Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 114

Thread: Nevada GOP drops Pro-Life Platform

  1. #1

    Nevada GOP drops Pro-Life Platform

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/politic...orses-sandoval

    They also dropped opposition to gay marriage and endorsed Sandoval.

    Amid raucous debate, Nevada Republican Party conventioneers on Saturday stripped opposition to gay marriage and abortion from the party platform and endorsed Gov. Brian Sandoval for governor in the June 10 primary despite misgivings by conservatives, his criticism of the process and his absence from the meeting...

    By a show of hands, convention-goers adopted the platform as proposed by a separate committee without the two planks on marriage and abortion, following the Clark County GOP’s lead in removing hot-button social issues from the party’s statement of its principles. Some 520 delegates attended the convention, but less than half were present when the platform was adopted at about 7:30 p.m. Little debate preceded the vote, a far contrast to earlier in day.
    State party Chairman Michael McDonald said it was a successful convention at the end of the day.
    “I think it was about inclusion, not exclusion,” McDonald said, referring to the platform. “This is where the party is going.”
    Republicans who sat on the platform committee said they decided not to deal with social issues this year because the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have weighed in and it doesn’t make sense for the party of “personal freedom” to have the government or the political party get involved in people’s personal lives...
    Of course, they talk about personal liberties while doing this. It seems like personal liberties only apply to abortion in today's political atmosphere.
    Stop believing stupid things



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    This is the Ron Paul guys, right? If so, I agree, esp. on the gay marriage thing. Fiscal issues and civil liberties should come first. Social issues are a boondoggle. We continually lose elections because of it.

  4. #3
    I hope it wasn't the Paul people... you can't have any rights if you're not alive first. :\
    Original supporter of Ron Paul since 2007 and lifelong supporter of liberty and the Constitution. I stand with Rand.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTyke View Post
    I hope it wasn't the Paul people... you can't have any rights if you're not alive first. :\
    I do not think they could still be considered "Paul people" if they are pro-death since Ron/Rand are pro-life.
    Last edited by kahless; 04-14-2014 at 07:50 PM.

  6. #5
    oh well. i don't like it, but its not my state and its not my gop party.
    No - No - No - No
    2016

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    I do not think they could still be considered "Paul people" if they are pro-death since Ron/Rand are pro-life.
    Well, there are a LOT of us who are Paul people, but who don't share the doctrinaire "ban all abortions" position. The reason why we started fighting over this immediately is exactly why this should not be part of any platform, and folks can just believe what they want.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by lib3rtarian View Post
    Well, there are a LOT of us who are Paul people, but who don't share the doctrinaire "ban all abortions" position. The reason why we started fighting over this immediately is exactly why this should not be part of any platform, and folks can just believe what they want.
    l
    Life and death are not "beliefs".
    "The Patriarch"

  9. #8
    Don't we have better things to do then weaken our stance on protecting life? For crying out loud, Ron Paul left his church over them not defending life!



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaPolitico View Post
    Don't we have better things to do then weaken our stance on protecting life? For crying out loud, Ron Paul left his church over them not defending life!
    +1
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
    James Madison

    "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams



    Μολὼν λάβε
    Dum Spiro, Pugno
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by puppetmaster View Post
    +1
    +2
    "The Patriarch"

  13. #11
    And the moral decline continues.

  14. #12
    I don't care. I personally do care but politically the GOP's stance seems unwinnable and a turnoff to many that could agree with them on many other things. I say this as someone who has had heated debates about abortion with the few liberal friends that I have. That topic seems to be the go-to debate if the demopublican vs repulicrat issue comes up. The things we can agree on are many but that abortion topic seems to not win very many over.

  15. #13
    This takes away some of the stuff the medias like to talk about during election season. It makes it harder to put D and R in neat little columns, and encourages the voters to engage the candidates more.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaPolitico View Post
    Don't we have better things to do then weaken our stance on protecting life? For crying out loud, Ron Paul left his church over them not defending life!
    Don't we have better things to do then spending time trying to support legislation that puts more people in jail? Hey I'm all for stopping abortion but I am not at all about doing it by legislation.
    Libertarians - trying to improve the world through ideas and free markets rather than legislation and prisons.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by fr33 View Post
    I don't care. I personally do care but politically the GOP's stance seems unwinnable and a turnoff to many that could agree with them on many other things. I say this as someone who has had heated debates about abortion with the few liberal friends that I have. That topic seems to be the go-to debate if the demopublican vs repulicrat issue comes up. The things we can agree on are many but that abortion topic seems to not win very many over.
    The Liberty movement has a lot of unpopular stances that are unlikely to win people over. And protecting life is one of the most important civil rights issues of the 21st century, we shouldn't abandon it.
    Stop believing stupid things

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    And protecting life is one of the most important civil rights issues of the 21st century, we shouldn't abandon it.
    No, it's not. That's utter BS. You do understand why some libertarians don't want to give the power to the State (a State which they don't trust) to come in and tell families what they can do with the pregnancies, right? Each pregnancy is different, and there are some real reasons on why abortions are sometimes necessary. If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but don't be a Statist about it and tell me what to do.

    If you want to stop abortions by public awareness campaigns, please knock yourself out. Don't make laws which ruin people's lives. There's nothing libertarian about putting a mother to death for having an abortion to save her life.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by lib3rtarian View Post
    No, it's not. That's utter BS. You do understand why some libertarians don't want to give the power to the State (a State which they don't trust) to come in and tell families what they can do with the pregnancies, right? Each pregnancy is different, and there are some real reasons on why abortions are sometimes necessary. If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but don't be a Statist about it and tell me what to do.

    If you want to stop abortions by public awareness campaigns, please knock yourself out. Don't make laws which ruin people's lives. There's nothing libertarian about putting a mother to death for having an abortion to save her life.
    So, let's legalize murder. There'd be less people in prisons.

    Less than 1 per cent of abortions are to save the woman's life. As technology advances, that number will decrease. And most pro-lifers make an exception for that case anyway.

    Most Libertarians oppose Roe v Wade as an overreach by the federal government. Even pro-choice Libertarians want the states to decide so people can vote with their feet.

  21. #18
    Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
    by Congressman Ron Paul
    Libertarians for Life,1981
    Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.

    Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

    We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.

    A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

    Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

    Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

    The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

    A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

    Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

    We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

    I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulbot99 View Post
    So, let's legalize murder. There'd be less people in prisons.

    Less than 1 per cent of abortions are to save the woman's life. As technology advances, that number will decrease. And most pro-lifers make an exception for that case anyway.

    Most Libertarians oppose Roe v Wade as an overreach by the federal government. Even pro-choice Libertarians want the states to decide so people can vote with their feet.
    If you really believe abortion is murder, then why is it ok to murder an innocent child because it threatens the health of the mother? if you truly believe what you say, then the mother and fetus has equal right to life and both should be let to stick it out and let the fittest survive. The problem with this issue is that it cannot be policed like regular murder. A pregnant woman can take a pill she is not supposed to take by "accident" or fall by "accident" or maybe use a coat hanger to do the job.

    We just have to say no at abortion police and try and use the power of persuasion to win people over. I think this is a good move by the Nevada GOP, no longer will the dems use the wedge issue to divide us while they steal our money and run our lives for us

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulbot99 View Post
    So, let's legalize murder. There'd be less people in prisons.

    Less than 1 per cent of abortions are to save the woman's life. As technology advances, that number will decrease. And most pro-lifers make an exception for that case anyway.

    Most Libertarians oppose Roe v Wade as an overreach by the federal government. Even pro-choice Libertarians want the states to decide so people can vote with their feet.
    I do agree that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned, because it's an overreach.

  24. #21
    When was the last time an "average voter" gave two $hits about what was in or not in a party platform?

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    I do not think they could still be considered "Paul people" if they are pro-death since Ron/Rand are pro-life.
    They are not pro-death. They are just pro-choice. Just like you are not anti-women or anti-choice. You are pro-life.

    Both sides have good arguments. Stop insulting the opposition with stupid statements.

    Slutter McGee

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by lib3rtarian View Post
    No, it's not. That's utter BS. You do understand why some libertarians don't want to give the power to the State (a State which they don't trust) to come in and tell families what they can do with the pregnancies, right? Each pregnancy is different, and there are some real reasons on why abortions are sometimes necessary. If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but don't be a Statist about it and tell me what to do.

    If you want to stop abortions by public awareness campaigns, please knock yourself out. Don't make laws which ruin people's lives. There's nothing libertarian about putting a mother to death for having an abortion to save her life.
    So could you please tell us when a "person" crosses the imaginary and subjective boarder when their own individual liberty and rights kick in?

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Slutter McGee View Post
    They are not pro-death. They are just pro-choice. Just like you are not anti-women or anti-choice. You are pro-life.

    Both sides have good arguments. Stop insulting the opposition with stupid statements.

    Slutter McGee
    So by calling the KILLING of a child a "choice" you are able to sleep at night?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    I'm not gay and I'm not a fetus, and I'm certainly not a gay fetus. However, on this day, I am a victim of armed theft on a massive, massive scale.
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Slutter McGee View Post
    They are not pro-death. They are just pro-choice. Just like you are not anti-women or anti-choice. You are pro-life.

    Both sides have good arguments. Stop insulting the opposition with stupid statements.

    Slutter McGee
    So I should spin the death option as choice instead of the ugly fact that it still death. Talk about being brainwashed.

    I think Ron says it best:

    Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves.
    A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

    Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.
    More
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5493213

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    I'm not gay and I'm not a fetus, and I'm certainly not a gay fetus. However, on this day, I am a victim of armed theft on a massive, massive scale.
    It is only a matter of time before women start having abortions based on discovering the fetus has the gay gene. By then a large segment of the Republican party will probably transform themselves to being pro-choice since they are a party of spineless cowards with a history of transforming themselves to emulate the Democratic party. They will therefore lose again on this issue if the Democrat party transforms themselves to be pro-life to stop gay abortions.

    Just like the Dems in matter of a few years went from anti-war to savage pro-war advocates.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by jbauer View Post
    So could you please tell us when a "person" crosses the imaginary and subjective boarder when their own individual liberty and rights kick in?
    When the fetus is viable. i.e. able to survive on its own outside the womb. Till then it's an parasite (should the mother wishes to think that way) living off the host (mother). The mother has full control till then. If a parasite invades a host, the host has full authority to evict the parasite.

  33. #29
    Some of us don't like the idea of the state investigating a woman's uterus, as in, it may be wrong or it may be ok to abort a fetus, but either way it is a private matter for the mother that doesn't concern the state.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  34. #30
    Shake my head. "Parasite". "able to survive on its own outside the womb". That covers years after the baby is born. What disgusting terms to use for human beings.

    And it didn't "invade". It was put there.
    "The Patriarch"

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Sobering Reality Of What Life Is Like In Reno, Nevada
    By DamianTV in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-10-2012, 05:43 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-13-2012, 05:43 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2010, 02:38 AM
  4. Nevada draft State Platform - WOW!
    By Brian in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-27-2008, 11:34 AM
  5. Fred Thompson Rejects GOP's Pro-Life Platform Plank
    By LibertyEagle in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 06:55 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •