I’ve got a few good reasons for being wary of Ron Paul. I won’t be jumping on his bandwagon any time soon. However, my good friend, Joe, pointed out that I was a little touchy regarding a newsletter that went out way back when (ghostwritten for Paul). I think he’s a little skeptical and even giving me a little of the stink eye. So, I looked for something a little more substantial on which to base my opinion. It’s not hard to find things about the man that stink just a little, but it’s really hard to find things that scream “OMG!! RUN!!”
Get enough of the little things together and they start smelling pretty damned bad. Like rat turds. One at a time they don’t stink. A whole pile of ‘em and you’re going to be passing out from the fumes. Right?
So, take a look at this video. The question posed to Paul was whether he believed in the Theory of Evolution. This theory basically states that humans today were once similar to chimps today and that 99% of our DNA is shared by the chimps. He answers quite truthfully that “…there is a theory- a theory of Evolution- and I don’t accept it.” He goes on to explain that no one can pin point when the universe was created and/or who created it. He believes in one Creator… blah blah blah.
He doesn’t accept that Evolution is a true fact and not a theory. Evolution is a theory that has been scientifically proven to a great extent. Unless you don’t like real science complete with hypotheses, tests, results, etc. Honestly, how else do those nasty Staph germs morph into super bugs if not evolution? And what’s the point of a platypus?
Just one more thing about him that scares me.1
Popularity: 14% [?]
Sphere: Related Content- Like little rat turds that are really piling up. [↩]
Site Tags: Evolution, Oh, Ron!, what's a platypus?
Technorati Tags: Evolution, Oh, Ron!, what's a platypus?
Powered by FireStats
19 Comments
As soon as I read that RP was pro-life I lost interest in finding out much more about him. There are only so many hours in the day.
A-men.
This is fascinating in a “EW…Disgusting!” sort of way.
I was reading his Wikipedia entry and saw that he’s against Birthright Citizenship (probably because of those damned “anchor babies”) and also found this:
He’s against big government but thinks that states should be allowed to decide what happens in the bedroom of two consenting adults? Um, contradict much?
Okay, let’s take this point by point:
1) Bushmill’s is fairly smooth.
2) Stinkeye: It’s better than what my Dad’s famous for.
3) Evolution is a theory with a lot of support. Whole bunches. It’s not proven by a long shot, though it is largely accepted. I accept it, however there are many scientists with lots of letters after their names who don’t and I can’t believe that they’re ALL morons. As far as the staph goes, that’s mutation, not evolution. Mutation is a factor in evolution, but not the whole enchilada.
That said, if you don’t like him for that, I have no argument. It’s a valid gripe. My only problem was that I didn’t see too much of a basis for the other one. All these clowns have plenty to pick at, I’m sure, and we’ll all have our things, but it serves us all best if we keep the things accurate, right?
4) When you get right down to it, what’s the point of a human? Or any other critter?
5) There is, actually, nothing at all inconsistent in that small government stance. When federal government is small, more power falls to state government. This is a long running right-wing ideal that the right wing never actually bothers to uphold. It’s long-running, nonetheless. Frankly, I favor it. Americans are not “one size fits all” and never will be.
Government regulates sexual practices in many ways, so it really is a valid catch-all statement when you consider things like age of consent laws and such, and for many of the archaic laws that aren’t really enforceable and just served to get some guy elected in 1876. The types of things you might be worried about, like making homosexuality illegal, have already been done across America with no success at all. Other than that, the quote you posted would seem to indicate that he does not favor a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, but would have the states decide it individually. What’s wrong with that? It would seem that if every state made it’s own decision on that, some would go one way and some would go the other way, everyone can pick a place to live and we can find some other meaningless distraction from real issues to consume national attention.
All that said, once again, I’m not stumping for him, I’m just being fair. I CAN say one thing in his favor, though.
He’s about the only Republican who hasn’t given me an excuse to nominate him for American Asshole.
I have always been of the opinion that you can believe what you want, state your case and think it through and if you still have the same opinion then that is fine. I am always uneasy when politicians bring God into the equation though because these people are there to make serous decisions which impact upon everybody but they live their life based on something that you have to believe despite all the logic and evidence that states the opposite.
I think RuPaul is a much better candidate.
I thought RP was a so-so candidate until they threw the World of Warcraft march in game. Throwing rallies is one thing, doing it in a game where people pay money to play, and causing the server to lag isn’t very thoughtful.
Look what I just stumbled across…..
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/cold.flu/interactive/superflu/
Yeah, that RuPaul is a winner. Ron Paul … well, I don’t think so.
Joe,
Age of consent laws are enacted to protect the children, who would become victims of the adults (and have in the past, but that’s another thing). Up until 1967 it was illegal in VA for blacks and whites to marry, and Alabama had a similar law still on the books until 200* (I’m unsure of the year right now and am in a hurry so can’t look it up).
And until recently most states prohibited “sodomy” in an effort to combat homosexuality. I think that sodomy laws and age of consent are two separate beasts. Sodomy laws were enacted to prevent grown, consenting adults from fornicating in the way that they chose. There are still politicians trying to prohibit that. And let them stack the SC and you’ll see those laws coming back (thanks to the mega churches, another subject).
Also, there was some evidence that Paul introduced anti-gay marriage legislation and in fact supports banning it- even though he professes to be against big government (yet another subject that is best suited for it’s own post). I’ll have to look that up another time.
Good point about being fair. I’m sick of being fair, though.
And I’m cranky. But you’re right. Find one good thing and all that.
Go Dennis!
Karen,
I think you’re right. Go RuPaul!
Mitch,
I’m not familiar with World of Warcraft. But that seems like a valid gripe to me. I stand behind you 100%. Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment.
Joe,
Thanks for the link. Um, when I get time.
Nate,
RuPaul looks way better in heels than I. I’m jealous. I’d vote for her.
Thanks for stopping by! I hope you don’t mind that I’m going to delete your duplicate comment.
Ron Paul is a candidate I love and am terrified of. He has some great ideas, like changing/removing the income tax, returning to diplomacy, etc.. Of course, he also wants to get rid of the FDA and that stacks with a slew of other things that make me nervous.
However on this issue I don’t care what RP says. He might not agree with evolution (as he is also against abortion) but he has no interest in legislation about it on the federal level. In fact he wants to see the current laws taken down and then leave it up to states to decide. I think this is probably the best stance a candidate can have. In this context I also contend that my fear of what decisions a number of states would make against equality and science is irrelevant.
“Age of consent laws are enacted to protect the children”
Yes, by regulating the sexual practices of pedophiles. One can acknowledge that a sexual practice is being regulated by government without having to say that it’s a bad thing. That was part of my point.
The rest of my point was that laws such as those sodomy laws have been in place for ages and never had any effect. In fact, I brought up the sodomy laws first, in anticipation of that argument. When were they ever effective? They simply weren’t enforceable unless people were doing it in PUBLIC, which is another way that government regulates sexual practices. Anyone who says they want to create a new anti-sodomy law is simply pandering for votes, not a danger to anyone.
That said, the original issue here was the newsletter, and I had a problem with hanging him on that charge because all I could find to support it was hearsay. While I never was a Ron Paul supporter (in fact, I have made no statements of support for anyone to anyone, publicly or privately) I try to be fair. It’s my way of rebelling against the political norm in America. Now, however, someone has produced an actual newsletter, and there are some very questionable things under his byline, so I guess what’s fair has changed a bit. I see people who were staunch supporters changing direction fast - those that aren’t racists, that is.
Still not much of an issue with me, simply because he never had a chance in the first place. We might as well worry about Rudy or Richardson or anyone else who couldn’t possibly make a difference.
Chris: Getting rid of the FDA wouldn’t worry me a bit. I keep hearing how we can’t buy drugs from Canada because they don’t have an FDA, yet I never hear of Canadians dropping dead en masse due to bad drugs. I do remember thalidomide and laetrile, and have seen numerous drugs pulled off the market in recent years because they weren’t as safe as we thought. I also saw a drug that was used in Europe successfully and safely for ten years held up in America because some religious people didn’t want it sold here.
Plainly put, the FDA is a political organization, not a scientific one.
Chris,
Hi and welcome! Any candidate that is anti-women’s reproductive health is blacklisted for me. Also, anyone that comes out against gay marriage (as well as anyone that is afraid to use the term “gay marriage”). I don’t trust the states (especially certain states) with regards to some laws. Each state should have their own sovereignty to a certain degree, but that could lead to all kinds of other nasty things and I don’t want to see that. For instance, Alabama can decide they don’t want whites and blacks marrying and/or mixing in public statewide. Paul would consider this their choice, but is it the right one? This is just one example of why the feds should be involved at state level, of course.
Women’s reproductive health and gay marriage being two more. If I want to marry a woman in Massachusetts, why shouldn’t Ohio be forced to recognize us as a couple if my partner becomes sick while we’re on vacation there (for example)? What if I’m on vacation in Wyoming and need birth control pills, but that state has outlawed them for unmarried women?
I do get frightened thinking about so many federal programs getting slashed. There is a lot of bureaucracy, sure, but there’s a lot of good that’s come from them too. Overhaul them, don’t get rid of them.
Joe,
Looks like we’re arguing for the sake of arguing right now. Nothing wrong with that.
As long as it remains civil and you don’t force me to post pictures of women in thongs we’ll do fine. I already know that you don’t support Paul and never thought that you did. No need to explain it to me.
By the way, the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Constitutionality of sodomy laws was because a state (I forget which, but it’s southern) actually brought charges against a couple for this. A neighbor (I think) looked in their window- trying to get evidence no doubt - and saw them making love. They were both booked. That was recently. I’ll have to look that up. I might have some facts wrong, but I know they were charged with sodomy (while doing it in their own home…heh).
I think, as far as government agencies are concerned, if we elected someone who would put the best interests of the country first instead of those of his cronies (like Chimpy McFlinghispoo does now) we’d be a lot better off and these crazy bureaucracies would actually do some good again.
“For instance, Alabama can decide they don’t want whites and blacks marrying and/or mixing in public statewide.”
Current anti-discrimination laws at the fed level would prevent that, but even if they didn’t I doubt such a law would pass in this day and age when the black people in the state can vote. Even if it did I doubt the Supreme court of the state would let it stand very long, and black cops certainly wouldn’t enforce it. Sorry, but that’s a bad example. Overall, I favor far more legislation being handled on the state level. Think about what happens when an unfair law is made at the Federal level - then there is no escape from it. At least with more state control you can find a place to live that has the laws you want. I hate it when, for example, Oregon votes to decriminalize marijuana and the feds say “no, you can’t do that, what do you think this is, a Democracy?”
“What if I’m on vacation in Wyoming and need birth control pills, but that state has outlawed them for unmarried women?”
Umm….see if blowjobs are legal?
Ron Paul came to my university to talk while he was campaigning. I already plan to vote for Obama, but I wanted to learn more about Ron Paul and his stance. After his speech, I was convinced that I wouldn’t be voting for him. In a perfect world, eliminating all of the laws and institutions he wishes to get rid of would work fine. But the world isn’t perfect and we need those laws and institutions to maintain order and keep people safe. And a lot of his ideas just didn’t strike me as realistic for our country…or, for that matter, even in the best interest of the people of America. We have enough difficulties with food safety as is…and I don’t believe that getting rid of the FDA is going to solve anything.
Just my opinion though
Excellent points Jenny. Unfortunately I have been really limiting my knowledge of the candidates, so I have no factual or even witty retorts for why you’re wrong about Ron. Personally I also think he’s fairly crazy, but I do like him because he stands out among the others.
Also you points about letting the states be “too independent” are right on. We do need the federal government forcing equality on people. We might be the only nation that was founded on the notion of being progressive that trying to run a race toward stripping away as many rights as we can.
Joe,
My point was that if states were given the power to re-enact these types of laws, they would. Keep in mind that black folks were allowed to vote prior to the Civil Rights movement and yet there were discriminatory laws on the books. If we removed federal legislation, there very well could be a resurgence of something similar (if not the same thing). Just sayin’.
[Alabama didn't nullify the ban on interracial marriage in that state until 2000, a full 33 years after Loving v. Virginia- even though the ban couldn't be enforced it was still on the books.]
Nichole,
Thanks for stopping by! I agree with you. I maintain that instead of getting rid of all of these institutions they should be overhauled and ran by trained professionals (not congress critters, gods know) instead of cronies. They would probably work much better then.
Chris,
Don’t feel you have to have a witty retort. You can think I’m wrong about him for whatever reason floats your boat.
All views are welcome here as long as the conversation remains respectful.
I think, though, that we agree on more than you think. Especially that last statement. While we’re screaming for rights for citizens of other countries (rightfully so, I think) the majority here are willing to give up their own rights. There’s something really wrong with that.
Don’t feel you need to agree to comment, though. You only have to worship me on some days- not all.
But Jen, you’re treating this as an all-or-nothing proposition. It isn’t. I’ve never heard of any Libertarian (which is basically what RP is) talking about eliminating all Federal laws, nor have I ever heard of one suggesting the repeal of anti-discrimination laws. I don’t think any party has anti-discrimination encoded in their platform as much as the Libs. Do you actually think that ALL federal laws would be instantly repealed and all states would start from scratch? This is simply a strawman argument, I’m afraid. It takes a worst-case scenario and presents it as a near certainty, kind of like the argument against letting Americans buy Canadian pharmaceuticals because they don’t have an FDA to keep them safe.
The fact is, the FDA does NOT keep us safe, and we can’t buy Canadian drugs because it costs American companies their incredible profits. No other industry pays as many lobbying dollars.
Look at all the things that the Fed dictates that should be decided by states. The above mentioned marijuana laws are one. What about helmet laws? The federal government taxes you, then says that your state won’t get federal funds unless they pass a helmet law. The people in the state don’t want one, yet the federal government withholds the funds - which came from the people of that state in the first place - until the line is toed. And let’s not kid ourselves that safety is the issue - lobbying dollars from insurance companies is the issue. This is just one example of how a strong federal government puts the power to corporations more than to people. The states should have more power, and so should communities. That does not mean, or even come close to implying, that each state is going to have so much autonomy that they will be like separate countries. That’s just rhetoric.
Gay marriage? Definitely one for the states. If you try to make it federal you’ll never get anywhere. Perhaps the majority of people in Massachusetts or Oregon will go for it, but on a federal level you’ll get never ending opposition from all the Bible Belt states as well as Ohio, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Arizona, etc. An uphill climb comparable to Everest. Besides, even if it passed, why would a gay couple want to marry in Alabama? They know they’re not going to be welcome there, and life will suck. Not fair, but true. Is it better to move, or wait for the Molotov cocktail or the necktie party so they can make their point on the news? If the states decide this, then there WILL be places where these people can live and marry as they want. Or, you can try for EVERYTHING and probably end up with NOTHING instead, after a much longer and fiercer fight.
Remember, America is not one size fits all. Trying to make it so will always deprive someone of their rights. But take it from someone who used to vote Libertarian only - there is nothing in the “small government” philosophy that seeks to create any atmosphere anywhere that allows racial discrimination. Think about it - if a state did allow racial discrimination LEGALLY, it’s a bet that it was already thriving there whether it was legal or not. In a place like that (Jena springs to mind) do you think that law enforcement is going to help the victims ANYWAY? Only in those cases where CNN sends cameras. Idealism alone doesn’t cut it, unfortunately, and ultimately the only politics that really matter are local.
Joe,
No, I’m not. I’m pointing out consistent history that tells me that we need a federal government making sure each state follows the law.
Regarding gay marriage: My point was that if states were permitted to not recognize them, then a couple visiting another state might find themselves in a situation that could really hurt them. Hospital privileges being one. The couple might be seen by the law as “married” in their home state, go on a vacation (I didn’t mention move to another state) and find themselves without hospital privileges.
I also made a point of stating that the federal agencies need overhauling and restructuring to work properly because they were designed to be beneficial and could go back to that.
My exact words were:
My worst case scenarios are actually history lessons (Am I repeating myself? Why, yes I am!).
Oh, and the fact that state agencies are scrutinized by the rest of the country when they fuck up is a good thing. If their own laws allowed their kind of idiotic treatment of [insert whatever here] then CNN wouldn’t make a difference in their behavior.