Thank you estesbob. I only hope that when Paul finally throws in the towel enough Paul supporters will get over it and vote for a viable candidate against Obama in the general election. In a close election (remember Florida?) it could make a difference.Hang in there. Only a few more weeks (maybe less) and we at done with Ron Paul. Thank God he has said this is his last race.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. When you make a deal with the devil, expect to get burned. By the way, who authored the 2005 Sancity of Life Act?In Santorum’s calculation, supporting Spector over Toomey was in the best long-term interests of the pro-life cause. Disagree with his calculation if you want, but remember that we did get Alito and Roberts on the supreme court and Spector did support both. Had it been up to me, I’m not sure what I would’ve done, but Santorum made his decisions with the interests of getting good supreme court justices in mind. You are wrong to say that he compromised his fundamental principles in supporting Spector. It was his fundamental pro-life principles that guided him in this decision. But remember, he has a brain and sometimes you need to make compromises to get things done. The difference is the decision is now convenient for you to use it to bash Santorum’s pro-life credentials in a most unfair and shameless manner. That Ron Paul resorts to this tactic shows how desperate he and his supporters are.
Santorum was thrown out for a variety of issues. The Specter endorsement was the last straw. And it is still not clear that the supreme court “deal” was real. Specter says it was not. Santorum counters that it was real. One of them is lying. Neither will ever be President.I don’t think you really understand politics, Kubark. President Bush was polling a whopping 38% in Pennsylvania at the time of Santorum’s loss. Also, Santorum’s opponent Casey was considered to be a pro-life Democrat which took away a lot of Santorum’s appeal to socially conservative Democrats. All of that added up to a loss for SAntorum - and it probably would have been all but impossible for him to win - even without the votes of the “true-believers” who expect perfection from their candidates.
Care to provide a citation and a context?I heard a clip in which Ron Paul was heard talking about how the Bilderburgers want to control all of the money and resources in America.
Translation: you agree with everything that Scheuer had to say, but do not like it.I would like to discuss more of your interesting diatribe against Gary Bauer, but I’m due back on planet earth. Bye.
So, in other words…Rick violated the Magesterium, because he felt it would benefit the cause in the long run?In Santorum’s calculation, supporting Spector over Toomey was in the best long-term interests of the pro-life cause.
First it was sponsored in 1995 by two congressmen other than Paul. How many abortions did it prevent?Code:Excuses, excuses, excuses. When you make a deal with the devil, expect to get burned. By the way, who authored the 2005 Sancity of Life Act?
You ignore the political reality that I described.Santorum was thrown out for a variety of issues. The Specter endorsement was the last straw. And it is still not clear that the supreme court “deal” was real. Specter says it was not. Santorum counters that it was real. One of them is lying. Neither will ever be President.
Sure:Care to provide a citation and a context?
Translation: this is getting tedious. Stick to your guns but remember that when Paul finally gives up on the nomination, the eventual nominee will need the support from all those who are pro-life to defeat Obama.Translation: you agree with everything that Scheuer had to say, but do not like it.
You are confusing calumny with a factually accurate statement. Santorum did endorse the pro-choice Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey. Santorum also campaigned for pro-choice candidate New Jersey Governor Christine Whitman, who supported partial-birth abortions. The fact that you charged me with calumny shows how desperate and low you are willing to go in order to deny the obvious truth about Santorum. Santorum has a very charming personality and a very soothing rhetoric, but his RECORD demonstrates that he is a conservative fraud.I read the above post and what came before it. I would respond if I thought your borderline calumnious post (calumnious toward the good pro-life catholic Rick Santorum) was worthy of a response.
Ishii
Lots of that going around on this board.You are confusing calumny with a factually accurate statement. Santorum did endorse the pro-choice Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey.
Sure:
LOL!! You are precious. Dr. Paul’s response was golden. I see you failed to detect the subtle sacrcasm in his response. But that is to be expected from someone who proclaims “CONSPIRACY NUT” from one sentence in a 45 second long youtube video.Two words: conpiracy nut.
Oh, I see. You are a utilitarian. Ron Paul is a pro-life constitutionalist. Does that offend you?First it was sponsored in 1995 by two congressmen other than Paul. How many abortions did it prevent?
You mean, the political “reality” that Arlen Specter denies ever took place.You ignore the political reality that I described.
Ah, the “lesser of two evils” argument, again. Not going to work this time. The stakes are too high this time to play that old game.Translation: this is getting tedious. Stick to your guns but remember that when Paul finally gives up on the nomination, the eventual nominee will need the support from all those who are pro-life to defeat Obama.
conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/19/ron-paul-endorsed-a-pro-abortion-candidate-for-president-instead-of-a-pro-lifer/
In 2008, Ron Paul who says he’s committed to protecting life, actually gave his support to a pro-abortion candidate instead of to the pro-life candidate. He put his support behind a string of third party candidates. One of them was pro-choice Cynthia McKinney. Link Link Link Link Link
On AllThingsMcKinney, she brags about her 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL, Planned Parenthood and Pro-choice America. Link She even voted against the partial birth abortion ban. Link
I don’t know how a man who claims he’s “committed to protecting life” can put any amount of support behind someone who is for partial birth abortion and who brags about her 100% rating from NARAL, Planned Parenthood and Pro-choice America.
Ron Paul says that seeing that baby in that bucket convinced him of the need to protect life. Yet he gives support for president to someone who believes we have a right to toss dead babies in buckets?
Are you sure that isn’t part of a conspiracy to discredit Ron Paul? I mean, he’s the candidate who doesn’t compromise, isn’t he?OK all you Ron Paul supporters who can’t understand how a Pro-Life candidate could ever justify endorsing a Pro-Choice candidate…
It is interesting, but not quite how you made it out:OK all you Ron Paul supporters who can’t understand how a Pro-Life candidate could ever justify endorsing a Pro-Choice candidate…
I don’t understand how everyone seems to buy the “Ron Paul is completely consistent his stands” argument either. If he believes abortion is not a “national issue” (as quoted below) why did he vote for a national ban on partial birth abortion? I guess only the babies that are about to be born merit this special exception to his argument:Are you sure that isn’t part of a conspiracy to discredit Ron Paul? I mean, he’s the candidate who doesn’t compromise, isn’t he?
Yep, must be conspiracy.
Q: You have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren’t those lives just as innocent?
PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don’t even know if a person is pregnant; if it’s 24 hours after rape, I don’t know how you’re going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I’ve spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn’t solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.
issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
Only if you buy the canard that Ron Paul is somehow the only “authentic” pro-life candidate. Then again, your post already contained the canard that Sarah Palin isn’t pro-life. What nonsense.Code:It seems quite possible we end up with the same situation this time sadly.
I think I’ll give you and ishii a few more posts to get your Cynthia McKinney “story” straight before I jump in. Hopefully, you correct your statements before others get to take credit for doing so.OK all you Ron Paul supporters who can’t understand how a Pro-Life candidate could ever justify endorsing a Pro-Choice candidate…
What is nonsensical about questing the commitment to ending abortion of someone who puts a pro-abortion, former planned parenthood board member on her state supreme court?Only if you buy the canard that Ron Paul is somehow the only “authentic” pro-life candidate. Then again, your post already contained the canard that Sarah Palin isn’t pro-life. What nonsense.
Ishii
Gov. Palin on nominating Judge Christen.“Alaska’s Supreme Court bears the awesome responsibility of ensuring that our court system administers justice in firm accordance with the principles laid down in our state Constitution,” Palin said in a written statement. “I have every confidence that Judge Christen has the experience, intellect, wisdom and character to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice.”