Paul's Detailed Budget Plan is released

[WhoWee]

Romney isn't too bad, forgot about him. I'd have to say he's the only viable Republican contender. IMO

What are his views on science, btw, since this is a science forum?

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Technology.htm

"National R&D spending OK; picking winners not OK

Government funding for basic science and research in universities and research laboratories has been declining for years. It needs to grow instead, particularly in engineering and the physical sciences. Research in energy, materials science, nanotechnology, and transportation are vital to the economy and to our nation's competitiveness. Government should not, however, attempt to pick winning ideas or technologies in which it would invest funds for development and commercialization.
The realities of that marketplace sort out those that have potential for growth and sustainability and those that do not. Attempting to substitute government for the roles carried out by entrepreneurs, angel investors, and venture capitalists while also bypassing the unforgiving test of the free market is a very bad idea indeed.
Source: No Apology, by Mitt Romney, p.124-125 , Mar 2, 2010"

 

[Galteeth]

Nah, I have faith that common sense will prevail, although there isn't much to choose from. Although Paul would guarantee a win for Obama, IMO. Can't the Republicans come up with better candidates? Someone that is at least middle of the road and not a creationist/evangelist/Intelligent Design anti-science candidate?

I wouldn't characterize Paul as an anti-science candidate. Yes, he probably would cut funding for science, as per shrinking the government in general. Although his views are on evolution are muddy (one of the few things he is not clear on), he has made it clear he is not running as an ID/creationist candidate. He would not support carbon cap emissions type legislation but has made it clear that the government should do a better job on pollution enforcement through property rights.

(and yes I have links if you want them)

 

[WhoWee]

I wouldn't characterize Paul as an anti-science candidate. Yes, he probably would cut funding for science, as per shrinking the government in general. Although his views are on evolution are muddy (one of the few things he is not clear on), he has made it clear he is not running as an ID/creationist candidate. He would not support carbon cap emissions type legislation but has made it clear that the government should do a better job on pollution enforcement through property rights.

(and yes I have links if you want them)

In his defense - he is a doctor.

 

[Evo]

I wouldn't characterize Paul as an anti-science candidate. Yes, he probably would cut funding for science, as per shrinking the government in general. Although his views are on evolution are muddy (one of the few things he is not clear on), he has made it clear he is not running as an ID/creationist candidate. He would not support carbon cap emissions type legislation but has made it clear that the government should do a better job on pollution enforcement through property rights.

(and yes I have links if you want them)

Paul doesn't believe in evolution and he thinks GW is a hoax, and I do have the videos of him saying so. You didn't know? He actually said free trade will cure GW.

 

[Galteeth]

Romney isn't too bad, forgot about him. I'd have to say he's the only viable Republican contender. IMO

What are his views on science, btw, since this is a science forum?

Romney is probably the front runner now, although his general "neo-conness" makes him not an enthusiastic pic for the GOP base.

Romney wants to increase military spending and increase the military by 100,00 people.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-08/romney-pledges-to-increase-u-s-military-spending-deter-iran.html

While this may appeal to defense contractors and such, I don't think it will play well in the general.

 

[Galteeth]

Paul doesn't believe in evolution and he thinks GW is a hoax, and I do have the videos of him saying so.

Yes, he did say that (global warming), although he's moderated his view a bit (and he does through out a few anti-global warming talking points)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1242409415001/special-report-online-ron-paul/
(around 6:30 he discusses GW)

As far as the evolution thing, that's a bit more complicated.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...ron-paul-doesnt-accept-evolution-as-a-theory/


The unedited version of the video you are probably referring to in regards to evolution:



makes it clear Paul has NO interest in pushing any kind of creationist/ID platform.

 

[Evo]

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Ron Paul GW is a hoax Ron Paul on Fox Business: Global Warming is a Hoax - 11/04/2009

Start around 7:00 Paul says gw is a hoax around 7:10 then Paul says it's weather control, the tv reporter laughs nervously and changes the subject.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCc5Gk1nops

 

[DoggerDan]

makes it clear Paul has NO interest in pushing any kind of creationist/ID platform.

That's good to hear. Whether or not a President believes in evolution, however, his no bearing on his qualifications for the office of the Presidency. Most U.S. Presidents, after all, have not believed in Evolution. This includes several within the last 50 years.

 

[Galteeth]

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Ron Paul GW is a hoax Ron Paul on Fox Business: Global Warming is a Hoax - 11/04/2009

Start around 7:00 Paul says gw is a hoax around 7:10 then Paul says it's weather control, the tv reporter laughs nervously and changes the subject.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCc5Gk1nops

The top video is an edited version of the same video I linked to regarding evolution. The unedited version makes it clear that Paul has no interest in evolution as a political issue.