Turquoise wrote:
Simple answer: because Mike Gravel accomplishes all that while still believing in evolution.
With all due respect,
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MOTHERFUCKING MIND?! Stating Gravel's positions differ from Ron Paul's only in that Gravel favors evolution more than Paul is an indication of either gross ignorance or blatant misinformation. Gravel desires to change the nation from a constitutional republic to a direct democracy. Paul does not at all favor such a radical restructuring of our system of government. Gravel favors public financing of political campaigns, while Paul detests such restrictions of the people's first amendment right to free speech. Gravel wants to institute a "universal" health insurance scheme, while Paul wouldn't touch that largest expansion of federal spending and control with a ten-mile pole. Gravel wants to greatly expand federal meddling in local education, both in regulations and spending, while Paul recognizes the fact that local municipalities are better-able to deal with their own individual needs than a one-size-fits-all federal bureaucracy. Gravel favors a "living wage" law, while Paul realizes basic laws of economics and the freedom of people to demand the wages they want to work for.
Christ, I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the point. At least, I hope to hell you get the point. I don't know how much money all his proposals would end up costing, but I know that in every example I cited there was more spending involved and liberties lost. If you think Gravel and Paul are the same thing with the exception of one issue,
you're 100% wrong.
Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe, but I can guarantee you that I will never vote for someone who considers creationism and evolution equally viable, because that demonstrates a serious flaw in their logic. One theory is based on logical, scientific evidence, whereas another is based on religious conjecture. The two are simply not even comparable in validity, because creationism is not even remotely logical -- UNLESS you're talking about creationism in the context of "God made the Earth over millions of years."
You know, I'm going to agree with you here. However, there's no reason to vote against Paul for that one logical flaw,
especially when that one belief will have no effect on you. You never discussed that part of my question -- I'd still like to know how his belief in that area has even the slightest effect on your wallet or your liberties.
What Paul is defending is young-Earth creationism, which is completely utter bullshit.
I never saw him say that.
I'd rather vote for Gravel, because he's like a more realistic version of Paul.
Just like antifreeze is a "better tasting version" of orange juice.
