Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Rand Paul wants constitutional admendment

* * * * * 1 votes General Discussion

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
37 replies to this topic

#1
Love is alive

Love is alive

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts

http://www.politico....ment-98625.html

 

This is a good idea!! They should not be allowed to pass laws that we are to obey that they themselves will not have to obey.

 

What do you think? Good idea or bad idea?



#2
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,466 posts

It is a great idea.  I am already a Rand Paul supporter if he decides to run for President.  We need someone like that to get the nation back on the right track. 



#3
the_patriot2014

the_patriot2014

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,472 posts

this is a excellent idea, may get rid of some of these junk bills. I would love to see a Paul/Ryan combination for the next election.



#4
EnochBethany

EnochBethany

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

this is a excellent idea, may get rid of some of these junk bills. I would love to see a Paul/Ryan combination for the next election.

What is Rand Paul's position on Israel?



#5
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,466 posts

Here is a link to a story about Rand Paul on Israel. 

 

http://www.nationalr...paul-and-Israel

 

One thing I do want to say concerning a potential Rand Paul Presidential run is that I never supported his Father.  He has too many radical views I don't support.  Rand Paul holds to Libertarian values, but not to the extreme that his Father does. 



#6
the_patriot2014

the_patriot2014

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,472 posts

im often wondering if perhaps a libertarian might not be a good thing for our country. Ive often considered them off the wall-and many of them are, tend to follow the conspiricy theories a little to much, however take those aside I like a lot of their ideas.



#7
Love is alive

Love is alive

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts

 

this is a excellent idea, may get rid of some of these junk bills. I would love to see a Paul/Ryan combination for the next election.

What is Rand Paul's position on Israel?

 

That is a good question ...I shall try to look that up and find an answer I just wondered what people really thought of the idea that government people should not make laws that they could exempt themselves from :)



#8
EnochBethany

EnochBethany

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

 

 

this is a excellent idea, may get rid of some of these junk bills. I would love to see a Paul/Ryan combination for the next election.

What is Rand Paul's position on Israel?

 

That is a good question ...I shall try to look that up and find an answer I just wondered what people really thought of the idea that government people should not make laws that they could exempt themselves from :)

 

The Israel thing was kind of a red flag with his father.  Yeah, sauce for the goose . . .



#9
EnochBethany

EnochBethany

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Butero hath said:

"To be perfectly honest with you, I am not sure. I haven't heard him speak on the subject. He is my first choice right now, but it is possible something could come out about his views down the road that could change my mind. Right now, I would be for a Rand Paul/Ted Cruz ticket. When the candidates get serious, then the debates begin, and we find out more about the intricate details about where they stand on all the issues. In most cases, my first choice is who I wind up sticking with. In 2008, my first choice was Fred Thompson, and I stayed with him till he dropped out of the race. In 2012, my first choice was Rick Santorum, and I voted for him in the Primary. It is very seldom that my initial gut feeling turns out to be wrong, at least for me, whether they win or not.

It is unusual when I go with the eventual winner during the primary season. In 1984, it was a no brainer to support Ronald Reagan. In 1988, I voted for Pat Roberson. In 1992 and 1996, I voted for Pat Buchanan. I did support Bush in 2000 and 2004. In the case of Bush, I thought he would be more conservative than he turned out to be, but I was also concerned about his opponents, and wanted the strongest candidate possible."

 

I don't know anyone better that Texan Perry as a viable candidate.

 

As to Ronald the Ray Gun, he was a great disappointment.  Between him & Bush I, 5 SCOTUS justices were appointed, & 3 voted to continue allowing baby-murder.  Reagan wrote a book opposing abortion, but did nada to stop it.  I can't think of one thing astrologer Reagan did for the Christian cause.  He thot what was important was smaller govt & a big military; but what really counts is God's blessing.  Our holocaust was the most important issue. 

 

IMHO, Bush II was more pro-life than any other pretzel since Row v Wade.  But he got distracted by 911, not being able to go home, flying around like having no home in his Air Force 1.  Then he got the nation bogged down in Afghanistan & Iraq. WW II vet Bush I knew how to fight a war.  You go in big time, whup em & then go home.  You don't stay there taking pot shots from behind buildings trying to be the savior spreading the gospel of democracy to people who don't want it.

 

Then only explanation I can think of for the Repubs ending up w/ the worst possible candidate out of the runners, is that the democrats crossed over in the primaries, knowing that Ob was going to be the demo candidate anyway.

 

While I rant on off topic,

let me say that the only salvation I know of for the Republicrats is to garner the Hispanic vote by majoring on pro-life, save the babies from murder, as the Hispanics are against baby-murder.  I think the same might work with Afro-americans.   They need to stop being chicken.  I would be for letting all the illegal invading Mexicans vote, if their vote could be gathered to stop our holocaust.



#10
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,466 posts

First of all, I did provide a link showing that Rand Paul supports Israel.  That is why I went ahead and removed a post where I had said I didn't know his position.  I do now.  Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was the best President in my lifetime.  I didn't go along with his support for the Brady bill, but it is obvious why he went along with that.  His position on Supreme Court nominees was qualified judges with no litmus test.  You can think someone will act one way, but when they get on the court, they are completely different.  I know Reagan would speak to us at the March For Life in Washington, and he was very pro-life. 



#11
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,466 posts

Here is a link to a story about Rand Paul on Israel. 

 

http://www.nationalr...paul-and-Israel



#12
MorningGlory

MorningGlory

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,548 posts

I totally support such an amendment.  As for Rand Paul.....I'm not that impressed with him.



#13
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,466 posts

I totally support such an amendment.  As for Rand Paul.....I'm not that impressed with him.

You said you are supporting Bobby Jindal didn't you?  I prefer Rand Paul, but I would have no problem voting for Jindal.  I actually think Rick Perry could enter the race, and make a good candidate.  I am sure he would be more prepared the second time around, and his record of success in Texas shows he is very qualified to run the country. 



#14
Tolken

Tolken

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 321 posts

Perhaps, it is a politically expedient move to gain attention...does anyone really think this will pass congress??? I too am not impressed with Paul, and especially not Cruz. 



#15
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,466 posts

Perhaps, it is a politically expedient move to gain attention...does anyone really think this will pass congress??? I too am not impressed with Paul, and especially not Cruz. 

It is not a matter of whether it passes or not.  It is a matter of standing up for what is right, getting your ideas out there, and gradually winning public support.  I am impressed with both of them, and Rand Paul would be my first choice and Ted Cruz my second choice if they were both running. 



#16
Tolken

Tolken

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 321 posts

Butero - It is not a matter of whether it passes or not.

 

I'm simply suggesting that it is certainly advantageous to offer ideas when knowing that the likelihood of their passage is at best remote. I would hope the Republican party can regain it's footing at some point and offer a viable candidate...I think Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office. (And his father would certainly be an easy target)

 

Although "platforms"  and ideas suggest one thing true action is another...I actually see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time.



#17
Love is alive

Love is alive

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts

First of all, I did provide a link showing that Rand Paul supports Israel.  That is why I went ahead and removed a post where I had said I didn't know his position.  I do now.  Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was the best President in my lifetime.  I didn't go along with his support for the Brady bill, but it is obvious why he went along with that.  His position on Supreme Court nominees was qualified judges with no litmus test.  You can think someone will act one way, but when they get on the court, they are completely different.  I know Reagan would speak to us at the March For Life in Washington, and he was very pro-life. 

It seems that they are all that way "power corrupts power and absolute power corrupts absolutely" I believe is a relative statement



#18
Tolken

Tolken

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 321 posts

Love is Alive -It seems that they are all that way "power corrupts power and absolute power corrupts absolutely" I believe is a relative statement

 

I believe the actual expression is "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely".  And it does seem that this holds true on both sides of the aisle.  When one looks back on myriad issues certainly not much has changed...  except that the vitriol and fracture have come to a point where congress is stagnant.  Compromise in politics is not a dirty word, but rather a necessity.



#19
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,466 posts

Butero - It is not a matter of whether it passes or not.

 

I'm simply suggesting that it is certainly advantageous to offer ideas when knowing that the likelihood of their passage is at best remote. I would hope the Republican party can regain it's footing at some point and offer a viable candidate...I think Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office. (And his father would certainly be an easy target)

 

Although "platforms"  and ideas suggest one thing true action is another...I actually see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time.

This is something I find interesting.  On the one hand, you claim "Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office," and then you lament that you "see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time."  I want extreme change, and that is why I want a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz to be President. 

 

On the other hand, if my only objective is winning, my ticket would be Rick Perry and Susanna Martinez.  I think that would be a winning ticket, and I could support it.  If I want my ideal ticket, it would be Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.  What I don't want is a RINO like Chris Cristy. 



#20
Tolken

Tolken

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 321 posts

Butero -On the one hand, you claim "Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office," and then you lament that you "see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time."

 

As I also noted in another post "Compromise in politics is not a dirty word, but rather a necessity."  I view Cruz as an extremist that will simply create more dissension and divisiveness...which is exactly what he has succeeded in accomplishing so far.  Whether one chooses to accept it as reality or not, the fact is that movement forward requires some "give and take". Intractable ideology serves little purpose in government other then to allow...well exactly where we are, a do nothing house of reps and a stagnant government.  (Also, Cruz's father will be a liability and Rand certainly has race issues that will be examined more closely) The problem will always be that though one desires "extreme change" another wants the same thing but in a different direction, thus we arrive at an impasse unless compromise enters the arena.

 

Sadly there was a time when though differences were wide the reps and dems could meet in the best interest of America. Today it would appear party loyalty takes priority over moving this country forward.






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network