whiney as hell, his speech he is giving now is proving why we should keep bulk data collection. Probably not the best political strategy if you are trying to win the Pub nomination.
Rand Paul is going full potato, used to be a fan, now he just seems
- Thread starter JungleRecon
- Start date
Rand Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians will never take over the Republican Party because they are soft on law and order and when you unravel the libertarian philosophy, it is anti-Christian. Libertarianism is absolutely antithetical to the tenets of Christianity.
I understand the reservations many have with Rand Paul as I can't quite make up my mind about him myself, but it's not fair to say Libertarianism is antithetical to the tenants of Christianity. You can fiercely protect religious freedom without advocating Christian theocracy.
Also, isn't it fair to point out that the GOP is supposed to be the party that advocates smaller, less-intrusive government? Seems hypocritical to make that claim yet support Big Brother actions like bulk data collection from ordinary citizens.
Yeah, Liberty sux. The nerve of that guy wanting go force government to follow the Constitution.
Ahem. From 1 Peter 2:13-14:
"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human authority; whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."
Libertarians believe in abortion, drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, illicit sex, pornography, and suicide. How can a Libertarian be a Christian when Christianity is against all of these?
I think the point is that keeping America "Christian" isn't the goal of our government. Keeping everyone free to live there own life without interference from the government is the goal...America and Christianity are mutually exclusive!!!!!!!!
Thank you! Because if we wanted government that will ENFORCE a state religion we should have just stayed in ENGLAND.
I like his stand. He simply is for less intrusion from Big Brother and I agree. He doesn't FORCE anything on you.
If you take that part from the Bible remember there are a lot of other examples of even Christ going against the rulers of
the time and he mentioned at one point he came as a SWORD.
That should be taken in context, much like "The Poor will always be among you" Quote.
That doesn't mean 'don't bother helping your brother man out' when something goes wrong
or if a man is down on his luck.
Read this:
"Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
All three synoptic gospels state that hostile questioners tried to trap Jesus into taking an explicit and dangerous stand on whether Jews should or should not pay taxes to the Roman authorities.
The accounts in Matthew 22:15-22 and Mark 12:13-17 say that the questioners were Pharisees and Herodians, while Luke 20:20-26 says only that they were "spies" sent by "teachers of the law and the chief priests".
They anticipated that Jesus would oppose the tax, as their purpose was "to hand him over to the power and authority of the governor".[Luke 20:20] The governor was Pilate, and he was the man responsible for the collecting of taxes in Roman Judea. At first the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality, and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. In the Gospel of Mark[12:15] the additional, provocative question is asked, "Should we pay or shouldn't we?"
Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar's tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose head and inscription were on it. They answered, "Caesar's," and he responded: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".
THIS is about taxes......NOT state enforcing all it's beliefs Pug.
That doesn't mean 'don't bother helping your brother man out' when something goes wrong
or if a man is down on his luck.
Read this:
"Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
All three synoptic gospels state that hostile questioners tried to trap Jesus into taking an explicit and dangerous stand on whether Jews should or should not pay taxes to the Roman authorities.
The accounts in Matthew 22:15-22 and Mark 12:13-17 say that the questioners were Pharisees and Herodians, while Luke 20:20-26 says only that they were "spies" sent by "teachers of the law and the chief priests".
They anticipated that Jesus would oppose the tax, as their purpose was "to hand him over to the power and authority of the governor".[Luke 20:20] The governor was Pilate, and he was the man responsible for the collecting of taxes in Roman Judea. At first the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality, and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. In the Gospel of Mark[12:15] the additional, provocative question is asked, "Should we pay or shouldn't we?"
Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar's tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose head and inscription were on it. They answered, "Caesar's," and he responded: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".
THIS is about taxes......NOT state enforcing all it's beliefs Pug.
This right here is proof the bible was written by men,and that organized religion is a tool concocted by men to control the masses. Libertarians "believe in" none of those things.
Peter wrote that and other things to settle the rabble down. It was a really unsettling time that easily could have led
to a lot of bloodshed. Just like all the other things that are a hindrance to achieving while believing.
to a lot of bloodshed. Just like all the other things that are a hindrance to achieving while believing.
Problem with Repubs is the candidates are too worried about the religious right and tea party and not concerned enough with the Hispanic vote.
You are not going to win any national elections scaring away the largest minority group in the nation, especially after the Dems have gone so hard to give illegals their citizenship.
Another problem with Repubs is you get too turned off over one or two issues and start grouping the Repub candidate with the Dem candidate as if they are the same.
Bottom line is Repubs are always much better for the nation than Dems in this day and age. Dems literally want to tear apart Western civilization and promote corruption, cronyism and, at the end of the day, anarchy.
Arch,
The Hispanics are as diverse as any other group. Check this quote from the Pew Research Center:
“Obama gets some of his lowest issue approval ratings for his handling of the nation’s immigration policy,” Pew reports. “About four-in-ten (37%) approve of the way he is handling this policy, while 56% disapprove. Whites disapprove of Obama’s performance on this issue by more than two-to-one (65% to 29%). Hispanics are divided (48% disapprove, 44% approve), while 66% of blacks of approve of Obama’s handling of immigration policy.
The Hispanics are as diverse as any other group. Check this quote from the Pew Research Center:
“Obama gets some of his lowest issue approval ratings for his handling of the nation’s immigration policy,” Pew reports. “About four-in-ten (37%) approve of the way he is handling this policy, while 56% disapprove. Whites disapprove of Obama’s performance on this issue by more than two-to-one (65% to 29%). Hispanics are divided (48% disapprove, 44% approve), while 66% of blacks of approve of Obama’s handling of immigration policy.
OK, let me state it another way...Libertarians are willing to tolerate homosexuality, et. al.
So by not tolerating it, it just goes away, right? If folks would stop thinking so much about what others do with their private lives things in general would be more tolerable. And then maybe they'd stop shoving it our faces. Be gay, just don't be an asshole about it. But let's not be so high and mighty and dictate they don't have a right to the same happiness others do.
OK, you've strayed off my assertion: It is impossible to be both a consistent Christian and a consistent Libertarian.
