Well I'm glad you don't prefer a Marxist P.O.S. like any the big three. Throwing away everything Ron Paul stands for over his personal opinions about gays or because he's a Christian and like most Christians does not think evolution replaces God seems pretty damn shameful to me.

I don't like his opinions on several things just like you. Abortion, for instance. However I know that short of a Constitutional amendment to reflect Paul's opinions, they are irrelevant as none of them are under the domain of the Executive.

Kucinich isn't a terrible choice... his economic policies completely ignore the real problems we are facing in this country and would do ten fold the damage any of Paul's opinions on gays could do. But whatever. Nice to know where your priorities are. Just be sure you're at the booth to express them. A vote that's not for Hillary, Obama, or Edwards is a valuable vote indeed.

A couple of things... Ron Paul will likely run as an Independent. Most of us have known that from the beginning. My bet has always been that he will choose Kucinich as his running mate.

On evolution. It is a theory. It has always been a theory. But as has been pointed out here there have been relatively recent findings that challenge the accepted theory. Does that mean it's either evolution or God manually careted the world in 7 days? Of course not. Things --- especially in nature --- are not black and white. Could there exist elements of 'intelligent' or 'directed' design within the developmental hsitory of life on this planet? Sure.

Genetic Modeling accommodates the occasional 'hiccup' in the linear progression of evolution. But what if some external factor is introduced? A virus from some extraterrestrial object. God. Manipulation by an extraterrestrial higher intelligence. A large scale genetic shift caused by some cosmic event. Any of those would tank evolution as we know it. It is, afterall, called the Theory of Evolution.

Originally posted by apc
Throwing away everything Ron Paul stands for over his personal opinions about gays

...it's not his opinions about homosexuals alone... it's his opinions regarding legislating it
as well as his opinions regarding legislating sexual conduct in general

or because he's a Christian and like most Christians does not think evolution replaces God seems pretty damn shameful to me.

like most christians?
i'm sorry, but if you look at the numbers, there isn't a clear creationist majority among christians.
look at... let's say the biggest group of christians in the world, the catholics. they have no problem with evolution.

see, i tend to care if a candidate embraces reality or refuses

and i disagree with many of paul's other opinions, i just chose these as things that i just find outrageous

I don't like his opinions on several things just like you. Abortion, for instance. However I know that short of a Constitutional amendment to reflect Paul's opinions, they are irrelevant as none of them are under the domain of the Executive.

alright... but then he has veto power... so there's that. and the ability to choose supreme court justices...

Kucinich isn't a terrible choice... his economic policies completely ignore the real problems we are facing in this country and would do ten fold the damage any of Paul's opinions on gays could do.

i personally believe that paul's economic policies wouldn't really do much to help...

Originally posted by jtma508
On evolution. It is a theory. It has always been a theory.

and that means it's the best explanation of reality that we have... that means it's supported by evidence.

But as has been pointed out here there have been relatively recent findings that challenge the accepted theory.

actually, it only challenges how we view the development of things. instead of a tree it looks more like a scraggly bush...
the theory of evolution itself still stands on the basic level. our understanding is just getting to the more complex elements of it.

Does that mean it's either evolution or God manually careted the world in 7 days? Of course not. Things --- especially in nature --- are not black and white. Could there exist elements of 'intelligent' or 'directed' design within the developmental hsitory of life on this planet? Sure.

except there's absolutely no evidence for those "intelligent" elements...

Genetic Modeling accommodates the occasional 'hiccup' in the linear progression of evolution. But what if some external factor is introduced? A virus from some extraterrestrial object. God. Manipulation by an extraterrestrial higher intelligence. A large scale genetic shift caused by some cosmic event. Any of those would tank evolution as we know it. It is, afterall, called the Theory of Evolution.

but there is absolutely no evidence there... until there is evidence and a proper, scientific challenge, evolution stands.

...but this isn't really an O&C thread...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...it's not his opinions about homosexuals alone... it's his opinions regarding legislating it
as well as his opinions regarding legislating sexual conduct in general

You're seeing it backwards. He is against federally legislating it. What the states do is their own business. Not the feds, and not his.

like most christians?
i'm sorry, but if you look at the numbers, there isn't a clear creationist majority among christians.
look at... let's say the biggest group of christians in the world, the catholics. they have no problem with evolution.

Being a creationist kinda defines being a Christian... Although these days they try to make it sound scientific by calling it Intelligent Design.

i personally believe that paul's economic policies wouldn't really do much to help...

History disagrees, so please explain. Give numbers, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by apc
You're seeing it backwards. He is against federally legislating it. What the states do is their own business. Not the feds, and not his.

and i think that falls under "equal protection under law" and thus the states don't really have a say.
i think we should keep ALL government out of the bedroom

Being a creationist kinda defines being a Christian... Although these days they try to make it sound scientific by calling it Intelligent Design.

...no, it doesn't. it's actually that whole "i believe jesus, the son of god, died for our sins and was resurrected 3 days later" thing that defines being a christian

being a creationist kind of defines not having a proper view of reality

History disagrees, so please explain. Give numbers, if you don't mind.

give me numbers on how they'll help.
and history isn't actually much of an argument here... economics are quite dependent on the environment

You're still blaming Ron Paul for something that is an act of individual states. Point the finger where it belongs: on those states that want to regulate what happens in your bedroom.

Reality is subjective.

Low taxes and slow (or nonexistent) inflation = strong economic growth. That's history.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but being openly homosexual isn't an internal disruption.

I beg to differ when the average heterosexual finds it
utterly disgusting to the point of violence.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'm not talking about being openly homosexual by constantly trying to bed other soldiers (which seems to be a classic myth about what would happen if don't ask don't tell was abolished),

LOL, that is EXACTLY what would happen if you deployed a gay soldier in a combat zone for an extended tour of duty. He's gonna make his desires known and pursue them. Just like our soldiers do whenever they go into combat. Prime example is Hanoi during Vietnam. Our soldiers kept the brothels in business. When a gay soldier has no gay brothel to go to, then he seeks pleasure among his fellow soldiers. Same thing with the Navy port of calls. Our sailors come off for some R&R and go wild. Put them all back on a ship and it would appear to the gay male that heaven has just opened up the gates. I don't want to take a shower in a public barrack with a gay soldier looking at my butt. Neither do the soldiers that are currently deployed.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i just thought it was a patently irresponsible move to endorse anyone who supports the criminalization of homosexual acts...

WHY NOT ??
God and my bible does it
he destroyed an entire city cuz of it

Originally posted by apc
You're still blaming Ron Paul for something that is an act of individual states. Point the finger where it belongs: on those states that want to regulate what happens in your bedroom.

...or i could point it at the guy that opposes an interpretation that would immediately keep them out of there...

Reality is subjective.

no, reality is quite objective
that's why science works so gosh darn well.

Low taxes and slow (or nonexistent) inflation = strong economic growth. That's history.

...um... that's just a unbacked statement
show me the economics here
i just want to see the reasoning and logic

Originally posted by SimonSays

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but being openly homosexual isn't an internal disruption.

I beg to differ when the average heterosexual finds it
utterly disgusting to the point of violence.

yes... because let's humor the bigots.
and the AVERAGE heterosexual?
can you provide me evidence here?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
LOL, that is EXACTLY what would happen if you deployed a gay soldier in a combat zone for an extended tour of duty.

really? because we sure as hell have them right now... we have homosexuals in the military, they're just not allowed to say that they're homosexuals.

He's gonna make his desires known and pursue them.

and, if you actually knew a homosexual, wouldn't waste his breath pursuing a straight man...

Just like our soldiers do whenever they go into combat. Prime example is Hanoi during Vietnam. Our soldiers kept the brothels in business. When a gay soldier has no gay brothel to go to, then he seeks pleasure among his fellow soldiers.

um... that logic doesn't necessarily stand

Same thing with the Navy port of calls. Our sailors come off for some R&R and go wild. Put them all back on a ship and it would appear to the gay male that heaven has just opened up the gates. I don't want to take a shower in a public barrack with a gay soldier looking at my butt. Neither do the soldiers that are currently deployed.

but gay soldiers are in the military..
you don't understand that, do you?
the question is if they should be allowed to say it
and most homosexuals, like most people, have this thing known as "common decency"
the ones that i've gotten to know actually say they feel a bit embarrassed when they have to shower with other guys... and do everything they can to avoid looking

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i just thought it was a patently irresponsible move to endorse anyone who supports the criminalization of homosexual acts...

WHY NOT ??
God and my bible does it
he destroyed an entire city cuz of it


your god and bible have no place in the governance of a secular republic
unless your god becomes an american citizen through the naturalization process and exercises its right to vote

so your deity is a bigot... big deal

[edit on 1/18/08 by madnessinmysoul]

Originally posted by The Axeman
OK, I'll play.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
1: he doesn't believe in evolution
well...this is simple enough, i don't trust those who don't say that evolution is "just a theory" with running a country.

First of all, religious ideas/beliefs should have no bearing on political contests. Period.

From the Constitution of the United States:

Article. VI.
[...]
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

If his personal religious beliefs are a problem for you, then I think you have the problem, not RP. Religious bigotry/discrimination can be perpetrated even by atheists.

The theory of Evolution removes God from the equasion. I don't believe that either, but I won't deny that animals evolve. I believe God made it that way, and to put forth a theory that omits God's role in it would be unacceptable to any Christian. Doesn't make it right, but he has the right to believe how he likes -- just like you.

At least make it about the issues, not personal feelings.

So you'll vote for someone - presumably anyone - who states that they refuse to acknowledge scientific fact because their Deity of Choice tells them to do so? Paul can be as religious, of any religion he wants. But religion is no excuse for denial of reality. That's the issue. If you choose - CHOOSE - to deny a reality that even the "primitive and backwards" (according to Americna protestants) Catholic Church has accepted, then you have no more reason or right to be in the country's top office than the numbnutz who thinks the USSR still exists.

Ever eaten crab or lobster or clams or shrimp??

Lev 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon [all] four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they [are] an abomination.

Lev 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that [shall be] an abomination unto you.

There are many, many more.


[edit on 19-1-2008 by jtma508]