The Capitalist and Republican Case against the Keystone Pipeline

Socialism is the use of force to benefit corporations, that may come as a shock to many young idealists but it is true. Eminent Domain has become, thanks to the Kelo Case, a process in which corporations can ask the government to forcefully remove people from their homes and property in the interest of "economic development". And of course the common aim of Socialism is for state control of the economy. Now for a pipeline to cut across the United States homes must be razed, farms and ranches divided, and people thrown off of their land, to be honest that is all I need to hear to be against it. Of course another reason would be government subsidies, if an enterprise can't succeed on its own with only private investment then it should not succeed.

The Republican Case for Drugs

The fruit loop marijuana legalization people are always chanting about how you can't outlaw nature, well unfortunately I agree with those dreadlocked paint huffing ideologues. As a conservative I support the American farmer, and I support said farmers efforts to grow whatever they want free of socialist "subsidies" and what essentially amounts to state-ownership of private property through laws against what they can and can not do with their property, like say laws prohibiting the planting and cultivation of cannabis, opium, and coca, I suppose the government can regulate what goes into the markets if the product is enough of a danger, I don't support that but plenty of people do, so we'll operate under that scenario. Now this land owner has grown opium or coca, and of course any fool with a chemistry kit can then easily make heroin or cocaine depending on which they grew, well I'd argue that the governments power to regulate a persons behavior and/or consumption ends at their property line and if they take one step over that it would be in my mind at least typical socialist aggression towards an individual with the intent of trying to mold them out of an individualist state (that makes me sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist I know and I'm sorry).      

The Republican Case for Gay Marriage

There are two main forces driving my support of Gay Marriage, the first is my believe in Laissez-faire, Free Market, Capitalism and the second is my strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. As to the first issue I ask what is marriage? Is it two people sharing a sacred oath of love? Dear god no! Marriage is a nice tax shelter, second stream of income, and a partnership that benefits the deceased's spouse, so that equates to being a contract, and individuals should be allowed the freedom to sign contracts, without that free enterprise would be doomed. Does this mean seven consenting adults (lets say 3 lesbians, 2 gays, and 2 "metrosexuals") should be allowed to get married, unfortunately it does in my book. Secondly and more persuasively is the little of matter of Amendment #1, which says the government can't screw around with religious practices, so a few homosexual types form a new branch of oh I don't know, Lutheranism, and they decide to marry other homosexual types in their church, well by golly there ain't no government that can put the kibosh on that business (of course I know there are plenty of governments that can put the kibosh on a lot of things). The feds have no say in your religion and don't you forget it. Again this leaves the door open for polygamy, but I ask you what makes your set up so much god damned holier? And shouldn't government be allowed to limit harmful religious practices in extreme cases, there are a lot of guys walking around with half a dick because some sick bastard got trigger happy at the circumcision.