Posted on 06/11/2014 6:23:04 PM PDT by lilyramone
Rep. Peter King on Wednesday said the Republican Party cannot allow Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to take over following House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s defeat. “We can’t allow Eric’s defeat last night allow the Ted Cruzes and the Rand Pauls to take over the party, or their disciples to take over the party,” the moderate New York Republican said on MSNBC.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
We are too sophisticated here to fall for cheap theatrics, why can’t you address his actual campaigning in post 37?
His own words say that he is not pro-life.
A way to celebrate our defeat of Eric Cantor last night.
"Rand Paul throws weight behind immigration reform [AMNESTY] effort"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3166595/posts
Peter King, Rhino. Kissed Clinton’s ass. RINO. Needs to be Tea Partied.
You mean he will finally put the big D behind his name? Because he has had that big D down his throat for a long time.
He would never win a democrat primary for the Senate (and I don’t see Chuckle S leaving any way but feet first, so there ain’t gonna be an open seat).
He has no reason to switch parties, he’s of no use to Hillary Clinton if he’s not her pet Republican. And it’s not like he’s had to worry about GOP primary challengers.
The Paul family is unambiguously Pro Life.
Peter King, I don’t think you have to worry about Rand Paul; he has destroyed his chances over the past month or so by backing amnesty for illegal aliens.
What Mr. King needs to remember is it’s not HIS party. It’s OUR party!
No they aren't, and you have had that proven to you, so why post a falsehood?
Rand Paul is all over the place on abortion, and is clearly not what we consider pro-life.
When did I have that proven to me, smarty pants?
Rather than go through the search, let’s just settle for now.
CNN:
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.
I would say that after birth, you know, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one- day-old or six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being, but it is more complicated because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So, I don’t think it’s a simple as checking box and saying exceptions or no exceptions.
And there are a lot of decisions that are made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t — the law won’t apply to, but I think it’s important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say, oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family. And so, I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in a category on any of that.
BLITZER: Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions.
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.
>> Rather than go through the search, let’s just settle for now.
If you didn’t yet “search”, what info did you rely on to make the charge I was spreading falsehoods?
So you are denying that you have ever seen that?
Even on this thread?
Seen what?
You just made the charge something was proven to me. What is the basis for that proof?
“That” being post 51 that you keep pretending isn’t there, are you now reverting to that sing-song libertarian dance?
You haven’t read the thread? and have never seen what I posted in post 51?
Are you making those two claims?
In #53, you said “Even on this thread?”. Is there some other thread you had in mind?
After reading post 51, I hope that you will cease lying about Rand Paul and abortion.
And you accused me of dancing...
Have a good day.
You lied about Rand Paul being unambiguously pro-life.
A lie that you appear to have no intention of dropping since you have refused to even acknowledge Paul’s own words and stated position in post 51, or post 37.
You’re making a number of hostile charges, and I’d like to understand the basis for those charges.
The text you posted in #51 doesn’t appear to be in this thread’s Politico article. Where did it come from? Is it related to some other thread you eluded to in #53?
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.