Amazon.com Widgets

« Santa is a Greedy Bastard | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Saturday »

Ron Paul on Evolution

There are many reasons Ron Paul would make a bad president. It's not only that he apparently doesn't understand evolution, but that at his age he has failed to educate himself. He seems to show the same lack of curiosity as the current president. We don't need another one like Dub.




Quicktime Video 2 MB | Duration: 01'27
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

So - he would make a bad leader because he doesn't believe what you believe? C'mon Norm. Deal with the PRESENT, not the past. To state that this brilliant man has not educated himself is to have blinders on yourself. That's unfortunate.

(coming from somebody who DOES believe in Evolution, and a creator) -z

I expect my president to be versed in the basics of 8th grade science.

When I first considered Ron Paul, I was put off by two things.

Analogously, severe generational mutation has been selected against, and we change relatively slowly. With great leaps, there is so much more to go wrong. So first, it's very worrying to support someone who promotes radical change.

We have several key issues. The war. Abortion. Evolution. And second, it's very worrying to support someone whose views conflict with your own.

But over time I realized that I had seriously fucked up my evaluation. (I'm sorry that I can't put this in a way that doesn't imply that you have too.)

First, leaping to something unfamiliar isn't as big a risk when your current position is so poor.

Second, and this is the big one. You are confusing personal beliefs with policy. Loud noises mask quieter ones. In the above video, he says "just a theory". As an anti-theist who's waded through this so many times before, this one's a real bang. It took a few moments for the real message to register:

"I thought it was a very inappropriate question ... for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter."

Please read that a few times. Belief in evolution is a huge issue for me, but it's only a litmus test. The thing being tested is deference to science. That he doesn't understand evolution isn't a problem for me. Perhaps you can tell me why it matters politically. I can, by the way, point you to many places where he has great judgement on politically relevant matters. I, with I think good reason, trust him not to make policy based on his (wrong) belief.

I would like to hear someone ask Paul the following question: "If elected, will you act to promote the teaching of creationism, or to outlaw abortion, or to prevent a braindead person from being unplugged." I think I know the answer.

He is right though you know...you can disagree with him on his views towards evolution as I do, but wether or not he believes in evolution has nothing to do with his job were he to become president. He points that out quite well in this clip as well.

As far as intellectual curiosity goes however, I would suggest that he is far more intellectually curious than the majority of the other candidates that are currently running for President, including most of the Democratic Candidates(with the exception of Kucinich, and a few others). This is a complete none issue.

As a Ron Paul supporter, I'll be the first to say I don't support all his views (both the above clip and his stance on abortion, for example). Still, as long as he's not pushing his personal beliefs on others with his powers of office (and I highly doubt he would), I think they are non-issues. I certainly agree with him, in that there are bigger issues of the day that need addressing, and I think he's one of the few candidates who will do so.

wether or not he believes in evolution has nothing to do with his job were he to become president.

I profoundly disagree. Such stances have consequences. I wouldn't mind if his grasp of the science was weak, at best: every president needs advisors who are smarter and better educated in their specialties. But his statement about the "Creator that I know" recalls Christopher Hedges's book, American Fascists, wherein he discusses Dominionists. I needn't summarize that here, but suffice it to say that another president who has a cavalier attitude toward established science is not to be trusted with a climate in crisis or any of a number of other substantive policy matters where the president's allegiance to a doctrine may trump his or her allegiance to disturbing facts.

Personally, I would have no trouble having a religious president. I know many exemplary people who are religious, and would trust my life or child or country to them. But such a president must be conversant with science and reality. I don't believe that one blind spot in that regard is evidence of total delusion or disconnect from reality.Ron Paul's answer here would cancel my support for him if I weren't already rejecting him for reasons of policy.

Well he's right it certainly shouldn't be the sole reason for deciding a President (so they should all just stop harping on it and trying to appeal to the evangelicals in the process.)

He's also right that neither side has "absolute proof", however one side has theories backed up by observable data and available evidence and the other side has unicorns and pixies.

The main reason I support Ron Paul is his stance towards the CIA, one of the most destructive institutions in human history, responsible for the deaths and misery of millions. He is the only candidate who is in favor of completely dismantling the CIA. He is the only candidate (Kucinich and Gravel might as well) who proposes immidiate removal of troops not only from Iraq but from all foreign bases, Hillary, Edwards, and Barack will not commit to removing troops from Iraq before 2013. And again he is the only candidate other than Kucinich and Gravel who wants a total end to the war on drugs. He also supports gay marriage and and ending all corporate subsidies. Oh and he is against the death penalty. If he can accomplish a fraction of that and still believe in Creation, what the hell do I care.

Anyone who believes that a president who doesn't have a basic grounding in science and further doesn't consider it important is a man we want president is deluded. You'd think eight years of George Bush would be warning enough of the danger.

user-pic

You know. One of his last statements was the fact that neither side has proof enough for their claims as of this modern time. This is a perfectly agnostic statement. Ron Paul may be a Protestant, but he has one concept down the other Republicans don't have. The separation of church and state. The owner of this blog even posted Paul's response to Huckabee's new Christmas ad. There must be something of value here don't you think?

US Presidents are supposed to help guide their nation's people in the political spectrum, not understand every aspect of the Theory of Evolution. Yes, he's Christian. However, he will not implement his faith's divine goals into our nation's progression and time of healing needed from the Bush administration. And his statements about both sides not having proof enough for undisputed argument is proof alone that his mind is set on being an excellent president.

Why is it unreasonable to expect my president to believe in evolution? I would expect my presedent to believe in Germ Theory, sliding filament theory (muscle movement), and Atomic Theory.

and yes I do believe it is the same thing

Still have to disagree with you there norm, Bush's understanding of science had little to do with his failure, even the stem cell issue was about pandering to the base and had nothing to do with science. Bill Clinton believed in evolution and still was able to destroy Somalia, watch and smile while Rwanda went up in flames, continue economic sanctions against Iraq, Iran, Cuba all designed to attack "soft targets" ie civilians by stopping the supply of food and medical equipment. UNICEF announced that 500,000 child deaths occurred as a result of the sanctions in Iraq alone and hundreds of thousands of adults, but at least their remaining family members can be consoled by the fact that the administration who implemented the sanctions was headed by a man who had a basic understanding of genetic mutation.

Norm,

His stand on evolution is disappointing similar to Hitchen's view on Iraq.

But I think his appeal is he challenges the status quo. The only republican that opposes the war and the patriot act. Watch Paul stand ground when attached by a clearly biased Fox moderator on Iraq. How can you not cheer for him here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHLnP8VuoV4

Also he does take his non-evolutionary aspects of his job seriously. Such as monetary policy. Any renters or savers on this board would appreciate Ron here. Fed conjured $20 billion today and weve been getting worse inflation reports, looks like Paul was right on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efrt2h1AH_A

His stand on evolution is disappointing similar to Hitchen's view on Iraq.

Ah if that were the only problem with Ron Paul. What do you think his stand is on national healthcare? That alone disqualifies him as a serious candidate in my mind. He is a libertarian, I'm a liberal there is very little we have in common.

Re gay marriage, he's certainly NOT in favor of it.

His stance that the state "should not decide whom you can or cannot marry" is very deceptive. What he means is, the federal state should not decide. He's fine with state level legislation banning gay marriage, in fact he supports it.

He's also in favor of kicking openly homosexuals out of the military.

He's supports "home schooling" (we all know what that means).

He's also in favor of teaching "alternative theories" to evolution in science class.

Etc. etc..

Ron Paul is really very much a Christian-conservative on social issues. Sometimes he hides behind behind a façade of libertarianism, but that's only a façade.

Taken from facebook, so I don't know how official this is:

What role should the personal faith of a President play in his/her decision-making?

Ron Paul Position: It should play a strong role "Like the Founding Fathers, the core of my political philosophy is grounded in the knowledge that rights come from the Creator, not the government. Since rights do not come from the gov't, the gov't cannot violate those rights. Religion has a very important role to play in a limited gov't philosophy."

Ah, if he doesn't believe in evolution then we don't have to worry about bird flu mutating into a virulent human form. Whew!

I see the evolution thing as a "reality check". It's roughly the same question as "do you believe Neil Armstrong really did walk on the moon?"

This guy's living in a fantasyland if he thinks that the evidence is roughly equal on both sides of that question.

He can be president of fantasyland. I want a reality-based president.

Norm -

I completely agree, I think he would make a terrible President. (If he ran for President in the 1820s I think he would be competent.)

Why do so many left-wingers flock to Ron Paul? Is it just because he is anti-war? The guy would try to dismantle every liberal program in government!

I am an Atheist and I understand that this is hard for us to listen to.

However, he HAS a Bachelor of Science...or at least he should considering he is a medical doctor and he's delivered over 4000 babies.

I think one of 2 things is happening here. 1, he truly believes what he is saying based on his religious beliefs and familiarity, or lack there of, with evolution. Or 2, he doesn't believe what he is saying, but is saying it anyway (because of his personal religious community that he is committed to and can't separate himself from, or to gain some points with the religious right).

Either way if he believes what he is saying it doesn't make him any worse than any of the other candidates...(even Kucinich...a catholic who according to his wife would run with Paul if they ended up running as independents...but then again, according to her the government is hiding major shit on 9/11).

If he doesn't believe it and is saying it anyway it's not going to hurt him. His supporters already are behind him with so much passion, if he is going to convert anyone else in the process by playing the Creator card that's politics and he is likely to gain votes from it.

It's not how I would personally like the world to be, but that's how the we all know the political world works...the less atheist you are, the better chance you have...and he's talking about a creator yet he is steeped in scientific education and experience. He might be Ron Paul but he's still a politician.

He's also in favor of teaching "alternative theories" to evolution in science class.

Do we have a source for that?

Dont get me wrong I am pretty liberal atheist who, of course believes in evolution , but democrats want to take away guns, and leave the borders open, so frankly i could care less about evolution, or abortion. Sometimes you have to ignore a few issues because no candidate is going to give you exactly what you want, unless you run.

Not to mention he is the only canidate who talks about taking away all our military bases or dismantling the cia, irs and the fed. I'm not sure the democrats who talk bad about bush wouldnt abuse the executive power they have been given, whereas ron paul wouldnt.

Plus I'm not sure universal health care would make things any better. I assume we used to have the best on the planet and it was probably because of less government involvement.

I firmly believe we would be better off letting ron paul abolish a lot of the government we dont really need, assuming he could actually get it done, which he probably couldnt, get us out of debt, fix the deficit, close the borders, help the dollar rebound, then maybe electing a democrat after that, if one emerges who could win and wasnt a douchebag, who wasnt against the 2nd amendment.

but i do wonder how the hell a doctor could say evolution isnt true. Didn't he atleast have to take some biology courses? owell ...sigh

"Do we have a source for that?"

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/RonPaulEducation.htm

Ron Paul on education:

"Present scientific facts that support creationism"

Yes.

"Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education"

Yes.

"Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling"

Yes.

I consider myself very liberal, but I'm registered Republican, solely to vote for Paul in the primary. I've never voted Republican before in the past, and can't see myself doing it again in the future. I'm offended that more liberals aren't siding with Paul or at least Kucinich in these times, on the more important issues right now: foreign policy and individual freedom.

Richard Stallman sums up my feelings on the candidates very well right here: stallman.org/ron-paul

I stumbled upon that a few days ago, and he put it more simply than I could have said myself. Yes, Obama is better than all of the other candidates besides Paul and Kucinich, but he's not good enough for me too choose over Paul or Kucinich. While I tend to support Kucinich on almost everything, Paul has done more to fight against the Patriot Act and our perverted foreign policy than anyone else in congress, except maybe Feingold, but he's not running unfortunately.

Abortion, gay marriage, universal health care, are all great things to have opinions about, but I find it sickening that people think those things are more important than the atrocities we have committed in the middle east, and the erosion of people's more primary rights. There is no better way to protest that than supporting Ron Paul.

Wow. I completely disagree with your assessment of Ron Paul, Norm. As far as I can tell he's the only one (aside from Kucinich) who actually has a principled and consistent voting record. I disagree with him on many issues however I do believe that he is honest and is willing to die for his principles rather than sell out his country like all the other candidates have and will.

I say a vote for ClintRomnObamLiani is a vote for Bush. They're all the same. Every single last one of them except Ron and Dennis.

They take money from the same special interest groups and the Big Pharma and Oil. Sorry, but your caricature of Ron Paul as a Bush clone is either misinformed or highly dubious. His only platform is to follow the Constitution. Bush's platform is to subvert the Constitution in order to pilfer the last vestiges of of the treasury for his corporate buddies and ultimately usher in a centralized North American Union similar to the EU.

Sorry but I love our country and the rare glimmer of freedom we've managed to carve out for ourselves. If we're to keep it we need a radically different approach to out foreign policy and trade policies so we can attempt to break free of huge lending interests and corporate juggernaughts.

I hear nobody else articulating this except Paul and Dennis. That's a ticket I could vote FOR.

"His only platform is to follow the Constitution."

Wow. It's like the need for thinking stopped in 1787. If we only had a document with all the answers a couple of millenias ago, where would humanity be then? Oh, wait... we did have that. Sort of.

I like how liberals all complain about how the Neo-cons are NOT true conservatives, and NOW when a TRUE conservative has finally come along, you complain that he is living in the past...is your problem that he's living in the past, or that he's STILL a Conservative?

I mean both parties need major reforming, otherwise were going to be stuck with Neo-Cons every time the Democrats screw-up, which means every four to eight years(lets face it, they screw up a LOT).

We should all think out-side of your own party at times, and think about what's best for America as well. That's all that I'm saying.

Who cares how consistent his voting records are... One could argue that he is stubborn and closed-minded. The Constitution is great, but it's far from perfect, and even further from up-to-date with some of today's issues.

If Paul is elected and abortion and the separation of church and state are overturned at the federal level, then this should be viewed as a major regression to societal advancement, not "principled."

And regarding war atrocities, there are always going to be war atrocities -- if not here, then elsewhere. We live on a constantly-warring planet, and I seriously, seriously doubt that that will change anytime soon. As such, when I vote, I vote for the candidate that will bring the most societal advancements (like Gravel) and don't even worry about the war aspects. It's a waste of time, really.

"Anyone who believes that a president who doesn't have a basic grounding in science and further doesn't consider it important is a man we want president is deluded. You'd think eight years of George Bush would be warning enough of the danger."

Look Norm, I understand where your coming from, but we as liberals should ALL be supporting the notion of Ron Paul becomming the Conservatives' Candidate for President, just as the Conservatives are all actively supporting the notion of Hillary Clinton becoming our Candidate. Both choices represent the least disagreeable alternatives. Surely this should make sense to you Norm.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on his stance on Global Warming either, but on a whole he certainly makes a better alternative than Mitt Romney, or Rudy Guliani, you have to give him some credit for that at least.

Supporting Ron Paul's Candidacy is if nothing else, the endorsement of a slightly more reasonable alternative...surly you can agree with this notion.

He's fine with state level legislation banning gay marriage, in fact he supports it.

"What I want to do is to protect the right of freedom of contract ... similar to the free association of two individuals in a social sense and sexual sense and religious sense: You don't want to interfere. ... I'm supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." Video

He's also in favor of kicking openly homosexuals out of the military.

"They should be treated equally, and they shouldn't be discriminated against on that fact ... although 'don't ask don't tell' doesn't sound so bad, I think the way it's enforced is bad. ... I would wanna change that, I don't support that interpretation. Video

user-pic

What a sad state of affairs American politics is in... when an antediluvian obscurantist like Ron Paul is seen as some kind of "fresh voice". He's a lunatic in a field of madmen on the Republican side, but no, bob, "we" need not support him: he's not even up to date with Copernicus. What do self-proclaimed libertarians plan to liberate anyways? The shackles of regulation surrounding the FAA and NTSB (cue sounds of flights crashing into one another, see BTC2937)?

Lest anyone forget, Paul is right: evolution IS a theory. The question, I think, is entirely inappropriate. On another note, I wouldn't assume that admission of belief in evolution implies an understanding of it. Someone with an 8th grade understanding of science might be able to repeat a theory and simply not grasp the mechanics of it at all (an 8th grade education does not prepare one to understanding biology in that way). By the way, are there candidates for president that believe (a curious word) in evolution and have the foreign policy knowledge Paul has (an entirely appropriate question)?

The thing being tested is [Ron Paul's] deference to science.

That isn't the only thing being tested in Ron Paul here. Not only does he give an ignorant answer, he is dissembling like crazy here. He's spewing bullshit and sounds like a typical politician – just the kind of thing many of Paul's supporters justifiably hate about his opponents. I don't agree with a whole lot of Ron Paul's libertarian positions, but I had given his credit for more honesty than his fellow GOP opponents. His performance here puts a dent in that.

It pisses me off that it is OK for a politician to say he doesn't accept the theory of evolution, but one who says he saw a UFO (and it was literally unidentified) is regarded as somehow crazier. But despite that, Ron Paul's position on evolution is not the deal breaker for me with respect to supporting him. It is his position on lot's of other issues. In my opinion, his positions on health care, education (Christian Z's post has good examples), and science policy. Corporate power is out of control and is a cancer on our politics – While I don't see other candidates doing very much about that, I don't think Ron Paul even recognizes the reality of it.

I am discouraged that so many of you find abortion to be a small issue. Have none of you met a girl who has been raped, given birth to a still born, been sexually abused and become impregnated at 12 or 13? Abortion is the freedom to avoid being the victim of a second violation. I would also like to remide you of the hangers and knitting needls.

and that is why I won't support Ron Paul

Even if Ron Paul was in favor of leaving religious issues untouched (as most social libertarians do), he would still allow states to pass draconian religious laws because he has such a fetish for state's rights. It's only the federal government he has a problem with.

The guy represents everything that people hate about both the business faction and the religious faction of the Republican party. It's not his lack of curiosity or scientific knowledge that bothers me. It's his entire stinking platform. A splintered, fragmented mosaic of different moral communities is not my idea of a good time.

Anyway, who cares. He's not getting elected. God only knows why so many atheists find this guy appealing.

Sometimes freedom is more important than truth.

"Ah if that were the only problem with Ron Paul. What do you think his stand is on national healthcare? That alone disqualifies him as a serious candidate in my mind. He is a libertarian, I'm a liberal there is very little we have in common."

Norm,

Don't corner yourself in absolute ideologies. Noam Chomsky, for example, considers himself a libertarian socialist--sounds like a contradiction, but it isn't.

This has not changed my opinion much of Ron Paul. I'll probably still vote for him. He's right that no one really knows how man was created.

I like how Ron Paul and everyone in the background smiles when he finishes his answer as if he "nailed it."

A President needs to understand the foundational importance of Science in our society, even if they don't understand the particulars. His comment that Evolution is just a "theory" means he doesn't understand the first thing about science. That alone should disqualify him from the office.

Yes, it is that important.

No wonder this guy left the medical field to go into politics. Any doctor that is clueless about evolution is incompetent in his job. Like the creationist who figured he'd transplant a baboon heart into a human instead of a chimpanzee because there was no close ancestry either way, to bacterial resistance to anti-biotics.

Clueless on scientific matters, clueless on economic matters, Ron Paul would make a lousy President. Then again, the entire field of Republican candidates are incompetent.

I think Bill Clinton was a real asshole as far as personal decisions go, but that doesnt mean I think he was a bad president. This is kinda like that. BTW, no comparing Ron Paul to Bush. Thats just not a fair comparison.

Wake the fuck up, people! There is a big difference in someone's political views (say, on a war) and someone's knowledge of REALITY! ("8th grade" reality, nothing less.) The question was and is relevant for a candidate of any modern country.

Accepting evolution is as basic as accepting gravity. To say that it's just a "theory" is just being as uninformed as the Creationist crowd wants you to. How the hell does he not accept evolution but "knows" a God? There's some cables crossed right there in his head.

c3o your completely misinterpreting Ron Paul, and taking him out of context. I watched the video of those comments when they first aired, and they make perfect sense...he's not anti-gay marriage, he just believes that the Government shouldn't be involved in the business of regulating marriages, and thinks it should return to being simply a religious function.

As far as his stance on gays in the military, he isn't against that either! He points out that there is FAR more sexual misconduct from straight officers than gay officers in the military anyway, and he only agrees with the idea of "Don't ask Don't tell" as the stand point of being a professional employer. As in "Why should your employer have to know about your sexual preferences, why should he even care?" It's completely unprofessional, and has nothing to do with your job!

You guys are way to paranoid about this Ron Paul, maybe it's because he's threatening your party by dragging voters away from it? Instead of getting all worked up about that, you should start supporting better candidates for change, like Kucinich, or Revel.

I would vote for Ron Paul before I would vote for Hillary Clinton, that's all that I'm saying!

And also, being a "doctor" or physician does not make a scientist! There are doctors who are in science, but certainly not the majority.

"Accepting evolution is as basic as accepting gravity. To say that it's just a "theory" is just being as uninformed as the Creationist crowd wants you to. How the hell does he not accept evolution but "knows" a God? There's some cables crossed right there in his head."

It IS a theory, in fact it even has holes in it that need to be worked out still...so get off your high and mighty horse about evolution being scientific LAW, it's NOT!

I believe in it, I think if he found as much interest in the subject as I do he might reconsider his views on it, but he has a religious belief that clouds his reason on the subject. This is nothing new, and your not going to ever get a president in this country who doesn't have a religious view.

The important thing is he clearly recognizes the separation of Church and state. You guys keep getting caught up on these none issues like this and your going to become just as bad as the Religious Right!

Evolution is a none issue for applying for the job of President, however respect for the U.S. constitution IS relevant, you guys NEED to get your priorities straight!

"It pisses me off that it is OK for a politician to say he doesn't accept the theory of evolution, but one who says he saw a UFO (and it was literally unidentified) is regarded as somehow crazier."

This statement I do agree with however...a completely Valid Point! Kucinich 2008!!!

His religion is not a secret or a surprise, nor is it a deal breaker in a country where a non-religious presidential candidate is not going to be found any time soon. Ultimately, a candidate's scientific literacy or loyalty to conservative Christians is not the most important issue to be gleaned from a candidate's answer to this question. The most important thing to be exposed in asking a candidate whether they believe in evolution is the degree to which that candidate is willing to ignore or reject factual evidence that doesn't sit well with an ideological position. That is NOT a non-issue.

You don't "believe" in evolution. You accept it, or you don't. It is a scientific theory in the very same way that gravity is a theory.

A scientific theory is more than a fact. It is an accumulation of facts arrived at by evidence. That a scientific theory is progressive and changes with evidence (almost always being refined, and almost never contradicted as a whole) is a problem for the absolutist mind of the religious. Creationists latch on to the word "theory" like leeches because it confuses scientifically uninformed people. Don't fall in their game, even if you are an "evolutionist" (another ill-conceived term).

BTW I ment Gravel not Revel earlier...I always screw his name up. :P

Evolution is a none issue for applying for the job of President

Saying that he doesn't "accept" the "theory" of evolution just demonstrates what an idiot he is. I'm sick and tired of having my country run by an idiot. I don't want another one, thank you.

And what if he said that he didn't "accept" the theory of gravity? Well, in that case more Americans would be concerned if he was intelligent enough to be the president of the U.S.

"The most important thing to be exposed in asking a candidate whether they believe in evolution is the degree to which that candidate is willing to ignore or reject factual evidence that doesn't sit well with an ideological position. That is NOT a non-issue."

I will give you that point Kirkinson, in that respect it is a good point to make and one that I agree with, but not in my opinion one to dwell on.

Bush's last election was attributed to his position on Abortion and Taxes, now you can argue that those are not non-isses as well, but with everything else that was and continues to go on in this World I would say that they are. The MAIN issue of the day is what are we planning to do about the war.

Kirkinson,

His religion is not a secret or a surprise, nor is it a deal breaker in a country where a non-religious presidential candidate is not going to be found any time soon.

It is not his religion by itself. It is the inability to see what in all other developed nations (and many third-world nations as well) any middle-school student can see, and has no problem accepting. If your religion conflicts with reality this much, then it's time to review your religion, maybe take off a year or two to think about it, you know?

I see you meant what I meant too, Kirkinson. I didn't read your "It is NOT a non-issue". Apologies.

Dont get me wrong I am pretty liberal atheist who, of course believes in evolution , but democrats want to take away guns, and leave the borders open, so frankly i could care less about evolution, or abortion.

Wow, first of all, who wants to "take away the guns"? I still fail to see why anyone would think stronger gun control is "taking away" your beloved guns. And "leave the borders open"? Talk about gross exaggeration. Giving decent people decent lives is that? They are already here, doing unwanted work. Giving them legal status will not hurt anyone and even could boost the economy. You don't know how many of them hope to get properly educated, if not them, then surely their children. There is opportunity, and there are jobs that Unitedstatesians won't take. They are also doing "immigration control", if you will.

But I'm more impressed with your having an interest for those issues, but not for science (i.e. reality) or a woman's freedom of her body.

The MAIN issue of the day is what are we planning to do about the war.

It may be the main issue for some people, but it is not the ONLY issue.

Ron Paul is not pro-choice (in fact he militant in being against the pro-choice position), and he won't do a damned thing about millions of Ámericans not having health insurance.

But most importantly, he's not the brightest crayon in the box. Someone who says that evolution is "just a theory" that they don't accept is not someone who I want to be running the U.S.A. Haven't we had enough of having an idiot in the Whitehouse?

"Ron Paul is not pro-choice (in fact he militant in being against the pro-choice position), and he won't do a damned thing about millions of Ámericans not having health insurance."

Well with respect JoAnn, Hillary Clinton will do a great deal about both of those issues, probable in your favor too...but she also plans on keeping us in Iraq, basses and all. She jumps around this issue like it's a political game, and that alone should disqualify her and most of the candidates that are running for President. Ron Paul, Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and John Edwards are all VERY clear about what needs to be done in regards to Iraq, and I suggest we all pay them great notice for that! Rudy Juliani is Pro-choice, and John McCain believes in Evolution...SO WHAT!?!

One thing I'll say about Ron Paul voters though... they have taken over the internet. I see "Vote Ron Paul!" posted everywhere.. on YouTube and on misc blogs. There was recently a deplorable situation with a Finnish woman whose visa had expired some years ago and she was subjected to the outrageous antics of our Homeland Security police state. There were all of these Ron Paul supporter posting, in response, "Vote Ron Paul!"... nevermind that Ron Paul's ideas would do nothing whatsoever to improve the laws concerning visas and how horribly foreigners are treated in our country.

Bob,

I am not supporting Hillary Clinton. I'm currently in favor of voting for John Edwards (first) or perhaps Barack Obama.

Rudy Juliani is Pro-choice, and John McCain believes in Evolution...SO WHAT!?!

So what? I won't be voting for them for other reasons. The reasons I will not be voting for Ron Paul, however, are because of the reasons already given over and over and over again here on Onegoodmove both by Norm and by other people.

Finnish woman... sorry... (I have a friend from Finland who is responsible for this brainfart)... I meant a woman from Iceland.

"I am not supporting Hillary Clinton. I'm currently in favor of voting for John Edwards (first) or perhaps Barack Obama."

Then I salute you!

There was this discussion on onegoodmove, for example, where Rize posted the following:

So much integrity that he voted:

To allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

To shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits

Against increasing gas mileage standards

To change the 17th Amendment to repeal birthright citizenship

Against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965

For the Defense of Marriage Act

For the school prayer amendment

Against acknowledge that genocide is taking place in Darfur

To defund OSHA's ergonomics rules.

Voted against increasing mine safety standards.

Then I salute you!

Thank you commrade. But I don't salute you for supporting Ron Paul.

More on Ron Paul. His voting record speaks for itself:

-- Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag

H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

H.J.RES.82: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

LAWS IMPROVING THE LOT OF THE WORKING CLASS

-- He has tried to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act:

H.R.2310: A bill to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

H.R.13264: A bill to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

Doug Adler has posted the following links (as well as the link I gave above over and over and over again, and yet the Ron Paul supporters never address the points made by Orcinus.

Dark side of Paul phenomenom

Ron Paul vs New World Order

"But I don't salute you for supporting Ron Paul."

Again to reiterate what I have previously written, I am NOT supporting Ron Paul in regards to him being our next President(that would be Kucinich or John Edwards), I am merely suggesting that he become the Republican's Presidential Candidate.

My point being, if we lose to a Republican in this next upcoming election, I would prefer it be Ron Paul, over lets say, Mitt or Rudy.

Well, Bob, there's no way that the Republicans will be voting for Ron Paul, so I suppose that this point is moot. And if Paul were elected, we'd be out of Iraq, and he'd work towards legalizing marijuana, but beyond that, he's just another right winger Republican wrapped in Libertarian clothing.

Orcinus says what I have been suspecting

I have to admit that when Rep. Ron Paul announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, I didn't raise much of an eyebrow, even though I am a longtime Paul watcher. After all, he's run before; his 1988 Libertarian Party candidacy attracted little attention because he ran mostly from the fringe, and his views haven't changed substantially over the years.

What I didn't expect was that his anti-war advocacy would attract as many evident admirers from the left as it seems to have, particularly those who are dissatisfied with Democrats' apparent fumbling of the Iraq war issue. Certainly, the message boards at liberal outlets like Crooks and Liars who've carried factual counterinformation about Paul have been flooded with raging defenses of the man, as have some of our comments threads.

To what extent this is an illusion created by Paul's legion of True Believers is difficult to ascertain. Paul is very well organized online -- much of his support is derived from this -- and it's entirely likely the flood of "liberals" and "progressives" who are busy arguing that someone like Paul is worth forming an alliance with are, in fact, simply part of Paul's corps and they're doing their part to muddy the waters and ultimately attract new supporters in a "Third Way" kind of strategy.

By the way JoAnn, Barack Obama is no better than Hillary when if comes to ending conflicts over there...he has suggested on several occasions the possibility of invading Saudi Arabia, this would be a profoundly stupid move! I pray this is just foolish loose talk!

I mean Pakistan rather...not that it matters, it's fools talk either way!

Bob,

I know. I'm as concerned as you are over the waffling from Clinton and Obama vis-à-vis military conflicts. :((

Democrats seem to have no spine these days.

"Well, Bob, there's no way that the Republicans will be voting for Ron Paul, so I suppose that this point is moot."

Then why is everyone on this blog so concerned about him, and wasting all of our time? I think it is because he damages the Democratic voting base more so than the Republican, and for this reason you feel threatened. Once again, the idea of voting for the candidate that you think is going to win, over the one you want to win is a fools move...What a pointless statement this is.

"I know. I'm as concerned as you are over the waffling from Clinton and Obama vis-à-vis military conflicts. :((

Democrats seem to have no spine these days."

Agreed.

What amazes me most is the fact that even a medical doctor could be ignorant of theory of evolution. The fact that he misused the word “theory” makes it even worse. Here is what a philosophy professor has to say about the misuse of this word in the recently aired documentry on PBS about “intelligent design”

Barbara Forrest Professor of Philosophy Southeastern Louisiana University

"When creationists try to dismiss evolution as 'only a theory,' they are misusing the word theory." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defi-forrest.html

Then why is everyone on this blog so concerned about him, and wasting all of our time? I think it is because he damages the Democratic voting base more so than the Republican, and for this reason you feel threatened

Precisely.

Once again, the idea of voting for the candidate that you think is going to win, over the one you want to win is a fools move...What a pointless statement this is.

Not pointless. I most definitely do NOT want Ron Paul to be the president of the U.S. What a nightmare that would be!

It IS a theory, in fact it even has holes in it that need to be worked out still...so get off your high and mighty horse about evolution being scientific LAW, it's NOT!

You just made yourself look like a complete ignormaus. A "LAW" is neither better nor worse than a "THEORY". A scientific law describes what nature does under certain conditions and a scientific theory explains how nature works. Laws are often times mathematically defined whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Though these words are different it never is the case that a theory is "proven" and then becomes a law. This is a layperson's delusion. The term "proof", ironically, gets used mostly by religionists and demands it from science (but never from themselves). Scientists rarely use the term. Proof is an abstract mathematical concept that doesn't really apply to nature at all. Scientists don't really prove anything, they provide workable pieces of knowledge. Morover, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so. Science does not produce absolute knowledge or complete knowledge, it always requires review and revision if necessary, depending on new evidence.

"Wow, first of all, who wants to "take away the guns"? I still fail to see why anyone would think stronger gun control is "taking away" your beloved guns. And "leave the borders open"? Talk about gross exaggeration. Giving decent people decent lives is that? They are already here, doing unwanted work. Giving them legal status will not hurt anyone and even could boost the economy. You don't know how many of them hope to get properly educated, if not them, then surely their children. There is opportunity, and there are jobs that Unitedstatesians won't take. They are also doing "immigration control", if you will.

But I'm more impressed with your having an interest for those issues, but not for science (i.e. reality) or a woman's freedom of her body."

I dont feel sorry for people who come into this country illegally and jump ahead in line of everybody else who is waiting to legally enter the country, im sorry but i can only be brainwashed so far into being a liberal. And how the fuck did those jobs get done before they were here? maybe people were actually paid a decent wage. And gun control always means taking guns away from the people who own them legally the crooks will still have them. Everybody, short of a mental dissorder, should be allowed to buy a gun to protect themselves. Especially in places where the murder rates are high.

As for abortion I could give two shits, becuase frankly unless a woman is raped, you do the crime you do the time. and i know how to pull out so no big deal. And i could also careless if they have abortions in the 3rd trimester i dont care at all. theres no population shortage.

And yes i do have a huge interest in science personally, but there are much bigger issues we're facing right now, than whether he believes in evolution. In a perfect world I'd be able to vote for a atheist who would end the war, and do a lot of the things dr paul talks about without a few things he talks about too, but this aint a perfect world. Also in a perfect world id let every mexican who wanted to come in to come in, but this aint a perfect world. and nobody would ever need a gun but this aint a perfect world.

besides im not even talking about amnesty, which I dont think they should get, i dont think the democrats will ever close the borders.

I also dont care what country you are from, mexico or not anybody here illegally shouldnt be given amnesty.

Ironically, though Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, he does believe in Economic Darwinism.

Plus he wants to get rid of the illegal fed.

"A "LAW" is neither better nor worse than a "THEORY"."

Nor are they the same thing Einstein, you speak of evolution as though it has no questions or holes to it...I have been reading the theories around evolution my whole life. Your not telling me anything that I don't already know, so please spare me the intellectual masturbation.

If you're waiting for a "perfect" candidate for the Presidency, you'll be waiting for a long, long time. I'd say odds are strongly against you finding someone who you agree with 100%. I never thought I'd vote for a Republican, but then I realized that the Democrats are part of the problem, too. No one advocates real change, they just support the status quo. Just look at how the Democrat Congress has failed to stand up to Bush... which was the whole point of them being elected in the first place!

If I thought Ron Paul was focusing on anti-science or pro-life as the crux of his campaign, I wouldn't support him. But his big focus is ending America's ridiculous foreign intervention and restoring our economy, and I think he's one of the few people who realize how deep the problem goes.

I'm curious who you support, if you're strongly against Ron Paul. I mean that in an honestly curious way; I'm not trying to be confrontational. ;)

Bob, Erick is right. What kind of books have you been reading "your whole life"? Any scientist will tell you the same thing. Without even talking about evolution, Einstein's THEORY of gravitation modifies and supersedes Newton's LAWS, but still, it doesn't mean anything just because the name you give it.

Scientists just don't use the "LAW" terminology anymore since they realized theories are always being refined. There are no new scientific laws. Even the Standard Model, which is the most accurate scientific theory EVER (even more than General Relativity and Newton's laws), is not regarded as LAW.

you speak of evolution as though it has no questions or holes to it

It has no "holes". There are details yet to be worked out, such as: Does natural selection work at the level of species, groups, individuals and/or genes. And, does evolution follow a steady progress, or does it advance in uneven bounds and leaps?

The fact of homo sapiens' evolution from an earlier parent species is not in any way somehow shaky and ridden with "holes". Paul said that no one knows how man was created. That is plain wrong. We know that man came to be through evolution.

you speak of evolution as though it has no questions or holes to it

You speak of evolution as if one of those 'questions or holes' might include any credible evidence that the process evolution has not been at work in shaping life on earth for several billion years. There may be remaining specific questions concerning the rate at which species appear, or the particular sequences through which some organisms evolved, or even substantial ignorance about the molecular evolutionary sequences that lead to the evolution of some molecular-biological structures. But on the big question - the one that most lay people understand and which is the real subject of the question posed to Ron Paul here - the evidence that evolution did indeed occur is absolutely overwhelming. Because the evidence is so strong, no serious biologist questions it - period.

"Bob, Erick is right."

Yes your right, he is, it is a point that didn't need to be made.

"It has no "holes". There are details yet to be worked out..."

Ok you say tomatoes, I say holes. ;) I'm sorry if me calling the yet to be worked out details of evolution "holes" bothers you, but were talking about the same thing here. There is no argument from me on this.

"Paul said that no one knows how man was created. That is plain wrong."

...Once again, your trying to create an argument were there is none, I am in total agreement with this statement. Ron Paul is WRONG. I have already written about this dozens of posts ago, you are joining the conversation quite late I'm afraid.

What holes are you talking about exactly? The fact that there are gaps in the fossil record? The fact that science in and of itself is incomplete? Please enlighten us with your knowledge of these so-called holes. I'm dying to hear them.

Please enlighten us of these "holes" you speak of. I'm just dying to hear them professor.

Oh now it goes through.

I really hope that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will run together as independents.

I think Paul/Kucinich would beat Clinton/Obama and Huckabee/Romney.

I think Paul/Kucinich agree on the critical issues; namely foreign policy and civil freedoms. I think these issues are 1000x more important than gay abortions evolving on the border.

I think Paul/Kucinich completely DISAGREE on the issue of the "general welfare clause of the Constitution". However, I think they could begin a national dialogue that would completely reinvent the right-left paradigm.

I believe there is a middle ground between "abolish everything" and "welfare state". I think Paul and Kucinich would make a solid team, and help "balance each other out".

Am I crazy? Would any of you libs support a RP/Kucinich ticket?

Ron Paul supports the (un)Fair Tax, in other words soak the poor and the middle class.

Not surprisingly, so does Huckabee. But more surprisingly so does Gravel.

I am certainly no libertarian, but this one does give an explanation of the problems with the (un)Fair Tax.

http://www.libertariantv.com/articles/Unfair-Tax.asp

"Am I crazy? Would any of you libs support a RP/Kucinich ticket?"

I would, but I'd rather have it reversed as DK/RP instead. The rest seems to be more of the same..

Am I crazy? Would any of you libs support a RP/Kucinich ticket?"

I don't think too many libs will support that ticket, but it looks like the white supremacists are supporting Ron Paul

It's fascinating (well fascinating in a frightening kind of way) to read the posts on this racist forum supporting Ron Paul.

JoAnn:

Actually, quite a few RP supporters at our local meetup group are self-described liberals.

Also: the white supremacist thing is really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Ron Paul also has grassroots hip hop artists making him songs. Does that make him an urban black? No way.

http://zaphodforpresident.com/2007/11/24/ron-paul-for-the-long-haul/

More than 100,000 people have donated to RP this quarter. I bet more than a few were insane. Does this disqualify the candidate?

Many people here reject the platform of Ron Paul. That I can accept. However, if you reject a candidate because some of their supporters are a bit wacky, you may find yourself all dressed up with noone to vote for.

Zaphod,

Where did I say that the only reason that I'm rejecting Ron Paul is for this reason. I have posted again and again my many reasons for not supporting him. Apparently, you haven't been paying attention.

More on Ron Paul's Dark Side

This link (among others) were posted by Doug Adler her on onegoodmove twice, but no Ron Paul supporters responded.

I find it hard to believe that any "self-described" liberal would support Ron Paul unless these are self-described liberals who aren't familiar with Ron Paul's voting record

This just in: Ron Paul admits he doesn't know that water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, but, he says, that shouldn't matter because it has nothing to do with politics. He also added that he didn't realize until recently that whales are mammals and cigarettes cause cancer, but as with the water thingy, it doesn't matter since all that science stuff simply clouds our political judgment.

It seems that he has all the attributes a president needs. Village idiot look on his face along with the inability to speak in complete sentences. One small thing, in which state is his brother, if he has one, involved in politics? Feh! As I thought, just one more person to pop up with no background to go through.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

Its just not fair to dismiss Ron Paul because of this. Even if he believed in the tooth fairy, he wouldn't want the government to have anything to do with it. Please research a candidate more before you slander him for stuff that doesn't really matter.

If you support Ron Paul fine, just don't call yourself a liberal, you're not.

If you think any other candidate gives a shit about you or the concept of liberty, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think the day will never come when we, as a country, will have no choice but to adopt many of Paul's policies, you are in for a rude awakening.

I agree with Norm. A while back I posted a link from a political scientist who had rated the voting records of every member of congress since the 1930s. Ron Paul was rated more conservative than Jesse Helms, Dick Cheney, or Strom Thurmond. In fact he was the most conservative member of congress period since the 1930s.

Ron Paul is a pretty decent debater. He's a candidate with views at odds with his party and he isn't afraid to get booed. But his views are largely bad. Even his view on the war is pretty dumb. He characterizes Islamic radicalism as basically a nationalistic response to American internationalism. For Paul, Osama bin Laden is the George Washington of some imaginary country which we're imposing ourselves upon. It's just one more example of how he squeezes every issue into an 18th century framework.

http://voteview.com/IsJohnKerryALiberal.htm

Stil waiting for those evolution holes...

The difference between what is in the whitehouse at the moment and Ron Paul is vast.

While truely conservative, he is not by any stretch of the imagination a war mongering dickhead influenced by big business.

Love him or hate him, the corruption that is ever present in the whitehouse would disappear under Paul, that has to be a good thing.

JoAnn:

The linked article is more of the same. Ron Paul is crazy because neo-nazis and patriots support him.

This is ad hominem, and there is nothing to retort.

If you wish to debate Ron Paul, I'm all for it. Some examples of a valid debate:

  1. I disagree with Ron Paul's position on abortion.

  2. I disagree with Ron Paul's position on the environment.

  3. I disagree with RP's position on net neutrality.

(fyi: each of the above opinions are my own)

Ron Paul is not the messiah. He is not perfect. He is not especially good looking, and not terribly charming.

However, he does have one of the most consistent voting records in congress, and is the only candidate running who is willing to end the Iraq War before 2013.

In 2008, above all else, I'm voting based on the war. Once my buddies are back home safe, I will be all too happy to return my focus to the many other issues facing us.

Some may say: but look at all the damage he will do as President. To this I say: a) I happen to agree with his anti-NWO/NAU/IRS/CIA/FBI/DEA/DOA/etc platform and b) even if you don't agree with this platform, the Congress is far more effective in domestic matters than foreign. I doubt he could pass 10% of his desired reforms, even with the current "rubber stamp" Conress we have.

JoAnn:

For years, people have called me crazy for using the phrase "New World Order".

However, very few of these people are willing to debate why I oppose the NWO ideology, and most deny that any such ideology exists.

From the horse's mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g

Just like the NAFTA highway, no one is willing to debate why I oppose it, rather, most deny it exists.

See their website for yourself:

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

And, fyi, I am a patriot. I am not a racist. I don't hate blacks, or jews, or gays, or anyone really (except maybe Dick Cheney). I am a patriot because I love America. I come to OGM because I genuinely love debate, and like to keep an open mind.

I am described as a liberal by conservatives, and as a conservative by liberals. In truth I am just a simple man with a simple plan: to get my government back in line before it destroys us all.

I have already shared what I don't like about Ron Paul, now, let me tell you what I do like:

  1. End the war. Now.

  2. Slash federal spending

  3. Balance the budget (three cheers for Bill Clinton)

  4. Legalize pot

  5. A top-down review of monetary policy, its institutions, and its cabal of robber barons (see also: recent housing collapse, pending recession)

  6. The total abolition of the income tax (I favor a consumption tax, which allows the poor to save and invest without penalty, while taxing the snot out of those who buy $80,000 toilets)

I could go on, but I've made my points.

I welcome debate on any of the issues. I won't pretend to defend Ron Paul where he is clearly wrong (i.e. evolution). I accept where other candidates are superior (i.e. Kucinich on health care). An informed electorate is more important than "my team" winning an election.

Your pal,

Zap

user-pic

Something i noticed recently.

Every president that has ever wished to change or dismantle the CIA or change the banking institutions has been assassinated. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Plenty of crazy lone gunman out there.

Ahem... thats it...

Merry xmas.

I favor a consumption tax, which allows the poor to save and invest without penalty

The percentage of their income that the poor can save and invest in quite small compared to the rich. Consumption taxes are regressive, inevitable hitting those who must consume a large percentage of their incomes as a matter of survival hardest. If one wanted to remove the penalty on interest and/or dividend income for the poor, that's easy - just just make the first $2,000, say, of interest and dividend income tax exempt. That way, a middle class family isn't penalized for putting away 6 months of income in case of emergencies. For larger savings, we already have 401k's and IRAs available.

A broad based consumption tax to replace the income tax is a bad idea and, in my opinion, completely unfair.

the income tax isnt constitutional.

with the direction our country is headed, nobody but ron paul is going to correct that.

or atleast its unnecessary )income tax)

the income tax isnt constitutional.

16th Amendment to the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This is an old tired, and false assertion, as is obvious by reading the Constitution. Even Ron Paul has argued that he would support repeal of the 16th Amendment, which is a tacit admission that the income tax is presently constitutional. In other words, if Ron Paul thought the income tax was unconstitutional, he would not have introduced an amendment to repeal the 16th amendment; the text of his proposed amendment: "Three years after the ratification of this amendment, the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."

To those who study science as I do (BSc in Genetics and Neurobiology, PhD in training) there is a reason why we are so vociferous and critical of people who say evolution is wrong. To us, it is the EXACT same thing as saying that the sun revolves around the earth, that the earth is flat, that performing a special dance can cause rain. Not only is it so blatantly wrong, but it makes me question just how sane they actually are and how bound they are to reality. If people can't understand basic science, how are they going to make proper decisions on issues that are of a scientific nature? Birth control? Stem cell research? NASA? Global warming? NIH funding? While these people will have advisers to help them judge the issues, ultimately, they won't judge the issue on a scientific principle and that is extremely unfair to the people who want decisions based on objectivity.

People might consider evolution to be a small issue, but it says a lot about a person who says that evolution is "just a theory."

This no income tax bullshit is proof that we are a nation of greedy, self-absorbed nincompoops. You want our monthly e. coli outbreak to occur daily? What about the school system? The CDC? The space program? The roads? Air traffic controllers? The Border Patrol? NORAD? Law enforcement? Emergency services? I mean, who do you think pays for all that shit? We do, through income tax, dumbfuck. If you want to argue that the tax rates are unfair or that many government agencies & services are corrupt or incompetent, I'm with you. But ditch the no income tax bullshit. Sheesh, every election some libertarian dildo runs for office and the cretins come out of the woodwork.

Zaphod,

*New World Order

*NAFTA highway

*Total abolition of the income tax

Sorry pal, but I'm not going to discuss these goofy topics. I've read the websites that go into this and I'm familiar with the arguments. When I was very young, in highschool, I got all excited about Ayn Rand and the Libertarian party. In other words, been there, done that. I am a social democrat who cares about more than my own pocketbook.

I just am not interested in wasting my time discussing weirdo conspiracy theories. I've done that in the past with people and I refuse to do it again because these conversations are never ending. The conspiracy type of folk ask question after question, but are never satisfied with the answer. Or if not satisfied with the answer, they ignore that answer. They are talented at confusing their interlocutor in a maze of endless interrogations such that one loses one's patience because of the bad faith that one has to deal with.

When I was very young, in high school, I got all excited about Ayn Rand and the Libertarian party.

JoAnn, This is exactly the way I feel about Ayn Rand and libertarian silliness. You read Atlas Shrugged, then you grow up, read some more and realize how absurd her ideas and philosophy were. Try reading Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness and you'll get an unadultered glimpse of how twisted Ayn Rand was. (I mean, any person who tries to describe the mother-infant relationship as some kind of contract is reaching a bit, no?) People who are willing to push ideology to extremes, and ignore the the way the world really is in favor of that ideology, are the Ron Paul fanatics. Hopefully, most of them will grow out of it.

JoAnn,

I need to try smoking a pint of tea - that might help.

Well, to be less desultory, strictly antithetical to the OGM zeitgeist, but safe from Bill-O's hordes for one more year - Merry Christmas!

LOL Tim!

And Happy Christmas to you. :)

Darn it. And I was all set to vote for this guy.

Yes, as people point out in the comments, you shouldn't necessarily not vote for someone just because their beliefs are different from yours, but the whole point, for us skeptically minded folks, is that the evolution "debate" isn't really the sort of thing you can really, honestly debate. It happened. Case closed.

If you want, you can debate endlessly about how/if/why or where god was involved in the process (personally, I don't care about a debate like that), but to debate whether or not evolution even occurred shows either a whole bunch of ignorance or that this man has been taken in by the lie-peddlers of our age.

And I'd kind of like the person I vote for to be a little less ignorant/a little less likely to be taken in by BS.

-- Furry cows moo and decompress.

"If you support Ron Paul fine, just don't call yourself a liberal, you're not."

Yes because a liberal can never support a conservative or libertarian. Dont forget to never think, always vote party line. No matter how much our country will be ruined, just dont think.

a little overboard maybe but eh

Brian,

There are different mentalities which govern the different political philosophies. I may agree with Libertarians on legalizing marijuana and about our military industrial complex, but their dog-eat-dog laissez-faire capitalist ideas turn me off, and many of their ridiculous ideas just don't work in the real world (as Tim explained). People vote for a given political party because that party best suits their own way of looking at life.

But I suppose that I'm wasting my breath saying anything. Those of us who don't support Ron Paul have given concrete reasons over and over and over again, to no avail. We've explained over and over and over again how his ideas are contrary to the principles we support. And yet, none of the Ron Paul supporters ever address the points that we make. They just ignore what is said and respond with general statements such as the one that you made, which was not in good faith. I have completely lost patience with this nonsense.

I have been to some countries that have libertarian governments.

Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador...where you are ON YOUR OWN and need to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Not great societies.

On the other hand I have been to Europe (the dastardly "socialist" countries) where everyone pitches in for the greater good.

I appreciate Ron Paul's stances on American liberty, but libertarian ideals are the fast track to fascism. Like we need a fast track.

He still seems like the only non corrupt politician, besides kucinich or gravel.

and most of the time i just hear people say he's a nazi.

and what you call dog eat dog most would call personal responsibility. I think what we have right now is corporatism, not a true free market.

I'm not also against certain people being able to get help, but in the end, it lets lazy asses live off the system.

JoAnn:

Thanks for once again demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. You dismiss referenced fact as "conspiracy theory".

Sure, there are tons of nutballs, from the trufers to the Eike Lizard People. I've seen those websites too.

And yes, I outgrew my Ann Rand phase around senior year of High School. From there I moved on to Harry Brown, and from there, Thoreau.

But its clear you have no interest in debating anything. You would rather spread unfounded gossip and dismiss as insane that which you refuse to investigate.

http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/

Que sera. It all comes down to the primary. Perhaps we Ron Paul folk will quickly lose and fade away.

And perhaps we won't.

Tim:

Valid criticisms, re: consumption tax.

However, with a few minor tweaks, I think it presents a better solution. For example, no tax on anything with a retail price under $100. i.e. food, gas, clothes, necessities. This is a simple solution, and imperfect, but I think you see where I'm going with it.

Also: I take offense at those who accuse me of only caring about myself. I care deeply about the poor, am actively involved with the OLPC program, and would like to see more economic equality in my lifetime.

I don't want the poor to merely survive, I want them to prosper. I don't really worry about the rich getting richer, so long as anyone, regardless of their "starting point" can join them. The higher priority, IMO, is social mobility.

Perhaps we differ on that, but please, don't think me heartless. You couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, I care too much.

Zaphod,

The experience of the past 30 years offers absolutely no support for the contention that the (un)FairTax will enhance social mobility. Putting aside the details of any particular tax scheme, the following are facts:

(1) The US economy has grown much faster than the US population,

1980-1992: 2.78% real growth per year

1992-2000: 3.75% real growth per year

2000-2006: 2.5% real growth per year

(2) Real hourly wages for persons at the 10% and 50% points in the US population have stagnated since 1973. After accounting for the aging of the workforce (the increase in income expected for workers as they age, ~1% per year in real income), people at the bottom and at the middle have gotten virtually none of the gains that one would expect to flow from the productivity growth of these years. The best years for the poor and the middle class were the last four years of the ‘90s. Except for those four years, fruits of productivity growth have almost entirely gone to the people at the top.

(3) In short, the result of the (un)FairTax will be to make the marginal tax rates of the wealthiest people the lowest. The higher the income, the easier it is to not spend. The more you don’t spend, the lower your marginal tax rate. You can exempt basic necessities from the tax, but that only ameliorates the problem at the very bottom, you still end up making the middle class pay the highest marginal tax rate. All the arguing we did with Syngas in a recent thread didn’t change these facts.

An amazing belief of (un)FairTax proponents is a ridiculous assumption that all the tax lobbyists who work Congress will suddenly retire after enactment of the (un)FairTax. Suuurre they will! Sorry, but after a long weekend of celebrating the stupidity of the American public for enacting such a self-destructive tax system, they will go right back to work. You can bet that much of the conspicuous consumption currently carried out by the rich with their personal income will simply be shifted to sheltered corporate spending. Once corporate taxes are abolished, how soon do you think lobbyists would be building in more ways for the super-rich to classify funds for their erstwhile-personal golf courses, yachts, and tennis courts as corporate business expenses? There is no evidence that the rich are satisfied with their already low effective tax rates today - why do you think they would suddenly be satisfied after enactment of the (un)FairTax?

If we want to encourage saving by the middle class, we can (as I suggested) eliminate tax on the first $2,000 of savings’ interest. More importantly, we could restore a sane fiscal policy to US government. The Bush administration’s entire approach to staving off recession is monetary – encourage people to consume more by pushing down interest rates and encouraging ever more indebtedness. The Federal Reserve did this for Bush (in spite of his asinine supply-side policies) by pushing real interest rates into negative territory for a couple of years – so, we got a housing bubble. It is amazing that Greenspan praised Clinton as a far better president on economic policy – after Greenspan and the Fed basically created the housing bubble to pump up Bush’s economy!

Changes in the tax system have systematically favored the wealthy for 20 of the past 28 years. Economic growth and upward mobility were highest in the other 8 years – the 8 years that Bill Clinton was president. These are the facts. Why on earth would anyone in favor and upward mobility want a tax system that further advantages the wealthy with respect to the middle class?

What are your thoughts on social security and medicare taxes Tim? Are they fair to the middle class?

Zaphod said:

Thanks for once again demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. You dismiss referenced fact as "conspiracy theory".

Okay, okay, you're right about the New World Order.

In order to understand American politics, you need to realize that everything is controlled by a secret cabal made up of Jewish Illuminate bankers in London, Freemasons, the Rothschild family, the Knights Templar, the Rockefellers, the Bilderberger Group, the neoconservatives and the council on foreign relations.

The conspirators are powerful and can be traced to when the IRS was created by the Banksters, at a meeting of the Skull and Bones Society, and when we left the Gold Standard.

Today, members of the conspiracy are everywhere. They can be identified only by their membership in the Learned Elders of Zion.

The conspirators have help from powerful elite Freemasons, and the conspiracy benefits undeserving lazy parasites at the expense of the real producers in society.

The conspirators want to oppress all true patriots, and round up and restrain resisters in Masonic halls where they will implant ID cards under their skin. They are using black helicopters to establish a New World Order.

In order to prepare for this, we all must send an e-mail to everyone we know, start a blog, and make a lot of comments on other blogs as well. All of this was revealed years ago by Hitler and The John Birch Society. Since the media is controlled by political correctness and secret elites, you should get your information only from a truth-telling Internet website, a truth-telling AM radio talk show, a truth-telling short-wave radio program, Guns and Ammo magazine, David Icke, and pretribulationist premillennial dispensationalists.

Note: The above comment was made with the aide of a conspiracy-theory generator

That was beautiful JoAnn!

Some of your best work ever.

I even teared up a little ;-)

A good gauge of what the left thinks is fair would be social security and medicare. I could think of nothing more fair than to tax the first 14% on the poor and middle income earners and exclude all income over $97,000.

It would only be fair for the government to keep the social security payments low for the people who didn't earn much when they were working - they're better at saving for retirement anyway, so they won't need much.

Then, when it does come time to collect on these 'benefits', lets design it so minorities and poor people are much less likely to live long enough to see much of it.

That wouldn't keep the poor, middle class or minorities from moving up, it's Reagan's fault!

Yes Norm, there's some straw men hyperbole in there, but I did give Tim a chance to answer before I set them up.

First off this video is edited at the 30 second mark, someone is trying to influence us.

But as per this discussion, I think Dr. Paul's response was appropriate, ESPECIALLY considering the Christian Right vote is the main vote he is lacking and which he needs to become President. He already has the anti-war vote, the internet-freedom vote, the anti-drug-war vote, the economic literacy vote, and libertarian vote.

Paul is also absolutely correct in stating that Darwinian evolution is a theory, just like Einsteinian relativity. The theory of evolution, while logical and true, is incomplete in terms of explaining the existence of life, intelligence and beauty. And while 'intelligent design' is a catch-phrase co-opted by Creationists and monotheists, I would bet most scientists have a spiritual side and do not doubt the tremendously mysterious aspects of time and space.
Speaking of EVOLUTION; we are, after all, when it comes to scientific understanding, infants. We just started a few centuries ago and hopefully we will have many more centuries in which to grow.

Vote Ron Paul! It's the only 'natural selection'!

"The theory of evolution, while logical and true, is incomplete in terms of explaining the existence of life, intelligence and beauty."

The purpose of evolution is not to explain the origin of life, as you say, but the origin of the diversity of life (i.e. On the Origin of Species). This seemingly simple issue seems to be consistently so misunderstood.

"And while 'intelligent design' is a catch-phrase co-opted by Creationists and monotheists, I would bet most scientists have a spiritual side and do not doubt the tremendously mysterious aspects of time and space."

It is true that many scientists have a certain spirituality about the universe but spirituality and religiosity are independent. One could be religious and spiritual, not religious and spiritual and one could be not religious and not spiritual. The many scientists who are religious, however, recognize that there exists the possibility that they are wrong; this is something most lay religious people do not concede.

This is just a little aside for those who ventured into the "conspiracy" zone here in the last number of posts.

Freemasons actually are implanting microchips in children now.

All 'conspiracy theory' talk aside, it has begun, as a matter of fact. Take the information as you will but that's whats up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7octwsoi4HM

Give me a break. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people who say they believe in evolution are probably just as misinformed of evolution as Ron Paul is (I mean how many people believe evolution means abiogenesis?). I bet if you gave all the candidates a multiple choice test about the specific details of it, they'd all get about the same poor grade on it.

Questions like abortion, evolution, etc. are just questions designed to polarize people with an emotional response and they're used year after year with no real progress on it anyway.

What matters the most in a presidential candidate is what the executive branch can affect. The issues he can mostly affect are foreign policy and control of the military. He is probably the most informed candidate on these sort of issues if you've ever listened to the details. More than that, he's probably got the most knowledge about economics and monetary policy than any other politician in the U.S.

I don't agree with him on all the issues (this one included), but the ones that matter the most to me are his consistency in trying to restore personal freedom, reducing the size of government, stop trying to be an empire, and trying to do something about the upcoming economic crisis as a result of all our spending, borrowing, and entitlements. Nobody is even close to being on his level when it comes to those issues.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people who say they believe in evolution are probably just as misinformed of evolution as Ron Paul is ... I bet if you gave all the candidates a multiple choice test about the specific details of it, they'd all get about the same poor grade on it.

Maybe, maybe not. However, there is something especially stupid or ideologically rigid about a medical doctor taking a contrary view to scientists on a question in which they are the experts - and not because he knows anything about it. What if a former pilot became a candidate and said he didn't accept Bernoulli's principle or said that aeronautical engineers didn't know what they were talking about? I assume that you would find someone who scoffed at electrical engineers' knowledge of circuits to be loony - why is it not equally nuts to scoff at biologists' knowledge of biology?

... he's probably got the most knowledge about economics and monetary policy than any other politician in the U.S.

As far as economic problems are concerned, Ron Paul is a decent diagnostician, but his prescriptions can be dumb – guy who thinks we should return to the gold standard is, to borrow a phrase from 'Jack Kennedy' above, an "antediluvian obscurantist". As I said, Ron Paul is right about a lot of our problems, but he is hardly the only politician who understands the economic corner our policies have painted us into. For example, though I'm not much of a Hillary Clinton fan, I suspect she would fare quite well in a real debate with Ron Paul on economics. (Not the kind of phony debate that is all we get these days.) She is just a more astute politician; she has learned not to appear too smart in public any more. A good portion of the "slick Willy" sentiment her husband had thrown at him was really the result of the depressingly deep streak of anti-intellectualism that so many Americans seem to embrace.

Concerned C said:

Freemasons actually are implanting microchips in children now.

All 'conspiracy theory' talk aside, it has begun, as a matter of fact. Take the information as you will but that's whats up.

Oh, for crying out loud, the Freemasons are not implanting microchips in anyone. They're working with parents on CHIP, the Child Identification Program.

I can't believe that a couple of dudes on YouTube is the kind of place where people go to get their information these days.

I suppose I should ammend my comment above to read:

Since the media is controlled by political correctness and secret elites, you should get your information only from a truth-telling Internet website, a truth-telling AM radio talk show, a truth-telling short-wave radio program, a truth-telling YouTube video, Guns and Ammo magazine, David Icke, and pretribulationist premillennial dispensationalists.

It's a pity that so much time and energy goes into coming up with these ridiculous conspiracy theories and it's surprising that so many people who post here on onegoodmove are part of the conspiracy-theory community. Very disappointing.

And knowing that the Ron Paul supporters tend to be part of this New World Order conspiracy community (which also consists of the White Power còmmunity) has led me to believe the the Ron Paul supporters are all either nuts or racists (the NAFTA highway conspiracy is an indication of this racist crazy fundamentalist crap).

http://www.masonicinfo.com/childid.htm

Important note: Some anti-Masons have eschewed these child identification programs with dark allusions about 'Big Brother' and microchip implanting fantasies. They hint about sinister motivations involving this extraordinary program and that the Freemasons are part of some over-arching conspiracy to identify children....

In fact, NOT A SINGLE PIECE of information collected about the children is kept by the Masons. Not a name, not a tooth imprint, NOTHING!!! All materials - video tapes, etc. - are given to the parent (or grandparent) who brings the child to the event. Freemasonry sees a way to help in the continuing battle against child abduction and is taking a leading role - but a handful of detractors continue to hint that there is some ulterior motive involved.

We invite them to provide PROOF of their ludicrous and insulting claims!

Tim: Both Alan Greenspan and Steve Forbes have said returning to a gold standard would be good ideas. At first it sounds insane but you have to read Ron Paul's arguments about why this would actually be much better than what we have now (which are based on Ludwig Von Mises' idea that money should be treated as a commodity too) and compare history of the benefits and drawbacks that happened with each policy. You also have to keep in mind that the specific Bretton Woods system in use was not necessarily a good one either.

And if you're really that concerned about this, his proposal for a return to a gold standard is a sane and reasonable one. From wikipedia:

Paul says he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard," but would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove the sales tax on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies can compete on a level playing field with fiat Federal Reserve notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use "sound money" to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money.

And yes, Ron Paul has a lot of irrational Alex Jones fans and/or white supremacists, but it's my experience that they're in the minority. I hope the vocal minority of morons don't disgust you enough from hearing Ron Paul's actual ideas.

user-pic

I apoligize, I didn't realize what the CHIP program is really doing...you are right they are not microchipping children, they are just taking DNA samples, video and audio recordings, retinal scans and physical information...but its ok because they are not keeping it, just warming children up to the idea of living in a police state.

More related... Ron Paul is openly opposed to the New World Order and does believe there is a trend towards a one world government, if some of his supporters believe this they are sharing this belief with Ron Paul.

WAR PROFITEERS SUCK

THERE IS NO HONOR IN HAVING THE MILITARY SERVE AS A SECURITY DETAIL FOR OIL TYCOONS

A NATION DOES NOT HAVE TO BE CRUEL TO BE TOUGH

USCG RET / GULF WAR VET

Ummm. Because Ron Paul doesn't believe like you, he is uneducated and lacks curiosity? Wow. Interesting claim. I have studied both the historic and scientific background of evolution and Christianity. Given his background I would expect that Ron Paul has done the same. Evolutionary theory would be hard to miss in medical school.

You Atheists are nuts.

You expect your president to believe on the bull crap that is evolution theory or you consider his science to be less equivalent to the 8th grade?

HA! Believing on evolution theory is actually a sign of a weak mind.

Charlie Darwin, the bigot who said with certainty that Blacks and Women were far less evolved than whites men, was a total failure and died miserable.

He also FAILED with his belief that having all those children with his cousin was going to create a "supreme race".

Good job Charlie. You fail and so do all the suckers that believe this garbage!

LOL - GodGutsGunsGlory! Too gutless to post in a thread when he thinks anyone will read it - slandering asshole.

Oh, Ron Paul Supporters.

Liberty means freedom to be a moron to some people.

It's well supported science people!!

We can observe evolution we have an enormous well documented fossil record. The human genome is an enormous load of evidence.

I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I don't think we are better off with armed fools.

Navigation

Support This Site






advertise_liberally.gif

Google Ads

Advertise Liberally Blogroll

All Spin Zone
AMERICAblog
AmericanStreet
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
The Bilerico Project
BlogACTIVE
BluegrassReport
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass.Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Brendan Calling
BRAD Blog
Buckeye State Blog
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Calitics
CliffSchecter
ConfinedSpace
culturekitchen
David Corn
Dem Bloggers
Democrats.com
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribis Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
GreenMountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Keystone Politics
Kick! Making PoliticsFun
KnoxViews
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
MinnesotaCampaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
My Left Nutmeg
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Dissector
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
PinkDome
Politics1
PoliticalAnimal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Slacktivist
SmirkingChimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Tattered Coat
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Carpetbagger Report
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Wampum
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives

scarlet_A.png

Chess Tactics Training

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2014 Norman Jenson