Steve Deace

Steve Deace sure is getting his panties in a wad about not signing the pledge. Some of his Facebook comments:

So why would someone sign a raw milk pledge but not a pledge that uphold the Biblical and Constitutional unalienable right to life?
Click to expand...

Ron Paul has close ties to the family that is one of the largest abortion providers in California.http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/more-paul-pro-life-problems/
Click to expand...

It's an all out assault now - especially over this pledge.
 
Ron Paul does not want an amendment, he's said so on many occasions, and as recently as the Des Moines Register editorial interview.

Steve Douche is an idiot and it's not worth trolling for that loser's endorsement.

Oh, and since Steve Douche wants the federal government to get involved with people's lives, perhaps we should push for a ban of cheeseburgers and sloth. He's a little overweight, and since I am now on the hook for his healthcare, I demand that he take better care of himself.
 
Feeding the Abscess said:
Ron Paul does not want an amendment, he's said so on many occasions, and as recently as the Des Moines Register editorial interview.
Click to expand...
His thoughts on the matter are also, as it happens, IRREVELVANT, because Presidents play no part in the Constitutional amendment process. This amendment is a pie in the sky, would likely take decades to go through, if it ever did, which it wouldn't because three-quarters of the states would never ratify it. Can you think of at least 12 states which never would? Yeah, so can I. But, what it could do, and do very well, is distract pro-life idiots for the next couple decades as they brainlessly vote for principle-less gut-less slimes who hold this amendment out as something that will solve all their moral problems, cure America's degeneracy, and save all these aborted fetuses. Someday. Maybe. Only a few decades down the road.

"All you must do, Mr. Evie 'Social Conservative' to soothe your aching conscience is to vote for me, because I support your abortion amendment. Oh, I will never vote for anything that will actually stop any abortions like Congressman Ron Paul's bill. But I'll sure mouth the right words and endorse the right no-chance amendments for you!"

"Works for me! Where do I vote?"

Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced a practical bill that would immediately, instantaneously, overturn Roe vs. Wade with nothing but a majority of Congress. He introduced it at a time, for instance, a few years back when the Republicans had a majority of Congress. Hmm... why didn't they pass it? Could you remind me? Oh yeah:

Because they are shameless, obvious LIARS who use pro-life as a GOTV ruse.
They care nothing about the actual pro-life issue.
Their marks, the pro-life voters, care.
They just use the marks.
Don't be a mark!
 
helmuth_hubener said:
His thoughts on the matter are also, as it happens, IRREVELVANT, because Presidents play no part in the Constitutional amendment process. This amendment is a pie in the sky, would likely take decades to go through, if it ever did, which it wouldn't because three-quarters of the states would never ratify it. Can you think of at least 12 states which never would? Yeah, so can I. But, what it could do, and do very well, is distract pro-life idiots for the next couple decades as they brainlessly vote for principle-less gut-less slimes who hold this amendment out as something that will solve all their moral problems, cure America's degeneracy, and save all these aborted fetuses. Someday. Maybe. Only a few decades down the road.

"All you must do, Mr. Evie 'Social Conservative' to soothe your aching conscience is to vote for me, because I support your abortion amendment. Oh, I will never vote for anything that will actually stop any abortions like Congressman Ron Paul's bill. But I'll sure mouth the right words and endorse the right no-chance amendments for you!"

"Works for me! Where do I vote?"

Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced a practical bill that would immediately, instantaneously, overturn Roe vs. Wade with nothing but a majority of Congress. He introduced it at a time, for instance, a few years back when the Republicans had a majority of Congress. Hmm... why didn't they pass it? Could you remind me? Oh yeah:

Because they are shameless, obvious LIARS who use pro-life as a GOTV ruse.
They care nothing about the actual pro-life issue.
Their marks, the pro-life voters, care.
They just use the marks.
Don't be a mark!
Click to expand...

Yep. The pro-life movement is largely a cashcow. Fraud and a sham.
 
"If elected President, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development, and to the best of my knowledge," -pledge could it be a Tenth Amendment question for Paul, maybe him not seeing it as the presidents job to "interfere" into state issues?
 
He won't understand. His pledge is all that matters to him in this world. That and stopping homosexuality somehow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hammy said:
He won't understand. His pledge is all that matters to him in this world. That and stopping homosexuality somehow.
Click to expand...

Well, I have officially given up on Steve Deace endorsing Ron Paul. I think the odds of that happening at this point are extremely slim. He has explicitly stated that he will not vote for someone that doesn't sign his pledge. Lets just hope that he doesn't unfairly criticize Dr. Paul now. Four people have signed his pledge (Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry).

I think the reason is many people say that Ron's Sanctity of Life Act gives the power back to the states and that is an unacceptable position for them. It is either all or nothing. Chuck Baldwin in the video shown above explains this problem with their view perfectly.

Also, although Steve Deace agrees with Ron Paul regarding getting out of Iraq/Afghanistan and nation building. He definitely disagrees with him on Iran from what I can gather.
 
This guy is a lost cause:
hxxp://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/12/ron-paul-enemy-of-iowa-state-107825.html

"One thing is for certain," Deace writes. "if a candidate with Paul’s foreign policy views wins the Iowa Caucuses that will be the final nail in Iowa’s first in the nation status.
Click to expand...
 
This guy can shove his pledge you know where. To make someone sign some bs like that, is making them bow down to THEIR principles and not HIS. I stated awhile back too, that he could be putting himself in a hole by signing that as well, since it states something like 'protect all life from conception to death', so any other issue aside from abortion that could tie into that pledge, could interfere with another principle Ron stands on, and that is just something he isnt going to risk.

If the guy can't accept Ron for what and who he is. then screw em.
 
Student Of Paulism said:
This guy can shove his pledge you know where. To make someone sign some bs like that, is making them bow down to THEIR principles and not HIS. I stated awhile back too, that he could be putting himself in a hole by signing that as well, since it states something like 'protect all life from conception to death', so any other issue aside from abortion that could tie into that pledge, could interfere with another principle Ron stands on, and that is just something he isnt going to risk.

If the guy can't accept Ron for what and who he is. then screw em.
Click to expand...

SOP just wrecked you, Deace. You mad, bro? This guy was never going to get it anyway. He's way too worried about dropping infinite bombs on innocent people. Crazy Ron wants to respect all life. Something Deace has no clue about.
 
Lol this was good:

UPDATE: Paul spokesman Gary Howard responds to Deace, Wallace, et al:

Saying that Iowa would be discredited if Ron Paul wins is an insult to Iowans who truly care about where our country is headed and want an end to the status quo of elitist Washington, and those who would say such a thing only prove that they're on the side of keeping the status quo.
 
Steve is not a happy camper.

"Ron Paul should either apologize or lose the Iowa Caucuses after some bush-league comments on the Tonight Show"

He is appearing on Huckabee tonight.
 
Dang it, I bet Ron would have apologized without thinking twice if someone even mentioned this to him wherever he is today. He has had so little down time I bet Ron hasn't bben told and hasn't thought twice about what he said on Leno. I'm sure he wouldn't have used 'hate' if he had thought it through just because the whole thing was unusual for him altogether. I think he was wrestling with where Bachmann was possibly coming from on Iran. I think he thinks she is being irrational in refusing to read what the actual report said. But what he said is going to make some people who are simply victims of fear mongering think he is speaking about them, and I'm sure that isn't what Ron intended. But if someone goes on Huckabee and 'demands' an apology, that escalates the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
SchleckBros said:
Steve is not a happy camper.

"Ron Paul should either apologize or lose the Iowa Caucuses after some bush-league comments on the Tonight Show"

He is appearing on Huckabee tonight.
Click to expand...

I watch, listened, and participated in this thread and this radio rodeo clown Deace and his philosophy on politics and religion. The outcome:

Steve Deace = Serial Hypocrisy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Debate: Jacob Hornberger vs. Walter Block re: libertarianism and Israel
Replies
7
Views
779
PAF
PAF
PAF
From the Moral Majority to a Moral Meltdown
Replies
4
Views
119
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
susano
An account of comedy writer who got cancelled for being "gender critical"
Replies
0
Views
303
susano
susano
Occam's Banana
Reason interviews Thomas Massie
Replies
1
Views
2K
PAF
PAF
osan
Brunson v. Adams: Read This Most Interesting Case
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
jbnevin
jbnevin
Back
Top