Interesting article. I like Hilary, and think that more women in our government is a major positive, not a negative thing. Having said that, my initial opposition to Rand Paul has tempered somewhat - not that Im ready to vote for him yet - as Ive come to understand a bit more about Libertarianism, because I have several friends who are staunch Libertarians, and because Ive become increasingly disillusioned with our two party/obstructionist political system that seems to get in the way of itself more often than it solves problems. Im a fan of Pauls stance on anti-interventionism (and not as much as fan of Hilarys hawkish stance, although I think part of that is an overcompensation tactic). Pauls stance, this article points out, is at odds with the more Jacksonian tone of the Republican party in general. Is there anyone else who feels that our military is a massive (but often dangerous) employment program, and a cash cow for those pulling the strings, all wrapped in the guise of nationalism (BTW, before someone takes me down for that last, dont presume that perception of mine implies a lack of appreciation for the incredibly dangerous and difficult work our armed forces perform). In general, the whole Duracell/Knock the Battery off my Shoulder thing doesnt work for me. What a shame that Paul seems unable to more wholeheartedly embrace the Democratic side of the definition of Libertarianism - social liberalism. Where he might well say that social issues should be States rights issues, Id counter that there are federal issues (such as a right to partner health decisions for all Americans, gay or straight) that *have* to be national issues and simply cannot be regionalized by State (and will be decided at the national level). He needs to get on the right side of these issues. And I cant get to the same place he is on reasonable gun control. Which is Out Of Control in this country, full stop. Read an interesting article recently that pinpointed the (incredibly small) number of home invasions that are successfully sorted with a handgun in favor of the homeowner, and that suggested not limiting guns...but limiting their ability to be stored in a home (would have required that semi-automatic/automatic guns be stored off-premises). Thoughts, anyone? Ground rules of my FB page are no ad-hominem attacks, no name calling, lets discuss.
Posted on: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:38:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015