Marco Rubio, Catholic Leader Extraordinaire

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Marco Rubio, Catholic Leader Extraordinaire

  1. toadspittle says:

    Rubio is not nearly insane enough for today’s Republican Americans.
    He has no chance.

  2. “Marco Rubio, Catholic Leader Extraordinaire”? Personally, I don’t think so.

    I believe that one of the problems with America today is not that “everybody says whatever the heck they want,” but that there are so few people who believe in the kind of religious morality and religious values that our country and our entire civilizaton were largely built on.

    Without those moral and religious values, and the structure and context they give to human behavior. societies in Europe, in North America, and elsewhere will continue to disintegrate.

    That disintegration will not be the end, though. We, as human beings, have gone through this destructive process many times before in our relatively short history on this planet, and we have always survived. No matter how extensive the disintegration has been, we have always survived.

    Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that for the past four thousand years or so, the People of God have survived, first in the period of the Old Testament, and now as the Mystical Body of Christ. To paraphrase St. Paul: if Christ can be defeated, then our faith is vain.

  3. ginnyfree says:

    Okie Dokie Folkies. Twelve times. Not once, not twice, but 12 times. That’s a dozen. Twelve times in 13 minutes I just heard a man stand up and say he doesn’t believe in freedom of speech. Do you want to even consider voting for anyone as an American who doesn’t believe in freedom of speech? Since most of those who come hear are Catholics, I will remind you of how serious a crime speaking against political currents can be in very recent history: The silencing of Father de Valk in Canada http://catholicexchange.com/catholicism-a-hate-crime-in-canada http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-0630-vree-free_speech_in_canada.htm
    This is not the only reason why Mr. Rubio is a danger to Catholics and all the rest of us who value our freedom to speak our minds. One of the Ten Roles of the President of the United States of America is he or she become the Official Voice of the People. That is a part of his job description and why these men give all the speeches they do, so you’ll hear your thoughts reflected in his voice and he will carry your voice to the White House and act as your representative personally in government. That is why we elect him, to be our voice, the role is officially called The Voice of the People. Here is a little civics lesson for you so you can brush up on this basic factoid: http://www.nyise.org/homsy/ushistory/rolesofpresident.htm Voice of the People is number 7. Mr. Rubio, in the 11th time he mention freedom of speech he said:”The President and presidential candidates cannot just say whatever they want.” Now, the third time in his little talk he mentions the freedom of speech we enjoy as a liberty in our land he said that it leads to anarchy and that happened at about 1 minute into his temper tantrum. The seventh time he repeats what he thinks a good leader should do: muzzle his mouth and what speak a party line? You bet. Oh but he says it a little differently: “Leaders cannot say whatever they want.” So, good leaders are puppets saying what they are instructed to say on behalf of the real leaders who pull their strings? Mr. Rubio scares me as a Catholic. Twelve times he has stated that he no longer believes I should be free to say whatever I feel I need to in my country, in my home, in my school, at my job, and neither should the President of the United States of America! Hello. This is not the only time Mr. Rubio has further the causes of a censored America, no longer free to speak against whatever we’ve got to speak against to change things. Please read about the censorship in Canada and elsewhere. It is a danger and he’s already agreed to act as if it is already gone. He’s agreed to behave if elected as someone who has surrendered willingly and without a fight or even a whimper to speak his mind. Well, if he is the Voice of the People, he wants to be sure if elected it will be a heavily censored voice. Maybe even silenced. This should scare you. But you’re free to make up your own mind, even if only for a little while longer. God bless. Ginnyfree.

    http://vincentgioiasblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/hate-crimes-have-special-place-in.html
    http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/07053.html

  4. I admire Marco Rubio as a Catholic Christian and have found his ” preaching” clips on the you-tube to be uplifting. Here is an example of Rubio answering an Atheist while on the campaign trail.
    If Rubio gives up Politics, I think he could make a very good lay evangelist:

  5. Michael says:

    Ginny @ 21:50, March 13th:

    1. He is not saying he doesn’t believe in free speech – he is arguing against the abuse of the right to free speech. At no point does he say ‘you don’t have the right to say what you want’; instead he says you can’t say whatever you like without there being consequences. More specifically, he is talking about (and I don’t know what Trump actually said here, so don’t know how accurate what Rubio says is) actually inciting people to violence – the right to free speech does have limits, and this is one of them.

    2. Furthermore, he is not just talking about me, you and everyone we know. He is talking about leaders, who have a particular duty to conduct discourse in a way that is responsible, that promotes constructive debate, and that doesn’t promote violence and division amongst the people they are talking to. His point is that Trump is exploiting the genuine (and understandable) concerns people have about Islam, migration, etc, and exploiting them for his own ends – i.e.; to get votes. As a leader, this is deeply irresponsible.

  6. toadspittle says:

    Rubio and Michael are right, on this.
    Nobody has the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre.
    ….Nor to exercise ‘freedom of speech’ by saying, “Let’s kill all the Jews.”

    “Leaders cannot say whatever they want.”
    True. And Trump, for example, cannot (or should be prevented from) saying, “Someone please beat up that protester in the third row.”
    ….However much he might want it.

  7. alohalady14 says:

    Michael you are so right…..”the right to free speech does have limits, and this is one of them.”

    Just like the good old saying……..”you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater”.

    Free speech has ‘responsibility’ attached to it !

  8. ginnyfree says:

    Ya know what? Fault someone for saying things that may not be the most eloquent way to speak is one thing, but Mr. Rubio harps on this a little too often and freedom of speech IS an issue in the LGBT community simply because we’re being told more and more what we can and cannot say. A man who gets up and for whatever reason states 12 times in 13 minutes how censored a presidential candidate should be is a little telling. He does so 11 times too often. Once is fault noticed and mentioned, but to go over and over and over it means there is more than a simple fault being corrected. It tells me that this particular guy is compliant with the new gender benders and their agenda and will expect everyone else to be so too. And guess what else? This is not the first time he has monitored the speech habits of Donald as well as a few others. As for the comment about the fire in the theater being the limit of our speech freedoms, 2 things: it really doesn’t apply to the comments made by Mr. Rubio in regards to the off the cuff comments by Mr. Trump except if you totally exaggerate the intent of them. Secondly, ever person who has gone to high school has heard this in their American history/civics class. I think it is not really relevant and just a grasp at a straw to justify the poor behaviors of a man who cannot speak well of others. But who am I to judge? God bless. Ginnyfree.

  9. Michael says:

    Ginny,

    I’m sorry but I think you’re reading far too much into this. I very much doubt that Rubio is ‘compliant with the new gender benders and their agenda and will expect everyone else to be so too’ (though, as the hallowed CP&S saying has it, I might be wrong). Nor does it seem to me that he is trying to arbitrarily censor Trump, or argue for censorship in general.

    He is talking about the need for responsible speech from public figures in a position of influence, and at twelve and a half minutes into the video, explicitly says that he is not arguing for political correctness*. He is not ‘monitoring’ anyone’s speech habits – he’s simply expressing concern (and no doubt quite a bit of frustration) that Trump is abusing his position by exploiting people’s genuine fears and discontent with the contemporary political climate. And if Trump did call for people to beaten up at a rally, then Rubio is most definitely correct in saying that this is an abuse of the right to free speech.

    *It is of course Trump’s lack of ‘political correctness’ that makes him so popular. I get this, honestly I do, but I think he’s using that as a technique to stoke fires in order to get votes. I don’t believe he holds to genuine conservative opinions at all – for instance, he has supported Planned Parenthood on a number of past occasions – but is using the fact that people are fed up with the Obama administration and the lack of genuine conservative opposition to it in order to boost his own popularity.

  10. alohalady14 says:

    My sentiments exactly Michael……(I sure wish I could put my thoughts down as precise as you and others can). I’m with you 100% !

  11. Michael says:

    Thank you alohalady – very kind of you🙂

  12. toadspittle says:

    Yes, Ginnygirl, agreed – Rubio is an utter Yahoo. Except he’s one iota less of an utter Yahoo than Trump or Cruz.
    That’s it, really. What a choice. Mind, you America deserves whatever president it gets.
    If I could, I’d vote for Sanders, of course.
    That’s how dumb I am.

  13. Mr J M Joyce says:

    If you need to put the word ‘but’ after the phrase ‘I believe in freedom of speech’, then you don’t.

  14. ginnyfree says:

    Excellent observation. They say some of the most profound truths are the simplest. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  15. ginnyfree says:

    Well Toad which ever side of the lillypad the flies fall on, go for it.

  16. alohalady14 says:

    Thanks for the video Maureen………..it was really good ! I didn’t realize Rubio was that strong about his faith. According to Eugene Delgaudio from “Pulic Advocate”, Rubio’s biggest contributor is a big pro gay rights activists named Paul Singer, and Rubio’s deputy campaign manager, Rich Beeson, signed a writ of certiorari encouraging the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize homosexual “marriage.” So because of this, and some other things, I have been very leary of Rubio.

  17. Alohalady14,
    I read an article about both Cruz and Rubio having pro gay marriage people involved in their campaigns. This is pretty unavoidable in just about anything today. Michael Voris interviewed people at random participating in the DC pro-life march a few years ago and the majority were O.K. with same sex marriage and also contraception. I do wonder if some of the problems Rubio got into were prompted by less than loyal advisors. Rubio has said he believes gay people are born that way, which has never been proven but most well informed people would say there is probably some greater or lesser predisposition. We also have some pretty confusing messages about gay marriage coming from the hierarchy of the Church these days, so I guess I’ll give Rubio a pass on this one.

  18. toadspittle says:

    “If you need to put the word ‘but’ after the phrase ‘I believe in freedom of speech’, then you don’t.”
    Unfettered freedom of speech, or action, or anything – is anarchy. There must be sane limits. Does anyone on CP&S think “freedom of speech” gives anyone else the right to go around saying, “Catholics are deluded idiots who should be strangled at birth,” or, “Christians should gang up and kill all the Muslims in the world,” or, “Every child should be made to memorise the Koran.”?

    “Well Toad which ever side of the lillypad the flies fall on, go for it.”
    Well, Gin-girl, you are indeed as free as you like to babble away your school-yard wisdom.
    Meaningless, though it is. Because nobody gives a damn. Least of all, Toad.

  19. ginnyfree says:

    Marco Rubio is on the record as saying more than once, (he even tweeted it) that Gay Marriage is the law of the land and a done deal and its time move on from there. Then he says he’s going to interpret the Constitution the way they did in the old days. Um, do see any wishy washy waffling? No, he is a wash out and will do as he’s told when elected. He doesn’t even know what he’s having for lunch, let alone how he’s gonna run a country. Hello? Deluded people only see what their delusions say they should see and when presented with facts to the contrary, tend to become upset because the Truth is trying to insinuate itself into their fantasy land. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  20. Michael says:

    Ginny,

    It would help matters quite a lot if you didn’t exagerrate so. Here is what Marco Rubio has actually said about Obergefell…

    Asked if he would amend the Constitution in order to overturn the SCOTUS’ decision, he said this:

    As I’ve said, that would be conceding that the current Constitution is somehow wrong and needs to be fixed. I don’t think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage. That belongs at the state and local level. And that’s why if you want to change the definition of marriage, which is what this argument is about.

    It’s not about discrimination. It is about the definition of a very specific, traditional, and age-old institution. That definitional change, if you want to change it, you have a right to petition your state legislature and your elected representatives to do it. What is wrong is that the Supreme Court has found this hidden constitutional right that 200 years of jurisprudence had not discovered and basically overturn the will of voters in Florida where over 60 percent passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage in the state constitution as the union of one man and one woman.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/marco-rubio-refuses-to-concede-the-constitutional-case-on-gay-marriage-vide

    In other discussion about this, all he has done is acknowledge the fact that the Obergefell decision is current US law, and said that to overturn it, one must do so through the correct channels (which Obergefell itself was not an example of). To not acknowledge that this is currently the law of the land really would be to live in a fantasy land, and in doing so he is not saying that he agrees with the decision, or that it’s time to ‘move on’ from that decision:

    “No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

    “If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and “the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

    “In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rubio-says-scotus-didnt-settle-marriage-issue-gods-rules-always-win

  21. Michael says:

    P.S. I recognise some of his other comments on this issue are not (ahem) as reassuring as one might hope (as the second link I provided above mentions), but all I am saying here is that he is quite straightforwardly not saying what you are making him out to be saying with respect to Obergefell – you are conflating his defence of correct procedure in US law with personal support for the SCOTUS’ decision.

  22. Mr J M Joyce says:

    “Unfettered freedom of speech, or action, or anything – is anarchy. There must be sane limits.” – Toadspittle (above).

    Freedom of speech cannot be compared to, or equated with, anything else. Free speech is not comparable to some notional or mythical right to total freedom of action; that’s like saying pyjamas are equal to purple bonglejos, or the mome rath outgrabe, in other words your statement is just complete nonsense. Those who wish to see the freedom to speak one’s mind fettered and in chains are usually, if not invariably, the very people who want to do the fettering and the chaining because they, and they alone, know what’s best for the rest of us. One man’s free speech can be another man’s anathema. One just has to be all grown up and live with that.

    The very freedom that allows one’s enemies to decry the faith and excoriate Catholics (and other Christians) is the exact same freedom that allows Catholics (and other Christians) to evangelise and attempt to spread the faith. Freedom of speech for me but not for you because I don’t like what you are saying isn’t freedom of speech, it’s dictatorship.

    Your version of the sane limits is not necessarily anyone else’s version, and that’s the problem and has always been the problem and will always remain the problem. The only way to deal with that problem and to keep us all free is to allow unfettered free speech. Incitement to violence is usually covered by the criminal law, but one must beware of seeing incitement to violence where nothing but bombast, rodomontade and rhetorical bluster are what is present. One can add to that, if one wishes, an independent judiciary upholding the absolute minimum of criminal law, but one should be aware that those last two statements port other arguments about freedom that there is no time, or space, to explore here.

    I stand by what I wrote earlier in these comments: “If you need to put the word ‘but’ after the phrase ‘I believe in freedom of speech’, then you don’t.” I’m afraid that you have failed to convince me otherwise.

  23. ginnyfree says:

    Very nice Mr. Joyce. Thank you. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  24. I like Marco but is he even a Catholic in good standing? He says he is Catholic but he attends his wife’s Baptist service every weekend. Someone please tell me otherwise! He should be taking his family to the one and only Church.

  25. Rubio was raised first as a Catholic, then as a protestant, then his parents and the family returned to Catholicism. He maintains relationships with the Evangelical Protestants and although he goes to Mass on Sunday, he also admires one of the Evangelical Preachers for his sermons and sometimes goes to hear him also.

  26. toadspittle says:

    “Those who wish to see the freedom to speak one’s mind fettered and in chains are usually, if not invariably, the very people who want to do the fettering and the chaining because they, and they alone, know what’s best for the rest of us. “
    Well Mr Joyce, you won’t find Toad arguing against that. And I do agree with you in general, and am greatly in favour of free speech, particularly when it’s me that’s doing the speaking. The moderators on here will not agree with either of us, on that score.
    But, as was earlier pointed out, crying “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is a crime, or should be. Also saying, “Take one of your guns, and shoot the first Muslim you see.” We must, I suppose, each hold our own tongues at times. Which is not the same thing to be sure.

    “(Rubio) doesn’t even know what he’s having for lunch, ”
    Neither do I – until I read the menu, Gin-Girl. Plenty of things conspire to make Marco unpromising presidential material. But that is not one of them.

  27. toadspittle says:

    ….However, we now see from the crazed and biased Catholic-persecuting media, that the Rubio Factor is rendered immaterial.
    The Florida High-Flyer is now just another Republican Dead Duck, with Donald still the live one. Trump has eaten Marco for lunch, with orange sauce.
    Vote for Bernie!

  28. ginnyfree says:

    Well Toad, I’m having a hard time seeing you as supporting a wimp like Bernie. Is Hillary simply too evil for even Toad? You must be getting tamed by all these Catholics. Come visit CM. The some feathers got way too ruffled when I stated that abstention can be a moral option during elections when the lesser of two evils is not copacetic with one’s conscience. I’m the anti-christ to some already. Oh dear. I’m still amazed sometimes how little some Catholics actually know about how to inform one’s conscience and what to do with it once one does stuff one’s head with the facts. I think some simply want to be told who to vote for and that’s the extent of their involvement. I’m glad Rubio bit the dust. Lack of respect for our basic liberties made him very troublesome as an alternative and he never undid his comments about Gay Marriage being acceptable as a the law of the land. What a loser and from the sound of it a sore one. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  29. toadspittle says:

    “Well Toad, I’m having a hard time seeing you as supporting a wimp like Bernie. Is Hillary simply too evil for even Toad?”
    Well Ginster, that’s because I’m a wimp myself. Don’t even own a gun, if you can believe such a thing. Not even a very small one.
    And I was a beneficiary of Socialism as a boy. Free health care, free education up to and including university level (art school, in fact. And they actually gave me grant money to go there!) So, I’m loyal to Socialism.
    The Donald is the manly, swaggering, aggressive, unwimpish, admirable, fellow for you no doubt.
    Best of luck with him.

  30. toadspittle says:

    (Moderators , can you add this line to the above? Thanks. T. S. Pittle)

    …And what,or where, is “CM”? Can’t find an answer on the web.

  31. ginnyfree says:

    Church Militant you [A moderator: several internet sources indicate that this American usage may not be acceptable even when applied to Toad, however much we may agree]. One of your not so favorite places.

  32. ginnyfree says:

    PS Why do you need a gun? You’ve got a rapid fire sticky icky tongue that could whack a fly at fifty paces and not bat an eye in the process.

  33. toadspittle says:

    “PS Why do you need a gun?”
    I don’t, Gininy. I live in Spain, where we are content to stab each other.
    (I thought CM might be Central Mississippi, or something. Now I know.)

  34. toadspittle says:

    I thought it was a little sausage.* No matter, Toad is insult-proof.
    But profuse thanks for the kindly thought on his behalf, Moderatalotors.

    * (Toad has often been called that.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s