I will never vote for a President who chips away at my personal liberties.
Sounds great
What form would that possibly take?
How would a president be able to do that?
Fox is lying to you, Obama can't take your assault rifle
I good leader might try and "chip" away at that asinine liberty, but like MC Hammer says, you can't touch this..(cause we gots the idiots under control)
It has to do with gay rights, freedom of choice for a woman, right ti die with dignity, etc ...
So what do you think about these things?
Your thinking is not clear to me, or you probably
Are you advocating for gay rights, freedom of choice for women, legal suicide
Here are Rands positions:
"Abortion and bioethics[ edit]Paul is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. [28] [29] [30] During his senate primary campaign in 2009, he said that he believed abortion should also be illegal in cases in which the woman's life is at risk from the pregnancy, [28] [29] and he called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban all abortions. [31] However, in a 2013 interview he said that he might not oppose abortion in some individual cases involving a woman's health. [32] He opposes the use of federal, state, or local government funds for abortion. [30]
During his senate primary campaign, he said that he opposed the use of medications (such as the morning-after pill) to prevent a newly formed human embryo from implanting into a woman's womb in cases in which the woman has been raped. [33] [30] A campaign representative later said that Paul does not oppose the use of the morning-after pill in cases of rape or incest. [34]
Describing himself as "100% pro life," Paul has said, "I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.... I have stated many times that I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion." [35] He has been a sponsor or cosponsor of several legislative measures to effectively ban virtually all abortions by recognizing a legal right to life of human embryos from the moment of fertilization. [36] [37] [38] [39]
Paul favors a federal ban on abortion; but he has said that until the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade or the nation passes a constitutional amendment to ban abortions nationwide, the legality of abortion should be left to the individual states to decide without federal involvement. [40]
During his senate campaign, Paul said he received a 100% pro-life score on a Kentucky Right to Life survey [41] and said he had indicated on the survey form that he opposed human cloning for use in embryonic stem-cell research or medical treatments. This was disputed by Kentucky Right to Life, however, who endorsed Paul's primary opponent instead and said that Paul had not, in fact, answered the stem-cell research question. [33] As reported by the Cincinnati Enquirer at the time, the Kentucky Right to Life produced a hard-copy of the survey form from Paul showing that he had not answered the question while Paul's campaign produced an electronic copy of the form showing that he had answered the question. [33] [34] He received a perfect score from the National Right to Life Committee.[ citation needed]
Civil rights[ edit]Same-sex marriage[ edit]Paul opposes same-sex marriage, and he believes the issue should be left to the states to decide. [42] He has said he thought that the Supreme Court's ruling in Windsor v. United States, which struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage at a federal level (as between a man and a woman), was appropriate. [43]
In April 2013, in an interview with the National Review, he said, "I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” and “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.” [44]
Anti-discrimination legislation[ edit]In a 2002 letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul said that the U.S. Fair Housing Act, "ignores the distinction between private and public property." He added: “Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.” [45] In April 2010, in an interview on Louisville Courier-Journal, he said "I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership." [45] On May 20, 2010, in an interview on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, he suggested he would have wanted to modify one section of the Civil Rights Act that dealt with private institutions, while keeping the parts prohibiting discrimination in the public sector. [45] On May 22, 2010, in an interview on CNN’s The Situation Room, he expressed there was “a need for federal intervention” and declared he would have voted for the law. He also appeared to reverse himself on whether private enterprise could discriminate. [45]
In April 2013, in a speech at Howard University, he said "It's a mischaracterization of my position. I've never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever, and I continue to be for the Civil Rights Act as well as the Voting Rights Act. There was a long, one interview that had a long, extended conversation about the ramifications beyond race, and I have been concerned about the ramifications of certain portions of the Civil Rights Act beyond race, as they are now being applied to smoking, menus, listing calories and things on menus, and guns. And so I do question some of the ramifications and the extensions but I never questioned the Civil Rights Act and never came out in opposition to the Civil Rights Act or ever introduced anything to alter the Civil Rights Act." [45]
On July 10, 2013, he voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by private sector employers with at least 15 employees. [46] Paul had introduced an amendment to broaden the religious exemptions to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but failed to show up for the committee hearing for it. [47] A day after the vote, he said “All I can say is, we have a zero tolerance policy for anybody who displays discriminatory behavior or belief in discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, anything like that,” [48] In November 2013, he would once again vote against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. [49] After the Senate passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, he stated that his vote had nothing to do with supporting employment discrimination, but his support for Sen. Pat Toomey’s amendment that would exempt religious groups to the bill. After Toomey’s amendment was defeated in the Senate, he said it was nearly impossible for him to support Employment Non-Discrimination Act as it stood, thus leaving the possibility of Rand Paul voting for a future Employment Non-Discrimination Act bill, but only with stronger religious exceptions to it. [50]"
And yes there is a third issue and that is one of debt;
OK
You said you were leaning to Paul, if I understand English
So tell me again how you get to the guy who wants to get rid of government, and has the above views with all them liberal causes you.... uh, favor
When you can do that, I can see how you aren't a single issue voter |
