My problems with the Republican Candidates for President in the 2008 Election:
Rudy Giuliani
-Pro-Choice, supported 2nd Amendment restrictions, was soft on illegal immigration while Mayor of NYC
Mike Huckabee
-Agreed with Supreme Court decision overthrowing Texas anti-Sodomy law, supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, believes in accommodating immigrants and not assimilation, coddles illegal immigrants on other issues, supports National smoking ban in the workplace (State's issue), raised taxes while Governor of Arkansas
Duncan L. Hunter
-Who is he? Congressman from San Diego. That's all I know about him.
John McCain
-McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform (biggest restriction on free speech), supported Summer '07 Illegal Immigration Reform which would have granted legal status to illegal immigrants, pro-choice (wouldn't support overturning Roe v. Wade), incessant on the idea that water boarding is torture and should be banned from use, thinks Vietnamese people are Gooks, favorite of elitist media personalities
Ron Paul
-Wants to pull out of the War on Terror
Mitt Romney
-He's Mormon for one, and two, see my previous post.
Fred Thompson
-Voted against Bill Clinton's Impeachment, lobbyist for National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn, voted against laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation
As of now, there are only two that I feel comfortable voting for. I think Ron Paul and Fred Thompson are more closely aligned with my personal viewpoints but the problem I have with Fred is that he's slightly arrogant. For example, he challenged Michael Moore over his film Sicko, and Michael Moore conversely challenged him in regards to importing Cuban Cigars. Fred Thompson responded by smoking a Cuban Cigar. Indirectly he's supporting the Castro regime by using his dollars to purchase Cuban goods which supports their economy. I don't care for his toleration of discrimination towards gay people either. My problem with Ron Paul is that he doesn't want to fight the War on Terror abroad despite it having been brought to us on numerous occassions. I don't believe that the solution to Islamic Terrorism is to pull our forces from the middle east. I however strongly agree with him regarding disbanding the Federal Reserve, issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal and cutting off all foreign aid.
I'll wait until Primary Election Day before I decide. Maybe I should research Duncan L. Hunter some more, not to be confused with Duncan D. Hunter his son.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Funny thing: I didn't know much about Hunter until an internet database compared my views with those of the top candidates and matched me with Hunter. Number 2 was Thompson. By the way, should pedophiles receive constitutional protection against discrimination for their "sexual orientation?" I'm not equating gays with pedophiles, but where do you draw the line? Thompson is actually my choice.
Should pedophiles receive constitutional protection against discrimination for their "sexual orientation?"
No, a child is not of consenting age.
Where do you draw the line?
The line would be that people should be free from discrimination so long as they're of consenting age.
As long as they are of consenting age? What about brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son unions? What about the guy who likes to get "friendly" with his pooch? These are extreme aberrations (indeed, depravities) but surely those in their practice deserve constitutional protection according to your logic. I agree that gays should be free from discrimination, but a constitutional amendment protecting lifestyle choices (until Science can authoritatively prove that homosexuality is a biological condition, it is effectively a lifestyle choice) would have the framers rolling over in their graves.
I don't think anyone is advocating rights for incest or beastiality. I think if "Constitutional" protection were created for protecting consenting homosexuals from discrimination, language could be incorporated so that such nonsense would not be read from the law. Regardless, I don't advocate Constitutional protections for any class of people, be it for sex, religion, ethnicity, etc. States are the ones responsible for what's acceptable. That's why we have differences between states on whether you can marry a first cousin or not.
If a Constitutional Amendment or Law is created, it should simply state; "States shall define through the Legislature what constitutes a lawful union between two consenting adults. No Judicial authority has the right to define such union."
The question seems to be shifting, here. You initially expressed that you disagreed with Fred Thompson in voting against laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. You now seem interested in same sex unions. I only ask, once again, where do you draw the line? Shoud a man be allowed to marry his brother? And, honestly, why can't I have two spouses? We're all consenting adults...
Your original question was "should pedophiles receive constitutional protection against discrimination" and you asked where does one "draw the line." - I answered both questions, no, pedophiles should not receive constitutional protection, and the line drawn would be that sex should be between two people of consenting age.
You then brought up slipperly slope arguments postulating the plausible what if's that could result from such ambiguous language and in response I further clarified that language should be written specifying that States shall define what a union is.
Again, I'm not advocating anything. I merely believe that if we're going to have laws protecting people from discrimination because of religion, race, ethnicity, etc. that we should protect people from discrimation based on sexual orientation as well.
If you honestly evaluate why we have the laws we do, in most cases it's a result of societal values. Our society values laws that ban discrimination based on religion, race, sex, ethnicity, etc. because we feel that discriminating against people based on those factors is wrong. However, at one point in the past, it wasn't wrong. Discrimination was outright overt with signs that read, "Jews, Italians and Niggers need not apply." Now days, and rightly so, that type of overt discrimination is illegal. A majority of Americans also feel that laws protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation is a good thing. I agree. If in the future, and I shudder to think this could ever happen, if a majority of Americans felt pedophilia was okay, then naturally laws would arise protecting pedophiles. However, NAMBLA and other organizations that promote that, don't garner support for that type of protection because most Americans aren't for it.
To answer your last two questions, no I don't support brothers marrying each other nor do I support polygamy. But don't forget it wasn't too long ago that polygamy was socially acceptable.
Post a Comment