• Rand Paul, anti-establishment son of Ron Paul, is endorsed for Kentucky Senate seat
    42 replies, posted
[quote=USA Today]Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning has endorsed anti-establishment candidate Rand Paul to replace him in the U.S. Senate. The GOP primary is May 18. In a statement released this afternoon by Paul's campaign, Bunning said: "In the United States Senate, Kentuckians need a strong, principled conservative to stand up to the liberals and establishment politicians that run Washington. Kentucky needs a conservative who will say no to bailouts, stop the government takeover of our economy, end wasteful spending, and bring down our national debt. And Kentucky's families need a conservative who believes in traditional values and the rights of the unborn. In 2010, there is only one such conservative running for the United States Senate" -- Dr. Rand Paul. Bunning's move is a rebuke of Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, whom our Gannett colleagues at The Louisville-Courier Journal describe as a Bunning protege. It also highlights Bunning's contentious relationship with fellow Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate. McConnell has not officially endorsed a candidate in the race, but has provided fundraising help to Grayson. (Last month, Grayson won the backing of another national GOP figure, former Vice President Dick Cheney.) Paul, an ophthalmologist, is the son of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, but attracted a devoted following. As The Washington Post recently reported, the younger Paul's outsider campaign has attracted the endorsement of former GOP vice president nominee Sarah Palin and lots of attention as a test of the anti-establishment wave among voters and where it might take the Republican Party. (Posted by Fredreka Schouten)[/quote] [url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/04/jim-bunning-endorses-tea-party-favorite-to-replace-him/1]Source[/url] Republican, against the separation of Church and State, related to Ron Paul, and endorsed by the Tea Party. I think you guys will like him. :downs:
Is he named after Ayn Rand?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;21356148]Is he named after Ayn Rand?[/QUOTE] Ron Paul's love of unseparated church and state would make that very ironic.
Where do people get the idea that Ron Paul isn't for separation of church and state?
he literally named his son rand [editline]05:39PM[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21356327]Where do people get the idea that Ron Paul isn't for separation of church and state?[/QUOTE] being opposed to abortion rights isn't very libertarian
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21356327]Where do people get the idea that Ron Paul isn't for separation of church and state?[/QUOTE] "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. "
[QUOTE=Mingebox;21356408]"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. "[/QUOTE] lol no, read a book.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21356393]he literally named his son rand [editline]05:39PM[/editline] being opposed to abortion rights isn't very libertarian[/QUOTE] That's a sticky issue for Libertarians. It depends on if you consider fetus's to be humans. He does, so he wants to protect the rights of unborn children. You can also argue it the other way that fetus's aren't people, and so the mother has the right to abort it. I'm a libertarian, and because of that whole "Are unborn children people too?" confusion, I stay out of that issue.
[QUOTE=DrMonumbo;21356460]lol no, read a book.[/QUOTE] Are you saying that to him? Because he only posted what Ron Paul said (I assume)
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21356543]That's a sticky issue for Libertarians.[/QUOTE] No it's not. Libertarians and Democrats should see eye to eye on social issues.
[QUOTE=thisispain;21356591]No it's not. Libertarians and Democrats should see eye to eye on social issues.[/QUOTE] Most anyway. We don't generally on gun control.
my world history textbook said the atlas is by Rand Paul i wonder if it's the same person it made me think of ayn rand and what a horrible writer she was
[QUOTE=Mingebox;21356408]"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. "[/QUOTE] I think I can see where he's coming from. He's saying that by making a law saying that you can't involve religion into government, you're breaking the 1st amendment and not allowing people to practice their religion. He does say that there can't be an official religion, so what more can be done to separate church and state? I'm not that sure. I'm guessing that he thinks it's okay to propose legislation based on your religious beliefs. But then you still have to convince people to vote for it. And by saying that you can't do something because of your beliefs is against the first amendment.
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Mingebox;21356697][url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html[/url][/QUOTE] I find it funny that he named his son after a staunch atheist
[QUOTE=thisispain;21356591]No it's not. Libertarians and Democrats should see eye to eye on social issues.[/QUOTE] You can't really define your beliefs based on your party. I mean for the most part I'm either libertarian or a democrat but I think abortion should only be done in special cases. Pretty much you just have to suck it up and go with the party you're most like. And if you want to be a politician in it and you differ on one opinion you're fucked. EDIT: Yeah actually abortions a fucked up issue and I change my mind about it like every five minutes.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21356543]That's a sticky issue for Libertarians. It depends on if you consider fetus's to be humans. He does, so he wants to protect the rights of unborn children. You can also argue it the other way that fetus's aren't people, and so the mother has the right to abort it. I'm a libertarian, and because of that whole "Are unborn children people too?" confusion, I stay out of that issue.[/QUOTE] I say that if the child could be born and live, it is too risky to abort it and abortions at that stage should be illegal due to the possibility that the baby could live and have a horrible, crippled life. Before that, though, the mother should have the right to abort, or else you are limiting the mother's rights.
Okay cool, now that I've seen the whole thing I can better understand the context. To me it sounds like he's defending the rights of Christians. [quote] The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. [/quote] I'm not a Christian, but they should have the right to practice their religion because of the 1st amendment. He's talking about people like on Facepunch that would be offended by a Nativity scene at Christmas time. Or even just the name "Easter Break" or "Christmas Break". As opposed to Spring Break and Winter Break. I don't think he's trying to force everyone to become a Christian, but he wants those who aren't Christians to not discriminate against Christians. In that bit I quoted, I don't know why he used the word "elites", but it sounds kinda hostile; I wouldn't have used it.
If it's a nativity scene on the grounds of a public building it shouldn't be there
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21356985] I'm not a Christian, but they should have the right to practice their religion because of the 1st amendment. [/QUOTE] No he's not. His idea of progress, like all the other Jerry Falwell groupies, is having junk science taught in schools.
He sure said a thing.
[quote]The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity[/quote] Notice how he said "Christianity" and not "religion".
well atleast he voted against the war lol
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;21357002]If it's a nativity scene on the grounds of a public building it shouldn't be there[/QUOTE] We (US) live in a mainly Christian nation. If you are offended by a nativity scene, learn to pull your head out of your ass VERY soon.
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;21357083]We (US) live in a mainly Christian nation. If you are offended by a nativity scene, learn to pull your head out of your ass VERY soon.[/QUOTE] No buddy, we live in a secular nation. The government is supposed to keep entirely unaffiliated with religion. A nativity scene on private property is A-ok. A nativity scene on publicly owned property is not. The government is run on taxpayer money. Hindus shouldn't be paying for their government to endorse a different religion.
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;21357083]We (US) live in a mainly Christian nation. If you are offended by a nativity scene, learn to pull your head out of your ass VERY soon.[/QUOTE] when did he say he was offended by it
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;21357002]If it's a nativity scene on the grounds of a public building it shouldn't be there[/QUOTE] It's not discriminating against you is it? You can still practice any religion you want or none at all. The first amendment doesn't say that you can make religion go away.
It's not about oppressing Christians, it's about making sure the government isn't favoring one religion over another, and teaching that all of them are correct doesn't exactly work.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;21357121]No buddy, we live in a secular nation. The government is supposed to keep entirely unaffiliated with religion. A nativity scene on private property is A-ok. A nativity scene on publicly owned property is not. The government is run on taxpayer money. Hindus shouldn't be paying for their government to endorse a different religion.[/QUOTE] Ninja'd me. That last point is a good.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21357149]It's not discriminating against you is it? You can still practice any religion you want or none at all. The first amendment doesn't say that you can make religion go away.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying religion ought to go away or that it means that. That's why I made the distinction of public property. Government ought to remain as distant from religious affairs as possible. Normal people don't have to. If someone gets offended by a nativity scene in their neighbor's yard, tough titties. [editline]08:18PM[/editline] Getting pretty off-topic though so let's not
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.