Posted on 06/12/2014 12:28:44 PM PDT by PoloSec
NEW YORK – The office of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has issued a statement to WND firing back against any suggestion that his participation in a conference call Wednesday held by a group that supports immigration reform indicates he favors amnesty for illegal aliens.
“Sen. Rand Paul never embraced amnesty on the call,” his office stated in an email. “Sen. Paul has never advocated for amnesty in any other forum and he voted against the Senate immigration bill.
-SNIP-
A column by Paul on immigration was published by Breitbart News Thursday morning. Paul writes that he’s “for immigration reform because I am against allowing 12 million more illegal immigrants into our country.”
“If we do nothing, 12 million more illegal immigrants will come. We must be in favor of reform — smart reform that starts with border security,” he says.
Then he states emphatically: “Characterizing that position as ‘amnesty’ is simply untrue.”
Paul says the status quo “is a lawless border.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Admitting it is generally the toughest part.
What laws have he voted against that would have restricted or outlawed abortion?
He's on record as saying that he basically thinks it's up to the mother.
Is there action you’re saying he should have taken that he didn’t?
You mean other than actually being pro-life? Probably not.
Do you hold other so-called conservatives to the same standard?
A person CANNOT be a conservative without being pro-life. Ask around about me if you like, I hold EVERYONE to this standard. If this wasn't a pro-life forum, I wouldn't be here.
Then he states emphatically: “Characterizing that position as ‘amnesty’ is simply untrue.”
No it’s not. We all know that “reform” is a code word for amnesty, and Paul’s lies to the contrary aren’t fooling anyone (I hope).
Yeah, notice, he’s only against allowing 12 million MORE into the country. The implication is that he is perfectly fine with the millions already here.
Leftists parse. Paul is of the left. Ergo he parses.
Always look at/listen to what they arent saying for the truth of what they are.
“So who is the freerepublic collective candidate for President?”
Hahahaha, that’s a good one. We haven’t even begun to fight and try to get each other zotted over primary candidates yet. Gotta do that first before we can ever hope to get a consensus around here.
Ru Paul doesn’t fall far from the Paultard tree.
andyk sure asks a lot of questions.
He made a very erroneous comment upthread that Rand Paul was 100% anti-abortion. I corrected him in my post 48. He never responded to that but kept on arguing that point.
Now he wants to know if Paul should have taken action but didn’t?
How about this? How about Paul saying he WON’T take action because the country isn’t ready for it?
Axelrod then said, “Well, would you sign or promote a law that would add –“ apparently in reference to restricting abortion.
Paul said, “No. I think where the country is – I think persuasion is part of this. I think where the country is, is somewhere in the middle, that we’re not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise.”
Look at the tree that fruit dropped from. Why would anyone think he doesn’t idolize his father and probably holds all the same views? It’s much more reasonable to think that he does think the same way, but just realized that openly voicing those views would get him stuck in the House forever just like dad.
And of course, leaving a loophole to allow any abortion a physician deems necessary essentially leaves abortion on demand completely legal. As we’ve seen with medical marijuana, if you want something bad enough, you can easily find a doctor who will go along with you and help you get it.
This MUST be all your fault. You were mean to andy....
Opus Delecti
Me | 6/12/2014 | andyk
It is mine as well. The pro-amnesty crowd are liberal in many ways. They are in favor of making legal citizens of the hordes who have come here ILLEGALLY and, as we see so very often with liberals, they deny that is what they are for. Call me confused. If something it worth advocating for why isn't it worth being openly honest about it?
To the point of this thread, Rand Paul will never be POTUS. And to that point, I couldn't be happier.
Saw that.
On one of the music boards I frequent, there is a 30 YO that uses his supposed liberal approved Aspergers as a hammer to manipulate his way to pity.
Same difference here.
*””Rand Paul is opposed to abortion in all cases.””*
No he isn’t, at least according to him, he isn’t.
CNN:
BLITZER: So, just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do believe that, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, is that right?
PAUL: Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.
I would say that after birth, you know, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one- day-old or six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being, but it is more complicated because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So, I don’t think it’s a simple as checking box and saying exceptions or no exceptions.
And there are a lot of decisions that are made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t — the law won’t apply to, but I think it’s important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say, oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family. And so, I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in a category on any of that.
BLITZER: Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions.
PAUL: Well, there’s going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved.
So, I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say, the people came more to my way of thinking, it’s still be a lot of complicated things that the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.
Too late. Andy has left the building. See opus link a couple posts up.
BLITZER: So, just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do believe that, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, is that right?
PAUL: Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.
He is still here, his opus was just a lame libertarian complaint, not a zot opus.
Pathetic.
Mmmmmm.....the worm turns. Rand learns fast. The Cantor loss was a rude awakening.
Saw a clip where even Hillary was backtracking amnesty.
ROTFLOL
Actually we’ve never had a better week for the anti-amnesty argument than (1) Cantor slaughtered by amnesty, and, (2) the endless putrid mass swarming across the border dominating the news.
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.