I would put up a booth and hand out signs to these supposed pro-lifers...Choose war Choose death Choose 100 years -Mccain
Pro Life group will not endorse Paul because he is an "isolatonist"
- Thread starter Pete Kay
- Start date
I would put up a booth and hand out signs to these supposed pro-lifers...Choose war Choose death Choose 100 years -Mccain
JimInNY
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,336
They want to blow up people but save fetuses. I see the consistency of these pro-lifers.
To make it worse, their candidates of choice will continue to blow people up and will do nothing to save the babies.
painter4Ron Paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 177
To these people "isolatonist" means that you do want endless wars against innocent people.
webber53
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 495
Staupostek
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 345
I guess when you've acquired all your power and influence by fighting against something (in this case abortion), the last thing you want is to actually get your way and have that thing you're fighting to be defeated. If it is, then where do you go? When you look at all the pro-life politicians who do little to nothing to restrict or prohibit abortion, makes you wonder what the pro-life endorsements and contributions are really for.
flames2dust77
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 791
Gee, that's right. We're pro-lifers....but we condone invading a country for no reason at all and killing tons of innocent people. You know....kinda what we're against. But not really.
IGNORANT.
In the words of Carlos Mencia. "You're a Dee, Dee, Dee"
IGNORANT.
In the words of Carlos Mencia. "You're a Dee, Dee, Dee"
Enzo
Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
- Messages
- 550
Man.. that's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever heard....
That organization needs to fire it's leadership... because they certainly are not concerned with the cause of the organization...
That's like a pro-gun group not supporting a candidate because of his/her stance on abortion.
That organization needs to fire it's leadership... because they certainly are not concerned with the cause of the organization...
That's like a pro-gun group not supporting a candidate because of his/her stance on abortion.
Goldwater Conservative
Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 1,783
Sounds like they should advertise themselves as an anti-abortion AND pro-nation-building group instead of as a simply pro-life group.
Give me liberty
Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 2,776
Hi:
Hanoi is right. I worked the Republican fair booth with the person that was interviewed that said that, she does truly respect Paul, but here in Hillsdale county, the war is a big sticking point for many.
The newspaper also called me about that article, but they had interviewed me too many times (I am the county coordinator for Hillsdale and have gotten on average 1-2 quotes a week for the last month) and I guess they couldn't get ahold of the person I referred them to. Honestly, they have treated us very very well here, I attribute alot of our 17% to the articles they ran.
That much being said, I am planning a respectful letter to the editor clarifying Isolationist with non-interventionist.
And if you or anyone are going to do L2E, make sure you submit it multiple times. They tend to "get lost" going there. Here is my hit list and I have batted 100%:
But PLEASE don't bite the heads off, just gently clarify.
http://hillsdale.net/eletter.shtml (editor to the letter submission)
[email protected] the acting editor
[email protected] the sec who confirms you are who you say you are
Make sure to include your phone number as they confirm all ones printed.
Regards,
Jeff King
Hillsdale County coordinator
Last edited:
Two locals wrote L2E about this article:
http://www.hillsdale.net/stories/020508/opinion_20080205010.shtml
Daily News placed unfair label on Ron Paul
To the editor:
The HDN unfairly labeled Conservative Ron Paul supporters in stating support came from “a (anti–war) message that endears him to some ‘liberals’.” Traditional Conservatives such as Pat Buchanan, George Will, Barry Goldwater Jr. and others also want to leave Iraq. Ronald Reagan said of his withdrawal from Lebanon in 1984: “The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy.”
Historically, the Republican party has been the anti–war party; it is liberals that entangle us in foreign adventures. The undeclared Korean and Vietnam adventures were escalated by Democrats and exited by Republicans on anti–war platforms. In 2002 Ron Paul was one of five Republicans who stood firm on the core values of the GOP/Constitution, and voted against the Iraq war.
I’m not sure who invents the stereotypes at the HDN, but I suggest they check their premises. True Conservatives cherish the Constitution and never endorse military adventures outside the powers enumerated within. While “liberals” may support Paul for wanting to get us out of Iraq, this clearly is a fundamental Conservative position.
The other label I wanted to clarify is from the local “right to life” group, who claim Paul is an “isolationist”. Unfortunately, they don’t understand the term, which has two elements:
n Legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
The polar opposite of Paul’s position.
n Countries should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid wars not related to self–defense.
Paul supports this position, known as “non–intervention”, and likely the label the RTL group meant.
If the HDN still wishes to toss around “liberal” labels, they can now add George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and other founding fathers to the list, who, like Paul, advocated non–intervention.
What I find ironic here, relative to RTL’s issues with Paul, is he voted against the Iraq war in 2002, so one could extrapolate under a Paul presidency we would not have invaded Iraq. Having 4,000–plus more Americans and 100,000–plus more Iraqis still walking the face of the earth seems quite “pro–life” to me!
Jeff King,
Hillsdale
Jeff King is the county chair for Ron Paul for President.
http://www.hillsdale.net/stories/020508/opinion_20080205010.shtml
Daily News placed unfair label on Ron Paul
To the editor:
The HDN unfairly labeled Conservative Ron Paul supporters in stating support came from “a (anti–war) message that endears him to some ‘liberals’.” Traditional Conservatives such as Pat Buchanan, George Will, Barry Goldwater Jr. and others also want to leave Iraq. Ronald Reagan said of his withdrawal from Lebanon in 1984: “The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy.”
Historically, the Republican party has been the anti–war party; it is liberals that entangle us in foreign adventures. The undeclared Korean and Vietnam adventures were escalated by Democrats and exited by Republicans on anti–war platforms. In 2002 Ron Paul was one of five Republicans who stood firm on the core values of the GOP/Constitution, and voted against the Iraq war.
I’m not sure who invents the stereotypes at the HDN, but I suggest they check their premises. True Conservatives cherish the Constitution and never endorse military adventures outside the powers enumerated within. While “liberals” may support Paul for wanting to get us out of Iraq, this clearly is a fundamental Conservative position.
The other label I wanted to clarify is from the local “right to life” group, who claim Paul is an “isolationist”. Unfortunately, they don’t understand the term, which has two elements:
n Legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
The polar opposite of Paul’s position.
n Countries should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid wars not related to self–defense.
Paul supports this position, known as “non–intervention”, and likely the label the RTL group meant.
If the HDN still wishes to toss around “liberal” labels, they can now add George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and other founding fathers to the list, who, like Paul, advocated non–intervention.
What I find ironic here, relative to RTL’s issues with Paul, is he voted against the Iraq war in 2002, so one could extrapolate under a Paul presidency we would not have invaded Iraq. Having 4,000–plus more Americans and 100,000–plus more Iraqis still walking the face of the earth seems quite “pro–life” to me!
Jeff King,
Hillsdale
Jeff King is the county chair for Ron Paul for President.
And the second one:
http://www.hillsdale.net/stories/020108/opinion_20080201011.shtml
Rebuttal: Paul article misleading
To the editor,
Wow, “...go[ing] from a nobody to a dark horse candidate in a short time” ! How about: taking second place in both the LA and NV Caucuses, holding both the Republican and then All–Party one–day fundraising records, beating half the people who were included in the Fox News debate from which he was excluded, and even being recognized by the editorial staff of the Daily News as the preeminent candidate in the County? If that’s a “dark horse”, one must perforce wonder at what it might possibly take to become a “front–runner”!
Just because the American Sheeple have become so conditioned to taking their marching orders from the Council on Foreign Relations, NATO and the United Nations that they perceive not volunteering to be the world’s policemen as “isolationist” doesn’t make it so. It is absolutely appalling and unconscionable for those who choose the more generally palatable moniker “pro–life” instead of “anti–abortion”, oppose “partial–birth abortion” as (quite rightly) the murder of a viable child and insist (again, quite scientifically correctly) that “life begins at conception” to fall for/into such deliberately inaccurate word games! Shouldn’t being “pro–life” embrace both the “post–born” — tens of thousands of whom have been killed in illegal U.S. foreign interventions around the world — as well as the “pre–born”?
The Constitution of the United States grants Congress the Power to Declare War. No War that was ever Declared by Congress has ever been lost. From “The Korean Conflict” ( a UN “police action”) through the Vietnam “War” and our many other “adventures” in Europe and South America, up to Iraq (and, coming soon, Iran), the U.S. has never won a nondeclared, non–war!
That ought to tell those who are still capable of rational thought something. Pity that there are so few such people remaining in either the American Congress or electorate.
Peter M. Cromwell,
Reading
http://www.hillsdale.net/stories/020108/opinion_20080201011.shtml
Rebuttal: Paul article misleading
To the editor,
Wow, “...go[ing] from a nobody to a dark horse candidate in a short time” ! How about: taking second place in both the LA and NV Caucuses, holding both the Republican and then All–Party one–day fundraising records, beating half the people who were included in the Fox News debate from which he was excluded, and even being recognized by the editorial staff of the Daily News as the preeminent candidate in the County? If that’s a “dark horse”, one must perforce wonder at what it might possibly take to become a “front–runner”!
Just because the American Sheeple have become so conditioned to taking their marching orders from the Council on Foreign Relations, NATO and the United Nations that they perceive not volunteering to be the world’s policemen as “isolationist” doesn’t make it so. It is absolutely appalling and unconscionable for those who choose the more generally palatable moniker “pro–life” instead of “anti–abortion”, oppose “partial–birth abortion” as (quite rightly) the murder of a viable child and insist (again, quite scientifically correctly) that “life begins at conception” to fall for/into such deliberately inaccurate word games! Shouldn’t being “pro–life” embrace both the “post–born” — tens of thousands of whom have been killed in illegal U.S. foreign interventions around the world — as well as the “pre–born”?
The Constitution of the United States grants Congress the Power to Declare War. No War that was ever Declared by Congress has ever been lost. From “The Korean Conflict” ( a UN “police action”) through the Vietnam “War” and our many other “adventures” in Europe and South America, up to Iraq (and, coming soon, Iran), the U.S. has never won a nondeclared, non–war!
That ought to tell those who are still capable of rational thought something. Pity that there are so few such people remaining in either the American Congress or electorate.
Peter M. Cromwell,
Reading
Menthol Patch
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,820
Yep, these pro-life people only care about the lives of American babies.
The lives of soldiers and innocent people in other nations don't matter.
Dead Iraqi children probably make them smile!
The lives of soldiers and innocent people in other nations don't matter.
Dead Iraqi children probably make them smile!
JGalt
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 174
They want to blow up people but save fetuses. I see the consistency of these pro-lifers.
Well obviously. Live babies become dead soldiers, as George Carlin pointed out.
Exactly.
If any Christian can read the following by HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS before the U.S. House of Representatives, June 29, 2006, and not give a resounding AMEN!, I seriously wonder about their faith.
My beliefs aside, Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of “The Just War Theory.” This Christian theory emphasizes six criteria needed to justify Christian participation in war. Briefly the six points are as follows:
1. War should be fought only in self defense;
2. War should be undertaken only as a last resort;
3. A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority;
4. All military responses must be proportional to the threat;
5. There must be a reasonable chance of success; and
6. A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required.
The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian community.
Some are angry because the war is being fought out of Christian duty, yet does not have uniform support from all Christians. Others are angry because they see Christianity as a religion as peace and forgiveness, not war and annihilation of enemies.
I have uncontrovertible, I mean incontrovertible evidence to suggest that Ron Paul supporters are the only ones that dare use logic and reasoning as part of their decision making process.
Similar threads
