I have clearly said that I believe that it is unwise to let a politically biased blogger add context to a short quote. The Agenda 21 document is 127 pages long and written in an obscure dialect of "governmentese." What reason do I have to believe that Cruz's analysis is wrong or that ThinkProgress accurately characterized his quote? You obviously trust the blogger and want to believe the worst about Sen. Cruz, but there is no reason for me to do the same. See, I can also create a broken link to Cruz's website: Ted Cruz Claims He Was Kidnapped by Aliens

 

You keep avoiding the simple question. Do you believe he stated that agenda 21 could lead to the removal of golf courses and paved roads? I can't make it any simpler. As John McEnroe once said: ANSWER THE QUESTION

My problem is with your leap to the word Looney. Cruz is a highly decorated lawyer with substantial constitutional law experience . Who based on his education and experience formed an opinion on nullification. Now you can say you disagree with his opinion on the constitution just like I do often with the 4 liberal supreme Court justices. But to make the leap to Looney based on some ones opinion on a subject matter they are fully qualified to form said opinion on. Is nothing more than trivial character assanination and honestly beneath you .

 

So you, too, believe that govt will take over paved roads? Come on now.

 

Maybe it's semantics. To be clear when I say "whacky" or "loony" I do not think he has mental issues and needs to be institutionalized. I'm saying it in the "off-the-wall" sense. It makes me question him.

Pay attention, son. I've been PERFECTLY CLEAR on this.

 

Whacky: govt taking away golf courses and paved roads

Dishonest (because I think he's smart) the issue of what the states can do TODAY to get around ACA.

 

Don't conflate my posts. I've made it quite clear.

What you have made perfectly clear is that you don't spend much time doing your own research and rely on left wing websites to do much of your thinking. You only acknowledged Cruz's intelligence after I listed a few of his accomplishments. Up to that point, you seemed determined to portray him as a dunce.

Let's just name a few hot topics and I'll state where I stand:

 

Gay marriage: state issue but I've got no problem with it.

Religion: practicing Catholic

Abortion: against it morally - do NOT think we can jail mothers for having one.

Drugs: Marijuana should be legal. All others - illegal.

NSA spying: 100% against it. Violates the constitution IMO.

DUI checkpoints: Same as NSA spying.

Taxes: Too many

Military: Pro military. No problems with war IF its based on actual intel

Death penalty: Against it not for religious reasons but because they are too many errors that result in a "not guilty" person being killed.

 

 

So from that you've got me pegged? Hell, I don't have me pegged.

 

The mistake you have made and many others over the years have made is your belief that I take a side. What you call taking a side is me stating flawed info or flawed logic. Not the same. You have no clue how I have voted nor how I WILL vote in the future.

 

Be smarter than that. You've obviously intelligent.

This is for another topic . But I think you proved my point . The two areas that you may be more moderate on are military and taxes but those were also the most vague answers you gave and isn't really conclusive. To many taxes ? Could mean a lot of things . Pro military ? I never doubted that no Spain liberal dislikes the military itself unless we are talking code pink or hippies and I don't think you are a hippy Clyde. The distinction comes on policy issues with the military. Every other stance you take above would be considered liberal. Some of them by the way I agree with. I'm socially liberal , economically conservative. I just don't ever see you take a strong stance on the conservative side.

You keep avoiding the simple question. Do you believe he stated that agenda 21 could lead to the removal of golf courses and paved roads? I can't make it any simpler. As John McEnroe once said: ANSWER THE QUESTION

I have avoided nothing. You are the one who came armed with nothing but left wing talking points from a blog. I have already explained the complexity of the Agenda 21 document. It provides a lot of wealth transfer from developed to developing countries and urges nations to take more control over privately owned land. Unlike you, I know my limitations. I am not well enough versed in international law to give an opinion. I am certainly not confident enough to label somebody that Professor Dershowitz labeled as off-the-charts brilliant as a kook. You must be one smart guy to do so. From which law school did you graduate?

This is for another topic . But I think you proved my point . The two areas that you may be more moderate on are military and taxes but those were also the most vague answers you gave and isn't really conclusive. To many taxes ? Could mean a lot of things . Pro military ? I never doubted that no Spain liberal dislikes the military itself unless we are talking code pink or hippies and I don't think you are a hippy Clyde. The distinction comes on policy issues with the military. Every other stance you take above would be considered liberal. Some of them by the way I agree with. I'm socially liberal , economically conservative. I just don't ever see you take a strong stance on the conservative side.

 

Only a hard-core right-winger would call those liberal. But , hey, we all have different definitions.

 

So based on your analysis tell me how I've voted in the presidential elections. My first vote was 1984.

So you, too, believe that govt will take over paved roads? Come on now.

 

Maybe it's semantics. To be clear when I say "whacky" or "loony" I do not think he has mental issues and needs to be institutionalized. I'm saying it in the "off-the-wall" sense. It makes me question him.

 

I'll wait for you to label Obama looney next time he does some political grand standing.

I have avoided nothing. You are the one who came armed with nothing but left wing talking points from a blog. I have already explained the complexity of the Agenda 21 document. It provides a lot of wealth transfer from developed to developing countries and urges nations to take more control over privately owned land. Unlike you, I know my limitations. I am not well enough versed in international law to give an opinion. I am certainly not confident enough to label somebody that Professor Dershowitz labeled as off-the-charts brilliant as a kook. You must be one smart guy to do so. From which law school did you graduate?

 

What opinion about 21 have I even given? I simply REPEATED what he said (that you keep avoiding).

 

By the way, Ted Kaczyinski is a reported genius. Do you think he's a kook? A little whacky?

I'll wait for you to label Obama looney next time he does some political grand standing.

 

I'll repeat what I previously stated. Give me a whacky quote from President Obama. Now to be clear, I'm not saying give me a policy you disagree with. I'm talking pure "the govt wants to take over paved roads and golf courses" whackiness.

Only a hard-core right-winger would call those liberal. But , hey, we all have different definitions.

 

So based on your analysis tell me how I've voted in the presidential elections. My first vote was 1984.

So if you take the democratic party stance on every issue and the democrat party is made up of mostly liberals. How could one not assume you are liberal? Outside of the vague answers for taxes and Military how could someone by any detention of the word conservative call your stances conservative in the political spectrum.

 

I didn't know you in 1984 but based on the landside of the election it would be safe to assume Reagan.

What opinion about 21 have I even given? I simply REPEATED what he said (that you keep avoiding).

 

By the way, Ted Kaczyinski is a reported genius. Do you think he's a kook? A little whacky?

Again last line is beneath you. Not even close to a fair analogy.

So if you take the democratic party stance on every issue .

 

Didn't we already talk about the err in your thinking?

Again last line is beneath you. Not even close to a fair analogy.

 

Why? Mitch said that I must be wrong that Mr Cruz is whacky because he is off-the-charts smart. Faulty logic as evidenced by my example. Not saying the comments made by Mr Cruz equate to bombings. Just showing that you can say OR do whacky things even IF you are a genius.

 

I didn't know you in 1984 but based on the landside of the election it would be safe to assume Reagan.

 

I can't imagine a liberal voting for Mr Reagan when they had Walter Mondale to choose from.

 

The others?

What opinion about 21 have I even given? I simply REPEATED what he said (that you keep avoiding).

 

By the way, Ted Kaczyinski is a reported genius. Do you think he's a kook? A little whacky?

You're just repeating the same nonsense, Clyde. I know how political blogs take quotes out of context, so without seeing the actual document, I have no intention of commenting on a short quote that you found on a left wing website. If you can produce the full document, then I will be glad to comment on it. Your Ted Kaczynski remark is just plain childish. You obviously entered this debate on Ted Cruz having very little knowledge about him and you obviously have done no additional research over the past few hours. I try to do my research before I start staking out positions from which escape is impossible.