Megyn Kelly GRILLS Debbie Wasserman Schultz On Abortion, Rand Paul

[Sola_Fide]

If what some of you are discussing is going to devolve into the whole ~ e n d l e s s ~ objective/subjective morality worldview debate, can you please take it to the Religion sub-forum or Hot Topics, there are separate sections on forums that cater to these talks. I don't want this thread being moved out of the Rand Paul sub-forum or straight out locked.

Thank you.

That's fine with me. But I will say that none of my positions, and no political position of any Biblical Christian, can be divorced from his worldview. One of the main issues that everyone is going to have to accept here is that there is no neutrality.

 

[orenbus]

Here is some background, for those that didn't see these videos last week.

 

[anaconda]

Here is some background, for those that didn't see these videos last week.

Thanks very much. I had missed much of this. Mr. Paul just crushed it.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

I don't think Megyn did Rand any favors in this...

I can see she has got her marching orders. Same with Greta. Sad.

Fox has received the marching orders. For some reason I was listening to Hannity's radio show and it made want to vomit. They had some asshat on there saying that the one and only candidate that Hillary would "have a hard time against" is Jeb Bush. Seriously? It's like I'm living in bizarro world. The only candidate that is more establishment, more status quo, more boring, and less inspiring than Hillary Clinton is Jeb Bush.

 

[Crashland]

If we want to build a coalition, we seriously need to acknowledge that different people can have different reasons for arriving at the same conclusion. The conclusion is the unifying idea, so focus on that. If we are busy insisting that our reason is the ONLY legitimate reason to accept the conclusion then that is undermining the coalition. So don't do that.

 

[orenbus]

If we want to build a coalition, we seriously need to acknowledge that different people can have different reasons for arriving at the same conclusion. The conclusion is the unifying idea, so focus on that. If we are busy insisting that our reason is the ONLY legitimate reason to accept the conclusion then that is undermining the coalition. So don't do that.

Agreed. +Rep

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yeah, that was worth a +rep. Good point, Crashland. That really has to be said outright and it may sting a bit for some to accept. Especially with issues like this.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If we want to build a coalition, we seriously need to acknowledge that different people can have different reasons for arriving at the same conclusion. The conclusion is the unifying idea, so focus on that. If we are busy insisting that our reason is the ONLY legitimate reason to accept the conclusion then that is undermining the coalition. So don't do that.

That's right. And since Rand needs evangelicals more than anything, I say we put the Religion forum back into the member only view.

 

[Crashland]

That's right. And since Rand needs evangelicals more than anything, I say we put the Religion forum back into the member only view.

Not a bad idea, IMO. I don't think Christians are underrepresented there by any means, but the existence of contentious religious debates can be off-putting.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Not a bad idea, IMO. I don't think Christians are underrepresented there by any means, but the existence of contentious religious debates can be off-putting.

That's not why I want it there. I want it there because of the sheer number of garbage threads.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Not a bad idea, IMO. I don't think Christians are underrepresented there by any means, but the existence of contentious religious debates can be off-putting.

The problem in that section is that we have some who go out of their way to solicit contentiousness in order to create a platform to defend their brand of faith or flavor of Christianity. And, then, we get people fighting over who's form of Christianity is more truer than the next guy's as a direct result. It's completely strategic. That isn't the purpose of the "Peace Through Religion" forum. It never was. It's just what it has become relegated to as we saw in this thread. And for the same reasons.

But I agree with you in that it can be off-putting. Is a shame that it is that way. I think we need to set the terms of controversy in that section once and for all and maybe let some folks know why the section exists. It's not a podium for professing conversion to one's brand of Christianity by setting up a personal stage and then pointing their disagreement in as well as attacking other forms of Christianity as some like to think it is. Those folks who make a routine of that serve no good in terms of what we're trying to do here and they need to go. Like yesterday. I'm sorry but that is just how I feel about it after observing the nonsense for 3 years.

But anyhoo. orenbus was clear in that it isn't practical in the Rand Forum. I agree. I don't think the same nonsense is practical in the "Peace Through Religion" section either but until mods step up and make permanent examples of some of the worst offenders (and there are only a few) there I don't see it being practical. To make that section private only establishes the notion that it's okay to continue to use the section for a personal podium in the minds of those who do just that. That's not what its for. It never was. And its counterinuitive to the success in any coalition where diversity must exist in a healthy and practical manner toward a specific goal like this. You just can't have some clown in your coalition making a project of telling the feller next to him in the coalition how unchristian he is and playing 20 freakin questions with him about why he believes this or that and expect the person he's hounding to hang around in your coalition. It just ain't gonna happen. That's not how diversity exists. Sorry.

orenbus, I'm sorry for putting this here in your thread. I know that you didn't want the stuff debated here and I'll not add anything else but there is just no way that I'm going to sit here and watch S_F lobby for the terms of controversy in that sub-forum. No freaking way. He's one of the worst offenders. And so I have to put my two cents in about that.

 

[orenbus]

Dana Perino has good things to say about Rand?!?

Sounds like Rush was also talking about this on air.

 

[Suzu]

And yes, atheists definitely have a worldview, think about the BIG questions, atheists come down on them one way or the other.

I think there are as many atheist worldviews as there are atheists.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think there are as many atheist worldviews as there are atheists.

Yes, there are many kinds of atheistic worldviews.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Can we talk about how Rand Paul's strategy of flipping the debate worked? Tremendously well in fact. Now instead of him being pigeonholed, Democrats are on the defensive across the board and are actively working to kill the issue.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Can we talk about how Rand Paul's strategy of flipping the debate worked? Tremendously well in fact. Now instead of him being pigeonholed, Democrats are on the defensive across the board and are actively working to kill the issue.

Where is the flip flop? Rand's challenge was brilliant. The butchers and eugenicists of this life have no answer.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Murder is wrong regardless whether there's a god or not. Would your morality change if you knew for certain that there isn't a god? I sure hope not.

bingo!

As I always say, God's word is truth, and its universally true whether or not anyone believes He exists.

How do we medically determine if someone is dead? Lack of a heart beat.

Conversely, how do we determine they are alive? Presence of a heart beat.

Before a woman even knows she is pregnant, at 17 days, her baby has a heart beat...and is alive.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Well, if you're talking about the god of the Christian bible (and I think you probably are, if the quote in your sig line is any indication of your beliefs), then he's not a very good example of "walking the talk". Maybe you ought to read some of that Old Testament one of these days.

I wanted to address this because I dont feel like it was addressed well enough...in proper context.

Bear with me for just a second.

We all deserve death because we have broken the law of God and sinned.

Murder, is where you kill someone that doesnt deserve death. God has never advocated murder. In fact, because all have sinned, all did deserve death.

There is only one way to atone for this, you die for your sin or someone dies in your place.

In the old testament, they died for their own sins. Then, once Jesus came, He died for all and thus, we no longer have individuals dying for their own sins.

God never killed, or asked to be killed, innocent people that didnt deserve death already.

This goes back to Sola_Fides perfect statement of "Because the Creator said dont MURDER INNOCENT people"

 

[Sola_Fide]

I wanted to address this because I dont feel like it was addressed well enough...in proper context.

Bear with me for just a second.

We all deserve death because we have broken the law of God and sinned.

Murder, is where you kill someone that doesnt deserve death. God has never advocated murder. In fact, because all have sinned, all did deserve death.

There is only one way to atone for this, you die for your sin or someone dies in your place.

In the old testament, they died for their own sins. Then, once Jesus came, He died for all and thus, we no longer have individuals dying for their own sins.

God never killed, or asked to be killed, innocent people that didnt deserve death already.

This goes back to Sola_Fides perfect statement of "Because the Creator said dont MURDER INNOCENT people"

+rep

 

[dillo]

Both Rand and DWS failed to answer the question, its still such a hot divisive issue that even Roe v Wade skated around the actual issue and ruled IIRC on 5th amendment grounds(which doesnt make sense).