# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Admit it folks: the only reason you are against abortion is because Ron is against it

## 56ktarget

Given that libertarian icons like barry goldwater and gary johnson support abortion, many paulites who would have otherwise supported abortion are in fact against it solely because ron is.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Gary Johnson has made the unusual move of trying to find middle ground on a very polarized issue.  I think I've heard him say he's against late term abortions, but aside from that leaves it open ended as a "Women's Issue" by default.

----------


## Origanalist

What a loony theory.

----------


## Spikender

56k, you do realize that there are many supporters of Ron Paul who are for or undecided on abortion, right?

We make compromises on issues that aren't as important to us, or that we still haven't made up our minds on. I personally don't know where I stand on abortion, though I do lean toward the pro-life side in many cases.

The truth is that there are of course pro-life people who support Ron, or people who came to Ron Paul and changed their mind on abortion due to the way he phrased it.

You made this topic simply to try and catch people slippin' or something, but it's just silly and juvenile.

----------


## fr33

This is ridiculous. I had my opinion on abortion long before I ever heard of Ron Paul.

I know you're a drive-by troll but to further dismantle your argument; I disagree with Ron Paul on evolution and the opinion that sanctions are an act of war.

----------


## Tod

Nope, 'fraid the theory is wrong in my case too.  Back to the trolling board.

----------


## Guitarzan

This...from the same OP who a week ago thought he was making big news by revealing to us that Glenn Greenwald was actually a liberal. Oh my.

----------


## milgram

Admit it: Democrats suddenly cared about abortion because they had little else to run on in 2012.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

lol...obvious troll thread is obvious.

----------


## eduardo89

I was pro-life way before I had even heard of Ron Paul. I don't even consider him to be 100% pro-life. 

and I'm not a libertarian.

----------


## euphemia

I was pro-life before I heard of Ron Paul.  While I am libertarian, I feel Roe v Wade should be overturned.  The plaintiff has publicly said she was not raped.  She also did not abort once the decision was rendered.  The case was decided on the basis of a lie.

----------


## Suzanimal

Yep, you figured it out. BTW, Ron Paul is also the only reason I like chocolate chip cookies and riding bicycles.

----------


## Terry1

As far as I understand Ron Paul's stand on abortion is that he's personally against it, but believes that everyone should be free to choose and leave it up to the states and the people.

This is why a lot of the pro-life folks were accusing RP of being pro-abortion.  Ron's words as I remember were he's against it, but believed that everyone is accountable to God for what they do in this life.  

RP was misquoted and misunderstood by a lot of folks and misrepresented too.  I actually got so frustrated because people are ignorant of the real reasons for most wars and why the government chooses to involve itself in the drug and abortion business.

A lot of people still don't fully understand that Liberty and freedom always come at a price and that price is allowing people to make their own mistakes and be accountable to God alone instead of government.  Governments morality will never reflect Gods morality, but will always be geared to reflect whatever it considers morality based upon the majority rule.  Want government to regulate morality?  That's why we have so many dead babies today.

----------


## eduardo89

> As far as I understand Ron Paul's stand on abortion is that he's personally against it, but believes that everyone should be free to choose and leave it up to the states and the people.


No, he believes it should be illegal because it is simply another form of murder.

----------


## Terry1

> No, he believes it should be illegal because it is simply another form of murder.





Yes, because that's his personal belief, but he never wanted the feds to decide that.  Paul wanted the states to decide.

----------


## fisharmor

I was very much not a libertarian before Ron Paul rose to prominence, and this is pretty much the exact issue that kept me from being one.
All I ever knew before RP was that libertarians supported abortion, and that was a dealbreaker.

----------


## Terry1

> I was very much not a libertarian before Ron Paul rose to prominence, and this is pretty much the exact issue that kept me from being one.
> All I ever knew before RP was that libertarians supported abortion, and that was a dealbreaker.


I would never support abortion, but support the freedom and right for people to choose their own paths and be judged by God and not government.  The feds need to step away from the abortion issue and leave it up to the states and the people to decide.  All we're doing by giving government the power to decide for us is feeding the monster that will inevitably destroy us.

If it were up to the states--we wouldn't have had as many *legal* abortions as we've had nationwide because the feds were in control of this issue.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes, because that's his personal belief, but he never wanted the feds to decide that.  Paul wanted the states to decide.


He wants to define personhood on a federal level. What he does not want, though, is for the federal government to be prosecuting abortionists. He wants that to remain at the state level. He does not, however, believe that abortion should be legal in any state but thinks those laws must be done at the state level per the Constitution.

----------


## eduardo89

> I would never support abortion, but support the freedom and right for people to choose their own paths and be judged by God and not government.


I completely disagree with this. Abortion is murder and ought to be treated by civil authorities as such. There is absolutely no difference between murdering a child in the womb and a newborn. Why should one be legal and the other not? Do you support repealing laws which punish the murder of newborns, in the name of supporting 'the freedom and right for people to choose their own paths and be judged by God and not government'?

----------


## Terry1

> I completely disagree with this. Abortion is murder and ought to be treated by civil authorities as such. There is absolutely no difference between murdering a child in the womb and a newborn. Why should one be legal and the other not? Do you support repealing laws which punish the murder of newborns, in the name of supporting 'the freedom and right for people to choose their own paths and be judged by God and not government'?


But ed, my point is that letting the states decide is the lessor of two evils compared to allowing the feds to control this issue.  You choose.  Do you think that the feds are going to become more Godly and moral with regard to the unborn child?  No--the feds will follow majority rule and the majority are pro-abortion.  What's the only good option left?

If the states decide--at least there's a better chance that the mortality rate of the unborn will decrease--not increase.  It can't increase now because it's already nationwide.  It can only go down from this point by giving the power back to the states.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Given that libertarian icons like barry goldwater and gary johnson support abortion, many paulites who would have otherwise supported abortion are in fact against it solely because ron is.


Yes, because why would anyone even care enough to have a real opinion on abortion?  They're just following along because, let's be serious, nobody feels strongly enough about killing babies to make up their own mind.

----------


## eduardo89

> But ed, my point is that letting the states decide is the lessor of two evils compared to allowing the feds to control this issue.  You choose.  Do you think that the feds are going to become more Godly and moral with regard to the unborn child?  No--the feds will follow majority rule and the majority are pro-abortion.  What's the only good option left?


Actually a slim majority of Americans are pro-life in most cases. 

I personally think abortion should be outlawed federally.

----------


## klamath

> Yes, because that's his personal belief, but he never wanted the feds to decide that.  Paul wanted the states to decide.


You're projecting your beliefs on RP. He voted for a federal ban on partial birth abortion. What you are saying is RP is prochoice ie Pro abortion and that is wrong. Yes RP believes it should be a state issue like I do but he believes the states should outlaw it.

----------


## Terry1

> Actually a slim majority of Americans are pro-life in most cases. 
> 
> I personally think abortion should be outlawed federally.


I do too, but in reality--and at this stage--do you really think that's a possibility?  I don't.  The only good option we have left is giving the power back to the people.  The morality of the feds will always reflect what the majority of the people decide.  This is why it's a dangerous thing to give that much power to the feds for any reason.

----------


## Terry1

Then there's the problem we have with the SC's who think they're God by over-riding the vote of the people too.

----------


## Cap

Taking of innocent life does not compute with me in regards to following the NAP.

----------


## oyarde

> Admit it: Democrats suddenly cared about abortion because they had little else to run on in 2012.


It is the only issue they believe in choice in .Everything else they will steal and mandate . They are the biggest collective anti freedom, anti economic organization in this hemisphere .

----------


## acptulsa

> Yep, you figured it out. BTW, Ron Paul is also the only reason I like chocolate chip cookies and riding bicycles.


Damned straight.  And he's the only reason I've ever been to Texas.  What's more, the fact that Ron's an OB/GYN is the only reason I ever tried...

Sorry.  I can't say that with a straight face.  I tried.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Damned straight.  And he's the only reason I've ever been to Texas.  What's more, the fact that Ron's an OB/GYN is the only reason I ever tried...
> 
> Sorry.  I can't say that with a straight face.  I tried.


LMAO

He's also the only reason I'm against taxes and wars, I loved taxes and wars before Ron Paul.

----------


## CaptUSA

Admit it, 56ktarget, the only reason you are _for_ abortion is because you blame your mother for bringing you into your miserable existence and wished she would have ended you before it all began.


(You see, we all can play the troll game.)

----------


## Ronin Truth

Abortion is a violation of the NAP.  Care to guess again?

----------


## specsaregood

> Given that libertarian icons like barry goldwater and gary johnson support abortion, many paulites who would have otherwise supported abortion are in fact against it solely because ron is.


I'd venture to say that a plurality of members here weren't alive the last time Goldwater was a big national figure.
And Johnson is a "libertarian icon"?   I don't think he is one; he definitely isn't one in terms of being a big thinker, philosopher or worth "following" or any such thing.  Hell, I think a fair number of people here think of him as more of a douche than an icon.

----------


## jkr

i reject your assumptions and presumptions
no one has a RIGHT to kill innocents based on future hypothetical scenarios

----------


## nayjevin

Ron Paul made me pro-life.  I was neutral/ignorant before, hadn't thought of it much.  Pretty sure having kids would've done it if Ron hadn't though.  And still not sure what the government's role is, if any.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'd venture to say that a plurality of members here weren't alive the last time Goldwater was a big national figure.
> And Johnson is a "libertarian icon"? I don't think he is one; he definitely isn't one in terms of being a big thinker, philosopher or worth "following" or any such thing. Hell, I think a fair number of people here think of him as more of a douche than an icon.


I was around for Goldwater. He was a conservative. An interesting aside: Hillary Clinton was one of Barry's girls. LOL!




> _The Conscience of a Conservative_ is Barry Goldwater's classic which re-ignited the American conservative movement and made him a political star. The term "Goldwater conservative" became a household word. The book has influenced countless conservatives in the United States, helping to lay the foundation for the Reagan Revolution.


 http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Con.../dp/1481978292

I'm underwhelmed from what I've seen and read about Johnson.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> 56k, you do realize that there are many supporters of Ron Paul who are for or undecided on abortion, right?
> 
> We make compromises on issues that aren't as important to us, or that we still haven't made up our minds on. I personally don't know where I stand on abortion, though I do lean toward the pro-life side in many cases.
> 
> The truth is that there are of course pro-life people who support Ron, or people who came to Ron Paul and changed their mind on abortion due to the way he phrased it.
> 
> You made this topic simply to try and catch people slippin' or something, but it's just silly and juvenile.


I was anti-abortion before I was a libertarian.  My extreme anti-abortion stances is one of the only beliefs that I have consistently held for my entire life.



> I was pro-life way before I had even heard of Ron Paul. I don't even consider him to be 100% pro-life. 
> 
> and I'm not a libertarian.


What does Ron believe that isn't 100% pro-life?  I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just honestly not sure what you are referring to.  




> As far as I understand Ron Paul's stand on abortion is that he's personally against it, but believes that everyone should be free to choose and leave it up to the states and the people.
> 
> This is why a lot of the pro-life folks were accusing RP of being pro-abortion.  Ron's words as I remember were he's against it, but believed that everyone is accountable to God for what they do in this life.  
> 
> RP was misquoted and misunderstood by a lot of folks and misrepresented too.  I actually got so frustrated because people are ignorant of the real reasons for most wars and why the government chooses to involve itself in the drug and abortion business.
> 
> A lot of people still don't fully understand that Liberty and freedom always come at a price and that price is allowing people to make their own mistakes and be accountable to God alone instead of government.  Governments morality will never reflect Gods morality, but will always be geared to reflect whatever it considers morality based upon the majority rule.  Want government to regulate morality?  That's why we have so many dead babies today.





> Yes, because that's his personal belief, but he never wanted the feds to decide that.  Paul wanted the states to decide.


Should the states ban abortion?

Personally, I think any state that is not willing to prosecute abortion should be forced to secede, but should not be coerced by the Federal government to do so in any other fashion.  If a state did secede we'd have no more right to interfere than with abortions in Canada,  However, I don't think the constitution as currently written would allow for my suggestion, a constitutional amendment should be required.

I see a MASSIVE difference between abortion and drugs, for reasons that eduardo describes later in this thread.



> I was very much not a libertarian before Ron Paul rose to prominence, and this is pretty much the exact issue that kept me from being one.
> All I ever knew before RP was that libertarians supported abortion, and that was a dealbreaker.


Many libertarians oppose abortion.  Interestingly enough, many of those who are pro-choice nonetheless acknowledge that the unborn are human lives (Rothbard, Block, etc.)



> He wants to define personhood on a federal level. What he does not want, though, is for the federal government to be prosecuting abortionists. He wants that to remain at the state level. He does not, however, believe that abortion should be legal in any state but thinks those laws must be done at the state level per the Constitution.


OK, so if a state decides to declare abortion to be a justifiable homicide, what would Ron do about it?  It seems like the answer is nothing.  And frankly, I think that's a better answer than trying to centralize the issue.  Centralizing the issue is what got us Roe v Wade.  Big governments are always corrupt and a government ruling over 300 million people always qualifies as big.  They don't care about you nor do they care about their unborn child.  That said, I could go for an amendment to the US constitution that defines life as beginning at conception and that kicks any state that refuses to recognize this out of the US.




> I completely disagree with this. Abortion is murder and ought to be treated by civil authorities as such. There is absolutely no difference between murdering a child in the womb and a newborn. Why should one be legal and the other not? Do you support repealing laws which punish the murder of newborns, in the name of supporting 'the freedom and right for people to choose their own paths and be judged by God and not government'?


Yeah, I've never really understood this argument for that reason.




> I'd venture to say that a plurality of members here weren't alive the last time Goldwater was a big national figure.
> And Johnson is a "libertarian icon"?   I don't think he is one; he definitely isn't one in terms of being a big thinker, philosopher or worth "following" or any such thing.  Hell, I think a fair number of people here think of him as more of a douche than an icon.


I agree.  I'm mostly indifferent to the man, he was the best ballot option in 2012 but he's not great by any means.  For what its worth, he did call Ron Paul "his hero" in the minor party debate (yes, I actually watched one of the minor party debates, sue me) so he's not among those moderate libertarians that were trying to bring Ron down.

----------


## eduardo89

> What does Ron believe that isn't 100% pro-life?  I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just honestly not sure what you are referring to.


He is in favor of the morning after pill which can prevent a fertilised egg from implanting. He's also made comments like this:
"If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of oestrogen."

That to me is not 100% pro-life.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He is in favor of the morning after pill which can prevent a fertilised egg from implanting. He's also made comments like this:
> "If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of oestrogen."
> 
> That to me is not 100% pro-life.


I'm not sure what oestrogen does in those cases, does it kill an already conceived child, or does it simply prevent a child from being conceived in the first place?

The same question would apply to the morning after pill.  I've seen some people say the morning after pill is an abortificacent while others say it does the same thing as a regular birth control pill.

For what its worth, I think the idea of trying to prosecute something like that would be downright ludicrous, and wouldn't work any better than trying to regulate drugs.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm not sure what oestrogen does in those cases, does it kill an already conceived child, or does it simply prevent a child from being conceived in the first place?
> 
> The same question would apply to the morning after pill.  I've seen some people say the morning after pill is an abortificacent while others say it does the same thing as a regular birth control pill.
> 
> For what its worth, I think the idea of trying to prosecute something like that would be downright ludicrous, and wouldn't work any better than trying to regulate drugs.


Oh that reminds me, Ron Paul is also anti-life because he supports the use of contraception. Thanks for pointing that out.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh that reminds me, Ron Paul is also anti-life because he supports the use of contraception. Thanks for pointing that out.


Doesn't that preclude you from supporting him based on what you've said in the past?

----------


## eduardo89

> Doesn't that preclude you from supporting him based on what you've said in the past?


No. My support for Ron is not _because_ of some his anti-life views, it is in spite of those. I still consider him 99% pro-life, but I do think he is misguided in some of his views. He is against abortion, he just doesn't understand that he hold some views that are incompatible with upholding the sanctity of life.

That said, if he was like Gary Johnson and actively supported abortion then I could never support him.

----------


## fisharmor

> I'm not sure what oestrogen does in those cases, does it kill an already conceived child, or does it simply prevent a child from being conceived in the first place?


First the sperm fertilizes the egg, then the egg implants in the uterus.
Hormone treatments often allow fertilization and then mess with the implantation.  Like the morning after pill.
RP rationalizes this by saying the morning after pill is nothing more than a more potent birth control pill.  Same drugs, just more of them in a one-time dose.

What he's glossing over is that even though that particular kind of daily birth control pill might be legal, it's still an abortifacient.  So anything based on it is also an abortifacient.  It's an abortion inducing pill.

And Ed's right, for that reason, he's not 100% pro-life.

----------


## Uriah

I know people that almost did not vote for Ron Paul because he was pro-life. He didn't change their minds. Personally, my view was mostly undecided on the issue. I saw that it was an extremely divisive issue that didn't have an affect on the way this country was run(into the ground). It has always been a hot button issue and I avoided it because of that. Over the last few years I've spent more time on self reflection and introspection and have gained a clearer image of my own identity and views on abortion. Ron Paul added comment to the topic but did not give me my view.

----------


## amy31416

OP is right, I hold no opinion or belief that Ron Paul (aka GOD) did not tell me is good and just. I even endorse Murray Sabrin wholeheartedly.

----------


## specsaregood

> What he's glossing over is that even though that particular kind of daily birth control pill might be legal, it's still an abortifacient.  So anything based on it is also an abortifacient.  It's an abortion inducing pill.


It is only an abortifacient IF conception has occurred; which we have no way of knowing whether or not that took place.  Unless conception occurred (which usually it hasn't) then no abortion has been induced.

----------


## eduardo89

> First the sperm fertilizes the egg, then the egg implants in the uterus.
> Hormone treatments often allow fertilization and then mess with the implantation.  Like the morning after pill.
> RP rationalizes this by saying the morning after pill is nothing more than a more potent birth control pill.  Same drugs, just more of them in a one-time dose.
> 
> What he's glossing over is that even though that particular kind of daily birth control pill might be legal, it's still an abortifacient.  So anything based on it is also an abortifacient.  It's an abortion inducing pill.
> 
> And Ed's right, for that reason, he's not 100% pro-life.


Thanks for that very good explanation.

----------


## eduardo89

> It is only an abortifacient IF conception has occurred; which we have no way of knowing whether or not that took place.  Unless conception occurred (which usually it hasn't) then no abortion has been induced.


So just because you don't know if you ended a life means it's morally justifiable or somehow the pro-life course of action?

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## eduardo89

> Ive always heard Dr.Paul speaking of it in terms of legality and science.  Since you can't prove conception occurred, you can't consider it murder and would be tough to justify outlawing.  Otherwise, we might as well outlaw anything that might end up being used as a murder weapon.    But personally, he says he believes in life at conception and I doubt he would have his wife use those things.


He has said he would use them on a patient, so why would he have moral objections to his wife using them? Unless of course, he's a hypocrite when it comes to morality.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No. My support for Ron is not _because_ of some his anti-life views, it is in spite of those. I still consider him 99% pro-life, but I do think he is misguided in some of his views. He is against abortion, he just doesn't understand that he hold some views that are incompatible with upholding the sanctity of life.
> 
> That said, if he was like Gary Johnson and actively supported abortion then I could never support him.


So, just out of curiosity, if I were to say "you know what, I don't like Gary Johnson's views on abortion and he's not an ideal candidate for that reason, but the other candidates are also pro-choice, and Gary Johnson is a lot better on foreign policy and other civil liberties issues, so I'm going to vote for him in spite of that bad position" would I be sinning according to the Catholic Church?  Would I be committing a mortal sin?  (I'm just curious here, not looking to debate the issue, just curious.)




> First the sperm fertilizes the egg, then the egg implants in the uterus.
> Hormone treatments often allow fertilization and then mess with the implantation.  Like the morning after pill.
> RP rationalizes this by saying the morning after pill is nothing more than a more potent birth control pill.  Same drugs, just more of them in a one-time dose.
> 
> What he's glossing over is that even though that particular kind of daily birth control pill might be legal, it's still an abortifacient.  So anything based on it is also an abortifacient.  It's an abortion inducing pill.
> 
> And Ed's right, for that reason, he's not 100% pro-life.


Should the morning after pill's usage be criminal?  Should the use of regular birth control pills be criminal?  How in the world do you enforce something like this?

(For what its worth, I honestly do not know enough about the distinction between conception and implantation.  To my understand conception is when the fetus obtains its independent DNA so  I would say that life begins at that point, and that killing it on purpose is murder.  However, I'm not sure if birth control pills do it purposely or as an unintended side effect, and I also know that conceived children fail to attach about 75% of the time, so I see no way to prove that a murder actually occurred in this situation [did the pill cause the child to fail to attach, or did it just happen?])

I don't know enough about this issue, but the way I see it, there is no possible way the government (whether free market or otherwise) could protect an unborn child from an abortificacent that operates before implantation.  It seems just as impossible as regulating drugs.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So just because you don't know if you ended a life means it's morally justifiable or somehow the pro-life course of action?


Morally, no.  But how are you going to enforce it?  There's literally no evidence at all in a case like this.  This seems like the sort of thing that can't possibly be dealt with using legislation of any kind.

----------


## JK/SEA

OP has left the building.

midmight rambler.

dems support post birth abortion.

----------


## pcosmar

There is no sport in hunting them when they are drugged and staked out.

This is like a canned hunt.

----------


## eduardo89

> Morally, no.  But how are you going to enforce it?  There's literally no evidence at all in a case like this.  This seems like the sort of thing that can't possibly be dealt with using legislation of any kind.


True, it's unenforceable so that is why I never mentioned the law. I was talking from a moral perspective. So I hope you understand now what I mean when I say Ron Paul is not 100% pro-life, even though he is morally opposed to abortion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> True, it's unenforceable so that is why I never mentioned the law. I was talking from a moral perspective. So I hope you understand now what I mean when I say Ron Paul is not 100% pro-life, even though he is morally opposed to abortion.



OK, I understand.  I'm opposed to the use of any form of contraception which is likely to cause an abortion, but I don't oppose all contraception so I suppose you'd say I'm not 100% pro-life for that reason as well.

----------


## euphemia

> dems support post birth abortion.


Which is definitely murder.  Premeditated, and cold blooded.  And a hired hit, since the abortionist gets paid.

----------


## Christian Liberty

In encourage anybody who supports post-birth abortion to volunteer themselves to test the procedure

----------


## Matt Collins

If the Constitution requires that all state governments be of republican form, and a state government allows the killing of babies, then the federal government could potentially be justified in pre-empting the state government because a republic recognizes the primacy of the individual.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If the Constitution requires that all state governments be of republican form, and a state government allows the killing of babies, then the federal government could potentially be justified in pre-empting the state government because a republic recognizes the primacy of the individual.


This is absurd.  Just like doing it to Canada would be absurd.

A republican government CANNOT recognize the primacy of the individual.  Only voluntarism does.

----------


## Matt Collins

> A republican government CANNOT recognize the primacy of the individual.


Of course it can... that's the definition of a republic.

----------


## Carson

*The Unacknowledged Holocaust*

Back in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us as little children with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They said the resources would be stressed. They launched a program called, “Zero Population Growth”. They pushed Family Planning and birth control pills. I think you and I now both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.

Many of us never had a say in the future of our unborn.

I am the result of two living cells. One from each of my parents. They are the result of two living cells, one from each of their parents. I wasn't just born. I am a continuation of life. I am a living thing that reaches back into time perhaps 400 million years and the result of billions of joining of pairs of cells. It is possible that if you were to follow my cells back to my parent’s cells and beyond that my family tree touches every living thing here on earth. That is if we limit ourselves to believing life was created here on earth. If it rained down from the immensity of the universe it could reach back into that immensity of time and space, and who knows what relationships and who knows what species.

My family line succeeded, at least until I came up against the Federal Government and their plan to control the population.

I have seen the Federal Government do little else to control the population.

The open border, United States laws only apply to some, is a serious slap in the face. No, not a slap in the face, it reaches well beyond that. Maybe back to the beginning of time and stretch to the bounds of the universe.

----------


## specsaregood

./

----------


## klamath

56Troll always gets a good turnout.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> There is no sport in hunting them when they are drugged and staked out.
> 
> This is like a canned hunt.





> 56Troll always gets a good turnout.


_56KIncome for All_ sometimes generates some good discussion among RPF members, but Pete is generally right.  56F, Bausch&Lomb, PRB, etc. are generally weak.  Guess metrosexuality affects ones debating prowess, too.

----------


## Vanguard101

I was pro-choice like 2 years. That was probably because I thought abortion was a stupid issue in politics and there were more pressing issues. I'm 100% pro-life now since I've never heard a legitimate philosophical argument as to why abortion is justifiable.

----------


## Unregistered

> Given that libertarian icons like barry goldwater and gary johnson support abortion, many paulites who would have otherwise supported abortion are in fact against it solely because ron is.


No, I am against it because the Word of the Lord Almighty calls it murder, which is just what it is!

----------


## oyarde

This thread sucks balls , for sure .

----------


## oyarde

> Given that libertarian icons like barry goldwater and gary johnson support abortion, many paulites who would have otherwise supported abortion are in fact against it solely because ron is.


I meet Goldwater , how many babies did he kill ?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic
> 
> 
> A republican government CANNOT recognize the primacy of the individual.
> 
> 
> Of course it can... that's the definition of a republic.


The definition of a flying pig is "a pig that flies" ...

----------


## Uriel999

I was against abortion before I even knew who RP was.

----------


## erowe1

Actually, Ron's pro-life views were the main thing that won me over to support him in 2007.

----------


## eduardo89

I wish I was as good a troll as the OP.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, I am against it because the Word of the Lord Almighty calls it murder, which is just what it is!


Too bad I can't +rep you.  This is the best answer that could be given.

----------


## juleswin

For the record, I have been pro choice not pro abortion even after I heard Ron Paul was against it. Did I win anything?

----------


## Spikender

> For the record, I have been pro choice not pro abortion even after I heard Ron Paul was against it. Did I win anything?


You win the "Not Being a Single Issue Voter Award".

That's actually a big issue I've run into with some people... it depends on the issue and I know abortion is a big one for some people, but we have serious economic and social issues that are ripping us apart, even bigger than abortion most times.

----------


## Anti Federalist

I neg repped the drive by troll and it gave him a second bar.

LOL

That may be a RPF record.

Yup, tis...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/memberl...putation&pp=30

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You win the "Not Being a Single Issue Voter Award".
> 
> That's actually a big issue I've run into with some people... it depends on the issue and I know abortion is a big one for some people, but we have serious economic and social issues that are ripping us apart, even bigger than abortion most times.


Its hard not to think this is a top tier issue when you literally believe abortion to be murderous like I do.

Even still, I don't trust a murderous government to protect the unborn.  So its a catch-22.

Personally, there are select circumstances in which I could vote for a pro-choice libertarian.  The alternatives would all have to be bad, and the pro-choice libertarian would at least have to be a constitutionalist on Roe v Wade.



> I neg repped the drive by troll and it gave him a second bar.
> 
> LOL
> 
> That may be a RPF record.


I think I've seen like 6 red bars on someone before.  Don't remember who.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I think I've seen like 6 red bars on someone before.  Don't remember who.


Nobody that is on the member list.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/memberl...putation&pp=30

----------


## jct74

four red bars is the record, but that was artificially induced by an admin (for being ghemminger)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?30809-JunJun

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm curious what the maximum allowable for the software is.

If the "spam accounts for politicians" idea is implemented, we may find out

----------


## nayjevin

> four red bars is the record, but that was artificially induced by an admin (for being ghemminger)
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?30809-JunJun


* Users being Ghemminger are subject to artificially induced negrep bars.*

----------


## acptulsa

> *• Users being Ghemminger are subject to artificially induced negrep bars.*


LOL

Last I heard, he was more worried about gray iron bars...

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

If OP 56K_Income _for_All knew any better, then he would have been an anonymous guest.  He gets another red bar for that.

----------

