I take the mythology of the Arthur and the symbolism of the sword rising in the lake as historically and culturally meaningful, if that's what you mean. Monty Python is not relevant to me except as a fun diversion.
What @Johnnypenso is trying to say is that Cruz is right, as I have addressed this two posts ago before I got his source. It is the Washington Post that has its bias showing. That paper is a democrat leaning paper, and as such, judges Republicans in general a lot harsher when they fact check. That is why I generally stray away from that paper when citing stats because I know that the "facts" can be slanted.
American Rape Statistics over the same period:
Wow 33.6% of polled Iowa voters would pick a guy who'd mow someone down on Fifth Ave and never face the judicial system...scary
The symbolism of the sword rising from the lake transcends Monty Python, from a thousand years before 1975, and now in 2016. What do you suppose it means? I regard it as a clear symbol of nationalism. If you would wear it on your tee-shirt, you should be prepared to be seen as a nationalist, and perhaps as a patriarchalist.
Guns aren't the answer nor am I saying they are. I'm just disproving a false claim that Cruz lied or exaggerated the statistics. First his words are deliberately misquoted for exaggeration (sudden, sharp spike vs. the actual "increased significantly") and then the source material provided shows that Cruz was right, that there was an increase in violence against women after the gun ban. Juxtapose that with another western culture, in this case the U.S., where there was little to no change in gun laws over that period and draw your own conclusions as to the effectiveness of banning guns. I don't know if Cruz is right or wrong drawing the connection between the gun ban and the increase in violence towards women in Australia nor have I claimed there was a connection, but it's not fair to misquote his words and misrepresent the statistics to suit one's own agenda as has been the case here.
Do you know what it doesn't say? "The numbers went up significantly because of the gun buy-back scheme." Correlation does not imply causation. Like I said, the only significant short-term increase came around 2000, when the Skaf gang was terrorising Sydney. Each member of the gang was charged for each individual crime, naturally driving the numbers up.
Wow, I thought he was bluffing.
What's he going to be like holding press conferences at the White House? Or discussing national security with visiting heads of state?
What's the connection between mint and communism? Honest question
I don't think it's fear, but a desire for control. If Kelly participates, Trump won't be able to control the situation the way he would prefer to, and that will reveal him for what he is. At best, he gets the protest vote; at worst, he's a demagogue.
I expect that it will involve leading a column of armoured tigers into Red Square, tying the Constitution to a jousting pole and charging into the Kremlin while red, white and blue fireworks explode overhead and culminating with a guitar solo of "Living In America" in front of the assembled ministers, politicians and oligarchs before a bald eagle emerges from Trump's toupee and chases Putin out into the streets while the assembled public cheers.
Not bluffing, but playing the odds. Reagan skipped the final Republican debate in '80, and went on to win a landslide.
This is what I was referring to.
Trump has a huge lead in most polls. He has literally nothing to gain by participating in the debate at this point, same as Reagan. I understand he'll be doing a fundraiser event for veterans or so I heard, which will likely solidify his base and maybe sway a few veterans and their families his way. Be interesting to see the polls in the day or two after along with the ratings. The previous encounter apparently generated record viewership.
He's been critical of Fox News for weeks, months in fact, it's nothing new.
