PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul: evolution is just a theory, and I don't accept it



Wicce
January 9th, 2008, 04:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw


How much should a president's knowledge of science, or basic scientific principles (like that "theory" in science means "logical and testable conclusion", not "just a belief or supposition") decide your vote? Would you vote for a president who doesn't believe in evolution? is that lack of scientific understanding an omen of a greater ignorance or is it a small matter easily overlooked?

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 04:27 PM
I don't care what his views on evolution are. I DO care what his views on the constitution and civil liberties are, though, and that is why I support him.

And who is to say he is wrong anyway? Evolution really is just a theory, but there are others. If it were proven it would be the Law of evolution....

But if you would rather vote for someone who doesn't care about the bill of rights, then be my guest.

BearCub
January 9th, 2008, 04:35 PM
That's too bad. I'm still voting for him, though!

Autumn
January 9th, 2008, 04:47 PM
You are then voting for a medical doctor who doesn't accept a basic scientific principle.

Tanya
January 9th, 2008, 05:51 PM
OMG sometimes I'm soo embarassed to be an American.... can't you find another Libertarian to love Laiseran?

maybe one who understood 10 grade science.....

maybe we could have a president who passed both Civics and Bio... is it too much to hope for anymore?

Wicce
January 9th, 2008, 06:10 PM
And who is to say he is wrong anyway? Evolution really is just a theory, but there are others. If it were proven it would be the Law of evolution....

No...a scientific law DESCRIBES an event, a scientific theory EXPLAINS it.

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 06:32 PM
OMG sometimes I'm soo embarassed to be an American.... can't you find another Libertarian to love Laiseran?

Who cares if he believes in God? Maybe that makes him a better person than me. *shrug* And he is honest about his beliefs too. He was asked about evolution, and he gave a firm answer. He didn't try to evade the question or give some vague answer in the hope of not offending someone.

I admire that.

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 06:34 PM
No...a scientific law DESCRIBES an event, a scientific theory EXPLAINS it.

Intelligent design also explains it. Neither are proven, so people can believe whichever they wish. It isn't like he said the Earth was flat, for crying out loud.

Just because someone has faith in a divine intelligence doesn't make them a slack-jawed idiot. I am more offended by the candidates who are trampling civil liberties than by their religious beliefs. The bill of rights guarantees freedom of religion and Paul is just exercising his liberty to do so. He is not violating anyone else's rights.

Why do you attack him with these piddly things? Is it because he can't be attacked on the issues that actually mean anything?

And I wager if you asked any of the other candidates what they thought about God they would say they believed in it also. Like it or not, religion is very strong in America and even a Muslim has a better chance of being president than an atheist.

Wicce
January 9th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Intelligent design also explains it. Neither are proven, so people can believe whichever they wish. It isn't like he said the Earth was flat, for crying out loud.

Just because someone has faith in a divine intelligence doesn't make them a slack-jawed idiot.

Why does this have to be defined immediately as "faith in a divine intelligence", bringing it down entirely to religion? There are plenty of religious people, Christians, who believe in evolution...you're disrespecting THEM with your statements. His spouting off about God was not the only thing he said. "Just a theory" indicates exactly how ignorant he is about science...I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but GRAVITY is a theory too. Would you vote for someone who believes that when you drop a coin, invisible angels carry it to the ground?

aranarose
January 9th, 2008, 06:40 PM
The problem is in the meanings and usage of the word "theory." To a layperson, a theory is the same thing as a hypothesis, something believed, but not proven. To a scientist, a theory is the most complete explanation given the evidence at hand.

There is also a deeply philosophical misunderstanding about the purpose of science. Most people believe that the purpose of science is to prove things, but it's not. Ultimately, nothing can ever be proven to be true. We can only disprove things.

Consider this. It is only a theory that all copper conducts electricity. And right now, I can imagine that someone somewhere will try to call bullshit. "We KNOW that all copper conducts electricity. Every piece of copper ever tested conducts electricity." Uh-huh. Yup, that's true. But have we tested every single piece of copper in the entire universe? Nope. We haven't. We don't know that every piece of copper conducts electricity. We have a THEORY that they do, and it's a sound theory based on the current evidence.

That's what evolution is. A sound theory based on the current evidence, continuously being refined as more evidence shows up.

phoenixrising
January 9th, 2008, 06:40 PM
lol Remember its the spaghetti monster.

I do admire that he is honest and actually answered a question, I disagree with him (but now when I hear him talk about his interpretation of the constitution/law or he tries to tell me something is a good idea I am more inclined to believe him.

mtpathy
January 9th, 2008, 06:46 PM
I don't care what his views on evolution are. I DO care what his views on the constitution and civil liberties are, though, and that is why I support him.

And who is to say he is wrong anyway? Evolution really is just a theory, but there are others. If it were proven it would be the Law of evolution....

But if you would rather vote for someone who doesn't care about the bill of rights, then be my guest.

creationalism is not considered a scientific theory but a religious belief, this was mandated by supreme court i believe sometime last year when a school attempted to argue there right of letting children check the books out "dont remember the school system", from a preacher who supplied the school with the box of books to begin with.
not exactly sure of the spacifics but the winning argument was simply that the book that was published called "men and penguin"? or something like that was nothing more then religous propoganda slightly changed and slanted "re-printed" in such a way as to presume a argument of evolution not being the only theory.
as far as i know its still illegal and unconstitutional for church and state to be seperate.
i will not vote for anyone that believes creationalism as a scientific theory as there theory was hinged on the study of a single cell organism and was scientificly proven wrong that the organism itself that was used to prove there point was disproven by evolutionary evidence.
maybe someone else will have the spacifics on the court ruling, but its been to long since i watched/read on the topic and im to lazy to hunt the information down.

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 06:46 PM
Why does this have to be defined immediately as "faith in a divine intelligence", bringing it down entirely to religion? There are plenty of religious people, Christians, who believe in evolution...you're disrespecting THEM with your statements. His spouting off about God was not the only thing he said. "Just a theory" indicates exactly how ignorant he is about science...I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but GRAVITY is a theory too. Would you vote for someone who believes that when you drop a coin, invisible angels carry it to the ground?

He isn't running to be elected a scientist. I don't care what he thinks about anything as long as he understands and follows the constitution, which he does.

That's the ONLY thing that matters to me in a candidate. Nothing to me is as important as restoring liberty to this country, and if that means having a candidate who doesn't believe in evolution then so be it.

And as I said, probably all of the other candidates will either say the support divine intelligence, or hee and haw about it and not give a firm answer. So I don't see how he is different than any other candidate in this respect except that he is honest about it.

Philosophia
January 9th, 2008, 06:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

How much should a president's knowledge of science, or basic scientific principles (like that "theory" in science means "logical and testable conclusion", not "just a belief or supposition") decide your vote? Would you vote for a president who doesn't believe in evolution? is that lack of scientific understanding an omen of a greater ignorance or is it a small matter easily overlooked?

I'm one of those who honestly don't care about a person's religion unless it starts interfering in my rights. If he was using his beliefs to push forward an agenda, i.e. making schools teach intelligent design as a science, then I would be disgusted. As long as his beliefs are his own and doesn't push it on anybody else, I don't care.

BTW, I can watch the video right now because my computer is being screwy.

aranarose
January 9th, 2008, 06:49 PM
He isn't running to be elected a scientist. I don't care what he thinks about anything as long as he understands and follows the constitution, which he does.

That's the ONLY thing that matters to me in a candidate. Nothing to me is as important as restoring liberty to this country, and if that means having a candidate who doesn't believe in evolution then so be it.

And as I said, probably all of the other candidates will either say the support divine intelligence, or hee and haw about it and not give a firm answer. So I don't see how he is different than any other candidate in this respect except that he is honest about it.

As long as he doesn't allow his religious beliefs to influence his interpretation of the constitution, and try to impose those beliefs on the masses.

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 06:52 PM
creationalism is not considered a scientific theory but a religious belief, this was mandated by supreme court i believe sometime last year when a school attempted to argue there right of letting children check the books out "dont remember the school system", from a preacher who supplied the school with the box of books to begin with.
not exactly sure of the spacifics but the winning argument was simply that the book that was published called "men and penguin"? or something like that was nothing more then religous propoganda slightly changed and slanted "re-printed" in such a way as to presume a argument of evolution not being the only theory.
as far as i know its still illegal and unconstitutional for church and state to be seperate.
i will not vote for anyone that believes creationalism as a scientific theory as there theory was hinged on the study of a single cell organism and was scientificly proven wrong that the organism itself that was used to prove there point was disproven by evolutionary evidence.
maybe someone else will have the spacifics on the court ruling, but its been to long since i watched/read on the topic and im to lazy to hunt the information down.

But again, he's not running to be a scientist or an educator. We might as well be attacking Hillary for not knowing how to build rockets, or Obama for not knowing something about gardening. None of this stuff is relevant to the office of president.

What IS relevant is a good understanding of the constitution and foreign affairs, and I think Ron is a zillion times more educated on this than the other candidates. That's what really matters. Things like Hillary shedding tears or Ron's views on Evolution don't matter in the slightest. It is sad if that's all people in this country care about and not the issues that matter.

Wicce
January 9th, 2008, 06:59 PM
But again, he's not running to be a scientist or an educator. We might as well be attacking Hillary for not knowing how to build rockets, or Obama for not knowing something about gardening. None of this stuff is relevant to the office of president.

What IS relevant is a good understanding of the constitution and foreign affairs, and I think Ron is a zillion times more educated on this than the other candidates. That's what really matters. Things like Hillary shedding tears or Ron's views on Evolution don't matter in the slightest. It is sad if that's all people in this country care about and not the issues that matter.

On the contrary, I believe science is extremely important. I believe it's the utter lack of critical thinking and respect for scientific knowledge, achievement and respect that has gotten us into this flaming mess in the first place. Considering that science underpins our lives and makes it possible for me to be typing this to you, I would have to say that relegating the importance of knowledge to a cabal of experts and not our leaders and ourselves is playing with fire - and not realizing it can burn your skin off.

sunny.spoone
January 9th, 2008, 07:10 PM
I'm rather surprised no one has pointed out that the whole refusal to accept evolution has a lot to do with his racism. Or that the whole reason he's a constitutionalist is so he can push his religious agenda through on the state level and get abortions banned that way (as they were initially).

mtpathy
January 9th, 2008, 07:12 PM
creationalism is as close to a accepted cult following as i know, and for people to blindly follow the interpretation of the bible to a literalist degree "which the majority proclaim themselves as literalists", is a incredibly dangerous thing.
they gain enough in power, there will be people blindly following the shepard to the deaths of those that arent of there faith.
but then again i believe all faiths and beliefs in god should be banned and everyone should just learn to take responsability for there own actions and not hold faith on something outside of themselves and there fellow man.
Bush had a religious agenda that in turn helped elevate him to the position of being in office, not sure of the spacifics but he did something or another that made the evengelicals(sp)? turn there backs on him "dont remember the spacifics",i believe it had something to do with missionaries going to iraq or something.
anyways if hes proclaiming this he more then likely has a religious agenda for his position in office as well, i would rather not take the chance.

mtpathy
January 9th, 2008, 07:13 PM
I'm rather surprised no one has pointed out that the whole refusal to accept evolution has a lot to do with his racism. Or that the whole reason he's a constitutionalist is so he can push his religious agenda through on the state level and get abortions banned that way (as they were initially).

lol very good points, and i was leaning towards that topic as well :)

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 07:27 PM
On the contrary, I believe science is extremely important. I believe it's the utter lack of critical thinking and respect for scientific knowledge, achievement and respect that has gotten us into this flaming mess in the first place. Considering that science underpins our lives and makes it possible for me to be typing this to you, I would have to say that relegating the importance of knowledge to a cabal of experts and not our leaders and ourselves is playing with fire - and not realizing it can burn your skin off.

Knowledge of the constitution is the knowledge we need to concern ourselves with the most when deciding a president.

Would it be preferable to have a scientist be president? Yeah, but only as a bonus. The intelligence and knowledge we need most in a president is in the living document which constrains the power of government and guarantees the rights of the people.

Do you think evolution is more important than the constitution? Which knowledge would you prefer a candidate to have? Maybe Hillary supports evolution, but she does NOT support the constitution.

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 07:29 PM
I'm rather surprised no one has pointed out that the whole refusal to accept evolution has a lot to do with his racism. Or that the whole reason he's a constitutionalist is so he can push his religious agenda through on the state level and get abortions banned that way (as they were initially).

He isn't a racist. Someone quoted him in a newsletter where he supposedly said something, but it wasn't actually by him.

sunny.spoone
January 9th, 2008, 07:43 PM
He isn't a racist. Someone quoted him in a newsletter where he supposedly said something, but it wasn't actually by him.

But it was his newsletter. It was The Ron Paul Political Report (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5?). If he didn't believe it, why did he print it? And it wasn't just one incident. It was many.

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 08:13 PM
But it was his newsletter. It was The Ron Paul Political Report (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5?). If he didn't believe it, why did he print it? And it wasn't just one incident. It was many.

He denies writing the quotes in the newsletter:


In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by an unnamed ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[100] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[35] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own,"[10] but added that Paul's "response to the accusations was not transparent."[10]

And here is a quote by him which proves he is NOT a racist:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity." * Government and Racism, April 16, 2007 [12]

He's right. The real racists are the ones who think race exists and that we need to divide ourselves into groups rather than individuals. Anyone who says and believes that could not be racist.

aranarose
January 9th, 2008, 08:34 PM
Anyone who says and believes that could not be racist.

Or they're just a really good politician.

sunny.spoone
January 9th, 2008, 08:51 PM
He denies writing the quotes in the newsletter:



And here is a quote by him which proves he is NOT a racist:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity." * Government and Racism, April 16, 2007 [12]

He's right. The real racists are the ones who think race exists and that we need to divide ourselves into groups rather than individuals. Anyone who says and believes that could not be racist.


So you're telling me someone just "let" racism happen in ther eight page newsletter. That they attached their name to something without bothering to read it?

In that case, he's an idiot and should be disqualified for running for president simply for that.

I'm with aranarose. He didn't qualify them until way later and until they started haunting his political aspirations.

Meadhbh
January 9th, 2008, 08:52 PM
I normally could care less what a person thinks when it comes to that. But the problem with Ron Paul is that, that statement along with a few other comments makes me worry that he may be pocket of the evangelical movement and that makes me a bit nervous.

Wicce
January 9th, 2008, 08:56 PM
Knowledge of the constitution is the knowledge we need to concern ourselves with the most when deciding a president.

Would it be preferable to have a scientist be president? Yeah, but only as a bonus. The intelligence and knowledge we need most in a president is in the living document which constrains the power of government and guarantees the rights of the people.

Do you think evolution is more important than the constitution? Which knowledge would you prefer a candidate to have? Maybe Hillary supports evolution, but she does NOT support the constitution.

Laisrean, it's not like this is rocket science. This is not like expecting a candidate to be able to construct a lunar lander out of toasters and bandaids. How can you really be confident someone has the ability to comprehend the Constitution when they can't even work out a THEORY means?

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 09:00 PM
Laisrean, it's not like this is rocket science. This is not like expecting a candidate to be able to construct a lunar lander out of toasters and bandaids. How can you really be confident someone has the ability to comprehend the Constitution when they can't even work out a THEORY means?

By his voting record. He's very consistent with his principles. He voted AGAINST the Iraq war even when Hillary voted for it.

And now he's being bashed because of something a ghostwriter wrote 12 years ago? I would hardly call that fair.

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 09:02 PM
I normally could care less what a person thinks when it comes to that. But the problem with Ron Paul is that, that statement along with a few other comments makes me worry that he may be pocket of the evangelical movement and that makes me a bit nervous.

The evangelical movement wants nothing to do with him. They threw their support behind the other Republicans and ignored him. It is kinda ridiculous, because out of all of them he is the only one who really believes in what Christ taught.

Wicce
January 9th, 2008, 09:04 PM
By his voting record. He's very consistent with his principles. He voted AGAINST the Iraq war even when Hillary voted for it.

And now he's being bashed because of something a ghostwriter wrote 12 years ago? I would hardly call that fair.

No, he is being criticized for not being able to comprehend something it takes maybe 5 seconds to work out, and for putting his name on something that FOR YEARS was publishing racist tripe. That one article that is always cited was not the only one.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 09:08 PM
So you're telling me someone just "let" racism happen in ther eight page newsletter. That they attached their name to something without bothering to read it?

In that case, he's an idiot and should be disqualified for running for president simply for that.

I'm with aranarose. He didn't qualify them until way later and until they started haunting his political aspirations.

What political aspirations? He knows he isn't going to get elected. I don't even know why you and Wicce are so keen on defaming him with these trivial things like evolution and something someone else wrote 12 years ago.

Has he ever said or done anything himself which indicates he is racist? No. That's why you only have that 12 year old newsletter that was written by a ghostwriter to dig up. Seems to me if he were racist there would be a lot more to go on then just some quotes in that 12 year old newsletter.

But why do you even care about defaming him? He's already lost, and he never even had a chance. The powers that be have made sure of that. So you can relax and enjoy the next 8 years of Hillary's or Huckabee's administration.

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 09:11 PM
No, he is being criticized for not being able to comprehend something it takes maybe 5 seconds to work out, and for putting his name on something that FOR YEARS was publishing racist tripe. That one article that is always cited was not the only one.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

Yeah, well enjoy the next 8 years of whoever "wins" this "election". Apparently belief in evolution was more important to you than ending the war and bringing the troops home.

You couldn't get past that, even though he was the only candidate that could save the country.

Wicce
January 9th, 2008, 09:16 PM
Yeah, well enjoy the next 8 years of whoever "wins" this "election". Apparently belief in evolution was more important to you than ending the war and bringing the troops home.

You couldn't get past that, even though he was the only candidate that could save the country.

:fpatricks

I really hate the fearmongering...Ron Paul is not our only lord and saviour, and the last person to claim to be was George Dubya Bush, using the exact same tactics.

This is not the only reason I am not voting for Ron Paul, and trying to spin it that way is extremist. Every time someone brings up something about RP, a fan counters that it's "just a small thing." Well, these things add up, and I don't like the math.

Laisrean
January 9th, 2008, 09:25 PM
:fpatricks

I really hate the fearmongering...Ron Paul is not our only lord and saviour, and the last person to claim to be was George Dubya Bush, using the exact same tactics.

This is not the only reason I am not voting for Ron Paul, and trying to spin it that way is extremist. Every time someone brings up something about RP, a fan counters that it's "just a small thing." Well, these things add up, and I don't like the math.

George Bush used what same tactics? Voting records don't lie. Look up Paul's voting records and tell me he has used the same tactics as Bush or that he is just like Bush.

The records are easy to find and prove he was one of the few to vote against this war, even back when everyone was gung-ho about it he stuck to his principles and refused to vote in favor of it. So how is he like all other politicians? He isn't!

Politicians can say anything they want and I wouldn't take them at face value. I wouldn't support Ron Paul as strongly as I do if it wasn't for the fact that his voting record confirms he believes what he says and isn't a flip-flopper. Voting records also give you a good idea of what they would do or would not do as president, and I haven't seen him introduce legislation to murder puppies or anything.

He has been a representative off and on since 1976 and he is getting old. You'd think if he was going to start voting for evil things he would have done so. The fact he hasn't means I could feel safe voting for him.

Why don't you ever talk about how he helped low-income patients by doing the work pro-bono? There's a lot of good you could say about him as well as the bad. Vote for who you want, but why demonize him - especially when it is clear he doesn't have a chance? The media never gave him the time his popularity warranted, because they don't like what he stands for. At the debates he was given the least amount of time and the least number of questions, and that's in the debates where he was invited at all. So he never had a chance to begin with. The powers that be made sure of it. So you can be happy he won't be president, but why do you need to demonize him too?

mtpathy
January 9th, 2008, 10:04 PM
I don't care what his views on evolution are. I DO care what his views on the constitution and civil liberties are, though, and that is why I support him.

And who is to say he is wrong anyway? Evolution really is just a theory, but there are others. If it were proven it would be the Law of evolution....

But if you would rather vote for someone who doesn't care about the bill of rights, then be my guest.

you are sadly misinformed, please scroll back to my previous post as that is a fact of the court overthrowing the ruling of creationalism being a religious belief as opposed to a scientific theory.

Phoenix Blue
January 9th, 2008, 10:17 PM
Evolution really is just a theory, but there are others.
Are you serious? Because the Theory of Relativity is just a "theory," too, but it works.

sunny.spoone
January 9th, 2008, 10:27 PM
Back to the debate of Evolution and it just being a "theory."

The idea that "theory" and "hypothesis" are synonymous is a misnomer.

In science, a theory is "a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

That's from wikipedia. It's also what I have in my notes from a class I took with one of the leading human origins researchers in the world. Any scientist or mathematician will agree. I come from a family of science.

In short, theory != hypothesis. In this case, theory = fact.

Remember, in English, there are multiple definitions for words. You can't just pick which definition you want to understand because it fits your purpose.

aranarose
January 9th, 2008, 10:34 PM
Consider Geometry. Ever take that class? It's a requirement in many high schools. So, if you've had it, you likely encountered THEOREMS. Do you see the similarity in the words? Yet you don't doubt those. In fact, we take them as basic fact. Consider a basic one. Through any two points there is exactly one line. You don't doubt that even thought it's just a theorem. It's all in the misuse of words.

Wicce
January 10th, 2008, 11:27 AM
George Bush used what same tactics? Voting records don't lie. Look up Paul's voting records and tell me he has used the same tactics as Bush or that he is just like Bush.

It's about the rhetoric, the "ignore any little indications that I might be crazy, just vote for me because only I can save you and you're helpless without me because the big bad meanies want to manipulate you. They hate your freedom."


Voting records also give you a good idea of what they would do or would not do as president, and I haven't seen him introduce legislation to murder puppies or anything.

Only to define a fetus as a person.



Why don't you ever talk about how he helped low-income patients by doing the work pro-bono?

Hillary also did pro-bono work for children when she was a lawyer. Most politicians have done it.


Vote for who you want, but why demonize him

Have you READ his newsletters? I'm not talking about the one infamous, oft-quoted newsletter, I'm talking about the MULTIPLE newsletters that have been dug up, scanned and put online. If not, I invite you to check the link again.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 01:18 PM
It's about the rhetoric, the "ignore any little indications that I might be crazy, just vote for me because only I can save you and you're helpless without me because the big bad meanies want to manipulate you. They hate your freedom."



Only to define a fetus as a person.



Hillary also did pro-bono work for children when she was a lawyer. Most politicians have done it.



Have you READ his newsletters? I'm not talking about the one infamous, oft-quoted newsletter, I'm talking about the MULTIPLE newsletters that have been dug up, scanned and put online. If not, I invite you to check the link again.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

So abortion and evolution is more important to you then ending the war and eliminating the patriot act and restoring the bill of rights? Gotcha. No point in us arguing further then.

Phoenix Blue
January 10th, 2008, 01:52 PM
So abortion and evolution is more important to you then ending the war and eliminating the patriot act and restoring the bill of rights? Gotcha. No point in us arguing further then.
Can you point out where Wicce actually said that? Because otherwise, that's one hell of a straw man.

aranarose
January 10th, 2008, 02:22 PM
So abortion and evolution is more important to you then ending the war and eliminating the patriot act and restoring the bill of rights? Gotcha. No point in us arguing further then.

No, what's important is having a president who is intelligent enough to either understand what a scientific theory is, or keep his mouth shut about his/her lack of knowledge.

banondraig
January 10th, 2008, 02:24 PM
No, what's important is having a president who is intelligent enough to either understand what a scientific theory is, or keep his mouth shut about his/her lack of knowledge.

Exactly. This revelation makes me nervous.

Renny
January 10th, 2008, 03:35 PM
I dont really care about what he personally believes, as long as he doesnt try to force it on anyone else.

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 04:00 PM
Exactly. This revelation makes me nervous.

Ron Paul makes you nervous?

Athena-Nadine
January 10th, 2008, 04:15 PM
I dont really care about what he personally believes, as long as he doesnt try to force it on anyone else.
QFT

banondraig
January 10th, 2008, 04:19 PM
Ron Paul makes you nervous?

Literal interpretation of scripture in any form makes me nervous, and this is evidence of that very thing.

David19
January 10th, 2008, 04:40 PM
religion is very strong in America and even a Muslim has a better chance of being president than an atheist.

I know religion is very strong, but really if a Muslim was running, especially if they were of Arab descent, most people wouldn't vote for them 'cause they thought they'd be a terrorist, and if the other choice was a white, hetrosexual Atheist male, they'd choose him.

David19
January 10th, 2008, 04:50 PM
but then again i believe all faiths and beliefs in god should be banned and everyone should just learn to take responsability for there own actions and not hold faith on something outside of themselves and there fellow man.

I disagree with that, saying all faiths and belief in a God or Gods is just bigotry and fundamentalism. It's saying one way (atheism) is "better" than the other.

Also, I think faith in your fellow man is blind faith too, 'cause really, people will screw you over the first chance they get, to get to the top, to get power.

banondraig
January 10th, 2008, 04:50 PM
I know religion is very strong, but really if a Muslim was running, especially if they were of Arab descent, most people wouldn't vote for them 'cause they thought they'd be a terrorist, and if the other choice was a white, heterosexual Atheist male, they'd choose him.

I think the Christian right, which is the noisiest voting bloc but not necessarily the biggest, would prefer a fellow member of an Abrahamic faith over an atheist.

As for everyone else, I couldn't say.

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 05:37 PM
Literal interpretation of scripture in any form makes me nervous, and this is evidence of that very thing.

Who said anything about scripture?

banondraig
January 10th, 2008, 05:40 PM
Who said anything about scripture?

It sure sounded like that's what Rep. Paul was referring to in the clip.

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 05:40 PM
I think the Christian right, which is the noisiest voting bloc but not necessarily the biggest, would prefer a fellow member of an Abrahamic faith over an atheist.

As for everyone else, I couldn't say.

There are many people who just wouldn't vote for an atheist. Like it or not, religion is an extremely important factor in electability. Science, on the other hand, isn't all that important.

That said, if Ron Paul's religion is a good vehicle for him to be elected and restore the bill of rights, then I'm all for it. Also, I think his religion factors into his opposition to the war and that's a good thing. Stalin and Mao were atheists and look what they did. So a leader who has religion might be a good thing.

banondraig
January 10th, 2008, 05:42 PM
There are many people who just wouldn't vote for an atheist. Like it or not, religion is an extremely important factor in electability. Science, on the other hand, isn't all that important.

That said, if Ron Paul's religion is a good vehicle for him to be elected and restore the bill of rights, then I'm all for it. Also, I think his religion factors into his opposition to the war and that's a good thing. Stalin and Mao were atheists and look what they did. So a leader who has religion might be a good thing.

As long as he doesn't allow it to dictate things in the manner which w has.

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 05:43 PM
It sure sounded like that's what Rep. Paul was referring to in the clip.

That's his personal views and has nothing to do with his political views. Paul thinks education should be a state issue, so he wouldn't impose intelligent design on anyone.

mtpathy
January 10th, 2008, 05:43 PM
by Laisrean

Literal interpretation of scripture in any form makes me nervous, and this is evidence of that very thing.


Who said anything about scripture?

thats creationalism, its a movment where the interpretation of the bible is taken literally.

Wicce
January 10th, 2008, 05:46 PM
Who said anything about scripture?

You did. On the first page of this thread. It was all about Ron Paul and God.


So abortion and evolution is more important to you then ending the war and eliminating the patriot act and restoring the bill of rights? Gotcha. No point in us arguing further then.

First of all, I don't like being told what is or isn't the most important issue of the moment. Believe it or not, there are people who don't share your views on which problems should be tackled first or even which things are problems at all. Secondly, that is NOT the only reason I am not voting for Ron Paul. Like I said, the more I read, the more strange things come to the light about him. A single brushstroke is meaningless. Altogether they paint a portrait I do not like.

Oh, and I don't believe that he had absolutely no idea over a dozen racist newsletters went out under his name. Does he REALLY expect us to believe that he never received EVEN ONE complaint about them? That not a SINGLE PERSON wrote him or approached him to inquire as to why a former congressmen was calling MLK JR. an abusive philanderer? Such a proposition stretches logic.

banondraig
January 10th, 2008, 06:01 PM
That's his personal views and has nothing to do with his political views. Paul thinks education should be a state issue, so he wouldn't impose intelligent design on anyone.

That's why I didn't just toss the idea of supporting him out the window when I heard about this.

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 06:08 PM
You did. On the first page of this thread. It was all about Ron Paul and God.



First of all, I don't like being told what is or isn't the most important issue of the moment. Believe it or not, there are people who don't share your views on which problems should be tackled first or even which things are problems at all. Secondly, that is NOT the only reason I am not voting for Ron Paul. Like I said, the more I read, the more strange things come to the light about him. A single brushstroke is meaningless. Altogether they paint a portrait I do not like.

Oh, and I don't believe that he had absolutely no idea over a dozen racist newsletters went out under his name. Does he REALLY expect us to believe that he never received EVEN ONE complaint about them? That not a SINGLE PERSON wrote him or approached him to inquire as to why a former congressmen was calling MLK JR. an abusive philanderer? Such a proposition stretches logic.

And what about his quote where he condemned racism as a form of collectivism? This was an ACTUAL SOURCED quote by HIM and not by a ghostwriter.

And on wikipedia there were reputable people who came to his defense and defended him and said the newsletter was not written in his style, and I agree because actual sourced quotes by him are nothing at ALL like that newsletter. So maybe the writer of the newsletter was a racist, but so what? Why judge him for somebody else's words?

I would also point out that he is the most popular G.O.P. candidate among African-Americans and is endorsed by Walter E. Williams who is black, and also by Kinky Friedman who is Jewish. Don't you think if Ron was really a white supremacist these people would not have endorsed him?

This is nothing more than a smear campaign of lies, which you seem to have bought into.

Wicce
January 10th, 2008, 06:11 PM
And what about his quote where he condemned racism as a form of collectivism? This was an ACTUAL SOURCED quote by HIM and not by a ghostwriter.

And on wikipedia there were reputable people who came to his defense and defended him and said the newsletter was not written in his style, and I agree because actual sourced quotes by him are nothing at ALL like that newsletter. So maybe the writer of the newsletter was a racist, but so what? Why judge him for somebody else's words?

You appear to be short-circuiting to general talking points when replying to me, instead of replying to what I actually said. I said I cannot believe he is trying to claim he was completely unaware of what was going on. There is no way he never received even a single complaint about it while this was going on. Trying to pass off that obvious lie is insulting to the intellect.


I would also point out that he is the most popular G.O.P. candidate among African-Americans and is endorsed by Walter E. Williams who is black, and also by Kinky Friedman who is Jewish. Don't you think if Ron was really a white supremacist these people would not have endorsed him?

There are a LOT of people on the left-wing side who are endorsing Ron Paul. Luckily I am able to make up my own mind about a candidate.

Phoenix Blue
January 10th, 2008, 06:16 PM
That's his personal views and has nothing to do with his political views.
You hope.

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 06:19 PM
You appear to be short-circuiting to general talking points when replying to me, instead of replying to what I actually said. I said I cannot believe he is trying to claim he was completely unaware of what was going on. There is no way he never received even a single complaint about it while this was going on. Trying to pass off that obvious lie is insulting to the intellect.

No one seemed to care about them until he announced his candidacy a year ago. Maybe there were complaints, but honestly, how many people actually read those letters? Its possible even Paul didn't read them.


There are a LOT of people on the left-wing side who are endorsing Ron Paul. Luckily I am able to make up my own mind about a candidate.

Well there you go, then. Just because someone who supports him might be a racist doesn't mean he is. If you dig down into any of the other candidate's campaigns I'm sure you would find questionable supporters also. For example, hasn't Hillary received donations from Red China?

But in this thread I've heard him labeled a racist and a bible thumper. What's next? I'm surprised no one has started calling him a pedophile or a terrorist.

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 06:21 PM
You hope.

I have a bit more than hope to go on because his voting record is easily available online for anyone to look at. That's how a candidate should really be judged, imho. Speeches and interviews may be full of lies, but voting records speak the truth.

sunny.spoone
January 10th, 2008, 07:52 PM
No one seemed to care about them until he announced his candidacy a year ago. Maybe there were complaints, but honestly, how many people actually read those letters? Its possible even Paul didn't read them.

And that is exactly why he does not deserve to be president. If you sign your name off on something without reading it and it comes back to bite you in the ass, too bad. It's your fault. And if you whine and complain about it later, your problem for being such an idiot.

If you sign your name off on something without reading it, you're too stupid to be my president.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
January 10th, 2008, 08:11 PM
To answer the original topic:Keep in mind that at one point science believed the conservation of mass to be true... Hes not forcing that belief on anyone. Im sure there are a couple of pagan creationists( or intelligent design) here...

Have you guys ever read MuscleMag? because if you have, those articles constantly feautured are tittled by Arnold Schwarzenegger but he did NOT write them! This is the same in this case. I say FOOLS! to those that are willing to be taken off by neocon propaganda. Compared to his KNOWN positions- voting record and overall actions.

I saw some smug little twerp on MSNBC a guest, bringing that up as if he had discovered it. It was already known (Dr.Paul won anyway in congress because they were FALSE) but they decided to bring it up because of the caucus in NH. That was also AFTER Ron Paul complained that there was going to be fraud with the computers. Coincidentally just yesterday on Keith Olbermann's show it was talked about the mysterious conditions that Hillary Clinton won.

Theres also how he voted AGAINST the amendment banning gay marriage. Hows that for a homophobe? He proposed that he and the other congress men spend $100 each to get Rosa Parks a mdel instead of spending thousands of tax dollars. Hows that for a racist?

Athena-Nadine
January 10th, 2008, 08:19 PM
And that is exactly why he does not deserve to be president. If you sign your name off on something without reading it and it comes back to bite you in the ass, too bad. It's your fault. And if you whine and complain about it later, your problem for being such an idiot.

If you sign your name off on something without reading it, you're too stupid to be my president.
Congress votes on laws without reading them all the time.

mtpathy
January 10th, 2008, 08:27 PM
Keep in mind that at one point science believed the conservation of mass to be true... Hes not forcing that belief on anyone. Im sure there are a couple of pagan creationists( or intelligent design) here...

pagan creationalists, ah man where to begin..
its hard enough to have pagans of different sects
agree upon anything let alone a set of beliefs to
extrapulate a creationlist ideology.
lol this would be something intresting to hypothesis
on though :)

sunny.spoone
January 10th, 2008, 09:54 PM
Congress votes on laws without reading them all the time.

I'm aware. I dont support those buffoons either. But at least most of them don't whine about being called racist when it comes to light they signed something racist, for example.

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 10:36 PM
To answer the original topic:Keep in mind that at one point science believed the conservation of mass to be true... Hes not forcing that belief on anyone. Im sure there are a couple of pagan creationists( or intelligent design) here...

Yes. Pagans complain about people being intolerant to them, but they themselves are intolerant to people who have Christian beliefs.

Science is always advancing/evolving so how can we say evolution is a fact? At one time apparently people thought the sun revolved around the Earth, too. Evolution is the current position of most scientists, but who knows if some new discovery or theory will come along and shatter that.


I saw some smug little twerp on MSNBC a guest, bringing that up as if he had discovered it. It was already known (Dr.Paul won anyway in congress because they were FALSE) but they decided to bring it up because of the caucus in NH. That was also AFTER Ron Paul complained that there was going to be fraud with the computers. Coincidentally just yesterday on Keith Olbermann's show it was talked about the mysterious conditions that Hillary Clinton won.

If that's what happened it is very depressing. :(

I think that is how it is, though. The voting machines are all controlled by Diebold, and there's absolutely no way to verify their accuracy of the results. Therefore they can alter the results in any manner they like and there is no paper trail.

Considering how obscenely popular Ron Paul is I find it hard to believe he was 5th in this very libertarian state. Something went very wrong... this is even worse than the deal in Florida back in 2000.


Theres also how he voted AGAINST the amendment banning gay marriage. Hows that for a homophobe? He proposed that he and the other congress men spend $100 each to get Rosa Parks a mdel instead of spending thousands of tax dollars. Hows that for a racist?

He isn't a homophobe or a racist. That's just a smear campaign by neo-cons.

Laisrean
January 10th, 2008, 10:39 PM
I'm aware. I dont support those buffoons either. But at least most of them don't whine about being called racist when it comes to light they signed something racist, for example.

Ron Paul isn't whining about it, but I am. I support him and don't like to see him being smeared by lies, so you can take it out on me.

The word racist is thrown around too often and it tends to lose meaning. Why not reserve it for those who really are racist? Would you like it if someone called you a racist and you knew it wasn't true?

Phoenix Blue
January 10th, 2008, 11:43 PM
Science is always advancing/evolving so how can we say evolution is a fact?
Because observations of the physical world bear it out to be true. C'mon, this sort of stance on evolution is indefensible and you know it.

WokeUpDead
January 10th, 2008, 11:57 PM
If I could vote for a republican he'd be one of my top two choices evolution or not but California primaries are closed so I can't. He's not really in the pocket of the evangelicals and being fairly libertarian he'd not likely to make a big deal about it either but it's still a little disturbing.

Laisrean
January 11th, 2008, 07:52 AM
Because observations of the physical world bear it out to be true. C'mon, this sort of stance on evolution is indefensible and you know it.

Yeah, because a candidate's personal views on evolution happen to be so much more important than other issues. *sarcasm*

Also, have you heard of Francis Collins? He is the man who broke the human genome. Listen here to what he has to say:


I see God's hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way.

So if he is correct, then BOTH the theories of evolution and Creationism could be correct.

You can read more on Francis Collins Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29).

He is no moron, and yet he believes in intelligent design. So with that being the case, why should someone think Ron Paul is a moron? And if belief in intelligent design wasn't a problem with Francis Collins becoming a prominent Geneticist, then why the heck would it be a problem for someone like Paul to become president?

Belief or disbelief in evolution only matters to scientists like Francis Collins; not to the occupation of president. If even scientists can question evolution, then why can't the rest of us?

WildThing
January 11th, 2008, 08:04 AM
Agh.

If I were old enough to vote, which I unfortunately am not (though I still have a certain candidate I support, but I'll get into that after I give my answer) -- I would not vote based on whether or not I LIKED him. I like Obama, you know, but I'm not sure I can trust what he says.
I also find Huckabee's sense of humor appreciable, and don't dislike hearing him speak, however I acknowledge that given his history I would not trust him with this country or its constitution.

Now, here's how I judge who I'd vote for if I could;
Based upon their credibility, I go back and see how consistance and how truthful they've been...the more they are those things, the more inclined I am.
Whether or not I feel it's likely that they'll fix very important issues in this country which infringe on people's rights and well-being.
Like taxing them to death, and all those mandates snuck in with completely unrelated bills which often do alot more harm than good (I see little other reason to sneak them along to piggyback another usually very loooooong bill which few if any of the people got to read in its entirety).
For example, I feel the most important issues this year -- and in this order are;
habeas corpus (which is tied to torture and secret prisons)
the economy (which is a direct result of the war and mispending, and that's also tied to taxes...albeit slightly indirectly to some's viewpoints)
Real ID (which is tied to privacy and big government issues)

And then I think to myself; "Who will handle these properly and not make them worse?"
Libertarian constitutionalists will probably always be at the top of the list, but if someone else was mre capable of the job and fit all the other qualifications then I would support them...but as it is, there are only a few others and they're barely known. Ron Paul is popular.
Or else thre wouldn't be anyone on his behalf demanding a recount for ALL the republicans in New Hampshire right now. Or else the money bombs done in his name wouldn't have broken a couple records.
Or else the tv would STILL not be paying attention to him.

So, while I believe science is very important, I'm afraid liberty will always and should always trump everything else...especially when liberty's needs are immediate, and science has been supported and has been flourishing for many years now.
Why would I wanna vote for someone who would help the people over my own personal opinions, right? That's just crazy. *smiles*

Doctors only need to know anatomy and have the skills to work with them. PERIOD. Their beliefs are irrelevant, so long as they do their job and save lives.

Many doctors believe in evolution, many more doctors do not. Just like not all christian disbelieve science, though many do.

Is the liberty and well being of the people less important than what a candidate who helps them, believes?

WildThing
January 11th, 2008, 08:13 AM
Yeah, because a candidate's personal views on evolution happen to be so much more important than other issues. *sarcasm*

If I may interject, I agree with Laiserean on this case.

Nothing in science is indefensible, as another pointed out science does not go out to PROVE anything, simply to disapprove things. Basic principle of logic; once all other possibilities are eliminated the remaining one must be true.
As it is, not all other possibilities HAVE been eliminated, and it's unlikely they will be in the immediate future.

Or is science not supposed to be based upon logic? *puzzlement*

As it is, it should be apparent that it's not indefensible, because not all scientists believe in evolution. And not all of those who don't believe in it are christian either.

We're not denying your right to believe in it, your right to beliee that it's the most probable answer -- I've strong leanings towardbelieving in it myself, with touches of other beliefs -- but I'm an odd duck.
As I've already stated, liberty and happiness should not be trumped by anything else, period. If it was meant to be trumped by anything else, then why do we even have a constitution to ensure we have the right to have /persue such things?

Though I love knowledge above all things, and I've always strove to do well with my education, especially science, I at least can concede that the assumption that things are real is arrogant of the human race.
It's even arrogant to assume that each of us are real -- who's to say that we're a simulation for some other being? Perhaps we're the dream of a star? Or an idea imagining itself.
Logically, we can't elliminate all these possibilities in the immediate future, therefore to assume any one of them is real with all disregard to the other possibilties is like walking in blindsided. You'll see some things, but you may miss so many others.
As I said, I love knowledge above all things...but without freedom to persue this thing which is the source of most of my happiness, how could I persue science the correct way -- with logic?

Do you see the point, dearie?

This is all anyone's trying to say.

sarabethv
January 11th, 2008, 11:36 PM
Don't know where you got your information, but there are no scientists who do not believe in aspects of evolution, they may disagree about how and when, but evolution itself has been proven time and time again. Do not make the typical mistake and equate evolution with the belief that we evolved from monkeys. That isn't part of evolution. Before making statements so bold, and since you say you love knowledge - you might want to do a little research - google it if nothing else.

Do you see MY point dearie?

Autumn
January 11th, 2008, 11:55 PM
Put simply, I cannot trust a medical doctor who does not believe in the theory of evolution. The man is supposed to be a scientist as well as an artist! I would not choose him as my Ob-Gyn because of this, Gawd what if he doesn't believe in the germ theory either?

Reservations I had about him for being anti-choice have solidified in this revelation that he doesn't believe in evolution.

Laisrean
January 12th, 2008, 12:40 AM
Don't know where you got your information, but there are no scientists who do not believe in aspects of evolution, they may disagree about how and when, but evolution itself has been proven time and time again. Do not make the typical mistake and equate evolution with the belief that we evolved from monkeys. That isn't part of evolution. Before making statements so bold, and since you say you love knowledge - you might want to do a little research - google it if nothing else.

Do you see MY point dearie?

I never claimed I love knowledge. Knowledge can actually be downright depressing.

sarabethv
January 12th, 2008, 01:09 AM
I never claimed I love knowledge. Knowledge can actually be downright depressing.

Wasn't referring to you dude. P.S. Like the avatar - he looks so indignant.

Laisrean
January 12th, 2008, 01:26 AM
Wasn't referring to you dude. P.S. Like the avatar - he looks so indignant.

I like to think I evolved from him. :smileroll

NightSpirit
January 12th, 2008, 05:47 AM
Personally, I absolutely, 100% do not care what Ron Paul thinks about evolution. He has proven himself over and over again to be a staunch Constitutionalist, and there is no chance in Hades that he would ever dream of imposing his religious views on others. He's a Libertarian to the core. He would sooner shoot himself in the foot than interfere with individual rights.

Like Ron Paul, my father is a doctor and religious, and he once told me that the beauty and complexity of the human body is what convinced him that there was a Creator. I can respect that. My father doesn't claim to know how exactly life was created, but he believes that God had a hand in it, and I suspect RP has similar views.

And like Laisrean has said over and over again, there are more important issues to focus on. Look at his record, and see what the man actually stands for. It should put your fears to rest. He's not hiding anything.

Autumn
January 12th, 2008, 11:08 AM
Since when does accepting the theory of evolution have to exclude a belief in a creator? Something set all this in motion!

NightSpirit
January 12th, 2008, 12:04 PM
Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution doesn't include God. It's a scientific theory, and matters of faith have no place in science (just as they have no place in the government). Many Christians who claim to be Creationists believe that life was created over billions of years-- not 7 days as in Genesis.

WildThing
January 20th, 2008, 06:09 AM
That's an excellent point, creationim can go well with the evolutionary theory...there's no reason why they can't go together.

And as for my information, how about scientists who pre-date Darwin? Anyway, there are a few nowadays.
So yes, there are SOME. Not alot, I admit, but some...and they have every right to believe whatever they want...besides, hasn't he proven over and over that he's a constitutionalist and doesn't believe in shoving his personal beliefs in others' faces? For example, he hasn't very often played the "christian card" like say...Huckabee. Even though he is a christian.

He's delivered thousands of babies in his career as a doctor, so obviously his personal beliefs do not effect his intelligence or skill in his professions. So that we've seen anyway.

Laisrean
January 20th, 2008, 06:33 AM
I hate when people act like they are superior because they support the majority view on things. It really is no different than kids picking on the one who is different, just because they happen to be different. Yes, Ron Paul IS different than the majority of politicians. That doesn't mean he is wrong, though.

I would also point out that at one time a majority thought slavery was a good idea. That shows how great the view of the majority is...

As Thoreau once said: "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one."

And Gandhi: "Even If I am a minority of one, truth is still the truth."

The scientific view on evolution has changed drastically over the last few hundred years. Just because you are with the majority trend of the day doesn't mean you'll be the "cool" popular kids 5 years from now. Maybe science will change and something different will come along. Then you'll be where Ron Paul is now, and be mocked by the new people who think they are superior. Then you'll know what it is like to be the minority.

WildThing
January 20th, 2008, 06:43 AM
I hate when people act like they are superior because they support the majority view on things. It really is no different than kids picking on the one who is different, just because they happen to be different. Yes, Ron Paul IS different than the majority of politicians. That doesn't mean he is wrong, though.

I would also point out that at one time a majority thought slavery was a good idea. That shows how great the view of the majority is...

As Thoreau once said: "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one."

And Gandhi: "Even If I am a minority of one, truth is still the truth."

The scientific view on evolution has changed drastically over the last few hundred years. Just because you are with the majority trend of the day doesn't mean you'll be the "cool" popular kids 5 years from now. Maybe science will change and something different will come along. Then you'll be where Ron Paul is now, and be mocked by the new people who think they are superior. Then you'll know what it is like to be the minority.

Exactly, just because he's different from everybody else right now and not what the majority goes for, "what's cool"...doesn't mean he's not mostly right...at least on matters of liberty, and that is what we're electing our President for, right? Not to press what we each individually believe on the rest of the country? Like whether or not evolution or creationism is the truth or not.

His track record speaks for itself.

Philosophia
January 20th, 2008, 06:43 AM
I hate when people act like they are superior because they support the majority view on things. It really is no different than kids picking on the one who is different, just because they happen to be different. Yes, Ron Paul IS different than the majority of politicians. That doesn't mean he is wrong, though.

Actually, most Americans believe in Creationism rather than evolution. From here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml):

Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.