Posted on 05/26/2015 3:22:00 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Thanks for post 21
Eric J. Scheidler, the executive director of the Pro-Life Action League:
“Paul is a co-sponsor of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in the Senate and opposes taxpayer funding of abortion, the two legislative issues most likely to come before our next president. I would expect a fair hearing on pro-life cases from any judges Paul would appoint to the federal bench.” Yes, you're a liar.
How is your homework on the Federal government's authority to violate the Bill of Rights on the basis of its "having a lot to say about what comes into the country" coming along?
Man, you libertarians are the most dishonest, sleazy posters, and the most likely to be nuts as all get out.
A 100% pro-life GOP presidential candidate running for federal office, doesn’t defend himself as “In general, I am pro-life.”
“During a public appearance in Philadelphia on Monday, Paul, who has previously said he’s “100 percent pro-life,” answered a question about how much he will talk about the issue of abortion on the campaign trail.
“You know … I will answer the question as honestly as I can,” Paul said at the National Constitution Center. “I didn’t run for office because of this issue. It wasn’t what got me to leave my practice. And I ran for office mainly because I became concerned that we’re going to destroy the country with debt. That we would borrow so much money that we would just destroy the currency.”
Paul, during the discussion, was also asked whether he believes the issue of abortion is best handled by the states, or by the federal government under the 14th Amendment. “I think best by the states,” Paul replied.”
It is the inference any intelligent person would make, present company included, Fred.
Your boy talks like a liberal. I don’t think that will help him, the dopers and fag lovers won’t vote Republican.
With regards to #1: Here's Gallup's survey of issues that matter most to voters.http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx Economic issues are the top priority, as always. Among non-economic issues, abortion is 24th on the list. Fewer than 0.5% of Americans believe this is the most important issue facing the country.
So not only is Paul not alone in thinking this is not the most important reason for being politically involved, but the reverse is true. YOU are [practically] alone in thinking otherwise.
One item #2: If you understood how our Constitution actually worked, you'd know that this was correct and proper. Again, since you seem not to grasp the Tenth Amendment: The Federal government has no authority whatsoever to permit, forbid, or regulate abortion. NONE. It never did, and barring a Constitutional Amendment it never will.
The status quo ante before Roe vs. Wade was that abortion was PROPERLY regulated by the states, because the Constitution -- in enumerating no congressional authority to the contrary -- says the states had that authority. That is what the law should revert to once the hideous Roe is finally overturned. Again, Paul is correct, and you are very sadly, and very badly, mistaken.
In fine and in sum, your position is: "I believe that Paul is not as opposed to abortion as ansel12. Therefore, he is pro-abortion."
Nope. Not even close. It's a lie.
The inference you made, you made because you don't like him. That's all.
Nobody, except 1) a moron who cannot read, 2) an unhinged poster, struggling desperately to make a case that Paul's statement says exactly the OPPOSITE of what it says, or 3) a dishonest "journalist" trying to convince people that Paul is outside the Republican mainstream would make that inference.
There are lots of Republicans who aren't dopers and fag lovers who believe that the various "wars" declared by the Feds have not made us safer, have not reduced criminality or drug use, and have seriously damaged our liberties.
Rambling? You mean posting quotes?
Rand Paul is running for federal office, which means that he will be making abortion policy at the federal level.
States do not make abortion law at the federal level, and Paul is not running for state office anyway.
This is interesting, “”In fine and in sum, your position is: “I believe that Paul is not as opposed to abortion as ansel12. Therefore, he is pro-abortion.”””
Yes, Paul admits that he is not fully pro-life, but pro-life in “general”.
If you check, you will find he has supported and sponsored pro-life legislation at the Federal level [even though it doesn't belong there.]
Your position is, as long as it's about your favorite issue, "the hell with the Constitution." Gotcha. That's how we arrived in the sorry place we find ourselves today.
Being pro-choice, and running for president, he is clearly telling us that he will be weak on abortion, as president.
This is his primary and he is moving farther and farther left on abortion, among other things.
As President he will have to make abortion policy, and he is telling us that he is not pro-life.
Go back to grade school civics.
You really need to learn something about government. Are you against abortion, are you pro-life at all levels of American life, seriously focused on ending it? What state is it that makes abortion policy for military hospitals, at the VA and in foreign policy, which state handles contracts and regulations in regards to federal employment and benefits?
The presidency is the best platform to fight abortion from, and Rand Paul is telling us that he won't make that fight, and that in fact, he is pro-choice himself.
The federal government has a lot to do with abortion, and not just abortion on military bases for federal employees, but in foreign policy, and their national issue influence is immeasurable.
Here is just one example:
*The Mexico City Policy requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries. The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009. Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.*
Still waiting for you to go back to grade school civics class, at the very least to complete your assignment about where in the US Constitution the Federal government has the authority to regulate drugs.
Elect a strong pro-life president.
Are you against abortion, are you pro-life at all levels of American life, seriously focused on ending it? What state is it that makes abortion policy for military hospitals, at the VA and in foreign policy, which state handles contracts and regulations in regards to federal employment and benefits?
*The Mexico City Policy requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries. The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009. Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.*
I like Rand Paul and in many ways I believe we are of the same mind. But I don’t understand why he is blind to the fact that life and religious freedom are the top priority. And I’ll never understand why he endorsed McConnell.
When every President we have had since 1973 is prostrate before Almighty God, He's not going to care about who makes policy.
Forgive me, you're defending him like you swore an oath of allegiance to a liege lord, a common phenomenon among Paulbots.
The inference you made, you made because you don't like him. That's all.
YOU don't get to tell me why I do things. I would have had a negative reaction if someone I LOVED said that same stupid thing. an unhinged poster, struggling desperately to make a case that Paul's statement says exactly the OPPOSITE of what it says,
Of you're a dense fellow. Should he have also said "I'M a REPUBLICAN WHO'S AGAINST RAPE!!!" Implication being, UNLIKE all those other Republicans who DO support it according to the feminists. The left SAYs Republicans are "against clean air and water" they are NOT.
There are lots of Republicans who aren't dopers and fag lovers who believe that the various "wars" declared by the Feds have not made us safer, have not reduced criminality or drug use, and have seriously damaged our liberties.
You continue to miss the point. His talk of "people of color" behind bars, his "Republican shouldn't suppress the vote" (a democrat accusation). He's talking like a liberal TO liberal trash who he expects to convince to vote for him. They won't. Meanwhile he'll alienate decent people.
The religious liberty issue is very strange, and one of the reasons he is not my guy. A real (l or L) libertarian would be in favor of provisions defending the First Amendment. This is all the more urgent given that Democrats are now polling over 51% in favor of banning certain kinds of speech. That has never happened before. Just goes to show you how far the gay mafia is willing to go to force acceptance.
I don't know why he endorsed McConnell. But bad as McConnell is, he is no Arlen Specter. And when both were my Senators, Rick Santorum not only enthusiastically endorsed, but actively campaigned on Specter's behalf. Try figuring that one out. Politics makes for strange bedfellows is the head-shaking acceptance of that fact...
The question of when life begins and ends was up to the states until Roe. We may someday be able to get back to that. Then we can fight it in the states, in the political branches, where it belongs.
I'll give you the last word, but don't expect me to read your reply. Argumentum ad nauseum has no appeal to me. You've made your "points" and they don't address the question I asked.
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.