Quote:
|
This is probably the only Republican I'd ever consider voting for. My only real problem with him? His religious agenda. I am just far too afraid that he will let his religion get in the way with politics, which shouldn't happen no matter what religion you are.
|
I doubt very much that would be an issue for Paul. He's a very strict Constitutionalist, and the Constitution is very clear about favouring or persecuting any particular religion in the First Amendment. This is him giving his opinion on "Church and State":
YouTube - CHURCH VS. STATE, GAYS IN THE MILITARY, IMMIGRATION REFORM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slime
While I agree with him in many areas, I take issue with some of his views on homosexuality, abortion, the environment and immigration. But other than that, he'd be the best president in years.
|
I think you'd likely find him a lot more reasonable on those subjects than you'd think. This video I posted above showcases some his views where homosexuality and immigration are concerned; I think the following is high stance on environmental issues in a nutshell:
Quote:
The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.
The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.
In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.
In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:
- I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a "Treasury Guardian" for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.
I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.
Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.
|
This seems as a good a method of curtailing pollution as any, and, happily, does not involve large, expensive government beauracracies bringing the heavy end of the hammer down on anyone.
And here we have him reluctantly tackling a member of the Christian right on homosexuality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE&NR=1
As an aside, I enjoyed the use of the term "sheeple" earlier in the thread; haven't seen that in ages.
