Tom Usher wrote or added | "5. Mountaintop coal mining is good for real estate values
'I think whoever owns the property can do with the property as they wish, and if the coal company buys it from a private property owner and they want to do it, fine. The other thing is that I think coal gets a bad name, because apparently a lot of the land is desirable once it gets flattened out... I don't think anyone's going to be missing a hill or two here and there. Some people like the flat land, and some of it apparently has become rather valuable when it's become flattened.'
The article missed not closing Guantanamo and also declaring war on Afghanistan. That latter one though might just mean he thinks that it's an illegal, undeclared war.
Where does he stand on offshore oil-wells now that there's been an underwater gusher for over a month? He's a doctor (albeit an eye doctor). He has to know something about chemicals and cancer. There's going to be a great deal of disease in the Gulf of Mexico from all the oil and the toxic dispersants. Is he just laissez-faire about all the lax cement work that's gone on all over the place with all these underwater wells, or is he for retroactive regulation that would shut all of them down? If he's not for shutting them down permanently, is he for shutting them down until they pass rigorous inspections by independent government inspectors who cannot be in any revolving-door process with the industry?
As for the Mountaintop removal comment, he's insane. It's hundreds of mountains, Rand, many hundreds of mountains, not "a hill or two here and there." How demonic is that characterization of mountaintop removal? He's so blasÃ© about all the other negative aspects of MTR. Gee, read even the Wikipedia on all the problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal#Environmental_and_health_impacts You'll notice that, as of the time of this post, there's an idiotic counter to the laundry list of problems which idiotic counter is exactly Rand Paul's lame point. It reminds me of the Zionists claiming they're great humanitarians toward the Gazans. Some people....
I wish people would just come to their senses and be for the environment rather then for selfishness.
Betty Molchany: Tom, I had been hoping he would win because I liked and supported his father - until one week before the presidential election when I began to think McCain and Palin might be elected, which is no way to decide how to vote. Despite Ron Paul's conservative stand on so many issues, many progressives, like myself, supported him.
Rand Paul may not be like his father out of expedience or he may really be to the right of his father.
I believe he is more the neocon than is his father. I don't support either of them because I can't support laissez-faire capitalism at all. I don't curse either of them though, or anyone else for that matter. I hope each of them is blessed and becomes a true blessing for humanity and the planet.
The anti-war stand of Ron Paul is certainly an attractive aspect for real liberals, but unbridled capitalism is a curse.