Joy and Whoopi Grill Ron Paul Over Abortion

Photo of Justin McCarthy.

Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul’s December 4 appearance on "The View" did not lead to the predictable agreement between Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg on Iraq, but a very strong disagreement over abortion. Whoopi Goldberg, who previously boasted about marching in a NARAL rally with Katie Couric, alluded to her confrontation with Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserted without doubt that "nobody makes this decision lightly."

Co-host Joy Behar occupied most of the segment attacking Paul’s abortion position. Though Behar admitted she believes killing a child immediately before birth is "murder" she asked "what about the first month?" and about the "mental state" or "health" line that many partial birth abortion apologists use.

Ron Paul then asked Behar if she would be okay with a law "that says abortion should be done no later than at six weeks gestation." Behar avoided the question claiming she is "not happy with abortion, period."

The transcript of the exchange is below.

 

BEHAR: I have to hit you with my first question because we discussed it in the in "Hot Topics." I’ve read all of your stuff and I know that you want limited government. Get government out of my life. Right?

REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX): Good idea!

BEHAR: What about Roe v. Wade? I don’t want the government telling me what to do with my body. How do you justify that?

PAUL: Well, I think the question is whether a baby that is unborn, that weighs eight pounds, seventh, eighth month of gestation has any rights. Is it a person?

BEHAR: But what about the first month or when you usually get an abortion?

PAUL: You’re not for all abortion.

BEHAR: I don’t know. It would have to come up in a specific case.

PAUL: So you, so you don’t want me to do an abortion on somebody that is an eight pound, normal baby.

BEHAR: No, of course not. But if-

PAUL: So you’re not for abortion really.

BEHAR: No wait a minute. But if the woman wants to abort a ch- a baby at eight months, something’s wrong either with her mental state or her health, so that-

PAUL: But the law, the law says they can do that.

BEHAR: Yeah, but the law should. It should-

PAUL: The mother, if it’s her body, why can’t she do it?

BEHAR: Shouldn’t it be between the doctor and the woman?

GOLDBERG: That’s, that’s not exactly true sir. That’s not exactly true. There is a limit as to when you can have an abortion. I believe that’s the truth.

PAUL: All the way through the third trimester.

GOLDBERG: I don’t think, I don’t think so anymore.

PAUL: Roe versus Wade allows it in a third trimester. It dictates to the doctor what he can do in the first trimester, second trimester, and third trimester. So it is the law of the land.

BEHAR: So are you not against, just you like Roe v. Wade, except to a point. Is that what your position is?

PAUL: No, I don’t like the Federal government doing anything.

BEHAR: Okay.

PAUL: So, I want the states to deal with it.

BEHAR: But what’s the- if you’re against abortion what’s the difference who’s doing it, the states or the government?

PAUL: Well, there’s a big difference because the Constitution does given them- the states deal with murder and violence and manslaughter.

BEHAR: Okay, so it’s not a moral position. It’s more of a particular position.

PAUL: It’s a legal position.

SHEPHERD: The states deal with it.

PAUL: It’s a legal position because I honor and respect the rights of the mother, but your home too, your home is your castle. I don’t want any government in your home, no searches without warrant-

BEHAR: Right.

PAUL: -no cameras. But you can’t kill your baby in your home.

BEHAR: Well, no, but that’s murder. That’s different.

PAUL: Yeah, okay, but somebody sees this- I have, as a physician, I’ve been trained to bring life into the world. And if I do harm to the baby, I get sued. So the baby is alive and has rights, right?

GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this: so what about-

BEHAR: Well, yes but that’s very unusual. What an unusual situation. We’re talking about girls who are in trouble and they want to have an abortion the first month.

PAUL: Would you be okay with a law that says abortion should be done no later than at six weeks gestation?

BEHAR: Look, I’m not happy with abortion period, you know?

PAUL: Well, nobody is.

BEHAR: Nobody is, but that’s not the point.

GOLDBERG: Well, that’s, that’s the idea. But here’s my question: If you make a decision that this is where you need to go, because I said to somebody else earlier on this show, no one makes this decision lightly. This is not someone somebody says "oh I think I’ll go get this." This is not a fun thing to go do. So someone has come to that place to make that decision is because it really needs to be there. Now, I think you should be able to get some help if you’re reaching out for somebody like that. What bothers me is that there is no one who says "here’s what we can do" because, you know, we have all of these children. What are we going to do with them? If everybody has the kids. Nobody, the churches don’t want to take them. Nobody wants to put them in the thing- no I want to finish the thing, period.

BEHAR: Alright, answer.

PAUL: Well, the question is whether abortion should be done on demand and who controls it. What you’re saying is a very difficult problem that we can deal with. And the more difficult a problem that we have, the more you want it to be held locally. Before Roe versus Wade, before it was legalized across the board, on demand, states did, I saw it happening, abortions were done on rare circumstances and it was done with caution.. There was a recognition , there was a recognition that life was valuable. And I don’t think anybody is going to win this. You’re not even for abortion, for anybody, anytime, a minute before birth. You don’t want to abort these normal babies.

BEHAR: No, that’s murder.

PAUL: At the same time, I don’t think we’ll ever reach the stage where there will be no abortions. But I want, I want to sort this out-

BEHAR: Okay.

PAUL: -the way the Constitution mandates and that is at the local level.

—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Gov't control

BEHAR: What about Roe v. Wade? I don’t want the government telling me what to do with my body. How do you justify that?

 

Simple: the government got you pregnant in the first place, so to make up for it, the government must to allow you to murder the baby they assigned to you.

There's alot here.  Mr.

There's alot here.  Mr. Paul was pretty good on the subject.  From what I can glean from this disjointed exchange I don't see much difference between his and Rudy's position, but I want to comment on Whoopi's erroneous statement that "the churches don’t want to take them..."

That's not true.  Orphanages and other similar institutions were basically dismantled by the Left, who instituted the welfare state in part as a replacement for parents.  They particularly object to church-based orphanages because of their antipathy to religion.  The idea that "nobody" wants these unborn babies is just another liberal lie. 

The pro-aborts see any change in the current "law" as a slippery-slope toward eventual prohibition...a pretty poor argument for a bad Supreme Court decision and 3000 abortions per day...

churches don't want them?

How many of us here have heard horror stories from people trying to adopt a child? You practically have to be a millionaire with a full 401K and go through five years of therapy before they let you adopt.

Give one of those babies to me, please! I'd gladly feed and clothe it.

No justification - no peace

It was painful trying to follow Whoopi's thought process bordering almost on the necessity for a translator but I think the gist of her question was merely a justification for her own reported abortions rather than based in any fact.  i.e. - "Nobody wants them" makes it OK for Whoopi not to want them.

There is no fact, logic or rational to support Whoopi's remark - For example, decades ago Mother Teresa publicly stated her religious Order would gladly take all babies mothers or could-be mothers did not want.  Like yourself Candance, many others inside and outside of any church have stated the same.  Whoopi appears to simply be trying to justify her own poor choice(s) by making another poor choice in putting her own concern (image) before the lives of those not able to defend themselves verbally or otherwise.

It would be nice if Whoopi and others would realize that this issue isn't about condeming those that have or will have abortions but simply about condemning innocent human life to, as in most cases, an unjustifiable premature death.

no body wants them? yes

no body wants them? yes there are millions who do - but even if their weren't it still does not justify murder

Great to see these feminists pressed on this - they failed miserably - got off lightly lucky for them - but it looks like the pressure is building against child murder:) very nice!!!

Ron Paul is kickin ass...

Still won't get the nomination though - bad hair unfortunately...

dismantled by the Left

And how about the left's attempts to force religious adoption agencies to adopt children to gays, causing them to choose closing their doors in order to stay true to their morals and beliefs. It's a damn shame.  

 

He's not at all "like Rudy" on abortion. You're confused.

Please read the "Life and Liberty" stuff on his site if you doubt me. Ron's pro-life, and Rudy's pro-choice-but-he-promises-not-to-nominate Harriet Myers, or something. I'm not sure where you got the idea that they'd like similar judges. If anything, BT is right below, and the most-similar Republican candidate on abortion is probably Fred.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Aha!Sarc...nevermind now

Aha!

Sarc...nevermind now about my post in the other todays The View thread....

This has to have made your day...glad for you.

I will comment later, I am in between things at the moment.

>>>>>Paul did a great job with the gals....excellent job.

This issue needs to go back to the States....Thompson has said the same exact thing also.

"Joy and Whoopi Grill Ron

"Joy and Whoopi Grill Ron Paul Over Abortion"

It sounds like he did a little grilling of them too...

Headline-bias

Conservatives aren't immune, as we see right here. The segment was far too short, but that's because of all the time spent on commercials and crapola. And Whoopie's legal expertise leaves something to be desired, but that's situation-normal with "The View."

My fave analysis is here. I was unable to watch the entire show, relying instead on fans to immediately post it on YouTube, which they did. Reading the comments (as the ladies yammered) on the Daily Paul from first-time "View" viewers was funny, though. Some of "us" aren't big TV-watchers, and these guys didn't imagine that any TV show could be quite as inane as "The View."

Their torture was almost fun to watch, since I'm used to everyone from Howard Stern to this very blog goofing on "those yentas"! :) One guy complained that he felt his IQ going down as he waited through their in-depth discussions of Jennifer Love Hewitt's all-important butt-fat & Joy Behar's power going out at her dinner party. I know the feeling, buddy... ;^)

And Joy Behar, like George Stephanopoulos, needs to discover those London & Moscow bookies. The generous folks at Ladbroke House want to donate a free luxury tour of Europe to any Americans who are that-sure of the outcome of this election. Has anyone else noticed that despite their lower poll/fundraising numbers, Tancredo & Hunter don't ever seem to get that kind of "we know you can't win" BS?? Could it be (wait for it...) another obvious case of antilibertarian mediabias nobody-else here seems to have noticed??? :) I just reported, so you decide. But if it's not exactly the kind of bias I just told you it is, please tell me why I'm wrong! Thanks.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

}}---> You're wrong, sarc

OK, you're 100% right as far as I'm concerned, but you looked like you needed to get the adrenaline running this morning.

Tancredo and Hunter have excellent conservative messages as does Ron Paul.

I'll admit to reservations as to what the ultimate outcome of worldwide redeployment of American troops would be, but it's hard to argue his stance isn't based purely on the (materialized) predictions of Thomas Jefferson.

But regardless of his stances or my personality...

Can we agree that this "you can't win" lizzardcrap is ONLY fallin' on one Republican Presidential candidate's head, for some reason??

And if there's a coherently-argued reason for it besides "the antilibertarian bias you've been continually-busting here" then I'm as all-ears as Ross Perot ever was. Garbage like this might have been understandable early this year, but recycling it seems especially-odd now that we're raising so damn much money, albeit from no-lobbyists. It's as if this black line doesn't exist in the media's little bias-world.

This is a media bias site, and the experts here might have some alternative explanation I've missed for all these rhetorical trips to Ladbroke's I keep-on-seeing for Ron Paul and none of the other non-RINO non-frontrunners. But thanks for your kind words. :)
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

I love how so many of the

I love how so many of the candidates and people are fooled into thinking that it will take the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, yet have no idea that Congress can pass legislation that will explicitly keep the courts (including the Supreme Court) out of it. How many of you know that Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced legislation that would restore the 10th Amendment by letting the people decide the abortion issue and keeping the courts out of it? BAM! Roe is nullified and the statement, "If it isn't in the Constitution, it's up to the people," holds true again.  But since the idiots in Congress won't let it come to the floor for vote, we can immediately tell where they stand.

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -Matthew 7:20

Huh?

Restore the 10th Amendment? Huh? When was it repealed?

And since when does an act of Congress trump a Supreme Court decision? (You lost that argument with Marbury v. Madison.)

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Unsane

and yet there is an undertow of the SCOTUS has overstepped their bounds, the balance of power fights rarely occur in the open.

"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murder"  -- the Profff

You have tools. USE THEM!

Don't come crying to me because Congress isn't making full use of its powers. It CAN remove federal judges from the bench, you know, and perhaps could, with a bit of popular backing.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

You know Unsane, you make

You know Unsane, you make an excellent point that I had forgotten all about....you only hear something like that rarely, usually I have in the Senate or Special Order speeches given at night on the House floor by real conservatives.

You are so right and it is too bad there hasn't been more attention given to this...and lo and behold...

USED! 

during good behaviour the

during good behaviour the SCOTUS may stay

who's crying? i was merely pointing out that there is a balance of powers not a court that is supreme

"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murder"  -- the Profff

Good behavior

If the SCOTUS oversteps their bounds, as you say they have...is that not a violation of good behavior?   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

it can be if Congress deems

it can be if Congress deems it to be

"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murder"  -- the Profff

Congress

There it is!

Who runs Congress?

Until we the voters figure that out, we deserve all the crap we can handle. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

for now Unsane

i believe there is a better chance of getting more constructionists on the SCOTUS (via the next POTUS election) than getting Congress to unite to do it's job

"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murder"  -- the Profff

More on Congress

Yes, we need to elect a POTUS that will appoint strict constructionists.  But...

1) That's not a guarantee that the justices will somehow trun to crap.  Look at Bush the Elder.  He gave us Clarence Thomas!  He ALSO gave us...David Souter.

2)  The voting public CAN force Congress to do its job, if only ovters would figure it out. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Some, albeit ignored, are already trying to do their jobs.

The bill is called HR 300. The House could pass it and effectively repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow if they wanted-to, but like many Constitutionalist proposals from Dr. Paul, I don't think it's even been up for a vote...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

It's a little trickier than that

Congress CAN get around a Supreme Court decision, but only by a Constitutional amendment.  If it were as easy as a House bill, Congress and the states wouldn't have passed and ratified the 16th Amendment back in 1916. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Hi bot... LOL..I just

Hi bot...

LOL..I just noticed your tag...

Now that is just priceless from last night.

hi BT

indeed what an ijit

(added) he rather prove himself foolish than admit that his reasoning is wrong thus he came up with the quote below

"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murder"  -- the Profff

It takes gall

It takes unmitigated gall for these enthusiastic pro-aborts to question anyone who supports life in the womb. They are the ones who should be questioned for their unrelenting attack on the unborn. The barbaric act of abortion is the modern equivalent of ancient human sacrifice to pagan gods. The View continually presents, via the insane comments of the hosts on virtually any topic, the very worse in American culture.

BEHAR: What about Roe v.

BEHAR: What about Roe v. Wade? I don’t want the government telling me what to do with my body.

  Well it's not your body that's in question.  When a women walks into a clinic to have an abortion two people go in but only one walks out.  There's the problem.

MA... Exactly right.

MA...

Exactly right.

"my body"

Maybe that baby doesn't want *you* making that decision.

The View gals (albeit

The View gals (albeit sloppily and incoherently) mirror the liberal view that abortion isn't murder and it isn't taken lightly when done.  However, statistics don't lie.  The facts are that one in four births ends in abortion in the United States.  As an example, (the latest data reporting both abortions and live births in the United States) in 1996, 1.37 million abortions occurred while there were 3.89 million live births.  Had all been born that year, live births would have been 5.26 million.  1.37/5.26= .26 or just over one in four births resulting in abortion (I bet none of you thought that it was that prevalent and I defy anyone to come up with a media pundit stating these statistics).

So, let's put to bed the canard that abortion is done lightly.  I would call it a convenience remedy.  Particularly in light of the myriad ways in which one can avoid becoming pregnant.  And most birth control methods are subsidized by the government. 

At one in four pregnancies ending in abortion, if abortion isn't just a convenience remedy, what would you call it? 

By the way, here are the reasons that abortions happen:  1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

BEHAR: What about Roe v.

BEHAR: What about Roe v. Wade? I don’t want the government telling me what to do with my body. How do you justify that?

So Joy, I guess you must be for the legalization of prostitution. Vice is  the government telling you what you can't do with your body.

I also guess you must be for the legalization of heroine and cocaine, which should be sold at the local 5 and dime.  Drug use is the government telling you what you can't do with your body.

Suicide is illegal Joy. That's the government telling you what you can't do with your body.

Pretty soon the government will be telling you, you can't smoke cigarettes. I guess you're OK with the government telling you what you can't do with your body on that one.

In NYC the government tells you, you can't put transfats in your body.

Joy, you are beyond stupid. 

  

 

The Voice of the Oppressed

Feminist women tell us all the time about how long and hard they fought for their rights which they say were denied them by the men who controlled their lives, the right to vote, the right to work, equality, etc.

After all of that hard fought success, you would think that those same feminists would be more sympathetic and less dismissive of the rights of the lives that have been entrusted to them, namely those voiceless and powerless unborn children whom they terminate and cast aside like filthy vermin. This shows that women have the capacity to be just as inhuman as men can be when it comes to depravity, venality, and selfishness.

Without God's wisdom, humanity is nothing more than a pack of ravenous wolves waiting for the opportunity to devour each other. This is why the Ten Commandments must remain the root and foundation of our legal system. God's laws work; man's (and woman's) laws continue to fail and fail and fail.

 

It looks like Ron Paul did an excellent job

What is wrong with our Republican reps that they can't make these good arguments? This is exactly the point with abortion - there are no limits other than the recently passed partial birth one. Most people believe that it's limited to first trimester and that there are other limits.

Does anyone know if there is a video for this?

Ron Paul With Rational And Reason

Ron Paul Rocks.

No Script Needed.

I vote for Virtue; I vote for Ron Paul !!!

Ron Paul rocks? So he goes

Ron Paul rocks? So he goes on the view and can answer questions, and this makes him rock?

I just hope that RP supporters are too young to vote. 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson.

If anybody ever comes to

If anybody ever comes to Newsbusters wondering why the term "Paulbot" and "zealot" get tossed around, well, here's a perfect example why.

Heaven forbid getting excited about a Republican candidate!

If anyone coming to NB ever wonders why I call whiners "whiners," here is a perfect example whine.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Definitions

To Sarcasmo, ANY criticism of Paul or his supporters, no matter how legitimate or deserved = whining.

Personally, I am shocked you did not go to the studio and loudly self-denounce yourself before him.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Another example...

Look, anything halfway-intellectual, much less legitimate or deserved, from Roger the Whiner (or you) wouldn't elicit this level of disrespect from me. I call 'em like I see 'em, and you're whining like a little girl again. You are also reaping what you've sown, but for some reason you still seem surprised by it.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Actually, you are a perfect

Actually, you are a perfect example of a zealot. When you call me "Roger the Whiner", I can care less, because I consider the source. However, the moment anybody dares disparage the great and mighty word of Ron Paul, you swoop into to defend your lord and master's honor. Being a zealot is fine and dandy. Being in denial about what you are is what we find pathetic. At least be honest with yourself.

I'm being totally-honest

You're a whiner, period. See above for why I say it. :) You just don't like the truth, and you seem to hate the fact that we're having fun at this point. Tough.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

I am only trying to help

I am only trying to help you, Sarcasmo. Your posts these past few months have been an obvious cry for help.
The idol worship, the angry lashing out at people who disagree with you (tough, quitcherbitchin', etc).

I find it hard to beleive that you would have fun at any setting or function that was not Ron Paul related. I bet you are even more creepy to the Hooter's waitresses than you were a year ago.

Seek help. We are concerned about you.

Apparently the latest

Apparently the latest Paulbot talking point the past couple of weeks is: "defuse accusations of blind worship by saying things like 'getting excited about a Republican candidate!'"
And who better to deliver The Daily Paulbot than NB's resident Paulbot, Sarcasmo!

I find a big difference between "getting excited over a candidate" and "having a constant erection for a candidate". And Sarcasmo, you have a HUGE RAGING CLUE over Ron Paul. Do you still go so sleep hugging a pillow with Ron Paul's picture on it?

been hangin' with Larry Craig??

How in the world would you know what's going on in my pants? And the latest thing to do is mock cowards. :)
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

The cult

Mocking cowards?

So you also mock your Reactionary God then? 

I think Roger the Shrubber (whom I hold in great regard) is being far generous.  I don't think you will relax until:

1) Every wall in every home, school, and office in America has a massive portrait of Ron Paul.

2) The Washington Monument is modified until it has a massive golden statue of Ron Paul that faces the sun as it rises, moves along the ecliptic, and sets.

3) Washington, DC, is renamed Paul, DP. 

4) His face is on ALL of the examples of currency we have (much like the image of Mao is the only person's image that appears on RMBs).

5) Amendment XXVIII is passed, requiring EVERY American to LOVE and WORSHIP Ron Paul.  Also, we will ALL be required, once a week, to publicly self-denounce ourselves for not loving Ron Paul enough. 

6) No driver's licenses will be issued unless the applicant can demonstrate knowledge of all of Ron Paul's wit and wisdom. 

7) Books containing the wise saying of Ron Paul are placed in every hotel room across the land, instead of that other book... 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Ron vs. Chuck

Wow, you make Ron Paul sound even more powerful than Chuck Norris, But of course, that would be impossible. ;)

I'm just sad that

My mocking got pushed-back to page 2 by all those other "spammers." I like Clint better than Chuck, anyway... 
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

8) Instead of Christmas,

8) Instead of Christmas, well celebrate Paulmas!

On the Shahinshah

You vote for Ron Paul the Shahinshah; you vote for a whiny, toothless, defenseless, powerless America than can get its ass kicked by Liechtenstein or Andorra.

You also support making the EU, China...or, hell, Canada...world hyperpowers.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

"PAUL: -no cameras. But you

"PAUL: -no cameras. But you can’t kill your baby in your home.

BEHAR: Well, no, but that’s murder. That’s different."

Why is it different? Location? Besides, what about those poor young women who find themselves "in trouble" after having the baby? Shouldn't they have the same opt out clause available to them, especially if the baby is only a month or two old? It's just a little baby, for goodness sake. They don't know what's going on.

Answer

At some point these women are going to have to admit that the real reason they want abortion available is because they want sex to be available with no consequences. They want women to be able to have sex with men they have no intention of marrying, and if they get pregnant, they want to be able to "undo" the pregnancy. They prefer to believe that doctors can magically put the Genie back into the bottle, rather than the truth that abortion results in the bloody death of a child before her birthday.

}}---> Too kind Britcom

If I'm Whoopi, I get more and more affirmation for my own abortions in the company I keep.

I am very impressed with how

I am very impressed with how Ron Paul adroitly handled this difficult situation, on national TV.  You have to respect him on this one -- it sounds like he really engaged them, without getting into a shouting match.

Too bad

I suppose; too bad he is a reactionary with a flaky view on foreign policy.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Lol..I guess that is why he

Lol..I guess that is why he has double the contributions from Active service men and women as John McCain and more than every other Republican candidate combined...becuase of his POOR FOREIGN POLICY! This quarter, he will have raised more money than ANY republican candidate if you don't count the money they give to themselves.

Paul is catching on. The latest polls are that Huckabee is gaining, which while true, is not receiving the capital to sustain a nation wide campain. Paul will place top 5 in Iowa, with maybe a top 2 or at worst 3 finish in New Hampshire. From there, he will place in the top 2 at every other major primary/caucus.

Shhh! Don't talk about that here, it's infuriating!!

And whatever you do, don't mention guys like this.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

The Shahinshah

Really?

1) how do you know that those contributors are ACTUALLY military?

2) I wonder, if they ARE actually military, they realize they are violating regulations?

I realize, TP, that America cannot be whiny enough or defenseless enough for your tastes, but for THIS service member, his foreign policy SUCKS.  Hence I will NEVER support your Reactionary God, as much as you want him to be Shahinshah.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Go visit the links and evaluate the source like you preach.

You can email Zak and ask him. Prove the Ron Paul supporting vets like this guy AREN'T military, if you wish to make that bogus charge. But be aware, when you're proven wrong I'll mercilessly-mock you like I'm now mocking those who falsely called us "spammers," and just as mercilessly, for the rest of the primary process. And any regulations they're violating, you're violating too, right here. No special rules for anyone, buddy.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

BFI

Wrong, sarc.  Indeed, I have met military members that in fact support your Reactionary God.  However, can I say with certainty - considering the flake element that he attracts - that everyone who says "I am military and support Ron Paul!" in fact IS?  No, I can't.  But then, I am talking to a miserable human being who cannot understand why I won't breezily take everything I see at face value as easily as he (Sarcasmo) does. 

And now you attempt to change the subject.  I'll dodge that little trap adroitly.  But I WILL point out that if any of us ever attempted to change the subject as you have, you would give yourself an aneurysm by throwing a complete temper tantrum.

By the way, sarc, as far as I know - and while I don't play chess as much as you do, I have performed voting officer duties, so I know some of what I speak of here - I'm not in violation of anything.  Military members CAN write letters to the editor, for one thing.  The regulation with which I am most familiar does not address blogging.  Oh, and unless you raid my financial accounts and check who I have been contributing to - which, by the way, I have NEVER contributed to a political campaign in any way, other than voting, either as a civilian or a service member - you don't have a leg to stand on with that weak accusation.

Finally, товариш, you sure as all hell ain't my buddy.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Unsane

Is foreign policy your only beef with Paul?

}}---> Ron Paul

I'd have to have a beef with Thomas Jefferson if I wanted to disagree with Ron Paul on foreign policy.

 

Foreign policy and ICBs

Paul is a dangerous Reactionary, who, if placed into the Presidency, will render the United States the world laughing stock.  Foreign policy is one issue; his allergy to the concept of ICBs is another.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

"...his allergy to the concept of ICBs is another."

What do you mean, Ron Paul says we should have the best nuclear missiles money can buy?

What ICB means

ICB = Independent Central Bank

However, considering considering he wants to hermetically seal off America from the rest of the world and make it a nation of 300 million sheep waiting to be slaughtered, it wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to give up ICBMs.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Here's an Idea...

If aborted babies were required to have a proper casket, funeral and burial in the cemetery, including the hearse, obit in the paper and everything else that "people" have when they die; how many women do you think would still go through with it?

I think it would then be too shameful for them, as it should be.

The whole election is about abortion.

The left has one major issue: abortion. That is the issue that divides the country into right and left. All democrats are automatically considered to be for abortion. All republicans are grilled to find out their views. Those who are against abortion, are called religious nuts and will be trashed by the leftist media.