How so? Biden isn't as progressive as Obama and Paul isn't as conservative as the tea party/neo-cons. Also some people know how to set differences aside. I guess I see where you're coming from, not what you would expect, but not that strange.
Family Christmas card with a family photo, which includes a non-family member. The fact that they are political opposites and these cards are going to donors, many from the tea party crowd, it seems an odd choice.
This has no relevance to the current posts, but I have to ask. I've watched the last five GOP debates, and I feel as if everything about Ron Paul is great. However, I'm questioning his foreign policy. The reason I'm questioning it is because every other candidate seems to disagree with him on his foreign policy. Since I know many libertarian reside here, I thought I'd direct this question toward you guys.
Here is a link to Ron Paul's foreign policy page, which explains his stance and why he takes it. Make of it what you wish.
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/national-defense/
Alot of people are not comfortable with the idea of empowering someone with a shaky grasp on reality to the stature of POTUS.
In a country that, in its constitution, outlaws religious interference with government actions, and in a candidate who would likely be the first to uphold that document and has a history of not letting his personal religious views interfere with governmental policy, what effect would it have on his job performance?
He is also opposed to abortion, yet has voted against all federal laws to outlaw abortion because he knows his personal views do not override state sovereignty. He also has a traditional belief that marriage is between a man and woman, yet does not believe the government should define it as such.
If anything, you have a man who understands the difference between personal belief and freedom. While his "grasp on reality" as it applies to evolution is "shaky" he is the only candidate with a firm grasp on reality as it applies to individual liberty.
What is the worst a president could do by not accepting evolution? Create a policy to have it removed from school curriculum?
His stance on education is "the elimination of the inefficient Department of Education, leaving education decisions to be made at the state, local or personal level."
Ron Paul
I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats.
I think it was in a town hall meeting a while back.
Ron Paul's quote was:
"I think its a theory...the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that I know, you know created us, every one of us, and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."
I think there's a video of this somewhere on the web.
Edit update:
I've seen the quote as: "I don't accept it as a theory"
and written as: "I accept it as a theory"
I haven't seen the video, so I don't know which is correct.
GTsail
Your quote is accurate.
To go further, Reddit submitted 10 questions and he answered via video:
You can find the full video and transcript here.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/
This is the transcript of the part specifically referring to evolution, and his thoughts on the difference between personal belief and government policy.
With regard to evolution, I mean… I just don’t spend a whole lot of time on this, especially in politics. “Do you believe in evolution or don’t you believe in evolution? Yes or no? And then we’ll decide whether you should be President or not.”
You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it’s sort of irrelevant, that because we don’t know the exact details and we don’t have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it’s a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.
The idea that if you don’t [?] believe in evolution means that you don’t believe in a creator is total nonsense. So I think this once again is overly played and we spend too much time on it. And besides, if you’re in politics it shouldn’t be a bother. This is something maybe not dealing with science as much with your own spiritual life, your personal beliefs. The important thing is that you have a political system where you can debate this and make a decision and government rule shouldn’t be based on this. If you have governments basing their rules on this, then it becomes very important. But in a libertarian society these beliefs aren’t nearly as critical.
When you have government schools it becomes important. “Are you fair in teaching that the earth could have been created by a creator or it came out of a pop, out of nowhere?” In a personal world, we don’t have government dictating and ruling all these things; it’s not very important. So the problem is the political environment that makes these issues so important in deciding what one believes in.
