On September 24 2011 01:27 xDaunt wrote: Newt's half right. I'm not aware of a "violent" wing of the GLBT movement, but there are parts of it that I would consider "extreme" or "militant," specifically those groups and individuals that are pushing for "acceptance" of GLBT's rather than just "tolerance."
Huh? How is it "extreme" or "militant" to want acceptance of GLBT people? What an absurd statement.
In the immortal words of Mr. Garrison: "Just because you have to 'tolerate' something, doesn't mean you have to approve of it. If you had to like it, it would be called the 'Museum of Acceptance.' Tolerate means you're just putting up with it. You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on an airplane or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off.... Jesus-Tap-Dancing-Christ!"
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Where in the constitution does it say we can't have religion in schools? If you think it's the first amendment, you don't understand it.
It's a violation of the Establishment clause. McCollum vs. Board of Education Dist. 71
Also Engel vs. Vitale established that any prayer in school of any kind, even nondenominational, is also unconstitutional.
Thanks for the sources, I think from a constitutional perspective these rulings are downright silly. They undermine the constitutions protection from government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Obviously my opinion, but specific to McCollum vs. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black said, "For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere." This is not at all what the constitution says. The constitution protects the freedom to worship wherever, whereas this ruling abolishes worship within the education setting.
A bit of a stretch, imo.
Well, to be clear, you don't have all your Constitutional rights in a school. It's different in a school than outside in public.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Where in the constitution does it say we can't have religion in schools? If you think it's the first amendment, you don't understand it.
It's a violation of the Establishment clause. McCollum vs. Board of Education Dist. 71
Also Engel vs. Vitale established that any prayer in school of any kind, even nondenominational, is also unconstitutional.
Thanks for the sources, I think from a constitutional perspective these rulings are downright silly. They undermine the constitutions protection from government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Obviously my opinion, but specific to McCollum vs. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black said, "For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere." This is not at all what the constitution says. The constitution protects the freedom to worship wherever, whereas this ruling abolishes worship within the education setting.
A bit of a stretch, imo.
Well, to be clear, you don't have all your Constitutional rights in a school. It's different in a school than outside in public.
you do. but it also assumes you signed a contract of some sort to follow instructions. if you don't follow the instructions (like you decide to exercise your freedom of speech when your teacher tells you to be quiet,) you are kind of breaking the "contract" that you signed. So, you can commit fraud by exercising your consitutional rights.
edit: and that goes for more than just school obviously
Voted Bachmann because she won't stand a snowballs chance in super-hell (30% warmer than normal hell) in a real election. Perry will probably be nominated and I am okay with that because he is actually a terrible presidential candidate and would easily be crushed.
You know guys, I hate to say this, but it seems like Republicans are in the same position Democrats were in during the 2004 campaign. By that I mean, the incumbent president is almost absurdly easy to run against, but the party can't actually muster even a decent candidate to even come close to actually challenging our current President.
On September 24 2011 01:41 dOofuS wrote: The constitution protects the freedom to worship wherever, whereas this ruling abolishes worship within the education setting.
Nope. Students still have a number of protected freedoms of worship in school. The only thing it abolished was the right of school officials to impose religion on students.
A Summary of Permissible Activities that may be Performed by Students in our Public Schools.
* Students may bring Bibles or other religious scriptures to school and read them on campus. * Students may pray together during school hours, so long as it does not interrupt learning times. * Students may say grace at lunchtime, silently or aloud, alone or with other students. * Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and ad hoc gatherings. These student-led faith groups must be given the same access to school facilities as non-religious groups. * School officials may not compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities. * Students are allowed to pray silently during any school-initiated "minute of silence." * When student speakers are selected (using neutral criteria) and retain control of the content of the message, they may engage in religious speech or pray in student assemblies or graduation ceremonies.
On September 23 2011 13:19 darthfoley wrote: Huntsman is actually sane
Unfortunately he's the only one, and Republicans don't want a candidate who is competent and intelligent.
With the possible exception of Bachmann, Huntsman is the dumbest one up there. Did you even listen to his answers? They were some of the most inane, generic, and hollow debate responses that I've ever heard.
I think Huntsman always starts his answers very broad and generic (talking about a "human problem" etc.) but he then narrows his answer to focus on the question. I agree that it's definitely an odd way of answering questions; he treats every one like a mini speech. I don't think he's saying nothing, though. I feel I know where he stands on all the issues he addresses, and he's not afraid to actually make the debate about the differences between candidates.
Gingrich, on the other hand, treats it like a rally. Half his answers are about beating Obama and how the Republicans will accomplish that. That's great, sir, but first you have to get the nomination from the party, and to do that you have to distinguish yourself from the people on stage. Please focus on that more.
I dont know why he started off doing it, but by this point I think hes just staying in, in order to secure himself a VP spot. If hes nice to everyone and pumps up the republicans as a whole, makes people like him to some degree, he might get it. Maybe that was his plan the whole time, I dont know.
On September 24 2011 01:27 xDaunt wrote: Newt's half right. I'm not aware of a "violent" wing of the GLBT movement, but there are parts of it that I would consider "extreme" or "militant," specifically those groups and individuals that are pushing for "acceptance" of GLBT's rather than just "tolerance."
Huh? How is it "extreme" or "militant" to want acceptance of GLBT people? What an absurd statement.
On September 24 2011 01:27 xDaunt wrote: EDIT: The same thing holds for the "secular fascism." There are "Bill Maher" atheists who won't rest until religion is stamped out entirely and go out of their way to demean it, and then there are "Penn Jillette" atheists who are tolerant of religion.
You realize when people say militant, they dont always mean violent? Pretty common expression. More importantly, your picture is retarded on every level. There are plenty of Atheists who want to jail anyone who teaches their children religion [richard dawkins helloooo] not to mention theres been numerous genocides by atheists against the religious [the USSR anyone?] so it simply has no basis as an accurate depiction of anything. Some radical muslims kill people, far fewer radical christians will shoot an abortion doctor. Some radical Atheists want authoritarian laws to stamp out religion, and have in past decades when they were in the position to do so, to kill them. If I really wanted to look into it no doubt id find numerous cases of some batshit atheist murdering a priest or minister in under ten minutes as well.
On September 24 2011 01:55 MagnusHyperion wrote: You know guys, I hate to say this, but it seems like Republicans are in the same position Democrats were in during the 2004 campaign. By that I mean, the incumbent president is almost absurdly easy to run against, but the party can't actually muster even a decent candidate to even come close to actually challenging our current President.
Bush wasn't easy to beat in 2004. He was still very popular. In fact, republicans did very well in the 2004 elections in general, expanding upon their congressional majorities.
2012 will be much different. Obama is very unpopular right now, which is dragging down democrats everywhere (again, see NY09)
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
well I did say it would be a higher proportion, obviously far from everyone as we can see here.
No no no no. Don't back down like that over Ron Paul. He is reasonable, and there is no good reason for a true conservative to find him unpalatable. He wants to do some drastic things to cut government, and sure that is scary to liberals, but he is the natural culmination of what the neo-neo-cons want to portray, which is small government. Neo-conservatism is not conservatism and the former is much more scary and disingenuous than the latter. If you really believe the things you say about about the free market, deregulation, sound money, etc. the. Ron Paul is your man. Nobody else on that stage is going to shrink government. I've said it a million times - if you like our foreign policy and gigantic military, and would coninue all these wars, then you aren't advocating a small federal government. And if you like all that and still refuse to raise any taxes then you definitely don't care about the defecit. Ron Paul is a real conservative, not a pretender. That's why I want him to win the nomination, so that the general election can be a real discussing about the role of government.
I disagree with Ron on plenty of things, particularly about environmental issues and religion. But all the fear-mongering about him betrays a lack of understanding, from both the left and the right. There are pages upon pages in this thread arguing over all the misinformation around Ron Paul. Bottom line, he's the genuine conservative and you shouldn't apologize for that.
@whitewing: your source doesn't back up any of the claims you made, and it does nothing to scare away conservatives. They like a consistent libertarian voting record.
And all this garbage about Christianity vs. Atheism needs to stop. That gets threads closed fast. And ffs at least cite sources when you say that Richard Dawkins wants to put people in jail for teaching their children Christianity. Whichever way you lean, we need some intellectual integrity around here.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
well I did say it would be a higher proportion, obviously far from everyone as we can see here.
No no no no. Don't back down like that over Ron Paul. He is reasonable, and there is no good reason for a true conservative to find him unpalatable. He wants to do some drastic things to cut government, and sure that is scary to liberals, but he is the natural culmination of what the neo-neo-cons want to portray, which is small government. Neo-conservatism is not conservatism and the former is much more scary and disingenuous than the latter. If you really believe the things you say about about the free market, deregulation, sound money, etc. the. Ron Paul is your man. Nobody else on that stage is going to shrink government. I've said it a million times - if you like our foreign policy and gigantic military, and would coninue all these wars, then you aren't advocating a small federal government. And if you like all that and still refuse to raise any taxes then you definitely don't care about the defecit. Ron Paul is a real conservative, not a pretender. That's why I want him to win the nomination, so that the general election can be a real discussing about the role of government.
I disagree with Ron on plenty of things, particularly about environmental issues and religion. But all the fear-mongering about him betrays a lack of understanding, from both the left and the right. There are pages upon pages in this thread arguing over all the misinformation around Ron Paul. Bottom line, he's the genuine conservative and you shouldn't apologize for that.
@whitewing: your source doesn't back up any of the claims you made, and it does nothing to scare away conservatives. They like a consistent libertarian voting record.
And all this garbage about Christianity vs. Atheism needs to stop. That gets threads closed fast. And ffs at least cite sources when you say that Richard Dawkins wants to put people in jail for teaching their children Christianity. Whichever way you lean, we need some intellectual integrity around here.
The source provides numerous links to his quotes, and it's a simple matter to look up his voting record. And my post was to show why he would NOT appeal to moderates and liberals, which is what the person I was responding to said. The source I linked literally lists his positions on things.
So, the Republican candidate will be chosen by an audience and base that has so far - booed a gay soldier; - cheered the highest number of executions at the state level; - cheered for letting a sick, uninsured man die.
What else did I miss? Some more reading:
Five Things All the GOP Candidates Agree On. (They're Terrifying.)
By the very nature of political journalism, the attention of those covering the 2012 Republican presidential nominating contest tends to be focused on areas of disagreement between the candidates, as well as on the policy positions and messages they are eager to use against Barack Obama. But there are a host of other issues where the Republican candidates are in too much agreement to create a lot of controversy during debates or gin up excitement in the popular media. Areas of agreement, after all, rarely provoke shock or drive readership. But the fact that the Republican Party has reached such a stable consensus on such a great number of far-right positions is in many ways a more shocking phenomenon than the rare topic on which they disagree. Here are just a few areas of consensus on which the rightward lurch of the GOP during the last few years has become remarkably apparent:
On September 23 2011 13:19 darthfoley wrote: Huntsman is actually sane
Unfortunately he's the only one, and Republicans don't want a candidate who is competent and intelligent.
With the possible exception of Bachmann, Huntsman is the dumbest one up there. Did you even listen to his answers? They were some of the most inane, generic, and hollow debate responses that I've ever heard.
I think Huntsman always starts his answers very broad and generic (talking about a "human problem" etc.) but he then narrows his answer to focus on the question. I agree that it's definitely an odd way of answering questions; he treats every one like a mini speech. I don't think he's saying nothing, though. I feel I know where he stands on all the issues he addresses, and he's not afraid to actually make the debate about the differences between candidates.
Gingrich, on the other hand, treats it like a rally. Half his answers are about beating Obama and how the Republicans will accomplish that. That's great, sir, but first you have to get the nomination from the party, and to do that you have to distinguish yourself from the people on stage. Please focus on that more.
I dont know why he started off doing it, but by this point I think hes just staying in, in order to secure himself a VP spot. If hes nice to everyone and pumps up the republicans as a whole, makes people like him to some degree, he might get it. Maybe that was his plan the whole time, I dont know.
On September 24 2011 01:27 xDaunt wrote: Newt's half right. I'm not aware of a "violent" wing of the GLBT movement, but there are parts of it that I would consider "extreme" or "militant," specifically those groups and individuals that are pushing for "acceptance" of GLBT's rather than just "tolerance."
Huh? How is it "extreme" or "militant" to want acceptance of GLBT people? What an absurd statement.
On September 24 2011 01:27 xDaunt wrote: EDIT: The same thing holds for the "secular fascism." There are "Bill Maher" atheists who won't rest until religion is stamped out entirely and go out of their way to demean it, and then there are "Penn Jillette" atheists who are tolerant of religion.
You realize when people say militant, they dont always mean violent? Pretty common expression. More importantly, your picture is retarded on every level. There are plenty of Atheists who want to jail anyone who teaches their children religion [richard dawkins helloooo] not to mention theres been numerous genocides by atheists against the religious [the USSR anyone?] so it simply has no basis as an accurate depiction of anything. Some radical muslims kill people, far fewer radical christians will shoot an abortion doctor. Some radical Atheists want authoritarian laws to stamp out religion, and have in past decades when they were in the position to do so, to kill them. If I really wanted to look into it no doubt id find numerous cases of some batshit atheist murdering a priest or minister in under ten minutes as well.
Oh man there is so much wrong with this post... Richard Dawkins denounces the labeling of children and indoctrination via threats of hellfire and doom. He has on occasion called it a form of child abuse. Gosh how many idiots will continue to infer that the Stalinist regime was radical atheism... Let me explain atheism to you since you clearly misunderstand it on the most basic level. Theism is the doctrine pertaining to god and gods relationship to you. When we add the antonymic prefix "a-" we get atheism. Atheism is the rejection of theism. That is i do not buy into your dogma. If you are Christian you are an atheist in regards to Hinduism as you reject their theistic beliefs. Somebody is in the general sense of the word an "Atheist" when they believe in one less god than you. So now that we've established that atheism has no doctrine most rational people can make the connection that USSR related atrocities are not because of atheism. Yes the regime was secular but that doesn't matter (not to mention that it can be argued that the regime was propped by religious ideology where Stalin assumed the place of the Tsar whom were regarded by the russian population as 'godlike' anyway) as unlike religion there is simply no logical progression for an atheist to commit atrocities, as opposed to God said so, so therefore i must. You are under a severe misapprehension as to what atheism is and appear to be of loose morals. "Some radical muslims kill people, far fewer radical christians will shoot an abortion doctor...numerous cases of some batshit atheist murdering a priest" Your rational is hey religious people are bad but non-religious people are worse!
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
well I did say it would be a higher proportion, obviously far from everyone as we can see here.
No no no no. Don't back down like that over Ron Paul. He is reasonable, and there is no good reason for a true conservative to find him unpalatable. He wants to do some drastic things to cut government, and sure that is scary to liberals, but he is the natural culmination of what the neo-neo-cons want to portray, which is small government. Neo-conservatism is not conservatism and the former is much more scary and disingenuous than the latter. If you really believe the things you say about about the free market, deregulation, sound money, etc. the. Ron Paul is your man. Nobody else on that stage is going to shrink government. I've said it a million times - if you like our foreign policy and gigantic military, and would coninue all these wars, then you aren't advocating a small federal government. And if you like all that and still refuse to raise any taxes then you definitely don't care about the defecit. Ron Paul is a real conservative, not a pretender. That's why I want him to win the nomination, so that the general election can be a real discussing about the role of government.
I disagree with Ron on plenty of things, particularly about environmental issues and religion. But all the fear-mongering about him betrays a lack of understanding, from both the left and the right. There are pages upon pages in this thread arguing over all the misinformation around Ron Paul. Bottom line, he's the genuine conservative and you shouldn't apologize for that.
@whitewing: your source doesn't back up any of the claims you made, and it does nothing to scare away conservatives. They like a consistent libertarian voting record.
And all this garbage about Christianity vs. Atheism needs to stop. That gets threads closed fast. And ffs at least cite sources when you say that Richard Dawkins wants to put people in jail for teaching their children Christianity. Whichever way you lean, we need some intellectual integrity around here.
I'd think the first part of intellectual integrity is simply to keep your mouth shut when you dont know anything about a topic? Anyone whos read or heard Richard dawkins has heard his diatribes about how raising a child religious is child abuse:
The only difference is he then contradictory winks and nudges the audience as he said he doesnt support it being against the law. So its child abuse- to which he considers worse than pedophilia by the way http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118 but just randomly shouldnt have any kind of legal ramification. Thats clear bullshit, hes just skipping around directly saying it because its bad PR. That or the man is utterly insane and thinks abusing your child in a worse manner than raping him should be totally kewl legally.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
well I did say it would be a higher proportion, obviously far from everyone as we can see here.
No no no no. Don't back down like that over Ron Paul. He is reasonable, and there is no good reason for a true conservative to find him unpalatable. He wants to do some drastic things to cut government, and sure that is scary to liberals, but he is the natural culmination of what the neo-neo-cons want to portray, which is small government. Neo-conservatism is not conservatism and the former is much more scary and disingenuous than the latter. If you really believe the things you say about about the free market, deregulation, sound money, etc. the. Ron Paul is your man. Nobody else on that stage is going to shrink government. I've said it a million times - if you like our foreign policy and gigantic military, and would coninue all these wars, then you aren't advocating a small federal government. And if you like all that and still refuse to raise any taxes then you definitely don't care about the defecit. Ron Paul is a real conservative, not a pretender. That's why I want him to win the nomination, so that the general election can be a real discussing about the role of government.
I disagree with Ron on plenty of things, particularly about environmental issues and religion. But all the fear-mongering about him betrays a lack of understanding, from both the left and the right. There are pages upon pages in this thread arguing over all the misinformation around Ron Paul. Bottom line, he's the genuine conservative and you shouldn't apologize for that.
@whitewing: your source doesn't back up any of the claims you made, and it does nothing to scare away conservatives. They like a consistent libertarian voting record.
And all this garbage about Christianity vs. Atheism needs to stop. That gets threads closed fast. And ffs at least cite sources when you say that Richard Dawkins wants to put people in jail for teaching their children Christianity. Whichever way you lean, we need some intellectual integrity around here.
I'd think the first part of intellectual integrity is simply to keep your mouth shut when you dont know anything about a topic? Anyone whos read or heard Richard dawkins has heard his diatribes about how raising a child religious is child abuse:
The only difference is he then contradictory winks and nudges the audience as he said he doesnt support it being against the law. So its child abuse- to which he considers worse than pedophilia by the way http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118 but just randomly shouldnt have any kind of legal ramification. Thats clear bullshit, hes just skipping around directly saying it because its bad PR. That or the man is utterly insane and thinks abusing your child in a worse manner than raping him should be totally kewl legally.
That article you linked was referring to a very specific religious practice of threatening your child with eternal Hell. I agree with Dawkins on that point that it should be considered child abuse to do such things, just as it would be psychological abuse to threaten your child with a knife. I would be all for the outlaw of such practices (though that's not realistic). And he never said that it was "worse" than child molestation, just that it was comparable. I would also agree with that.
In the video, he speaks about religion in general which is why he does not support legal consequences for it. (He never said explicitly in the Hell article whether he would support legal consequences for teaching children about Hell.) The fact that you perceive "winks and nudges" doesn't really support your argument; it just makes it look like you have preconceived notions that you will believe in no matter what people try to tell you.
But no, there are not "plenty of atheists who want to jail people for teaching their children religion" per se. Every atheist I've talked to does not generally bear any ill will toward people whose religious beliefs do not involve intrinsically harmful ideals like conservative Christianity does. Personally, I still find such beliefs logically bankrupt, but I see no reason to be angry about them. Fire-and-brimstone Christianity? That's harmful, and we should try to stop people from believing in it and spreading it (and I believe that legal means would be justified when it comes to planting fear of eternal torture into a child's head). Sorry if that makes me "militant" in your eyes.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
Firstly, let me just say that there are some things that I agree with Ron Paul on, about half of what he says I agree with. But in my opinion, half isn't good enough for a candidate that I want to elect to office.
Among other things, here are some of the other views he has that I strongly disagree with that aren't related to education. Note that I'm fairly moderate in general, I don't lean much in either direction.
"Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008) Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008) Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008) Economic crisis demonstrates that Fed must come to an end. (Sep 2009) (This is ridiculously stupid) Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. (Feb 2008) Fed has ominous power with no oversight & no control. (Sep 2010) (This is patently untrue, although I can see why he'd think this if he wasn't truly informed on how it works) Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010) Let churches marry couples, without government document. (Jun 2011) Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007) Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987) Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987) Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009) (I'm hugely in favor of this and he voted No). Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007) (Yeah, he's consistent on this) Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009) Replace "hate crime" with equal penalties for equal assaults. (Apr 2011) Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007) Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011) Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009) Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001) Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006) Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009) Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010) No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011) Recycling consumes more energy than it saves. (Apr 2011) (Herp Derp, recycling isn't about conserving energy you dumbass >_<) Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005) State role on medical care for children undermines freedom. (Dec 1987)
I'll stop for now or this will just go on and on. This is not even half way down the page.
Thanks for replying with the source! I have not seen this site before, I'll have to spend some time looking through the info on ALL the candidates (I suggest everyone else to do the same, looks like a good collection of quotes/opinions of each candidate).
I Spoiler'd the long list because it doesn't really pertain to the earlier post, but I will say that there are things EACH candidate has said/done that I don't agree with as well, including Dr. Paul.
Looking back at your previous post, I'll try and match the source for each of your statements and give my opinion on the topic discussed. Here it goes:
1)He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all...
~ Most people know how Ron Paul feels about this issue, but here is the quote from the site you posted just in case: + Show Spoiler +
Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools
Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system. A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend. Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them? A: No, I’m not. It’s not in my platform. QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools. A: I bet that’s a misquote. I do not recall that. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007
I talked about this in my first response as well. I don't think there is any confusion on this. I couldn't find the original 1988 quote (or misquote) that they were talking about, will edit this if I do find it later.
2) He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
~ This hit home for me as I think the Arts are always put on the back burner in American society and its a shame. Here is the quote: + Show Spoiler +
Private funds for arts work better than government funds
Some Americans appear to believe that there would be no arts in America were it not for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). While the government requested $121 million for the NEA in 2006, private donations to the arts totaled $2.5 billion that year, dwarfing the NEA budget. NEA funds go not necessarily to the best artists, but to people who happen to be good at filling out government grant applications. I have my doubts that the same people populate both categories. Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 75 Apr 1, 2008
So he doesn't like that the Government can direct $121 million in tax-payer funds into whatever "art" program they see fit and thinks that Private donations can support the arts just fine and backs it up with financial stats. I'm not 100% with him on this, but I can see his logic, which is more than I can say for a lot of other candidates. Art that is supported by the masses usually speaks to the masses (Hint: that's why they support it).
3) He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
~ Similar to #1, he doesn't want the Federal Govt / Dept of Education to have complete control over everything thing our children learn. He thinks that Teachers/Parents TOGETHER are the best educators for children. He's also not telling people to AVOID Public schools, but wants to encourage those parents that want to take a more active role in their children's education by either choosing the best school for their child, or teaching their child themselves.
Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax write off
It used to be the policy of the Republican Party to get rid of the Department of Education. We finally get in charge and a chance to do something, so we doubled the size of the Department of Education and we have No Child Left Behind. The teachers & the students don’t like it, and the quality of education hasn’t gone up while the cost of education has. We need to release the creative energy of the teachers at the local level. We can immediately give tax credits. I have a bill that would give tax credits to the teachers to raise their salaries. We should encourage homeschooling & private schooling and let the individuals write that off. The parents have to get control of the education. It used to be parents had control of education through local school boards. Today it’s the judicial system and the executive branch of government, the bureaucracy, that controls things, and it would be predictable that the quality would go down. The money goes to the bureaucrats and not to the educational system. Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate Dec 12, 2007
I haven't read the bill he is speaking about, so I can't comment on that. However, I do agree with him about giving Parents tax credits/ write offs for home schooling. Most public schools in the US are understaffed and over populated with students. More homeschooling would help this problem and would save the tax-payers at the same time. Sounds good to me.
4) He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory"...
~ The wording of this statement is misleading. I found two quotes that go along with this topic: Quote the first: + Show Spoiler +
Present scientific facts that support creationism
Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Hunter] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
No surprises here. No harm in a teacher saying "Most scientist believe Evolution is how we came to be, however there are some alternative ideas as to how humans started out on this planet". Let the students decide what they believe. If its different that your opinion, tough.
Evolution doesn't support atheism nor diminish God
The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject th notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe. From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can't this remain an academic debate and not be made the political issue it has become? The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others. One side doesn't mind using force to expose others to prayer and professing their faith. The other side demands that they have the right never to be offended and demands prohibition of any public expression of faith. Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.104-105 Apr 19, 2011
Once again, a major political "hot button" topic (thanks media!) that shouldn't be in politics to begin with. Leave this decision up to the teachers/parents, not the government.
5) He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
~ This statement is a little misleading. He's for supporting choices for students/parents when it comes to education, not supporting Christians/Christian schools OVER public schools/other religious schools.
Q: I’m 17, and I’m the product of school choice. In the public schools I repeated the 7th grade three times, because of my deficiency in math & English. My mother then sent me to New Generation, a Christian school. After one year, my math improved 5 grade levels, and my English improved 3. Will you support school choice for other students like me with similar tax-credit programs? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Keyes] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
If you substitute the word "Hebrew" or "Islamic" for "Christian" in the above quote, I'd be willing to bet that Ron Paul would still say "Yes" and a lot of the other candidates would not. So parents get tax-credits for sending their kids to private schools because they have to pay tuition to attend those schools. Makes sense to me.
6) He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
~ Misleading statement # 3. The full quote is needed to understand what Ron Paul was supporting:
Paul co-sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools. H. J. RES. 78 (1997): To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. Proposed Legislation: H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha) H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson) S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond) H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham) H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts) H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.) Source: H.J.Res.78 97-HJR78 on May 8, 1997
So basically, the state can't make you pray and the state can't prevent you from praying. Wanna grab your prayer mat and face Mecca during your lunch for a quick prayer? Go for it. Ron Paul isn't advocating every math class begins with an Our Father and a Hail Mary, he only wants people to have the freedom to worship/not worship as they choose when in public (Public schools). Free to make your own choice, wouldn't that be a hoot?
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
Firstly, let me just say that there are some things that I agree with Ron Paul on, about half of what he says I agree with. But in my opinion, half isn't good enough for a candidate that I want to elect to office.
Among other things, here are some of the other views he has that I strongly disagree with that aren't related to education. Note that I'm fairly moderate in general, I don't lean much in either direction.
"Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008) Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008) Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008) Economic crisis demonstrates that Fed must come to an end. (Sep 2009) (This is ridiculously stupid) Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. (Feb 2008) Fed has ominous power with no oversight & no control. (Sep 2010) (This is patently untrue, although I can see why he'd think this if he wasn't truly informed on how it works) Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010) Let churches marry couples, without government document. (Jun 2011) Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007) Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987) Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987) Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009) (I'm hugely in favor of this and he voted No). Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007) (Yeah, he's consistent on this) Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009) Replace "hate crime" with equal penalties for equal assaults. (Apr 2011) Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007) Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011) Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009) Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001) Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006) Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009) Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010) No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011) Recycling consumes more energy than it saves. (Apr 2011) (Herp Derp, recycling isn't about conserving energy you dumbass >_<) Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005) State role on medical care for children undermines freedom. (Dec 1987)
I'll stop for now or this will just go on and on. This is not even half way down the page.
Thanks for replying with the source! I have not seen this site before, I'll have to spend some time looking through the info on ALL the candidates (I suggest everyone else to do the same, looks like a good collection of quotes/opinions of each candidate).
I Spoiler'd the long list because it doesn't really pertain to the earlier post, but I will say that there are things EACH candidate has said/done that I don't agree with as well, including Dr. Paul.
Looking back at your previous post, I'll try and match the source for each of your statements and give my opinion on the topic discussed. Here it goes:
1)He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all...
~ Most people know how Ron Paul feels about this issue, but here is the quote from the site you posted just in case: + Show Spoiler +
Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools
Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system. A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend. Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them? A: No, I’m not. It’s not in my platform. QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools. A: I bet that’s a misquote. I do not recall that. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007
I talked about this in my first response as well. I don't think there is any confusion on this. I couldn't find the original 1988 quote (or misquote) that they were talking about, will edit this if I do find it later.
2) He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
~ This hit home for me as I think the Arts are always put on the back burner in American society and its a shame. Here is the quote: + Show Spoiler +
Private funds for arts work better than government funds
Some Americans appear to believe that there would be no arts in America were it not for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). While the government requested $121 million for the NEA in 2006, private donations to the arts totaled $2.5 billion that year, dwarfing the NEA budget. NEA funds go not necessarily to the best artists, but to people who happen to be good at filling out government grant applications. I have my doubts that the same people populate both categories. Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 75 Apr 1, 2008
So he doesn't like that the Government can direct $121 million in tax-payer funds into whatever "art" program they see fit and thinks that Private donations can support the arts just fine and backs it up with financial stats. I'm not 100% with him on this, but I can see his logic, which is more than I can say for a lot of other candidates. Art that is supported by the masses usually speaks to the masses (Hint: that's why they support it).
3) He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
~ Similar to #1, he doesn't want the Federal Govt / Dept of Education to have complete control over everything thing our children learn. He thinks that Teachers/Parents TOGETHER are the best educators for children. He's also not telling people to AVOID Public schools, but wants to encourage those parents that want to take a more active role in their children's education by either choosing the best school for their child, or teaching their child themselves.
Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax write off
It used to be the policy of the Republican Party to get rid of the Department of Education. We finally get in charge and a chance to do something, so we doubled the size of the Department of Education and we have No Child Left Behind. The teachers & the students don’t like it, and the quality of education hasn’t gone up while the cost of education has. We need to release the creative energy of the teachers at the local level. We can immediately give tax credits. I have a bill that would give tax credits to the teachers to raise their salaries. We should encourage homeschooling & private schooling and let the individuals write that off. The parents have to get control of the education. It used to be parents had control of education through local school boards. Today it’s the judicial system and the executive branch of government, the bureaucracy, that controls things, and it would be predictable that the quality would go down. The money goes to the bureaucrats and not to the educational system. Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate Dec 12, 2007
I haven't read the bill he is speaking about, so I can't comment on that. However, I do agree with him about giving Parents tax credits/ write offs for home schooling. Most public schools in the US are understaffed and over populated with students. More homeschooling would help this problem and would save the tax-payers at the same time. Sounds good to me.
4) He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory"...
~ The wording of this statement is misleading. I found two quotes that go along with this topic: Quote the first: + Show Spoiler +
Present scientific facts that support creationism
Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Hunter] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
No surprises here. No harm in a teacher saying "Most scientist believe Evolution is how we came to be, however there are some alternative ideas as to how humans started out on this planet". Let the students decide what they believe. If its different that your opinion, tough.
Evolution doesn't support atheism nor diminish God
The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject th notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe. From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can't this remain an academic debate and not be made the political issue it has become? The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others. One side doesn't mind using force to expose others to prayer and professing their faith. The other side demands that they have the right never to be offended and demands prohibition of any public expression of faith. Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.104-105 Apr 19, 2011
Once again, a major political "hot button" topic (thanks media!) that shouldn't be in politics to begin with. Leave this decision up to the teachers/parents, not the government.
5) He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
~ This statement is a little misleading. He's for supporting choices for students/parents when it comes to education, not supporting Christians/Christian schools OVER public schools/other religious schools.
Q: I’m 17, and I’m the product of school choice. In the public schools I repeated the 7th grade three times, because of my deficiency in math & English. My mother then sent me to New Generation, a Christian school. After one year, my math improved 5 grade levels, and my English improved 3. Will you support school choice for other students like me with similar tax-credit programs? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Keyes] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
If you substitute the word "Hebrew" or "Islamic" for "Christian" in the above quote, I'd be willing to bet that Ron Paul would still say "Yes" and a lot of the other candidates would not. So parents get tax-credits for sending their kids to private schools because they have to pay tuition to attend those schools. Makes sense to me.
6) He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
~ Misleading statement # 3. The full quote is needed to understand what Ron Paul was supporting:
Paul co-sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools. H. J. RES. 78 (1997): To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. Proposed Legislation: H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha) H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson) S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond) H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham) H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts) H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.) Source: H.J.Res.78 97-HJR78 on May 8, 1997
So basically, the state can't make you pray and the state can't prevent you from praying. Wanna grab your prayer mat and face Mecca during your lunch for a quick prayer? Go for it. Ron Paul isn't advocating every math class begins with an Our Father and a Hail Mary, he only wants people to have the freedom to worship/not worship as they choose when in public (Public schools). Free to make your own choice, wouldn't that be a hoot?
Those are simply the quotes provided by this site, there are others and I don't have enough time right now to dig them out again. I will attempt to do so in the near future. There are enough other things about Mr. Paul that I can't stand however that I would never consider voting for him (especially his religious positions and position on the environment, which is frankly atrocious).
As for making your own choice in school to pray or not to pray, the reason the supreme court ruled against schools supporting such things at all (public schools at least) is because it's extremely easy to pressure students.
I also cannot support government funding going towards students to attend religious private schools of any sort. Secular schools I can support, but religious schools are pushing it.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
Firstly, let me just say that there are some things that I agree with Ron Paul on, about half of what he says I agree with. But in my opinion, half isn't good enough for a candidate that I want to elect to office.
Among other things, here are some of the other views he has that I strongly disagree with that aren't related to education. Note that I'm fairly moderate in general, I don't lean much in either direction.
"Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008) Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008) Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008) Economic crisis demonstrates that Fed must come to an end. (Sep 2009) (This is ridiculously stupid) Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. (Feb 2008) Fed has ominous power with no oversight & no control. (Sep 2010) (This is patently untrue, although I can see why he'd think this if he wasn't truly informed on how it works) Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010) Let churches marry couples, without government document. (Jun 2011) Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007) Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987) Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987) Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009) (I'm hugely in favor of this and he voted No). Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007) (Yeah, he's consistent on this) Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009) Replace "hate crime" with equal penalties for equal assaults. (Apr 2011) Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007) Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011) Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009) Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001) Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006) Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009) Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010) No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011) Recycling consumes more energy than it saves. (Apr 2011) (Herp Derp, recycling isn't about conserving energy you dumbass >_<) Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005) State role on medical care for children undermines freedom. (Dec 1987)
I'll stop for now or this will just go on and on. This is not even half way down the page.
Thanks for replying with the source! I have not seen this site before, I'll have to spend some time looking through the info on ALL the candidates (I suggest everyone else to do the same, looks like a good collection of quotes/opinions of each candidate).
I Spoiler'd the long list because it doesn't really pertain to the earlier post, but I will say that there are things EACH candidate has said/done that I don't agree with as well, including Dr. Paul.
Looking back at your previous post, I'll try and match the source for each of your statements and give my opinion on the topic discussed. Here it goes:
1)He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all...
~ Most people know how Ron Paul feels about this issue, but here is the quote from the site you posted just in case: + Show Spoiler +
Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools
Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system. A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend. Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them? A: No, I’m not. It’s not in my platform. QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools. A: I bet that’s a misquote. I do not recall that. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007
I talked about this in my first response as well. I don't think there is any confusion on this. I couldn't find the original 1988 quote (or misquote) that they were talking about, will edit this if I do find it later.
2) He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
~ This hit home for me as I think the Arts are always put on the back burner in American society and its a shame. Here is the quote: + Show Spoiler +
Private funds for arts work better than government funds
Some Americans appear to believe that there would be no arts in America were it not for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). While the government requested $121 million for the NEA in 2006, private donations to the arts totaled $2.5 billion that year, dwarfing the NEA budget. NEA funds go not necessarily to the best artists, but to people who happen to be good at filling out government grant applications. I have my doubts that the same people populate both categories. Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 75 Apr 1, 2008
So he doesn't like that the Government can direct $121 million in tax-payer funds into whatever "art" program they see fit and thinks that Private donations can support the arts just fine and backs it up with financial stats. I'm not 100% with him on this, but I can see his logic, which is more than I can say for a lot of other candidates. Art that is supported by the masses usually speaks to the masses (Hint: that's why they support it).
3) He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
~ Similar to #1, he doesn't want the Federal Govt / Dept of Education to have complete control over everything thing our children learn. He thinks that Teachers/Parents TOGETHER are the best educators for children. He's also not telling people to AVOID Public schools, but wants to encourage those parents that want to take a more active role in their children's education by either choosing the best school for their child, or teaching their child themselves.
Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax write off
It used to be the policy of the Republican Party to get rid of the Department of Education. We finally get in charge and a chance to do something, so we doubled the size of the Department of Education and we have No Child Left Behind. The teachers & the students don’t like it, and the quality of education hasn’t gone up while the cost of education has. We need to release the creative energy of the teachers at the local level. We can immediately give tax credits. I have a bill that would give tax credits to the teachers to raise their salaries. We should encourage homeschooling & private schooling and let the individuals write that off. The parents have to get control of the education. It used to be parents had control of education through local school boards. Today it’s the judicial system and the executive branch of government, the bureaucracy, that controls things, and it would be predictable that the quality would go down. The money goes to the bureaucrats and not to the educational system. Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate Dec 12, 2007
I haven't read the bill he is speaking about, so I can't comment on that. However, I do agree with him about giving Parents tax credits/ write offs for home schooling. Most public schools in the US are understaffed and over populated with students. More homeschooling would help this problem and would save the tax-payers at the same time. Sounds good to me.
4) He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory"...
~ The wording of this statement is misleading. I found two quotes that go along with this topic: Quote the first: + Show Spoiler +
Present scientific facts that support creationism
Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Hunter] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
No surprises here. No harm in a teacher saying "Most scientist believe Evolution is how we came to be, however there are some alternative ideas as to how humans started out on this planet". Let the students decide what they believe. If its different that your opinion, tough.
Evolution doesn't support atheism nor diminish God
The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject th notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe. From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can't this remain an academic debate and not be made the political issue it has become? The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others. One side doesn't mind using force to expose others to prayer and professing their faith. The other side demands that they have the right never to be offended and demands prohibition of any public expression of faith. Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.104-105 Apr 19, 2011
Once again, a major political "hot button" topic (thanks media!) that shouldn't be in politics to begin with. Leave this decision up to the teachers/parents, not the government.
5) He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
~ This statement is a little misleading. He's for supporting choices for students/parents when it comes to education, not supporting Christians/Christian schools OVER public schools/other religious schools.
Q: I’m 17, and I’m the product of school choice. In the public schools I repeated the 7th grade three times, because of my deficiency in math & English. My mother then sent me to New Generation, a Christian school. After one year, my math improved 5 grade levels, and my English improved 3. Will you support school choice for other students like me with similar tax-credit programs? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Keyes] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
If you substitute the word "Hebrew" or "Islamic" for "Christian" in the above quote, I'd be willing to bet that Ron Paul would still say "Yes" and a lot of the other candidates would not. So parents get tax-credits for sending their kids to private schools because they have to pay tuition to attend those schools. Makes sense to me.
6) He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
~ Misleading statement # 3. The full quote is needed to understand what Ron Paul was supporting:
Paul co-sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools. H. J. RES. 78 (1997): To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. Proposed Legislation: H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha) H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson) S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond) H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham) H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts) H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.) Source: H.J.Res.78 97-HJR78 on May 8, 1997
So basically, the state can't make you pray and the state can't prevent you from praying. Wanna grab your prayer mat and face Mecca during your lunch for a quick prayer? Go for it. Ron Paul isn't advocating every math class begins with an Our Father and a Hail Mary, he only wants people to have the freedom to worship/not worship as they choose when in public (Public schools). Free to make your own choice, wouldn't that be a hoot?
Those are simply the quotes provided by this site, there are others and I don't have enough time right now to dig them out again. I will attempt to do so in the near future. There are enough other things about Mr. Paul that I can't stand however that I would never consider voting for him (especially his religious positions and position on the environment, which is frankly atrocious).
As for making your own choice in school to pray or not to pray, the reason the supreme court ruled against schools supporting such things at all (public schools at least) is because it's extremely easy to pressure students.
I also cannot support government funding going towards students to attend religious private schools of any sort. Secular schools I can support, but religious schools are pushing it.
That is correct. I was simply using your source to fully explain the claims you had made earlier, several of which were very misleading when not properly explained. I'm not trying to get you to vote for Ron Paul, but as someone who understands some of his views, I felt it necessary to provide some insight to those reading this thread that may want to know more about Ron Paul, for better or worse.
The susceptibility of students to peer pressure shouldn't mean we can't provide them with choices. The real world is full of choices. Sometimes the right choice is unpopular. When kids are sheltered from making these kinds decisions at a young age, it means they are less likely to go against the norm when they are older. The very act of BANNING prayer, of any kind, in schools teaches these children that "Religion is something you should be embarrassed about, regardless of who or what you pray to". How is this healthy?
Ron Paul is not supporting government funds going TO religious private schools at all. No one is GAINING money from this. Instead he feels that parents who choose to send their child to a private school (and pay a tuition to do so), either religious or secular, should NOT have to pay taxes to the public school (free to attend). Those who use the public school should be responsible.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
Firstly, let me just say that there are some things that I agree with Ron Paul on, about half of what he says I agree with. But in my opinion, half isn't good enough for a candidate that I want to elect to office.
Among other things, here are some of the other views he has that I strongly disagree with that aren't related to education. Note that I'm fairly moderate in general, I don't lean much in either direction.
"Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008) Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008) Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008) Economic crisis demonstrates that Fed must come to an end. (Sep 2009) (This is ridiculously stupid) Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. (Feb 2008) Fed has ominous power with no oversight & no control. (Sep 2010) (This is patently untrue, although I can see why he'd think this if he wasn't truly informed on how it works) Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010) Let churches marry couples, without government document. (Jun 2011) Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007) Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987) Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987) Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009) (I'm hugely in favor of this and he voted No). Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007) (Yeah, he's consistent on this) Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009) Replace "hate crime" with equal penalties for equal assaults. (Apr 2011) Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007) Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011) Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009) Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001) Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006) Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009) Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010) No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011) Recycling consumes more energy than it saves. (Apr 2011) (Herp Derp, recycling isn't about conserving energy you dumbass >_<) Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005) State role on medical care for children undermines freedom. (Dec 1987)
I'll stop for now or this will just go on and on. This is not even half way down the page.
Thanks for replying with the source! I have not seen this site before, I'll have to spend some time looking through the info on ALL the candidates (I suggest everyone else to do the same, looks like a good collection of quotes/opinions of each candidate).
I Spoiler'd the long list because it doesn't really pertain to the earlier post, but I will say that there are things EACH candidate has said/done that I don't agree with as well, including Dr. Paul.
Looking back at your previous post, I'll try and match the source for each of your statements and give my opinion on the topic discussed. Here it goes:
1)He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all...
~ Most people know how Ron Paul feels about this issue, but here is the quote from the site you posted just in case: + Show Spoiler +
Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools
Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system. A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend. Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them? A: No, I’m not. It’s not in my platform. QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools. A: I bet that’s a misquote. I do not recall that. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007
I talked about this in my first response as well. I don't think there is any confusion on this. I couldn't find the original 1988 quote (or misquote) that they were talking about, will edit this if I do find it later.
2) He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
~ This hit home for me as I think the Arts are always put on the back burner in American society and its a shame. Here is the quote: + Show Spoiler +
Private funds for arts work better than government funds
Some Americans appear to believe that there would be no arts in America were it not for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). While the government requested $121 million for the NEA in 2006, private donations to the arts totaled $2.5 billion that year, dwarfing the NEA budget. NEA funds go not necessarily to the best artists, but to people who happen to be good at filling out government grant applications. I have my doubts that the same people populate both categories. Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 75 Apr 1, 2008
So he doesn't like that the Government can direct $121 million in tax-payer funds into whatever "art" program they see fit and thinks that Private donations can support the arts just fine and backs it up with financial stats. I'm not 100% with him on this, but I can see his logic, which is more than I can say for a lot of other candidates. Art that is supported by the masses usually speaks to the masses (Hint: that's why they support it).
3) He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
~ Similar to #1, he doesn't want the Federal Govt / Dept of Education to have complete control over everything thing our children learn. He thinks that Teachers/Parents TOGETHER are the best educators for children. He's also not telling people to AVOID Public schools, but wants to encourage those parents that want to take a more active role in their children's education by either choosing the best school for their child, or teaching their child themselves.
Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax write off
It used to be the policy of the Republican Party to get rid of the Department of Education. We finally get in charge and a chance to do something, so we doubled the size of the Department of Education and we have No Child Left Behind. The teachers & the students don’t like it, and the quality of education hasn’t gone up while the cost of education has. We need to release the creative energy of the teachers at the local level. We can immediately give tax credits. I have a bill that would give tax credits to the teachers to raise their salaries. We should encourage homeschooling & private schooling and let the individuals write that off. The parents have to get control of the education. It used to be parents had control of education through local school boards. Today it’s the judicial system and the executive branch of government, the bureaucracy, that controls things, and it would be predictable that the quality would go down. The money goes to the bureaucrats and not to the educational system. Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate Dec 12, 2007
I haven't read the bill he is speaking about, so I can't comment on that. However, I do agree with him about giving Parents tax credits/ write offs for home schooling. Most public schools in the US are understaffed and over populated with students. More homeschooling would help this problem and would save the tax-payers at the same time. Sounds good to me.
4) He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory"...
~ The wording of this statement is misleading. I found two quotes that go along with this topic: Quote the first: + Show Spoiler +
Present scientific facts that support creationism
Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Hunter] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
No surprises here. No harm in a teacher saying "Most scientist believe Evolution is how we came to be, however there are some alternative ideas as to how humans started out on this planet". Let the students decide what they believe. If its different that your opinion, tough.
Evolution doesn't support atheism nor diminish God
The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject th notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe. From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can't this remain an academic debate and not be made the political issue it has become? The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others. One side doesn't mind using force to expose others to prayer and professing their faith. The other side demands that they have the right never to be offended and demands prohibition of any public expression of faith. Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.104-105 Apr 19, 2011
Once again, a major political "hot button" topic (thanks media!) that shouldn't be in politics to begin with. Leave this decision up to the teachers/parents, not the government.
5) He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
~ This statement is a little misleading. He's for supporting choices for students/parents when it comes to education, not supporting Christians/Christian schools OVER public schools/other religious schools.
Q: I’m 17, and I’m the product of school choice. In the public schools I repeated the 7th grade three times, because of my deficiency in math & English. My mother then sent me to New Generation, a Christian school. After one year, my math improved 5 grade levels, and my English improved 3. Will you support school choice for other students like me with similar tax-credit programs? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Keyes] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
If you substitute the word "Hebrew" or "Islamic" for "Christian" in the above quote, I'd be willing to bet that Ron Paul would still say "Yes" and a lot of the other candidates would not. So parents get tax-credits for sending their kids to private schools because they have to pay tuition to attend those schools. Makes sense to me.
6) He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
~ Misleading statement # 3. The full quote is needed to understand what Ron Paul was supporting:
Paul co-sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools. H. J. RES. 78 (1997): To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. Proposed Legislation: H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha) H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson) S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond) H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham) H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts) H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.) Source: H.J.Res.78 97-HJR78 on May 8, 1997
So basically, the state can't make you pray and the state can't prevent you from praying. Wanna grab your prayer mat and face Mecca during your lunch for a quick prayer? Go for it. Ron Paul isn't advocating every math class begins with an Our Father and a Hail Mary, he only wants people to have the freedom to worship/not worship as they choose when in public (Public schools). Free to make your own choice, wouldn't that be a hoot?
Those are simply the quotes provided by this site, there are others and I don't have enough time right now to dig them out again. I will attempt to do so in the near future. There are enough other things about Mr. Paul that I can't stand however that I would never consider voting for him (especially his religious positions and position on the environment, which is frankly atrocious).
As for making your own choice in school to pray or not to pray, the reason the supreme court ruled against schools supporting such things at all (public schools at least) is because it's extremely easy to pressure students.
I also cannot support government funding going towards students to attend religious private schools of any sort. Secular schools I can support, but religious schools are pushing it.
That is correct. I was simply using your source to fully explain the claims you had made earlier, several of which were very misleading when not properly explained. I'm not trying to get you to vote for Ron Paul, but as someone who understands some of his views, I felt it necessary to provide some insight to those reading this thread that may want to know more about Ron Paul, for better or worse.
The susceptibility of students to peer pressure shouldn't mean we can't provide them with choices. The real world is full of choices. Sometimes the right choice is unpopular. When kids are sheltered from making these kinds decisions at a young age, it means they are less likely to go against the norm when they are older. The very act of BANNING prayer, of any kind, in schools teaches these children that "Religion is something you should be embarrassed about, regardless of who or what you pray to". How is this healthy?
Ron Paul is not supporting government funds going TO religious private schools at all. No one is GAINING money from this. Instead he feels that parents who choose to send their child to a private school (and pay a tuition to do so), either religious or secular, should NOT have to pay taxes to the public school (free to attend). Those who use the public school should be responsible.
The view about those who use the public school should be the ones to pay for it kind of defeats the purpose of public schooling, and is basically akin to eliminating public schools in general, economically speaking.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
Firstly, let me just say that there are some things that I agree with Ron Paul on, about half of what he says I agree with. But in my opinion, half isn't good enough for a candidate that I want to elect to office.
Among other things, here are some of the other views he has that I strongly disagree with that aren't related to education. Note that I'm fairly moderate in general, I don't lean much in either direction.
"Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008) Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008) Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008) Economic crisis demonstrates that Fed must come to an end. (Sep 2009) (This is ridiculously stupid) Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. (Feb 2008) Fed has ominous power with no oversight & no control. (Sep 2010) (This is patently untrue, although I can see why he'd think this if he wasn't truly informed on how it works) Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010) Let churches marry couples, without government document. (Jun 2011) Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007) Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987) Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987) Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009) (I'm hugely in favor of this and he voted No). Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007) (Yeah, he's consistent on this) Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009) Replace "hate crime" with equal penalties for equal assaults. (Apr 2011) Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007) Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011) Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009) Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001) Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006) Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009) Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010) No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011) Recycling consumes more energy than it saves. (Apr 2011) (Herp Derp, recycling isn't about conserving energy you dumbass >_<) Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005) State role on medical care for children undermines freedom. (Dec 1987)
I'll stop for now or this will just go on and on. This is not even half way down the page.
Thanks for replying with the source! I have not seen this site before, I'll have to spend some time looking through the info on ALL the candidates (I suggest everyone else to do the same, looks like a good collection of quotes/opinions of each candidate).
I Spoiler'd the long list because it doesn't really pertain to the earlier post, but I will say that there are things EACH candidate has said/done that I don't agree with as well, including Dr. Paul.
Looking back at your previous post, I'll try and match the source for each of your statements and give my opinion on the topic discussed. Here it goes:
1)He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all...
~ Most people know how Ron Paul feels about this issue, but here is the quote from the site you posted just in case: + Show Spoiler +
Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools
Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system. A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend. Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them? A: No, I’m not. It’s not in my platform. QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools. A: I bet that’s a misquote. I do not recall that. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007
I talked about this in my first response as well. I don't think there is any confusion on this. I couldn't find the original 1988 quote (or misquote) that they were talking about, will edit this if I do find it later.
2) He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
~ This hit home for me as I think the Arts are always put on the back burner in American society and its a shame. Here is the quote: + Show Spoiler +
Private funds for arts work better than government funds
Some Americans appear to believe that there would be no arts in America were it not for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). While the government requested $121 million for the NEA in 2006, private donations to the arts totaled $2.5 billion that year, dwarfing the NEA budget. NEA funds go not necessarily to the best artists, but to people who happen to be good at filling out government grant applications. I have my doubts that the same people populate both categories. Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 75 Apr 1, 2008
So he doesn't like that the Government can direct $121 million in tax-payer funds into whatever "art" program they see fit and thinks that Private donations can support the arts just fine and backs it up with financial stats. I'm not 100% with him on this, but I can see his logic, which is more than I can say for a lot of other candidates. Art that is supported by the masses usually speaks to the masses (Hint: that's why they support it).
3) He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
~ Similar to #1, he doesn't want the Federal Govt / Dept of Education to have complete control over everything thing our children learn. He thinks that Teachers/Parents TOGETHER are the best educators for children. He's also not telling people to AVOID Public schools, but wants to encourage those parents that want to take a more active role in their children's education by either choosing the best school for their child, or teaching their child themselves.
Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax write off
It used to be the policy of the Republican Party to get rid of the Department of Education. We finally get in charge and a chance to do something, so we doubled the size of the Department of Education and we have No Child Left Behind. The teachers & the students don’t like it, and the quality of education hasn’t gone up while the cost of education has. We need to release the creative energy of the teachers at the local level. We can immediately give tax credits. I have a bill that would give tax credits to the teachers to raise their salaries. We should encourage homeschooling & private schooling and let the individuals write that off. The parents have to get control of the education. It used to be parents had control of education through local school boards. Today it’s the judicial system and the executive branch of government, the bureaucracy, that controls things, and it would be predictable that the quality would go down. The money goes to the bureaucrats and not to the educational system. Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate Dec 12, 2007
I haven't read the bill he is speaking about, so I can't comment on that. However, I do agree with him about giving Parents tax credits/ write offs for home schooling. Most public schools in the US are understaffed and over populated with students. More homeschooling would help this problem and would save the tax-payers at the same time. Sounds good to me.
4) He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory"...
~ The wording of this statement is misleading. I found two quotes that go along with this topic: Quote the first: + Show Spoiler +
Present scientific facts that support creationism
Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Hunter] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
No surprises here. No harm in a teacher saying "Most scientist believe Evolution is how we came to be, however there are some alternative ideas as to how humans started out on this planet". Let the students decide what they believe. If its different that your opinion, tough.
Evolution doesn't support atheism nor diminish God
The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject th notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe. From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can't this remain an academic debate and not be made the political issue it has become? The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others. One side doesn't mind using force to expose others to prayer and professing their faith. The other side demands that they have the right never to be offended and demands prohibition of any public expression of faith. Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.104-105 Apr 19, 2011
Once again, a major political "hot button" topic (thanks media!) that shouldn't be in politics to begin with. Leave this decision up to the teachers/parents, not the government.
5) He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
~ This statement is a little misleading. He's for supporting choices for students/parents when it comes to education, not supporting Christians/Christian schools OVER public schools/other religious schools.
Q: I’m 17, and I’m the product of school choice. In the public schools I repeated the 7th grade three times, because of my deficiency in math & English. My mother then sent me to New Generation, a Christian school. After one year, my math improved 5 grade levels, and my English improved 3. Will you support school choice for other students like me with similar tax-credit programs? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Keyes] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
If you substitute the word "Hebrew" or "Islamic" for "Christian" in the above quote, I'd be willing to bet that Ron Paul would still say "Yes" and a lot of the other candidates would not. So parents get tax-credits for sending their kids to private schools because they have to pay tuition to attend those schools. Makes sense to me.
6) He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
~ Misleading statement # 3. The full quote is needed to understand what Ron Paul was supporting:
Paul co-sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools. H. J. RES. 78 (1997): To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. Proposed Legislation: H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha) H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson) S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond) H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham) H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts) H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.) Source: H.J.Res.78 97-HJR78 on May 8, 1997
So basically, the state can't make you pray and the state can't prevent you from praying. Wanna grab your prayer mat and face Mecca during your lunch for a quick prayer? Go for it. Ron Paul isn't advocating every math class begins with an Our Father and a Hail Mary, he only wants people to have the freedom to worship/not worship as they choose when in public (Public schools). Free to make your own choice, wouldn't that be a hoot?
Those are simply the quotes provided by this site, there are others and I don't have enough time right now to dig them out again. I will attempt to do so in the near future. There are enough other things about Mr. Paul that I can't stand however that I would never consider voting for him (especially his religious positions and position on the environment, which is frankly atrocious).
As for making your own choice in school to pray or not to pray, the reason the supreme court ruled against schools supporting such things at all (public schools at least) is because it's extremely easy to pressure students.
I also cannot support government funding going towards students to attend religious private schools of any sort. Secular schools I can support, but religious schools are pushing it.
That is correct. I was simply using your source to fully explain the claims you had made earlier, several of which were very misleading when not properly explained. I'm not trying to get you to vote for Ron Paul, but as someone who understands some of his views, I felt it necessary to provide some insight to those reading this thread that may want to know more about Ron Paul, for better or worse.
The susceptibility of students to peer pressure shouldn't mean we can't provide them with choices. The real world is full of choices. Sometimes the right choice is unpopular. When kids are sheltered from making these kinds decisions at a young age, it means they are less likely to go against the norm when they are older. The very act of BANNING prayer, of any kind, in schools teaches these children that "Religion is something you should be embarrassed about, regardless of who or what you pray to". How is this healthy?
Ron Paul is not supporting government funds going TO religious private schools at all. No one is GAINING money from this. Instead he feels that parents who choose to send their child to a private school (and pay a tuition to do so), either religious or secular, should NOT have to pay taxes to the public school (free to attend). Those who use the public school should be responsible.
The view about those who use the public school should be the ones to pay for it kind of defeats the purpose of public schooling, and is basically akin to eliminating public schools in general, economically speaking.
The State/Local government would still budget for public schools if they feel the education of their state's residents is important, as I'm sure most do. When you compare the amount of taxes paid to public schools per student to the tuition cost of a private school per student, I'm sure most parents will continue sending their children to public schools. Private school isn't cheap. Why should parents who pay thousands of dollars a year for Private school ALSO be taxed for something they do not use at all. If people want to be charitable and donate to their local public school, let them. Don't force them.
On September 24 2011 03:36 MooseyFate wrote: 4) He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory"...
~ The wording of this statement is misleading. I found two quotes that go along with this topic: Quote the first: + Show Spoiler +
Present scientific facts that support creationism
Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Hunter] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
No surprises here. No harm in a teacher saying "Most scientist believe Evolution is how we came to be, however there are some alternative ideas as to how humans started out on this planet". Let the students decide what they believe. If its different that your opinion, tough.
That is absolutely not okay, science classes are there to teach students about what we know and can prove about the natural world, period. They're are NOT meant to be a place where students (who by definition have no or a very limited amount of knowledge) ''decide'' for themselves what is true and not. It's not up for debate whether or not evolutionary theory is correct, especially not debate amongst students. The only people who have the knowledge and expertise to further our understanding of the world are scientists, you know those guys who spend their entire lifes learning about something?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://religionnerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/militant-atheist1.jpg)
