Ted Cruz handles one of the oldest rhetorical tricks beautifully.

I wasn’t going to post anything else tonight but this was just too good. Ted Cruz, Republican presidential hopeful, was asked the Marxist version of one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book. The classic example of this is, ‘”How often do you beat your wife?” but its been updated to, “Do you have a personal animosity against gay Americans?”.

Mr. Cruz dealt with it precisely as he should have. If people do not like it, its a failure of the public and not of his character or thought process.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

9 Replies to “Ted Cruz handles one of the oldest rhetorical tricks beautifully.”

  1. Hey, just as well that I am not voting in the US or else the IS supporters in the “Democrats” would get worried – I dont know much about Ted Cruz, but this answer would have me looking very seriously at him as a potential fixer of the Clinton/Obama mess.

    I wanna see the face of the interviewer !

  2. “Do you have a personal animosity against Homosexuals?”

    This was loaded to illicit an expression, to utter a thought-crime, in order to cause Ted deliberate harm. This is not reporting. This was political activism in the form of bullying.

    This reporter knew the man’s opinion already. Same-sex is an abomination for the G-d he worships. So Ted’s going to go along with this and everything else G-d says about sinners.

    But the reporter wins either way. If this truth of Jesus-allegence is told, tattooed Americans will riot and the laws recently written for them to become legal acts will demand his imprisonment.

    If on the other hand he obfuscates, then that’s the effort every person must squirm before their superiors, in not being permitted to say the truth. Ted scalds the reporter that he knows that he knows he is a communist but the damage is done; the reporter has conveyed his own political distillation to millions in the audience of what is halal and what is haram to be expected of them.

    The Socialist’s weapon of entering the very conversation-space between rational human beings, discussing unreservedly thesis and antithesis, is then used to silence them to list Human Rights, Political Correctness and Hate Crimes to summon the Police to remove the offender. Universities are producers of technicians.

    In Hitler Germany the reporter’s question would have been, “don’t you have a personal animosity against Jews?” And the same trap laid with the German People indoctrinatred. Because it is common sense to know that lies are not as quick as truth, that the mind has to check that the lie is consistent, and so that liars always delay their answers to a direct question.

    In China this reporter would ask, “Do you have a personal animosity against mass deportation?”

    In ISIL, “Do you have a personal animosity against religious-cleansing?”

    More expensive script-writers will now be hired to illicit total submission or exclusion.

    The Politically Correct control much of the American Media’s output, with CNN closely mirroring Russia Today’s direction by Party officials.

    And though it looks merely like watching a bad movie with bad actors, these are real morons making real problems with a sizeable population ready to go either way with a Stalin or Muhammad as they are paralysed by fear of the outrage created by the inner followers of the Reliance of the Assertion.

    “Do you have a personal animosity against pedophillia?” will be the next straight-faced reporter’s question.

    • “Do you have a personal animosity against Homosexuals?”

      “What do you mean?”

      “Do you think what they do is evil?”

      “In what way?”

      “Marriage”

      “And knowing my answer will offend and will be called a hate crime?…”

      “Yes…”

      “Isn’t that called entrapment?”

      “Not if you hold those views…”

      “My views were held before same-sex marriage was unilaterally enforced by individual Western Leaders without a vote. I haven’t changed. You changed the definition of what children would be exposed to.”

      “So it’s not their cohabitation thing…”

      “People will fornicate anyway, no its the legalization away from only one man and one woman who shall raise a child.”

      “You think children are at risk?”

      “From every mental illness of self-doubt with awakening comforting perverse sexual pleasure-pain appetites under the sun”

      “Do you have proof?”

      “Islam and Socialism. Almost no achieving Nobel Laureate from these homes with sexual repression and incontinence that swing directly from their bipolar moods”

      “Why?”

      “Marriage is be able to grow up in and experience the real dialectic – honest goodness and honest warts – not restricted to suck of the ideology of the pseudo. That makes for a healthly mind.”

      “My father was not there for me…”

      “That is what your politicians created and rewarded. No person can replace or replicate a heterosexual birth mother, and no one replicate or replace a heterosexual birth father. We are not wired that way. Beware of imitation.”

      “We’ll see what the Programer General has to say about this!”

      “Breeding livestock for their farm is all they are doing. The dysfunctional are already lost. A strong protector is all they will cry out for and become radicalized.”

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3165855/Lesbian-couple-celebrate-birth-twin-boys-using-free-sperm-gay-donor-advertises-services-Facebook.html

    • The reporter stood back. As a Good Citizen who didn’t double-date much if he could help it, he didn’t understand what was being said but felt the correct response was to show hurt and anger. “But do you have a personal animosity against Homosexuals!”

      “Let me tell you a story…..
      A man arranges a birthday dinner for his son’s mother and him. They had not lived together since the child was unknowingly conceived and she had moved on to live with a new boyfriend.
      Once he knew she was pregnant he made many regular and consistent weekly contacts with her and that boy, paying towards her generously as a husband should, helping her in sickness and in need and reaching many ‘firsts’ with his son’s achievements. Four boyfriends later that father was still with his teenage son going to dinner to celebrate his mother’s birthday with him. He had stayed single, because for him his son needed to know his dad was 100% watching his back, and was the security every child needed. The boy was always top of his class.

      The young man now felt able to ask him why he cared when he could clearly see his mother didn’t.
      He said, “son, we all are slaves to our impulses unless we become their master. I woke up too late before mom and I had parted.”

      “She was born perfect. This is what I am celebrating, that child, and if she wakes up from her years of resentful pride, we’ll have that child back in our family.”

      The reporter looked nonplussed.

      “Likewise, I might have to wait a whole generation of war and of suffering before Homosexuals stop looking in all the wrong places for love and wake up to become the beautiful babies they once were. I’m now off to my dinner.”

    • In China, this reporter would be put in jail if he asked Xi jinping “Do you have personal animosity against Falungung?”

  3. This illustrates the level of politicians people afford when they are privately funded, not stately as most of Europe’s are. Don’t ever expect to hear any european politician talking like him least being british or Geert Wilders. Public funding of politics is core communism.

    Let’s keep the 10th crusade going guys

  4. There should be two forms of partnership contract. The official state contract, which any two people (within the law), who wish it, have to sign. This give the other partner the right to a cut of money, etc when things go wrong, you could call it a nullifying of the contract.
    That’s it, the religious stuff should be up to the individual consciences of the individuals involved. If gays want to call it marriage they can, if they can find a church to marry them, also fine. If they can’t, that’s just tough.
    They could always open their own church and get married in that, and call it marriage. It could have its own gay priests, or they could use a catholic church instead.
    That would sort this nonsense out once and for all.
    Liberal fascists, trying to impose themselves on everybody else.

Leave a Reply to Rita Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*