Paul focusing more on Abortion this time?

[Sola_Fide]

Idc about abortion as an issue at all.
First of all, you are electing a president: a commander in chief. There primary focus is foreign policy, not social issues.
Secondly, no president can overturn Roe v. Wade, you'd need a new justice to retire (2-3 more in fact), but the thing is that they actually wait to retire until their political party has the presidency, so it will very likely never change.

However, all that said, this is one extremely rare time when petty social issues that people get so rilled up about will work in our favor. I just hope it doesn't scare off the libertarian pro-choicers, etc.

I'm not really concerned that Ron will scare off pro-choicers. I want to convert those pro-choicers to Ron and Rand's position. I want to knock down every inconsistent argument they throw our way.

Life and Liberty are inseperable. You can't have one without the other.

 

[cheapseats]

At least they're backing up their claim with evidence, which is more than can be said for you.

EVIDENCE that life begins at conception? Fiddle dee dee.

 

[cheapseats]

I'm not really concerned that Ron will scare off pro-choicers. I want to convert those pro-choicers . . .

Yeah, I know.

 

[cheapseats]

Again, did you skip the links/charts or just chose to ignore them?

I disregard "links and charts" because I REJECT THE PREMISE that life begins at conception.

Even if I WAS inclined to get dreamy-eyed about knowing God's Will and steely-eyed about enforcing what a percent of people (MY people) believe are God's "between the lines" regulations, as are so many on this board, I would still be wide-screen that the RIGHTS & PROTECTIONS OF A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN TRUMP ANY THAT PERHAPS COULD BE ARGUED TO FALL TO AN EMBRYONIC MASS THAT CANNOT DEVELOP OR INDEED SURVIVE BUT VIA A WILLING HOST.

More to the point, HOSTESS.

 

[cheapseats]

By the way, are you now admitting that you are not a "Ron Pauler"? If that's the case, then what are you doing here besides trolling?

What say you to the many, many, many members in good standing who have posted reassurances that a coalition to unseat Socialism and restore Sanity does NOT require that we GOOSE-STEP on everything? Or is Abortion the deal-breaker in your mind? If ya ain't with us, yer agin' us?

'Cuz if that's the case, y'all better throw down the gauntlet right now, and right here. Or you don't have a PRAYER of an overriding consensus come November '12. Abortion Hysteria furnishes EXACTLY the kinda last-minute impassioned division that so often serves as Spoiler. THAT'S WHY THEY ALWAYS INSINUATE IT INTO OTHER SHIT, LIKE RAISING DEBT CEILINGS.

If "sparing the lives of helpless innocents" were a driving force in the American Psyche, WE WOULDN'T BE AT WAR THESE MANY YEARS AND HOLLYWOOD WOULD GO BELLY-UP.

I don't think this has anything to do with political pragmatism.

I think you're just as wrong as you could be.

 

[cheapseats]

If you read the article, Ron Paul specifically calls out people like you who claim the "libertarian" label only is pro-choice.

Ron Paul says you are WRONG.

I am specifically calling out people like Ron Paul.

I say RON PAUL IS WRONG.

Now, here's YOUR dilemma.

Allow me to scoot the argument along, skipping Square One BELIEFS about life beginning at conception - 'cuz I don't buy 'em, and there is NO supporting evidence for Sanctity of Life.

As I believe NO HUMAN is completely right about everything all of the time, I believe no POLITICIAN is completely right about everything all of the time. Sound reasonable?

If you disagree, and claim Ron Paul is 100% right about everything 100% of the time, you are relegated to the CULT OF PERSONALITY fringe.

If you agree, you will no doubt say BUT RON PAUL IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT ABORTION.

At which point, due diligence commands me to inquire - for ALL of our sake's, including the Unborn - on what issue(s) and/or point(s) do you believe Ron Paul IS wrong?

 

[cheapseats]

I appreciate that there are some bona fide Holy Rollers on this board, who genuinely anguish over Abortion. I can "feel their pain" better than I can "feel the love," that's for damn sure.

DEAL WITH IT, like you deal with the War Dead that accumulate on our time AND OUR DIME.

WICKED PEOPLE play your passions like a ten-cent kazoo, "won" with a couple hundred dollars' of game tokens.

 

[cheapseats]

Word is, COME UNTO ME.

Not, HAUL THEIR ASSES IN HERE.

 

[White Bear Lake]

Seriously, whoever is elected will have little to no impact on the abortion issue. If being staunchly pro-life is what it takes to get the nomination for Dr. Paul, then so be it. We desperately need him for 99,000 other issues he CAN have an impact on.

 

[acptulsa]

Very much agreed, WBL. Don't care to jump in the controversy. I will say, as I say often, that I would never, ever, ever be in favor of forcing a woman to carry the results of a rape to term for several reasons that I feel very strongly about.

That said, kicking the issue to the states has certain real appeal to me. Like, it will be a new idea that can win us primary votes. And, if people don't believe in it they shouldn't be coerced into paying for it.

 

[cheapseats]

Seriously, whoever is elected will have little to no impact on the abortion issue. If being staunchly pro-life is what it takes to get the nomination for Dr. Paul, then so be it. We desperately need him for 99,000 other issues he CAN have an impact on.

Speak for yourself.

What happens when he dies? Everything KAPUT, straight to hell in a handbasket? Or he will have instigated, implemented, institutionalized (via non-institututionalization, natch) and cemented the "99,000 other issues he CAN have an impact on," with Rand Paul securely positioned to inherit the metaphorical throne?

QUESTION: Would you rather Ron Paul FINALLY win the GOP nomination but lose the General - the "education portion" of our show slowly but steadily increasing its audience share - or that your NOT fave candidate wins the establishment nod AND THE PUBLIC OFFICE?

 

[specsaregood]

And, if people don't believe in it they shouldn't be coerced into paying for it.

Let alone forcing us taxpayers to pay for it in foreign countries. eg: Israel.

 

[cheapseats]

Let alone forcing us taxpayers to pay for it in foreign countries. eg: Israel.

That postage stamp part of a much larger problem would be covered by having the FOREIGN AID fight, but I observe that doesn't happen.

Just like ALL THINGS GAY were addressable with existing civil rights and anti-discrimination laws.

If agenda-based Abortion Hysterics and misguided Holy Rollers can "force" game-playing politicians to rehash abortion circle jerk EVERY ELECTION, they could obviously be forcing the Foreign Aid debate. They could obviously be forcing an END TO THE WARS. I'm tellin' ya, being picky and choosy about WHOSE life is sacred is INHERENTLY supremacist.

And that card WILL be played against Ron Paul in a General Election (as will the anti-Semite card), I don't care how many times how many of you assure how many OTHER of you that YOU, the like-minded, have already put the issue to rest.

 

[jmdrake]

What say you to the many, many, many members in good standing who have posted reassurances that a coalition to unseat Socialism and restore Sanity does NOT require that we GOOSE-STEP on everything? Or is Abortion the deal-breaker in your mind? If ya ain't with us, yer agin' us?

Oh you aren't as stupid as you are now pretending to be. I was directly responding to this quote by you.

You are a HYSTERIC and, unless you are in the front lines of the anti-war moovement that Ron Paulers ABANDONED as soon as they spied a larger slice of the political pie, you are a HYPOCRITE.

If you are on the "front lines of the anti-war movement" and you are "Ron Pauler", then your claim that "Ron Paulers have abandoned the anti-war movement" is false. If you are not a part of the anti-war movement then you are being a hypocrite for attacking "Ron Paulers" for not being on the front lines of the anti-war movement. And if you not a Ron Pauler then what are you doing here?

But frankly, I don't believe you are doing anything in the anti-war movement. You can't because you spend so much time here trying to tell "Ron Paulers" how to act. You are the one trying to get others to "goose step" behind your foolishness. I'm fine with pro-choice Ron Paulers. I'm not fine with people like you who are trying to tell others how to think or what to focus on for their own selfish agendas.

 

[jmdrake]

Speak for yourself.

What happens when he dies? Everything KAPUT, straight to hell in a handbasket? Or he will have instigated, implemented, institutionalized (via non-institututionalization, natch) and cemented the "99,000 other issues he CAN have an impact on," with Rand Paul securely positioned to inherit the metaphorical throne?

QUESTION: Would you rather Ron Paul FINALLY win the GOP nomination but lose the General - the "education portion" of our show slowly but steadily increasing its audience share - or that your NOT fave candidate wins the establishment nod AND THE PUBLIC OFFICE?

At this point, you're not even being coherent.

 

[cheapseats]

Oh you aren't as stupid as you are now pretending to be. I was directly responding to this quote by you.

You are a HYSTERIC and, unless you are in the front lines of the anti-war moovement that Ron Paulers ABANDONED as soon as they spied a larger slice of the political pie, you are a HYPOCRITE.

If you are on the "front lines of the anti-war movement" and you are "Ron Pauler", then your claim that "Ron Paulers have abandoned the anti-war movement" is false. If you are not a part of the anti-war movement then you are being a hypocrite for attacking "Ron Paulers" for not being on the front lines of the anti-war movement. And if you not a Ron Pauler then what are you doing here?

But frankly, I don't believe you are doing anything in the anti-war movement. You can't because you spend so much time here trying to tell "Ron Paulers" how to act. You are the one trying to get others to "goose step" behind your foolishness. I'm fine with pro-choice Ron Paulers. I'm not fine with people like you who are trying to tell others how to think or what to focus on for their own selfish agendas.

IMPASSIONED yada yada yada, NONE of which bears on Abortion.

You're NOT a Hypocrite? You ARE active on the anti-war front? Excellent. Do you feel that, GENERALLY SPEAKING, most-not-to-say-all "Pro Life" people put as much oomph into anti-war as they do into anti-abortion?

You're still a HYSTERIC, trying to enjoin-read-that-force your BELIEFS upon others.

 

[cheapseats]

At this point, you're not even being coherent.

It is not an accusation commonly leveled against me, I can tell you that.

BULLSHIT BRINKSMANSHIP FEATURING ABORTION entertained America and the whole world, right up to the literal 11th hour of sending out a DEFAULT signal to the world holding our extravagant debt, but YOU are confident the Ol' Reliable of hot-button issues CANNOT be manipulated to swing an election AGAINST you?

Okay.

 

[cheapseats]

Oh you aren't as stupid as you are now pretending to be. I was directly responding to this quote by you.

You are a HYSTERIC and, unless you are in the front lines of the anti-war moovement that Ron Paulers ABANDONED as soon as they spied a larger slice of the political pie, you are a HYPOCRITE.

What you did NOT address was this:

What say you to the many, many, many members in good standing who have posted reassurances that a coalition to unseat Socialism and restore Sanity does NOT require that we GOOSE-STEP on everything? Or is Abortion the deal-breaker in your mind? If ya ain't with us, yer agin' us?

'Cuz if that's the case, y'all better throw down the gauntlet right now, and right here. Or you don't have a PRAYER of an overriding consensus come November '12. Abortion Hysteria furnishes EXACTLY the kinda last-minute impassioned division that so often serves as Spoiler. THAT'S WHY THEY ALWAYS INSINUATE IT INTO OTHER SHIT, LIKE RAISING DEBT CEILINGS.

If "sparing the lives of helpless innocents" were a driving force in the American Psyche, WE WOULDN'T BE AT WAR THESE MANY YEARS AND HOLLYWOOD WOULD GO BELLY-UP.

Unless THIS is your response:

Originally Posted by jmdrake:

I'm fine with pro-choice Ron Paulers. I'm not fine with people like you who are trying to tell others how to think or what to focus on for their own selfish agendas.

Wait. You ARE fine with pro-choice, so long as the DELIVERY of the argument does not offend you? (Also, are you suggesting that you are NOT trying to tell others how to think and on what to focus?)

Alrighty then, which IS the platform plank?

Anti-Abortion (Pro-Life, to the likes o' you)

or

Pro-Choice (Pro-Liberty, to the likes o' me)

Set aside that you and I are not compatible. Quoting Bogart not quite exactly, "It's easy to see that two little people don't add up to a hill of beans in this crazy world."

These POSITIONS are not compatible. And get this straight, States rather than big bad Feds trashing the most elemental right to one's own body does not render it less of an assault on Liberty.

Lemme guess . . . WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT OF THAT HELPLESS UNBORN BABY TO ITS TINY BODY, WHAT ABOUT ITS PROTECTION?

Square one. End of discussion or start of circle jerk. Tempers oughtta be good 'n HOT by next autumn.

 

[jmdrake]

IMPASSIONED yada yada yada, NONE of which bears on Abortion.

You're NOT a Hypocrite? You ARE active on the anti-war front? Excellent. Do you feel that, GENERALLY SPEAKING, most-not-to-say-all "Pro Life" people put as much oomph into anti-war as they do into anti-abortion?

You're still a HYSTERIC, trying to enjoin-read-that-force your BELIEFS upon others.

I see that you are unable to rationally debate your position. And for the record you are the one trying to force your beliefs on others. I'm not the one trying to tell Ron Paul how he should campaign. And I'm not the one making wildly illogical, irrational and hysterical predictions of what will happen if Ron Paul doesn't bend to my will. You are the one being the aggressor, the hysteric and the bully. But I've seen you act this way in other threads. It's just your nature. I'm not mad. I just feel sorry for you.

 

[jmdrake]

What you did NOT address was this:

You have not addressed anything. When someone gave you stats that showed your assertion that a pro life candidate cannot win the general election, you admitted you didn't even want to hear that. You're just blowing smoke and making things up as you go along.

Wait. You ARE fine with pro-choice, so long as the DELIVERY of the argument does not offend you? (Also, are you suggesting that you are NOT trying to tell others how to think and on what to focus?)

I'm not suggesting that. I'm stating the fact! I've never said that you or anyone else needs to focus on being pro life. All I've said from jump is that there's nothing wrong with Ron Paul focusing on it. Furthermore the TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS BOGUS. Ron Paul is NOT focusing "more" on abortion. It's the same focus he had back in 2007/2008. He had an entire slim jim devoted to his pro life position.

Alrighty then, which IS the platform plank?

That's for the candidate (Ron Paul) to decide and nobody else.