|
David-West -> RE: DUn-dun-dun! 2008 Election! (1/21/2008 2:29:15 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jesusfreak108
quote:
With the exception of the Iraq war, I'm almost completely in line with Ron Paul's views.
Really? I haven't read much about him but I heard he is crazy. Is he running on the rpublican or democrat ticket? Cuz he seems to have traits of both parties.
Ron Paul isn't crazy, his views just aren't in line with more mainstream Republicans. At least, they aren't in line with current mainstream Republicans. Most of the accusations that he is "crazy" stem from the fact that he gets quite a bit of support from conservative fringe groups. 9/11 truthers (who think our government pulled off the attacks), neo-nazis, white supremest groups, etc. etc. etc. The reason groups like this tend to support him isn't because he's a racist or a conspiracy theorist, it's because he advocates a smaller government and more freedom. Groups like that usually support the most libertarian candidate. If you where member of a group that either thinks the government is out to get you or need freedom of speech to be able to operate, would it make sense to support such a candidate? See, though he doesn't agree with it, Ron Paul would defend their freedom of speech. So don't let people trick you into thinking he's crazy just because some crazy people support him. ALL the candidates have crazy supporters.
Ron Paul is very libertarian (and actually ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988), so I can see why you would think he has traits of both parties. Ron Paul is for as free market an economy as possible, as small a federal government as possible, taxes that are as low as possible, less government waste, etc. etc. etc. Those are all traditionally conservative characteristics. At the same time, he is also all about freedom, personal responsibility, and keeping the government from imposing morality upon people. Because of this, he has some views that are traditionally considered "liberal." To cite an example I used earlier, Ron Paul would not support a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. That doesn't mean he thinks homosexuality is OK (he's actually a strong Christian), just that he doesn't think it's an area the government should have a say in.
quote:
quote:
Homosexuality is absolutely a sin, but I don't believe it's the government's place to intervene.
I disagree. I think there should definitly be a law against homosexuality. I think it is our governments job to help keep marriage sanctioned. I think if God blessed us with a democracy who has the power to do that, then so be it.
Actually, God didn't bless us with a democracy. And thank God he didn't! We've been blessed with a representative democracy (AKA republic). The point behind representative democracy is protect the minority. Pure democracy (basing everything on popular vote) may sound like a good idea at first, until you realize that all that will arise from that is "tyranny of the majority." If everything is based on a straight up popular vote, homosexuality could very likely be banned. But so could guns, for that matter. Or maybe a few years down the road, the Bible. In a true democracy, the minority doesn't really have a voice. Do you really want a system like that? Why should people have a say in what goes on in someone else's life if it has no bearing whatsoever on their own? Thankfully our system prevents that from happening. I'm all for witnessing to homosexuals and trying to convince them that their lifestyle is sinful, but I DO NOT want the government to do anything about it.
Now, this is kind of dragging the thread off topic, so sorry for that, but...
I know it will NEVER happen, but personally I'd like to see the government not get involved in marriage at all. I think that it would get rid of a lot of the controversy over Gay marriage and make both sides happy. Instead of typical marriage benefits like automatic inheritance, burial determination, and ability to make medical decisions for their partner going straight to a person's spouse, people should be able to file the paperwork so that those benefits go to whoever they want them to go to. In most cases, that would probably be their spouse, but if someone wants to split the rights up among different people, they can do that. Though people would no longer file for marriage licenses, people would still be able to get "married" and their relationship would still have legal recognition (though whether or not they are configured as they would be in a traditional marriage is up to the people). People could still have weddings and give all of the traditional rights/benefits to their spouse. A Christian could still have a wedding and sign all over all the traditional rights/benefits to their spouse, which be . I think it's more important that the marriage is legitimate in God's eyes than it is that the government recognize the relationship by the name "marriage."
Instead of giving people tax breaks (or any other monetary breaks, for that matter) just because they're married, base their tax breaks on how many children/dependents they have (dependents already give people more tax breaks, I just think it should be based SOLELY on dependents). Under such a system, NO childless couple (heterosexual or homosexual) would have it any easier. Kids are a legitimate reason to need more money because they create more expenses, and they continue the human race, so it only makes sense that people should be given tax breaks for having kids.
There'd also need to be some sort of system to handle cohabitation, which would most likely be exactly the way it is currently handled under marriage laws, but, like the other components of my system, handled separately.
quote:
quote:
Their morals are very much in line with Christianity, so even though they are misled, by electing a Mormon you can be just as sure you are electing a decent person as when you vote for a Christian candidate. I agree. a Mormom would probably make a pretty good President.
Any Mormon besides Mitt Romney, that is.[;)]
|
|
|
|
