Posted on 04/01/2014 2:43:48 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul told fellow Republicans on Tuesday that the future of their party depends on them connecting with Hispanics in a more empathetic way and on getting in front of immigration reform – a message that further signals his flirtation with a 2016 presidential run.
“If we are to change people’s attitudes toward … the Republican Party, we have to show up and we have to have something to say,” Paul told a small group of conservatives gathered at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. “I hope to be part of that dialogue.”
This certainly was not the first time that Paul, since being elected to the Senate in 2010, has attempted to connect with Hispanics and other minorities.
However, Republicans’ interest in his policy vision and his vision for broadening the party base continues to grow as he ascends in the very, very early 2016 polls and travels the country. Recent stops have included those in Democrat-heavy Detroit and at the University of California, Berkeley.....
(Excerpt) Read more at latino.foxnews.com ...
You are absolutely correct, I’d just shrug my shoulders to someone who must not understand the Constitution well and probably has no concept of Federalism, let alone questioning one’s own reading comprehension. I’m not a Paul fan, he’d be a ways down on candidates I’d vote for but in fairness, we should not be misstating or fabricating views of possible candidates, whomever it is. That is a reflection on those who misstate the issues.
You keep on assuming that life is a zero sum game, that we must be all locked up in your small minded paper manmade fleshly jails in order to do the right thing.
I wish some day you actually come to know who Christ is. You display “a form of religion while denying its power.” That leads to hell where you will get to complain to all eternity that God didn’t honor your schemes.
Paul is not running for governor of Kentucky, he is a Senator running for President, yet instead of coming out against gay marriage at the federal level, in the military, federal employment, and immigration, Paul came out for gay marriage, and to remove it from the party platform.
Now we see Paul taking a liberal/libertarian stand on immigration, another federal issue.
Paul is running for federal office, the constitution does not explain his federal political agenda.
I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves. However, millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge and causing a clear threat to our national security. I want to work in the Senate to secure our border immediately. In addition, I support the creation of a border fence and increased border patrol capabilities.
Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.
I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.
Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation's security. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.
It’s a matter of the Indestructible Mental Model. That never gets questioned. Some people simply ignore the most pressing issues from force of habit. The US government has turned into an unwieldy monster. The bible is very clear about not trusting in princes, but the US has heaped up prince after prince after prince. And with that has come an astounding debt; it’s not as if it was at least paying its way.
Paul at least begins to offer a route out of that. Most other “staunch conservatives” want to tweak the system with “strong politics” which claims to be morally righteous but quite ignores the immorality of the structure.
And strangely enough. Paul is a creationist Christian. That’s radical today; the thing that is de rigueur today is to believe in, at best, a clockwork universe that the Lord is aloof from, where it would not even be possible for Him to literally be close to the broken hearted.
Paul does something that puts the lie to your allegations and you answer with quibbles!
That says far more about you than it ever does about Paul.
So many of your posts don’t say anything, like that one.
Dispute something if you can, don’t post gibberish.
Paul on same sex marriage
Gay marriage, for instance, is one issue on which Paul would like to shake up the Republican position. “I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342813/rand-paul-s-big-fight-robert-costa?pg=1
It only looks like gibberish because Satan has stolen the truth from your mind. I am not going to bow down to you and the distortions in your head.
The truth is that we CAN flourish without a Brobdingnagian government. We CAN flourish without everything that can be used wrongly being banned.
Something is going to have to cut the Gordian knot here. A government big enough to shove “gay marriage” down a whole state’s throat is just too “God-damned” big.
The demographic truth (as sad as it is) about America may make it wiser to refer to “households.” Even Pope Francis alluded to that, oddly enough.
And that would be fairer to a lot of people. What if two friends want to live chastely in a household?
I don’t want to get in an argument about this, the whole premise in saying RP supports Gay Marriage is silly.
Paul said we want more people in the party and on some issues, we may “agree to disagree”, as far as mine following the conversation, this is not supporting gay marriage.
What if this were another issue, are we saying that there would be no room for someone who disagrees or agrees on a number of issues?
It seems all Paul was saying is that there needs to be room for everyone in the party, at least diverse opinions in the party, that hardly seems like supporting gay marriage. The logic from the get-go is befuddling.
This takes a lot of reflection, not sure if I agree with what the Nevada GOP does here in this article: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Marriage-definition-pulled-from-Clark-GOP-platform-5367933.php
In fact, I would say I would be against what the Nevada GOP is doing in this case.
I do feel the issue of life should be dealt with at the federal level since our founding documents state "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Correction, the above quoted article is only for this ‘CLARK COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY’ and NOT the State of Nevada. If a State GOP changed those definitions, I’d definitely leave the party.
Sorry, if I worded it in a misleading way.
Yes, buggery should be banned if it is in the services, or if it is notorious. That is in keeping with the tenor of even the Old Testament scriptures. One wasn’t stoned on the testimony of less than two witnesses, and other such sins were forgiven annually.
And yes, abortion ought to fall under the Life rubric.
Social conservatives (mostly) have no problem with big government as long a big government is pushing their agenda. While I agree (mostly) with social conservatives on their issues I do not want big government, period. Somehow that get twisted into my supporting things like abortion or the homosexual agenda etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just want a small government that mostly leaves everyone alone.
More anti-God gibberish in defense of gay marriage.
Christ doesn't support gay marriage, Paul does, and you have at least a 10 record of doing so, and the most obscene, is your satanic use of God and Christ to do so.
Why are you opposed to making illegal, gay marriage in the military, in federal employment and in immigration?
Why have you been fighting for gay marriage since at least 2004 according to your posting history?
Why were you mocking social conservatives before you came up with this holier than thou “God” approach and promoting gay marriage, abortion and immigration by telling us that God doesn’t want us to fight it politically?
Not necessarily interested in banning this crap. More interested in preventing the federal government from FORCING it on us.
Mocking pro-life efforts, fighting the pro-life movement by mocking and denigrating political opposition to it, and doing the same for gay marriage, and immigration, is supporting those positions, it is just a fresh approach, and using “God” to do it, seems obscene to me and the nastiest way to oppose Christians and social conservatism.
For conservatism to prevail we need to protect the platform and support conservatives and conservative positions at all levels of government, from City Hall contracts, to gays and abortion in the federal military, federal employment and federal immigration.
Paul is running for federal office and is coming out against us on social conservatism and has taken a position supportive of gay marriage, and for dropping it and other social issues from the GOP platform, although he is running for the office where he can best affect federal internal law on those issues.
I don’t think a presidential candidate should be allowed to practice escapism by calling “state issue” on gay marriage, when the issue is about gay marriage being legal in his own federal level government, and gay marriage at the federal level means that individual states won’t long be able to forbid marriage which is legal for soldiers and sailors and FBI men and immigrants and border Patrol, and federal Marshalls, the FAA, and all the other federal citizens of their states.
We know very well what Paul is doing and what he means, he is a libertarian, supporting gay marriage, and opposed to social liberalism.
For libertarians to wage a war against social conservatism and Christian politics, and for abortion, gay marriage, and social liberalism, by proclaiming themselves as Evangelizing for God, is an obscenity.
I'm changing my tagline Jim.
"Rand Paul, the NEW face of Establishment Republicanism!"
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.