|
 |
|
|
Rand Paul throws up the white flag of surrender before the battle even begins.
Now that is Leadership!<\SARCASM>
Rand Paul sucks more and more every time he opens his stupid mouth.
Why not Rand, if the creeps passed Obamacare against the wishes of the american people, they can pass abortion legislation in the same manner. You are wimping out dude, big time.
Paul is doing the usual libertarian song and dance, a lot of blah, blah, flowery baloney, and at the end of it is....the liberalism, in this case, abortion.
From the CNN transcript.
BLITZER: So, just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do believe that, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, is that right?
PAUL: Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.
PAUL: Well, there’s going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved.
So, I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say, the people came more to my way of thinking, it’s still be a lot of complicated things that the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.
What a loser! I wonder if he could use that same logic and be against legalizing pot?
Maybe he should spend a little more time assuring everyone he's no leftwing wacko.
After all, thats what we're being governed by today and how well is that working out for everyone.
“The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree”
He gets more like his father everyday.
Why not fight the law? Roe v Wade decision was based on lies. So fight it.
Anyone who votes for this fraud might as well write in McCain or Romney. He was hanging out with David Axelrod for God’s sake.
Of course every poll indicates that a majority of Americans are Pro-Life and an even greater majority believe that Abortion should be illegal in MOST situations. So how many more minds do we have to change. Perhaps ONE MORE on the SCOTUS? Or is it time for the other two branches of the Federal government and the fifty states to assert their Constitutional authority and ignore and even imprison the SCOTUS and Federal courts members who over step their authority.
John Marshal and his fellow ‘justices’ should have been arrested, tried, imprisoned and or executed treason after the BS power grab ruling of Marbury VS. Madison as the SCOTUS stole powers they where never intended to have.
Jefferson was absolutely correct about this abominable ruling when he said:
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves”
This madness has been enacted since 1803 and the last 211 years should be all the testimony necessary to decide that giving this unlimited power to lifetime appointed lawyers is just a stupid idea.
As a practical matter I’d say he was right. We can place some restrictions on abortion but the law as a whole will not change until a lot of people change their minds on abortion.
‘Until the Country is Persuaded Otherwise’
And how many percent of the country must be persuaded for the laws to change, and by what criteria do you determine that?
Ever hear of Kerminut Gosnell?
If we can pass a pile of bullsh*t, useless, ineffective economically hamstringing legislation like Sarbanes-Oxley over Enron, then why can't we pass common sense regulations over Gosnell?
I think we both know the answer.
Not sounding vote-worthy.
I don’t understand why some folks love Rand Paul so much. The guy is weak, weak, weak on so many issues—abortion, immigration, national defense, gay marriage, etc. Do I think he’s better than a Democrat? Yeah, but he seems totally oblivious to America’s raging culture war. He’s “sympathetic” of course, but he’s not going to lift a finger to do anything about it!
Abortion is one of those deal-breaking issues for me. A small minority stand on either side of the issue. Some want abortion on demand for any reason and at any time. They even support infanticide if the baby somehow survives the abortion attempt! Others want to outlaw abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, and prosecute women who have an abortion for first degree murder. The vast majority of Americans are somewhere in between those two polar extremes, but most—I’m talking about clear voting majorities—favor all sorts of abortion restrictions.
I think Senator Paul is being disingenuous when he claims to be pro-life, but he says he won’t vote for laws to restrict abortion until “the country is persuaded otherwise”—whatever that means. No, Senator Paul. If you’re pro life, you eagerly go for any law that saves babies in the here and now! Maybe we can’t stop all abortions, but we can certainly pass laws to make them safe, legal, and rare (emphasis on rare).
The very selling point used by Democrats to protect abortion can be used against them! Safe means requiring abortion clinics to be closely regulated like any other health care provider. Legal means legal only in extreme cases, like rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Rare means just that. These are politically achievable goals right now that don’t require us to persuade many more voters than we already have on our side of the abortion issue.
Again, you don’t hold out for the perfect when you can achieve good by saving babies right here and now!
Thank you for referencing that article SoConPubbie. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at Sen. Paul and not at you.
Beware pro-lifers! While I agree with Sen. Paul in principle concerning his Life at Conception Act, politicking RINO Paul should know better that the states have never delegated to the feds, via the Constitution, the specific power to legislatively address life issues. Such an issue is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.
Paul's only option to address life issues which he is ignoring is the following. He should be using his Article V power as a federal lawmaker to rally Congress to propose a Life at Conception amendment to the Constitution to the states for ratification. Then, if the states should choose to ratify Paul's proposed amendment, life at conception would be a constitutionally protected right and Paul would be a hero.
Otherwise, Paul is doing election year politicking, his sights undoubtedly on the Oval Office.
This is interesting watching this guy play political football. Kick it one way, then kick it another. Wont stand on principles and then wonders why he gets his ass in hot water.
True, as a practical matter, but the attempt to do so helps persuade. It’s about 50-50 as is.
Is it possible to change the word “until” to “UNLESS”?
There is a difference.
Ru Paul sucks. Next.