- the power of stupid people in large groups

[Ahriman238]

Four Republican senators – including two who might run for president in 2016 – addressed a gathering of social conservatives on Thursday, touting their pet issues and outlining their goals and accomplishments. But they also urged the activists in attendance not to give up the fight, despite many inside the party calling for change on how the party talks about its values.

The four who spoke to the Faith and Freedom conference in Washington, D.C., were all elected in 2010 and fueled by the Tea Party: Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis.

Rubio used the forum to make a moral argument in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. He stressed that "compassion" is at the heart of the debate, whether you support or oppose the legislation that the U.S. Senate is currently considering.

“We know every single human life has value,” he said. “Every single human life matters” and “deserves protection of our laws and values.”

That’s part of the argument he has made for reform for the past year. “Our faith has always been about compassion and it compels you to do something,” Rubio told CBN as recently as two days ago.
In his speech Thursday, Rubio -- who identifies as Catholic, grew up Catholic, was Mormon for a brief stretch in his childhood, and in his adult life also attends a Baptist church -- noted that his faith “heavily influences” him.

Rubio cited Jesus and the Bible when it comes to American exceptionalism and the need for an active world presence by the United States.

“There is nothing to replace us. I promise you, it’s not the United Nations,” he said. “If America’s light is extinguished, there is no other light.”

Striking a somewhat opposite tone was Rand Paul, who invoked religion to argue against foreign aid to certain countries and against pre-emptive war.

“Jesus preached non-resistance,” Paul said, adding that he “simply can’t imagine” Jesus as the head of an army of soldiers.

He also seemed to call into question the Iraq war. “Saddam Hussein was bad,” Paul said, “but his government was secular and a safe place for Christians.”

Paul also preached against foreign aid, especially in countries where Christians are persecuted and that have a disdain for Israel. He pledged no money, in particular, for Pakistan and Egypt, and argued against intervention in Syria.

“There’s a war on Christianity not just by the liberal elites here at home but worldwide,” Paul said. “These countries are not our true allies, and no amount of money is going to make them so. … I say not one more penny to countries that are burning the American flag."

Sen. Mike Lee said conservatives needed to talk more about what they’re for rather than against, and he emphasized the importance of community and the family.

“Conservatism has never been a vision of isolated loners,” he said.

“Some say we have to change with the changing times,” Lee added. “Change the way we say things and talk about families. … I think they make a great point. Times have changed, we do need to broaden our appeal. But ultimately the critics have it exactly backwards. … It’s not that we’ve focused too much on the family, but far too little. The rapid changes we’ve seen have only made the family more important, not less.”

On poor students in failing schools, single moms working two jobs and on the elderly and disabled, he said, “Our party has ignored them.” But he called solutions to poverty and upward mobility proposed by Democrats “seductive,” but “flawed.”

Johnson -- who stressed his opposition to “Obamacare” and blamed liberals and the culture wars of the 1960s for the failings of American society today -- drove home an anti-government message.
"Why does a majority continue to elect people who want to grow this place?” Johnson said in reference to President Obama’s election and subsequent re-election as well as Democratic control of the Senate. “I have no idea. It baffles me."

He added, “When I hear politicians [who say they] want to create a sense of trust in government--,” his reaction is, “No, no, no, no, no. That's is the wrong solution.”

"We need to engender that healthy distrust -- that healthy distrust that our founders found in government."

Ah, Republicans. Never change, because you're so damn amusing now. Oh, and now they're against the war their fair-haired man-child made. But I especially love how with a Republican president and congress, everyone needs to march in lockstep and support the party/government, but with a Democrat in the big chair, we need a healthy distrust of government.

[Alyeska]

So you quote an article where one Republican actually advocates immigration reform and another was actively opposed to the Iraq war. Idiots in large numbers eh? This article shows that people can have varied beliefs. Not all of them rational.

[Flagg]

Well Jeb Bush claims that latinos are more fertile than us regular folks. Which is hilarious since he's married to one (who is a thief). Oh and his daughter is a coke whore.

[Terralthra]

Sen. Johnson is probably the funniest one to me. "Why does a majority continue to elect people who want to grow this place? I have no idea. It baffles me." Hilarious.

[Highlord Laan]

If more christians in the US actually followed Jesus' teachings of tolerance, peace, compassion and rendering unto Caesar, I could manage to respect them no matter their political stance. Since there's maybe ten of them here that does so, thats not happening. Ever.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

“There is nothing to replace us. I promise you, it’s not the United Nations,” he said. “If America’s light is extinguished, there is no other light.”

There are about 6.5 billion people who don't actually participate in American politics and they don't care about your "light", they're called foreigners.

[CaptHawkeye]

Who even cares? These people represent an increasingly distant constituency that is disappearing with age. Why does anyone even pay attention to fundamentalist conservatives anymore? There are bigger fish to fry.

[Highlord Laan]

Who even cares? These people represent an increasingly distant constituency that is disappearing with age. Why does anyone even pay attention to fundamentalist conservatives anymore? There are bigger fish to fry.

Because as a whole, they control an obscene amount of money, have the ears of some truly godawful throwback neanderthals in office, and have a massive media empire ready and willing to spill their bullshit long and loud enough to make people agree with them.

We pay attention because they're a motherfucking blight on civilization, and if we take our eyes off them, they'll sneak something past their betters again.

[CaptJodan]

So you quote an article where one Republican actually advocates immigration reform and another was actively opposed to the Iraq war.

To which then Rubio, Mr. immigration, wants to sink his own bill if there's anything about letting those dirty homosexuals have the same rights as straight immigrants.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) made another threat on Thursday to walk away from his own comprehensive immigration reform bill, this time over an amendment to provide the same immigration benefits to LGBT couples as heterosexual ones.

"If this bill has something in it that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I'm done," Rubio said on the Andrea Tantaros Show. "I'm off it, and I've said that repeatedly. I don't think that's going to happen and it shouldn't happen. This is already a difficult enough issue as it is."

It's likely not a reason to worry about the bill because a potential vote on such an amendment would almost certainly fail. An amendment from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would allow same-sex married couples to petition for green cards for foreign-born spouses in the same way heterosexual married couples can, which currently is banned because of the Defense of Marriage Act. The status quo means many same-sex couples are either forced to live apart or to leave the country to be together, but could be rectified if the Supreme Court overturns the DOMA.

Rubio has repeatedly said he opposes adding LGBT provisions to the immigration bill he drafted with the so-called "gang of eight." His fellow Republican members of the group are similarly opposed and insist it would be a poison pill to the immigration reform legislation.

"If you're going to load it up with social issues, that is the best way to derail it, in my view," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in January.

Democrats seem to be taking Republicans at their word, and even if the amendment comes up for a vote, most advocates have resigned themselves to the likelihood it will fail. Leahy even withdrew the amendment from a vote during the Judiciary Committee hearing in May, at the urging of Democrats in the gang of eight.

Rubio has also said he would vote against his bill if border security provisions are not strengthened.

CORRECTION: -- An earlier version of this story said Marco Rubio is from Arizona rather than Florida. It has been corrected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... 36685.html

I love how that story clashes with this one. Rubio is such a man of compassion, and that every human life has value and matters...unless its a dirty homosexual. They're not human, I guess.

Immigration reform is something the GOP is starting to realize they have to deal with because they know they can't win anymore by rallying around the old "don't let them foreigners in our country" meme. So I don't see Rubio's position as a departure from the party line. It's in lockstep with it, proposing reform that still excludes those who are still vilified by the party.

[CaptHawkeye]

Because as a whole, they control an obscene amount of money, have the ears of some truly godawful throwback neanderthals in office, and have a massive media empire ready and willing to spill their bullshit long and loud enough to make people agree with them.

This has been a common story in American politics since the end of the Revolution. The historic trends have still overwhelmingly been towards social progressiveness. Particularly here in the US, no social fundamentalist revolution has ever been successful on anything more than a local scale and odds between the conservative and the progressive wings were much more favorable to the establishment than in the past.

Unless we're just extremely unlucky I don't think their is a credible threat of serious reversion just around the corner.

We pay attention because they're a motherfucking blight on civilization, and if we take our eyes off them, they'll sneak something past their betters again.

At what point does this become exactly what they want you to do? Remember much Tea Party rhetoric is focused on self-fulfillment and it feeds the confirmation bias of their delusional constituency to give them attention. Their entire agenda is honestly focused around just getting their message out in the hope that it will appeal to some yet-untapped conservative reserve pool of Republican voters. It's highly doubtful such a market has been missed after the last two elections, so at this point what are we doing other than just driving them further into their shell?

[Darth Lucifer]

“Jesus preached non-resistance,” Paul said, adding that he “simply can’t imagine” Jesus as the head of an army of soldiers.

Looks like Rand Paul doesn't know his scripture:

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

[Terralthra]

Eh, Revelations was John's apocalypse Jesus fanfic. I can see Rand Paul ignoring it in favor of Jesus' life and preachings, not someone's fever dreams.

[Highlord Laan]

Eh, Revelations was John's apocalypse Jesus fanfic. I can see Rand Paul ignoring it in favor of Jesus' life and preachings, not someone's fever dreams.

Got it in one. Picking and choosing from the bible is the SOP for those that call themselves "faithful."

[Terralthra]

Eh, Revelations was John's apocalypse Jesus fanfic. I can see Rand Paul ignoring it in favor of Jesus' life and preachings, not someone's fever dreams.

Got it in one. Picking and choosing from the bible is the SOP for those that call themselves "faithful."

"The Bible" was already picked and chosen from. There are dozens more books of Jesus' life and teachings, epistles, and historical Hebrew books not includied in the canonical Catholic or Orthodox bibles. Treating it a a monolithic book one must accept in its entirety is ignoring the metatextual history of scripture in general, as well as of the Christian bible in particular.

[Irbis]

This has been a common story in American politics since the end of the Revolution. The historic trends have still overwhelmingly been towards social progressiveness. Particularly here in the US, no social fundamentalist revolution has ever been successful on anything more than a local scale and odds between the conservative and the progressive wings were much more favorable to the establishment than in the past.

What about Reagan's era insane economics and 'greed is good, socialism is evil' revolution that wound the clock back 100 years and shat on really big part of the globe, including European politics? Especially UK/Poland?

Eh, Revelations was John's apocalypse Jesus fanfic. I can see Rand Paul ignoring it in favor of Jesus' life and preachings, not someone's fever dreams.

Ok, how about quote from Jesus himself then:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

[CaptHawkeye]

What about Reagan's era insane economics and 'greed is good, socialism is evil' revolution that wound the clock back 100 years and shat on really big part of the globe, including European politics? Especially UK/Poland?

Puh-leaze. Even at his worst Reagan was unable to mimic some of the worst decisions of Pre-Depression administrations thanks to safety mechanisms designed into the Federal Government BECAUSE of the Depression. Their is a reason you've heard about "Hoovervilles" and not "Reaganvilles".

Now can you name any ways Reagan turned back the clock "100 years" on other issues like race, sex, or religion? Because I don't seem to recall the reinstatement of Jim Crow laws or the return of fines for TV networks depicting couples sleeping in the same bed as staples of the 80s.

[Terralthra]

Eh, Revelations was John's apocalypse Jesus fanfic. I can see Rand Paul ignoring it in favor of Jesus' life and preachings, not someone's fever dreams.

Ok, how about quote from Jesus himself then:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Or, you know, the parallel passage from Luke:

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Oh, no, maybe "a sword" was a metaphor, and not actually a threat of violence.

[Esquire]

From my reading, it might well be. Why couldn't Jesus have meant the social upheaval a new religion would bring? I'm sure Christian sons didn't get along to well with their pagan fathers, and so on.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

"The Bible" was already picked and chosen from. There are dozens more books of Jesus' life and teachings, epistles, and historical Hebrew books not includied in the canonical Catholic or Orthodox bibles. Treating it a a monolithic book one must accept in its entirety is ignoring the metatextual history of scripture in general, as well as of the Christian bible in particular.

It is known to anybody with a basic knowledge of history. And I can't for the life of me understand why Revelation was included in the canon and other books weren't. It's easily the trippiest part of the Bible. I've seen things on Fanfiction.net that trump it.

[LaCroix]

From my reading, it might well be. Why couldn't Jesus have meant the social upheaval a new religion would bring? I'm sure Christian sons didn't get along to well with their pagan fathers, and so on.

I doubt there were many pagans left in Israel in his time... You shouldn't forget that JC only wanted to modernize Jewish faith, not create a new religion. His teachings should replace the old ones...