Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[Matt Collins]

And what good is it do solidify your republican constituent just to lose the general elections.

Because elections aren't always about getting elected. Ron Paul won the last two Presidential elections, even though he didn't get elected. Hopefully Rand wins AND gets elected, but even if he doesn't get elected, hopefully he'll at least still "win" the election.

 

[cheapseats]

Bush jr. won on saying he was going to outlaw or partially ban abortion. (with socneocons)

http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

George Bush's father is George Bush.

Rand Paul's father is Ron Paul.

Rand Paul will NOT have the same leeway (or deep pockets) as George the Younger.

George the Younger SUCKED, but Jeb Bush has a shot at it...go figure.

 

[itshappening]

Nope, it's expected that Republican nominees are anti-abortion, and furthermore, it probably won't even be a campaign issue when 2016 rolls around.

it's one thing being against abortion, it's another having a specific bill to outlaw it through stretching the 14th amendment.

No presidential nominee in history has tried to run with a personhood bill have they?

 

[Matt Collins]

I'd agree there. Rand will not be the evangelical candidate regardless.

No, of course not, however he can out flank or block a rival that is by taking just enough voters who care about the abortion vote from them by actions such as this.

 

[Matt Collins]

Well, he's not going to win the Republican primary if he takes the libertarian position on every single issue.

Being pro-abortion is NOT a "libertarian position"

 

[talkingpointes]

Because elections aren't always about getting elected. Ron Paul won the last two Presidential elections, even though he didn't get elected. Hopefully Rand wins AND gets elected, but even if he doesn't get elected, hopefully he'll at least still "win" the election.

Wow, dude pull your head out of your ass. Winning is winning, not losing. The game is rigged and were focusing mass resources on running a guy that is basically doing spectacle politics. I know given how much you credit yourself with some successes don't let it blind you from reality. We just watched the biggest transfer of wealth in history and not a shot was fired. What are you going to do if you get another election stolen ? Cry?

 

[itshappening]

Because elections aren't always about getting elected. Ron Paul won the last two Presidential elections, even though he didn't get elected. Hopefully Rand wins AND gets elected, but even if he doesn't get elected, hopefully he'll at least still "win" the election.

Come on now Matt, Rand has a superb shot at the White House if he plots it correctly. He said he wants to run to win so if that's the case he will drop this since no one has ever run on it in history.

 

[talkingpointes]

Come on now Matt, Rand has a superb shot at the White House if he plots it correctly. He said he wants to run to win so if that's the case he will drop this since no one has ever run on it in history.

Ron was beating obama and mitt. Head, out of your ass !

 

[cheapseats]

...most libertarians are anti-abortion.

And most Republicans are anti-war.

...In an effort to explain what Rand Paul meant when he suggested that private businesses should be able to discriminate against black people, most writers have assumed that the Tea Party fave is no racist but instead a dogmatic, don't-tread-on-me libertarian. As TPM convincingly points out today, the GOP's Kentucky Senate candidate's (now recanted) statements about the 1964 Civil Rights Act fall well within the libertarian mainstream.

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that Paul's views are motivated by little more than a naive ideology. As I've noted, Paul and his father, GOP Congressman Ron Paul, have a long history of close associations with hard-core racists. And moreover, Paul is by no means a rigid libertarian. In reality, Paul and his father espouse a hybrid of libertarian and Republican political beliefs that skews far to the right of typical libertarians:

Abortion

While most libertarians are pro-choice, both Rand and Ron Paul support government regulation of abortion. Ron Paul would leave the issue up to states while Rand Paul favors a constitutional amendment banning the procedure...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/how-libertarian-rand-paul

 

[talkingpointes]

Hey guys, I got an idea lets run a candidate on a winning platform, so we can go fight liars, cheaters, thieves and hope they place nice. That would be swell.

 

[Christopholes11]

Being pro-abortion is NOT a "libertarian position"

I don't know about that, it's not that simple. From what I've seen it's an issue that divides libertarians almost 50/50. It all depends on how much you weigh the liberties of an unborn fetus of less than 24 weeks to it's parents. Abortion really is the trickiest issue in politics at the moment. It's not as cut and dry as many other issues, especially from a libertarian prospective.

 

[presence]

Abortion really is the trickiest issue in politics at the moment.
It's not as cut and dry as many other issues,
especially from a libertarian prospective.

Thread: 2 States (AR, ND) Move Towards TEN GRAM RULE on Abortion

 

[Matt Collins]

There is no federal ban on murder. Why should there be one for abortion? This is a states' issue. Shame on Rand.

This is explained here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nception-Act&p=4925319&viewfull=1#post4925319

 

[Matt Collins]

Our legal system has nothing to do with why murder is wrong.

Exactly. It is illegal because it violates the rights of another individual, not because it is "amoral".

 

[Matt Collins]

Winning is winning, not losing.

And you don't have to get elected to win an election.

People run for office for all sorts of reasons besides getting elected. Some of which are -

- building a network or organization
- building name recognition for a future run
- compiling lists
- bringing issues to the forefront
- strategically blocking other candidates from winning
- getting candidates on the record for / against what they don't want to talk about

What are you going to do if you get another election stolen?

huh?

 

[Matt Collins]

Life doesn't necessarily have an unequivocal definition, but biologically a fetus at any stage can be said to be living. The harder question is whether or not the fetus is human, which is a subjective premise in itself. We get our rights from our humanity, so a fetus's right to life is dependent on whether it is human or not.

I think this is the the thread winner right here!

 

[tttppp]

From a press release -

This is stupid, pointless legislation nomatter what side you are on. Rand should focus on our actual problems. This law does nothing for our economic situation.

 

[Christopholes11]

This is stupid, pointless legislation nomatter what side you are on. Rand should focus on our actual problems. This law does nothing for our economic situation.

Agreed. There are so many more important things to worry about that can unite people from all over the political spectrum instead of pushing divisive legislation such as this.

 

[James Madison]

Our legal system has nothing to do with why murder is wrong.

Our legal system is designed to protect the rights of its citizenry. Life is one of those rights.

 

[AlexAmore]

If I were a generic politician I would certainly court the pro-choicers or the pro-lifers because they are rabid much like Ron Paul supporters. They will go out, hit the pavements and spread your name. I would argue pro-lifers are a better choice simply because they have huge networks via churches.

Ron Paul is a staunch pro-lifer and we all know if there wasn't any bullshit with the media and voting booths he probably would have won back then, never mind a well spoken, young, Rand Paul today and especially in a few years WITH the foundation already set by his father. This is a snowball that's getting bigger and bigger.