Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Oh, for God's sake...

...all the rhetoric about "revolution" and how he's different from all the others, and Ron Paul is just another anti-intellectual, anti-science creationist nutjob. Are there any Republican politicians anywhere who aren't ignoramuses?


( 54 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Dec. 27th, 2007 07:59 pm (UTC)
What will come first? A president that believes in the scientific method, or the end of the world? WWIII is looking more likely, so far!
Dec. 27th, 2007 08:06 pm (UTC)
that's a rhetorical question, right? It's hard enough to find DEMOCRATIC politicians who aren't ignoramuses. I don't think such a subspecies of republican exists.
Dec. 27th, 2007 08:36 pm (UTC)
Ron Paul pretends to be a Libertarian running as a Republican, but the more I research him the more I begin to think he is way off his rocker.

The only politician in this race who has pleasantly surprised me is Obama.
(no subject) - dwer - Dec. 27th, 2007 08:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ruth_lawrence - Dec. 28th, 2007 01:20 am (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 27th, 2007 08:48 pm (UTC)
I think the correct question would be "Are there ANY politicians anywhere that aren't ignoramuses?

The correct answer is NO.
Dec. 27th, 2007 08:55 pm (UTC)
Why people insist on saying "theory" as if it means "some retarded 6-yearold babbling in his sleep" is beyond me.
Dec. 28th, 2007 03:11 pm (UTC)
When do we get to start calling evolution a law, anyway? It seems like it's been long enough, and DNA sequencing is adding a pretty significant confirmation from another direction.
(no subject) - tacit - Dec. 28th, 2007 04:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fuzzybutchkins - Dec. 29th, 2007 08:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - shinyobject - Dec. 28th, 2007 08:23 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Dec. 28th, 2007 04:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - nornagest - Dec. 29th, 2007 01:47 am (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 27th, 2007 09:09 pm (UTC)
Neat post.

It really does seem like the theory of evolution is a lot less (for lack of a better word) popular than I thought it was.

When I run for political office, I'm taking on quantum mechanics. Those quacks have had a free ride for too long :)
Dec. 27th, 2007 09:19 pm (UTC)
Dec. 27th, 2007 09:44 pm (UTC)
But what continues to keep him different than other 'ignoramuses' (of either side) is that he doesn't think he has any right to tell you that you must teach his beliefs (or not) in schools.
Dec. 27th, 2007 11:08 pm (UTC)
(no subject) - zotmeister - Dec. 28th, 2007 01:46 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Dec. 28th, 2007 04:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - _luaineach - Dec. 28th, 2007 08:59 pm (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 27th, 2007 09:46 pm (UTC)
Dec. 28th, 2007 04:37 pm (UTC)
Dec. 27th, 2007 09:53 pm (UTC)
See, that doesn't bother me, at least not any more that Kucinich seeing UFOs. What bothers me is the popularity he gets when he's ANTI-CHOICE and a RACIST.
Dec. 28th, 2007 03:26 am (UTC)
Do you have cites on the racism issue? Not because I'm necessarily doubting you, but I'd love to be able to bring it up with others.
(no subject) - boigrrrlwonder - Dec. 28th, 2007 03:47 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ms_cantrell - Dec. 28th, 2007 03:54 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - autobeast - Dec. 28th, 2007 04:21 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - ms_cantrell - Dec. 28th, 2007 05:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - james_the_evil1 - Dec. 28th, 2007 08:35 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Dec. 28th, 2007 04:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - _luaineach - Dec. 28th, 2007 09:06 pm (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 27th, 2007 10:51 pm (UTC)
Thank you for that. Seems like so many otherwise rational people I know are Ron Paul supporters, and I just don't trust that guy.

Not that I'm worried about him getting the nod, though. The political machine will carry on as it always has, and it never has cottoned well to outsiders.
Dec. 27th, 2007 11:48 pm (UTC)
Are there any Republican politicians anywhere who aren't ignoramuses?


Edited at 2007-12-27 11:48 pm (UTC)
Dec. 28th, 2007 01:22 am (UTC)
The thing is I can't see how his religious views are very relevant -- which is what he was trying to say, I believe. What makes him stand apart is that he has sound economic policy, which is a very new thing... and actually is passionate about adhering to the constitution. from what I've seen, he's one of the only non-corrupt guys out there, and he's really far from an "ignoramus" -- have you seen this guy talk about economic and political theory and history?
Dec. 28th, 2007 02:45 am (UTC)
What makes him stand apart is that he has sound economic policy...

This depends on whether you consider advocating a return to the gold standard is sound economic policy. Most gold bugs I know -- as I don't know you, forgive me in advance if this doesn't apply -- don't really seem to understand why we went off the gold standard in the first place. If your economy is growing but your currency is fixed, then unless you keep adding gold (or whatever the currency is fixed to) to the reserves at a rate that matches economic growth, you get deflation -- which creates a strong disincentive to actually keep spending. Fixed currency economies tend to experience deeper and more frequent depressions. In the 19th century, most national economies were experiencing ever-deepening cycles of boom and bust, and economies that abandoned the gold standard in the early 20th century broke that cycle. Advocates of specie-backed currency like Paul will gladly tell you about all sorts of problems with "fiat currency," and they do exist, but anyone who doesn't explain why a deflationary boom-and-bust cycle is preferable to low inflation and steady growth is not adequately defending the gold standard, and I haven't seen an adequate defense.

Paul is in many respects a smart fellow and I think he's got a lot of integrity. However, I can't help but think that he's sort of the conservative/libertarian equivalent of honest, non-corrupt politicians and activists on the left who show up occasionally, who feel it's their duty to stand on their principles 100% of the time, consensus be damned. I admire these folks even when I don't agree with their principles, but being an executive requires consensus-building. Setting aside any questions about Paul's positions on science, taxes, equality of the sexes, acting talent of Nicolas Cage, or whatever, I think it's worth seriously thinking about whether a guy whose nickname in Congress is "Dr. No" has the temperament necessary to lead a country.

(no subject) - tacit - Dec. 28th, 2007 04:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Part II) - tacit - Dec. 28th, 2007 04:49 pm (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 28th, 2007 01:32 am (UTC)
I should also add that while he may be a creationist, he doesn't propose to take any actions whatsoever that are affected by him having this belief. All his ideas are to do with economic and political policy, and as such, his vast economic and political knowledge are what matter, not his scientific or religious knowledge. This is quite different from other politicians, like Huckabee, who make a political platform based on their religious beliefs and forcing them on others. Attacking Ron Paul for being a creationist seems like just another ad hominim attack...
Dec. 28th, 2007 04:52 pm (UTC)
*shrug* If he believes that evolutionary biology is "just a belief," then that has consequences for the American public at large. The way we educate about science and technology directly and immediately affects the technological underpinnings of our financial and political power. Evolution isn't a religion' we're not talking about religion here. It suits me fine if he doesn't want religion in public schools--but if he doesn't want science in public schools, that's not cool, and it directly threatens the world status of the country I live in.
(no subject) - _luaineach - Dec. 28th, 2007 09:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Dec. 28th, 2007 09:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - _luaineach - Dec. 28th, 2007 09:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - nornagest - Dec. 29th, 2007 02:06 am (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 28th, 2007 03:48 am (UTC)
i strongly disagree with him on pro-life/choice, as well as having a different set of religious beliefs [...i have none],


  • he was against he patriot act for all the right reasons, and maintained that through-out this entire debacle

  • he was against going into iraq for the right reasons, and has never slipped on that issue, either

  • his religious beliefs are very similar to most of the other candidates, he just doesn't waffle on what he thinks/believes

  • he's old school conservative, which means that he doesn't believe that his religious beliefs should have dick to do with anyone else's - to each their own

  • ask which presidents are willing to roll back executive privileges? that's a big one: you have got to know hillary is not going to sacrifice one iota of power that could come her way.

    i disagree with rp on borders and immigration, and that's a sticking point for me. my second choice is obama. we'll see what happens.
    Dec. 28th, 2007 04:17 am (UTC)
    Plus, on the domestic issues that he bothers non-Christians on, he really doesn't have much power other than veto (and arguibly some of the things should not be tax money uses anyway). I am not a libertarian and that much is obvious to me.

    Obama is interesting because I can't tell what his stances are on many, many things--but he's leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, which could change the national outlook dramatically.
    (no subject) - mr_z - Dec. 28th, 2007 01:46 pm (UTC) - Expand
    (no subject) - tacit - Dec. 28th, 2007 04:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
    (no subject) - mr_z - Dec. 28th, 2007 05:34 pm (UTC) - Expand
    Dec. 28th, 2007 07:22 pm (UTC)
    One of the things that makes Ron Paul on the surface appealing is that he seems to be a strong believer in the Constitution - and after years with Bush that feels like a much needed return to sanity. But....

    This statement from Ron Paul makes me fear he is totally detached from the ideas and ideals of the Founding Fathers, and he certainly seems to have forgotten details of the Constitution than he would be swearing to uphold and protect: "Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s..."

    Replete with references to God?!?!? The Constitution was very intentionally designed to make NO reference to God, and the Declaration of Independence makes only passing reference to a "Creator" and "Divine Providence"...

    Here is a longer article looking into the true religious beliefs and motivations of our Founding Fathers. I think they would actually be "aghast" at some of the ideas that Ron Paul is pushing for: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

    Here is a longer snipit from Ron Paul: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
    "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
    The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

    The Founding Fathers were not even all Christian....

    Egads - this man scares me. What scares me even more is how many young and idealistic people seem to be getting sucked up into a fervor supporting him.

    In contrast, Obama seems to give the perfect answer on how to strike the right balance between church and state:

    "This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

    Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice."

    Read the rest of his speech here: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

    He is reasoned and balanced and eloquent - and he comes across as someone who can build bridges in a way that feels way beyond what Ron Paul seems capable of.


    - Chris

    Edited at 2007-12-28 07:23 pm (UTC)
    Dec. 28th, 2007 08:41 pm (UTC)
    Obama's the clear choice, in my opinion.

    Just in general, everything I've heard him say has left me nodding in agreement, or even sighing in relief that someone is finally making some freaking sense.

    I'm biased, of course, since he lives in my neighborhood in Chicago and taught at my school. Seriously though, those who say he only has a few years of experience in national politics should remember that what he was doing before that was teaching constitutional law for ten years at one of the top universities in the nation. And worked as a community organizer and a civil rights attorney.

    Mostly though, he gives the impression that his views are ones he's come to based on his experience and logic, rather than his personal opinions (like with the abortion debate). I have the same views, that it's very very difficult to say abortion is "ok" if you think someone is "human" form the moment of conception, but that the effects of banning it would be much worse.
    And he rationally tries to convince people of these, rather than scaring them with "Them immigrants are gonna take yer jobs!" and "omg there's going to be no Christmas next year!"
    Page 1 of 2
    <<[1] [2] >>
    ( 54 comments — Leave a comment )