Ron Paul: Just another creationist

actually he said he doesn't think we're at the point where anyone has absolute truth on either side. And why does it matter what his views on evolution are if he wants to be president? Evidently not being an evolutionist didnt hurt him in med school, or his time as a physician. He obviously thinks science is important; he wouldn't be in a scientific field if he didn't.

It think it's logical people care about what presidential candidates' personal beliefs are and that includes religion.

jlew24asu wrote:

driftin, do you agree that the federal government should have ZERO involvement in education? as much as I am for less government, I think education assistance would be ok. at least on some level.

Uh. I dunno.
What do you mean by "education assistance"?
The government being involved in holding states ransom for funds on accountability to "federal standards" bothers the bejezus out of me.

I think it is always hard to make a decision (like with education, or with abortion) where states rights can lead to the promotion of bad policy, but imho, you have to accept that risk because the Federal Government is just too shady to be trusted.

The only 'real' opposition i see to that is slavery, and i think slavery should have been dealt with on constitutional grounds involving "RIGHT TO LIBERTY" and the assertion that africans were PEOPLE, and not property. States rights don't trump god-given natural born rights, and that is all it really took to recognize the illegal nature of slavery.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION,

That statement has great merit....I have met or talked to no teacher who had any positive things to say about "No Child Left Behind."

tybird wrote:

That statement has great merit....I have met or talked to no teacher who had any positive things to say about "No Child Left Behind."

agreed.
my aunt, one of my friends, and everyone he knows where he works, all feel the same.

It just forces them to teach MORE OF LESS.
Learn a little about a lot more.
It makes there testing process a pain in the ass, and they all feel like it hurts the student. It also takes away a significant amount of (if not total) discretion from the teacher -- keeping them from going "in depth" on anything or doing tangental discussions ... they must constantly get to "the next subject" because it WILL be on the test!

That is the major gripe.
I could go on, but i'm sure you get it.

No child left behind or not,
i think it is a bad idea for numerous reasons,
the least of which is something like what Ron Paul has currently brought up -- LINCOLN & the CIVIL WAR ...

Please raise your hand if you were taught that the Civil War was fought over SLAVERY?

::ahem::

:( :( :(

+1 to Saturnal
and i envoke my right to remove my previous answer.

Collin wrote:

My point is, personal views matter whether they're positive or negative. And what is irrelevant to you or me may be crucial to others.

I'd rather vote for someone whose policies and personal views I agree with.


I'll will further clarify in a while...

and i think the point that saturnal and i may actualy be in agreement on is this:

You are voting on someone to set POLICY for the country.
So if you are going to pick someone with the WRONG policy and the RIGHT personal views, then that is FUCKED.

Sure, both right is great, but you rarely get that.

:(

jlew24asu wrote:

driftin, do you agree that the federal government should have ZERO involvement in education? as much as I am for less government, I think education assistance would be ok. at least on some level.

Zero. There is absolutely no reason other than beauacracy the federal government is involved in Education. State and Local governments are far more effective, and if they aren't are more easily held accountable. The FDOE is a big waste of money. Send it back to the states.

Standardized tests are a nice way to determine which curriculum practices are getting through and which need improvement, they are a terrible way of determining knowledge but I guess it would be difficult to grade a few million essay tests.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

and i think the point that saturnal and i may actualy be in agreement on is this:

You are voting on someone to set POLICY for the country.
So if you are going to pick someone with the WRONG policy and the RIGHT personal views, then that is FUCKED.

Sure, both right is great, but you rarely get that.

:(

I know, and by the way, this whole case is hardly worth mentioning, imo.

I was just saying that I don't agree with people who say the candidates' private life is of no importance, or irrelevant. Especially when we're talking about religion.

I'm not American so I won't have to make that choice and where I live religion isn't an issue at all, there aren't (m)any strongly devouted religious people in politics here, in fact, I doubt I've ever met a strongly devouted, or even a devouted religious person here.

By the way ... both right: Kucinich

Collin wrote:

I don't know. Would you feel comfortable voting for this guy if he, in his personal life, was a complete racist and sexist?

racist? sexist? that can't be compared to personal beliefs...