Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul Says America Needs A "Spiritual Cleansing"
CBN News ^ | 04/10/2013 | David Brody

Posted on 04/10/2013 8:16:17 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-117 next last
To: BarnacleCenturion

Bush bots - screw off


51 posted on 04/10/2013 10:57:23 AM PDT by frogjerk (We are conservatives. Not libertarians, not "fiscal conservatives", not moderates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

DOMA is the law of the land. Why would you advocate abandoning it or not defending it?


52 posted on 04/10/2013 10:58:49 AM PDT by frogjerk (We are conservatives. Not libertarians, not "fiscal conservatives", not moderates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I think what he is saying in his last statement is that people (we) want moral & reltious people to be their (our) leaders, but their (the leaders’) overriding message is to fix the country’s economy, not to fix the country’s moral nature. He is right. The moral nature can only be fixed by salvation, and that comes from God. JMO.


53 posted on 04/10/2013 11:03:27 AM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd; BarnacleCenturion

“I think right now if we say…we’re only going to [have] one man, one woman marriage, we’re going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now,” Paul said. “If we’re to say each state can decide, I think a good 25 or 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-gay-marriage-brody-file-cbn-2013-4


54 posted on 04/10/2013 11:03:41 AM PDT by frogjerk (We are conservatives. Not libertarians, not "fiscal conservatives", not moderates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TurkeyLurkey

relitous s/b religious


55 posted on 04/10/2013 11:04:05 AM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
"People say you shouldn't talk about moral issues. Well, I think there are moral issues that no law will be able to fix

Doesn't sound like any Libertarian I have ever talked to. Hope he means it.

56 posted on 04/10/2013 11:28:03 AM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx; frogjerk

In a real sense - Rand is a sell-out. Just like his dad.

It’s one thing to be against abortion or same-sex marriages. But if in fact you claim; “We’ll lose the issue on a national level - lets leave it to the states...”

The then enemy has already won.

I can not support a candidate who waives the white flag while “leaving it to the state”.


57 posted on 04/10/2013 11:32:02 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd; frogjerk

I’m all for weakening the federal government.
I firmly believe in state’s rights.
We will be LUCKY if SCOTUS throws the issue back to the states.


58 posted on 04/10/2013 11:34:58 AM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd; frogjerk

Abortion should never have been a federal mandate.


59 posted on 04/10/2013 11:36:00 AM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
What's wrong with leaving it to the states on these two issues?

I don't see abortion nor gay marriage defined in the Constitution so it seems to me that these two issues should be deferred to the states.
60 posted on 04/10/2013 11:37:04 AM PDT by randomhero97 ("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Beat me to it. The brainwashed moral purists will never understand that granting the federal government that much power is an abomination.


61 posted on 04/10/2013 11:38:51 AM PDT by randomhero97 ("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: randomhero97

Our Founders had it right.
They knew the treachery of a over powering central government.


62 posted on 04/10/2013 11:42:45 AM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd; onyx; frogjerk
I can not support a candidate who waives the white flag while “leaving it to the state”.

A number of states already have same-sex "marriage" - what would a candidate you could support do about that?

63 posted on 04/10/2013 11:42:54 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: randomhero97
OOOOps, I missed the n.
Of an over powering.
64 posted on 04/10/2013 11:44:04 AM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: randomhero97; onyx

I’m safely assuming you two have no problem with murder being OK federally?

Abortion and queer marrriages go far beyond the local and state level of critical importance. Our nation’s future depend on how we answer this - from a FEDGOV level.

But I guess you “brainwashed (im)moral purists will never understand that”.


65 posted on 04/10/2013 11:45:31 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: randomhero97

I don’t see abortion nor gay marriage defined in the Constitution so it seems to me that these two issues should be deferred to the states.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And I don’t see the Consitution defining if queers can serve in the military either. So is that OK with you as well?


66 posted on 04/10/2013 11:49:32 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Thank you - I’ve really been MIA as far as pinging (or reading on FR) goes lately. Just too much going on. Hopefully tomorrow I’ll be able to set aside a block of time, there is certainly tons of material to be pinged.

I always appreciate being alerted to articles.


67 posted on 04/10/2013 11:52:26 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd; randomhero97; onyx
I’m safely assuming you two have no problem with murder being OK federally?

It already is - the only federal murder statutes have a specifically federal element such as a federal LEO as victim, a crossing of state lines, etc. As a general rule, the police power has always been at the state level.

68 posted on 04/10/2013 11:53:47 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies; Responsibility2nd; frogjerk
A number of states already have same-sex "marriage" - what would a candidate you could support do about that?

CA voters said NO, to homosexual marriage every time it was put on the ballot.

Judicial fiat interfered and that's why CA's case is in the hands of SCOTUS.

As for the other states, it's my understanding that several of those states were also determined by judicial fiat, not the people.

I favor candidates who respect the Tenth Amendment and our Constitution. I greatly admire Justice's Scalia, Thomas and Alito.


69 posted on 04/10/2013 11:54:05 AM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd; randomhero97

You’re getting absurd now.

Kidnapping was made a federal crime due to the Lindberg baby’s kidnap/murder, so that the better equipped FBI could handle investigations.

FWIW, I had and have no problem with the Defense of Marriage Act, and I think omitting God from the argument is a huge and stupid mistake.


70 posted on 04/10/2013 11:58:33 AM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Responsibility2nd; frogjerk
it's my understanding that several of those states were also determined by judicial fiat, not the people.

Washington, Maryland, New York, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire legislated same-sex "marriage" with no judicial involvement. What, if anything, do you favor the federal government doing about that?

71 posted on 04/10/2013 12:05:22 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Well, there ya go: legislated.

Unlike CA, the voters didn’t decide.

It’s my understanding that every time homosexual marriage has been on the ballot, it’s been rejected.


72 posted on 04/10/2013 12:12:48 PM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

You might call it what it is: homosexual marriage.
Same sex - my gosh, the pablum language the invoke.


73 posted on 04/10/2013 12:14:06 PM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Washington, Maryland, New York, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire legislated same-sex "marriage" with no judicial involvement. What, if anything, do you favor the federal government doing about that?

It’s my understanding that every time homosexual marriage has been on the ballot, it’s been rejected.

Legislators are on the ballot. What, if anything, do you favor the federal government doing about legislated same-sex "marriage" in Washington, Maryland, New York, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire?

74 posted on 04/10/2013 12:16:59 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: onyx
same-sex "marriage"

You might call it what it is: homosexual marriage.
Same sex - my gosh, the pablum language the invoke.

The quotation marks aren't a strong enough statement for you? BTW, "homosexual" derives from the Greek for "same sex." This is America - speak English! ;-D

75 posted on 04/10/2013 12:19:07 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Sorry Rand (sitting) the sprirituality of the citizenry is not within the purview of the State - it is the responsibility of the Individual, and the natural family.


"...who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
 
...
 
 that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. "
 
"I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN"
--The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786
 

76 posted on 04/10/2013 12:23:24 PM PDT by TArcher ("TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men" -- Does that still work?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Washington, Maryland, New York, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire legislated same-sex "marriage" with no judicial involvement.

Correction: Maine enacted it via referendum. (And Washington and Maryland passed referenda upholding previous legislation enacting it.)

77 posted on 04/10/2013 12:25:45 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Maybe. The challenges are greater now, though. It seems those who are opposed to traditional values cannot take us to hell fast enough.

It seems so easy on the surface: liberty for all but choose the moral path. For the individual, yes. But I’m thinking in terms of a candidacy. The libertarians will despise him if he favors legislation based on morals, and the traditional-values people will hate him if he doesn’t. I’m thinking politically here.


78 posted on 04/10/2013 12:27:39 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Barry Goldwater was right. I agreed with him then and now: cut off the Eastern seaboard and send it to sea....LOL.


79 posted on 04/10/2013 12:50:46 PM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: NoGrayZone

“If your answer is no, they why would you proclaim such a thing”.

Because that is the libertarian mindset. Never forget who he supported for president last year. He supported and worked hard on his old man’s campaign, who supports homo-”marriage”, sodomy in the military and the legalization of all drugs. The apple does not fall far from the tree.


80 posted on 04/10/2013 1:26:11 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("The only glory in war is surviving")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“That would be JebBushbots?”

Yes. They are here.


81 posted on 04/10/2013 1:30:25 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Make no mistake: You CAN legislate morality. The question is - whose morality?

You certainly can, that doesn't mean that you should. Enforcing laws involving sexual morality, like much of drug law enforcement, typically involves overstepping Constitutional bounds.

A much better way to create a moral society is to force people to deal with the consequences of their actions. If the government didn't subsidize children with welfare checks, more people would avoid teenage/out of wedlock pregnancies. If the government didn't subsidize health care, people would probably take better care of their personal health (meaning that they would avoid gluttony, drunkenness, drug use, and sex with strangers). If there wasn't a vast social "safety net," people would become more thrifty.

The reason for morality is that actions [should] have consequences. A cradle to grave nanny state creates the illusion that actions do not have consequences, or makes those consequences seem minor. Take away the safety nets, and morality will become largely self-enforcing.

82 posted on 04/10/2013 1:48:37 PM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Make no mistake: You CAN legislate morality. The question is - whose morality?

You certainly can, that doesn't mean that you should. Enforcing laws involving sexual morality, like much of drug law enforcement, typically involves overstepping Constitutional bounds.

A much better way to create a moral society is to force people to deal with the consequences of their actions. If the government didn't subsidize children with welfare checks, more people would avoid teenage/out of wedlock pregnancies. If the government didn't subsidize health care, people would probably take better care of their personal health (meaning that they would avoid gluttony, drunkenness, drug use, and sex with strangers). If there wasn't a vast social "safety net," people would become more thrifty.

The reason for morality is that actions [should] have consequences. A cradle to grave nanny state creates the illusion that actions do not have consequences, or makes those consequences seem minor. Take away the safety nets, and morality will become largely self-enforcing.

83 posted on 04/10/2013 1:48:41 PM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

There isn’t going to be a “spiritual cleansing” until the great civil war eliminates all the stupid people first. They will NEVER discover the true cause of their problems and will always side with the most vocal liar.


84 posted on 04/10/2013 1:51:10 PM PDT by Wanderer99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
That would be JebBushbots?

Those are the worst, though it's only a matter of time before we have George P. Bushbots.

85 posted on 04/10/2013 1:53:36 PM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

DOMA has been in place for over 10 years and gay marriage has proliferated in the states. This is a state issue whether you like it or not. Nothing can be done at the federal level. You are fantasizing about a solution that doesn’t exist.


86 posted on 04/10/2013 2:07:29 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Exactly.

...and it begins with me.


87 posted on 04/10/2013 2:25:12 PM PDT by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

People on both sides of the political aisle can be very selective in their reading of the 10th amendment. Some of the same people who complain about Federal Government usurping decisions that should be left up to the states (e.g. Roe v. Wade) suddenly want to turn homosexual marriage in to a Federal issue with DOMA.


88 posted on 04/10/2013 2:27:27 PM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ek_hornbeck

it’s a strategy argument. An unlikely return to a previous understanding versus adapting to a new reality.


89 posted on 04/10/2013 2:30:46 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Because that is the libertarian mindset. Never forget who he supported for president last year. He supported and worked hard on his old man’s campaign, who supports homo-”marriage”, sodomy in the military and the legalization of all drugs. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

IF you were honest, or not so ignorant, you would note that Rand supported Mitt BEFORE the GOP convention and also in the general election. I think you voted for Mittens, too. You are therefore a big supporter of fag-marriage, amnesty, and obamneycare.

90 posted on 04/10/2013 2:31:58 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

In other words, Republicans should also embrace expansion of Federal power, and embrace big government as long as it’s run by Republican politicians. That seems to be the new political model for the GOP. No thanks.


91 posted on 04/10/2013 2:48:03 PM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

the last step which will cause another iteration of the cycle


92 posted on 04/10/2013 3:43:25 PM PDT by john316 (JOSHUA 24:15 ...choose you this day whom ye will serve...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ek_hornbeck

I agree.


93 posted on 04/10/2013 4:34:55 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ek_hornbeck

>>The reason for morality is that actions [should]
>>have consequences.

What is the natural consequential impact upon the reproductive fitness of a society that popularizes the abomination of nature and thus redirects reproductive resources away from those who know the difference between what grows in a colon Vs what grows in a womb?


94 posted on 04/10/2013 5:23:46 PM PDT by TArcher ("TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men" -- Does that still work?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: PatriotGirl827

bookmark


95 posted on 04/10/2013 6:09:22 PM PDT by PatriotGirl827 (O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"Take away the laws and policies that alleviate consequences for immoral behavior, and you’ll have less of that behavior."

Almost exactly what I said in this post on the topic: Can Rand Paul Solve The GOP's Minority Voter Problem?

Morality is not government initiated and it isn't ensured by laws.Bottom line is: more laws = more government = more crimes of consequence.

The more government we allow, the less people take responsibility for doing right, the more corruption and regulatory capture we endure, the more large scale crime we see. I'm not talking about someone firing up a dubie at home, I'm talking about the global rape and pillaging of the producers.


96 posted on 04/10/2013 6:10:38 PM PDT by uncommonsense (Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

“You are therefore a big supporter of fag-marriage, amnesty, and obamneycare”

Why in the hell would you think I voted for Romney? I despised the SOB. Not as much as I despised Obama, but I damn sure didn’t vote for Obama-light.


97 posted on 04/10/2013 7:13:38 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("The only glory in war is surviving")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: uncommonsense

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/rand-paul-gop-must-reconnect-with-african-americans/

Rand Paul doing his best democrat impersonation, telling a room full of blacks the GOP must “reconnect” with them.
He makes me sick to my stomach. Rand Paul needs to talk to
Allen West or Tim Scott and tell them the GOP has not done enough for them and wants to “reconnect” them. Allen West would laugh in his face.


98 posted on 04/10/2013 7:25:57 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("The only glory in war is surviving")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Rand Paul doing his best democrat impersonation, telling a room full of blacks the GOP must “reconnect” with them.

I liked Rand Paul until he started to play the "New and Improved, Politically Correct GOP" act by supporting amnesty for illegals. Since he pandered to Mexicans, I'm not surprised to see him pandering to blacks.

Having said that, what's the alternative? Jeb Bush? Marco Rubio? They're a thousand times worse. At least Rand Paul is solid on some issues.

99 posted on 04/10/2013 7:43:31 PM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
"Rand Paul doing his best democrat impersonation, telling a room full of blacks the GOP must “reconnect” with them. He makes me sick to my stomach."

First, welcome to FR. We probably agree on more than 90% of issues. I make it a habit of reading comments in context.

Living in the south, I can't understand why blacks aren't supporting conservatives. They vote in a block, brainwashed by community activists against their own core beliefs. The churches I go to are integrated evangelical melting pots and I'd have it no other way. Neither would our Lord Jesus.

But, your comments on Rand Paul are either without merit or out of context within conservative dogma. I have a post here with his plank that is as "conservative" as anyone in either house:

Can Rand Paul Solve The GOP's Minority Voter Problem? #25

So rather than state that Paul "makes me sick to my stomach", how about you back it up with at least one reason or fact if you can...? I'll be the next in line to criticize each position you show he supports that is wrong for America.

100 posted on 04/10/2013 7:53:37 PM PDT by uncommonsense (Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-117 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson