Ron Paul Explains the Law to Rick Santorum

Discussion in 'Politics' started by J.D., Jan 20, 2012.

  1. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
  2. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wasn't Lewrockwell part of the racist publication with Paul's name on it?
     
  3. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Way to deal with the subject of the O/P, Mandy.
     
  4. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    BY the way I believe RP is pro life and see no reason to think otherwise.
     
  5. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Yes but is he pro Biblical marriage only?
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    299
    I get the feeling he just believes it is purely a state level decision.

    As president, his personal feelings on the subject wouldn't matter and he would take no steps to protect the lives of the unborn.

    He may personally be pro life, but it wouldn't really matter.
     
  7. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats incorrect. He is in favor of passing a Federal "Life at conception" act (and supports an amendment...), which would force states to treat unborn children like everyone else. At that point, they would be forced to prosecute unborn killings just like any other.

    He is also in favor, and has introduced twice, the "We the People" act, which would overturn Roe vs. Wade, and make abortion instantly illegal in 18 states, and restricted in 22 others.

    What he doesn't want, is a "Federal department of abortion enforcement" or some such thing.
     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    299
    Smokescreen.

    What he personally believes or doesn't believe still doesn't matter . An amendment will never pass. He knows it, but it does sound oh so good.:thumbs:

    But it does appear he believes in federal intervention after all. Maybe he's not as states rights oriented as he would lead us to believe.

    His stance is so nuanced, he makes it sound like he wants it both ways. It's either a state issue or it's not. He contradicts himself.
     
    #8 carpro, Jan 20, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 20, 2012
  9. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its no contradiction, and they do not need an amendment. All they need is a majority vote in congress. The congress has the power to define life at conception, AND to strip jurisdiction from federal courts.

    There is no contradiction here. You are trying to just make stuff up because you don't like Ron Paul. But the fact is, the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, is guaranteed at the federal level, and enforced at the State level. That is what Paul wants...

    You know, to follow the Constitution. And FYI, I believe you are right on the constitutional amendment part. That is a tactic used by pro-life fakers like Mitt Romney, to act like they are pro-life, when they are not. They say, "I don't want to return power to the states...I want an amendment!" All the while knowing that such a thing can never actually happen.
     
  10. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    This act was introduced by Sen Roger Wicker (R-MS) last year. With a Democrat in the WH and Dem control of the Senate it's going nowhere.

    Well thats a relief. But, who has proposed a department of abortion? Anyone?
     
  11. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. But with President Ron Paul, putting his foot down, with a republican Congress, it has an excellent chance; better than ANY other plan, at least.

    Anyone proposing universal federal laws that will require federal people to enforce them.
     
  12. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    This seems to me to be his standard MO.

    Support something that he knows will not pass...

    Then vote against it.

    He thinks that he is playing both sides of the fence.
     
  13. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,272
    Likes Received:
    620
    I don't see why he would have a chance. He's never passed any bills and 99% of the ones he introduces never get past the sub-committee level. It's proven that he can't work with his colleagues--he earmarks money for his district WITH a ban on earmarks imposed by Republican House leadership.
     
    #13 InTheLight, Jan 21, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 21, 2012
  14. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Didn't our "Christian" president, the peanut farmer, say the same thing: that he would not impose his will on the majority of the people? You know, the guy who is now an Arab mouthpiece?
     
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    299
    Of course it is.

    He says:
    " I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being."

    But in 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act which asserts that life begins at conception and that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the regulation of abortion.

    So first he says it's a state issue . Then invokes the power of the federal government to define when life begins.

    Trying to have his cake and eat it too. Being disingenious is his stock in trade.
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    299
    As he consistently does with earmarks. He knows they will pass even if he votes against them, but he can claim he always votes against them, while being one of the biggest spenders in the state.

    And there are lots of otherwise smart people that are fooled by his duplicity. Willingly, I guess.
     
  17. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, I'm wondering if you are incapable of understanding such a simple concept, or if you are just so blinded by your own dislike of Dr. Paul that you cannot see it...

    The Constitution guarantees that people have the right to life liberty and property. That is a Federal definition. It is setting the bounds.

    Enforcing the laws that protect life liberty and property, though, is a state function. So the Constitution says life will be protected. But the states enforce murder laws.

    This is what Paul believes, is what he has continually stated he believes. And it is how he has always voted. Not sure why you are having such a difficult time understanding such an unbelievably simple concept. Maybe you need to get off these boards and get some sleep. :sleep:
     
  18. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    299
    What I have no trouble understanding is the concept of duplicity. Dr. Paul can't have it both ways, but he tries on more than one issue.

    BTW I do not dislike Dr. Paul. All the candidates have their weaknesses. I dislike the fact that he gets most of his support in the primaries from people who will never ever vote for him in the general election and I dislike the lemmming like blindness of his supposed followers. Some of whom infiltrate message boards like this one,pretending to be someone they are not.

    His most glaring deficiency, I believe, is that he will try to weaken the military to the point of being unable to respond in an emergency.
     
  19. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    He is not having it the same way on this issue. He has been glaringly consistent.

    But the polls do not reflect that he gets "most of his support" from people outside the party. Look at South Carolina. A closed primary, and not exactly his best demographic in the Republican Party. But even with 4 candidates, all of whom better fit the demographic in South Carolina, he STILL pulled 13 percent.

    Polls show that among independents Paul pulls more support in the General election than everyone...including Obama. So I am bewildered by your statement. I, personally, know anti-war democrats who voted for Obama last time, who are planning on voting for Paul this time, if he gets the nod. There is actually a whole group of Democrats pushing for Paul, because they actually like him and plan on voting for him.

    Where do you get this from? He said he wants to build more military bases here, and wants to increase our defensive capabilities, including new technology, missile defense, and closing the borders. How is any of that weakening our military?

    FYI: I am, and have been for many years, a Republican. I voted for McCain last time. This idea that Paul is "outside the mainstream" is media propaganda. As far as his foreign policy, about half of us agree with him on his policy of non-intervention...

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...shows-gop-schism-on-interventionism/?page=all
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    299
    Baloney. His inconsistencies are glaringly consistent and you're cherry picking your polling data and seizing desperately on the word "most" as well as confining your spin to S. Carolina, where he did poorly simply because it's a closed primary.

    Perhaps I should have said a substantial amount, but I suspect you would still spin the numbers just as you have every time they're brought up.

    That is exactly the lemming like response I expected.
     

Share This Page

Loading...