What are you talking about? If a president promises things that have to be voted on, those are, by definition, promises he can't make. The president can't change the budget, that's a congressional task...ending prohibition is a combination of Congress, the DOJ, DEA, and FDA...ending war is also congressional...so how can the president make any of these promises?

This is now the third full loop (and fourth or fifth partial loop) we've completed in this vein of threads...unless there's new information/arguments presented, I can see zero reason as to why this discussion should continue.

The oligarchy already existed.

The debt-ceiling had to be raised.

The only way out of recession/depression has already been demonstrated ~80 years ago with the new deal plan, increased government spending, economic stimulus, creation of jobs and ultimately greater job security for the American worker. Cutting spending does not stimulate the economy, trickle-down economics does not work...we could go on and on.

Liberal economic policies have failed in every country they've been implemented (there are perfect examples throughout Latin America and Africa). The US has never engaged in true liberal economics because we are insanely protectionist and use tariffs and "free-trade" agreements to guarantee our holdings.

I never said I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul. I am simply presenting facts. I am, however, leery of voting for a candidate who denies basic scientific truths like evolution and has a strong voting record supporting Christian interestes.


Yes, evolution is a theory - but a politician supporting creationism in favor of evolution again makes me leery. Paul spoke to have creationism taught is public schools alongside evolution. If the US plans on fighting in a global economy with the wave of Indians and Chinese (amongst others) coming online then we need to start focusing more on the sciences and less on the sky-gods of Israel.


No, Paul is not neutral on this issue as he continually speaks in favor of Christian interestes while at the same time votes AGAINST making public schools 'green' and FOR drilling in ANWR. Support the religious right and drill baby drill? This doesn't seem like a solution to our woes. Neither does abolishing the Federal Reserve nor dismantling the Department of Education.


Nothing - except that a potential 2012 presidential candidate denies years of scientific research on the matter.


DMT Psychonaut, if you re-read the entire thread a number of us present points against Paul that Ray has yet to address. Most are far more relevant to our discussion than evolution v. creation. While not entirely on-topic, I remember my last vote for a religious right-wing republican from texas (Bush jr. 2000/2004) and what it did for our country. Also, I think a YouTube video is appropriate when it contains evidence of a candidate himself responding to a particular issue.



I said that about Bush Jr.


I don't know - it's August 2011 and there's a long road ahead. But lets remember, if Paul has any chance he needs to win the Republican nomination first.


I've voted in every election since 18. I tried avoiding this topic here at the NExus, but Ray keeps pushing it - and so my need to argue.


I'm not trying to prove anything. I'd actually prefer this thread be locked and Ray asked to not spread propaganda here. But it's not my forum.



How do you know I'm not voting for Ron Paul? Don't assume, Ray.

I think that a level of creationism should be taught in schools as well, alongside evolution. But it would take me some time to explain what it is that I mean by "creationism"..I dont mean to imply an actaul "creator" or anything bordering on religion.

Science, and evolution the way it is taught to children is a stagnant and dead view of the universe IMO. There is something more magical and special about any of this being here and possible than can possibly be translated through the medium of hard science. This is why most indigenous peoples fight to keep mythologies intact I think. It is the way the story is told, not the actual content of the story.

If we could view creationsim as less of a religious thing, and exclude the idea of a god..and instead approach the topic of creationism as an expression of a state of profound elegance and awe that we can CHOOSE to move into in respect to the "mircale" of our own existance, the existance of the universe and our ongoing co-creative role within the universal process than I think "creationsim" in that sense would be a good thing. Science the way it is taught today serves to supply children with a mechanical understanding of the universe, but it is also a cold and inanimate understanding. It is useful..but not always empathically applicable.. If we can move beyond the focus on the mechanism, without loosing the mechanistic perspective and complement it with a more egalitarian view of life and cosmos os a sort of "sacred"(to us) than I think it would better equip future generations when it comes to respect for life, the planet and each other etc..

Creationism to me should be less about a creator, and more about living every moment in a sort of mythological marrage linguistically and emotionally with the beauty of our own journey as co-creators within the cosmos..it is about a more poetic approach that we have at some point abandoned. The metaphore of who we are has been lost to the mechanims of how we work. It should not have to be one or the other. If we had science teachers who could could teach in such a way as to filter a level of animism within the mechanistic approach, that would be my version of "creationsim".

The problem here is that a term like "creationism" is so vague that I dunno what someone means when they use it. I certainly dont know what Ron Paul means when he uses it..but the fact that he also opposes other things like stem cell research makes me wonder if his view of creationism includes religious dogmas about god etc..

Ron Paul also is supported financially bu nuclear power companies. He is bought and payed for in my opinion..maybe not to the degree of others, I cant really say.

In retrospect, my statements were a bit assuming, i was merely saying that they would most likely be against it, being a domestic issue, for personal religious reasons. They might not try to encroach on the rights of a whole nation to do so though.

But treaties, really mean nothing. Our government has not respected their laws or treaties on multiple occasions. A treaty made by politicians long since gone, has very little power over those in power and willing to break the law to exercise their power. Nixion did it in laos, bombing the shit out of that country for really no good reason other than he couldn't bomb Vietnam. Theres still hundreds of thousands of active cluster bombs all over laos, killing many people there every year. He dropped them on civilian populations, with the same reasoning used in vietman to destroy villages/residents for supporting/harboring the vietkong. Basically dumping more bombs there than all other wars combined, and only for the reason of killing people on the ground. Almost all the bombs dropped there were antipersonell cluster bombs that were dropped across a wile swath of the country.

As well, Jhonny trudell most eloquently displayed the blatant violation of Native American treaties, along with the genocide committed on them. I believe we signed a treaty against that too, along with torture, but hey treaties were meant to be broken.

I'm sorry but "creationism" or "Intelligent Design" is just NOT science and should not be taught along side a real scientific theory like evolution. Doing this will only confuse students and undermine the integrity of science itself.
I don't see any problem teaching "creationism" under the subject of philosophy though but its just not science and trying to redefine it won't change that.

A1pha, I read your post with the presidential powers link and after reading it I did address a lot of things.

I've also made some points that you've failed to address.

Politics aren't off the table for discussion here so I'm not quite sure why you want this thread closed....... it seems to me its generated a lot of good discussion and lots of members have weighed in on it. you can argue it should be closed because I don't give you answers that satisfy you but I really don't think that would be fair... after all you haven't given me answers that satisfy me so I guess we are even.

BTW Ron Paul Isn't against stem cell research, he thinks its very important, hes against aborting babies on purpose for the use of their stem cells witch is quite respectable imo. check out the clip if you want to hear him talk about it

http://www.youtube.com/w...O3Ts&feature=related

A1pha you asked me how Ron Paul could incrementally work on the drug war, My answer to that is the president could pardon all non violent drug offenders witch Ron Paul promised to do, if that isn't taking a shot at the drug war I dunno what is.

"BTW Ron Paul Isn't against stem cell research, he thinks its very important, hes against aborting babies on purpose for the use of their stem cells witch is quite respectable imo."

Ok yes then that I can understand. I think stem cell research is important but we dont need to be aborting children to do that work.

As long as he identifies with the republican party I won't go near him.

non violent drug offender's - so, what exactly does that mean? my guess and correct me pleae if im off base here is anyone caught possessing, buying, or selling drugs as long as no violence occurred during the violation as well as the convicted person not having a violent record. would you say thats about right?

i ask this because im not exactly sure that's a good thing. lets face it there are some pretty bad hombre's out there with out prior convictions selling some really dangerous substances that by them selves perpetuate violence and other related crimes ie fraud extortion, turf wars ext. so is setting everyone free really a good thing? also wouldn't you think there would be a significant raise in criminal activity and crimes without the decriminalization of drugs passing at the same time as this mass release of drug offenders. as long as there is a black market and underground demand there will be crime. thats a fact jack.

pardons are within presidential power but the rest of this equation will take the other branches of govt and if you ask me have little to no chance of happening in this decade. so the pardoning of hundreds of thousands of drug offenders is not only irresponsible its political suicide and im having a hard time believing R.Paul would actually follow through with this threat/promise.

am im talking crazy talk here? i just cant see this all working.

yes , good points olympus mon, I'm not sure if its just people for simple possession, or maybe just possession of marijuana.... I'll have to look it up. I'm sure he wouldn't do anything too crazy though just based on the general wisdom of the guy.

There may be some bad people in jail who have no record other than drug use..... although it seems that most of the "really bad" people in jail DO in fact have a good deal of criminal history. I don't know if every non-violent drug offender should be released from prison. But think about your argument. You're saying that there are "bad" people in prison who shouldn't be released, even though there is no official evidence to suggest they should be there. We can't just lock people up because we believe they are bad. If they don't have a criminal record, they shouldn't be there. No?

Anyway, if Ron Paul were to get elected and decide to release certain people from jail, I'm sure it wouldn't be a sudden release of a million inmates. I'm sure it would be a much more selective process than just having a record of "non violent drug offender" and letting everyone who fits that description out. But, I'm sure it doesn't matter anyway because Ron Paul won't get elected, and even if he does, I don't think he'll do what he says. I think go Obama on the people. I think he'll talk about hope in his campaign, then once he gets in office, he'll just say, "hey, I'm trying to change things people, but the other party won't let me".

apoc what on earth are you talking about!? its a case by case basis! how and why would you say something like "there is no evidence to suggest they be there"? have you seen all the case records and trial transcripts of the entire convicted drug inmate populace? are you actually saying that just because there are great injustices and wrongful needless imprisonments that everyone in prison for drug crimes shouldn't be there!?

trust me in my youth i rolled with some straight up killers many who hadnt yet been convicted of their life of crimes yet. its somewhat rare but it isnt all that uncommon. just because its someones first offense doesnt mean they are an angel. some people should be taken out of society for the safety of society. im not judging anyone its just logical.


look im the largest proponent of good people do bad things. read my thread in "advice for healing" about a year ago titled the power of forgivness. i was incarcertated for 16 months and i was far from a "bad" person. i just made some bad decisions. its not for me to judge anyone but im not naive. i dont think all wrongs should go un punished and i dont feel in the workld we live in that prisons are a unessacary thing.

i completly agree with this. thats exactly what ive been drumming that R.paul damn well knows he cant implement his stances but has no problem getting elected on those stances. that what i dont like.

wel.... that and the evolution thing lol!!

Oh, nevermind. I misread your post I was responding to. I thought you wrote, "don't have a criminal record", but you wrote, "don't have a violent record". I probably wouldn't have wrote my post if I noticed that.

before I look at the video, is this a Ron Paul thing?

Yup.

its all good brother, ^^^

i dont even click on threads of controversy often but this has been pretty interesting. i learned some stuff maybe Ray and other;'s did too. however i swear this time im now done.

good luck with the R. Paul debates yall. lots of good points on both sides, just respect each other's opinions.

im out.
promise.