Democratic primary? Seems Hillary is already anointed. Anyway, by the time NC holds a presidential primary the race is usually over.

          • Retired military

            I thought Walter Moandale had that record.

          • Brucehenry

            No it was McGovern, who won only Mass and DC. Mondale at least carried Minnesota too.

            I voted for McGovern and I’d do it again. Nixon was an evil and sick man.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Unfortunately, McGovern didn’t learn about the problems caused by big government regulations until he opened a business for himself – when it failed, he stated:

            “My business associates and I also lived with federal, state and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees, protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools, protecting our customers from fire hazards, etc.,” he wrote.

            “While I never have doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: ‘Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.'”
            I doubt that Obama will ever be forced to gain the wisdom McGovern came by the hard way.

          • Brucehenry

            A link would be nice. I doubt if McGovern blamed the government and solely the government for his business failure.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I didn’t say he “…blamed the government and solely the government for his business failure.” He also placed blame [reasonably in my opinion] on the recession. The title of his op-ed, however, was: “A Politician’s Dream Is a Businessman’s Nightmare.” While I can’t get behind the paywall of the WSJ for the original article [filthy capitalist pigs!], it is reprinted here in its entirety [I believe].

          • Commander_Chico

            I voted for and met McGovern a couple of times, but Nixon looks pretty good nowadays.

          • Brucehenry

            Nixon sabotaged the peace talk in Paris to win election in 1968, and settled for essentially the same deal in 1973 after reelection and after getting about 25,000 more Americans killed. His Christmas bombing campaign was a war crime.

            Watergate exposed Nixon as a megalomaniac who didn’t have the balls to proclaim himself dictator — so he just tried to be a dictator in secret.

            And talk about an interventionist and warmonger! Ask the ghosts of Allende in Chile and Sihanouk in Cambodia their opinions of Nixon. The installation of Pinochet as America’s puppet enabled the disappearance and death of tens of thousands of Chileans. His unquestioning support of the Shah in Iran engendered further anti-Americanism there.

            So, no, for these and many other reasons Nixon DOESN’T “look pretty good these days.” With the passage of time and the release of more of the secret tapes he looks worse and worse.

          • Commander_Chico

            You make a good case, but compared to Bush II and Obama, Nixon may have been better.

          • Commander_Chico

            Hillary will probably be the greater of two evils. Neocon, warmonger, hard-core feminist, nanny statist.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe but what serious Republican contender is there? Rand Paul may be a non-interventionist but do you really believe he can stand up to the military-industrial lobby? I don’t. Not to mention that he probably WILL try to dismantle the New Deal and most of the Great Society.

            Besides him, who else IS there besides nuts like Cruz?

          • Commander_Chico

            I would prefer even Jeb Bush to Hillary, in the hope he’s like his father and not his brother.

            I fear Hillary will start WW III trying to show how tough a woman is, and in suppressed rage at Bill’s cheating. I know that type of woman too well.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe. I freely admit I under-appreciated the first Bush, whose adroit handling of the break-up of the USSR was, in retrospect, masterful. That whole thing could easily have led to the End of the World, quite literally — and would have, had someone like Reagan, McCain, or Bush Jr been in charge.

            But 2000 convinced me of the peril of assuming that a babyboomer Bush can be trusted with power. I didn’t really think it was going to make much of a difference between Bush and Gore. Boy was I wrong.

            If Jeb chooses people in the mold of Scowcroft and James Baker to help him, maybe. If he picks fools like Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, and Bolton, or maniacs like Cheney, we’ll all be dead by 2020.

            I’d have to be really scared of Hillary to vote for Jeb, but I suppose anything’s possible. I won’t say I absolutely wouldn’t, given that choice.

          • Brucehenry

            What is it with you and women? What exactly is “that type of woman”?

            No wait never mind don’t tell me I don’t wanna know.

          • jim_m

            Chico is used to paying for what he wants from women. He doesn’t really know any other way of interacting with them.

          • Brucehenry

            Not interested in joining the Bash Chico Club. I only meant that, as the proud brother of three pretty awesome sisters, son of an awesome widowed mother, and father of two pretty awesome young daughters, I don’t have the same dismissive attitude toward women as he seems to. But it takes all kinds. Some women dig that he-man stuff.

          • jim_m

            Fair enough. But I will agree with you that the statement he made is evidence of a gross bias against women and that he believes fully in some very offensive stereotypes.

            I would further suggest that if a person thinks in that way with regard to one group they very likely think in the same fashion with regard to other, if not all, groups.

            It shows a pattern of thinking and is an insight into how his mind works.

          • Brucehenry

            Well maybe you shouldn’t get into patterns of thinking and the like lol.

          • Damn Liar calls Hillary!!!!! a Neo-Con…

          • And you haven’t learned a damn thing since then.

          • Commander_Chico

            The “moderate” groups had no support and were unwilling to fight.

            One thing about extremism, it brings out the psychos who will fight and die.

          • Commander_Chico

            Obama is weak.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t know wtf the guy is thinking, but here’s a stab at it.


  • Vagabond661

    I worry less about what the NFL knew and more about what Hilary, Holder, Obama and Lerner knew.

  • LiberalNightmare

    The Ray Rice thing is interesting enough,but people are asking the wrong questions.

    How do we watch the video of that assault and then decide that the important question is “when did the NFL know?”

    Shouldn’t the real question be “Why isn’t that guy in prison?”

    • jim_m

      Actually, the real question is why is Greg Hardy, who has been convicted of Assualt and communicating threats, still playing. He was found guilty and on appeal has been granted a jury trial, no because of anything technically wrong with the first trial but simply because he has a right to a trial by jury.

      But the NFL should have suspended him as his assault was far more violent than Rice’s. His guilt has already been established. The only difference is that Rice got caught on camera and that is a far more significant crime to the NFL.

    • Well, the law DID take its course on this. He was indicted and then released for court ordered sensitivity training. So, the law was apparently satisfied.

  • jim_m

    Classic! Gays angered by same sex marriage, say it trivialized marriage!

    Of course the catch is that the two men getting married aren’t gay. I’m still trying to figure out what these people are mad about. Isn’t this exactly what they were arguing for? Why can’t the left stay out of our bedrooms!!!

    • LiberalNightmare

      Otago University Students’ Association Queer Support co-ordinator Neill Ballantyne told the Otago Daily Times that the wedding was an “insult” as marriage equality was a “hard fought” battle for gay people.

      “Something like this trivialises what we fought for,” he said.

      LOL – That argument sounds familiar.

      Is Neil going to peel the = sticker off his volvo now?

      • jim_m

        I like the symetry of the gays using the very arguments against same sex marriage to try to deny others the right to same sex marriage.

        Its almost like the left is completely oblivious to how much a bunch of totalitarians fascists they really are. It isn’t that they believe in this argument so much. They just want to impose their will upon others and they will use any means they can find to do so.

        • Brucehenry

          The difference, genius, is that these groups aren’t asking that this competition be banned by force of law. They are just pointing out that they feel insulted.

          Hardly symmetrical. What a dumbass.

          • jim_m

            Look again. The obvious point was that they wanted this stopped. So instead of legal action they wanted mob rule. That is SOOOOO much better.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes they wanted it stopped but by force of public opinion, not law.

            Kind of similar to the shaming FOX had to take a decade or so ago with its “Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire” show. Nobody was asking that the show be banned by law or that the marriage of the golddigger to the “millionaire” in question be prohibited.

            That show was criticised by folks from all over the political spectrum. Everyone from the liberal NOW to the conservative Media Research Center blasted it as “making a mockery” of marriage.


            I suppose in your mind shows like that are not seen these days because of “mob rule.” What a buffoon.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Breaking Big Wind – The not ready for prime time “sustainable energy” farce continues apace – can’t wait for Obama’s scheme to force the US to follow suit via the UN:

    “Flagship German Offshore Wind Farm Project Humiliated by Technical Faults”

    “Germany’s flagship Bard 1 offshore wind farm has been described as “a faulty total system” as technical problems continue to plague the project, casting major doubts on the feasibility of large scale offshore projects….

    The wind farm comprises 80 5MW turbines situated 100 km off the north German coastline. The difficulty facing engineers is how to get the electricity generated back to shore. So far, every attempt to turn on the turbines has resulted in overloaded and “gently smouldering” offshore converter stations.

    Built at a cost of hundreds of millions and costing between €1 and €2 million a day to service, the project is estimated to have cost €340 million in lost power generation over the last year alone. And if the problems with the technology are deemed not to be the fault of the operator, German taxpayers will be on the hook for the running and repair costs, thanks to the German Energy Act 2012.”

    • Totally hilarious fail.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        One thing I learned from the comments at WUWT on this article is that off shore wind turbines need diesel generators for each turbine, which in turn need to refueled – many miles out at sea. Who ever thought up this Rube Goldberg method of producing electricity and determined it to be “sustainable” was either delusional or outright lying:
        “Diesel generators are used to provide power when these are without grid connection – but access for refuelling in this challenging environment is increasingly uncertain. Turbines without power are not an option. Turbine warranties are invalidated, with major implications for insurance and financing. Diesel refuelling costs are very high because of the costs of getting the fuel to the wind farm….

        One of the basic needs of a wind turbine is the provision of auxiliary power, especially before it is connected to the onshore electricity grid. Power is required for cranes mounted on foundations. Once the wind turbine is installed, further power is needed to provide lighting, heating, clean air systems and to turn over sensitive equipment. Typically, this power is provided by small diesel generators; the London Array, the world’s largest offshore wind farm, had a diesel generator located on each of its 175 turbines. If the connection to the onshore electricity grid is delayed then the diesels may need to provide continuous power for many months. The Riffgat wind farm off the German coast is fully installed apart from the grid connection, delayed for at least 2 years due to the discovery of munitions on the sea bed. This had led to unhelpful headlines such as “Windpark to nowhere … 22,000 litres of diesel burned each month to keep windpark from rusting away”.”

  • The NFL is long gone, no honor to be in that criminal greedy non human group of players.
    Of all things, Missy, you are going to show the world what true love is? Think again, no one
    wants or needs that kind of love. That kind of so called love is what the world has now. FYI
    it’s not working.

  • jim_m

    obama chooses to make the ME worse rather than confronting the issues:

    Quoting two U.S. military officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said “that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants.”

    Austin’s recommendation was taken to the White House by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey. The White House rejected CENTCOM’s “advise and assist” contingent due to concerns about placing U.S. ground forces in a frontline role.

    …Austin’s predecessor, Marine Gen. James Mattis, told the Washington Post that the president’s decision may place the mission at risk. “The American people will once again see us in a war that doesn’t seem to be making progress,” Mattis told the paper. “You’re giving the enemy the initiative for a longer period.”

    So obama chooses for political reasons – predominantly to not upset his base- to let this conflict fester and become far more unstable. He chooses to allow the conflict to go on longer allowing his base to sap America’s resolve to deal with the problem. Ultimately, he chooses to let more Americans die by dragging out the problem instead of confronting the issue.

    Remember, obama is better at everything than anyone else

    “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

    and apparently he thinks he is a better General than his Generals.

    Expect Chico to defend the inexperience of obama no matter how many Americans have to die for his mistakes.

    • Commander_Chico

      General Blood ‘n Guts Jim, always ready to send Americans to war.

      • jim_m

        Come on coward Chico. Denounce obama for ignoring his Generals and acting in a way that they say will result on more deaths by prolonging the conflict and putting us in a worse position.

        Or is this like everything else you say, just a pose and you really don’t give a damn about the lives of the soldiers that you never served with and really just care about the diminution of American power?

        I’m not advocating going to war, I am advocating following the advice of the Generals, who supposedly know what they are doing. But here comes Coward Chico claiming that he knows better than the people in the military (that he never served in).

        • Brucehenry

          Except that in our system the civilians make foreign policy and geopolitical decisions and the military implements this policy when necessary. It’s not the other way around — we don’t let the generals tell us who we should invade.

          • jim_m

            Yes, but that is not what Chico contends should be the case. He cannot come back and make that argument when he claims that people who haven’t served should not have any say and that Bush did not have the standing to lead since he had never served.

            And in this case it is not the General saying who we should invade. obama has already decided to take action but he is refusing the counsel of his Generals. obama has demonstrated even less military acumen than Hitler when Hitler overruled his Generals.

          • Commander_Chico

            If you ever worked on a military staff, you would know that plans are formulated in response to requests from superiors. The point is that we should let the Iraqis, Syrians, Saudis, Iranians and Turks deal with ISIS.

          • jim_m

            Pay attention dumbass. obama said that we were going in and the military proposed a response. obama decided that the recommendation based on his direction wasn’t good enough and decided to ignore that recommendation and ordered a course of action that the military has stated will prolong the conflict and put the US in a weaker position.

            And you support that because you have never served and want to see US soldiers die so you can advance your agenda.

          • jim_m

            As predicted, Chico sides with the Chickenhawk obama, who like Chico, never served. Chico sides with obama as obama overrules his Generals, who advise a course of action that will hopefully result in achieving the desired outcome with minimal lives lost.

            Chico sides against the military and with an incompetent boob with no experience.

            Thus we see that all of Chico’s blather about Chickenhawks and warmongers is just left wing posing. More proof that he never served and that everything he says is nothing but a pose and a lie. Everything he says is calculated for effect and is based solely on what will advance his agenda. He doesn’t believe a word of it, otherwise he would be saying that obama is wrong for ignoring the advice of his Generals.

          • Commander_Chico

            You think you’re scoring “points” but you’re not.

          • jim_m

            Scoring points? Nope. I just proved one.

            You bloviate about how people who have no military experience should not comment on military actions or be involved in deciding what the military does. Now here come obama openly ignoring his Generals as they advise him on how to accomplish his aims and you only support him. If it were Bush you would have jumped all over it.

            You helped me prove that all your talk about chickenhawks, etc is just bullshit. You don’t back it up. As soon as a dem does something that you would object to in anyone else you abandon your pose and you back them up.

            You’re a fraud. You lie about this and you’ve lied about your service.

          • Commander_Chico

            Generals are often over-aggressive. See the Somme.

          • jim_m

            SO now because obama chooses to ignore it, inexperienced civilian command is preferable to military experience.

            You are a liar and a fraud. If you believed any of what you have argued here for years you would not be saying what you just did.

          • Commander_Chico

            If I’m against the war, I’m against fighting it aggressively.

          • jim_m

            Yes, and by siding with obama you have stated that you are against fighting a war to win.

          • Brucehenry

            Or LeMay in 1962.

          • Who cares what a damn liar thinks?

      • Vagabond661

        When did Congress approve Obama’s delays for Obamacare?

      • jim_m

        Your lord and savior obama (who you refuse to denounce) has claimed that he does not need approval because this is not a war. He will send US troops to their deaths without Congressional approval, but certainly with yours.

  • Vagabond661

    The Democrats have a strategy on how to target Conservative groups but no strategy on ISIS.

  • Commander_Chico

    Maybe too late for that thread, but some devastating takedowns of Ted Cruz and Warner from The American Conservative: and The Week

    But let’s be clear about what Cruz was doing in D.C.: using one of the world’s most beleaguered minorities as a prop for his own self-aggrandizement.

    Why would he do this? This is speculation, but perhaps Cruz, who is a Southern Baptist and whose father is a fundamentalist Baptist preacher, was subtly pandering to a segment of fundamentalist Christians who do not believe that Middle East Christians are “real” Christians. To a serious undercurrent of American Fundamentalism, the Catholic Church is the Antichrist that has been oppressing the “true” Church for millennia, and anything that looks vaguely Catholic, with ordained priests and ornate liturgies, is equally evil. Of course, this is hokum: Middle East Christians were Christians (with their priests and liturgies and incense and icons) for 1,800 years before the Fundamentalists invented their revisionist history.

    This much, however, is absolutely clear: Cruz tarred and attacked one of the most powerless and beleaguered minorities in the world, solely for personal political gain. He was speaking truth to the powerless. He was strong against the weak.

    • jim_m

      And you cite as your sources two articles from a bogus conservative group that was founded to oppose Bush and the Iraq war. Know your sources dumbass.

      The American Conservative endorsed the Democrats in the 2006 midterm. Not what anyone would call a conservative move. In fact I will bet you read it because Jim Webb, who you frequently extoll, is a contributor. Again, not a conservative.

      • Brucehenry

        Whether these publications are “conservative” as you define the term or not, what say you to the substance of the articles?

        • jim_m

          It is difficult to say what Cruz would have said since his remarks were interrupted and cut short. I have not seen a transcript of his intended remarks, only what he did, in fact, say. The fact is that as soon as he remarked that Israel is a great ally of ME Christians he was heckled and interrupted.

          The truth is that Israel IS the only liberal democracy in the region. The truth is that Israel is the only nation in the region which has not seen persecution and murder of Christians for their faith. The truth is that if the left and the muslims succeed in their aims to destroy Israel then there will be no safe haven for Christians in the region.

          I also suspect that the truth is that organizations like The American Ideas Institute are formed to oppose conservative candidates and fracture the base of the GOP. Pat Buchanan has been at just that for well over 20 years and is a key member of that organization.

          • Brucehenry

            He was heckled and interrupted because his statements were inaccurate, as these Christians know, because they FUCKING LIVE THERE.

            It’s true that there are many ME Christians who are supporters of Israel and also true that many Arab Christians are Palestinian and oppose the occupation. It is also true that many are Arab nationalists as well as Christians and oppose Israeli policy for those reasons (and they are opposed BY Israel).

            Middle East sectarian politics are messy as hell and not amenable to the black and white worldview Cruz is prone to. Cruz is either an idiot or a cynical sociopath who used this event to show butthurt Evangelicals he’s “one of them.” In either case this stunt alone disqualifies him as a serious candidate in my view — not that I was predisposed to taking him seriously anyway.

            If you haven’t seen a transcript it’s because you haven’t read the links — SHOCKER!! — one is inside the second link above and was previously posted by Chico hours ago on the other thread.

            EDIT: Oooops, I see you meant that you hadn’t seen his “intended” remarks, my mistake. However, one can assume, as did his audience, that they were probably a lot of the same boilerplate hokum as the first paragraph or two.

          • jim_m

            What I said, because I did read the links, is that I can read the transcript of what WAS said, not what Cruz’s intended full remarks would have been. My point was that because he was interrupted we don’t get the full transcript of what we was going to say and that it is possible that it would have lent a different context to the whole speech. Unfortunately, we do not have that information so we do not really know the complete point of what Cruz intended to say.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah, I heard enough and so did his audience.

            Cruz got what he wanted, sympathy from geniuses like Warner who have the gall to call these long-suffering people “false Christians.”

          • Commander_Chico

            He goes into an audience full of Palestinian Christians in a conference about killings of Christians and his main points are support for Israel.

            All that was was sucking Adelson’s old balls.

  • jim_m

    It would be funny if it weren’t so sad…

    obama has declared that he has the right to attack ISIS without Congressional authorization because… wait for it… Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

    Yes folks, obama claims he has the right to attack ISIS because the 2002 authorization of force that he and the left have said for over a decade was wrong and that it was SOLELY for the purpose of ridding Iraq of WMD’s which they claim never existed.

    Waiting for Chico to defend this action and for Bruce to explain why this is not yet another example of obama’s fecklessness.

  • Commander_Chico
    • Walter_Cronanty

      Someone you know, or just a pretty picture?

      • jim_m

        Chico has been shown to be a complete and total fraud so he is attempting to distract.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          And a welcome, bi-partisan distraction it is. Man does not live by acrimonious politics alone.
          EDIT – I denounce myself for microagression, no-trigger-warning, and the pervasive rape culture evidenced by my comment.

  • Walter_Cronanty
  • Walter_Cronanty

    Another depressing factoid. More British Muslims join ISIS than join the military – so much for liberal immigration policies, liberal welfare payments and multiculturalism : “More British Muslims have joined the ranks of ISIS than have volunteered to serve in the British armed forces. In fact, this group has managed to attract thousands of recruits from free societies throughout the world to help build a paradise of repression and sectarian slaughter in Syria and Iraq. This is an astonishing phenomenon, and it reveals some very uncomfortable truths about the failures of multiculturalism, the inherent vulnerability of open societies, and the terrifying power of bad ideas.”