Politifact: Broun claims parallel to Ron Paul’s voting record

[sailingaway]

finds true. Doesn't list the different votes.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/feb/25/paul-broun/broun-claims-parallel-ron-pauls-voting-record/

[Paulistinian]

"Using the congressional tracking site, VoteSmart.org, PolitiFact reviewed 383 votes made by both men during their concurrent time in office, beginning in July 2007. That search revealed 42 times that the congressmen voted different ways on the same bill. Taking into account Broun’s foreign policy caveat, the number drops to 23 opposing votes. PolitiFact Georgia assumed votes involving defense topics as foreign policy.

Based on those numbers, 6 percent of votes cast by Broun differed from those cast by Paul."

94% the same as Ron Paul aint too bad... I would like to see what their differing votes were. Is there anyone here who knows how to find that out?

"Broun said except for foreign policy, his voting record and Ron Paul’s voting record were virtually identical."

He should change his foreign policy and I would give him money. It's like Ron Paul always says when people tell him to change his foreign policy... it's because of his foreign policy that people support him.

[sailingaway]

Tom Woods had a very short but dismissive post on this yesterday.

However, I am very pleased he is championing Ron's Fed issues. I will look into his votes on civil liberties.

[mport1]

Broun is not somebody we want to be associated with the liberty movement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html

[thoughtomator]

If we're going to be successful, we're going to need the support of people whose opinions aren't always the same as ours.

[mz10]

Paul Broun is the only person in America who really means it when he says "I like Ron Paul's domestic policy but not his foreign policy"

[mport1]

If we're going to be successful, we're going to need the support of people whose opinions aren't always the same as ours.

Not is he is a crazy religious nut who doesn't use logic or reason.


"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

He continued:

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

[sailingaway]

Not is he is a crazy religious nut who doesn't use logic or reason.

You use religious tests?

[mport1]

You use religious tests?

I'd prefer atheists, but yes, I think liberty activists should avoid associating with people that are extremists of this nature.

[TheTexan]

Not is he is a crazy religious nut who doesn't use logic or reason.

Not to be a dick to the religious people, but isn't that the definition of being religious?

[georgiaboy]

Good to know Broun's record holds up to scrutiny.

This Georgia US Senate race is gonna be a doozie.

[Brett85]

I'd prefer atheists, but yes, I think liberty activists should avoid associating with people that are extremists of this nature.

Then I guess liberty activists shouldn't associate with Ron Paul. Ron Paul rejects evolution as well.

[sailingaway]

Then I guess liberty activists shouldn't associate with Ron Paul. Ron Paul rejects evolution as well.

No he doesn't. He says his faith is comfortable with evolution but that the question shouldn't be asked as a religious test. He opposes the question and demagoguery around it.

[georgiaboy]

Not is he is a crazy religious nut who doesn't use logic or reason.


Not to be a dick to the religious people, but isn't that the definition of being religious?

I'll be praying for you guys. Given your interest in the subject, I'd bet God's already working in your lives to bring you around to Him.

Profoundly interesting, moving, even providential, to see the quote in your sig, bxm:



The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

It's literally a metaphor for yourself and mport, who see only this shadow, the physical, observable world, have yet to know God and see the world as it really is, all the while living in His universe, oblivious to His presence and to the spiritual truth that is, in fact, the actual reality.

[mport1]

Not to be a dick to the religious people, but isn't that the definition of being religious?

Yes, but there are different levels of lack of logic/empiricism, such as believing the Torah, Christian bible, Koran, etc. is the word of "god" and completely true vs. more moderate beliefs.

[sailingaway]

Yes, but there are different levels of lack of logic/empiricism, such as believing the Torah, Christian bible, Koran, etc. is the word of god and completely true vs. more moderate beliefs.

tolerance isn't your thing, I take it.

[mport1]

tolerance isn't your thing, I take it.

I do not tolerate things I find to be extremely destructive to humanity. First and foremost, the state. Way down the road, but still of concern to me, religion.

[TheTexan]

I'll be praying for you guys. Given your interest in the subject, I'd bet God's already working in your lives to bring you around to Him.

Thanks for your prayers. You will also be in my prayers. I will pray that your personal faith, and your proselytizing makes you happy and gives you satisfaction, and wish you much success in your endeavors to do so.

Amen.

[Randslide]

No he doesn't. He says his faith is comfortable with evolution but that the question shouldn't be asked as a religious test. He opposes the question and demagoguery around it.

Here is Ron in his own words on evolution...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g

[erowe1]

Not to be a dick to the religious people, but isn't that the definition of being religious?

Not at all. In order to use logic or reason you have to be thoroughly religious.

[erowe1]

I do not tolerate things I find to be extremely destructive to humanity. First and foremost, the state. Way down the road, but still of concern to me, religion.

How do you square that with the fact that you yourself are a religious zealot?

[Brett85]

No he doesn't. He says his faith is comfortable with evolution but that the question shouldn't be asked as a religious test. He opposes the question and demagoguery around it.

No, he flat out said that he doesn't accept the theory of evolution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-20098876.html

[KingNothing]

You use religious tests?

It really is difficult not to discount anyone who believes the Earth was created in six days. Still, we've clearly seen that people can endorse Liberty and mythical beliefs like that, and it would be silly to suggest that we turn away all Christians, or Jews, or Muslims.

[mport1]

How do you square that with the fact that you yourself are a religious zealot?

How am I a religious zealot? I am not religious...

Religion (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=religion&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=rWEuUa-WMY_4qAH9w4DgCg&ved=0CC8QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42965579,d.b2I&fp=517dd349d85c70a3&biw=1162&bih=582) - "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

[erowe1]

How am I a religious zealot? I am not religious...

Religion (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=religion&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=rWEuUa-WMY_4qAH9w4DgCg&ved=0CC8QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42965579,d.b2I&fp=517dd349d85c70a3&biw=1162&bih=582) - "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

You cherry picked that line. Here's the whole entry from your own link:

re·li·gion

noun /riˈlijən/ 
religions, plural


1.The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
- ideas about the relationship between science and religion


2.Details of belief as taught or discussed
- when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics


3.A particular system of faith and worship
- the world's great religions


4.A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
- consumerism is the new religion


There's no such thing as a person who isn't religious. And someone like you who judges people harshly for answering religious questions differently than you do is a religious zealot.

There's nothing wrong with being a religious zealot, mind you. It's just that there's a certain irony about someone as religious as yourself at the same time condemning someone else for being religious.

[Brett85]

It really is difficult not to discount anyone who believes the Earth was created in six days. Still, we've clearly seen that people can endorse Liberty and mythical beliefs like that, and it would be silly to suggest that we turn away all Christians, or Jews, or Muslims.

It would certainly be silly to turn away the founder of the movement, Ron Paul, just because he believes in creationism and rejects evolution.

[whoisjohngalt]

I'll be praying for you guys. Given your interest in the subject, I'd bet God's already working in your lives to bring you around to Him.

Profoundly interesting, moving, even providential, to see the quote in your sig, bxm:



It's literally a metaphor for yourself and mport, who see only this shadow, the physical, observable world, have yet to know God and see the world as it really is, all the while living in His universe, oblivious to His presence and to the spiritual truth that is, in fact, the actual reality.

If this is your interpretation of the quote (I must admit it's a fair one since the Wachowski brothers made this is a painfully obvious Christian allegory) than consider me Cyrus because I was once unplugged and have happily rejoined my logical brethren in the matrix. The whole issue with the allegory that is the matrix is that they present a life in the matrix as far more appealing than one outside of it despite their "it's hard but worth it" bullshit. Which makes it a pretty apt analogy. Living your life which is a known quantifiable a certain way because of a belief in an unknown unquantifiable is illogical.

I believe we can't know anything outside of our construct for sure. There is this overwhelming concept in the Christian community that there is a void in non-Christians. If it exists, a lot of us don't feel it. I'm happy as shit and you can protest and tell me I'm not all you want, but that won't make me any less happy or in need of your faith.

[compromise]

Not is he is a crazy religious nut who doesn't use logic or reason.

To be honest, Ron probably agrees with him. They're both Southern Baptists. Also, I'm not sure why it really matters what his personal views on the Big Bang Theory and Evolution are.

[erowe1]

Living your life which is a known quantifiable a certain way because of a belief in an unknown unquantifiable is illogical.

Is the statement you make in this quote a known quantifiable or an unknown unquantifiable?

[FrankRep]

Broun is not somebody we want to be associated with the liberty movement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html

He's one of those evil Christians? :-p

[sailingaway]

No, he flat out said that he doesn't accept the theory of evolution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-20098876.html

OK, you mean as in God didn't create people, not as in evolution doesn't occur. At least that is what I think he was saying there. He also addresses it in Liberty Defined or Revolution, I forget which, and gave more detail on that. At one point he basically said his faith doesn't hinge on it one way or the other (whether evolution the method God used in how God created people, is how I took that) but that he was seriously offended by that being a question of politicians.

[Brett85]

OK, you mean as in God didn't create people, not as in evolution doesn't occur. At least that is what I think he was saying there. He also addresses it in Liberty Defined or Revolution, I forget which, and gave more detail on that. At one point he basically said his faith doesn't hinge on it one way or the other (whether evolution the method God used in how God created people, is how I took that) but that he was seriously offended by that being a question of politicians.

I don't think the issue should have anything to do with whether someone should be in Congress or should be President or not. What difference does it make whether one believes in a literal six day creation? Someone like Paul Broun believes that education should be entirely a state issue and would never support a federal "intelligent design bill" or anything like that. It's sad that even people on this forum take the liberal position that believing in evolution is a requirement for running for political office. (Not you)

[RonPaulMall]

Yes, but there are different levels of lack of logic/empiricism, such as believing the Torah, Christian bible, Koran, etc. is the word of "god" and completely true vs. more moderate beliefs.

"Moderate" religious types are the most illogical of all from a strict logic/empiricism perspective.

[whoisjohngalt]

Is the statement you make in this quote a known quantifiable or an unknown unquantifiable?

I don't understand. And I'm not arguing that being illogical is strictly bad. Just that logic can't be applied to the metaphysical. I respect people's freedom of conscience, but I don't care for georgiaboy's "i'll be praying for you lost souls" bit.

[georgiaboy]

It really is sad that anyone who believes in an all-powerful deity could not also believe that this deity could create an infinite number, let alone one, fully operational and mature universes, in six 24-hour periods.

Guess all-powerful has its limits for some.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtz4Tzr9WJk

[whoisjohngalt]

It really is sad that anyone who believes in an all-powerful deity could not also believe that this deity could create an infinite number, let alone one, fully operational and mature universes, in six 24-hour periods.

Guess all-powerful has its limits for some.

All-powerful is a concept that is completely outside of the construct of humans. So is infinity. It doesn't exist in our universe. Logically speaking, someone can believe a creator exists (acknowledging they are omnipotent is not inherent in this belief) that is outside of our physical realm. That doesn't preclude them from believing that physical laws govern our universe. You can not escape induction. Humans can't live without it. If you didn't use past experience to govern your life, you would already be dead. Thus, we all accept the nature of universal physical laws. Once you accept that, you understand that you must pay attention to these laws when you examine the evidence of how the earth was created.

That and it's pretty easy for Christians to swallow a non 7-day creation if they become aware of the fact that the Hebrew word in Genesis means "period of time" as well as "day".

[erowe1]

logic can't be applied to the metaphysical

Is it logical for you to believe this?

[erowe1]

You can not escape induction. Humans can't live without it.

Did you arrive at the above conclusion by way of induction?

[whoisjohngalt]

Did you arrive at the above conclusion by way of induction?

You are either being an obstructionist troll or doing a horrible job of attempting to employ the Socratic method. Your question would suggest you don't even know what induction is. If you don't plan on being serious, I don't plan on paying your posts any heed going forward. That is all.

[erowe1]

You are either being an obstructionist troll or doing a horrible job of attempting to employ the Socratic method. Your question would suggest you don't even know what induction is. If you don't plan on being serious, I don't plan on paying your posts any heed going forward. That is all.

Does that mean no?

ETA: I'm being serious.

[whoisjohngalt]

Does that mean no?

ETA: I'm being serious.

That is an irrelevant question. I never argued that every single conclusion was reached by way of induction. I merely stated the truth, that humans intuitively use induction and that if they did not, they would be dead.

It's the reason you don't step off the edge of the roof on a 20 story building expecting to fly. What is your point?

[erowe1]

That is an irrelevant question. I never argued that every single conclusion was reached by way of induction. I merely stated the truth, that humans intuitively use induction and that if they did not, they would be dead.


What are the other ways to reach conclusions?

[whoisjohngalt]

What are the other ways to reach conclusions?

I already told you that I'm not interested in playing your games. I wasted enough time indulging you. You can challenge/attempt to refute my point or not. If you choose not, I will not continuing answering your abstract questions.

Here is one for you though. Do you deny your use of induction? Do you deny your belief in the laws of physics that govern the universe?

[CUnknown]

I'd prefer atheists, but yes, I think liberty activists should avoid associating with people that are extremists of this nature.

Thank you, mport. I live in Broun's district actually. I will be, if anything, actively campaigning to defeat him, whether from his House seat or this Senate seat, whatever. He's a nutcase, a fool, and a warhawk. How can he claim to believe in liberty if he wants to steal money from me so he can go kill people overseas?

Edit: I want to clarify that I have nothing against Broun's religious beliefs. I think his comments about evolution are embarrassing, and I can't imagine Ron ever saying those things, even if he privately believes them. Ron knows what should be kept private, he doesn't flaunt his religion like some. But anyway, my beef with Broun is just about solely about foreign policy. If Broun had Ron's foreign policy, I would support him. But he doesn't, and it changes the entire thing for me. It makes me doubt his sincerity, and then the fact that he's an idiot kicks in and all I feel is revulsion and embarrassment that he is supposedly my Representative.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I do not tolerate things I find to be extremely destructive to humanity. First and foremost, the state. Way down the road, but still of concern to me, religion.

I hope nobody takes your stupid advice seriously because if they do libertarianism is never going to accomplish anything of significance if it's only a circlejerk of athiest secular types. Elitist attitudes like yours are just going to send people away from libertarianism in droves

[ifthenwouldi]

What are the other ways to reach conclusions?

Haha. Good luck getting an answer to this. You'll get plenty of wishy-washy, question-dodging responses, I'm sure.

[erowe1]

Do you deny your use of induction? Do you deny your belief in the laws of physics that govern the universe?

No I don't deny it. I absolutely affirm it. But I'm a Christian, so that comports with my world view.

The people who run into contradictions are the Randian types who insist that they're not religious, that they don't accept anything on faith, and that all they know they discovered by perfectly objective use of logic and empiricism.

[whoisjohngalt]

No I don't deny it. I absolutely affirm it. But I'm a Christian, so that comports with my world view.

The people who run into contradictions are the Randian types who insist that they're not religious, that they don't accept anything on faith, and that all they know they discovered by perfectly objective use of logic and empiricism.

A six day creation does not align with the laws of physics. It would require divine interference. Now as there is no evidence of any interference with universal physical laws, induction, which you don't deny we all use, suggests that we shouldn't believe in a six day creation. In fact, induction strongly suggests it's absurd.

That's not to say it didn't happen. But believing that's how it happened employs the same logic as believing God will allow you to fly if you jump off a 20 story building tomorrow.

On top of that, it's not biblical. Unless you are a fundamentalist who believes that not only the original writing of the Bible was inspired by the Spirit, but also every subsequent translation. And if that's your belief, it's a paradox since the Spirit would have had to inspire so many different translations.

[erowe1]

A six day creation does not align with the laws of physics. It would require divine interference. Now as there is no evidence of any interference with universal physical laws, induction, which you don't deny we all use, suggests that we shouldn't believe in a six day creation. In fact, induction strongly suggests it's absurd.
Induction doesn't demand that the laws of physics as we observe and describe them have always obtained without any exceptional cases. It only demands that they obtain enough to treat those exceptional cases as truly exceptional. So the question comes down to whether or not there ever have been exceptions (or miracles, or divine interferences, as you called them). The only way one can insist that there never have been would be by a purely religious dogmatism that they arrived at by blind faith apart from either logic or induction.


Unless you are a fundamentalist who believes that not only the original writing of the Bible was inspired by the Spirit, but also every subsequent translation. And if that's your belief, it's a paradox since the Spirit would have had to inspire so many different translations.
I'm not familiar with any Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, who have said that. Do you have anyone in mind?

[whoisjohngalt]

Induction doesn't demand that the laws of physics as we observe and describe them have always obtained without any exceptional cases. It only demands that they obtain enough to treat those exceptional cases as truly exceptional. So the question comes down to whether or not there ever have been exceptions (or miracles, or divine interferences, as you called them). The only way one can insist that there never have been would be by a purely religious dogmatism that they arrived at by blind faith apart from either logic or induction.


I'm not familiar with any Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, who have said that. Do you have anyone in mind?

No, but the alternative is worse and that's not thinking it through. Paul Broun exhibits such behavior. Anyone who believes so adamantly in a six day creation without a simple review of the evidence is making a statement about his or her character and intelligence. An important piece of evidence is the fact that the Hebrew word also means period of time.

It's really his foreign policy that makes him unacceptable though. I don't think lack of scrutiny in determining one's religious beliefs necessarily translates. I wouldn't judge him on those criteria so long as it doesn't influence his policy. Acceptance of dogma/inability to think for one's self are not attractive qualities in a legislator.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm afraid anyone who agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy isn't going to do well here in the South.

It's 'rack'em sack'em ragheads' down here.

We still have people riding around with 'terrorist hunting permit' stickers on their pick-up trucks which they drive on their way to get more beer, then go home, sit on a couch, and not fight terrorism.

[CUnknown]

I'm afraid anyone who agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy isn't going to do well here in the South.

It's 'rack'em sack'em ragheads' down here.

We still have people riding around with 'terrorist hunting permit' stickers on their pick-up trucks which they drive on their way to get more beer, then go home, sit on a couch, and not fight terrorism.

Still doesn't mean we should support warhawks. The foreign policy part of Ron Paul's platform is the most important part, and I believe he himself has said so on a number of occasions. Anyone who wants to tax us or run up huge debts so they can kill people halfway around the world is just not a believer in liberty. They are a believer in tyranny.

[unknown]

Broun is not somebody we want to be associated with the liberty movement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html

A politician's religious or personal views shouldnt really matter IMO as long as it doesnt affect their views on freedom.

It never mattered to me where RP stood on evolution, God etc because I knew he wholeheartedly defended my right to believe whatever I wanted.

Although I'll admit that I would have been disappointed had RP made "pit of hell" type statements.

As far as voting differences with RP, my guess would be that he supported "terrorism" related garbage: Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA etc.

How great is it that Ron Paul is the standard in voting records. :D