Ron Paul - Help Wanted
POSTED BY: SevenPercent
UPDATED: Friday, August 31, 2007 20:14
VIEWED: 12322
PAGE 3 of 11
Actually Fred, it's the willful disregard for scientific evidence as shown on a number of occasions as well as the conspiracy theories. His religion doesn't bother me in the least, though I've said in the past that his type of conspiratorical fundamentalism makes Christians like myself look bad by association.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I've already been tagged as offensive, so PN must be the nut, the idiot, and the trolling douchebag.
No. You pretty much fit trolling douchebag. This post is just another example. Now pickle licker....stay on topic.......Quote:
Antimason is none of the above. If his religious views make him an idiot in your degenerate dome...fuck you.
Degenerate? There's a good one, coming from someone who routinely posts gay sex fantasies in response to other people's posts on this board. If I was a degenerate, I'd probably be tagged as, oh, I dunno, offensive? But I havent been. Somebody else here has been though...wonder who that is?Quote:
Now, as far as you needing help from a bunch of posters on a Sci-fi board in order to decide about RP shows what a tool you are. How you are allowed to teach children is beyond me. Next time you have any questions, you retarded baboon, try this. http://www.google.com/ it is easy to use...I promise.
I don't need help to decide about him, I want to know more about him from people who already have an opinion on him. I understand how google works, numbnuts; I want opinions and reasoning. I can easily track a voting record, it's a lot harder to track the why of the voting record. I'm looking for people in the area he's represented or for opinions of people who've followed his career over the years. I'm also tracking commentary on a number of other sites and places.
Unlike you, you festering, pustulent, pea-brained boil on the ass of humanity, I like to make informed decisions, not just read one link and make up my mind. I like to consider things for a while. It even took me two or three of your posts to decide you were an ignorant troll (shouldn't have taken me that long, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt).Quote:
On a more important note, I hope the next time your boy friend slides a ruler in your ass it breaks off at the 11" marker.... And when you must sharpen the number two pencils for your classes next bubble test, I hope he lines your anus with sandpaper and sharpens them there......Well, unless you would enjoy it.............
Nice. Good imagination you have there. It's okay to come out of the closet, Kaneman.
Oh, and instead of replying to a second post of yours?right back atcha.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
Sure. Like I start threads that wrongly list only three RP supporters and then call them idiots, trolls, and nut cases. Well, actually I would. However, you claim to not be the faggot troll that I think you are. And then you post this thread...What a tool. You are proving to be very similar to me...only difference is your gay-ness....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As a liberal, Ron Paul presents me with a true philosophical dilemma.
I like the man, because I think he is honest and has integrity, something most politicians on both stages could not say. He doesn't seem to shy away from saying something unpopular, whereas Obama and Clinton are masters at avoiding anything provocative, even when they know its the truth.
Granted, they both went on record as being against the recent democratic cave to Bush over timetables, but they would never say what Ron Paul was brave enough to say, because they know, or believe, that would end their bid for the Presidency.
They are classic examples of the political institution. It's not clear to me whether they even truly want change, or if they're really truly willing to fight for it. The status quo keeps them in power as courters of the middle. I'm not sure they even want to end the war in Iraq,
or whether the dissent they voiced in congress was because they knew it was safe, without actual effect beyond political pandering. After all, they know who's going to get blamed when things go even southerer in Iraq after an American pullout, so maybe they'd rather leave this disaster to Bush, even while people in the real world are dying because of their inaction.
But if Obama or Clinton were to beat out my favored choices, Edwards(not that he has nothing to answer for on this war), Kucinich, and hell, even Gravel, I would still vote for them over any Republican candidate, yes including Ron Paul.
This is a painful statement for me, because I want honest governorship. I don't know what it says about me frankly that I would choose less then genuine articles over Paul, but Ron Paul does scare me. He scares me because while he gets our problems with the Middle-East, and he gets that all Americans need health care(I assume this is not a job for the government), there's too much I think he doesn't get...there's too much at odds with my sense of the world. and of our nation’s problems.
First and most central to me is his seeming disconnect that assumes there is any difference between intrusive Federal Governments running people's lives or state governments doing so, or corporations for that matter.
Could any libertarian please step up and explain to me how Ron Paul's solution to some ailing Government programs is that they should be privatized is in-fact a good solution?
Haven't we been seeing way too much of that? Isn't there example enough of unregulated companies doing what they want when they want and giving us the bill? That's the problem I see right here. If he thinks our lives will be meddled with less in an unregulated world, he's forgotten shanty towns and black-lists, and now private contractors used in both Iraq and Katrina who are not regulated by any military code of justice.
Next, he seems to think that racism is something that will go away if we stop trying to address it. That neglects 200 years of our history dealing, and mostly not dealing, with this very real problem.
And last, he thinks that fetus's are human beings, and that States should be able to decide whether or not to allow abortions, which certainly isn’t liberal, and frankly isn't very libertarian. Why should states individually have the right to make laws that intrude upon the rights of the individual? He would argue that this isn't a "victimless crime" I suppose, but the science isn't on his side here as to whether a fetus is a person.
Here's my fundamental dilemma. Obama and Clinton say they mean to end the war. They very well could be lying to me. Ron Paul tells me he wants to let states have the rights over women's reproductive system. I believe him when he tells me this.
Half of what he says he’s going to do I disagree with. What recourse do I have when I vote somebody into office that does what he says he’s going to do?
Of course, its a fair question to pose to me, what recourse do you have when you vote somebody into office and they don't do what they say they are going to do? don't know exactly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He's an honest man who stands for his convictions, you don't have to agree with him to respect him.
I think his interpretation of Constitutional issues are pretty true to the framer's thoughts on the matter. I understand that he doesnt like fudging constitutional ussues or either judicial rewrites or SCOTUS being asleep and letting bad laws go unchallenged.
Unfortunately I'm not sure that the Constitution strictly interpreted in a 200 year old context would actually work very well. There are a lot of "actors" in place that simply didn't exist in the 1780's including multinational corporations, companies treated as people and changes to the rules of usary that could infringe on practical personal liberty in the absence of a strong government.
One thing is true though and that is that we need more guys like him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Sure. Like I start threads that wrongly list only three RP supporters and then call them idiots, trolls, and nut cases.
At the time I looked at it, you three were the only three that had posted to the original RP thread. I didn't know Sarge had until he told me he had. This thread was asking for those who may support him that may not have participated in that thread simply because you and PN had infested it. Of the three of you, I actually think Antimason may be a nice guy, I may have been overreacting to the evolution thread in his case. If he wants you to be his defender, let him say it; frankly, I'd be surprised if that were the case.
Quote:
Well, actually I would. However, you claim to not be the faggot troll that I think you are.
I'm not the one that has "tagged as offensive" next to my name. And really, I don't give a damn if you think I'm a troll or not, and I doubt very seriously if anyone else cares either. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could find more than a handful of your own sockpuppets that didn't think you were the biggest fungus on this board.
You contribute nothing but insults, you have disdain for everyone here (or else you wouldn't have called this "just a sci-fi website"), and you've never acted like a respectable member of the community. I can tell you right now that if I ran this board, I'd have outright banned your ass months ago.
Quote:
And then you post this thread...What a tool. You are proving to be very similar to me...only difference is your gay-ness....
Damn right I posted it, and from those folks besides you that have posted I'm seeing some serious respect for RP, which says a lot to me about the man (you wouldn't know anything about respect though, since you can't earn any). And the homophobia? Seriously, it's 3rd grade (right where I expect your intellect to be), and it's making you look like a closet case.
Only when my IQ drops 50 points, my manners go out the door, and my knuckles start dragging the ground will we ever even remotely have anything in common...
...well it's true.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well said. Now go vote for Ron Paul, my little sockpuppet.....well, it's true........
"You contribute nothing but insults, you have disdain for everyone here (or else you wouldn't have called this "just a sci-fi website"), and you've never acted like a respectable member of the community.' - seven
Blah.........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by sevenpercent- Actually Fred, it's the willful disregard for scientific evidence as shown on a number of occasions as well as the conspiracy theories.
i dont think its a character flaw to be open minded to scientists who disagree with atheistic evolution.. IMO its no different then the global warming debate, how all dissent is squashed out by the vested money interests of academia(to protect the status quo). im not a scientist by nature... but as a christian, the bible makes the point that
Quote:, so i am looking through a different lense perhaps then you are.
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Quote:
His religion doesn't bother me in the least, though I've said in the past that his type of conspiratorical fundamentalism makes Christians like myself look bad by association.
why? 1/3 of the bible is prophecy, and a great deal of it refers to the "day of the Lord", or the end of the age. it is certainly relevant as a christian to promote the return of Jesus to people.. and one way to do that is to be vigilant of the signs, and to interpret prophecy.. just as Jesus' example in the parable of the fig tree. a global government is NOT a conspiracy(as even RON PAUL admits), and IT IS spoken about in prophecy, so in that regard i am not ashamed to speculate and attempt to recognize the signs of the times. if you doubt that there is a luciferian, or occult element in this New World Order agenda, research the doctrines of freemasonry yourself. this is stuff all christians need to consider
you may believe that fundementalists like me make 'christians' look bad, but i disagree. if youll notice, its a lot of mainstream christians who have endorsed this muslim jihadist concept that theyre all trying to murder us to establish a muslim caliphate.. and thats HARDLY supported by biblical scriptures. rather, its the WESTERN nations that make up the final government.. so us conspiracy oriented christians are more accurate. besides, christianity needs to have believers who accept the bible as the true word of God, otherwise the part about God creating the world in 6 days(and resting on the 7th) would have been completely ommitted from doctrine by now, aswell as other uncomfortable scriptures(such as the fallen angles)
as for Ron Paul, hes not only a confessed protestant, but hes also very open to a lot of this subject matter, as any google search will reveal. so you can consider it to all to be crazy, but atleast allow some leeway for alternative opinion, because the mainstream isnt always accurate
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
posted by sevenpercent- Actually Fred, it's the willful disregard for scientific evidence as shown on a number of occasions as well as the conspiracy theories.
i dont think its a character flaw to be open minded to scientists who disagree with atheistic evolution
Evolution is not atheistic, evolution is non-theistic. Evolution makes no statement on the existence, or lack thereof, of a god. Most religions have no problem with evolution, it just requires a slight adjustment of the way the holy texts are interpreted.
Quote:
IMO its no different then the global warming debate, how all dissent is squashed out by the vested money interests of academia(to protect the status quo).
I assume you are talking about ID? ID is ignored and rebuffed by scientists because it is not scientific, not out of a desire to protect the status quo. In fact if anyone could come up with a major revision or disproof to evolution they would become instant celebrities. The problem is that ID advocates have never done any actual science, they just repeat rebutted arguments against evolution and whine about how they aren't taken seriously by real scientists. As I said in kaneman's thread, if ID advocates were willing to do real science instead of just trying to discredit evolution then they would be accepted, they aren't willing to do that so they aren't accepted.
ID is a political and religious movement that has never been interested in science, thus scientists see no reason to take then seriously.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by fredgiblet- I assume you are talking about ID? ID is ignored and rebuffed by scientists because it is not scientific, not out of a desire to protect the status quo. In fact if anyone could come up with a major revision or disproof to evolution they would become instant celebrities. The problem is that ID advocates have never done any actual science, they just repeat rebutted arguments against evolution and whine about how they aren't taken seriously by real scientists. As I said in kaneman's thread, if ID advocates were willing to do real science instead of just trying to discredit evolution then they would be accepted, they aren't willing to do that so they aren't accepted.
i dont want to sidetrack this discussion any further, since i was only making a point- but i still have to disagree. through your eyes, there is no real science behind ID.. but if there IS a Creator, what evidence would you look for to indicate this? for all we know the signs could be clear as day, we just dont know what to look for
Quote:
ID is a political and religious movement that has never been interested in science, thus scientists see no reason to take then seriously.
if you dont think evolution is used for political reasons too, then your being naive. sometime i will explain what secular idealogy has done to the foundations of our society(which is dependent on rights granted by a transcendant being)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I've read and thought a fair amount about politics and libertarianism, to me, is by far the sanest and most rational of the various philosophies of government. Democrats will try to convince you that we're cold-hearted social Darwinists, and Republicans will tell you we're hedonists. Neither of those is the case.
exactly.. although, i cringe when referring to the the current crop of marxists and trotskyites as democrats and conservatives. we know the hardcore neo cons/liberals have completely abandoned any semblance of rationality that once existed in their platforms(and taken a lot of people with them). i especially appreciate Ron Paul exposing his critics, particularly within his party, for their own heresy, and neglect of constitutional principles
Quote:
I disagree with him fairly strongly on this. In my opinion, aborting may be, in the strictest sense 'murder'. But in this case, the cure is worse than the crime. If the only way a law can be enforced is to annex a woman's body, effectively making her public property, then that's a bad law.
ive struggled with this also. ive always felt that you cannot have a civil 'right', without a corresponding responsibility, and that government should protect the moral high ground on these issues. this concept fits well with alcohol or gun rights, but as a standard hasnt been applied uniformly anymore, and now certain drug, and other laws contradict that principle(unjustly IMO). anyway, i wonder where abortion truly fits in with this, because i agree that it is murder. the "right" to murder negates the responseability of preserving life. Ron Paul himself said that "i strongly believe that if you cant protect life, how can you protect liberty?" which if we agree, is fundamental to the rule of law. it seems to be in line with the constitution, i just wonder if society, in its effort to redefine traditional values, has lost the virtue to end this perpetual cycle, absent some established agreements, like that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights.
but i agree with your assessment of congressman Paul, since strictly upholding the original intent is a prerequisite to trimming the fat and inconstancy in policy. im someone who believes that as much as society has/and continues to change, human beings have not, and that we possess within ourselves the ability to have a 21st century society within the bounds of the constitution
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME