Rand Paul Flip Flops on Life

I posted Stan Laurel's picture here because he looks a lot like Rand Paul, but is not nearly as annoying.
I posted Stan Laurel’s picture here because he looks a lot like Rand Paul, but is not nearly as annoying. Plus, Laurel never flip flopped like Rand Paul flip flops.

Rand Paul flip flops?  Yeah, even worse than his dad!

Rand Paul is an idiot, plain and simple.  He sponsors a bill to define life as beginning at conception, but the next day comes out and says that the United States isn’t ready for any new legislation on this yet, we’re not ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, and SAYS REPEATEDLY that there are “Thousands of Exceptions” for when abortion should be legal.

WTF! I mean seriously!?

Rand Paul flip flops again, I suppose.  Nothing new.

“We need to have a philosophic and moral debate,” he says.

OH!  I’M SORRY!  What have we been doing for the past 40 years on this issue?  Had I known we weren’t debating the life issue yet, I would have spent that time kicking you and your equally stupid father in the throat instead of wasting my time defending life!  Rand Paul flip-flops 101.

This is reason 9,487 why this country will never elect a Libertarian President like Rand Paul.  American voters like leaders who will take action; not funny looking, bug-eyed politicians who will fake action in order to talk about something and then argue we should do nothing. Not Rand Paul Flip Flops.

There are so many good to FREAKING GREAT potential Republican candidates for President in 2016.  Please, for the love of God (and the defense of the unborn), don’t give Rand Paul the time of day.  He’s a nut-job RINO that doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing in the Senate.  If you want to know what a Rand Paul candidacy would look like: look at Richard Mourdock’s Senate campaign and multiply that disaster by 50 states, add all the Rand Paul flip flops, and factor all of this in with an international 24/7 news cycle that would be eager to link the countless stupid things that come out of Rand Paul’s mouth on a daily basis with every Republican from the US Senate to local dog catcher.

Rand Paul must NOT be allowed to win the nomination.

In the meantime, I’ll just add this to the long and growing list of Rand Paul flip-flops.

GD Star Rating
Rand Paul Flip Flops on Life, 2.0 out of 5 based on 4 ratings
Kevin Tracy is an Air Force veteran, terrorism/counterterrorism expert, and jack of all trades. KTracy's day job is designing electrical systems for new fossil power plants and environmental solutions. On the side, he keeps a blog, fundraises for political candidates and the St. Baldrick's Foundation, writes and illustrates comic books, and studies foreign affairs in depth.

9 thoughts on “Rand Paul Flip Flops on Life”

  1. Sounded to me like he was talking about all of the potential medical complications that would make an abortion the best chance for the survival of the mother. There may well be ‘thousands’ of them.

    Do you disagree with that? Would you force a mother to die delivering a child?

    1. One exception: for the health of the mother. Do you seriously think Rand Paul wants to regulate what thousands of exceptions are acceptable for abortion and what thousands of exceptions are acceptable health risks are acceptable? I have never known a libertarian to micromanage something to that extent.

      That doesn’t excuse the fact that he also says that the country isn’t ready for any new legislation on this matter. Rand Paul flip flops on issues that are of huge importance to conservatives, including some in his own faction of the GOP. All I want is to see people hold him accountable. However, the media is never going to do that until he wins the GOP nomination or is somehow a threat to their left-wing agenda. That’s why it’s so important that we vet this guy now.

      No, it’s true that he’s not a polished politician; which I know some people like. Then again, neither is that homeless guy living in the dumpster behind the building where I work. I wouldn’t trust either of them as head of the executive branch… and most conservatives won’t either after they learn the truth about Rand Paul and his ridiculous ideas, off the wall statements, and flip flops.

  2. After reading the actual quotes in their context, I don’t see how any reasonable, unbiased person could make it out to be flip-flopping. It is clarified here: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/21/after-controversy-rand-paul-clarifies-hes-100-pro-life-on-abortion/

    These are the full quotes in question:

    “My intention is to bring it forward and to have a healthy philosophic and moral discussion over what we should do, what the state should be involved with, when should life be protected. And I don’t think we’re ready yet, our society, maybe, to change any laws, but I think its worthwhile having the discussion if we can keep it from being too much of a flippant of a discussion over this that concrete this and that,”

    His administration clarified the intent of this statement. His intent was to point out that he, personally, supports changing laws on the subject (Obviously, since he introduced the legislation) but that he doesn’t think the country is ready to vote to actually pass the legislation that he introduces. Seems obvious to me, from the context.

    Second quote in question:

    “What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions,” Paul told CNN host Wolf Blitzer in response to a question about exceptions to a ban. “You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different and everything’s going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.”

    His administration also clarified this quote, even though this, too, seemed obvious. He made it clear that Rand was speaking in terms of medical exceptions.

    The guy is quite clearly on your side on this issue. He’s even introducing legislation that you ought to be supporting. You need to take off the two-party blinders.

    1. Sooo, Rand Paul is wasting tax payer dollars sponsoring legislation that the people aren’t ready to vote for yet? Sorry, I missed the part where this legislation was a referendum. For as well as Rand Paul supposedly knows the Constitution, that was worded very foolishly.

      One exception: the health of the mother. That’s all he has to say. But he won’t because his libertarian ideology and pro-life stance are at odds with one another. Assuming a physician performs an abortion, the matter is between a woman and the physician. There are thousands of reasons a person may want an abortion, Rand Paul is not saying “no” to any of them with anything he’s said.

  3. 1. He introduced the legislation obviously hoping it will go through, but is making the point that a secondary purpose for it is to get people talking about it and more open to the idea of making a change. How is that a bad thing, if you support abortion bans? You’re really grasping at straws, here. Wasting tax-payer dollars? Please.

    2. Paul’s quote about ‘exceptions’ came into play because this legislation isn’t just about ‘banning’ abortion. He is taking the first step in re-framing the debate. A debate that goes in circles around ‘women’s rights’, ‘pro-life’, ‘anti-life’, etc. Did you actually read what the legislation entails? It really sounds like you didn’t. Here is it’s purpose:

    “The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known- that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward,” Sen. Paul said. “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress.”

    Rand is tackling a very important question, and hoping to set it in legislative stone: Does life begin at conception or at birth? This is the first step in winning the battle against abortion, and Rand is tackling it head-on.

    The quote that you are demonizing him for is in response to Wolf Blitzer asking him the age-old silly question: ““If you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother?” ”

    This was Rand’s entire response to him, of which you took one tiny section way out of context:

    “What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different. Everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going on that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother…

    I would say that, after birth, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one-day-olds or a 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 as simple as checking a box and saying, “Exceptions” or “No exceptions.”

    I’ve been there at the beginning of life. I’ve held one pound babies in my hand that I examined their eyes. I’ve been there at the end of life. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to. But I think it is important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeonhole and say, “Oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family.”

    Again, how are you not getting behind this? I thought you were a Catholic. You hate this guy for trying to legislatively define unborn babies as human beings?

    1. It’s becoming painfully obvious you’re not reading what I’m writing; which means you’re on thin ice. Yes, I am pro life.

      I despise Rand Paul (in this limited instance) for talking out of both sides of his mouth on an important issue like this.

      I support this legislation, I never said otherwise. The problem is that Rand Paul doesn’t know when to shut up. I have never heard of a politician coming out with a bill and then saying it won’t pass the next day.

      This bill might have stood a chance at passage before Rand Paul opened his mouth.

      Either he’s an idiot or he intentionally killed his own bill in order to manipulate evangelical voters. Well, in case you only read this blog, it didn’t work. Evangelical voters got really ticked off at him.

Leave a Reply