Posted on 08/20/2010 2:39:14 PM PDT by mnehring
Ron Paul gets a 0% from Naral.
He’s Pro-Life.
Wants to overturn Roe v Wade.
That’s Pro-Life.
You're a liar. I didn't mention any of your evasions.
I was just repeating what Bob Dole said in 1976.
Liberals love red herrings.
We don’t need to be taking my money to fight endless wars on the other side of the globe.
Liberals love spewing crap like that too, especially when siding with our enemies.
"The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer." --Theodore Roosevelt
Not when he says states should be allowed to allow abortion if they want. That makes the right to life alienable instead of unalienable.
What other unalienable rights, other than the supreme right, the right to life, do you you think states can alienate if they want?
I’ve heard your interesting theories on this before. Or maybe it was someone else.
But abolish Roe v Wade = Pro-Life
But 0% from NARAL = Pro-Life
Ron Paul is both of those things.
Therefore Ron Paul = Pro-Life
Ron Paul is a Pro-Lifer who doesn’t agree with you on exactly all the particulars.
Using your definition, the US most certainly isn’t Pro-Life.
I believe that the US is Pro-Life, and would like to see Roe v Wade overturned.
Rated 56% by the National Right to Life Committee.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_06n-NRLC.htm
The Liberals, like you, have been the ones taking my money to fight wars.
The Conservatives have always thought twice about taking money from people. They would only take peoples money when it’s absolutely necessary.
I am the Conservative, and you are the Liberal.
Yeah, all those "liberals" in uniform overseas spending your money while you sit safe at home crapping on their sacrifices.
“Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.” —Robert Heinlein
That’s one reason, out of many, why he’d never get elected President.
Quite a balancing act hobbling around with only one leg of the Conservative stool.
Ron Paul is like a broken clock.
“History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.” — Ronald Reagan
So you’re saying that the person who wants the most wars likes the soldiers the most?
I don’t agree with you. I think that people can like soldiers and yet not want them to be in combat all the time.
I guess soldiers really want to be in combat, and it’s taking something away from them to keep them from what they really want to do all the time, which is be in combat, apparently.
Never said anything of the kind, your disingenuous evasion notwithstanding.
“Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.” —Robert Heinlein
One problem with the 3 legs of the conservative stool theory, which are socons, national security conservatives, and fiscal / tea party / constitutional conservatives, is that 2 of those 3 legs - socons and natl security cons - are not particularly liked by more than half of the population.
The Iraq War was unpopular. We got creamed in 2006 and 2008 because the Iraq War was unpopular.
I’d say that it’s time for the foreign policy conservatives to take a back seat, because we lose because of them.
The tea party is so wildly popular because it’s silent on foreign policy and it’s silent on socon issues. It’s all about less government, limited government. We’ll win in November because we’re focusing on smaller limited government.
The people don’t want to hear about Islam. They want to hear that if they vote for Republicans in November, the things that Obama is doing that they hate will stop.
In terms of socons, the people agree with them on the issues more often than not, but they have an image problem with the “moderates” in the Northeast and the West Coast. They might not think that preop transsexuals (or, in other words, men) should use the womens room in a Denny’s. But they don’t want an Arkansas preacher to tell them that. They don’t want to be the guy agreeing with the Arkansas preacher. They don’t feel comfortable with the style of the socons.
But the ideas aren’t a problem.
Gay marriage is ridiculous. The socon position is the right one. The transsexual thing is even worse. Crazy men think they’re women, and the government is saying that private businesses have to agree with the crazy man. This is happening right now. Socons should not be concerned about marijuana. If they are, they should keep it to themselves.
He has lot of company.
You were saying I didn’t respect soldiers because I wanted less war. You did draw an equivalence between liking war and liking soldiers.
Republican wars mean Republicans lose.
They don’t care much about unalienable rights either.
"[W]hile Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." - Ron Paul
Pro-choice for states. Not pro-unalienable, God-given, right to life. Same as a Stephen A. Douglas Democrat. Same as a Gerald R. Ford or a John McCain Republican.
As opposed to Ronald Reagan, who believed every child is a person and therefore protected by the simple, clear provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
------------------------------
That's the best description of Libertarianism I've ever seen. (Of course there's the dope and porn too to add a fillip of flavor.)
You’re talking to him about the Abortion thing.
I don’t want to get bogged down in your philosophical debate.
Your theories do have merit.
However, Pro-Life v Pro-Choice is determined by one’s position on Roe v Wade.
Because of this, Ron Paul is clearly Pro-Life.
But, your Pro-Life position might very well be better than Ron Paul’s Pro-Life position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.