Posted on 02/20/2010 2:42:51 PM PST by onyx
Ron Paul Wins CPAC 2012 Presidential Straw Poll
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term. http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/abortion-2/
Damn. You just don't give up do you?
Not if you burn the whole friggin’ Constitution to do it you jackass...
"Idiotic"? How can a clear reading of simple words be "idiotic"?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Even Blackmun, the author of the majority Roe opinion, admitted that if the fetus is a person, they are "of course" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Your heroes the Pauls are worse than Blackmun. They admit the fetus is a person, and then say the states can allow the killing of these innocent persons to continue. They consistently pretend that the Fourteenth Amendment, with its clear requirements placed upon the states to protect the unalienable rights of all, does not exist.
I'm not burning it, you are. At least the parts you don't like - because of some misguided and confused notion you have about what government is even for.
Again, the Pauls consistently offer phony legislation that looks pro-life on the surface, but is exposed as the deception it is when you uncover the fact that it doesn’t address the imperative duty of every state to protect all innocent persons.
It’s pro-choice for states, and it ignores the parts of the Constitution that the Pauls don’t like.
You will need to over turn Roe before anything else gets done.
Stop trying to paint the Paul's with the pro-abortion brush. Just because they want to take a more Constitutional approach does not make them the Enemy. Your endless attempts at character assassination are hurting your cause more than it is helping.
"I know you are but what am I".
Really? Is that the best you have? No wonder your beloved AIP can't field a candidate that garners even a percentage of what the LP does.
Try reading the bills purposed and who else is signing on to them.
a more Constitutional approach
One that ignores the Constitution, and the founders' clear statements about what the purpose of government and our Constitution even are.
I’ve read ‘em.
That's why the death mongers call their intended victims "it," "brain dead," and a host of other dehumanizing terms. If they're forced to admit they're people, they have to admit they have the rights of personhood. And they can't do that.
No State shall...deprive any person of life ...without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Which part of that is so hard to understand?
But these pro-choice-for-staters are worse. They openly admit the personhood of the child, and then ignore the Fourteenth Amendment. The Pauls do it. McCain does it. Sarah Palin does it.
Their position destroys the basis in principle of the pro-life movement. It's poison.
Debra Medina is a different matter. I like her most of her stances on political issues overall, but it seems to me that she's gone well past just saying something like "We needs to investigate possible failures of intel, and even possible cover-ups of intel failures by self-serving officials" (which I don't think is "Trutherism" at all; it's a demand for government accountability as much as anything), and might be willing to entertain the notion of government complicity (or partial government complicity) in the actual attack.
That's not to insult Medina's supporters, who may have a different view of her comments; all that I can say is that in my own opinion, Medina's comments give off a bit of that "truther" vibe that I don't get from Rand Paul, and which make me uncomfortable with her.
And I think that's unfortunate, because Medina's positions on a number of other issues (economics, gun rights, etc.) are otherwise meritorious; but there you have it.
Maybe I'm just going with my gut on that, but that's my sense of things. Your mileage may vary.
Don't be an idiot...
Thanks for the ping!
Conservative posers who like molesting farm animals in their spare time prefer Palin, but thanks for sharing your unique insights.
“All this does is prove beyond any doubt that CPAC is no longer conservative.”
The Republican party is no longer conservative.
Who are you kidding? You can’t even “get Roe out of the way” if you’ve abandoned the principles that made Roe unconstitutional and immoral in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.