Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 21, 2011
2012 / The Ladies Ron Paul "walks through journeys with women"
Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:50 PM
Hey, look! It's a creepy Ron Paul ad that plants Dr. Paul squarely on the anti-abortion side of the fence, with some strong Jesus-y content:
I guess this ad could attract some evangelicals to Ron Paul's side, but it's more likely to scare away Libertarians. What could be less Libertarian than forcing your religious beliefs on others?
1
Devoted Paulites seem pretty well insulated against the effects of being informed that their hero holds views diametrically opposed to theirs. I think the reasoning goes that once he's effectively neutered the government's regulatory authority, it won't matter.
2
Should read about his calling Martin Luther King's B-Day "Hate Whitey Day" or how he said in the 1990's that AIDS patients should be banned from going into restaurants. He really is a piece of proto-Nazi shit.
3
Except that most libertarians only care about freedom for men, not women. Abortion rights is not a big seller with most "libertarians".
4
Fnarf has it exactly right. Most Libertarians are also misogynists and will gloss right over this just like they gloss over his history of racism and homophobia.
5
Guvmint should get out of everyone's way, or not exist at all, unless it's to control women's bodies. Ya hear, Paultards?
6
Paul: you're a literate guy. Please stop capitalizing "libertarian" unless you mean "a member of the Libertarian Party."
7
Fun fact: the more voters you can get to agree with you, the more votes you'll get. There are way more evangelicals than libertarians. For all his supporters' zeal and conviction that Paul is a principled stalwart, he's just an opportunistic whore more than willing to throw his libertarian supporters under the church bus.
8
You don't get it, Paul. Just like Ron Paul isn't racist because he is only for everyone's liberty to discriminate, Ron Paul isn't anti-abortion because he is merely pro-life and for letting states decide whether women can choose. Paul understands very well that overt racism and denying women the right to choose would condemn him to the margins, so he has to be sly about it.
9
I'm mostly Libertarian, or as I tend to call it, Liberaltarian. I appreciate almost all of Ron Paul's positions on social issues (the government should butt out of our personal lives and we should have more freedom to choose), the one main issue I have with him, which I agree with you, is on abortion. But there is no one on the Republican side even being as fence-walking as he is, the rest want to ban it. I hope you folks plan on picking apart Obama with such vigor, because Obama looks downright conservative on a whole host of issues compared to Paul. My perfect candidate would be a combo of the two, I really feel let down by Obama.
10
Forgive me if I don't understand how leaving it up to states to decide whether a medical procedure should be legal is compatible with the government butting out of our personal lives. Ditto same-sex marriage.
Ron Paul is selling an image just like any other politician. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the man is nowhere near the beacon of freedom his followers want the rest of the internet to believe.
Ron Paul is selling an image just like any other politician. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the man is nowhere near the beacon of freedom his followers want the rest of the internet to believe.
11
Exactly what Blip said. Much like with Obama, who sold us an awesome image in 2008 and didn't deliver, Paul too sells an image of freedom and liberty what wouldn't play like one would hope in real life. That's what politicians do, sell you on a bill of goods they can not or will not every really deliver on.
12
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but none of the pro-life stuff I've actually heard him say has had a religious bent to it at all. I've seen him come at it from a legal standpoint, which becomes pretty difficult to argue with. He points out that unborn babies are afforded the same legal rights as people under certain circumstances, like in inheritance situations, or if they're killed in a car accident, but are stripped of any rights in the scenario of the mother wanting an abortion. Being both pro-life and libertarian doesn't seem as hypocritical when you view abortion as a conflict-of-rights issue, rather than a religious issue.
"I feel a responsibility to consider the occupant of the womb as a candidate member of society, and thus to say that it cannot be only the responsibility of the woman to decide upon it. It's a social question, and an ethical and a moral one."
-Christopher Hitchens
"I feel a responsibility to consider the occupant of the womb as a candidate member of society, and thus to say that it cannot be only the responsibility of the woman to decide upon it. It's a social question, and an ethical and a moral one."
-Christopher Hitchens
13
5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron …
Four Antidotes to Hitchens Hagiography
OMG, 5 + 4 = 9, one of Cains' magic numbers, what hath I wrought?
Four Antidotes to Hitchens Hagiography
OMG, 5 + 4 = 9, one of Cains' magic numbers, what hath I wrought?
14
The only way abortion is a conflict of rights issue is if you consider the rights of a woman to be equal to or lesser than that of a first trimester fetus. I don't find that difficult to argue with at all. I also don't care how you spin it, it's an unacceptable position for a politician to take if they want my vote.
15
@12: An embryo doesn't have rights. A pregnant woman does. If a woman is carrying an embryo in her uterus, anyone who against her will causes her to miscarry can be prosecuted for the destruction of the embryo. On the other hand, if she doesn't want to commit to a full term and birth, she can terminate the pregnancy. It's the woman's prerogative.
16
I'm of the firm opinion that males should have absolutely no say when it comes to forcing the government to tell women and/or doctors what they can and cannot do. We said quite clearly in Roe v wade that it's a woman's RIGHT to do so and I'm very sorry if you disagree but this has been decided FOR DECADES NOW. Show me the document that gives our government the power to tell women what they can and cannot do to their body and it wouldn't be legitimate. Show me the scientific proof that this is murder, conclusively, beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is no different than shooting the bag boy at the grocery store and I will agree to use the force of the government to put women and doctors in jail. Until that magical day comes conservatives need to know their place on this issue. YOU FUCKING LOST THE WAR ON TRYING TO USE THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL PEOPLE. Grow up.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (16) RSS