Misc is this true? Ron Paul on the issues

[Poincare]

Abortion: EVERY CHILDS LIFE IS SACRED HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT COMMIE
American principles: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Civil rights: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT AND I'M THE ANTI-RACIST
Disabilities: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Economy: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Education: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Energy & Environment: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Ethics: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Evolution: SCIENCE IS A MYTH. THE LORD CREATED EVERYTHING AND YOU CANT DISPROVE IT. Also NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Family: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Fiscal: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT AND I LOVE GOLD
Foreign Policy: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Gay Rights: STATES HAVE A RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE IF THEY WANT TO BECUZ IT'S THEIR RIGHT. Also NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Gun Control: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Health care: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT AND I LOOKED AT A LOT OF VAGOOS
Homeland Security: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Immigration: NO MOAR MEXICANZ
Iraq: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT AND GIULIANI CAN KISS MY ASS
Political Experience: I'VE SERVED TWENTY SEVEN TERMS AS A SENATOR NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF
Poverty: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Prostitution: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Rural: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Service: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Seniors & Social Security: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Technology: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Use of the NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
Veterans: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT
War and al qeada:NO MOAR WAR
DRUGS AND ALCAHOL: NO MOAR GOVERNMENT


Libertarianism is a fad political ideology for 13 year old boys, first year college students, and white business owners who use the "private property" argument so they don't have to serve blacks. Libertarians (conservatives/Republicans), more commonly known as Libertards or Lolbertarians, believe that governmental "intrusion" into peoples lives should be limited as much as possible. Except when someone breaks into their house; they need a contract enforced; or want a health inspector to check out the local restaurants. Government is just fine in those cases. They also believe roads and civic infrastructure are naturally occurring phenomena.

What political philosophy can I both bastardize and miss the point of, so that I can justify being an even more selfish prick than I am now?

[BuckNakedinBama]

Huh?

[doobiebro]

lol, no. some of those maybe eventually no moar government. a lot of them get left up to the states to decide.

[Poincare]

What's his kooky stance on healthcare? Last time I checked the hard data from countries who've adopted a single-payer system were actually better off.

[Tamorlane]

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

[knox07]

ITT: OP has never heard of the 10th amendment

[CoolDehLa]

itt: ron paul parrots

[bbrahh]

OP is a phaggot

[nirahtma]

What's his kooky stance on healthcare? Last time I checked the hard data from countries who've adopted a single-payer system were actually better off.

You mean like Greece??

[JoshSP1985]

What's his kooky stance on healthcare? Last time I checked the hard data from countries who've adopted a single-payer system were actually better off.

Define better off

More people insured would be "better off to some" despite crushing national debt and 6month waits.

[Judgment]

lol, no. some of those maybe eventually no moar government. a lot of them get left up to the states to decide.

This; Smaller government.

OP expects everything to be handed to him and handled for him. OP is indeed a phaggot.

[RyzinEnagy]

believe that governmental "intrusion" into peoples lives should be limited as much as possible. Except when someone breaks into their house

Are you really equating "government intrusion" with "police protection"?

[BuckNakedinBama]

Ron Paul's ideas in a nut shell: People are better and more efficient allocators of their money than some corrupt politicians are. If you pay $100 in taxes, you *might* get back $10 in services after all the gov't agencies and bureaucrats take their share and you pay to bomb/rebuild foreign countries. Let people keep nearly all of their money and let them make choices; they can enjoy the positive decisions and suffer the consequences of negative decisions. If they decide to buy a jet ski instead of healthcare insurance so be it, they made that choice. Removing taxes will encourage businesses to hire here again as the cost of labor will dramatically decrease. The cost of goods will dramatically decrease as companies no longer pass on taxes to consumers. Standard of living will rise for all but the weakest of the weak and the poorest decision makers.

[Jpenn89]

itt: ron paul parrots

Why is it any time anyone posts or says anything that people disagree with they are "parrots" simply because people agree with Ron Paul, doesn't make them incapable of critical thread.

You don't se me yelling "ITT: Obama parrots" Ever. Because just because somone agrees with Obma doesn't make me think they can't analyze problems and come to their own solution. You don't have to resort to attacking people for their political beliefs just because you Think they are wrong.

[voltio8836]

lol so everyone who hates on OP really had nothing to say against him because he is right.

"wawawawa op is a phaggot!! wawawawa"

[ONtop888]

lol so everyone who hates on OP really had nothing to say against him because he is right.

"wawawawa op is a phaggot!! wawawawa"Yo dawg I think we should force colleges to ban guns in order to prevent crazy people from coming on campus and murdering. What do you think? I mean, seriously, what is the worst that could happen? If it doesn't work then all students will be unarmed when the psycho strolls to their dorm with a rifle. No big deal amirite?

[voltio8836]

Yo dawg I think we should force colleges to ban guns in order to prevent crazy people from coming on campus and murdering. What do you think? I mean, seriously, what is the worst that could happen? If it doesn't work then all students will be unarmed when the psycho strolls to their dorm with a rifle. No big deal amirite?


Are you retarded? I asked if we should force colleges to ALLOW guns on campus. You must be another hater who has no response to the OP so you try to detract the thread? lol

[ONtop888]

Are you retarded? I asked if we should force colleges to ALLOW guns on campus. You must be another hater who has no response to the OP so you try to detract the thread? lol

You're the retard with goof ball ideas who is obsessed with libertarians lol. Half of the "assertions" made by the OP could be resolved by "the 10th amendment," as in Ron Paul wants to transfer the decisions on many of those issues - abortion and education for example - to the states. Hollllllllla.

[Jnoah18]

Its a long list but yes Ron Paul wants to deregulate pretty much everything imaginable.

[ArchangelDante]

itt: op fails to realize that federal govt.=/= state govt.

[pokerash]

As an outsider this is the first anti-paul thread so far.

Is he anti Abortion? that's a huge point against him if that's the case.

7 Billion people who needs more.

[GermanBB]

lower federal power, increase state power. any issue that can be construed as a topic of morality e.g., drugs laws, should be left up to the local people, that state, to decide.

[frasersteen]

As an outsider this is the first anti-paul thread so far.

Is he anti Abortion? that's a huge point against him if that's the case.

7 Billion people who needs more.

He believes abortion is wrong personally, but he has said he will leave it up to individual states to decide.

He is pretty much a religious fundie but it would be disingenuous to say that his policies are, on most religious issues his response is to make it a state decision.

Strong not a Ron Paul supporter here but I don't think he can be legitimately attacked on religious issues.

[nirahtma]

lol so everyone who hates on OP really had nothing to say against him because he is right.

"wawawawa op is a phaggot!! wawawawa"

but he has not right. Ron Paul doesnt want the goverment oit of those issues. He wants the federal government out of those issues.

[frasersteen]

but he has not right. Ron Paul doesnt want the goverment oit of those issues. He wants the federal government out of those issues.

keyboard broken or just spitting with rage?

[YUL]

lol, no. some of those maybe eventually no moar government. a lot of them get left up to the states to decide.

what if some states dont want to have to decide?

[Beeewbs]

Ron Paul's ideas in a nut shell: People are better and more efficient allocators of their money than some corrupt politicians are. If you pay $100 in taxes, you *might* get back $10 in services after all the gov't agencies and bureaucrats take their share and you pay to bomb/rebuild foreign countries. Let people keep nearly all of their money and let them make choices; they can enjoy the positive decisions and suffer the consequences of negative decisions. If they decide to buy a jet ski instead of healthcare insurance so be it, they made that choice. Removing taxes will encourage businesses to hire here again as the cost of labor will dramatically decrease. The cost of goods will dramatically decrease as companies no longer pass on taxes to consumers. Standard of living will rise for all but the weakest of the weak and the poorest decision makers.

Removing taxes will increase demand how? Why would a company increase supply if there is no increased demand? How does lowering taxes for business accomplish anything?

[Beeewbs]

He believes abortion is wrong personally, but he has said he will leave it up to individual states to decide.

He is pretty much a religious fundie but it would be disingenuous to say that his policies are, on most religious issues his response is to make it a state decision.

Strong not a Ron Paul supporter here but I don't think he can be legitimately attacked on religious issues.

Well, that's a giant lie.


Fact: Ron Paul is against abortion and wants to see it banned.


http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm


I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception.

I’m surprised that I don’t have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president’s signature. It’s a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let’s just use what we have & pass this type of legislation.



Fact: Ron Paul does not believe in the separation of church and state.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html


Government does not have the authority to decide whether or not religion is allowed schools

The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.


Fact: Ron Paul is against gay marriage and wants to keep it banned.

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2011/02/24/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/



“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States. Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.


Fact: Ron Paul is ok with states banning gay sex:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962110/posts


Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.



Fact: Ron Paul supports teaching creationism
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

Fact: Ron Paul denies evolution

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2571
yPoCsC8VT9g

[ONtop888]

Big bad bweeeeeebs and his frotrhing hatred!! Unfortunately, you simply parroted what we all said: that Ron Paul is against abortion and wants to give the choice to the states in the hopes that must will vote pro-life. Hollllllllllllaaaaa.

[frasersteen]

Removing taxes will increase demand how? Why would a company increase supply if there is no increased demand? How does lowering taxes for business accomplish anything?

Larger profit margins = more pay = more disposable income in the system

Larger profit margins = more successes = more weath = more growth

Larger profit margins = more room to reduce prices = lower prices = more effective disposable income


Taxation is a delicate balancing act but there is no doubt that lowering taxes is effectively a fiscal stimulus. Whether that stimulus is offset by the cuts that would be necessary in public services is very difficult to say, certainly government services and government investment in them can be targeted to help those most in need whereas a tax cut will be reduced in effectiveness as the people not in need of help would effectively receiving government subsidy too. Lowering taxes does generally give better bang for buck all other things being equal though.

[Beeewbs]

Big bad bweeeeeebs and his frotrhing hatred!! Unfortunately, you simply parroted what we all said: that Ron Paul is against abortion and wants to give the choice to the states in the hopes that must will vote pro-life. Hollllllllllllaaaaa.

I'm not sure how I'm "frotrhing" by simply pointing out the facts. And I didn't notice you saying that he doesn't believe in evolution and wants creationism taught, or that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, or that he's wanting to pass bills to do everything he can to ban abortion and gay marriage.

[Beeewbs]

Larger profit margins = more pay = more disposable income in the system

Larger profit margins = more successes = more weath = more growth

Larger profit margins = more room to reduce prices = lower prices = more effective disposable income


Taxation is a delicate balancing act but there is no doubt that lowering taxes is effectively a fiscal stimulus. Whether that stimulus is offset by the cuts that would be necessary in public services is very difficult to say, certainly government services and government investment in them can be targeted to help those most in need whereas a tax cut will be reduced in effectiveness as the people not in need of help would effectively receiving government subsidy too. Lowering taxes does generally give better bang for buck all other things being equal though.

Where is your evidence that lowering taxes on corporations results in a larger work force? Trickle down economics is a failed idea. Some of these corporations are making record profits, but are they passing it on to their workers and giving everyone a raise and creating a greater demand so that they end up hiring more employees?

Didn't think so.

[frasersteen]

Where is your evidence that lowering taxes on corporations results in a larger work force? Trickle down economics is a failed idea. Some of these corporations are making record profits, but are they passing it on to their workers and giving everyone a raise and creating a greater demand so that they end up hiring more employees?

Didn't think so.

Not in all cases but lowering SME tax does generally help all the employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher#Economy_and_taxation

Margaret Thatcher's reforms in Britain in the 80s is a good example of how lower taxation can stimulate growth and improve living standards overall.

Don't get me wrong I am not actually taking a position of lowing or raising taxes. I was merely pointing out that lower taxes do stimulate growth. As you point out though this growth is not always as positive as it could be.

[Beeewbs]

Not in all cases but lowering SME tax does generally help all the employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher#Economy_and_taxation

Margaret Thatcher's reforms in Britain in the 80s is a good example of how lower taxation can stimulate growth and improve living standards overall.

Don't get me wrong I am not actually taking a position of lowing or raising taxes. I was merely pointing out that lower taxes do stimulate growth. As you point out though this growth is not always as positive as it could be.

Can you actually point to a specific example instead of linking me to a wiki page with Thatcher's bio?

And:


Together with Chancellor of the Exchequer Geoffrey Howe, she lowered direct taxes on income and increased indirect taxes.

As the recession of the early 1980s deepened she increased taxes,[76] despite concerns expressed in a statement signed by 364 leading economists issued towards the end of March 1981.[77]

By 1982 the UK began to experience signs of economic recovery;[78] inflation was down to 8.6% from a high of 18%, but unemployment was over 3 million for the first time since the 1930s.[79] By 1983 overall economic growth was stronger and inflation and mortgage rates were at their lowest levels since 1970, although manufacturing output had dropped by 30% since 1978[80] and unemployment remained high, peaking at 3.3 million in 1984.[81]

Throughout the 1980s revenue from the 90% tax on North Sea oil extraction was used as a short-term funding source to balance the economy and pay the costs of reform.[83]

Is this supposed to be an example of cutting taxes, because it isn't.

[frasersteen]

Can you actually point to a specific example instead of linking me to a wiki page with Thatcher's bio?

And:



Is this supposed to be an example of cutting taxes, because it isn't.

The tax burden was shifted quite a lot but as it says the reduction of direct taxes at all levels was used to stimulate the economy out of recession and it was supremely effective.

Can't find a more in depth example to link to at the moment. Hopefully someone else can chime in.

[Beeewbs]

The tax burden was shifted quite a lot but as it says the reduction of direct taxes at all levels was used to stimulate the economy out of recession and it was supremely effective.

Can't find a more in depth example to link to at the moment. Hopefully someone else can chime in.

Where does it say that she actually lowered taxes overall? It says more about raising them than it does about lowering them. And it says nothing about lowering them for businesses specifically. It's one thing to lower taxes for the middle and lower taxes and a completely different thing to lower them for corporations. It talks about having a huge tax on the oil business, though, which paid for a lot of things. I think this example backfired on you. Do you not have a single real world example of lowering taxes for business causing a significant increase in jobs?

[Slavich]

WARNING: We have a retard trying to sound smart. Let me debunk him.



Well, that's a giant lie.


Fact: Ron Paul is against abortion and wants to see it banned.


http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

THE REAL FACT: Ron Paul doesn't believe in abortion. THIS PART IS CORRECT. HOWEVER, He believes that it isn't anyone else's choice to decide weather you should get it or not. He thinks the states should decide (Which means the people decide) on weather it should be legal or not. AT THE END OF THE DAY, This means that abortion will be legal. Pull your head out your ass. His personal beliefs are not going to be forced on the rest of us. This makes him 100x better president then the others. NEXT



Fact: Ron Paul does not believe in the separation of church and state.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html




Fact: Ron Paul is against gay marriage and wants to keep it banned.

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2011/02/24/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/


THE REAL FACT: See above. Replace abortion with gay marriage/sex/w/e issue.

Fact: Ron Paul is ok with states banning gay sex:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962110/posts


THE REAL FACT: He believes in the states being able to make that choice. He himself might be agaisnt gay sex, and thinks it should be ban, but he isn't the one that is going to make those descissions. So his opinions on these matters are irreleveant. You are just looking for a reason to hate, and since Ron Paul doesn't **** up, this is all you got.


Fact: Ron Paul supports teaching creationism
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

Fact: Ron Paul denies evolution

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2571
yPoCsC8VT9g


THE REAL FACT: He never states he doesn't believe or disbelieve in evolution. He tries to remain pollitically correct to appease everyone. He even says that the question is kind of inappropriate for a presidential debate (Matters of scientifical philosophy). But you guys are obviously tards that can't understand your way out of a paper bag, but anyways. If these are all you have agaisnt Ron Paul then you should reconsider your vote for him. Because all these issues are non issues.

[ONtop888]

I'm not sure how I'm "frotrhing" by simply pointing out the facts. And I didn't notice you saying that he doesn't believe in evolution and wants creationism taught, or that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, or that he's wanting to pass bills to do everything he can to ban abortion and gay marriage.He doesn't believe in evolution and I don't give a sh*t. Only an idiot would worry about creationism in a candidate amidst the many pressing issues that our country is facing - escalating militarism, massive debt crisis, overspending, etc.

In regards to creationism being taught I believe he wants to delegate that to the states which probably result in 2 or 3 Southern states teaching it alongside evolution while the rest of us learn modern scientific theories without the inclusion of ID. I can see how giving the states the right to choose can be troubling on this context, but it is not really a huge issue for me given what I noted above.

I also don't see how you can't appreciate Paul's answer to the question in the video you posted. It's not like he's a raging fundie that hates atheists.

[Slavich]

He doesn't believe in evolution and I don't give a sh*t. Only an idiot would worry about creationism in a candidate amidst the many pressing issues that our country is facing - escalating militarism, massive debt crisis, overspending, etc.

In regards to creationism being taught I believe he wants to delegate that to the states which probably result in 2 or 3 Southern states teaching it alongside evolution while the rest of us learn modern scientific theories without the inclusion of ID. I can see how giving the states the right to choose can be troubling on this context, but it is not really a huge issue for me given what I noted above.


Why are you arguing with this Psychopath? It's obvious he twist the truth and facts to accompany his flawed arguments. Someone like this KNOWS they are wrong deep inside, but won't admit. The worst kind of person to argue with.

[Beeewbs]

WARNING: We have a retard trying to sound smart.

Thanks for announcing your entrance. All you did was call me a name and deny the obvious. "I THINK IT'S A THEORY....AND I DON'T ACCEPT IT." Actually, I don't think you're a retard. I just think you're a lying clown.

Of course he says it's inappropriate because he doesn't value science and doesn't want to be judged on his stupidity.

[frasersteen]

Where does it say that she actually lowered taxes overall? It says more about raising them than it does about lowering them. And it says nothing about lowering them for businesses specifically. It talks about having a huge tax on the oil business, though, which paid for a lot of things. I think this example backfired on you. Do you not have a single real world example of lowering taxes for business causing a significant increase in jobs?

Hmm, it doesn't. Although I was not actually necessarily referring to an overall tax cut. It's a good example just unfortunately badly supported.

This is a bit better:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/U.K.-Corporate-Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-%2875-05%29.JPG
http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/jsa-cc.png

Thatchers reforms came in about 1980 and she was pretty much done for by the late 80s

[Slavich]

Thanks for announcing your entrance. All you did was call me a name and deny the obvious. "I THINK IT'S A THEORY....AND I DON'T ACCEPT IT." Actually, I don't think you're a retard. I just think you're a lying clown.

Of course he says it's inappropriate because he doesn't value science and doesn't want to be judged on his stupidity.

I post facts, and call you an idiot. You call me and idiot and don't post facts. I win. thanks bro.

[Beeewbs]

He doesn't believe in evolution and I don't give a sh*t. Only an idiot would worry about creationism in a candidate amidst the many pressing issues that our country is facing - escalating militarism, massive debt crisis, overspending, etc.

Only an idiot would think that someone else is basing their vote on an issue just because they pointed out that he can be attacked on religious issues and that he looks like his decisions are based on religion. I'm just pointing out the facts. Whether or not someone should vote for him based on the facts of his religious bias is another issue. When someone says they are a Christian and don't believe in evolution and think that creationism should be taught in school, it's a perfect example of their religious fundamentalism influencing their decision making as a politician.



In regards to creationism being taught I believe he wants to delegate that to the states which probably result in 2 or 3 Southern states teaching it alongside evolution while the rest of us learn modern scientific theories without the inclusion of ID. I can see how giving the states the right to choose can be troubling on this context, but it is not really a huge issue for me given what I noted above.

See above. Plus, when you combine it with his total agenda of rolling back federal laws, it fits perfectly with the Christian nationalist agenda, which does nothing good for the states.



I also don't see how you can't appreciate Paul's answer to the question in the video you posted. It's not like he's a raging fundie that hates atheists.

Why would I appreciate him saying he doesn't believe in evolution? When did I say that hating atheists had to do with anything? This is about pointing out...see above.


Why are you arguing with this Psychopath? It's obvious he twist the truth and facts to accompany his flawed arguments. Someone like this KNOWS they are wrong deep inside, but won't admit. The worst kind of person to argue with.

Pretty ironic. Ron Paul says in a video that he doesn't accept evolution and you claim he doesn't say he doesn't believe in it.

I'm going to move along and let all of the Paulbots pile in and rage in denial of the facts. People can either accept reality or live in their Paulian fantasy world.

[Slavich]

Only an idiot would think that someone else is basing their vote on an issue just because they pointed out that he can be attacked on religious issues and that he looks like his decisions are based on religion. I'm just pointing out the facts. Whether or not someone should vote for him based on the facts of his religious bias is another issue. When someone says they are a Christian and don't believe in evolution and think that creationism should be taught in school, it's a perfect example of their religious fundamentalism influencing their decision making as a politician.



See above. Plus, when you combine it with his total agenda of rolling back federal laws, it fits perfectly with the Christian nationalist agenda, which does nothing good for the states.



Why would I appreciate him saying he doesn't believe in evolution? When did I say that hating atheists had to do with anything? This is about pointing out...see above.



Pretty ironic. Ron Paul says in a video that he doesn't accept evolution and you claim he doesn't say he doesn't believe in it.


Funny how I respond to your post and you don't respond to mine overhead. Funny. Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution (THIS MIGHT NOT BE TRUE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SAY THOSE WORDS), this is if you are assuming he doesn't. What are you trying to argue bro? That Ron Paul shoulnd't be president based on what he believes in? You hate freedom of religion brah? You obviously are unaware of how Ron Paul plans to implement his policies and wants things to be run. You fail to see his vision, which makes argueing with you almost pointless. You can't argue about subjects that require knowledge with ignorant people!

[Beeewbs]

I post facts, and call you an idiot. You call me and idiot and don't post facts. I win. thanks bro.

Uh, you called me a retard and denied Ron Paul saying he didn't believe in evolution after he said that he doesn't believe in evolution. No where did I call you an idiot. You must be delusional because you think Ron Paul is not saying things he obviously is and you think I'm saying things I'm not. Now, good day, sir. Have fun in fantasy land.

[frasersteen]

Only an idiot would think that someone else is basing their vote on an issue just because they pointed out that he can be attacked on religious issues and that he looks like his decisions are based on religion. I'm just pointing out the facts. Whether or not someone should vote for him based on the facts of his religious bias is another issue. When someone says they are a Christian and don't believe in evolution and think that creationism should be taught in school, it's a perfect example of their religious fundamentalism influencing their decision making as a politician.



See above. Plus, when you combine it with his total agenda of rolling back federal laws, it fits perfectly with the Christian nationalist agenda, which does nothing good for the states.



Why would I appreciate him saying he doesn't believe in evolution? When did I say that hating atheists had to do with anything? This is about pointing out...see above.



Pretty ironic. Ron Paul says in a video that he doesn't accept evolution and you claim he doesn't say he doesn't believe in it.

I don't think the issue is with his (lack of) belief in evolution per se, it is whether you trust the individual states to handle this on their own. My gut feeling is that if too much power is given to the states then you will end up with failed social experiments in many of them necessitating federal bailouts which Ron Paul won't let through. If you allow every state to control everything it will likely split the country in three with a fundie centre and liberal coasts.

[Slavich]

Uh, you called me a retard and denied Ron Paul saying he didn't believe in evolution after he said that he doesn't believe in evolution. No where did I call you an idiot. You must be delusional because you think Ron Paul is not saying things he obviously is and you think I'm saying things I'm not. Now, good day, sir. Have fun in fantasy land.

"He never states he doesn't believe or disbelieve in evolution. He tries to remain pollitically correct to appease everyone. He even says that the question is kind of inappropriate for a presidential debate (Matters of scientifical philosophy). But you guys are obviously tards that can't understand your way out of a paper bag, but anyways. If these are all you have agaisnt Ron Paul then you should reconsider your vote for him. Because all these issues are non issues." Tell me where I'm wrong with this statement, and you will win. Till you can do that, remain in your psychopath world.

[ONtop888]

Only an idiot would think that someone else is basing their vote on an issue just because they pointed out that he can be attacked on religious issues and that he looks like his decisions are based on religion. I'm just pointing out the facts. Whether or not someone should vote for him based on the facts of his religious bias is another issue. When someone says they are a Christian and don't believe in evolution and think that creationism should be taught in school, it's a perfect example of their religious fundamentalism influencing their decision making as a politician.
I am not sure that it is a perfect example of religion influencing his decision. It seems to me that he wants states to make decisive choices about public education, which may or may not include teaching ID along with evolution. On the other hand, it does seem like this corresponds to his belief that church and state are not prohibited but that a particular religion should not be favored. I am not going to argue that point, but it is worth mentioning. My issue with you arguing against Paul over what is usually considered secondary issues is that it really does not matter to most Americans in today's political climate. In the 1990's when the economy and unemployment were better then it may have mattered more but I don't find your reasons to be a compelling reason not to vote for RP.


See above. Plus, when you combine it with his total agenda of rolling back federal laws, it fits perfectly with the Christian nationalist agenda, which does nothing good for the states.
The thing, it's a Constitutional agenda, not a Christian nationalist agenda. I do not believe that RP would support states endorsing a specific religion like Christianity in schools.


Why would I appreciate him saying he doesn't believe in evolution? When did I say that hating atheists had to do with anything? This is about pointing out...see above.Because he handled it in a very presidential manner, telling listeners that it is not an important issue for a presidential election (and he is right). I did not say that you you said RP hates atheists. Rather, I am just drawing a contrast that RP is not the stereotypical creationist that hates atheists.

[Slavich]

Pointing something out


I am not sure that it is a perfect example of religion influencing his decision. It seems to me that he wants states to make decisive choices about public education, which may or may not include teaching ID along with evolution. On the other hand, it does seem like this corresponds to his belief that church and state are not prohibited but that a particular religion should not be favored. I am not going to argue that point, but it is worth mentioning. My issue with you arguing against Paul over what is usually considered secondary issues is that it really does not matter to most Americans in today's political climate. In the 1990's when the economy and unemployment were better then it may have mattered more but I don't find your reasons to be a compelling reason not to vote for RP.

This is what I was saying!


The thing, it's a Constitutional agenda, not a Christian nationalist agenda. I do not believe that RP would support states endorsing a specific religion like Christianity in schools.

Because he handled it in a very presidential manner, telling listeners that it is not an important issue for a presidential election (and he is right). I did not say that you you said RP hates atheists. Rather, I am just drawing a contrast that RP is not the stereotypical creationist that hates atheists.

[nirahtma]

I don't think the issue is with his (lack of) belief in evolution per se, it is whether you trust the individual states to handle this on their own. My gut feeling is that if too much power is given to the states then you will end up with failed social experiments in many of them necessitating federal bailouts which Ron Paul won't let through. If you allow every state to control everything it will likely split the country in three with a fundie centre and liberal coasts.

As opposed to all of those successful social experiments by the feds.

[CoolDehLa]

WARNING: We have a retard trying to sound smart. Let me debunk him.





THE REAL FACT: He never states he doesn't believe or disbelieve in evolution. He tries to remain pollitically correct to appease everyone. He even says that the question is kind of inappropriate for a presidential debate (Matters of scientifical philosophy). But you guys are obviously tards that can't understand your way out of a paper bag, but anyways. If these are all you have agaisnt Ron Paul then you should reconsider your vote for him. Because all these issues are non issues.

How is it inappropriate ?
Will you elect a president who will say that the earth is flat, there is no gravity and people should pray instead of taking pills to cure themselves ? Offcourse not. A president who doesn't believe in evolution is a kook. Certainly not a non-issue for the non-braindead people


He says: it's a theory and he doesn't accept the theory.

Lying piece of shet phaggot

[frasersteen]

As opposed to all of those successful social experiments by the feds.

yeah but the level of craziness will dramatically increase if you take it down to state level. For example Massachusetts would probably be fine but you'd probably have prohibition back in Alabama.

At least now all the crazies have to fight the normals before stuff can go through. In some cases the crazies would be the only voices in the state. I'm not specifically talking conservative crazies either, pretty sure some of the blue states would do some f*cked up sh*t too.

[nirahtma]

yeah but the level of craziness will dramatically increase if you take it down to state level. For example Massachusetts would probably be fine but you'd probably have prohibition back in Alabama.

At least now all the crazies have to fight the normals before stuff can go through. In some cases the crazies would be the only voices in the state. I'm not specifically talking conservative crazies either, sure some of the blue states would do some f*cked up sh*t too.

If the people of alabama wanted prohibition, then I fail to see the problem with that. Many states have dry counties now, does that bother you?

[frasersteen]

If the people of alabama wanted prohibition, then I fail to see the problem with that. Many states have dry counties now, does that bother you?

yes

[nirahtma]

yes

why do you worry about how others chose to live their lives?

[frasersteen]

why do you worry about how others chose to live their lives?

I don't but enforcing prohibition is not an expression of individual freedom it is the oppression of it.