Ron Paul the anti-evolutionist

Post Reply New Topic

One more reason why Ron Paul is one of the most over-rated saviours of America. Here's a man with a medical degree rejecting or minimizing the importance of an essential biological theory. A theory that is used in the production of antibiotics!

Can the US really afford such an ill-informed presidential candidate?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g[/youtube]

ah. . . .Ron Paul isn't running for anything.

RAND Paul ran in a primary for Senator from Kentucky as a "Tea Party" candidate. He had quite a win over the had picked successor from the Republican party and went on a program to announce his candidacy for Senator , got to talking Libertarian theory about the Civil Rights Act and announced to the world that private businesses should be able to decide whom they will serve and whom they will not.

that did not go over very well - and then the next day said that Obama was 'anti-American' to criticize BRITISH Petroleum Company. He later pleaded 'exhaustion' and canceled being on Meet The Press this Sunday.

Ron Paul ran for President twice and may do so again in 2012. And then Rand Paul is just Ron Paul 2.0.

I really hope Rand Paul does some stupid stuff in congress that disillusions the Paulomaniacs. But maybe I'm wishing for too much, after all, there hasn't been much of a backlash against Ron Paul disingeniously voting against budgets which he's attached plenty of earmkars to.

Well if you want his [Ron] stance on earmarks(and voting against the bills), here it is.
"If you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny"
"If I can give my district any money back, I would vote for it [put earmarks in]"
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5Yk1imBk[/youtube]

As for Rand Paul, he has said he is against earmarks completely, but as far as Ron Paul's supporters supporting him in the Senate, it may come down to how he conducts himself on fiscal matters in regards to foreign policy (or voting for war number 3 might do it). There is already discontent for Rand from a large number of his father's fans, though those same fans will probably give him enormous leeway because of his name, and are complaining because they most likely just want a clone.

Ron probably will run again despite his age and I hope he does well. He isn't perfect(NO politician is) but he's far and away better than Obama or whatever neocon GOP candidate they grind out like Romney or Gingrich. There will be scare tactics and smears against him but in the end what's worse? Using already appropriated money for earmarks(it goes to the federal government otherwise) which makes very little difference in spending or spending billions or even trillions on exponentially expanding the size and scope of government and being in a perpetual state of undeclared war?

I found it interesting that at the beginning on Maddow's interview, he was just bythefully spieling away the rhetoric he had heard all his life. When he was closer questioned, he started to realize how all this stuff sounds when he puts his theory into realistic terms.

Yes, of course, Ron Paul did indeed run for POTUS I saw hundreds of computer print outs of that message tacked to telephone poles all over town and realized there was a vigorous community support.

Frankly, I have found Libertarians to be not as Gault as they think, more like 14 year old boys with only a rudimentary understanding of the long term affects of their philosophical arguments.

And if he runs again, I'm wholehearted railing against him.

And supporting who? Obama? The guy who said he'd have all troops out of Iraq in 16 months? There's 100,000 troops in Iraq and it's been 16 months FYI. Leftists were never against the war, they just wanted something to run against Bush on. They have no problems with overseas adventurism or nation building as evidence to Clinton in 90s and the DEAFENING silence now.

Even though I love Ron Paul, I wonder what he could do as POTUS, other than veto everything. The POTUS isn't a dictatorship [yet], and one libertarian in the executive branch won't satisfy anyone. Look at Obama, who's got both houses of Congress, and he can't even get half of the stuff he wants done. I'm sure it would only be a matter of time before the Neocons and Progressives were trading votes to get the 3/4 to override Paul's veto.

Vetoing everything doesn't sound so bad. Being the POTUS means you got the bully pulpit and he would be commander in chief so I wouldn't be worried about him being completely shut out. What ever he does in office would be a step in the right direction, which is more than can be said if Obama or whatever neocon are president.

What a false dichotomy. Since you're big on voting for unwinnable candidates (like Paul), skyfather84 could just as easily vote Kunich or Nader or whatever other candidate challenges Obama from the left (and there will be at least one - i.e. an independent or third partisan like Nader - or two, if a primary challenger like Kuninich comes up - given his stubborn opposition to the party establishment, he very well might).



This deserves a "in my uneducated opinion" preface. Especially given that many at the starters of the anti-Iraq war protests were some of the most principled opponents of war imaginable - near pacificists who had also opposed the war in Afganistan.

When I gain some energy, I'll type a fuller refutation of this hogwash. But, until then, I suggest you read some Chomsky and watch the RealNews to get an understanding of what the left actually is.

Let him answer that for himself Captain Canada. I disagree that Paul is unelectable but I would still vote for him over whatever statist the democrats or GOP threw out there. At least he'd have some principles if he voted for Nader or Kucinich(even though Kucinich did sell out on that corporatist health care bill for a ride on Air Force One and maybe a few secrets on Area 51:roll: )

Am I talking who started the anti-war movement? I have no doubt a lot of people were sincerely against the war and still are but the vast majority unfortunately were against because it gave to something run on in the democratic years in 2006 and 2008. You hardly heard anything in the MSM about 7th anniversary of the Iraq war and the protests were like 1/10th the size they were when Bush was in office or that Obama's 16 month deadline for complete withdrawal passed a few days ago.

The problem with this analysis is, namely, that no centre-leftist opinion stations were on the air in 2002. There may have been some leftwing journalists, but they were journalists primarily and not commentators (MSNBC's leftwing shift didn't happen until the mid-2000s).

Furhtermore, the Left (as opposed to the centrists and DLCers) were opposed to the war from the get go and still criticize Obama's failure to end the war. MoveOn.Org made a name for itself as an anti-War organization, as did The Nation. MoveOn.Org may have been co-oped by the Democratic Party in the meantime, but groups like the Progressive Democrats of America are still actively opposing the imperial bases.

You're issue is more with me using the term "left" than anything else is it? If you narrowed it down to the mainstream democrats in the US, would you be inclined to agree?

I did watch Chomsky in some video in one of my classes last year about what in his opinion was the "left wing media myth" and the gist of it wasn't that there was no bias but the democrats weren't properly left or his words "too pro-business". I agree that the establishment of both parties are not that different, maybe for different reasons but I think we might even agree on something at least sorta lol.

In addition, Ron Paul is anti-abortion, which is radically at odds with libertarian word view. A real libertarian regards our bodies, our minds, our time and our energy as our own person property. What a women does with the contents of her body (subject to laws pertaining to public health) is her own business.

ruveyn