Once Paul loses.

Ironic to here that coming from you. First, I never said anything about agreeing with me. There are many conservative justices who disagree with me. I specifically said liberal justices. So please be careful to read what I actually say.

Second, you say you believe in the constitution. Can someone be patriotic while working to undermine the constitution? What kind of arrogance would assert that? How can patriotism and love for this country be consistent with undermining her founding documents at the judicial level?

I will be glad to entertain any explanation you have.

Are you even thinking tonight Ken? You seem to be changing your mind again (as you have done so many times before).

 

The only two I have excluded under any circumstance is Giuliani and Romney, plus all the Democrats.

 

Y'all do understand that...

Once Paul loses...abortion will go on being legal. Don't ya?

 

Abortions will go on being legal if he wins, because one man can't do much to stop it. And all Paul would do is return the issue to the states, many of whom would keep it legal, if Paul were able to return it to the states.

 

So in other words your argument is "we lose either way", right?

 

No, not at all. My point is that any Republican gives us a chance; no Democrat does. So we have no chance of winning with a Democrat; we have some chance of winning with a Republican.

But as of now, the battle must first be won in the courts most likely, where Roe will be overturned. If some refuse to vote Republican, they are helping elect a Democrat who will appoint pro-abortion justices who will sit on the bench for the next 15-20 years and rule in favor of Roe. If we hold our nose, we can give our country and her unborn a chance by voting Republican.

That is very distasteful to me. I have not been involved in Republican politics since I was in college. I am not a Republican. But my values tend to align more with the Republican party than the Democratic party, and since there is no viable third party, Republican is the only way left to vote.

If Paul gets the nomination, I will vote for him.

 

I don't fully understand what you're saying about republicans PL. It's clear to me that republicans running for office aren't any more bound by morals or ethics than the democrats who supposedly oppose them.

In fact going by their past record when in control of congress and the executive makes me somewhat less than eager to put much stock in their pro life or other "stances" anymore.

At any rate it should be pretty apparent to everyone by now that the country is being run into the ground by the current and past "leadership." If something doesn't change soon there isn't going to be a USA where we can even protest or speak out against abortions or anything else the state doesn't see fit for us to speak of.

How's that going to help end abortions?

 

It's right there in my words: With Republicans there is a chance that they will appoint a pro-life justice. With Democrats there is no chance.

As I said, I am not all that eager about it, but at least there's a chance.

 

That's what was said back when conservatives were still dreaming of an all republican government. It's been here and past abortion is still an issue. One that republicans seem unwilling to give up by solving or even working towards a solution. I don't think there's any chance of the court reversing a decision that fits so nicely with the UN's population control agenda either.

Not when nearly every mayor in the USA has agreed to "uphold the sacred principles enshrined in the earth charter". I believe it was a republican "pro lifer" with a family history of supporting Planned Parenthood that uttered that phrase.

No, I think the best chance we have is to save the republic first and go from there. Without the republic and the constitution there is no chance at all. And then we may see forced abortion and sterilization "for the good of mankind and mother earth".

 

I doubt that even 9 rock solid conservative Republican justices on the Supreme Court would totally overturn Roe v. Wade in the foreseeable future. The social turmoil it would create would be too much for even such justices to risk.

 

So your idea is to just give up? That's the only other option. You either work with what we have or you don't do it at all.

And this is why the judicial nominations are so important. You cannot abandon them to Democrats and expect to save the republic or the constitution.

Of course, all this reminds me why my hope is not in government.

 

In case you are not aware of this, the U.S. constitution is a man-made document and is subject to differing interpretations(the Bible is a God-given document and Christians are divided all over the place in interpreting the Holy Scriptures). Just because someone interprets the U.S. constitution different than you do or I do does make him/her unpatriotic, nor does it make you unpatriotic, nor me.

 

No my idea is to face reality. Our ship is sinking due to big government and globalist policies. Once it's sunk there will be no debate about abortion on the state or national level becaue it will be sanctioned by international law and the internationists think it's good for mother earth.

Without a republic judicial nominations won't mean nuts. It'll be the world court that decides and we all know that the world thinks a "woman has the right to choose."

Mine certainly isn't in this government such as it is.

 

That is not true. One man as inept as George Bush who only gave lip service to abortion can not make a change.

 

I love the way you work an insult into the conversation. What makes this especially rich is the way you attempt to look so pious while doing so.

 

In some cases it does. While there may be differing interpretations on some issues, there are clear matters that are not matters of interpretation. With the Bible, people may differ, but both are not right. There is only one right interpretation.

 

Bush did not do nearly enough, but he did push for and sign the PBA which was something. The NARAL and others were infuriated because they understand what many here do not ... It was a step in the right direction .

 

It wasn't an insult, and should not have been read as such. It did not seem like Ken was thinking, and Ken has a reputation for changing his mind. That's not an insult in the least. And I was not pious in my comments. You simply misread them.

 

I am very willign to listen.

I wonder if Dagwood will comment on your working an insult in teh conversation and sounding pious while doing so.

I would be fine if we overturned Roe, but that is not enough, IMO. I don't think life is a state value. It is a national value. Your life shoud be protected no matter what state you live in.

Boy I sure would not make that comment. Let it be noticed that you made it and not me.

They know a lot, certainly more than I do on that topic. That's not even controversial. And I agree with Paul on those votes. The problem is that Paul does not seem willing to go far enough. His position would certainly be an improvement on the current position.

Why is that?