Ron Paul doesn't "accept" evolution

  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Dec 29, 2007 1:36 AM GMT
    Another one bites the dust. 28 seconds into the clip.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 3:01 AM GMT
    He is going to get a real bump in the polls for this one! He will double his numbers (2%) for sure now!

    What a clown.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 5:56 AM GMT
    He is a mass of contradictions -- like the typical Libertoonian. He is saying things that need to be said but nobody else will say, like opposing US military imperialism, including the idiotic war on drugs. But he's also opposing evolution and abortion. It's bizarre.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 6:06 AM GMT
    All of the Republican nominees are stopped clocks: right about twice a day and then wrong, completely wrong, so dangerously wrong about everything else.

    Huckabee has a surprisingly enlightened view on immigragtion and a narrowminded view on everything else.

    Ron Paul has expressed great views on the needless Iraq War, but it whacked in every other way.

    It is too taxing to wade through Rudy and Mitt's rhetoric (or attempts at such) to figure out what they get right, but we know how wrong they are otherwise, so why bother looking for the needles in those repsective haystacks?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 6:07 AM GMT
    I'd take Paul over any of the Republican front-runners. Lesser of evils and all that jazz. And quit dissing the Libertarians, already.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 6:09 AM GMT
    Tell ya what, I'll quit dissing the Libertarians when they stop saying insane things. Deal?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 6:15 AM GMT
    What's wrong with his response? He says that he doesn't know either way and that evolution is a theory. In my opinion, a very good theory, a very reasonable theory, but a theory. He also makes a pointed effort *not* to endorse a religious point of view. Most importantly, he makes the very obvious and *sane* comment that belief one way or another on a scientific matter shouldn't decide the presidency.

    Also, to say that he opposes abortion is misleading. He feels that it's State issue, not a Federal issue. That's not that same thing as opposing it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 6:25 AM GMT
    Highsierra:
    1) He does personally oppose it, quite rabidly. Do you read anything your hero actually says? The fact that he would "leave it to the states" doesn't mean he doesn't oppose it. He does, and has said so many times.
    2) Evolution is not a "theory" the way its opponents use the word. They mean theory, as in, unproven hypothesis. Science uses theory to mean "framework that supports observable facts and observations". That doesn't mean that scientists doubt whether evolution is real or not, it means that there are details yet to be discovered. The main engine of evolution is by now well understood and not up for grabs by idiots.
    3) Of course, believing in crazy shit exactly DOES disqualify you for the presidency. For that matter, it also disqualifies you for any sort of profession that entails judgement, since obviously people who believe crazy shit have none. I wouldn't trust Ron Paul to be my doctor, let alone president.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 29, 2007 6:31 AM GMT
    I have no idea why this man has the following that he does
    ....Okay he wants our troops home but beyond that he's a real libertarian nut
    privatization of everything from our National Parklands
    to doing away with all forms of corporate regulation
    his stance on the right to choose
    he's a one trick pony
    but now this? He's really grasping for straws
    With these republicans its a real race to the bottom
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 6:33 AM GMT
    Precisely what jprichva says.

    Those who use the phrase "evolution is still just a theory" or derivations of it almost never use it in the scientific sense. Most people don't have a very clear understanding of the difference between a hypothesis, theory, or fact in the scientific sense, and denialists know that. So they use phrases that point out that something is a theory in order to attempt to discredit the soundness of its basis.

    It drives me nuts, and reaffirms my dismissal of Paul as a serious candidate. While I find myself agreeing with many of the things he says in regards to the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, as well as out of control governmental spending, I rarely agree with the underpinnings of his solutions, which amount mostly to pulling out of world affairs almost entirely and ending most social services. The man, like most libertarians, drives me nuts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 6:38 AM GMT
    jprichva saidHighsierra:
    1) He does personally oppose it, quite rabidly. Do you read anything your hero actually says? The fact that he would "leave it to the states" doesn't mean he doesn't oppose it. He does, and has said so many times.
    2) Evolution is not a "theory" the way its opponents use the word. They mean theory, as in, unproven hypothesis. Science uses theory to mean "framework that supports observable facts and observations". That doesn't mean that scientists doubt whether evolution is real or not, it means that there are details yet to be discovered. The main engine of evolution is by now well understood and not up for grabs by idiots.
    3) Of course, believing in crazy shit exactly DOES disqualify you for the presidency. For that matter, it also disqualifies you for any sort of profession that entails judgement, since obviously people who believe crazy shit have none. I wouldn't trust Ron Paul to be my doctor, let alone president.


    First, he's not my hero. At this point, I sincerely doubt I'm going to waste the time to vote. It's all such a farce that I'm pretty much over even getting upset about it. If anyone thinks the theater we call politics is really where decisions about this country are made, they're crazy.

    So, Ron Paul. I like him because he actually says important things. I know he's not going to win. I know that I don't even have to consider whether or not he might win, so I can like him. I know that the person who wins is going to be anything from mediocre to terrible, but he (sorry, Hilary is imploding) won't be great.

    Ron Paul is preaching a very common sense approach to government. Keep it small, keep it local, agree on certain principles, but oppose monolithic control. He cuts through the bullsh*t and I like that. Unlike Hilary or Obama or (puke!) Romney or (looney tunes!) Giuliani. I'm so tired of all these fakes and frauds and overly handled empty vessels.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 6:42 AM GMT
    He explicitly says in the video clip that he doesn't accept the theory, as he has frequently.

    Still, I think his attitudes toward not just Iraq, but the entire US military role in the world, are more than the utterances of a stopped clock. He is saying things I haven't heard anybody say in years, and certainly not anyone among the current crop of candidates.

    Regarding abortion:
    Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?

    A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.
    Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

    From his website:
    The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

    In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

    In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

    I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

    I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

    Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

    As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life

    Ron Paul's record:

    * Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
    * Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
    * Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
    * Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
    * Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
    * No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
    * Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
    * Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
    * Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
    * Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
    * Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
    * Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
    * Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
    * Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
    * Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
    * Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
    * Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
    * Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
    * No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
    * Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 6:48 AM GMT
    Ah, yes. The conspiracy theory of politics. Decisions aren't made by our elected leaders, they're made by a shadowy cabal of plutocrats meeting at the steakhouse on Friday nights to plan the plundering and destruction of all of us....

    Can we please close the comic book?

    Of COURSE your vote matters, and there are no shadowy cabals. The main appeal of Ron Paul, GQ, seems to be that he is Not Them. This was also Ross Perot's appeal, and that fizzled pretty fast.

    So someone is sincere. So fucking what? Hitler was sincere. Pol Pot was sincere. Being authentic means nothing if you're authentically behind batshit crazy ideas. Libertarians are dishonest in general, because the only government functions they seem to want to eliminate are the ones they personally don't need. FYIGM (Fuck You, I Got Mine). That's why he runs as a Republican, even though he is "libertarian". The entire political framework in this country is now firmly centered on the idea that if it doesn't benefit ME, then leave my tax dollars out of it.

    I think we need a five-year plan, and some Stalinism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 6:58 AM GMT
    jprichva saidAh, yes. The conspiracy theory of politics. Decisions aren't made by our elected leaders, they're made by a shadowy cabal of plutocrats meeting at the steakhouse on Friday nights to plan the plundering and destruction of all of us....

    I think we need a five-year plan, and some Stalinism.


    Business drives this country and everyone up there is kissing someone's ass - and it's *not* the collective ass of the people. Unfortunately. I don't believe in shadowy cabals. I think it's all pretty out there in the open. And we're all part of it, because as much as we may *hate* the system, we all buy into it (literally) every day.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 3:06 PM GMT
    People seem to be forgetting unlike other republican candidates RP supports the clear separation of church and state. He may be christian but he is not going to start policy urging schools to teach creationism.

    The same applies to abortion. The federal government was never given defined powers to determine when life begins or use public money in family planning policy, so naturally RP only seeks to prevent further federal interference. Abortion and laws relating to it would be dealt with by each state.

    Personally I'm not even a believer but I can still respect and appreciate a man of clear integrity. A man's personal beliefs should not be what we vote for someone on. We should vote on their clear record of sticking to their policies. Something Hillary for one lacks.


    ^ Nod to HighSierra! Alot of power exists outside the government, in the industry and special interest groups.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 4:08 PM GMT
    Politicians, can't live without them; can't live without distrusting them... There are too many choices for President this year, and with so many manipulating the past and name calling in order to look good for what they Aren't rather than what they are, I've decide to use the theory of Occam's Razor in order to make a choice this coming Election. Being that all politicians are faulted, rarely keep promises, and always seem to be serving special interest groups (rather than the interest of the masses, outside 'what they say' in their glorious speeches). I've decided to make a logical choice for illogical reasons. I'm going to be voting for Hilary Clinton, merely for the fact that she should be the first Female President of the United States; which would be a full step beyond a colored or minority party party President. On the other hand I like her, for the work she has done in the past. Her husband work being his own, I believe she may decide to do something different, being that there's never been a Woman President in the United States.

    That's my short method of reasoning, and it's my final. If you can't tell, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to change their minds. I'm not going to argue about something so completely out of my hands as politics, this isn't the special olympics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 6:43 PM GMT
    Trance23 said

    Personally I'm not even a believer but I can still respect and appreciate a man of clear integrity. A man's personal beliefs should not be what we vote for someone on. We should vote on their clear record of sticking to their policies.


    So, you would have no problem with Hitler.
    In 1923, he spelled out his plans to eliminate Jews and other enemies. He campaigned on that plan, and he stuck to it remarkably well.

    We should vote on someone's clear record of sticking to their policy?

    WOW.

  • morholt

    Posts: 57

    Dec 29, 2007 6:50 PM GMT
    Most people don't know the difference between your basic theory and a scientific theory. Two different things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 7:10 PM GMT
    jprichva said[quote][cite]Trance23 said[/cite]

    Personally I'm not even a believer but I can still respect and appreciate a man of clear integrity. A man's personal beliefs should not be what we vote for someone on. We should vote on their clear record of sticking to their policies.

    So, you would have no problem with Hitler.
    In 1923, he spelled out his plans to eliminate Jews and other enemies. He campaigned on that plan, and he stuck to it remarkably well.

    We should vote on someone's clear record of sticking to their policy?

    WOW.



    Drama alert!!!

    Give me a break. If you try hard enough (or, in this case, not too hard at all), you can come up with extreme examples of anything.

    Trance's point is spot on. You don't have to like Ron Paul or his policies. But how many other candidates have been as consistent as him? How many truly vote what they believe is right and best for the country, not right and best for the big business or church interests lining their pockets?

    I happen to agree with the vision of less federal and more state control. I don't think big government works. It never has anywhere else in the world at any other point in history. I'd like to think that we, as a country, can agree on certain principles and values, then decide the details on a more local level. Yes, that will mean some inconsistencies between the states, but that's better than some monolithic federal government calling all the shots.

    Finally, opposing federal funding for abortion, abortion education, etc. is very different from outlawing it. A lot of people are strongly opposed to abortion on moral grounds (right or wrong). Is it fair for their tax dollars to support it? And you can't make a "common good" argument on the issue the same way you can about military spending.

    Ron Paul's ideas aren't so radical. They're pretty common sense.
  • calipally

    Posts: 246

    Dec 29, 2007 7:13 PM GMT
    Let us not forget that politicians will say anything to get elected. They pander to the crowd they're in front of at that moment. Plus, any intelligent human being who doesn't believe in evolution but rather bases his/her whole belief system on a book that was written by the Romans long after the death of Christ, should not be seriously considered Presidential material.

    Ask yourself this, though. Why would any devout, religious man or woman want to be President anyway? The idea is so contrary to Christian beliefs and teachings, that it makes you wonder. What makes the religious zealots in OUR country so different than those in others? In both instances, it's either their way or no way.

    Think about it.
  • calipally

    Posts: 246

    Dec 29, 2007 7:18 PM GMT
    Also, being consistent in your voting doesn't make you credible if you're consistently wrong. Your opinions and views change and evolve over time. You learn from your colleagues and reformulate decisions based on current information. It's called evolution...Oops, I forgot, Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. Scary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 7:32 PM GMT
    pdxpally saidAlso, being consistent in your voting doesn't make you credible if you're consistently wrong. Your opinions and views change and evolve over time. You learn from your colleagues and reformulate decisions based on current information. It's called evolution...Oops, I forgot, Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. Scary.


    Acutally, if you watch the clip, around 40 seconds in, he refers to the "creator", but also acknowledges that the "precise time and manner" isn't known. In other words, he allows for the possibility that evolution is God's way of implementing creation. More importantly, he's trying to make it a non-issue, regardless of his personal beliefs on the subject.

    As for learning from your colleagues, if you actually think Hilary or Mitt or any of those jokers learn from anyone other than the BIG DONORS, you're sadly mistaken.
  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Dec 29, 2007 8:27 PM GMT
    "I don't accept it."

    highsierrahiker, it doesn't get much clearer than that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 8:37 PM GMT
    Squarejaw said"I don't accept it."

    highsierrahiker, it doesn't get much clearer than that.

    And his support of legislation outlawing abortion is just as clear, whether at the local or federal level.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2007 8:41 PM GMT
    Squarejaw said"I don't accept it."

    highsierrahiker, it doesn't get much clearer than that.


    As an atheist, I'm the last person who wants to defend a Christian view on anything. That said, I really don't give a sh*t what someone believes so long as they don't force it upon me. And that's the whole point of libertarianism. If Ron Paul believes in creationism, that's fine with me so long as he defends the separation of church and state.

    This is why I hate politics. Everyone wants a candidate they can *agree* with on every issue. Like that's ever going to happen! I just want a candidate who is going to adhere to the founding principals of this country, who is going to protect free speech, who is going to ensure a separation of church and state, who is going to support states rights over big federal government, etc.

    At the end of the day, who/what the candidate prays to, if he prays at all, isn't that important to me so long as his governing principals aren't dictated by his religion. And, so far, I've seen nothing to indicate that Ron Paul would legislate from the pulpit, despite his obvious faith. That, however, cannot be said for most of the other Repubs.