I think Ron/Rand Paul are getting the economics right, but this lunatic anti-war mantra they’re empowering and promoting is very dangerous.
Without national security and military strength, as well as engagement, no one will have economic or personal freedom. In addition, the injection of Gay Rights is a non-starter and will splinter the Republican Party. I do not endorse special rights for sexual preferences.
You go down that road and I see no problem with polygamy, since there is an historical basis for that with the Mormons. Where do you draw the line if you start recognizing special rights based on sexual preference...
I have never once heard Ron Paul advocate weak national security or military strength. As for engagement, he has quite clearly stated that we should remain engaged, not isolated. (Please don't tell us that you don't know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.)
I've never been a part of Ron Paul's campaigns and I can't speak for him, but my understanding is that he believes in a strong defense, just not foreign adventurism and giving American tax dollars and blood for others' benefit.
In addition, the injection of Gay Rights is a non-starter and will splinter the Republican Party. I do not endorse special rights for sexual preferences.
Agreed. There's absolutely no reason a secular government should be involved in a religious sacrament. The government shouldn't provide special rights for sexual preference.
You go down that road and I see no problem with polygamy, since there is an historical basis for that with the Mormons.
The history of Mormon polygamy includes breaking of prior arrangements (taking one man's wife to give her to another). Please be sure you're not conflating those types of problems with how such things as line marriages might be arranged (e.g., see The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Robert A. Heinlein). Again, the religious aspect is religious. If there's a civil arrangement made with the secular government, then breaks in the arrangement would be violations of legal contract and the participants would be protected.
Where do you draw the line if you start recognizing special rights based on sexual preference...
Exactly.
I know that my positions are more conservative and classic Republican than many FReepers, but I submit that I am more in line with American history than others are.
"That intervention is not now, never was, and never will be a set policy of the United States is one of the most important facts President-elect Hoover has made clear." --The New York Times, 1928
I forget...was Hoover a Republican or Democrat?
agree
basing civil rights on sexual preference is completely nuts IMHO.
If one likes getting off sexually in a certain way then , hey enjoy yourself but to say they should have civil rights and special rights based on how they get off is completely mad and anyone supporting that is completely mad in my eyes