Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Rand Paul to Values Voters Summit: "Worldwide War on Christianity"

  1. -1
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,994
    vCash:
    28295
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Rand Paul to Values Voters Summit: "Worldwide War on Christianity"

    Highlights from the transcript:

    ..."The President tries to gloss over who is attacking and killing Christians. The media describes the killings as “sectarian.”

    But the truth is, there is a worldwide war on Christians by a fanatical element of Islam.

    Ever since 9/11, commentators have tried to avoid pointing fingers at Islam. While it is fair to point out that most Muslims are not committed to violence against Christians, this is not the whole truth and we should not let political correctness stand in the way of the truth.

    Yes, it is a minority of Muslims who condone killing of Christians. But unfortunately that minority numbers in the tens of millions.

    Pew Research did a poll which indicated that 21 percent of Egyptians, 15 percent of Jordanians, and 13 percent of Pakistani Muslims find terrorism acceptable if not laudable. A minority? To be sure. But if you add up the numbers in just three countries, over 40 million Muslims sympathize with violence against Christians.

    A Daily Telegraph survey indicated that 100,000 Muslims in Britain fully supported the London subway killings, and 400,000 Muslims expressed some sympathy with the bombers.

    ....

    In Iran, American pastor Saeed Abedini has been imprisoned indefinitely, facing physical and psychological torture at the hands of his captors who have demanded that he renounce his faith.

    I’ve introduced a resolution in the Senate that calls for the immediate release of this American pastor.

    I will not rest until Pastor Abedini is freed!

    Across the globe, Christians are under attack as if we lived in the Middle Ages or as if we lived under early pagan Roman rule.

    This administration is doing nothing to stop it, and it can be argued, is giving aid and comfort to countries that tolerate these crimes.

    ....

    The war on Christians is not just abroad. It came to Boston this year just in time for the marathon. Two Islamic radicals blew up dozens of civilians. I guess they thought killing women and children would somehow make a religious or political point.

    You might argue that they didn’t target Christians but they certainly didn’t target a mosque either. Their motive, if you can perceive one, was not against our government but against us as a people, a Christian people.

    ....

    In the meantime, to defend ourselves we need to understand that the war on Christians is not being waged by rare anomalies in the Muslim world but by a significant minority that numbers in the millions.

    Christians should be prepared for war, but actively seek Peace. Reagan said we should strive for Peace through Strength, and I agree. I urge us to not lose sight of either. Too often recently we have lost sight of Peace as the goal.

    The message of the gospels is not war.

    Hopefully the message of Christianity, if listened to, can be part of an eventual peace process.

    In the meantime, take action. Pray for a solution. Hold your politicians accountable for protecting life and standing up against the war on Christianity."
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...er_summit.html



    And it begins.
    No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,736
    vCash:
    3838
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Highlights from the transcript:



    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...er_summit.html



    And it begins.
    He is more politically savvy than his dad. He knows he has to cater to the Republican base. But this just proves my point that he is more Mitt Romney than he is his dad. A lot of Libertarians and young Republicans were pinning their hopes on this guy and thought I was just being a hater when talking about how I didn't like him. But this is just the next step in him proving me right. We're going to see more and more of this over the next 2 years.

    On a side note, who the **** are the political advisers for these people? Why would anyone think sounding like Rick Santorum would be a good thing? You'd think after the metaphorical kick to the balls the Republicans have taken in recent elections, they'd begin to move away from this horse ****. I seriously hope Jon Huntsman throws his name in the ring again and that the base takes him seriously. That's a pipe dream though. The man actually acknowledges science and tries to be reasonable. That seems to disqualify him with the far right...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,157
    vCash:
    6363
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Well I guess nothing there is really factually incorrect. I believe I've seen a few articles saying less than 1 percent of Muslims are ever involved with terrorist related activities, but 1 percent of 1.6 billion is still a lot of people. It's definitely a problem, but where I strongly disagree with Rand is that I believe the cause of the terrorist attacks has much less to do with any contempt for Christianity and far more to do with American international policy, among other things.

    If you want to stop sending foreign aid to some of these places that's one thing, but trying to justify it with blanket accusations of religious persecution is another.

    I still personally can't help but find it a tad amusing that unrelenting Obama supporters would look down their noses at Paul advocates. He's certainly made a few statements I disagree with, but to quote Walrus, he's done nothing yet that would make a "self-aware supporter wish they never did". I'm curious if that quote applies yet to the undying Obama supporters.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,994
    vCash:
    28295
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Well I guess nothing there is really factually incorrect. I believe I've seen a few articles saying less than 1 percent of Muslims are ever involved with terrorist related activities, but 1 percent of 1.6 billion is still a lot of people. It's definitely a problem, but where I strongly disagree with Rand is that I believe the cause of the terrorist attacks has much less to do with any contempt Christianity and far more to do with American international policy, among other things.
    Not factually incorrect on anything specific. But the overall theme and arc is misleading and pandering and bull****.

    I still personally can't help but find it a tad amusing that unrelenting Obama supporters would look down their noses at Paul advocates. He's certainly made a few statements I disagree with, but to quote Walrus, he's done nothing yet that would make a "self-aware supporter wish they never did". I'm curious if that quote applies yet to the undying Obama supporters.
    Well that's the thing. People excuse the bull**** when it comes from a candidate they like. I always saw Obama as a pragmatist rather than some left wing savior so while he's enraged and annoyed and disappointed me at times he's rarely surprised me. And the things he did didn't make him worse than Romney, which is what it comes down to (at least for me). I'm sure there's a whole lot of people out there who've had to tie their brain in knots trying to square the circle on him, though. It's always like that.

    Anyway, Rand casts himself as a principled and entrenched on certain things and that's why people like him, imo. He's "different" from other politicians. That can be advantageous for building a brand but it can also be a milestone around your neck, as McCain found with the whole "maverick" thing. Obama's brand on the other hand was built on equanimity, which is why he gets into trouble when he starts throwing punches. Clinton and then McCain and Romney after that all tried to goad him into losing his cool and wreck his image. Clinton got him a few times before he learned his lesson.

    In any case, the Paul supporters have been looking down their noses at the Obama supporters way longer than anyone's had a chance to look down at them. I mean, they've spent years laughing at the Obama supporters for being in a gutter and not realizing it... meanwhile they're lowering themselves into the same gutter. That's some delicious irony right there. Whether Paul supporters choose to recognize the irony is on them.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,157
    vCash:
    6363
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Well that's the thing. People excuse the bull**** when it comes from a candidate they like. I always saw Obama as a pragmatist rather than some left wing savior so while he's enraged and annoyed and disappointed me at times he's rarely surprised me. And the things he did didn't make him worse than Romney, which is what it comes down to (at least for me). I'm sure there's a whole lot of people out there who've had to tie their brain in knots trying to square the circle on him, though. It's always like that.

    Anyway, Rand casts himself as a principled and entrenched on certain things and that's why people like him, imo. He's "different" from other politicians. That can be advantageous for building a brand but it can also be a milestone around your neck, as McCain found with the whole "maverick" thing. Obama's brand on the other hand was built on equanimity, which is why he gets into trouble when he starts throwing punches. Clinton and then McCain and Romney after that all tried to goad him into losing his cool and wreck his image. Clinton got him a few times before he learned his lesson.

    In any case, the Paul supporters have been looking down their noses at the Obama supporters way longer than anyone's had a chance to look down at them. I mean, they've spent years laughing at the Obama supporters for being in a gutter and not realizing it... meanwhile they're lowering themselves into the same gutter. That's some delicious irony right there. Whether Paul supporters choose to recognize the irony is on them.
    I wouldn't call it the same gutter. You could attribute it to lack of opportunity, but I think that’s a bit of a false equivalence. I've disagreed with his stance on a few things, but nothing yet that would make me unable to vote for him.

    I actually have been surprised by Obama. Had I been a year older in 2008 I would've voted for him. He might’ve done a better sales job on 17 year old me than he did you, but I got the impression that he was a genuinely decent person, and because of my relative unfamiliarity with politics, I've had to put more stock in who seems like they have a good soul. Unfortunately those things can be faked, or change over time. I’m not sure which is the case for Obama, but I expected more from “The most transparent administration ever”.

    FWIW I also would've voted for Obama over Romney. I don’t know what it is, but something about Romney makes my skin crawl. It’s just frustrating because if everyone thinks like that than nothing’s going to change. I’m not singling out Obama, either. I've been disappointed with the direction both parties have been headed from a civil liberties standpoint at least since Reagan. As you've mentioned before, most people don’t necessarily like it, but it isn't high enough on their priorities as long as they can afford diapers & braces. Kind of like that HST quote about America being a nation of two-hundred million used car salesmen.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,994
    vCash:
    28295
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    I wouldn't call it the same gutter. You could attribute it to lack of opportunity, but I think that’s a bit of a false equivalence. I've disagreed with his stance on a few things, but nothing yet that would make me unable to vote for him.
    Well, the "gutter" as I see it is of excuse making, of rationalization, of being a fan rather than an observer. We'll see how far it goes (personally I expect Rand to drop out fairly early, as I've said... though this kind of speech makes me think he might be in it for the long haul), but the word "lowering" was a deliberate one. They're not quite there yet.

    I actually have been surprised by Obama. Had I been a year older in 2008 I would've voted for him. He might’ve done a better sales job on 17 year old me than he did you, but I got the impression that he was a genuinely decent person, and because of my relative unfamiliarity with politics, I've had to put more stock in who seems like they have a good soul. Unfortunately those things can be faked, or change over time. I’m not sure which is the case for Obama, but I expected more from “The most transparent administration ever”.
    I think pretty much every president we've had since Ford has been a genuinely good person. Well, except Clinton. He's a terrible person. But so far as I know of them they're all decent human beings. Now, Nixon and Johnson, on the other hand. Yeesh. Johnson in particular seems to have been some kind of a sociopath.

    It's just that the process requires you to do and be certain things. If you're not willing to do them, you don't get to be president. It's like the anthropic principle, in a way. The fact that someone is president means you can assume certain things about them. Generally you can assume the same things about the people running for president, too.

    FWIW I also would've voted for Obama over Romney. I don’t know what it is, but something about Romney makes my skin crawl. It’s just frustrating because if everyone thinks like that than nothing’s going to change. I’m not singling out Obama, either. I've been disappointed with the direction both parties have been headed from a civil liberties standpoint at least since Reagan. As you've mentioned before, most people don’t necessarily like it, but it isn't high enough on their priorities as long as they can afford diapers & braces. Kind of like that HST quote about America being a nation of two-hundred million used car salesmen.
    If things are going to change, it's not going to be through voting for 3rd party candidates. The problems are institutional and require institutional solutions. I mean, right now Congress has, what? A 10% approval rating. Yet like 90% of these guys get reelected. Where are the consequences? Both parties lost you to gain someone else. If they get you back they might lose someone else. Consequences are the only thing that move needles, and they generally do a good job figuring out where people's priorities are and either massaging the public face of the policy or just classifying it. That's why stuff like Wikileaks or Bradley Manning or any of these other leakers have become so important, and why the government moves so quickly to snuff them out. I can't imagine there are very many votes in "transparency", for example. It's like admitting to your girlfriend you cheated on here. Somebody somewhere might give you points for honesty but she's going to ****ing break up with you and break your balls while she's doing it.

    Part of the reason I make a choice between the major candidates is that I don't really do anything to change the status quo. At all. That makes me part of it. So it's a vote out of a guilt, in a way. If I'm not going to do anything to make it better then it's pretty weak sauce to complain about it.

    I think HST was too hard on people, calling them used car salesmen. He didn't have a proper appreciation for how hard life is, how many compromises have to be made, for the reality of having to scrape by to feed your kids. He lived in sort of a dream world and part of his popularity was based on people wanting to live vicariously through him in that dream world.

    But as for the average person's actual life... whether the government knows what your searching for on the internet or not just doesn't make the list of the bare necessities, and if you're too busy or just can't be bothered to decode the vast reams of bull**** coming out of your TV you're not too hard to convince that these terrorists really might be dangerous, and having that information could save someone's life, like your kids'. I don't think most people are purposefully *******s about it. They're just easy to take advantage of.

    In fact, I think that was one of Marx's arguments for socialism. He felt like capitalism was designed in part to keep people too busy from becoming informed (people used to work 12+ hours a day six days a week). When the common person has free time, they can use that time to inform themselves, and therefore empower themselves. There's something to that, imo. It's part of the reasons the organized labor movement all over the world was so important. They eventually were able to establish the fairly widespread standard of an eight hour day.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,062
    vCash:
    6559
    Thanks / No Thanks
    He's pandering...don't like it. Doesn't really matter though because Rand won't win the nomination. No way in hell the status quo and the elite will let him win. It will be another election of illusions...Christie/Rubio/Cruz vs. Hillary. That's what the Banks, Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex wants and that's who we will get.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,736
    vCash:
    3838
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Well I guess nothing there is really factually incorrect. I believe I've seen a few articles saying less than 1 percent of Muslims are ever involved with terrorist related activities, but 1 percent of 1.6 billion is still a lot of people. It's definitely a problem, but where I strongly disagree with Rand is that I believe the cause of the terrorist attacks has much less to do with any contempt for Christianity and far more to do with American international policy, among other things.

    If you want to stop sending foreign aid to some of these places that's one thing, but trying to justify it with blanket accusations of religious persecution is another.

    I still personally can't help but find it a tad amusing that unrelenting Obama supporters would look down their noses at Paul advocates. He's certainly made a few statements I disagree with, but to quote Walrus, he's done nothing yet that would make a "self-aware supporter wish they never did". I'm curious if that quote applies yet to the undying Obama supporters.
    I hope you're not referring to me when you say unrelenting Obama supporters, because I feel like I've been pretty critical of him when he has deserved it. I'm just pragmatic about everything and understand when something is idealistic versus realistic, and don't rip into him when he doesn't do something idealistic. Relative to the choices, hell yeah I'm an Obama supporter. But that's only because I don't have someone I would prefer to rally behind. Give me an Elizabeth Warren or a Jon Huntsman running against him in a hypothetical election and he can suck my dick.

    Stuff like this just keeps popping up with Rand Paul. It was rarely, but its increasing in frequency. I hate to tell you man, but he seems to be going the path of John McCain, albeit much earlier. At least McCain didn't get co-opted by the GoP machine until after he had the nomination. You can't sit here and tell me that him talking about this mythical war on Christianity doesn't throw up some red flags for you. I guess it's possible he is pandering to the far right now to get nominated, and then he'll return to who he has been once the general election gets underway, but that's an optimistic view...
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,157
    vCash:
    6363
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    I hope you're not referring to me when you say unrelenting Obama supporters, because I feel like I've been pretty critical of him when he has deserved it. I'm just pragmatic about everything and understand when something is idealistic versus realistic, and don't rip into him when he doesn't do something idealistic. Relative to the choices, hell yeah I'm an Obama supporter. But that's only because I don't have someone I would prefer to rally behind. Give me an Elizabeth Warren or a Jon Huntsman running against him in a hypothetical election and he can suck my dick.

    Stuff like this just keeps popping up with Rand Paul. It was rarely, but its increasing in frequency. I hate to tell you man, but he seems to be going the path of John McCain, albeit much earlier. At least McCain didn't get co-opted by the GoP machine until after he had the nomination. You can't sit here and tell me that him talking about this mythical war on Christianity doesn't throw up some red flags for you. I guess it's possible he is pandering to the far right now to get nominated, and then he'll return to who he has been once the general election gets underway, but that's an optimistic view...
    Well you did scoff at the notion that Obama should be impeached over the NSA thing ("legal" or not), which I would've supported on principal. I believe the reasoning was that it was comparable to the Patriot Act, but given some of the recent revelations about the misuse of the Patriot Act I would'nt have minded seeing Bush impeached as well. You could accuse me of being too liberal with the impeachment process, but I'm tired of high-level politicians thinking their untouchable & above the law. I do however remember you disapproving of a few things Obama's done so I'm not accusing you of CrazyDolphan blind worship. The one that comes to mind is the Monsanto Protection Act, but I haven't agreed with everything Rand's said, either. If you want to pick between "red flags" or transgressions though, I'll take Rand's over Obama's every day of the week and it's not even close.

    I just can't understand how someone would say they would hypothetically vote for Obama a third time and then sneer at the people who would support the Pauls, or a Gary Johnson. If we've already reached the point that "self-aware" supporters of Rand Paul should discontinue their support, then I have to believe we've long reached that point with Obama.

    If you want to vote for Warren or Huntsman then vote for them. According to that Gallop poll that 9954 posted 60% of American's believe it's time for a third party, but invariably only 2-5% of the population will vote that way. I just personally find it frustrating to hear all these stories from people on both sides who "only voted for Obama because they didn't like Romney", or "only voted for Romney because Gary Johnson 'had no chance'". I'll continue to vote for who I'd most like to see as President, and hope that enough people eventually feel the same way.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,157
    vCash:
    6363
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    I think HST was too hard on people, calling them used car salesmen. He didn't have a proper appreciation for how hard life is, how many compromises have to be made, for the reality of having to scrape by to feed your kids. He lived in sort of a dream world and part of his popularity was based on people wanting to live vicariously through him in that dream world.

    But as for the average person's actual life... whether the government knows what your searching for on the internet or not just doesn't make the list of the bare necessities, and if you're too busy or just can't be bothered to decode the vast reams of bull**** coming out of your TV you're not too hard to convince that these terrorists really might be dangerous, and having that information could save someone's life, like your kids'. I don't think most people are purposefully *******s about it. They're just easy to take advantage of.

    In fact, I think that was one of Marx's arguments for socialism. He felt like capitalism was designed in part to keep people too busy from becoming informed (people used to work 12+ hours a day six days a week). When the common person has free time, they can use that time to inform themselves, and therefore empower themselves. There's something to that, imo. It's part of the reasons the organized labor movement all over the world was so important. They eventually were able to establish the fairly widespread standard of an eight hour day.
    That very well could be, but I wonder if you aren't giving Hunter enough credit. I think it's possible that despite the fact that he lived a more privileged life than most, he was painfully aware of how hard life can be, and was critical anyway. I might be projecting some of my own feelings onto him, but I think he expected more out of the American people, & was frustrated that anyone would lie down in acceptance due to lack of time, interest, or whatever else have you. I personally feel it's un-American to support or be passive about things like the NSA. After all, this is supposed to be the 'Land of the Free, & Home of the Brave', and not the 'Land of the Opulent, & Home of the Secure'. If we don't stand up to things like this with our votes then no one's going to do it for us.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-14-2011, 05:59 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-14-2010, 01:22 PM
  3. Rand Paul Calls Obama Slams of BP "Un-American"
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-22-2010, 01:39 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 03:17 PM
  5. Look everyone!! It's the Republican "Values Voter Summit"
    By PressCoverage in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-27-2006, 01:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •