"A comprehensive vision of what the constitution should stand for":

-"Lowering the barriers between church and state"
-"Allowing prohibitions on abortion"
-"No recognition of rights for gay people"
-"Deevolution of power from the federal government to the states"

What are you wanting us to take away from the video, because I only made it to the opening question and I already don't think he'd be fit to lead this country?

You're welcome to disagree with him, but I'm not sure what you intend to accomplish from willfully remaining ignorant about him. If you'd follow the discussion, it explains the Constitutional theory behind his views. I don't have any agenda here; like I said, I don't intend to vote for him. What I want you to take away from the video is that he very clearly is a strong contender for the White House. His radical beliefs are grounded in an profound understand of the Constitution and he defends them competently. If you're interested in understanding the people on the other side of the aisle, listen on. If you prefer to just assume he's a religious idiot, you're welcome to do so.

I think it really picks up after the first break.

Right now his biggest issue is that in many cases, he's too conservative for Conservatives. NPR did a very thorough analysis of him as a candidate, and you can find that here. It's 37 minutes long, but you can read a transcript here, though I strongly urge anyone interested in the upcoming election to listen to the majority of it. It discusses his background, his political experience, and whether he can stand in a crowd of far more popular Republican candidates.

Whether you agree with his stance, there's no doubt that he's a strong politician. In his rookie year in the Senate he went behind senior Republican leadership and held a pseudo-filibuster against the ACA, and single-handedly forced a government shutdown. He's very well-educated, won his Senate chair with zero experience against a candidate that was long considered an easy victor. In addition, he's something we've lacked for a while: a great orator. President Obama can read a mean teleprompter, but Cruz is a skilled debater and speaker, without the need of a script (something President Obama absolutely flounders at).

Cruz's background:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/03/23/394719332/what-you-need-to-know-about-ted-cruz

Cruz's ideal presidency:

• College graduates are getting half a dozen job offers
• Regulators and tax collectors are "kept at bay"
• The country would be energy self-sufficient
• Obamacare would be repealed, but there would be health care that was "portable" and affordable
• The IRS would be abolished
• Borders are secure
• Gun rights are protected
• The "sacrament of marriage" would be upheld
• Common Core would be no more
• "School choice" would be "the civil rights issue of the next generation"
• The U.S. would stand "unapologetically with Israel"
• Iran wouldn't be allowed to get a nuclear weapon
• The U.S. would "stand up and defeat Islamic terrorism — and we will call it by its name."

Personally, I won't be voting for him. But I think it's important to know who this guy actually is, rather than the inept caricature that he's often portrayed as around here.

Because the article never specified which Arab foreign ministers were present, and this is just a draft proposal which was accepted by the Arab ministers. The actual creation of the military force could take years, and we have no idea what sort of form it would take.

The article says they're working on making it official within a month, which is a bit worrying in my opinion.

Paul said before the vote on Thursday, according to The Hill, “It is irresponsible and dangerous to continue to put America further into debt even for something we need.” “We need national defense, but we should pay for it,” Paul added.
“America does not project power from bankruptcy court,” Paul said.

Hey Paul, talk's great, but if your shit doesn't get passed because it cuts too deeply, then you're not helping anyone. This is more pointless political maneuvering.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 26, 2015, 07:13:08 PM

Can we fucking post in Serious without sounding like a 14 year old on /pol/?

It's funny because I literally copied this thread from /pol/

I know.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 26, 2015, 06:54:46 PM

Spoiler

Is there a list of nations agreeing to this coalition?

Definitely Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which are 2 out of the 4 biggest players in the Middle East (the other ones being Iran and Turkey). In all probability, the coalition will also include the UAE, Jordan, Qatar, and Kuwait. With other Saudi Arabia-aligned countries, I don't know who to expect. Possibly Bahrain, but the majority of their population are Shia (under Sunni leadership), and Oman doesn't seem to be aligned with any of the major power blocs in the Middle East.

Speculation is fine, I'm just a little confused why there isn't a solid answer if they already had a meeting to confirm members.

The problem with this is that Closed Circuit Television isn't usually that closed circuit. It's open to an array of abuse by the government.

Hold up: what kind of abuse is occurring? Don't the police require a warrant to get access to CCTV recordings?

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 26, 2015, 03:25:09 PM

Quote

Homeowners should consider fitting CCTV to trap burglars, the country's most senior police officer declared yesterday.

I'm assuming this is BritSpeak and it translates to something along the lines of, "Homeowners should consider buying security cameras to get incriminating footage of criminals"? What's the problem with this?

INSIDE YOUR HOME

SO THE CHIEF OF SCOTLAND YARD CAN WATCH YOU MASTURBATE

Dumb pigs haven't heard of Omegle.

>planet fitness
>ever

Is it possible that people pulling this kind of crap could eventually cause the idea of "religious intolerance" to be totally scrapped?

Is her complaint religious? I've interacted with atheists that are also unaccepting of trans-people. I'd be down with scrapping "asshole tolerance", though.

HurtfulTurkey

The reason it was made (to combat oppressive governments) has never been invoked a single time in the history of the US.

That's the point.

Have you ever considered stopping and thinking about what you're saying, how people will interpret it, and if it's even necessary?

Sexual/Shock/Gore images and videos must remain in Anarchy only.

(and even then, just a gif).

Gifs are images.

tl;dr you're wrong, remove the link.

Can't go wrong with A&W in a frosted mug.

Yeah, there's no way that chick was running with a concealed weapon in skin-tight clothes. Good commercial though, if a bit corny.