Posted on 04/10/2015 7:58:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
I’m a Cruz supporter, but I applaud Senator Paul for sticking it to those vile sons of b*tches in the media and on the left.
I don’t think he looked mean and nasty at all. I’ve watched them a couple of times now. He was pretty calm, actually.
BUT, He shot himself in the foot by his totally negating the good he had by trying to accomplish when he apologetically claimed “I lose my temper...”
Nonetheless, I will not shoot at ANY of our conservative candidates until this plays out.
Paul is not in my top tier.
Top:
Cruz
Walker
Perry
Rubio
Acceptable:
Paul
Pence
Martinez
Better than Hillary
Huckabee
Santorum
Ted is a gospel booster, which reveals a lot.
Ted is a gospel booster, which reveals a lot. (To the good.) It isn’t a question of can we trust Ted, it’s that Ted has trusted the Trustworthy One.
I think in Ted’s wake there are going to be more stouthearted men on the picture. An example was needed.
I’d have no complaint with a President Cruz, but other acceptable possibilities may shake out too.
He still dodged the question. Rather than answering the question, he posed a question for the reporter. While Paul’s question was a legitimate one, he should have given his own answer before questioning the reporter.
I don’t like it when candidates dodge questions. Ted Cruz seems ready willing and able to answer any question posed to him. Cruz’s responses generally leave the reporters flat footed.
Paul is guided by a libertarian perspective and he pretends to be pro-life, when in fact, he is pro-choice. He just thinks there is some point in the pregnancy when the government can stop it. That is the position of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade stated that the Government has an interest in protecting a “viable” fetus. While democrats don’t even accept that premise, Paul does. But that doesn’t mean he disagees with Roe v. Wade at all.
For a physician trained in the Scientific Method, Rand is soft on a number of major, existential issues.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/rand-paul-republicans-need-soften-stance-voter-id-offending-people/#mmE4eP8W7oQvVGM0.01
Whatever the “theoretical” holding of RvW, the practical upshot is not to care if the baby is viable.
Whatever the “theoretical” holding of RvW, the practical upshot is not to care if the baby is viable. — So, to care even about that is superior to the practical upshot.
Paul has McCain’s nastiness.
And poor judgement, as well.
Putting himself on that biased MSM interview was just stupid,
especially so early on in his announcement.
He, along with others will be Bush’s stalking horse.
Libertarian is also more easily persuaded to pro-life leanings than liberal, because a liberty without a life is meaningless. Liberals (viz. the climate madness) would just as soon get into a suicide pact for their meaningless lives.
Oh woe, an angry white man.
Depends on what that white man is angry about.
Huh?
Are you saying that a candidate who supports the holding of Roe v. Wade would be acceptable as opposed to a candidate who believed that viability was no concern?
Do you really know Paul's position on Abortion after that interview?
I sure don't.
He turned the question from support for abortion to whether the DNC supported killing a "viable" fetus in the womb.
Nice tactic, but it leaves the question of whether he would support a 4th or 5th month abortion as a libertarian right.
He’s not any meaner and nastier than the average FReeper.
Like him or loathe him, at least Rand Paul was willing to stand up to the reporter’s questions, unlike “Conservative” favorite Mike Pence in Indiana.
So libertarians are better than liberals? Wow, that isn't saying much.
Most libertarians are concerned only with the rights of the born and not the rights of the unborn. Most libertarians look at the issue of Liberty as some form of libertine anarchy rather than the view of government being a form of "Ordered Liberty" which is a liberty that not only protects the rights of the individual but also the society at large and the nation's posterity.
But I’m not, and as far as I know
no other Freepers are running for the office of President of the US.
Its time to take it to the media and take it to the Progressives with no apology. That’s the way to win.
Anyone could say that. That is the mating call of the pro-choice movement. "Yes, in general, I'm pro life but..................."
Would Hillary have answered that any differently?
He stood up for Mitch MConnell, as well. Big Time
Mitch IS the problem, not the solution.
I’ve listened to Rand Paul on this subject. He’s not as bad as Mitt Romney with his ‘health of the mother’ and he’s not as good as those who say ‘life of the mother.’
He seems confused by all the medical knowledge he has and refers to unusual medical conditions and exceptions that non-medical people aren’t informed about.
He was right to take the Debbie Wasserman to task over late term (full term) abortion, but Rand Paul needs to define for HIMSELF when life begins. Then he needs to apply his libertarian principle of life and liberty for distinct individuals. ANYONE who defines life at conception OR EVEN THOSE who define it at implantation CANNOT justify the violation of rights of the unborn.
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.