Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Ron Paul

  • 11-04-2010 11:04PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 772 ✭✭✭


    Had heard his name before but I have spent the last two days watching debates with him and what he believes in.

    What do you guys think of him.

    He has done very well in the latest Straw polls and seems to have a dedicated following.




«13456

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    I quite like him and think he talks alot of sense for the most part

    However he appears to be a creationist, which is pretty disappointing!



    He has no chance of ever being president though, so it's not that important an issue I guess :p

    He's good to have around though, kinda like a less insane Joe Higgins.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 634 ✭✭✭pierrot


    Sometimes he sounds like he`s talking sense, sometimes he sounds like a complete buffoon. He`s never got a real shot, but he certainly is entertaining and brings up some good points in congerss.
    He is also one guy who I wouldn't doubt his sincerity, even when I disagree.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Dave! wrote: »
    He's good to have around though, kinda like a less insane Joe Higgins.
    That's wrong on so many levels!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Ahh I know yeah, but tbh I don't think Ron Paul is cynically pretending to be a creationist -- he doesn't exactly shy away from taking the unpopular position usually, and Republicans already hate him, so I don't imagine there'd be much benefit in it tbh.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Well I don't think that :) As I said, I think he talks alot of sense

    However would the fact that he doesn't accept evolution reflect a poor understanding of, or interest in, science? Surely anyone who runs for president should be aware that evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, and it bleeds into various other disciplines too (psychology, economics even). Would he get away with saying he doesn't accept the theory of gravity?

    (BTW I'm aware that he's a physician so probably knows more about science than most people)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    He's principled and consistent in his views and importantly is not a demagogue.

    Many people are very drawn to this type of politician who often says the most obvious things on many issues and cuts through the suffocating political and media narrative.

    However, people should reflect on the maxim that in politics "only the impotent are pure." Politicians like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader can say whatever they want and can keep to their principles on every subject consistently because they will never hold the reigns of power.

    On the one hand this is respectable, however a critical person could say that they're avoiding the hard, painful work of politics which is a process of comprise, seeking consensus and inching in the direction you want to go.

    The career of a Ron Paul or Ralph Nader is a lot easier then the career of a Barack Obama, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!




  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    I've always liked Ron Paul. A real character who adds a lot of whacky ideas to the national debate. I agree with him almost entirely on social issues and disagree almost entirely on economic issues. Only in America!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭kev9100


    This post has been deleted.

    Does he really believe that? If so, would'nt that allow certain schools to completely ignore the curriculum and teach whatever the hell they want? I'm not saying the government should control everything in schools, but there has to be guidelines.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭kev9100


    This post has been deleted.

    Even if its completely wrong?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    kev9100 wrote: »
    Even if its completely wrong?

    Ron Paul, like all Libertarians, argues from first principles. This is why they seem so eccentric in this modern, pragmatic world.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    This post has been deleted.

    So it's okay to send kids to Madrassas where they are taught to become suicide bombers? And we should do nothing to address this issue?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Memnoch wrote: »
    So it's okay to send kids to Madrassas where they are taught to become suicide bombers? And we should do nothing to address this issue?

    You don't understand. Paul argues from principles and leaves the morality of the problem up to the individuals or family involved. He doesn't believe the State should have such a role in the lives of individuals.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    This post has been deleted.

    Therefore the last thing that country needs is yet another creationist leader. Time for America to join the 21st century?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Denerick wrote: »
    You don't understand. Paul argues from principles and leaves the morality of the problem up to the individuals or family involved. He doesn't believe the State should have such a role in the lives of individuals.

    Oh, I understand perfectly. I'm arguing that the PRINCIPLE is FLAWED and am using the example of Islamic Madrassas to demonstrate this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Memnoch wrote: »
    I'm arguing that the PRINCIPLE is FLAWED

    Perhaps in so far as it assumes a degree of parental responsibility not generally present in our society.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    This post has been deleted.

    what about the childs right to a proper legitimate education? automatic indoctrination into the parents beliefs be it religous / social / scientific is not the right thing to do the child deserves the chance to be able to choose for themselves


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    what about the childs right to a proper legitimate education? automatic indoctrination into the parents beliefs be it religous / social / scientific is not the right thing to do the child deserves the chance to be able to choose for themselves

    Is automatic indoctrination by the State in any way inherently better? If I was FORCED to choose between allowing parents the right to raise children or the state, I'll choose the parents every time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Denerick wrote: »
    Is automatic indoctrination by the State in any way inherently better? If I was FORCED to choose between allowing parents the right to raise children or the state, I'll choose the parents every time.

    Not if the state is run democratically... not if the standards of education mandated by the state are subjected to peer review and rigorous debate.

    Is this what happens in religious/faith based education? Where is the critical insight? Where is the unbiased examination of evidence?

    To claim both as equal somehow, to claim that the former is just as much "indoctrination," as the later....

    I'm not saying that you can't have a situation where there is indoctrination by the state. This does occur and HAS occurred in the past, which is why the best answer is not simply state mandated education or parental education... but state mandated education that is democratic and is subject to peer review and critique.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    This post has been deleted.

    Nope. We just make sure that parents send the child to school. And as long as the education in school is of an adequate standard it will be enough to provide the children with a balanced view.

    A key aspect of indoctrination is to limit the exposure to alternate points of view/ evidence.

    This is why we see so many young Muslim kids being brainwashed into extremism/terrorism. They are taught one thing at home, then go to a school where this is re-enforced even more strongly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    This post has been deleted.

    Just to clarify - this is not correct in the US case. Primary and secondary schools are controlled and funded locally, not federally. School board members at a district level are often elected, and in turn they hire the schools superintendent. And although there are general state guidelines, the federal government has very little involvement with public schools. Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative represented a real break in precedent, and increasingly states are opting out of federal funding programs in a bid to preserve their autonomy in educational matters.

    Just to give an example: Chicago is the country's third largest public school system, and every school has a local school council (LSC) drawn from teachers, parents, and community residents that are elected by parents at that school. The LSC makes decisions about spending, events, and even the principal. These have been controversial, but they give parents a level of control over local schools that they would not have otherwise. There is also a Board of Education, and it is a bureaucratic monstrosity, but it is the Chicago Board of Ed, not state or federal.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement