Rand Paul’s spokesman clarifies: He’s 100% pro-life

posted at 3:21 pm on March 21, 2013 by Allahpundit

He says Paul wouldn’t try to ban the morning-after pill, if only because it’s infeasible to do so. That alone pushes him down to no better than, oh, 98-99% pro-life, right?

More seriously, I’m not sure how much this clarify the mass confusion caused by his CNN appearance but here’s the official word from Team Rand via Life Site News:

Paul “was speaking medically,” Stafford said.

By “thousands of exceptions,” Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com, Paul meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases – for example, ectopic pregnancies or others that directly threaten the mother’s life.

The senator is not in favor of the more nebulous “health of the mother” exception that pro-life advocates argue can be applied to any woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.

As for the morning-after pill:

But what about Paul’s statement that the Life at Conception Act may not be able to address early abortions? That, too, was a misunderstanding, according to Stafford. He said the senator was talking about things like emergency contraception pills, which may cause very early abortions, but since they contain the exact same drugs used in standard birth control pills, the senator believes they will be nearly impossible to ban.

Senator Paul “has always said it is not practically possible to legislate things like the morning after pill or other emergency contraception,” Stafford said. “It simply isn’t possible to do so. The law will likely never be able to reach that.”

“You can legislate abortifacients like RU-486, and he would,” he said. “But you can’t legislatively ban artificial estrogen and progesterone.”

His dad once made the same point about the morning-after pill at a GOP presidential debate. But go back to the first point, about how Paul was speaking “medically” when talking about the “thousands of exceptions” to the Life At Conception Act he imagined. How does that clarify what he said yesterday? You can pick up the vid below at 1:30 or so and watch his answer. He does talk about his experiences as a physician, but if all he’s saying is that an exception for the life of the mother would apply to many different circumstances, well, we all already knew that. Everyone understands that pregnancy potentially can cause different life-threatening complications. Why not simply say, “Yeah, exception for the life of the mother” and leave it at that? Paul sounds in the clip as though he’s straining for a standard looser than that, which is odd given that he’s become known very quickly as a pol with impressive retail skills and a deft touch in communicating. Suddenly, over the past three days, he’s gotten verrrry hazy about immigration terminology and now abortion terminology — coincidentally, two issues that will be especially difficult when trying to split the difference between conservatives and libertarians in 2016. Is his new strategy to be just vague enough so that both sides can interpret his rhetoric as essentially agreeing with their position?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Note how many trolls are defending Obama, here.

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

He’s also 100% for amnesty, in sheep’s clothing.

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM

The youngens are as Machiavellian as Obama.

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Shit, for a bit, I was on the Rand Paul train, but now, well, I hate it when somebody attempts to speak his mind, and then equivocates when confronted with his mind.

That is the definition of a political pig in perpetuity.

Saying what he thinks you want to hear.

Next!

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Care to change your mind on that new republic, off the coast of Costa Rica?

I’ll up the ante:

Guns and dogs and ’60s to ’80s music will be mandatory.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 3:29 PM

P.S.

And chicks! Conservative chicks, in bikinis!

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM

The MSM is going to work on Rand Paul–he is going to have to declare his stance on everything and write it in stone, where the Dems get big softball questions about their favorite sports teams etc. Because the GOP does not engage in groupthink, the MSM will make sure that every issue is identified so we can be divided and conquered.

I think it is important to have values well defined; one’s stance on issues should not be poll tested but rather be honest. However, the MSM is exploiting this tendency of the GOP to win elections for Democrats, who almost never have to answer to these kinds of issues.

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Sidebar:

I’m listening to Pablo Cruise, and those fuc&*ing ads are pissing me off.

There have been 5 in a row, prior to this posting.

BULLSHIT.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

“Tryin’ to be all things to all people is kinda…hard” – Aqua Buddah

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Sorry guys, but Im not gonna throw Paul overboard for this. Rand Paul/Marco Rubio/Scott Walker 2016 in any combination.

Jack_Burton on March 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM

I meant:

FUC&ING!

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 3:35 PM

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM

That sounds perilously close to a Parliament/Funkadelic term.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 3:35 PM

#flavorofthelastweek #flipoftheday #didn’tactuallymeanthat

lester on March 21, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Sorry guys, but Im not gonna throw Paul overboard for this. Rand Paul/Marco Rubio/Scott Walker 2016 in any combination.

Jack_Burton on March 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM

seasoning helps.

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 3:37 PM

RINO RINO RINO!!!

CRUZ/PALIN 2016

YEAHHHHHHHHH!!!

Flapjackmaka on March 21, 2013 at 3:37 PM

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM

That sounds perilously close to a Parliament/Funkadelic term.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2013 at 3:35 PM

I think the fanmail kinda got to his head.

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 3:39 PM

100% pro-life… *except*… *but*…

lol

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Sorry guys, but Im not gonna throw Paul overboard for this. Rand Paul/Marco Rubio/Scott Walker 2016 in any combination.

Jack_Burton on March 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM

I concur. If we don’t unify sooner we’ll be wiped out again. Some people like to repeat their mistakes and expect different outcomes.

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Isn’t it nice to have the GOP nomination held hostage to socon single-issue voters?

If I were him, I’d say the govt should not fund abortions or mandate insurers cover it. Other than that, legality issues are up to the states and the courts.

DRayRaven on March 21, 2013 at 3:43 PM

That’s right Rand, keep appeasing the Christian Taliban.

Barry Goldwater would spit on you.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Sorry guys, but Im not gonna throw Paul overboard for this. Rand Paul/Marco Rubio/Scott Walker 2016 in any combination.
Jack_Burton on March 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Any of those three would be the best candidate we’ve had since Reagan.

midgeorgian on March 21, 2013 at 3:44 PM

This is such a perpetual GOP failing….You start off clearly and then suddenly think “Oh how does this play with teh Gheys/Womynz/Latinos/Soccer Momz/Independents and try to “Clarify.”

THEN the Media, never your friend, trumpets your clarification to the world….and your base of supporters feels betrayed…and so you have to “Clarify” some more…

At the end of the day, you haven’t made the Base OR the (Insert Voter Group Here) any happier, you’ve just damaged yourself.

What about Abortion is so hard:
1) You are either comfortable with Roe v. Wade; OR
2) You oppose Abortion EXCEPT in cases of Rape, Incest, or where the Life of the Mother is threatened.

You don’t have to clarify 2) it speaks for itself….you can EXPLAIN 2)…. that you would not arrest and try women who had abortions….you first want to repeal Roe v. Wade returning it to the state’s to decide…there are many things you can say, but you don’t have to get caught up in, “What I mean is…”

But instead, our side seems to think better of itself or take counsel of its fears and try to “soften” it’s message.

JFKY on March 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:43 PM

There’s a difference, idjit.

Christians will feed you.

The Taliban will kill you.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:43 PM

There’s a difference, idjit.

Christians will feed you.

The Taliban will kill you.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 3:48 PM

And they’ll both try to control you. That’s what matters in a free society.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM

JFKY on March 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM

I think it seem so simple. The MSM does this to every one of our candidates like master puppeteers. It’s on us to end the cycle.
My answer would be “Life begins at conceptions and is precious and should be protected. However, this power, constitutionally, should be delegated to the states, and I would not enact a federal law that would override what voters of a certain state have decided”

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:51 PM

The MSM is going to work on Rand Paul–he is going to have to declare his stance on everything and write it in stone, where the Dems get big softball questions about their favorite sports teams etc. Because the GOP does not engage in groupthink, the MSM will make sure that every issue is identified so we can be divided and conquered.

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

When you venture into “Gotcha-land,” you are likely to be “gotchaed.” Rand started his Presidential run about 2-1/2 years too early.

bw222 on March 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM

And they’ll both try to control you. That’s what matters in a free society.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM

You could say that just about anybody.

El_Terrible on March 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM

That is good for him. Now if he would get rid of his double positions on ssm and amnesty he might turn out a little better.
Giving any kind of legal status to a currently illegal invading alien is amnesty. I think we should keep it that way. We should make it harder and harder every day for them to survive here illegally so they will find their way home and tell others the only way to make it here is the legal immigration process and working.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Well here you are, not over on the Gosnell thread? What only handle the theory of abortion, not too keen on it’s practical applications?

American Taliban, keep tossing that out…sure 45-55% of the US population (depending on poll are Taliban)…excellent politics calling either a near- or majority of your fellow citizens the “Taliban.”

And please show us the “taliban-likeness” of these Christians…and what if we all became ATHEISTS, then what would you call us…the “Atheist Taliban?”

Just own up to you to you have a major case of the @rse with God, and if the Religious supported Abortion you’d be against it, because the Religious people were for it….

You are almost laughable.

JFKY on March 21, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Some people like to repeat their mistakes and expect different outcomes.

Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM

You mean like voting for squishy Republicans and thinking they’ll win? I know, don’t you hate that?

;)

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Green weenies for example.

Food weenies another example.

And lets not forget about Obama weenies.

Its enough to get you all wee wee’d up.

El_Terrible on March 21, 2013 at 3:54 PM

And they’ll both try to control you. That’s what matters in a free society.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM

You are trying to control me. SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN AND LEAVE ME ALONE! Your very speech is attempting to control.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 3:54 PM

He’s also 100% for amnesty, in sheep’s clothing.

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM

The SEIU said it fully endorses Rand Paul’s comprehensive immigration reform plan, so what’s the problem? sarc.

bw222 on March 21, 2013 at 3:55 PM

And they’ll both try to control you. That’s what matters in a free society.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM

As a Christian, how am I trying to control you?

Come on, Skippy. Inquiring minds want to know.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM

American Taliban

One of the objectively most stupid pairing of words yet devised and used by objectively stupid idiots.

There’s nothing remotely Taliban-esque about American Christians, and you should slam your head in the door repeatedly for a few hours for being moronic enough to regurgitate it – you might come out the other side a little more clear-headed. Doubtful, but hope springs eternal.

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Being pro-life is hard enough with an electorate that is 55% to 60% pro-choice according to recent polls, but if Paul doesn’t make the exception for rape and incest, the Democrats will have a heyday making light of that fringe position (think Akin in Missouri, Murdoch in Indiana), and he’s done in the general election, even long time red states would turn blue. Paul would be a sure loser in a Dem landslide. Not good. Don’t support that position!

anotherJoe on March 21, 2013 at 3:58 PM

And they’ll both try to control you. That’s what matters in a free society.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Unlike the left, which (big soda bans) doesn’t (big magazine bans) want (big healthcare control) to (big light bulb control) control (energy control) anyone (big thought and speech control)… right?

STFU, imbecile.

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 3:58 PM

And they’ll both try to control you. That’s what matters in a free society.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM

As a Christian, how am I trying to control you?

Come on, Skippy. Inquiring minds want to know.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Oh, I don’t know. Lay out your positions on abortion, homosexuality, drugs, and other “social” issues and we’ll go from there. I suspect the answer to your question will be self-evident, and in the end, we’ll see you quoting gibberish verses from your 2000-year-old holy book to justify your authoritarian agenda, just like the Taliban (but from a different 2000-year-old holy book).

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Sorry guys, but Im not gonna throw Paul overboard for this. Rand Paul/Marco Rubio/Scott Walker 2016 in any combination.

Jack_Burton

Me neither. I’m throwing him overboard for his amnesty/open borders support. I can go to the democrat party for that kind of destructive nonsense.

xblade on March 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM

You wanna go huff paint, go do it. Not trying to control you.

El_Terrible on March 21, 2013 at 4:01 PM

No doubt this is the most important issue facing our Country today…

Seven Percent Solution on March 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Unlike the left, which (big soda bans) doesn’t (big magazine bans) want (big healthcare control) to (big light bulb control) control (energy control) anyone (big thought and speech control)… right?

STFU, imbecile.

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 3:58 PM

That’s right, swing at that strawman, real hard now.

I am a conservative. A real conservative. That means I don’t believe in banning soda, big magazines, light bulbs, or abortion and I don’t believe in the government regulating healthcare, energy, thought and speech, or marriage.

Sorry if that bothers you, little tyrant. That’s what social “conservatives” ultimately are: petty little would-be dictators.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Tell me, who foots the bill for your headonism? Whom does it affect?

These two questions require honest answers…which I ceertainly do not expect from you.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:03 PM

You forgot to mention how 9/11 was an inside job.

El_Terrible on March 21, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Tell me, who foots the bill for your headonism? Whom does it affect?

These two questions require honest answers…which I ceertainly do not expect from you.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Funny, this sounds a lot like something Michael Bloomberg would rhetorically ask as he bans salt or soda. After all, society ultimately pays the price for unhealthy consumption habits, or “headonism” [sic] as you might put it.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:07 PM

NO, moron. Drinking a soda is not being ammoral. From your idiotic posts, one might presume you are though. What direction do you have your tin foil hat tilting on your head, today?

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM

As a Christian, how am I trying to control you?

Come on, Skippy. Inquiring minds want to know.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Gay marriage issue, check.
War on drugs, check.
Assisted suicide ban, check.

PS: I intentionally left the issue of abortions alone because it balances the right of the mother and the unborn, and as such cannot be defined in terms of personal freedom vs government. The rest are purely about legislated Christian morality.

Archivarix on March 21, 2013 at 4:11 PM

I get tired of being steamrolled on this issue. Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision, but I don’t see it ever getting reversed and I don’t see Congress ever undoing it.

Is there a legislative truce that can be reached? Say, for example, build in parental consent/notification features and practioner-conscience features and no federal funding anywhere at any time in exchange for conceding abortions during the first three months. If you can’t figure out you’re pregnant by then, regardless of the circumstances surrounding conception, you keep it. Doctors go to prison if they perform abortions between three and six months. They get summarily executed if they perform abortions after six months. Of course, after three months, if there’s an emergency involving the life of the mother, allow her and the doctor to terminate the pregnancy.

Then, pro-life supporters can concentrate on encouraging young people, the culture notwithstanding, to stay out of one another’s pants until their married. And for those who do get pregnant, make available the resources regarding other alternatives.

I just hate seeing conservatives inexplicably losing so many votes on just this issue when we’re nearly $17 trillion in debt with no turnaround in sight.

If that’s a cave, so be it. It doesn’t involve giving up the effort to reform the culture, but it would seem to secure immunity from the campaign ads every election cycle accusing the GOP of supporting back-alley abortion. Seriously, some of the campaign literature I received from the Ohio GOP in 2008 when McCain and Palin ran was unbelievable.

BuckeyeSam on March 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM

And they’ll both try to control you. That’s what matters in a free society.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Except that Christians wrote the rules that gave you your freedom in the first place.

I see your argument all the time and it’s one of the lamest on the Internet with little basis in American history.

29Victor on March 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Archivarix on March 21, 2013 at 4:11 PM

And that whole “you can’t murder” thingy is a pain too, isn’t it?

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Being pro-life is hard enough with an electorate that is 55% to 60% pro-choice according to recent polls, but if Paul doesn’t make the exception for rape and incest, the Democrats will have a heyday making light of that fringe position (think Akin in Missouri, Murdoch in Indiana), and he’s done in the general election, even long time red states would turn blue. Paul would be a sure loser in a Dem landslide. Not good. Don’t support that position!

anotherJoe

Here’s an interesting tidbit…did you know he came out against both exceptions when he ran in 2010? And yet he won. Meanwhile, Akin and Mourdock had the same view in 2012, and it’s like they both said the worst thing anyone could ever say, and our side couldn’t wait to make them pay for it. Now, don’t get me wrong, because that point of view would be a loser nationally, but I thought it was interesting how differently the 3 candidates were treated on this issue.

xblade on March 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Welcome to the Social Issue Pariah land.

Because having anyone like Rand Paul, or Paul Ryan, or Marco Rubio talk about economic issues is essentially death to liberal ideals, they have to press him on drug policy, the War on the Wimmenz, abortion, why he supports the Klan, when he stopped beating his wife, etc…

Nethicus on March 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:07 PM

NO, moron. Drinking a soda is not being ammoral. From your idiotic posts, one might presume you are though. What direction do you have your tin foil hat tilting on your head, today?

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM

What does it being “ammoral” [sic] or not have to do with who foots the bill for its use? You’re too stupid to engage in a discussion, quite clearly. Just more evidence that social “conservatives” are ignorant, know-nothing little tyrants who want to control other, better people just for the hell of it.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Armin Tamzarian is a severe conservative. Or something.

He’s in love with Chris Dorner, a martyr. Or something.

22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Archivarix on March 21, 2013 at 4:11 PM

And that whole “you can’t murder” thingy is a pain too, isn’t it?

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Not to me – I’m not a Christian. I actually enjoy killing humans, but only as far as U.S. law allows.

Archivarix on March 21, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Gay marriage issue, check.

Archivarix on March 21, 2013 at 4:11 PM

How is the “gay marriage issue,” — the government saying what kind of agreements it will sanction and which it won’t — trying to “control” anyone? No one is telling anyone that they can’t be in a homosexual relationship or do whatever they want, it just won’t be sanctioned by government.

Its the pro-gay marriage activists that have really tried to control people, attempting to force churches and people of faith to bow to their will and force citizens to sanction their relationships.

29Victor on March 21, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM

The irony, coming from a would-be “little tyrant”.

22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:17 PM

The MSM is going to work on Rand Paul–he is going to have to declare his stance on everything and write it in stone, where the Dems get big softball questions about their favorite sports teams etc.
Jackalope on March 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

The double standard isn’t a big a problem as alleged conservative candidates needing to constantly have their their staff put out “what he really meant to say was…” papers the next day. Consistency can’t be all that difficult to manage.

whatcat on March 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM

How is the “gay marriage issue,” — the government saying what kind of agreements it will sanction and which it won’t — trying to “control” anyone? No one is telling anyone that they can’t be in a homosexual relationship or do whatever they want, it just won’t be sanctioned by government.

Its the pro-gay marriage activists that have really tried to control people, attempting to force churches and people of faith to bow to their will and force citizens to sanction their relationships.

29Victor on March 21, 2013 at 4:17 PM

If you’re trying to convince me that the Left is much worse in the restrict-the-personal-rights department, you’re preaching to the chorus. However, the government trying to establish a difference between one pair of consenting adults and another pair of consenting adults is, to me, a poster example of legislating morality.

Archivarix on March 21, 2013 at 4:21 PM

***

Gay marriage issue, check.
War on drugs, check.
Assisted suicide ban, check.

***

Archivarix on March 21, 2013 at 4:11 PM

You forgot about leaving disabled infants in the wilderness for the wolves, check?

Gay marriage–no health concerns with that brown road? But where in civilized has that relationship been equated with marriage?

Drugs–China once had an opium problem that they solved, as I recall, with giving users one shot to get clean. Second time caught meant death. At the time, there weren’t a lot of Chinese Christians.

Assisted suicide–I’m not sure that you can lay that at the feet of Christians. That’s always struck me as a slippery-slope issue that has always existed.

BuckeyeSam on March 21, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Whenever a spokesman has to “clarify”, “Ur doing it wrong.”

INC on March 21, 2013 at 4:22 PM

How is the “gay marriage issue,” — the government saying what kind of agreements it will sanction and which it won’t — trying to “control” anyone? No one is telling anyone that they can’t be in a homosexual relationship or do whatever they want, it just won’t be sanctioned by government.

The government selectively choosing which relationships and agreements to sanction isn’t an attempt at controlling behavior? In that case, what is the purpose of government sanctioning any agreements or relationships at all?

Social “conservatives” are very explicit on this issue–they believe the federal government should endorse opposite-sex marriage in order to exclusively encourage reproduction in certain circumstances. That is the very definition of control. It’s blatant, unapologetic social engineering at the highest levels of government.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Whoa there, Maverick. You’re the one who’s too stupid to explain why you don’t want any responsibility to go with your American Freedom.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Social engineering to recognize the reality that children thrive the best when they grow up in an intact family–their biological parents married to each other?

INC on March 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM

You do realize that the foundation of your new age secular humanism plagiarizes the values of that 2000 year old book, particularly the New Testamant, right? Oh wait, of course you don’t. Instead you read books titled “American Taliban” by Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas which even fellow liberals sniff at the same way Jon Stewart mocks MSNBC.

You’re a thoughtless partisan more concerned with picking one side and attacking the other. 100 years ago you’d be against women’s suffrage, in support of Eugenics, and in favor of Jim Crow because it was fashionable; in other words, you’d be a Democrat.

Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM

As the French say, “the rights of children trump the right to children.””

INC on March 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM

In short, from his own statement, not that of a spokesman, Rand Paul is 100% pro life… with thousands of exceptions.

thatsafactjack on March 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM

I guess someone didn’t get his three wishes when he rubbed the lamp.

CurtZHP on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Whoa there, Maverick. You’re the one who’s too stupid to explain why you don’t want any responsibility to go with your American Freedom.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Where did I say that? I accept any and all responsibility that comes with my choices. It’s just that my idea of “responsibility” isn’t having some little bible-thumping twerp like you pre-emptively controlling my behavior from his federal government ivory tower.

Social engineering to recognize the reality that children thrive the best when they grow up in an intact family–their biological parents married to each other?

INC on March 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Using the coercive power of government to promote this supposed biological reality is social engineering, yes.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

You forgot about leaving disabled infants in the wilderness for the wolves, check?

Gay marriage–no health concerns with that brown road? But where in civilized has that relationship been equated with marriage?

Drugs–China once had an opium problem that they solved, as I recall, with giving users one shot to get clean. Second time caught meant death. At the time, there weren’t a lot of Chinese Christians.

Assisted suicide–I’m not sure that you can lay that at the feet of Christians. That’s always struck me as a slippery-slope issue that has always existed.

BuckeyeSam on March 21, 2013 at 4:22 PM

1) I’m not exactly a fan of the “brown road”, but if two people want to privately snake each other’s intestines, what concern is it to you and me?

2) China, the shining beacon of democracy and freedom… Have you just equated American Christians to Chinese Commies with your example?

3) Yes, I lay the assisted-suicide argument squarely at the feet of American Christians, and specifically GWB. Remember Terry Schiavo?

Archivarix on March 21, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Using the coercive power of government to promote this wanton murder of infants is social engineering, yes.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Fixed. Not that we’re suprised that a lifeless troll like you cares nothing for either the life or liberty parts. Only the pursuit of happiness is relevant to liberals.

MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM

The youngens are as Machiavellian as Obama.

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Precisely.

thatsafactjack on March 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

In other words, you believe in relative morality and situational ethics, like a 30 yr old adolescent.

I’ll bet Mom made Speghettios for your lunch.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Using the coercive power of government to promote this supposed biological reality is social engineering, yes.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

So you’re in favor of abolishing the public education system because it is used by the government to promote certain social values, yes?

Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

You have your head in the sand.

22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Me neither. I’m throwing him overboard for his amnesty/open borders support. I can go to the democrat party for that kind of destructive nonsense

xblade on March 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Me too

The amnesty deal was not a flub. It was deliberate. It means if he has a chance he signs it

The abortion flub was dumb. Reagan did not approve abortion. He did go to marches either. I recall the March in DC where Prez Reagan made a small speech, over a mike from another location. This is an item that will not change until the majority of the public changes. At that point, new law would be written at the national level. It will not happen otherwise

If the public does not support a change, a President can make his arguments. That is not a problem, if you trust him to respect the will of the people

Actually, this is the same situation with amnesty. We have a huge body of immigration and border law. There is no majority outcry to overturn that body of law. The difference is, the elites do not want to enforce that body of law, and the Congress is trying to re write it on the sly with the idea that once changed, the electorate will be altered enough to preserve the new law

This is why the amnesty problem is the bigger problem, if you want a nation that reflects the will of a free people

[However the abortion problem sickens me, personally. CNSNews has a writeup with pics about the Philidelphia abortionist who cut baby spines with scissors. warning graphic CNS]

sadly, showing pictures of atrocities are now considered in bad taste, god have mercy

entagor on March 21, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Sorry if that bothers you, little tyrant. That’s what social “conservatives” ultimately are: petty little would-be dictators.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Dude, if you think you bother me, you give yourself too much credit. Only important things bother me; you are not very important, nor are your ignorant, bigoted bleatings very meaningful.

You obviously think very highly of yourself, but haven’t given any evidence that there’s a reason to. You’re like libfreeordie’s alter-ego – theoretically at opposite ends of the political spectrum, and yet both feebly ignorant and too stupid to realize how moronic you sound.

But by all means, carry on. :)

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 4:32 PM

And as for Rand. 100% pro-life does not mean 100% for every single anti-abortion effort under the sun moon and stars, contrary to the shrieking church ladies on Hot Air who were waiting for an excuse to villify the man.

In geek terms, “lawful good does not mean lawful stupid.” And pushing for the 100% abolition of abortion nationwide is lawful good…but also lawful stupid…and barring a massive culture shift that isn’t changing.

MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM

22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Naw. He has it halfway between the sand and his head.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Someone sure does act like he’s backed into a corner whenever the “A” word is mentioned.

CurtZHP on March 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM

So you’re in favor of abolishing the public education system because it is used by the government to promote certain social values, yes?

Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Hell, yeah – for reason too numerous to count, including one referred above.

Archivarix on March 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM

You have your head in the sand.

22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:32 PM

That hole between his buttcheeks is not sand.

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Using the coercive power of government to promote this supposed biological reality is social engineering, yes.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

It’s not supposed. It is reality.

INC on March 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM

The MSM is going to work on Rand Paul–he is going to have to declare his stance on everything and write it in stone, where the Dems get big softball questions about their favorite sports teams etc. Because the GOP does not engage in groupthink, the MSM will make sure that every issue is identified so we can be divided and conquered.

I don’t care about the MSM but I want to know were he stands on things before peope start following him like sheep.

KBird on March 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Hell, yeah – for reason too numerous to count, including one referred above.

Archivarix on March 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM

I’d support it to, but you aren’t the person I asked.

Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 4:32 PM

I kind of had that thought, seeming ideological opposites (Armin & lfod) have the same tiresome cadence in their non-arguments.

22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM

You have your head in the sand.

22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:32 PM

He should have it in the noose for abetting murder.

MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Paul is struggling mightily to keep conservatives from discovering his true positions on a variety of issues, and conservatives are struggling mightily to avoid stumbling upon them.

It’s the only way to maintain the farce of Paul as a potential conservative champion. Face it, he’s his father without the crusty outspokenness.

Has he ever repudiated a single position Daddy took? Ever rebuked a single donor or returned a penny because they were white supremacists or antisemitic?

He can cleverly filibuster a point John Yoo says was long ago settled, and we look the other way on his opposition to ALL drone attacks everywhere on earth. Better to burst the bubble of illusion now, and also rid ourselves of caucuses – which enable small groups of fanatical followers to hijack a state delegation.

Adjoran on March 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

In other words, you believe in relative morality and situational ethics, like a 30 yr old adolescent.

I’ll bet Mom made Speghettios for your lunch.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Yup, anyone who doesn’t take their moral direction from some book written by a bunch of desert-wandering savages thousands of years ago is an adolescent. You’ve got me.

So you’re in favor of abolishing the public education system because it is used by the government to promote certain social values, yes?

Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 4:31 PM

I would be strongly in favor of abolishing public education, yes.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Naw. He has it halfway between the sand and his head.

kingsjester on March 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM

That hole between his buttcheeks is not sand.

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM

He should have it in the noose for abetting murder.

MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Heh – I was being polite!

22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Someone’s got a guilty conscience.

CurtZHP on March 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM

‘Toons of the Day: The Grim Reider

M2RB: Blue Öyster Cult

Resist We Much on March 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM

I would be strongly in favor of abolishing public education, yes.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM

So then you will admit that the secularists use the public education system as a form of indoctrination into their belief system?

Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM

I would be strongly in favor of abolishing public education, yes.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Good. Then your children won’t be able to troll because they won’t be able to read.

MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM

It’s not supposed. It is reality.

INC on March 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM

In that case, I question why the government needs to promote it at all. Do you think there should be federal programs teaching people how to piss and sh*t too? Since pissing and sh*tting are also biological realities.

He should have it in the noose for abetting murder.

MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Oh, look. More evidence that social “conservatives” really want, more than anything else, a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Why not simply say, “Yeah, exception for the life of the mother” and leave it at that? Paul sounds in the clip as though he’s straining for a standard looser than that, which is odd given that he’s become known very quickly as a pol with impressive retail skills and a deft touch in communicating.

Right. Let’s use the same terminology that has failed to convince anyone of anything, instead of trying to take a different tack and win converts. Great idea.

The sad irony is that Rand Paul’s strategies could have the potential to actually limit abortions rather than getting nowhere, but because he isn’t using the same terminology that makes the base feel safe and secure, he get’s lambasted.

besser tot als rot on March 21, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Waaaah, someone made a mean comment on the interwebs because I’m being a trolltard and it’s evidence of Christian Sharia!

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Want a cookie, little baby?

MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 4:42 PM

‘Jesus’ slides

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Clownish antireligionist in the house. Heal thyself before you start to lecture social conservatives.

22044 on March 21, 2013 at 4:43 PM

So then you will admit that the secularists use the public education system as a form of indoctrination into their belief system?

Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM

And up until 50 or 60 years ago, Christians were forcing children to pray in public schools. You probably think that’s fine, though. Social “conservatives” still talk wistfully about the good old days before “God was removed from schools.”

Armin Tamzarian on March 21, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2