Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/29/2011 8:10:38 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
To: mnehring

This in and of itself is enough for anyone to back away from him. I think he is dangerous!!!!


2 posted on 12/29/2011 8:13:54 PM PST by pollywog ("O Thou who changest not, abide with me.".......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
You must hate the constitution!!! /sarc.
3 posted on 12/29/2011 8:17:07 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You can't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.~Admiral Yamamoto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

I always thought that the Dennis Kucinich nuts were bad but it seems we have far more of them on our side.
Argh....
RON PAUL! RON PAUL!!!!!!!!......Yea right you frigging morons.
Ross Perot, Ross Perot!!!!
WooHoo!!


4 posted on 12/29/2011 8:24:41 PM PST by mowowie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

“.......he is just another worthless politician.”

That is exactly what he is.


7 posted on 12/29/2011 8:33:23 PM PST by Gator113 (~Just livin' life, my way~.. Newt/Palin-West-2012."got a lot swirling around in my head.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

“.......he is just another worthless politician.”

That is exactly what he is.


9 posted on 12/29/2011 8:33:31 PM PST by Gator113 (~Just livin' life, my way~.. Newt/Palin-West-2012."got a lot swirling around in my head.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

I believe that the 14th Amendment should be construed to protect the unborn.
The question I have is this. How can the Supreme Court prevent states from allowing it?
It’s not like an unborn child can take the mother and Dr. to court to get an injunction.
The only way to do this is for Congress to make it a federal crime to violate the civil rights of the unborn.
A reversal of Roe would essentially leave it up to each state absent protections for the unborn passed by Congress.


10 posted on 12/29/2011 8:34:02 PM PST by Clump (the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring; shield; seekthetruth; pollywog

Makes me wonder how pro-life conservatives can support him?

More from the Americans for Life site:

http://prolifeprofiles.com/ronpaul

Excerpt:
Ron Paul wants to be pro-life but is officially pro-choice state by state, and so contradicts himself and wrongly assumes that states’ rights supersede human rights, concluding that a state like California has the right to permit abortion. But the right to life is God-given so there can be no ‘right’ to decriminalize child killing.


11 posted on 12/29/2011 8:37:26 PM PST by JulieRNR21 (*OMG ...means Obama Must Go in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
RE:"Shockingly, Ron Paul agrees with the central finding of Roe v. Wade itself," says Darrell Birkey, director of research for American Right To Life, "that the constitutional protection of human rights does not apply to unborn children."

Now come on, the central (made up) find of Roe was that the freedom to have an abortion is a US constitutional right. That is why it nullified all state abortion laws on the books. If all it did was what was stated above abortion would still be illegal in many states.

12 posted on 12/29/2011 9:02:50 PM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

10,000 dollars Right to life is backing Romney.


15 posted on 12/29/2011 9:39:07 PM PST by littlesorrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
(Dr.) Ron Paul needs to stop self medicating.
17 posted on 12/29/2011 9:44:36 PM PST by TheCause ("that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
"Shockingly, Ron Paul agrees with the central finding of Roe v. Wade itself,"

Ron Paul is a feeble-minded boob who thinks the world of himself. His worshippers commonly say things like "If you support the Constitution you HAVE to support Ron Paul," which is a non-starter.

I can't stand him.

20 posted on 12/29/2011 10:03:11 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (Is it really time to go?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
So now we have conservative judicial activists here (in a creative re-interpretation of the 14th amendment). Just because Ron Paul does not support this creative re-interpretation he is labeled as not being pro-life. It is really a stretch to make the case that now, in 2011, suddenly the 14th amendment protects the unborn. And that anybody who disagrees is not pro-life.

This particular Right to Life group would greatly benefit from a Ron Paul presidency, because the stuff they are smoking (illegal now) migh become legal with Ron Paul as president.

Changes to current situation, in order from least effective to most effective) would be:
- act of Congress (might be iffy constitutionally)
- overturning Roe vs. Wade (back to the states)
- Constitutional Amendment

Notice that president is not really involved here (apart from signing an act of Congress).

I am fine with any of the current GOP candidates, including Ron Paul. I am just a little sick and tired of all this in-fighting. It is making Obama look good in comparison... I am just hoping that the GOP nomination will be decided quickly and decisively so that this infighting ends.

35 posted on 12/30/2011 4:58:12 AM PST by joe212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
Another tip of the hat to the VK. Had a disagreement with one of my son-in-laws during Christmas (and son-in-law is a responsible human). Had to put him in his place regarding paul. He was not changed in his opinion of paul though it was not due to a lack of trying. He will come around eventually. He thinks clearer than the paulbots.
44 posted on 12/30/2011 1:08:22 PM PST by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

The right to life is a fundamental federal issue. Not an area where Ron Paul, or anyone running for public office, should shrink from exercising authority. There is a rub, however, when it comes to practically exercising that authority, namely building enough prisons for all the baby killers and their proponents.

Would Ron Paul be in favor of federally funded abortions? No. Would he be in accord with legislation preventing people from exposing abortion for what it is? No. What is the track record - either by intent or effect - of other Republican Presidents when it comes to arresting baby killers?


45 posted on 12/30/2011 1:19:46 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew (let establishment heads explode)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

Ron Paul’s core cult following hates the lip-service he plays to defending the unborn anyway. Never does it occur to these idiots that the little man is every bit as duplicitous and slimy as Mitt Romney.

Any serious pro-lifer who is even considering this lunatic needs to have their head examined.


46 posted on 12/30/2011 2:02:42 PM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Some men just want to watch the world burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: little jeremiah; wagglebee; narses
ping for some pseudo-constitutionalist garbage.

Per Dr. (states rights trump the right to life) Paul:

I don't see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues. The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a "Federal Department of Abortion."

Talk about a confused position. (A personhood amendment would mean that abortions would be handled by existing homicide laws, not separate abortion laws...you big dummy...and the Fed's constitutional role would be to make sure that the states enforce their existing homicide laws...you big dummy)

Talk about a confused man. I swear, I don't even think he makes a good libertarian.

52 posted on 12/30/2011 3:28:31 PM PST by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good-Pope Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
Ron Paul agrees with the central finding of Roe v. Wade itself

That is blatantly false. He never said that, and he is pro-life.

56 posted on 12/30/2011 11:24:20 PM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
Ok we get it. Ron Paul is not a viable presidential candidate. Fifteen threads a day pop up to make everyone aware of that.

Any chance we can talk about how bad the economy is, though? You know like really important stuff.
58 posted on 12/31/2011 12:23:09 PM PST by randomhero97 ("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
DESTROY THE HEATHEN!!!

61 posted on 12/31/2011 10:00:44 PM PST by yup2394871293
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

Hope you’re happy with Romney, BTW.


62 posted on 12/31/2011 10:02:25 PM PST by yup2394871293
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson