Rand Paul - Helping Hand

[WizardKing78]

A good man! One day, God willing, he'll be in the Whitehouse.

[jwgreek8606]

I for one was born prematurely to a mother who was addicted to drugs but my mother was willing to lay off the drugs when she was pregnant with me. For that I will always be grateful.

[TheHomelandDefender]

Rand Paul hates God and is a secret muslim.

[TheHomelandDefender]

rand paul's father ron has killed over 4000 babies.

[IndigoVagrant]

@TheHomelandDefender Ron Paul has never performed an abortion, you look up his interview on the subject on google.

[Theblizzardking]

@TheHomelandDefender LOL!

[GuerillaReporter]

For those of you who fall for the deception that Jefferson and Franklin were deists, think again. For instance, Thomas Jefferson went a step further than most of our founders when dating his letters and documents by using "in the year of our Lord Christ" rather than just "in the year of our Lord". How about that! People need to research outside the standard mainstream sources if they are to be educated. "Seek and ye shall find..." Truth is hidden for a reason people! Veritas vos Liberabit!

[SYNICtheAtheist]

@GuerillaReporter 2553 in the year of our lord buddha. 2010 in the year of our lord christ. I think its terminology more than anything. When people sneeze i say bless you. I tell people merry christmas on december 25th (and i give presents too). I get frustrated I say god dammit. If you are raised in a religious environment the terminology sometimes sticks with you. just saying.

[scienceofthings]

If you are throwing out quotes because I did, you are being irresponsible with history. I am not arguing for a Christian nation, I am for the tolerance of Christianity.

[wvfii]

@scienceofthings

So you use quotes: a-ok; I use quotes: irresponsible? Wow, how very tolerant of you. I believe with every fiber of my being that a strict separation of Church and Sate is the surest way to tolerance for EVERY religion - or no religion at all. And I think you would be hard-pressed to suggest that the majority of the founders, however much they disagreed, held religious tolerance in pretty high regard. You are, of course, allowed to disagree.

[wvfii]

"And I think you would be hard-pressed to suggest that the majority of the founders, however much they disagreed, held religious tolerance in pretty high regard"

**should read "did NOT hold religious tolerance in pretty high regard"

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii Franklin said Christianity tolerated other religions. I add to that, if not abused by the nature of man which the Constitution guards against. You see the picture coming together, yet? I haven't just disagreed, but made a more succinct case for the accurate history, while you laid no context for anything. I quoted from scholarly sources and original documents to succinctly prove my points.

[wvfii]

@scienceofthings

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of your argument. You're pointing to Franklin's positive words on Christianity, but then attack me for pointing to the literally dozens of instances of our founders criticize the Church, Christianity and blind faith. Furthermore, I don't care if Christianity "tolerates" other religions. Many of its most ardent followers don't. You want to convince me of Christianity's superiority, but it's not going to happen.

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii Negative. Wow, OK, I see staying on topic isn't your strong point in life. You may wanna work on that. I use the quotes and my knowledge of history to stay on topic and in context. You blurt out anything that would suit your point. Separation of church and state isn't Constitutional. It's NOT there. Christians do tolerate people of other religions. The Constitution was meant to guard against the powerful lusts for power of human nature.

[wvfii]

"It's NOT there"

Ok, you're right: the Constitution does not explicitly say the words "Separation of Church and State." But neither does it say anything about Christianity. NOR Christianity being "THE BEST RELIGION" or any other "official" designation of Christianity or Christ. I'm afraid you're need to see the words explicitly spelled out does little to bolster your argument. A couple of centuries of Constitutional law are not on your side.

[wvfii]

"you're need" should be "your need"

[loupgarou5z3w]

No one has ever proved that God gave us freedom, or that God even exists. I could say God gave freedom only to me & wants everyone else in the world to be my slave, & that statement would be equally improbable & undisprovable.

[scienceofthings]

@loupgarou5z3w A slavery in any fashion is devised & organized by man and complied with by men, unless men say "No." Individually or generally, it has been no other way. God didn't lay us on the Earth already subjugated to another, but as free-willed beings who maybe punished by our fellow man for exercising freedom, justly or unjustly. Freedom comes with personal responsibility and slavery comes with irresponsibility.

[wvfii]

as a man of science, where does Paul stand on stem cell research? where does he stand on matters of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger? what if it were his wife or his daughter?

[wvfii]

i ask these questions not to troll; i'm genuinely curious. while i have strong philosophical disagreements with his father, i truly appreciate Ron Paul's brand of thoughtful, principled limited government conservatism. were other GOP candidates willing to walk their talk, i might, as a registered independent, be more inclined to vote Republican.

[AmericanPrinciples]

If you are a physician and not a career politician, why are you alienating your base already and turning yourself into a Neocon?

[charleshoskinson]

@AmericanPrinciples We all know how rand is going to vote once he gets in. This is the standard meatgrind to get into office.

[AmericanPrinciples]

@charleshoskinson We don't know anything about Rand. If Rand can change his message this quickly, he can change his policy.

[GuerillaReporter]

The only way Rand can, indeed should, "shine" will be to LISTEN to his constituents. PERIOD! The jobs of our Senators and Representative is to "represent", not go up there and do as they wish! I hope Rand will do that.

[GuerillaReporter]

Hey endestew, why do you fear evangelicals? The libertarian in you should appreciate evangelicals for without them, and I am speaking of our Founders here, you would not have the liberty you have. That Liberty comes from God, to you, and you empower the government. That is what evangelicals stand for. Indeed, all of our founding laws, and our very form of government itself, come from the Bible. See "America's History Censored" by Dr. Michael Chapman.

[wvfii]

@GuerillaReporter

neither Thomas Jefferson nor Benjamin Franklin believed in the divinity of Christ. I certainly don't profess to know the minds of these men who lived 250 years ago, but I feel pretty safe saying they would be very uncomfortable with the modern evangelical movement and its political manifestations.

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii The divinity of Christ was first debated at the Council of Nicea for official purposes. Though it is true Jefferson and Franklin questioned this divinity, ultimately, that the divinity is irrelevant since they were both Christians.

[wvfii]

@scienceofthings ummm, the divinity of Christ and belief in that notion is the textbook definition of Christianity.

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii Benjamin Franklin called himself a Deist. The definition of the word is different today than it was back then. "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain those that build it. I firmly believe this, and I also firmly believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." - Benjamin Franklin

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii "History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." - Benjamin Franklin

Early Supreme Court rulings (i.e. Charleston v. Benjamin & Lindenmuller v. The People) found that America was an openly pluralistic country which included the free exercise of other religions due to it's Christian origins which are based in tolerance.

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii "The liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will is a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." - Thomas Jefferson

Church was often held in the Capitol building and in the Treasury building as documented by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. "Separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution. That phrase was lifted from a personal correspondence of Jefferson.

[wvfii]

@scienceofthings

and I can quote you literally dozens of instances where Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Adams - not to mention devout men like Washington - eviscerated the church and its influence on politics. Their opinions on the matter are widely documented, and (usually) held as "constitutional" by even the most conservative justices. If you want a "Christian" nation so badly, you should go somewhere else and start one.

[wvfii]

Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." - George Washington

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- Thomas Paine

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii Washington made that speech simply upholding worship, in what way does that affect or disprove my point? If anything Washington's letter to United Baptist Churches in Virginia supports my point. Thomas Paine if simply criticizing the works of man, as I stated earlier. Hardly any of these quotes pertain to the founding. The founders put forth philosophies into documents that guarded against human nature and provided opportunity to worship without fear of any one dominating the other.

[wvfii]

@scienceofthings

I'm not here to tell you that Christianity didn't have a massive influence on our foundational documents; in a lot of ways, Christianity is the reason there were so many white people on this continent at the time (of course ti could have just as easily been another religion).

[wvfii]

My concern - as should be the concern of anyone who professes to hold the notion of limited government dear - is that a very particular brand of evangelical Christianity currently holds an unwarranted sway over modern political discourse.

[wvfii]

And I maintain that our founders were intellectually sober, prudent men who knew the deleterious effects the Church could have over the State. In the interest of equanimity, it might be best to uphold a strong separation of the two entities, lest some folks get really het up and start burning "witches". Extreme? Surely. Fiction? Unfortunately not. 

[wvfii]

Freedom of religion is paramount, in my opinion; but speaking as an atheist, so is freedom from religion. A lot of fundamentalist cling to the notion that without an absolute, sentient "authority" - then all laws, ethical concerns, etc are essentially meaningless. Well, I (and I suspect the other 20,000,000+ agnostic/ atheists living in the United States) disagree.

[wvfii]

Also, TAX CHURCHES NOW.

Thank you.

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii There is always a judge. Morality isn't a creation of man. Without judgment, laws are meaningless! If you break a law and no one cares, why have the law?! It's called logic, get some. Furthermore, with a majority of the world believing in a Creator or religion, "freedom from religion" is gonna be hard to come by! Oh, and Christians aren't likely to do you physical harm these days for being an atheist, unlike some other regions of the world, so, calm yourself.

[wvfii]

since you CAN NOT prove the existence of God, no matter what you may believe or say, then you can't prove morality isn't a man-made creation

once again, you're trying to make a case that Christianity is the very bestest religion evar!! and hey, that's totally awesome for you. But I'm here to tell you that is a fiction, a man-made construct just like EVERY. OTHER. RELIGION. EVER. I'm sorry dude, you'll never be able to prove otherwise. Science is not on your side, "scienceofthings"

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii Do I sound like an evangelical to you? I'm not. So stop all that damn bitching about me "making a case" for them. I am not. I am making the case that you were incorrect on the founders' faith. Yes I can, because morality is a standard by which people live doing or not doing certain things. There are different standards or religions, but the main three moralities come from the main three religions. Science is flawed, much like it's creator, the human race.

[wvfii]

I never once claimed that you are an evangelical. But multiple times over the course of this exchange you have suggested (and please correct me if I've misunderstood) that Christianity is somehow superior to other religions. And again, if it works for you, then bully! But I'm saying that it's not for me. And I'm allowed to say that. And I'm allowed to call "foul" when people in this country try to re-imagine history and Constitutional law to comport with their belief system.

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii OOooooo, cute statement at the end using my "name." Feel clever? Good. Let's get back to facts. Science isn't everything and it doesn't replace the effects of faith in life and the improving of the quality of life. If science is your religion because you think a flawed or manipulated methodology is your replacement for God, good for you. Christians can tolerate that, what I can't tolerate are historically inaccurate statements, your intolerance or your inability to stay on topic.

[wvfii]

Science is always going to be refined, updated. It's imprecise at best, but I'll take empirical evidence over factually inaccurate tall tales and mythologies. I'm not seeking to censure what magical stories you tell kids in your home or church. That would be crossing the church/state line that people who love freedom and limited government hold dear. 

[wvfii]

I think it's also important to remember that many devout Christian ministers (eg Barry Lynn) who are the biggest proponents of limiting religious influence in public policy. They understand that in the very remote chance that Christians are on day a minority, it will be extremely difficult for Christians to appeal to Constitutional protections after decades/ centuries of claiming some sort of divine predominance in the sphere of governance.

[wvfii]

And I'm sorry if you feel I've not stayed "on topic" -- again, I will respectfully disagree. I'm not sure who's dictating the parameters here. And, to be fair, it's a pretty big topic.

[wvfii]

Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error

all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson

[wvfii]

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii The quote by James Madison concerning "civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief " was one of the first drafts for a first amendment which didn't make it and was reworded into Congress has no power to create a federal church. Let's not forget that the founding fathers didn't always agree completely.

[wvfii]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"

Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President James Madison

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii The criticisms of the behavior of men (or churches) in the name of Christianity isn't directly linked to the thoughts on government in the U.S. and faith of the men elected to its posts. Most of your quotes are mere criticisms well thought out by the founders and accurate, but you use them to reject or down-grade the influence of Christianity upon the Constitution/Government.

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii President Madison is correct. The Constitution protects against the darker inclinations of human nature, it doesn't bolster Christianity, though it was written by faithful men. Again, Franklin believed in the excellency of Christianity, if practiced well, to show tolerance to all others. Washington was addressing the churches in VA and doesn't contradict my quotes. You should stay on topic: the founding documents.

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii You shouldn't assume I want anything except to enlighten you. I am a Christian, but not your evangelical christian. You should be careful with loose, assuming statements. The quotes I provided mainly came from the inspirations during the founding of this country, not after the fact or to some other nation such as Tripoli. To deny the Christian faith influence on this founding of this nation while using thoughtful criticisms to unravel the truth is untruthful.

[scienceofthings]

@wvfii These men were entitled to their opinions on Christianity, good or bad, but that didn't negate their faith or its influence on the founding to the point of making this nation religiously neutral. I point again to Franklin speaking of the excellency of Christianity due to it's ability to tolerate other religions, if practiced well, of course.

[GuerillaReporter]

@wvfii Then you need to read the letters and other writings of these men instead of books written by "professors" who "profess" to write true history. How do you explain the fact that Jefferson signed his documents and letters "in the year of our Lord Christ" rather than just "in the year of our Lord" as did the other founders? I, too, do not "profess" to have the ability to go into the minds of these men, but reading what they wrote, especially to family and friends, is as good as it gets!

[Taikaru]

Before my political awakening, I voted almost exclusively on the issue of whether candidates were pro-life. Although I now weigh in matters of free markets, sovereignty and constitutionalism, I am glad to see Rand is strongly pro-life! Furthermore, I think he has the political independence to actually DO something about it, not just talk about it.

It's a great ad, and I look forward to the day when Rand is my senator!

[Nautilus3333]

What a wonderful commercial!

[chiefsmurph]

way to go rand!

[YesWeCantaloupe]

I hope the guys who made this work for Ron Paul 2012!

But first they need to walk up to the 2008 campaign advisers and punch them in the face for paying for such awful ads as this:

/watch?v=yx5mNhANeW4

[PizzaGod]

LOL, that was a bad commercial put together by a PAC. Those were real Ron Paul supporters, not actors.

[maskedphrogg]

I'm as much if not more interested in Rand's stance on pharmaceuticals. They proliferate through society and much too often do the same manner of damage as recreational drugs while remaining a sanctioned and acceptable part of society. Truth be told, many Doctor's office are hardly different than street corners. Multi-colored pills doled out like candy while dispensers rake in the dough w/o recompensing those they hurt.

[RMGOfreedom]

Good stuff, Rand.

This is EXACTLY the kind of guy we need in the U.S. Senate.

[endestew]

Way to abandon the liberty movement Rand. You walk not in your father's footsteps.

[Nillok]

wait woo woo why? wtf is wrong with this ad? i

[endestew]

It expresses pro-life and pro-drugwar stances, which run contrary to the libertarian stance that Rand is supposedly hailing from (his father sure does), but which Rand seems to be abandoning lately in the interest of trying to appeal to more socially conservative elements. Case in point: accepting the support of Sarah Palin. He should have politely refused, if he had the integrity to do so.

[Nillok]

Well, first of all, last time I checked Ron Paul was pro-life too.

Secondly, how the HELL does it invoke the war on drugs? Because he made it clear that babies are born prematurely to drug addicts (there are such things as drug addicts whether there is a WoD or not)? It's like your looking for things to not like about him.

[endestew]

You're right, I over exaggerated on the war on drugs bit. But in the larger context of Rand's apparent pandering to social conservative values, that element in his ad is a bit concerning for non-social-conservative libertarian.

On the pro-life issue, however, Ron is pro-life in opinion but states rights in practice. However, Rand should be framing any mention of this topic in terms of states right and not in a format more conventional socially-conservative pro-life in appearance.

[endestew]

Rand has a choice to make.  He can go the libertarian route (which is anti-social conservative) or he can emphasize the social-conservative elements of his nuanced views, though with the later intentionally or not he gets lumped in with the evangelical crowd. Which is what Ron Paul's candidacy was protesting against.

[endestew]

(last post promise) So it's not necessarily what Rand's positions are per se... they're nuanced obviously, when you throw in other dimensions like states rights. What I'm concerned about, as a libertarian-minded supporter, is the emphasis of issues he chooses to convey. Hope that explains my criticism more clearly.

[soicuw]

I get what your saying, but this ad kinda insinuates a neoconservative stance on drugs, I hope Rand is just trying to get support, win, and then shine like his father.

[audioX1]

Ron is pro-life too.

[subuey]

hmmm

[fernloft]

go get 'em! Would love to see some sense on the senate floor!

[Andronichuk]

It's touching...

but to be honest, it's abit too cinematic...

I think he could make the point of "not a career politician" in a better way...

but none the less, its still a good ad in comparison to other political ads out there

[audioX1]

love it!