Ron Paul Says Mitt Romney Pro-Life Giuliani Not

Interesting views from a man who has such a bleak pro-life voting record and has garnered high marks from NARAL. But he's right that there must be a consistent conservative on abortion in the GOP.

 

Allowing states to slaughter unbirn children is not pro-life. Neither is ronnie.

 

On top of that, it will take much more time to be convinced that Romney had a change in heart at a politcally convienient time. The jury is still out, but the odds are, its another political finger to the wind. It is whatever promotes my political career.

How many of you all believe down deep in your heart that Romney had a change of heart?

I will admit it would be harder to vote against Romney in a general election by third party than Giuliani, but hopefully, neither will win.

 

==Ron Paul is wrong. Romney takes the position he needs to take in order to win the office he is running for.

 

How do you know this?

 

==History.

 

Here ya go PL read the politician's manual. Chapters five and eight in particular. :smilewinkgrin:

 

How does that prove what Romney believes now? Have you ever changed your mind on anything?

The truth is that you don't know, and frankly, you should admit it. Romney may be being politically expedient. I have no idea. I am not a Romney supporter. But the truth is that he might be being straightforward.

It would be easier to believe that Romney was expediently prochoice when running in Massachussetts, given the conservative nature of Mormons. But I have no idea. And neither do you.

 

I browsed through that quickly, and don't see any mention Romney's position on abortion. Do you have a particular section in mind that I missed? Or did you post something completely irrelevant to the issue?

 

However, if your scenerio is true, that would mean he was willing to play politics with the lives of unborn children for political gain, indicating a very flawed character, even if originally pro life. No thanks.

As a history side note, I can remember when elder Romney was running against Richard Nixon in the primaries for President. Despite what Nixon did, the right person won.

 

Then you "browsed" too quickly my friend. Slow down and read Machiavelli's advice to "princes". After all the princes (politicians) of the world have paid much attention to his writtings where as the peasants (you and I) have not.

These people don't think the same as you and I PL. Maybe it's time we figured out just how they do think so we can draw some conclusions about them that are um, alittle closer to reality? There is no "value" that these folks will not pretend to share with us (in front of the cameras) to gain our support. That's one big difference in our thinking. We have values and try to live by them, they use those values to gain power and office. After that, well...it's the same old story. It's all history.

 

Could well be. But if he has truly changed, it is an indication of at least improving character. If he has not truly changed and is simply "talking a good game" but gets elected and does something positive about abortion, I am okay with that. He will have to answer for his own deception and dishonesty. A right thing done for wrong reasons is still a right thing done. That will not justify wrong reasons in any way.

I honestly don't know about Romney, and the truth is that no one here does. We can surmise and suspect, but we don't know. That's why comments like Martin's are so absurd. He doesn't know. Poncho doesn't know. I don't know. You don't know. So let's not pretend that we do. It seems to me that honesty and integrity demand that much.

And as I have often said, with Romney and most of the other Republicans there is at least a chance of change; with the Dems there is no chance. It is impossible for me to imagine what possible justification a Christian could have for voting for any of the Democrats.

Man, you're old ...

 

You are assuming that Romney is Machiavellian. I am not assuming that. I don't know. They don't think the same way I do, and you and I certainly don't think the same way. But can't we at least be honest enough to admit that we simply do not know what Romney's true position is? How is that so difficult for some of you guys?

 

Looks as though you've read Machiavelli a tad bit more than you're letting on PL. The end justifies the means? How utterly Machiavellian! :laugh:

 

Looks like you didn't even read me. I didn't say the ends justifies the means. Don't make false accusations. Be more careful with my words.

I do not believe that the ends justifies the means. I do believe that right ends are right ends, even if sinful ways are used to achieve them. That does not justify the sinful ways, and I plainly said that.

So take better care with my words. Do not misuse them as you did here.

 

You're right. All we can do is hope for the best. He says one thing now when his history shows something else, much like Ron Paul on abortion. Difference is Paul doesn't claim a conversion, where Romney is honest enough to say he was once pro-abortion and now admits he was wrong.

 

==I no longer believe in giving candidates for office the benefit of the doubt. It will take years, and a lot of action, for Romney to convince me his "conversion" is anything more than political maneuvering.

==Maybe, but I am not likely to believe it anytime soon. I have been burned by too many politicians to believe any of them have a true change of heart on these type issues (mainly when their change of heart helps their career).

==Either way, I can't trust him. And if I can't trust him, I can't vote for him. Besides, on other issues he is just another big government Republican.

 

That's fine, but that's not what you said. You said he was not pro-life, and my point is that you don't know that.

Again, that's fine. But that's not what you said. I can't really identify with being burned by politicians because I never trusted them all that much to begin with.

Then say that. Don't say that he's not pro-life now becuase you don't know that.

 

==It is what I said. I don't believe Romney is truly pro-life. It will take years of strong pro-life action for him to even start to convince me that his "conversion" to the pro-life position was heart felt and not political.