I'm voting for Ron Paul, How about you?

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm voting for Ron Paul, How about you?

magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
He's a Creationist whose

He's a Creationist whose interpretation of the Constitution doesn't recognize separation of church and state, so no.

Also, how about lurking for a while instead of posting whatever pops into the old noggin? 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   If a vote does actually

   If a vote does actually mean anything , why throw it away on someone that can't win ????? 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
No way. He is way way way

No way. He is way way way too far too the right. Clinton or Obama.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
You mean the guy who

You mean the guy who doesn't believe in evolution?  No.  Not for me.

I prefer presidents with more IQ points than nuclear missiles at their disposal.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
What should matter when

What should matter when voting is the person's stance on political issues, not his personal views.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: What

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
What should matter when voting is the person's stance on political issues, not his personal views.

He's a "Constitutionalist" interjecting non-existent ambiguity into church-state separation. Treating it as a "personal" issue is just a get out of jail free card to talk out both sides of his mouth. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Gee, pineapple, I dunno. 

Gee, pineapple, I dunno.  Maybe people who believe the bible over science are a little scary.  Maybe I prefer a president who likes evidence over popular opinion.

Maybe it's too much to ask in America, but I'd prefer a president who doesn't think war in the Middle East is a sign that Jesus is going to come back soon.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
My point was that since he

My point was that since he was running for a political position, his political views that would affect the country are the ones that should matter.

 

Otherwise where would we draw the line?  I wouldn't with hold my vote for somebody because they were atheist. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I didn't expect you to

I didn't expect you to understand, Pineapple. It's very simple, after all.

Ron Paul believes that separation of church and state is bad. That's his religious belief. It also happens to be a BIG FUCKING DEAL in politics. Maybe the biggest that's faced America internally... ever. It also happens to be a big fucking deal to the Middle East. Do you want America to become a theocracy so we can duke it out with Allah "throwdown" style?

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. That means he trusts religion over science. That's a BIG FUCKING DEAL in politics. I'd rather politicians trust the scientists than the preachers.

How incredibly dense does one have to be to not see that personal religious views have a huge impact on a country where religious leaders say things like:

We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective -- to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties.... By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA -- Pat Robertson, in a fundraising letter, July 4, 1991

and...

If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious. -- Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson's Perspective Oct-Nov 1992

and...

We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over. -- Pat Robertson, speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally, quoted from Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, p. 29

You know Pat Robertson, right. He made a relatively successful bid for the presidency.

Yes, Pineapple. Religious beliefs are very important in politics.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


dave805
dave805's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

You mean the guy who doesn't believe in evolution? No. Not for me.

I prefer presidents with more IQ points than nuclear missiles at their disposal.

 

Like Bush ? Or Clinton ? Or Bush sr ? .. ....

Bush.. religious fundamentalist

Clinton... "Like most Baptists, Clinton was taught that because he had been born again, his salvation is ensured. Sinning-even repeatedly-would not bar his soul from heaven."

Actualy on a purely religious BS lvl i liked Clinton the most out of our recent presidents. Him and Regan.

The Bush's though are Fundys.. Dangerous fundys at that.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: You

Hambydammit wrote:

You know Pat Robertson, right. He made a relatively successful bid for the presidency..

 

If Americia is such a danger of turning into a Theocracy, then why'd he lose?

 

 

Quote:

Yes, Pineapple. Religious beliefs are very important in politics

Like I said, if views affect the country then they do play a part. If not, then it's irrelevant.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If Americia is such

Quote:
If Americia is such a danger of turning into a Theocracy, then why'd he lose?

Because, Pineapple, when he ran, there weren't enough Christians who voted for him.  Is this relevant in some way to the fact that a man who said this shit got millions of votes?   Does this give me any comfort?  Knowing that he didn't quite manage to be president?

Out of all the people who ran, he got not only nominated, but made a decent run.  I swear to you, Pineapple, I think sometimes that you are more deluded than the Christians.  At least they recognize that there's a battle going on.   They know for sure what they're trying to do, but you're more oblivious than them.

 

Quote:
Like I said, if views affect the country then they do play a part. If not, then it's irrelevant.

In other words, you posted something you knew wasn't relevant to the OP... again... like you do so often.

Thanks for the input.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Like I said, if views affect the country then they do play a part. If not, then it's irrelevant.

In other words, you posted something you knew wasn't relevant to the OP... again... like you do so often.

Thanks for the input.

 

 

Irrelevant?

 

You wrote:

You mean the guy who doesn't believe in evolution?  No.  Not for me.

I prefer presidents with more IQ points than nuclear missiles at their disposal.

 

You didn't mention the seperation of church thing. You didn't mention the Theorcracy thing.

 

That's the reason behind my orginal post.

 

I wrote:

What should matter when voting is the person's stance on political issues, not his personal views

 

You didn't bring up his stance on political issues, you brought up his personal views. 

 

 

 

Quote:

Because, Pineapple, when he ran, there weren't enough Christians who voted for him.  Is this relevant in some way to the fact that a man who said this shit got millions of votes?   Does this give me any comfort?  Knowing that he didn't quite manage to be president?

Out of all the people who ran, he got not only nominated, but made a decent run.  I swear to you, Pineapple, I think sometimes that you are more deluded than the Christians.  At least they recognize that there's a battle going on.   They know for sure what they're trying to do, but you're more oblivious than them.

 

My point is that I hear many atheists whine 'Christian want a Theocracy! Christians want a Theocracy!'

 

Then the political candidates who are pushing for a Theorcracy LOSE!

 

Last I checked, the best way to get a Theocracy is to vote for someone who says they'll implement one. 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
You're right, Pineapple. 

You're right, Pineapple.  Until they win, there's no point in trying to stop them from winning.  Might as well let them have it and then try to stop them.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Also, here:    magilum

Also, here: 

 

magilum wrote:

He's a Creationist whose interpretation of the Constitution doesn't recognize separation of church and state, so no.

Also, how about lurking for a while instead of posting whatever pops into the old noggin?

 

At least magilum brough up Ron Paul's stance on an issue that would affect the country. 


mark65
mark65's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
the only voting choice you

the only voting choice you should really consider

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gZa6VEiFAY&feature=related


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: My

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

My point was that since he was running for a political position, his political views that would affect the country are the ones that should matter.

 

RP is a creationist. That means that he thinks the Bible is a legitimate source of  scientific knowledge. In other words, the stories in the Bible aren't just true for him, on a spiritual level, they are true for EVERYONE, on an objective, public level. By itself, this is dangerous political position. 

Determining what we hold to be true and what the legitimate grounds for determining truth are is a fundamental aspect of politics. Do you want a guy in there who's process is so broken that he can literally think the Bible is a good source of scientific truth?

Determining competence is certainly part of a voter's job. Maybe the guy is saying all the right things about the issues, but maybe he's only doing that because his advisors are good. You want to know that a president can perform independently in a crisis. Do you feel that you can trust a guy who can believe that Genesis is literally true? 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Even after all this time

Even after all this time you seem to still be working on the false precept that beliefs don't affect decisions made by these people, CptPineapple.

I'm not saying Ron Paul is going to be staring at his WWJD bracelet while deliberating an issue as president. However, I am going to say that he is NOT going to be open to the secular decision.

How much of recent history needs to repeat itself before we learn? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Who was it that first

Who was it that first thought up the idea that a person's religious beliefs -- their innermost convictions about the very nature of the universe, right and wrong, science, and evidence -- don't affect their outward behavior and decisions?

He was a very stupid person.   I wish that idea would go away.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:   

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
   If a vote does actually mean anything , why throw it away on someone that can't win ????? 

I can't stand this logic!! If everybody who thought this way actually voted how they wanted then he would win wouldn't he?? This is the type of apathy that keeps the Republican and Republican Lite parties in power. It is the people that continue to accept ineptness in our govt because we don't want to throw away are vote. How is this throwing it away?? Does your vote have to be for the winner in order for it to be worth something?? Just don't bother voting if your going to take this attitude. I would rather you use some other reasoning to not vote for somebody so that we can stop the continued bullcrap spewed by the available candidates.

 BTW- I was going to vote for Paul, but now that I found out he is a creationist I am SOOL since I registered Republican just to vote for him. Edwards seems to be against the war, so I am pulling for him or Obama and not because I think they will win.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 I never said anything

 I never said anything about that in this topic. 

 

Alright, let's for the sake of argument say that the beliefs have a very significant influence on the person's actions.

 

Now, how do we distinguish somebody who does something actually does something because they're Christian (i.e if they weren't Christian they wouldn't have done it), as opposed to somebody who just happens to be Christian and does the same action (i.e they would have done it if they were Muslim, atheist, Jew etc...)?

 


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
I'm sooooooo happy that I

I'm sooooooo happy that I don't live in the states. How come that the most powerful country, home of the most brilliant folks on the surface of this planet, who have one of the best constitution and freethinking laws on earth have at the same time some of the worst religious, stupid and bigoted assholes that the observable universe have to offer, in office ?

George Bush wrote:
I believe that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully !

Of course it's up to the fishes !

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
i feel the need to

i feel the need to interject with the point that...

"There is nothing private about Politicians"

 

We judge them, mind, body, and err.... soul?

 

What Would Kharn Do?


Cruci Fiction
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Funny, isn't it? All the

Funny, isn't it? All the faith-heads march in lockstep behind candidates who publicly and persistently tout their religious faith, their belief in God, their personal relationship with their imaginary and mythical man-god, etc. And the politicians know they don't stand a chance in today's dumbed-down superstitious land of zombie freaks if they don't do so. This is all because religionists are convinced a politician's personal views [as being mutual in respect to religion] will definitely and directly serve to affect political policies/issues in favor of their religious teachings/laws/dogmas.

 

But what do we have here? A theist actually trying to tell a crowd of atheists that only a politician's "stance on political issues" should be considered when deciding for whom to vote. "Pay no attention to those personal [religious] views!" "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" How fucking hypocritical these godiots!?! But they play these tricks of deceit because they've worked worked quite well in the past to dupe the extremely naive secular electorate who actually strive to be honest and fair across the board.

 

Well, FUCK YOU! I wouldn't vote for the ignorant creationist Paul if my life depended on it. Furthermore, I wouldn't vote for any of those within the current circus of Repugnicants. Not only because they're all one big grab bag of nutjobs, liars, and phonies, but also because the whole fucking party is OWNED and CONTROLLED by the RRR.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:  I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 I never said anything about that in this topic. 

Alright, let's for the sake of argument say that the beliefs have a very significant influence on the person's actions.

Now, how do we distinguish somebody who does something actually does something because they're Christian (i.e if they weren't Christian they wouldn't have done it), as opposed to somebody who just happens to be Christian and does the same action (i.e they would have done it if they were Muslim, atheist, Jew etc...)?

I've already given an example, and it's not hard to imagine others with regard to education, medical research (what does anti-choice Ron Paul say about embryonic stem cell research?), security, social welfare -- you needn't look further than this administration to see explicit religious pandering at work. If you're looking for an example to test your repeated claim about the functional cognitive dissonance of believers, this is not one to write home about.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Girl Dancing In Orbit

Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:

" home of the most brilliant folks on the surface of this planet, !

 <--- Points to Japan

 

Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:

who have one of the best constitution and freethinking laws on earth

 ---> Points to Sweden

 

Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:

 is home to some of the worst religious, stupid and bigoted assholes that the observable universe have to offer?

 

Fixed ^_^

What Would Kharn Do?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cruci Fiction

Cruci Fiction wrote:

Funny, isn't it? All the faith-heads march in lockstep behind candidates who publicly and persistently tout their religious faith, their belief in God, their personal relationship with their imaginary and mythical man-god, etc. And the politicians know they don't stand a chance in today's dumbed-down superstitious land of zombie freaks if they don't do so. This is all because religionists are convinced a politician's personal views [as being mutual in respect to religion] will definitely and directly serve to affect political policies/issues in favor of their religious teachings/laws/dogmas.

 

If they mix their religious views with their politics, then they shouldn't be elected.

 

A politicans goal is to serve ALL the people, not just the atheists, not just the Christians, but everyone. 

 

 

Quote:
 

But what do we have here? A theist actually trying to tell a crowd of atheists that only a politician's "stance on political issues" should be considered when deciding for whom to vote. "Pay no attention to those personal [religious] views!" "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" How fucking hypocritical these godiots!?! But they play these tricks of deceit because they've worked worked quite well in the past to dupe the extremely naive secular electorate who actually strive to be honest and fair across the board.

 

 

 

Well, excuse me for thinking that a candidate for a POLITICAL position should be judged on their POLITICAL views.

 

It doesn't matter their personal views, whether they're atheist, Christian, Muslim, of Hindu, if I don't agree with their political views, they ain't getting my vote. 

 

 

 

Quote:
 

Well, FUCK YOU! I wouldn't vote for the ignorant creationist Paul if my life depended on it. Furthermore, I wouldn't vote for any of those within the current circus of Repugnicants. Not only because they're all one big grab bag of nutjobs, liars, and phonies, but also because the whole fucking party is OWNED and CONTROLLED by the RRR.

 Well, good thing you're a freethinker and not let the actions of one person scar your view of a poltical party.

 

Should I think all Democrats are horny people looking for blowjobs now?

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I must have missed the

I must have missed the establishment of a well-funded and influential blowjob lobby.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Now,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Now, how do we distinguish somebody who does something actually does something because they're Christian (i.e if they weren't Christian they wouldn't have done it), as opposed to somebody who just happens to be Christian and does the same action (i.e they would have done it if they were Muslim, atheist, Jew etc...)?

I don't care in the slightest. The trick when deciding whom to vote for is to try to predict what they are going to do once elected. If they do things I disagree with when they are in office I don't care if it is because they are religious, atheist, schizophrenic or extraterrestrial. They have pissed me off and lost my vote. However, we have in RP a guy with no political record so our only way to judge him is by what he says and what he professes his beliefs to be. Based on his claim that he's a creationist, I would expect him to bring back school prayer, teach evolution in schools, ban abortion, and generally tear down all separation between church and state. I don't support any of those things.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:Based on

Tilberian wrote:
Based on his claim that he's a creationist, I would expect him to bring back school prayer, (>---->teach evolution in schools,<----&ltEye-wink ban abortion, and generally tear down all separation between church and state. I don't support any of those things.

 

You dont what now? ;-p

What Would Kharn Do?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I must have

magilum wrote:
I must have missed the establishment of a well-funded and influential blowjob lobby.

 

 

 

Yeah, their next to the marijuana party in Canada.

 

But seriously, I did that to illustrate that you shouldn't judge Democrats based on Clinton.

 

(Oh, and there actually is a marijuana party in Canada.........) 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

magilum wrote:
I must have missed the establishment of a well-funded and influential blowjob lobby.

 

 

 

Yeah, their next to the marijuana party in Canada.

 

But seriously, I did that to illustrate that you shouldn't judge Democrats based on Clinton.

 

(Oh, and there actually is a marijuana party in Canada.........) 

I understand, and I was showing the comparison doesn't hold up because there is a massive incentive to deferring to religious interests on matters of public policy. This is precedented.

I've heard about Canadian pot blocs. For lollers:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6625&IBLOCK_ID=35


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Ummm...well.....hmmm...I am

Ummm...well.....hmmm...I am on the fence about this guy.  At first I didn't like him.  Then I liked him.  Now I am not so sure.  Let's look at some facts:

 Mr. Paul is the only candidate (that I am aware of) supporting re-establishment of the constitution.  This is good and I am in favor of it.  His christianity and views on evolution don't bother me all that much because it is easy enough to defend the constitution as it stands against such woo woo.  It is the 'as it stands' part that concerns me.  If elected he would have the power to change the constitution...that is bad.

Mr. Paul is in favor of smaller government.  This could be good, however it would take decades (and by decades I mean centuries) to dismantle the current government.  Let's face it - left to their own devices 75% of this country has no concept of responsibility.  Yes, some of my tax dollars may go to fund intelligent design research, but it also goes toward other valuable scientific research.  Convincing enough people to contribute out of their own pockets to scientific research or education is not going to happen. 

People hear that he wants to abolish the income tax and they start thinking of all the things they can buy.  Suddenly we have a country whose citizens are beyond poverty and no programs to help them.  Personally, I do not trust the majority of this country to be responsible enough to care for themselves.  Possibly some day we could reach that point but it isn't going to happen any time soon.

Another key point to remember is that if he got elected, he would have very, very, very little support in Congress, which would make his time in office a complete waste.  Yes, he would revoke the Patriot Act and all the other retarded things Bush has enacted, but that is a small price (in my opinion) to pay for four years of ineffective leadership.  I would much rather see one of the other candidates forced to address the constitution issues than have a president in office that is unable to accomplish a damn thing.

But, hey, that is just me and for the record - NO VOTE IS A WASTED VOTE. 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Tilberian wrote:
Based on his claim that he's a creationist, I would expect him to bring back school prayer, (>---->teach evolution in schools,<----&ltEye-wink ban abortion, and generally tear down all separation between church and state. I don't support any of those things.

Oops. 

 

You dont what now? ;-p

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    RationalSchema says,

    RationalSchema says, I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

   If a vote does actually mean anything , why throw it away on someone that can't win ????? 

  I can't stand this logic!! --

--Hey RationalSchema,  Liberals voted for Ralph Nader, Handing Bush the presidency .... Untill the system is fixed with a 1st and 2nd choice you should NOT always vote for your favorite .... btw, I am ultra left but I don't vote ultra,   


dave805
dave805's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian

Tilberian wrote:

 However, we have in RP a guy with no political record 

I disagree sir..... A short list of his political record

"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."

 

I have not replyed to this thread for a couple reasons.. 1. The op is in my opinion a moron. 2. I created a simuler thread about RP that got jumped on right quick.

I agree with every single person here that RP's Religious stance is disturbing to say the least. But To be perfectly honest if my vote was only based on his personal beliefs on god religion i would never vote for him.

Lets face some facts here people.. Not a single canidate currently running doesn't believe in god etc at least to some degree.  For instance... Romney is a mormon... 

...............................................................

Yes it would be foolish to think that these people would not alowe their religous beliefs to effect their votes and actions. This is nothing new. This is a FACT of life for EVERYONE on any issue. 

The difference with RP that i see is that while he might be a fundy he is mainly a Constituional fundy first. A religous fundy second.  

Mehh.. Do i think this guy will do some stupid things as president if he was elected ? Hell yea .. The real question is .. are the stupid things he will do going to be better for the country or worse.

 

(Cough.. Cough.. I voted twice for bush.. Cough..) I now wish to hell i hadn't. BUT i still defend the position that Bush was the lesser of 2 evils at the time. Based on the availiable information.

 I should prob shut up now.. But mehh....... 

Ron Paul's Straw Poll Results
Updated on December 10, 2007

Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):
Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani 45-7-0
Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney 36-16-0
Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson 36-15-0
Ron Paul v. John McCain 47-5-0
Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee 44-6-1
Ron Paul v. Duncan Hunter 48-2-0

 

 

TBH ..... If their was someone else who thought the same was he did on the political issues i would vote for that person in a heart beat.

As it is .. All the rest of those who are running don't impress me.

Shure RP is a Fundy for the religious right.. But so the hell is Bush................ Think about that  


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
dave805 wrote: Tilberian

dave805 wrote:
Tilberian wrote:

However, we have in RP a guy with no political record

I disagree sir..... A short list of his political record

My bad. I didn't know he was already a Congressman. 

dave805 wrote:

I agree with every single person here that RP's Religious stance is disturbing to say the least. But To be perfectly honest if my vote was only based on his personal beliefs on god religion i would never vote for him.

Lets face some facts here people.. Not a single canidate currently running doesn't believe in god etc at least to some degree. For instance... Romney is a mormon...

There is a huge difference between being a member of a mainstream church (which doesn't necessarily mean you have a belief in god) and being a Creationist. Many moderate Christians hold their belief in god as a personal, spiritual matter that does not inform their understanding of the nature of this world. In other words, god is a personal belief for them, not a public belief that should be taken as Truth for all people. Creationists, in making scientific statements based on their belief in god and the bible, subscribe to the latter kind of belief. I think it's self-evident that that kind of mind set is inherently dangerous in the leader of a supposedly pluralist democracy.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Two things: "Net

Two things:

"Net Neutrality" is the result of regulation. We want the Internet to be regulated, unless we'd rather leave it to the telcos to formulate a tiered system where services are hobbled for vendors not willing to pony up new fees. If you think it wouldn't happen, the big five record companies were busted only a few years ago for price fixing (which had music prices going up while production costs had been consistently declining), so considering private competition an adversarial system which self-regulates is not a given.

Church-state separation is a Constitutional issue. If he has a "different interpretation" his Constitution-humping rhetoric doesn't mean shit.


DogWater (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to vote for him

I'm going to vote for him just because FOX news hates him. I also feel he has the most honest personality. He would actully get rid of public schools and put them back into the home or prvate sector so you can teach whatever you want. I feel like I gotta pick someone and he would be a step in the right direction.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
DogWater wrote: I'm going

DogWater wrote:
I'm going to vote for him just because FOX news hates him. I also feel he has the most honest personality. He would actully get rid of public schools and put them back into the home or prvate sector so you can teach whatever you want. I feel like I gotta pick someone and he would be a step in the right direction.

Ah, you're a qualities rather than stances, voter. On a purely ad hominem level, he sounds like the archetypal desiccated wino your neighbor doesn't have the heart to kick out of their garage. He panders to frustrated white middle class revenge fantasies.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
DogWater wrote: I'm going

DogWater wrote:
I'm going to vote for him just because FOX news hates him. I also feel he has the most honest personality. He would actully get rid of public schools and put them back into the home or prvate sector so you can teach whatever you want. I feel like I gotta pick someone and he would be a step in the right direction.

And single parents(especially those that can't afford private schooling) would do what? 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


netopia
netopia's picture
Posts: 77
Joined: 2007-11-13
User is offlineOffline
Ron Paul get rid of the IRS


How could Ron Paul get rid of the IRS without congress?An executive order.?why he haven't done that?
Does anyone know a means of which Ron  Paul could disband the IRS without congressional approval?
he needs to be a king or a dictator to do that,without congress approval  ...


Jon
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I'm an agnostic and I'll

I'm an agnostic and I'll say he's got my vote for a couple of reasons.  He's been right on about the war the entire time.  He recognizes that it is our meddling in the Middle East that inspires the hatred of the U.S.  He recognizes that printing money to fund an unconstitutional federal government is a road to disaster.  And he recognizes that the government should be more about protecting freedoms than providing services.

 He may not believe in evolution, and that's too bad, but notice that he didn't raise his hand to show that he didn't believe in it during the debate.  So it's not as if this is a key issue for him.  Obviously it is better to be scientific and reject fairy tales, but right now we have bigger problems.  All of the other candidates want to dramatically increase the size of the government and get more involved in your life.  You don't want that.

I'd be curious what you mean when you say he rejects seperation of church and state.  He may mean what I believe.  That is, that CONGRESS shall make no law regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.  Unfortunately a manger scene at your local city hall is not the same thing as CONGRESS making a law ESTBLISHING a state religion.  You have to read the Constitution as it was intended.  If you don't do that, you live in a country where it is effectively discarded.  And if you set that precedent, you get crazy Presidents running off to war without Congressional approval, or scooping citizens off the street and torturing them, or listening to your phone conversations without a warrant, etc.  That's not good.  Paul says read the Constitution and follow it.  It's better for everybody. 


Jon
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ron Paul recognizes that he

Ron Paul recognizes that he can't do many of the things he wants to do without Congressional approval.  Watch in one of the debates where Chris Matthews goes around the room and asks each Republican if they would consider a first strike against Iran.  When it comes to Paul he is flabbergasted.  He said "Why don't you people just get a copy of the Constitution and read it.  You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war."  Basically he says he doesn't have the authority to do such a thing, and besides that it would be absrdly stupid.

 But he would have the authority to bring the troops home.


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Jon wrote: He may not

Jon wrote:

He may not believe in evolution, and that's too bad, but notice that he didn't raise his hand to show that he didn't believe in it during the debate. So it's not as if this is a key issue for him. Obviously it is better to be scientific and reject fairy tales, but right now we have bigger problems. All of the other candidates want to dramatically increase the size of the government and get more involved in your life. You don't want that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

I think you are correct in that it is not a key issue for him. Of course, I agree that it is bad that he does not believe in evolution, but it at least he is not anti-evolution. I think Dr. Paul has compartmentalized his religious beliefs like many people do (and as I did). He seems very intelligent concerning other matters that people have pointed out here, such as him being correct on the war, has a sound foreign policy, supports the constitution, support debt free money (i.e. money added to the money supply should not be created in the form of loans to a central bank and interested paid by our income tax), smaller government, thinks that the Patriot Act was a bad idea, thinks the free market is better off without politicians screwing around with it, things the executive branch should have checks and balances and not have empire like powers.

There are down sides to him too, however, I think most of them will be evened out by congress. He cannot do much outside of the executive branch without their support. He is aware that people are dependent on existing government programs and will create transition plans instead of sudden drastic changes.

I also do not find this level of economic understanding in many candidates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pEiLHnjAiw

See these two links for why I am concerned:
http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX&v=dmax&w=1&t=l&a=200
http://www.europac.net/commentary.asp (more here)

So as we are heading towards Great Depression 2.0, I think it would be vital to the welfare of our country to have someone in office who knows how we got in this mess and how to fix it as opposed what I typically find: politicians who do not know how we got to our current mess and will use their misunderstanding to make a bad situation much worse. I am open to other candidates, but I do not see any other viable ones for properly leading us out of our current mess.

 

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
This is exactly what I'm

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

The last few posts actually rationaly addressed issues which would  affect their vote either for him or against him and, unlike other people in this topic, actually do research on the issues that matter. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: This

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

The last few posts actually rationaly addressed issues which would  affect their vote either for him or against him and, unlike other people in this topic, actually do research on the issues that matter. 

Don't play coy, brother. You've been pushing a No True Scotsman for religiously-motivated behavior for going on three threads now. It's always correlation, you'll never take them at their word and call it causation.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

The last few posts actually rationaly addressed issues which would affect their vote either for him or against him and, unlike other people in this topic, actually do research on the issues that matter.

Don't play coy, brother. You've been pushing a No True Scotsman for religiously-motivated behavior for going on three threads now. It's always correlation, you'll never take them at their word and call it causation.

 

No true Scotsman?

When did I say that the evil Theists didn't actually believe in God, or follow a religion?

 

When did I say Ron Paul wasn't a Creationist, or Christian?

 

 

hmmmmmmmm? 

 

 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
I absolutely will not vote

I absolutely will not vote for him.   Thanks for the thread, tho.  Smiling


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
DogWater wrote: From what

DogWater wrote:

From what I've seen he looks like a great guy even though he's a christian.

Apart from being a creationist, anti-choice, and a racist then yeah, he might sound pretty good provided you are a corporation.  The only Republican I'll support is Michael Jesus Archangel.  If I'm backing a Republican I want one completely nuts and with a sword.