Ted Cruz

UPDATED! CLERICAL ERROR! Next Stop on Crazy Train: Maybe Planned Parenthood Shooter Was Upset at Unisex Bathrooms?

Ted Cruz's sad attempt to talk transgender smack when asked about Planned Parenthood killer.

|

UPDATED (5:50 P.M. ET): From The Gazette of Colorado Springs, Colorado comes word that alleged shooter Robert Dear did not "register as a woman."

An El Paso County clerical error was apparently to blame for Planned Parenthood shooting suspect Robert Lewis Dear Jr. being listed as a woman on his voter registration card—a detail that fueled national speculation over his gender identity.

To his credit, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at least didn't flinch at describing the murder of three people at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic over the weekend as a tragedy and a criminal act.

But Cruz being Cruz, he couldn't stop there. And so when asked about reports that the alleged shooter, Robert Lewis Dear, had mentioned the selling of "baby parts" as part of his motivation for his spree after being taken into custody, Cruz first said, "We don't fully know the motivations of this deranged individual."

That's all good. But the debating champ then immediately added:

We know that he was a man who registered to vote as a woman….It's…reported that he's registered as an Independent and as a woman [and is] a transgendered leftist activist.

Go here for audio and video.

A campaign spokesperson then clarified to Buzzfeed:

The candidate was not suggesting anything in particular about the alleged killer's identity, and only made reference to the report in order "to make the point that we don't know all the details."

Yes, we still don't know all the details but for god's sake, don't treat people like they are idiots, would you? So we don't fully know…TRANSGENDER LEFTIST ACTIVIST!

The source for Cruz's claim in Gateway Pundit, which dug up Dear's voter registration card that indeed lists him as a woman. OMG! Evidence that such a designation is  starters, none of the guy's neighbors have yet described anything that would suggest Dear identified as a woman. Rather, he had been arrested various times on various charges (such as peeking into neighbors' windows) and he liked to be left alone.

There's no question that the left, just like the right, is always amazingly quick to claim that every sunrise and sunset, not to mention natural and man-made disaster, perfectly proves its worldview. So Cruz has plenty of company in immediately dumping a wheelbarrow of red herring on to the table. But don't pretend it has anything to do with anything other than retail politics.

I would not be surprised if the next wave of right-wing psychologizing of Dear suggests that he was not only transgender but he was driven mad by either the absence or the presence of unisex bathrooms at Planned Parenthood, which he doubtless mistook for a bank.

NEXT: Donate to Reason Right the Hell Now, Because #GivingTuesday, and/or Woodchippers!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But Cruz being Cruz, he couldn’t stop there.

    You know who else couldn’t stop “there” when making a statement about a particular issue?

    1. President Obama?

      1. beep … beep … BEEP

        1. +1 nagging tone

          1. Wrap it up!

            I would rather shove ice-picks in my ears than listen to any more of that gasbag.

    2. Nick Gillispie ?

      1. This is what happens when you come in late and the play’s already started.

    3. Nick Gillespie?

  2. Why would a voter registration form need to know your gender in the first place?

    1. That sounds like the kind of question some sort of queer would ask, Hugh.

      1. Well they need to know your race so they know whether you count your vote as one or 3/5ths. So I guess they need to know your gender so they know whether to count your vote as one or 7/10ths.

        1. Great, more perpetuation of the idea that the Three-Fifths Compromise was race-based. Thanks, Hugh.

          1. That compromise represented a time when politicians worked together and got things done.

          2. Well it was about how slaves should be counted for the purposes of legislative representation. Maybe they never mentioned race specifically during the debates, but since the vast majority of slaves were black, it was a de facto racial thing.

            1. Right, but people now like to say that “black people were only worth 3/5” which was absolutely not the case for free blacks.

              1. Well, that and the whole thing was that the abolitionists were the ones who didn’t want Blacks to be counted at all, as it would have given the slave-holding states more representation in the HoR; whereas, the slave states would have been thrilled to have slaves counted fully.

            2. The nasty Northerners didn’t want to count them at all. Racists.

              If they had been counted 100% the slave States would have had more seats in Congress.

              1. … for people who couldn’t vote, like California and its crop of illegals today.

      2. It’s so that they can apply the victim/privilege factor to your vote. White? Your vote is reduced by a factor of 0.5. Male? That’s another 0.5. Woman gets a 1.75 multiplier. Racial minority? 3.5. Gay, 2.0.

        And so on.

    2. Womens votes only count 72% of mens.

    3. Why would a voter registration form need to know your gender in the first place?

      That was causing me some headscratching, too.

      1. Probably so some Federal beancounter can run the stats to determine if the women of a particular district are being “marginalized”.

      2. I suspect it’s necessary to perpetuate the myth that the votes are counted as cast. If video cameras were to record that a precinct turnout was 90% male, and more than 10% of the lady voters were to get together, compare notes and detect the fraud, that would be bad for democracy by unverifiable secret ballot. How many libertarian extremists would choose a bank that won’t let you look up your balance because that’s “a secret”? Suckers, on the other hand, love a secret ballot like a mystery of faith, illustrative of the complexity of God’s mind and the silliness of any attempt to understand it.

    4. It is sort of an identifying trait?

    5. So that if you don’t vote they know which TEAM to put your vote down for?

    6. As a means to prevent voter fraud.

      1. Voter fraud: any circumstance in which a vote is counted as actually cast, rather than the way the entrenched political machine says it was cast. Syn. verifiability; Ant. secret ballot

  3. Sorry, Nick, but I gotta go with CCW Cooke on this.

    1. You know, reading that 3 or 4 times I can now see the alternate interpretation snap into place – like an optical illusion. It could be that he was just scoffing at a list of various claims made by the media.

      1. It makes one wonder what would happen if we actually had a political candidate with a dry, sarcastic sense of humour.

      2. It could be that he was just scoffing at a list of various claims made by the media.

        That is my general impression from the video as well.

      3. That was my first impression when I saw the comments the other day, though it’s possible I was primed to see it that way. But his intention is pretty obvious to me.

      4. That is how I read it to begin with. Reading through Nicks rant had me scratching my head. I am beginning to think Nick has fallen down the progressive rabbit hole.

    2. Good one Nikki, you are not the worst…

      1. whatever she is quoting a British dude, everyone know the British are fairies bent on pushing the glitterati agenda.

        1. You need to stop reading the Yiannopoulos articles on Breitbart, dude.

          1. I can’t quit him.

    3. Nick’s pants apparently needed shitting and Cruz plays for Team Red, so there you go.

  4. The source for Cruz’s claim in Gateway Pundit, which dug up Dear’s voter registration card that indeed lists him as a woman. OMG!

    I would say there is more evidence that he is a tranny than that he is an anti-abortion activist.

    You’re missing the point, in a particularly obtuse and revealing way, Nick. Cruz was merely observing that its stupid to attribute these murders to any movement or group, and used the amusing fact that he is registered to vote as a woman to make this point. Indeed, by using such an obvious “red herring”, he made the point that nobody has any herrings that aren’t pretty red rather nicely.

    But, for some reason, when Ted Cruz makes a point that you agree with, better than you have, you feel compelled to attack him for . . frankly, I don’t know what.

    1. For being really ugly? That’s what I like to attack him for.

      1. He does look like a cartoon of himself, doesn’t he?

      2. He is ugly, I’m also pretty sure he is part of the “whacko bird” caucus.

      3. I wouldn’t say “ugly” so much as… waxen? It’s hard to pin down exactly what is wrong with his face but oh man when the spotlight shines down it – yeesh.

        1. “Unaesthetic” seems like a safe choice.

          1. Someone observed that at one of the debates it looked like his face was sliding off. That’s not OK.

            1. Didn’t you tell him NOT to look at the Ark of the Covenant when it was open?!!

          2. Ted Cruz looks like his pimp knocked all his teeth out with a pipe so he could charge more for blowjobs.

        2. Between the shiny finish and the nose, he looks like some of Gepetto’s handiwork.

        3. He looks like his face was carefully sculpted out of Silly Putty, and he has to keep his head tilted backwards to keep it from sliding off.

        4. Cruz does know how to trick out an assault rifle so it’ll even skeer a mohammedan. That’s the one worthwhile trait I’ve detected in him.

    2. Nick’s point is that it is perfectly OK for the media to jump to conclusions about the “anti-abortion” angle here because the shooter was obviously a Right-Wing nutjob, and Right-Wingers hate babies and sex.

      Also, one should never ever say anything mean about Trannies. And Cruz is a big Jesus-loving Douchebag.

      Its a very sophisticated point which is why i can understand you might have trouble with it.

      1. Reminds me of Ambrose Bierce’s definition: ‘Admiration, n.: Our polite recognition of another’s resemblance to ourselves.’
        I’m afraid I’m gonna haveta stand with Nick on this matter of having any admiration for Teddy Crujifixo. I’m ashamed they let Cruz be a Texan, and wish he had the guts to challenge someone to a duel or accept such a challenge. Whatever the outcome, we’d be happily rid of him under the Texas Constitution.

    3. Pretty much this. I thought Cruz’s point was spot on. Even butchered of context it’s glaringly obvious what he was saying and why.

    4. Cruz’s statement went right over Nick’s head. Is Nick being dishonest here or is he just that dense?

      1. Maybe he thinks libertarian pundits have a monopoly on snark?

        1. I think he can’t stand the idea that someone could be a lot smarter and more interesting than he is and hold the views Cruz does. Only the stupid hicks are supposed to support the things Cruz does. Cruz’s entire existence is an enormous blow to someone like Nick’s ego.

          1. It fits with the Republcans are humorless scolds narrative. Evidence to the co trary means that that GOPers is off his nut. As well as the fact that Gillespie is too damn lazy to check whether the media conventional wisdom is accurate when it is not goring one of his sacred cows.

          2. You see that on left wing sites. Cruz and Paul are “idiots”. A lawyer who clerked for the Chief Justice, and has actually argued cases at the Supreme court. Paul of course is an eye surgeon. But they must be stupid because of their politics.

      2. It’s always hard to tell with progs.

    5. When I vote at the government school in Austin they make me show a photo ID and look at my mustache. I am hard-pressed to imagine they’d fail to notice if my voter registration were to identify me as female. Call me a skeptic, a denier, but you’re gonna haveta prove to me that the antiabortionist baby-parts-saver ever voted with that card.

  5. I thought the point was that he was mocking the attempt to glean political motivation from background demographic info. recognizing him being transgendered was silly. maybe I am too charitable

  6. I’m of two minds on what Ted Cruz really is up to with statements like these. He could either be completely serious and truly is just that dumb, or he is pulling off some of the uncannily clever trolling of the left I have ever seen. I’d say that the two possibilities are about equally plausible.

    1. […] or he is pulling off some of the uncannily clever trolling of the left I have ever seen.

      His was clearly a tongue-in-cheek observation meant to call out the Marxians’ penchant for jumping to conclusions.

    2. Say what you will about Cruz, and there is plenty that is fair game, the dude is far from dumb.

    3. Depending on how you untangle his butchery of prepositions, you can pretty much glean whatever you want to hear… kinda like reading chicken entrails.

  7. I’m of two minds on what Ted Cruz really is up to with statements like these. He could either be completely serious and truly is just that dumb, or he is pulling off some of the uncannily clever trolling of the left I have ever seen. I’d say that the two possibilities are about equally plausible.

    1. And the squirrels appear to be of two minds as well.

  8. Nick didn’t finish Cruz’s quote – which the media left out to make a controversy.

    “?If that’s what he is, I don’t think it’s fair to blame the rhetoric on the left. This is a murderer,” Cruz continued.

    When asked by a reporter if Cruz would label the shooting as domestic terrorism, Cruz called it a “multiple murder of what appears to be a deranged individual.”

    “We’ll find more about the facts of it, but I don’t think we should jump to conclusions until we know actually the facts of this individual,” Cruz added.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo…..nsgendered

    1. ” I don’t think we should jump to conclusions until we know actually the facts of this individual,” Cruz added.”

      SEE? Crazy talk.

      1. He’d better stop it with the eliminationist rhetoric – that’ll get the TSA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA on your ass REAL quick.

        1. Already on it!

      2. “I hate to judge a man before the full facts are in but at this point it does appear that General Ripper has exceeded his authority…”

    2. So what you are telling me Drake is that Nick is being dishonest here. I would like to know what Nick thinks he is accomplishing by lying.

      1. Yeah, I’m going to have to agree that leaving that off is problematic. I was fooled until I started digging deeper.

      2. Cause Team Red! Even though Team Blue is actively contrary to nearly everything a libertarian stands for, Team Red is even worse cause God and Gays and Messicans!

        1. Even if you hate team red lying in such an obvious and easily refutable way doesn’t help your cause. The whole point of being a neutered opposition is to appear even handed while not being so in subtle but important ways. This is not subtle.

          1. On the other hand, it could be simple intellectual laziness on Nick’s part. He hears from The Daily Beast and the Huff-n-Puff that Cruz said something really offensive. And rather than checking it out to see if there’s any context, he goes along with the crowd because it fits his preconceived notions. It’s intellectually comfortable.

      3. What looks bad is posting this BS on a day he’s hitting you up for money.

        1. Yeah, that was a cringe-worth swing and miss.

      4. I don’t know if Nick purposely left it off or just bought the mainstream media narrative without digging.

  9. Come on Nick. This is pathetic. The SJW’s have already pounced on “no more baby parts” and that isn’t even confirmed yet.

  10. I already lie about my ethnicity on those forms. I should start lying about my gender too.

    1. Ethnicity – “Otherkin”

      Gender – “Q”

  11. We know that he was a man who registered to vote as a woman….It’s…reported that he’s registered as an Independent and as a woman [and is] a transgendered leftist activist.

    Another way of saying “Don’t jump to conclusions because you would be throwing stones inside a glass house.”

  12. Nick, why didn’t you just post the whole comment? Don’t listen to the Jacket, find the truth and spread it man.

  13. Does this all count as an example of Poe’s Law?

  14. Remember kids, what happened in Paris has nothing to do with Islam but anyone who is pro life is responsible for any instance of violence at an abortion clinic. If the media didn’t have double standards…

    1. There are zero people making the claim that abortion opponents generally are responsible for Robert Dear’s shooting spree in Colorado Springs.

      1. Oh really?

        In the wake of Friday’s deadly shooting at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic, groups that oppose abortion are defending themselves against the charge that their rhetoric helped inspire the killer. Almost all of these groups broadly condemn violence against abortion providers, though some of their members have been directly tied to it in the past.

        Planned Parenthood, for its part, has directly linked Dear’s actions to anti-abortion rhetoric. “One of the lessons of this awful tragedy is that words matter, and hateful rhetoric fuels violence. It’s not enough to denounce the tragedy without also denouncing the poisonous rhetoric that fueled it,” said Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

        http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/abo…..d-shooting

        Jesus Fucking Christ Drake. Do you think people on here are too stupid to use Google? You can’t actually believe that. Why on earth do you think anyone on here would be dumb enough to believe it either?

        1. Not all abortion opponents use even what they would call “poisonous rhetoric.” Many probably don’t talk about it in public at all.

          1. Bullshit. Seriously You are insulting my intelligence more than Hugh. They didn’t mean all pro life people, just the ones that use “poisonous rhetoric”, whatever that is. I am sure PP has a totally reasonable view of what “poisonous rhetoric” is.

            1. And I’m sure even in their wildest fever dreams it doesn’t apply to my grandmother, who’s probably never said two words about it in her life but is pro-life.

              1. Didn’t JFK’s shooting get blamed on the right-wing “atmosphere” of Dallas? I wouldn’t put too much past fever dreams here.

              2. Oh so they left out your grandmother and that means they are not engaging in ridiculous charges of collective guilt here. Yeah sure Nikki.

              3. Does that mean she agrees with Ayn Rand, to whom life was the standard of value for ethical choices? or does it mean coercive birth-forcer? Everyone with an axe to grind and chop off another’s choices is “for” something-or-other, with no regard whatsoever for the rest of the verbiage transmitting meaning. To send men with guns to force women to reproduce you can be anti-choice, antiabortion, pro-zealot. Suppose God revealed to me that cancer cells are sacred life that begin with cell division, would I then qualify as pro-life were I to violently stop folks from removing tumors or melanomas? Brainwashed maybe, insane possibly, but not pro-life.

          1. He is saying exactly that. And if enough people say it, that means it happened.

            1. Er….would you all mind saying that I inherited $100,000,000 from some distant, crazy old relative?!

        2. This Salon article is a prettty good example http://www.salon.com/2015/11/3…..ic_terror/

          By far the biggest, and growing, threat facing the U.S. are not Muslims or refugees, but rather right-wing extremists ? who are roughly seven times more likely to kill you.

          right-wing extremists, the new bathtubs?

          1. The math these people use is precious =

            “Islam-inspired terror attacks “accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.” Meanwhile, “right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities.””

            Of course, this analysis looks only at the period FOLLOWING the largest Islamic-terrorist act in history…

            You should similarly argue that residents of Hiroshima should be far more concerned with Cancer than they should any nation’s nuclear-arsenals…

            I’m skimming the study where these people claim their “254 fatalities” comes from.

            From what i can tell – much like the way suicides are used by anti-gun activists to measure “Gun Violence” – the vast majority of those “fatalities” are actually perpetrated by “Right-Wing” groups against each-other. i.e. not ‘political violence against ideological enemies’ – but simply a measure of ALL violence which is associated in some fashion with “groups”

            Even more-tenuous – the author decides to include “Unaffiliated” persons in claims of “Right-Wing violence” – tracking backward from *certain kinds of violence* (e.g. Racially-motivated crimes) to claims about “Ideological motivation”. These accounted for the vast majority in the study

            1. “perpetrated by “Right-Wing” groups against each-other. i.e. not ‘political violence against ideological enemies'”

              There are few greater hatreds than the hatred people who are close together on the political spectrum have toward each other.

              See, e.g., Stalinists v. Trotskyites, National Socialists v. international socialists, etc.

              1. To be fair = there is very little specific detail on the vast majority of the violence the study-author is describing in aggregate

                He cites a few cases of ’emblematic’ violence, then provides raw numbers which caveat that they include a ‘wider spectrum’ of violent crimes… IOW, to create the impression that the examples are the norm rather than the exception.

                You can tease out some generalities about the data-sample from the charts he provides.

                70% of the targets of “violence” is against ethnic minorities and gays. 60% of that is “by hand” – i.e. physical beatings or stabbings

                Probably most significant = nearly 80% of the “incidents” cited are ‘Cross burnings’ or vandalism.

                Basically, the author is pulling an SPLC by aggregating a wide range of ‘hate crimes’ under the headline of “Terrorism”. They spend a lot of time trying to focus on certain “Hate Groups” but then admit in the data that 3/4 of the stuff they’re talking about is “Unaffiliated”. I.e. “loners” with no specific group-attachment, and no way to discern any ideological motive other than to associate all “race/homophobic” acts with ‘Right Wing Extremism’ (rather than misanthropic douchebaggery)

                1. Oh, I’m sure the study is BS, but my point is that violence against rival groups, even groups of a similar ideological bent, is certainly consistent with attacking “ideological enemies.”

                  1. ” violence against rival groups, even groups of a similar ideological bent, is certainly consistent with attacking “ideological enemies.””

                    Well, it turns out that almost none of the violence documented in the study was actual-“Group” violence

                    (or against ‘other groups’ either – but rather simply 1-1 incidents later categorized as motivated by some so-called “right wing” issue)

                    Once you cancel out the OK City bombing of 1995, all they’ve got in their study is about a dozen “hate crimes” every year. And 75% of those were not even associated with any specific Hate Group, but are rather “Unaffiliated”, one-off incidents. If you strip out the Vandalism and the Cross burnings… its a miscellaneous bin of gay-bashers and Yusef-Hawkins-style beat-downs.

                    IOW – the entire thing is an exercise in arbitrary aggregation of data and attributing ‘political motives’ to what in the vast majority of cases are acts of personal bigotry.

          2. Observe that bureaucracy-worshipping mystics of the looter persuasion use “right-wing” to mean “christian,” and NOT libertarian, possibly a holdover from the NSDAP era. On websites in the People’s States of Europe, communists and socialists come to blows over which can more vociferously arrogate unto its own wretched tribe the sought-after cognomen of “libertarian.” They as desperately want to believe it means “bomb-throwing republican” as American bomb-dropping republicans yearn to believe we are Serbian anarchists.

        3. Hey! For once I didn’t start it.

      2. I literally just read that exact argument on a Slate XX article, so no, you’re wrong.

      3. “‘There are zero people making the claim that abortion opponents generally are responsible for Robert Dear’s shooting spree in Colorado Springs.””

        First Google Links for “Anti-Abortion Violence” =

        In the news
        If The Anti-Abortion Movement Doesn’t Condone Violence, How Do Republicans Explain These Remarks?
        Huffington Post? – 20 hours ago

        Violent anti-choice rhetoric must end, or anti-abortion violence never will
        The Guardian
        2 days ago

        Homegrown Terrorism: Why Colorado is NOT the Action of a Lone Gunman
        December 1, 2015

        “While I think its fine that the police don’t want to speculate about his motives, most of the country is pretty sure we know why a middle-aged white man would open fire in a Planned Parenthood clinic. …. It is beyond comprehension to me that our collective cultural xenophobia has allowed our government to develop massive surveillance techniques that seek to protect us from Islamic extremists while the very real threat to hundreds of thousands of women and their health care providers is inadequately addressed, shielded behind a veil of “free speech.”‘

        Of course these and (many) others are offset by the single story in the WaPo pointing out, “Anti-Abortion violence has declined

      4. By zero you mean lots, right? Including Obumbles the wise and mighty bringer of light?

        C’mon Hugh, I have heard a zillion lefties screeching about how the PP videos brought this and other attacks on.

        1. Well duh. Looter collectivists, whether they kneel before Jesus or Lenin, are stampeding herd animals. They of course have different tastes in videos, but both have videos where individuals are supposed to instead have intelligence.

    2. The worst thing about it to me is that progressives never even seem genuinely upset about people getting hurt in ways that help their narrative. If anything they seem giddy. There is something wrong with you if you instantly start talking in abstract political terms whenever atrocities occur.

      1. Whenever there is a mass shooting or some horrible tragedy, you can see the little bit of drool run down their mouths as they hope the shooter is someone they can pin on their political enemies. It is disgusting.

        1. Politics as she is is not a pretty sight.

        1. +1 Black Day of the German Army

        2. The National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany?
          Positive Christianity?

      2. To be fair, he did shoot a cop.

      3. “Mass shootings don’t happen in other countries.”

        You mean like that?

        1. Mass stabbings and explosions are different. They have a certain sophistication.

  15. Maybe I’ve missed something but it really looks like Ted was being quite Reasonable here.

    Reason.com: Ted’s on the Crazy Train!

    There seems to be some Gawkeresque click-bait creep here.

    1. 10 Reasons Ted Cruz is on The Crazy Train! Number 7 will shock you!!

      1. less eco-regulation on power plants?

      2. This is what you get when you don’t donate!

        1. This is what you get when why you don’t donate!

        2. Does giving gift subscriptions count? I don’t want to encourage panhandling…

      3. Ted Cruz keeps his face from melting off using this one weird trick!

    2. I think this represents confirmation bias on the part of Reason. I mean, it is typical that a GOP candidate says something really stupid at the worst possible time (cf. “rape-rape”), and this, on superficial reading, seemed to fit that.

  16. Cruz is smarter than 90% of the population and has a dry, satirical wit. You would hope by this point in his life he would have figured out that most people aren’t going to “get” him, and he should express himself in small words and short sentences if he wants the average shmuck to understand his point.

    1. His statements were perfectly understandable – when they were not deliberatley truncated to remove the actual point of what he was saying.

      What he needs to realize is that there are malicious editors out there that will quote mine with a vengence for any line that could be misconstrued out of context.

      1. Agreed. This was a deliberate misconstruing of what Cruz said.

        OTOH, I was implying that Nick is the average schmuck….too subtle ?

        1. If it blogs like a schmuck . . .

    2. Cruz is smarter than 90% of the population of where? Kermadek Islands? Palmyra Atoll? Tetepare?

  17. Almost as sad as your perpetuating the false Leftist narrative that a random spree shooting that neither targeted not killed any PP employees is part of the imaginary “epidemic” of Republican terrorism that we’re supposed to pretend outweighs that of the Islamists, whom we’re never supposed to hold accountable.
    Even though, y’know, he wasn’t a Republican.

    This is what happens when you start thinking the SPLC is a credible source.

    1. Oooo… now my curiosity is piqued. Was Robert Dear a registered Democrat? Tea Partisan? Prohibition Party member? Whoops. The press says “unaffiliated,” meaning “independent,” which is DemoGop votecount code for “Libertarians, Greens, Sattidy Night Live comedians, whatevah…” We’re screwed.

  18. assuming you weren’t intending to mislead Nick, you fucked up, you trusted them.

  19. We need to get this sex stuff out of the way.

    Could he have been a pre-op trans trans?

    A man who identifies as a woman who identifies as a man? Contemplating a sex change operation in 200 years.

  20. This isn’t super-difficult. Here is what Cruz also said:

    “I would call it a murder, and we’ll see what the facts are,” Cruz replied. “It was a multiple murder of what appears to be a deranged individual. And it was horrific, it was evil, and we’ll find out more out about the facts, but I don’t think we should jump to conclusions.”

    He obviously wasn’t claiming, as a fact, that Dear was a tranny or an activist of any kind. He was pointing out that everyone lunging to blame this on anti-abortion forces was jumping the gun, again. I think his use of Dear’s goofy voter registration was a nice way of making this point, although for the ideologically blinkered and hopelessly narrative-driven sorts, he made it easy to respond as if he is some kind of nut. But those folks are going to defend the narrative no matter what, even if it means accusing Cruz of saying something he not only never said, but specifically disclaimed.

    1. Actually, it does make sense from a christianofascist perspective. A “multiple murder of what appears to be a deranged individual” is standard religious fanatic reasoning. Cruz clearly sees a male, Robert Dear, and imagined that Dear, a christian, was the victim “of” the murder, and described that misunderstood scenario as a multiple murder, just as religious fanatics look at a single individual woman and–upon hearing that she might be pregnant–schizophrenically transubstantiate her into two separate individuals inhabiting a single body. This is ordinary doublethink, wearily familiar following the defeat of nationalsocialism. Either that or Cruz is linguistically challenged by prepositions, like many of the folks he wants to deport.

  21. “To his credit, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at least didn’t flinch at describing the murder of three people at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic over the weekend as a tragedy and a criminal act.”

    What do you mean to his credit? It’s as if you were expecting him to say something else.

    1. Well the bar has been set pretty low. When the self described “adults in the room” are petulant children, it is a little disorienting when a politician demonstrates decency and honor.

      1. I fully expect to be disoriented in the event a looter politician demonstrates decency and honor in my presence.

  22. Nick and CNN have both screwed the pooch here.

    If this is the most sensational thing Cruz ever sez you better get used to calling him Mr. President.

    Seriously Gillispie if this is the best you can come up with to take a shot at Cruz with you should just leave it alone if you wish to have a shread of credibility left.

    1. How about se?or presidente? Isn’t Cruz the Republican who wanted to deport the Puerto Ricans? And he has the gall to want to live in the District of Columbia?

  23. “There’s no question that the left, just like the right, is always amazingly quick to claim that every sunrise and sunset, not to mention natural and man-made disaster, perfectly proves its worldview.”

    Interesting view, Nick. Here is an article right here on Reason entitled “the BIG lesson of Hurricane Katrina: Don’t rely on government or the media.” The right, the left, oh…and libertarians too. And the author of that piece using a natural disaster to his worldview?

    You, Nick. Pot, meet kettle.

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/08…..trina-dont

    1. god you’re dumb joe. 10 years is not quick

      1. Ah. So quick is the operative word, eh? Here is Jesse Walker in December of 2005 using Katrina to show governments failed response is the problem, and can be expected.

        https://reason.com/archives/200…..-the-storm

        Maybe only libertarians Are allowed to define quick.

        1. Because having something critical to say about the government in the weeks following Katrina, with multiple dimensions and issues, including illegal gun confiscations, overbearing military and police action, etc….

          Is just the same as jumping to conclusions about a crazy shooter who killed 3 people just now, and how it shows you’ were right all along.

  24. You’ve missed his point (perhaps deliberately). He’s saying that it’s silly to jump to conclusion based on early reports and using some of those strange claims (the transgender thing) as a counterpoint to the left’s claims about him.

    1. See my response above, an article weeks after Katrina.

      By the way, I’m not defending Cruz. Just showing libertarians do the same as what Nick comains the left and right does.

      1. Sorry, but when you’re pointing out failures and civil rights violations weeks after Katrina, you’re not “jumping to conclusions”. You’re “making statements of fact.”

        When you claim that the planned parenthood shooter is really just the tip of the spear of a right-wing political attack on the United States, the same as Timothy McVeigh 20 some odd years ago? That’s “jumping to conclusions.”

        1. But when you recall that ALL attackers of reproductive rights clinics are the dupes of fanatical christianofascist ideologues, just as ALL airline kamikazes are the dupes of fanatical islamofascist ideologues, that’s a Universal Affirmative arrived at by induction through observation. General truths are often arrived at by observing. For instance, Lincoln dies, Garfield dies, Harding dies… all men are mortal. Absence of exceptions is what lends confidence to its truth value.

  25. I’m not sure why, but it always gives me pleasure when the commentators turns against the Reason writers. Maybe just the demonstration that they aren’t the usual sheep to be led.

    1. We want Nick to feel shame, then maybe the Jacket will leave him for another host….we all hope to be that host….

    2. We want Nick to feel shame, then maybe the Jacket will leave him for another host….we all hope to be that host….

      1. Given the retard-level of Nick’s last few postings…. its possible the Jacket has already abandoned him.

        *I’m not sure why, but I’m reminded of the famous “footprints” parable. …

        ….Only one that ends, “… and that large dent in the sand there? That is where I dropped your lazy ass for not making any fucking effort”

      2. Nobody can be “we all” without me, and you can count me out pronto.

    3. It is helpful to be able to notice when social pressure is causing Reason talent to make foolish errors, as in the Solomon Asch experiment. According to DemoGOP federal vote counters, there are 99 looters for every libertarian voter. State soft machines report closer to 33 looter dupes per libertarian voter. These are mesmerizing odds, especially for the few Jabba the Hutt so accurately characterized. The Solomon Asch experiments showed–with the accuracy of a physics lab–that a lone dissenter reduces by one-third the mind-bending intimidation that a unanimous lying majority has on a lone individual’s judgment.

  26. New theory: Nick is shreek.

    1. It’s starting to look like it…….

    2. Sockpuppet in a cool Jacket? Brilliant!

  27. Cruz dumped on Rubio today for being a dangerous idiot neocon, just like Hillary. Rep Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) unloaded on Obama for the same thing.

  28. “…arrested various times on various charges (such as peeking into neighbors’ windows)”
    There you have it, a window peeping surveillance buff… Right Wing Christian Prohibitionist fanatic behavior if ever there was such a thing. Antiabortion berserker Robert Dear is a textbook example of why libertarians ought to steer clear of God’s Own Pro-life-in-prison party as amended through its 1928 takeover by Prohibition Party infiltrators. Forcing women to give birth under duress violates the 13th Amendment (involuntary servitude), the 14th Amendment (All persons born… plus the fact that no males are thus coerced), and decades of libertarian-trending case law and jurisprudence. The sooner the GOP goes the way of the corrupt Federalist party and the whining Whig party, the Libertarian party will be positioned as the alternative to superstition and the initiation of force as the universal panacea.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.