On January 21 2012 02:20 D10 wrote: Im sad that none one wanted to answer my questions, instead just keep this mindless and unproductive discussion
Sorry, as Terry said, he's "playing Devil's Advocate". Or being a troll.
First question, do you think obama will get reelected ?
Second question, whos winning the republican nominations ?
Third question, what about ron paul ? does he have a chance on this one ?
1. The chances are looking decent right now. The economy is moving upwards, which is the biggest issue in the election. If it continues to do so, his chances are good. If something happens, like Europe implodes, then there might be more difficulty. And remember, Obama did bring the troops home from Afghanistan, get Libya cleaned up with minimum intervention and get Bin Laden. Oh, and the rest of the world still loves him. tl;dr probably yes
2. As of right now, Mitt Romney can be considered the front runner. He's got the most money and the biggest network set up. He was a close second in Iowa, losing to Santorum by 34 votes after initially being declared the victor. He won New Hampsire pretty convincingly. He's polling a close second behind Gingrch in South Carolina which votes today. However, his performance in the debate yesterday was not good. tl;dr romney
3. Ron Paul is clawing his way into the mainstream, partly due to the weakness of the other candidates. His loyal base of voters is there as always, and because of the increased media exposure, more people have heard his ideas, and a lot of them kind of like some of them. Personally, I like a lot of what he says and his ads. Like this one is pretty neat.
However, he is a little too controversial on foreign and fiscal policy (cutting the military and the Federal Reserve). When those come up, he's kind of screwed. However, he sticks to his platform which is more than any other candidates can say. His chances of winning are low, but he's a winner either way. tl;dr no, he's too controversial
I hope that this summary helps. I'm pretty biased though, so yeah.
i've been doing some research today, does any of the candidates believe in evolution over creation? I couldnt find out about Romney, though he's mormon so i guess not
On January 21 2012 02:58 Geo.Rion wrote: i've been doing some research today, does any of the candidates believe in evolution over creation? I couldnt find out about Romney, though he's mormon so i guess not
On January 21 2012 02:58 Geo.Rion wrote: i've been doing some research today, does any of the candidates believe in evolution over creation? I couldnt find out about Romney, though he's mormon so i guess not
faith and science don't neceserally exclude each other. Romney believes in amixture of both, like God is the one behind evolution.
On January 21 2012 02:58 Geo.Rion wrote: i've been doing some research today, does any of the candidates believe in evolution over creation? I couldnt find out about Romney, though he's mormon so i guess not
He seems to believe in evolution, but for the sake of winning the evangelical vote(which won´t work imho) he flip flops around topics like this one. Santorum - no - Ron Paul probably not BUT he has the balls to acknowledge different views because he is a true libertarian. Gingrich - probably not(same reason as Romney).
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong since those are just my estimats .
On January 21 2012 02:58 Geo.Rion wrote: i've been doing some research today, does any of the candidates believe in evolution over creation? I couldnt find out about Romney, though he's mormon so i guess not
faith and science don't neceserally exclude each other. Romney believes in amixture of both, like God is the one behind evolution.
that is absolutely true, yet I´d be really surprised if that´s the case with your typical evangelical believer.
On January 21 2012 02:58 Geo.Rion wrote: i've been doing some research today, does any of the candidates believe in evolution over creation? I couldnt find out about Romney, though he's mormon so i guess not
faith and science don't neceserally exclude each other. Romney believes in amixture of both, like God is the one behind evolution.
that is absolutely true, yet I´d be really surprised if that´s the case with your typical evangelical believer.
You mean protestant by evangelical? (i assume so cause you're from Austria) I think it is mostly the case with the typical modern believer (like myself) who take the bible more philosophical. But I guess most believers aren't that way in USA (especially in the midwest). This seems to be a problem for Romney as he is mormon.
On January 21 2012 02:58 Geo.Rion wrote: i've been doing some research today, does any of the candidates believe in evolution over creation? I couldnt find out about Romney, though he's mormon so i guess not
faith and science don't neceserally exclude each other. Romney believes in amixture of both, like God is the one behind evolution.
that is absolutely true, yet I´d be really surprised if that´s the case with your typical evangelical believer.
You mean protestant by evangelical? (i assume so cause you're from Austria) I think it is mostly the case with the typical modern believer (like myself) who take the bible more philosophical. But I guess most believers aren't that way in USA (especially in the midwest). This seems to be a problem for Romney as he is mormon.
Those are the ones I am referring too by using the word "evangelical" - you should look it up because evangelical =! protestants.
On January 21 2012 02:58 Geo.Rion wrote: i've been doing some research today, does any of the candidates believe in evolution over creation? I couldnt find out about Romney, though he's mormon so i guess not
faith and science don't neceserally exclude each other. Romney believes in amixture of both, like God is the one behind evolution.
that is absolutely true, yet I´d be really surprised if that´s the case with your typical evangelical believer.
You mean protestant by evangelical? (i assume so cause you're from Austria) I think it is mostly the case with the typical modern believer (like myself) who take the bible more philosophical. But I guess most believers aren't that way in USA (especially in the midwest). This seems to be a problem for Romney as he is mormon.
I think the word "evangelical" is tainted with the image of fundamentalism in the Anglo nations. Protestant and generally Calvinist.
"Modern" doesn't really mean anything either, as that can mean anything from the continuation from 19th century Liberal Protestantism, "Neo-Orthodoxy", the various factions within the Catholics, etc. etc. etc.
On January 20 2012 12:29 Whitewing wrote: Of course Gingrich would say bringing up his affair is despicable. The man is scum enough to cheat on his wife while she's fighting off cancer, he doesn't want anything that makes him look bad being brought up.
He's not a decent person, he's one hell of a huge hypocrite. Spouting 'christian' and 'family' values while cheating on his own family.
Let me play Devil's Advocate.
I think it's quite easy to be quick to judge - but what if you were put in his shoes?
I had a friend who was in a two year relationship. Then he got cancer and his girlfriend left him because he only had three years left to live (according to the doctors). Fact of the matter is, when you are faced with having to love someone who is of lower value, your attraction for them decreases.
If we were all saints, we would all be marrying people like this:
Which girl did you masturbate over and want to date when you were in high school? I guarantee that 10 times out of 10 it was a hot chick. Nobody wants the fat and ugly chick.
Now we go on about how it's wrong for Gingrich to dump an older woman for a younger mistress. Well, I hope that if you feel that is ethically wrong, that you one day marry (if you're not already married) someone who no other guy wants. Because everybody wants to equally be loved. Yet we, by human nature, choose beauty over ugliness.
Say there are two women. One is 40 and has never been loved. Then there is a 20 year old chick who every guy wants to marry because she's fucking sexy enough to be a pornstar. Who are you going to choose?
Obviously, by purely ethical standards, it is unfair that the 60 year old has never even been kissed, simply because Jesus fucking Christ made her the way she is (physically), so you should choose her.
But are you going to do it? Fuck no.
And don't forget that the same thing happened with John Edwards.
So let's be honest here. It's easy to get on our high horses and condemn Gingrich for dumping an ugly ass wife for a relatively hotter one. But let's not pretend none of us would do the exact same thing, or are doing the exact same thing everyday. There are thousands of cancer patients out there but how many of us are selflessly sacrificing our lives going to visit them instead of playing SC?
As for Gingrich's 'Christian' values - if America wasn't so full of dumbass people who believed in fairy tales then their politicians wouldn't have to be pandering to such ridiculously retarded beliefs.
I couldn't care less about his family indiscretions, except that he's campaigning based on 'family' values in part, which makes him not only a hypocrite but an asshole.
And see, here's the thing about marriage. You're supposed to be in love with the person you marry, and you're not supposed to marry someone you don't love. If you love someone, you wouldn't be cheating on them when they're going through a very very hard time. That's pretty damn hard to justify. Your argument is pretty ridiculous though, I don't know anyone who would argue that marriage is based purely on just physical attraction and lust, or fairness. We marry someone because we love them.
On January 21 2012 02:58 Geo.Rion wrote: i've been doing some research today, does any of the candidates believe in evolution over creation? I couldnt find out about Romney, though he's mormon so i guess not
faith and science don't neceserally exclude each other. Romney believes in amixture of both, like God is the one behind evolution.
that is absolutely true, yet I´d be really surprised if that´s the case with your typical evangelical believer.
You mean protestant by evangelical? (i assume so cause you're from Austria) I think it is mostly the case with the typical modern believer (like myself) who take the bible more philosophical. But I guess most believers aren't that way in USA (especially in the midwest). This seems to be a problem for Romney as he is mormon.
Nah I think most Christians in US are of a similar moderate variety. They just aren't as loud.
First question, do you think obama will get reelected ?
Second question, whos winning the republican nominations ?
Third question, what about ron paul ? does he have a chance on this one ?
1. The chances are looking decent right now. The economy is moving upwards, which is the biggest issue in the election. If it continues to do so, his chances are good. If something happens, like Europe implodes, then there might be more difficulty. And remember, Obama did bring the troops home from Afghanistan, get Libya cleaned up with minimum intervention and get Bin Laden. Oh, and the rest of the world still loves him. tl;dr probably yes
2. As of right now, Mitt Romney can be considered the front runner. He's got the most money and the biggest network set up. He was a close second in Iowa, losing to Santorum by 34 votes after initially being declared the victor. He won New Hampsire pretty convincingly. He's polling a close second behind Gingrch in South Carolina which votes today. However, his performance in the debate yesterday was not good. tl;dr romney
3. Ron Paul is clawing his way into the mainstream, partly due to the weakness of the other candidates. His loyal base of voters is there as always, and because of the increased media exposure, more people have heard his ideas, and a lot of them kind of like some of them. Personally, I like a lot of what he says and his ads. Like this one is pretty neat.
However, he is a little too controversial on foreign and fiscal policy (cutting the military and the Federal Reserve). When those come up, he's kind of screwed. However, he sticks to his platform which is more than any other candidates can say. His chances of winning are low, but he's a winner either way. tl;dr no, he's too controversial
I hope that this summary helps. I'm pretty biased though, so yeah.
No one here seems to understand anything about how the nomination process works. As such, I'm done with this thread, because it's all bull, and if I were to try to explain the nomination process, one or two people would quote it, and the rest would ignore it.
On January 21 2012 06:24 ryanAnger wrote: No one here seems to understand anything about how the nomination process works. As such, I'm done with this thread, because it's all bull, and if I were to try to explain the nomination process, one or two people would quote it, and the rest would ignore it.
Martyr much? Way to sound like your smarter and better than the rest of the people here.
On January 21 2012 06:24 ryanAnger wrote: No one here seems to understand anything about how the nomination process works. As such, I'm done with this thread, because it's all bull, and if I were to try to explain the nomination process, one or two people would quote it, and the rest would ignore it.
Oh anointed one, please bless us with your infinite wisdom about how the nominee will be determined, because clearly the people here are simple minded and surely not as enlightened as you and your pompous EGO. And if you are not willing, you may die for our sins(or leave this thread).
I understand that Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, and certainly some valid points. My question for Ron Paul supporters however, is how do you feel about Ron Paul's views on:
2) No foreign intervention. Paul would not intervene in any foreign conflict, would not have intervened in Rwanda in the 90's, even knowing what he knows know, or any other genocide. Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl3/ron-paul-on-libya.html
3) Paul is against the Civil rights act of 1964, is it really ok to allow people to discriminate based on race, gender, etc when the government can intervene? Source http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
4) Paul favors adhering strictly to the constitution, but that document was written hundreds of years ago. It makes no provisions for many important parts of the modern world. How should that be addressed?
I agree with Paul on many points. In an ideal world the Civil Right Act, foreign aid/intervention, government involvement in the economy, and alot of other government functions would be unnecessary. The reality though, is that we live in a messy and complex world. Some people are still racsist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted, and would like to take action discriminating against other groups, and while the government can't, and shouldn't, tell you how to feel, is it unreasonable to at least ensure you can't ban African Americans from your bar, or gays from your town? People kill each other en masse and starve outside our borders every day, and sometimes we have the power to stop it. The economy has shown time and again that it does not regulate itself ideally. Imperfect information, human greed, and factors mean that simply trusting the market is not always beneficial or effective. In these situations, the government has the power to do good, should it not?
On January 21 2012 06:56 VediVeci wrote: I understand that Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, and certainly some valid points. My question for Ron Paul supporters however, is how do you feel about Ron Paul's views on:
2) No foreign intervention. Paul would not intervene in any foreign conflict, would not have intervened in Rwanda in the 90's, even knowing what he knows know, or any other genocide. Source:+ Show Spoiler +
3) Paul is against the Civil rights act of 1964, is it really ok to allow people to discriminate based on race, gender, etc when the government can intervene? Source http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
4) Paul favors adhering strictly to the constitution, but that document was written hundreds of years ago. It makes no provisions for many important parts of the modern world. How should that be addressed?
I agree with Paul on many points. In an ideal world the Civil Right Act, foreign aid/intervention, government involvement in the economy, and alot of other government functions would be unnecessary. The reality though, is that we live in a messy and complex world. Some people are still racsist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted, and would like to take action discriminating against other groups, and while the government can't, and shouldn't, tell you how to feel, is it unreasonable to at least ensure you can't ban African Americans from your bar, or gays from your town? People kill each other en masse and starve outside our borders every day, and sometimes we have the power to stop it. The economy has shown time and again that it does not regulate itself ideally. Imperfect information, human greed, and factors mean that simply trusting the market is not always beneficial or effective. In these situations, the government has the power to do good, should it not?
Edit: Sources
1) No, we shouldn't. We should fix things at home first before worrying about other countries. Where in the Constitution does it say that we have to save the whole world? Furthermore, despite being such a rich country, we're broke. Even worse, we're in debt. Heavy debt. Spending money on others that have no way of repaying us in the future is a stupid gamble. And as Paul says, a lot of time our foreign aid results in us taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in other countries.
2) A foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than military force makes sense. Again, we don't have the money to maintain current foreign intervention policy.
3) The civil rights act of 1964 has failed to promote racial harmony. What do we see today: Women and minorities still make less than their white male counterparts in equal situations. You will not stop racism with brute force; only with education. If I'm going to start a restaurant that doesn't serve black people, hypothetically, what is going to happen is that social pressures will force me out of business. On the other hand, a law that states I can't do so, will only cause me to make my racism more subtle. I'll pay less attention to them, treat them rudely, etc. Anything I can do to undermine the law without actually breaking it. How to change this? Educate me. A law won't stop my racism.
The progress we've made since 1964 is a social one, not a legislative one.
4) When necessary we make amendments. But don't make the mistake of assuming that just because something is newer means that it is correct. This idea that we are so much smarter than the great thinkers from centuries ago is a fabrication. They were highly intelligent and had much wisdom.
You may not be able to directly force people to stop holding bigoted views, but you can't just sit idly by and allow institutionalized racism to continue.
Do you seriously think schools in the south (especially private ones) would have EVER desegregated if the govt hadn't sent the goddamn national guard in?
There are school districts in Georgia and Mississippi that were holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008, (as in, minority students are *not allowed* to attend "white prom.") I know how important it seems to be to stick up for the rights of people to discriminate if they want do, but we've also got to stick up for the rights of people to not be discriminated against.
EPT
.
