Anyone else voting for a third party? Libertarians?

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic
Absolutist thinking FTL

Rejection of corruption and thuggery in whatever form it takes is absolutist?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: bamacre
He rejects science now?

Yes, if he rejects evolution then he rejects science. Then to boot, not only does he reject science but he talks about a 'creator,' which is mysticism.

Look, he ran for President of the country, not for Head of the Science department at your high school. Hell, he supports tossing the Dept of Edu out and leaving education to the states. So, again, relevance?

The fact that a man who wants to take up a position of extreme power has mystical religious beliefs is patently relevant.

Regardless, the argument is pointless. Ron Paul isn't going to be president. How about holding the main two candidates to the same standards?

I do, and as politicians go I agree with Ron Paul when it comes to economics, but he is trying to lecture thugs on economics who have no qualms sacrificing soldiers and innocent civilians in a war that enriches themselves and their cronies. Ron Paul puts on a clown suit and then lectures thugs in clown suits.

The Ron Paul 'revolution' is a sad sad joke. It is not a revolution at all, it's a distraction and adds credibility to an inherently corrupt system.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: bamacre
He rejects science now?

Yes, if he rejects evolution then he rejects science. Then to boot, not only does he reject science but he talks about a 'creator,' which is mysticism.

Look, he ran for President of the country, not for Head of the Science department at your high school. Hell, he supports tossing the Dept of Edu out and leaving education to the states. So, again, relevance?

The fact that a man who wants to take up a position of extreme power has mystical religious beliefs is patently relevant.

Regardless, the argument is pointless. Ron Paul isn't going to be president. How about holding the main two candidates to the same standards?

I do, and as politicians go I agree with Ron Paul when it comes to economics, but he is trying to lecture thugs on economics who have no qualms sacrificing soldiers and innocent civilians in a war that enriches themselves and their cronies. Ron Paul puts on a clown suit and then lectures thugs in clown suits.

The Ron Paul 'revolution' is a sad sad joke. It is not a revolution at all, it's a distraction and adds credibility to an inherently corrupt system.

IIRC aren't you an anarchist? Tell us why we should listen to your political views when you don't want government at all? Seems pointless. You also fail in the fact that you think Paul is just another politician, couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: bamacre
He rejects science now?

Yes, if he rejects evolution then he rejects science. Then to boot, not only does he reject science but he talks about a 'creator,' which is mysticism.

I stopped reading here.

Those who have actually read the Declaration of Independence might understand why.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
Absolutist thinking FTL

Rejection of corruption and thuggery in whatever form it takes is absolutist?

Good grief, that would be absolutism by definition.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Anyone else voting for a third party? Libertarians?

Eff no.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
Absolutist thinking FTL

Rejection of corruption and thuggery in whatever form it takes is absolutist?

No, your logic is just inanely inane. Stupid. Lunatic fringe. Etc. That's why you get your ass handed to you in every single thread you enter, including this one where you get it completely wrong on Paul.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the proper meaning of mysticism is:

"a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with God through contemplation or ecstasy."

And that has nothing to do with talking about a creator. A person can believe or not believe in mysticism and a person can believe or not believe in God, but the mystic and the creator are one and the same thing. There is no belief and no doubt. There is only love.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: bamacre
He rejects science now?

Yes, if he rejects evolution then he rejects science. Then to boot, not only does he reject science but he talks about a 'creator,' which is mysticism.

I stopped reading here.

Those who have actually read the Declaration of Independence might understand why.

Let me guess, you are religious?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
Absolutist thinking FTL

Rejection of corruption and thuggery in whatever form it takes is absolutist?

No, your logic is just inanely inane. Stupid. Lunatic fringe. Etc. That's why you get your ass handed to you in every single thread you enter, including this one where you get it completely wrong on Paul.

I, myself, am too stupid and uneducated to follow these libertarian threads so I can't see how his logic is inane. Wish you gave more meat. I think what he said was absolutist the moment you reject something in any form, but I don't see why that should stop someone from being against corruption or thuggery. Of course I don't see how those topics arise in the first place either.

 

[Balt]

I probably should have voted third party since my vote won't count anyway (thanks EC), but I didn't this year.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
IIRC aren't you an anarchist? Tell us why we should listen to your political views when you don't want government at all? Seems pointless.

I am a market anarchist. I take the Trader Principle to its logical conclusion. What is pointless is trying to bring down an out of control government by joining the government and then pretending as if the people in the government are just misguided in their policy decisions.

You also fail in the fact that you think Paul is just another politician, couldn't be further from the truth.

As politicians go I think Ron Paul is a diamond in the rough. I think that he has good intentions, but the way he is going about things is all wrong. As I have said many times now he lectures people in the state as if they don't know what they are doing is wrong & corrupt. They absolutely do know what they are doing is wrong & corrupt, and they don't give a damn. Ron Paul should quit politics and start a real revolution, not a fake one based on mystical belief in a couple hundred year old document.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: bamacre
He rejects science now?

Yes, if he rejects evolution then he rejects science. Then to boot, not only does he reject science but he talks about a 'creator,' which is mysticism.

I stopped reading here.

Those who have actually read the Declaration of Independence might understand why.

Let me guess, you are religious?

Aren't you? Where do you get this moral passion against corruption and thuggery?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: bamacre
He rejects science now?

Yes, if he rejects evolution then he rejects science. Then to boot, not only does he reject science but he talks about a 'creator,' which is mysticism.

I stopped reading here.

Those who have actually read the Declaration of Independence might understand why.

Let me guess, you are religious?

Get back to me once you have read the DoI and understand why the writers used the word "creator." You need an open mind however.

Regardless, you still have failed to show why Paul's religious views would be relevant to his hypothetical presidency. Let me give you some help here. He is for tossing away the Dept of Education, so no shoving religion down anyone's throat there. He believes abortion and gay marriage are out of the federal government's jurisdiction. So, not pushing anything there. So, how would his personal religious beliefs be relevant?

Meh, why do I even bother with you?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Evan
No, your logic is just inanely inane. Stupid. Lunatic fringe. Etc. That's why you get your ass handed to you in every single thread you enter, including this one where you get it completely wrong on Paul.

I point out logical fallacy after logical fallacy, if that puts me in the 'lunatic fringe,' then so be it. I am fully comfortable with the fact that at any given point in history the majority of people have been wrong on a whole range of subjects. Your views on the other hand were given to you on a silver platter, first by your parents, and then by your friends/teachers, then by your professors.

You are the one who gets your butt handed to you, because your beloved banking cartel financial system is collapsing all over the world as we speak.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Get back to me once you have read the DoI and understand why the writers used the word "creator." You need an open mind however.

Regardless, you still have failed to show why Paul's religious views would be relevant to his hypothetical presidency. Let me give you some help here. He is for tossing away the Dept of Education, so no shoving religion down anyone's throat there. He believes abortion and gay marriage are out of the federal government's jurisdiction. So, not pushing anything there. So, how would his personal religious beliefs be relevant?

Meh, why do I even bother with you?

Religion is inherently corrupt. It is the teaching of mystical beliefs as means of comforting oneself in the face of existential inconveniences, such as death.

The authors used the word 'creator' because they were religious. I really don't see what the DOI has to do what any of this though, or why it has anything to do with the fact that talking about a 'creator' is indeed mysticism. See, that is the problem with Ron Paul libertarians such as yourself, you have mystical beliefs in the powers of relic documents such as the DOI. The DOI was just a document to get rid of one political order in order to establish a new political order. It was a temporary step in the right direction only to bring about a permanent big step backwards.

 

[Ballatician]

I'm interested to see what kind of impact Libertarian candidates across the country have on election day. I'm hoping its larger than in the past.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Evan
No, your logic is just inanely inane. Stupid. Lunatic fringe. Etc. That's why you get your ass handed to you in every single thread you enter, including this one where you get it completely wrong on Paul.

I point out logical fallacy after logical fallacy, if that puts me in the 'lunatic fringe,' then so be it. I am fully comfortable with the fact that at any given point in history the majority of people have been wrong on a whole range of subjects. Your views on the other hand were given to you on a silver platter, first by your parents, and then by your friends/teachers, then by your professors.

You are the one who gets your butt handed to you, because your beloved banking cartel financial system is collapsing all over the world as we speak.

Yes, being taught by experts, mentors, and experienced professionals has its advantages. You not taking these people seriously and then not knowing how to do your own accurate independent research is why you don't understand bond financing and had to have it spoon-fed to you, why you didn't know what shorting was until it was force-fed to you, why you didn't understand why paying taxes is necessary when you use public services, and why you continue to get it wrong on Paul about his religious beliefs and/or being anti-science. You're not well informed to begin with so you can't possibly know how to conduct independent research or engage in substantive independent thought. That, my friend, is why you get your ass handed to you, every time.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Aren't you? Where do you get this moral passion against corruption and thuggery?

No, I am not religious. I derive my passion against corruption from secular ethics.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Evan
Yes, being taught by experts, mentors, and experienced professionals has its advantages.

And these so-called 'experts,' 'mentors,' and 'experienced professionals' have absolutely no agenda of their own. The 'knowledge' they have imparted is completely pure and unfettered by any biased personal conviction. None of them derive their income from the political institutions they rabidly support. *ROFFLE*

You live in a box, as we all do, and the minute you tried to actually break out of that box and do something significant without the approval of those 'experts,' 'mentors' and 'experienced professionals,' they would have you thrown in prison rape room.

You not taking these people seriously and then not knowing how to do your own accurate independent research is why you don't understand bond financing and had to have it spoon-fed to you, why you didn't know what shorting was until it was force-fed to you, why you didn't understand why paying taxes is necessary when you use public services, and why you continue to get it wrong on Paul about his religious beliefs and/or being anti-science.

What does shorting or bond financing have to do with anything? Those are natural phenomena in a market economy. I use public services that the political establishment has indeed force fed me. If you can explain how I can alter these public services when the political horde has chosen them for me, then we can talk about paying taxes. Saying I must pay taxes for public services is like saying I should charge you for a pie I have smashed into your face and shoved down your throat. Paul is indeed anti-science if he rejects evolution and talks about 'creators.'

You're not well informed to begin with so you can't possibly know how to conduct independent research or engage in substantive independent thought. That, my friend, is why you get your ass handed to you, every time.

This is coming from someone whose entire view is mainstream political and economic dogma.

 

[JEDIYoda]

this thread reeks of ignorance........hopefully it will dissipate!

 

[GTaudiophile]

Wow, I wake up to see Obama and Barr in a 5:5 dead heat

Why Barr over Paul?

 

[SP33Demon]

Obama since I'm in VA. Would have been Baldwin or Paul otherwise. And to the moron Dissipate who claims that Ron Paul is "anti-science": you're a fcking moron.

1)

Present scientific facts that support creationism

Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?

Ron Paul: "Yes."

2)

Ron Paul Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry.

Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004: States that Congress finds that:

the goal of safely opening space to the American people and to their private commercial enterprises should guide Federal space investments, policies, and regulations;

private industry has begun to develop commercial launch vehicles capable of carrying human beings into space;

greater private investment in these efforts will stimulate the commercial space transportation industry;

space transportation is inherently risky, and the future of the commercial human space flight industry will depend on its ability to continually improve its safety performance; and

the regulatory standards governing human space flight must evolve as the industry matures so that regulations neither stifle technology development nor expose crew or space flight participants to avoidable risks as the public comes to expect greater safety for crew and space flight participants from the industry.

Paul is "anti-science", keep telling yourself that.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The authors used the word 'creator' because they were religious.

Open your mind.

They used the word, "creator," because it doesn't leave anyone out, it doesn't divide us. The word can mean God, or any deity, to those who believe in one. Or it can mean the environment, nature, to those who do not believe in a deity.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Wow, I wake up to see Obama and Barr in a 5:5 dead heat

Why Barr over Paul?

Paul will only be on two ballots, IIRC. Barr will be on 45+.