The guy seems absolutely delusional in the ammount of faith he puts in libertarianism. And his followers seriously seem to consider the guy some kind of prophet. Whatever he says, they just eat it up.
"What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!"
I like that he is consistent in his views and doesn't bend them for some extra votes, but he is really crazy on a lot of points.
The guy seems absolutely delusional in the ammount of faith he puts in libertarianism. And his followers seriously seem to consider the guy some kind of prophet. Whatever he says, they just eat it up.
"What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!"
I like that he is consistent in his views and doesn't bend them for some extra votes, but he is really crazy on a lot of points.
True, he is crazy. At least though his brand of crazy doesn't fuck over large chunks of the american populace with bigoted religious views.
That said, I have at this point walked away from the general politics of this year filled with utter contempt. It doesn't matter who gets voted in, we all lose. Our elections are a complete and total sham at this point.
I don't understand the problem with that video. So he didn't think all the Americans needed to die, so he's delusional?
"What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!"
You do know that he has said multiple times that MLK is a personal idol of his.
The guy seems absolutely delusional in the ammount of faith he puts in libertarianism. And his followers seriously seem to consider the guy some kind of prophet. Whatever he says, they just eat it up.
"What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!"
I like that he is consistent in his views and doesn't bend them for some extra votes, but he is really crazy on a lot of points.
1) Libertarianism doesn't in it self reject going to war to fight slavery. 2) But Ron Paul felt that it wasn't worth it. You actually haven't seemed to study it it all. Just been told what happened there by your school teachers, and shit on all people who disagree with you. (is buying the slaverys that bad?). 3) Segregation had nothing to do with free markets. 4) Free markets can't do anything when government laws dont allow them to work.
The guy seems absolutely delusional in the ammount of faith he puts in libertarianism. And his followers seriously seem to consider the guy some kind of prophet. Whatever he says, they just eat it up.
"What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!"
I like that he is consistent in his views and doesn't bend them for some extra votes, but he is really crazy on a lot of points.
Its his opinion, i dont see what is so terribly wrong with it in this video. Maybe you could explain? And i think you made your point, Ron Paul is not Jesus. But if his zealot supporters get on your nerves maybe its just best to stop reading this thread for your own sake.
The guy seems absolutely delusional in the ammount of faith he puts in libertarianism. And his followers seriously seem to consider the guy some kind of prophet. Whatever he says, they just eat it up.
"What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!"
I like that he is consistent in his views and doesn't bend them for some extra votes, but he is really crazy on a lot of points.
Its his opinion, i dont see what is so terribly wrong with it in this video. Maybe you could explain? And i think you made your point, Ron Paul is not Jesus. But if his zealot supporters get on your nerves maybe its just best to stop reading this thread for your own sake.
I like to think that the occasional post that doesn't praise Ron Paul might keep this thread from devolving into prophet worship.
What kind of defense is "it's his opinion," anyway? Yeah I know it's his opinion, does that mean it's not a stupid opinion that flies in the face of reality and history?
It's Ron Paul's opinion that the free market would have solved segregation. I know it's his opinion, but why should I respect a person's opinion if it is both ridiculous and factitious?
The guy seems absolutely delusional in the ammount of faith he puts in libertarianism. And his followers seriously seem to consider the guy some kind of prophet. Whatever he says, they just eat it up.
"What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!"
I like that he is consistent in his views and doesn't bend them for some extra votes, but he is really crazy on a lot of points.
Its his opinion, i dont see what is so terribly wrong with it in this video. Maybe you could explain? And i think you made your point, Ron Paul is not Jesus. But if his zealot supporters get on your nerves maybe its just best to stop reading this thread for your own sake.
I like to think that the occasional post that doesn't praise Ron Paul might keep this thread from devolving into prophet worship.
What kind of defense is "it's his opinion," anyway? Yeah I know it's his opinion, does that mean it's not a stupid opinion that flies in the face of reality and history?
It's Ron Paul's opinion that the free market would have solved segregation. I know it's his opinion, but why should I respect a person's opinion if it is both ridiculous and factitious?
Wait...did Ron Paul really say that the free market would of solved segregation? I think not. You are trying to say that X would of fixed Y. However, they wouldn't see free market and segregation have nothing to do with each other. Ron Paul is saying that X would of fixed Y since X is actually tied into Y. The video is the latter example.
On February 20 2012 13:25 Probulous wrote: "Groups Santorum has double digit leads with include Protestants (up 47-30), union members (up 43-23), Evangelicals (up 51-24), Tea Partiers (up 55-20), 'very conservative' voters (up 54-23), and men (up 40-28)."
Is it me or is that really badly worded? It makes it sound like you can't be in more than one of these groups. Hard to believe there are no men in the unions
You can be in multiple groups. Those percentages are what you get when you only look at one variable at a time.
The guy seems absolutely delusional in the ammount of faith he puts in libertarianism. And his followers seriously seem to consider the guy some kind of prophet. Whatever he says, they just eat it up.
"What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!"
I like that he is consistent in his views and doesn't bend them for some extra votes, but he is really crazy on a lot of points.
Its his opinion, i dont see what is so terribly wrong with it in this video. Maybe you could explain? And i think you made your point, Ron Paul is not Jesus. But if his zealot supporters get on your nerves maybe its just best to stop reading this thread for your own sake.
I like to think that the occasional post that doesn't praise Ron Paul might keep this thread from devolving into prophet worship.
What kind of defense is "it's his opinion," anyway? Yeah I know it's his opinion, does that mean it's not a stupid opinion that flies in the face of reality and history?
It's Ron Paul's opinion that the free market would have solved segregation. I know it's his opinion, but why should I respect a person's opinion if it is both ridiculous and factitious?
It doesn't solve segregation. Segregation was government made. What your referring to is discrimanation. And no free markets don't solve discrimantion. However people are born with equal rights. John Stossel try to explain this to the irrational news host in this video who uses her feelings to make decisions rather than logic:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
Over the weekend the candidate had been criticized for saying that President Barack Obama followed a theology that was not “based on the Bible.” He later insisted that he was talking about the president siding with “radical environmentalists.”
“I accept the fact that the president’s a Christian,” Santorum told CBS host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. “I just said when you have world view that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth — like things that are not scientifically proven like the politicization of the whole global warming debate.”
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
Over the weekend the candidate had been criticized for saying that President Barack Obama followed a theology that was not “based on the Bible.” He later insisted that he was talking about the president siding with “radical environmentalists.”
“I accept the fact that the president’s a Christian,” Santorum told CBS host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. “I just said when you have world view that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth — like things that are not scientifically proven like the politicization of the whole global warming debate.”
Not to devolve this into a religious discussion, but this always confuses me. Are we supposed to be "natural" and do what's good for the earth or are we supposed to be better and more important than the earth so nature can suck it? I usually thought religion goes for the latter, but they also attack nonprocreative sex or whatever so it's just confusing me.
Like you think these guys who constantly blame the victim in terms of lifestyle and economics would be gun-ho about climate change. Here's a perfectly good example of people doing unnatural things for selfish purposes and "reaping what they sow."
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
Over the weekend the candidate had been criticized for saying that President Barack Obama followed a theology that was not “based on the Bible.” He later insisted that he was talking about the president siding with “radical environmentalists.”
“I accept the fact that the president’s a Christian,” Santorum told CBS host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. “I just said when you have world view that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth — like things that are not scientifically proven like the politicization of the whole global warming debate.”
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
Over the weekend the candidate had been criticized for saying that President Barack Obama followed a theology that was not “based on the Bible.” He later insisted that he was talking about the president siding with “radical environmentalists.”
“I accept the fact that the president’s a Christian,” Santorum told CBS host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. “I just said when you have world view that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth — like things that are not scientifically proven like the politicization of the whole global warming debate.”
Not to devolve this into a religious discussion, but this always confuses me. Are we supposed to be "natural" and do what's good for the earth or are we supposed to be better and more important than the earth so nature can suck it? I usually thought religion goes for the latter, but they also attack nonprocreative sex or whatever so it's just confusing me.
Like you think these guys who constantly blame the victim in terms of lifestyle and economics would be gun-ho about climate change. Here's a perfectly good example of people doing unnatural things for selfish purposes and "reaping what they sow."
The Bible is very clear in its stating the the Earth is created as an object for man to exploit and use to its very best ability. There is also a lot of word choice that pins man against nature, as if nature is some sort of creature in need of taming, a beast that needs to be subdued. Its a big reason why you see a lot of religious right not seeing the sense on so much regulation and whatnot, since they have a comfort in their mind that things are going according to plan. Since similar ideas are presented in the Bible, they are comfortable with it and do not believe too much bad can come of it.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
Over the weekend the candidate had been criticized for saying that President Barack Obama followed a theology that was not “based on the Bible.” He later insisted that he was talking about the president siding with “radical environmentalists.”
“I accept the fact that the president’s a Christian,” Santorum told CBS host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. “I just said when you have world view that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth — like things that are not scientifically proven like the politicization of the whole global warming debate.”
Not to devolve this into a religious discussion, but this always confuses me. Are we supposed to be "natural" and do what's good for the earth or are we supposed to be better and more important than the earth so nature can suck it? I usually thought religion goes for the latter, but they also attack nonprocreative sex or whatever so it's just confusing me.
Like you think these guys who constantly blame the victim in terms of lifestyle and economics would be gun-ho about climate change. Here's a perfectly good example of people doing unnatural things for selfish purposes and "reaping what they sow."
The Bible is very clear in its stating the the Earth is created as an object for man to exploit and use to its very best ability. There is also a lot of word choice that pins man against nature, as if nature is some sort of creature in need of taming, a beast that needs to be subdued. Its a big reason why you see a lot of religious right not seeing the sense on so much regulation and whatnot, since they have a comfort in their mind that things are going according to plan. Since similar ideas are presented in the Bible, they are comfortable with it and do not believe too much bad can come of it.
Sad
Actually, a more accurate description of the bible doesn't see a relationship of exploitation between man and nature, but one of stewardship. Man gets to use his fair share of the earths resources but no more; the earth is god's creation and needs to be respected. This line of thought it pretty common for European christian parties to support, and Santorum is the one not only trolling common sense but apparantly also his own religion.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
Over the weekend the candidate had been criticized for saying that President Barack Obama followed a theology that was not “based on the Bible.” He later insisted that he was talking about the president siding with “radical environmentalists.”
“I accept the fact that the president’s a Christian,” Santorum told CBS host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. “I just said when you have world view that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth — like things that are not scientifically proven like the politicization of the whole global warming debate.”
Not to devolve this into a religious discussion, but this always confuses me. Are we supposed to be "natural" and do what's good for the earth or are we supposed to be better and more important than the earth so nature can suck it? I usually thought religion goes for the latter, but they also attack nonprocreative sex or whatever so it's just confusing me.
Like you think these guys who constantly blame the victim in terms of lifestyle and economics would be gun-ho about climate change. Here's a perfectly good example of people doing unnatural things for selfish purposes and "reaping what they sow."
The Bible is very clear in its stating the the Earth is created as an object for man to exploit and use to its very best ability. There is also a lot of word choice that pins man against nature, as if nature is some sort of creature in need of taming, a beast that needs to be subdued. Its a big reason why you see a lot of religious right not seeing the sense on so much regulation and whatnot, since they have a comfort in their mind that things are going according to plan. Since similar ideas are presented in the Bible, they are comfortable with it and do not believe too much bad can come of it. Sad
Actually, a more accurate description of the bible doesn't see a relationship of exploitation between man and nature, but one of stewardship. Man gets to use his fair share of the earths resources but no more; the earth is god's creation and needs to be respected. This line of thought it pretty common for European christian parties to support, and Santorum is the one not only trolling common sense but apparantly also his own religion.
Yeah, you pretty much hit it on the head. I mean hell, the bible says that god is revealed through his creation, which would lend you to think that you should respect his creation.
On a side note, since a politician should be allowed to practice whichever religion, I think the biggest problem is when they try to speak ON BEHALF of an entire religion. The same theory works for why the more moderate politicians usually win elections, they piss off the fewest people. When you're claiming your religion belives this and that specifically, such as the use of natural resources, you're just giving yourself another venue in which to alienate voters. Sticking to the bigger picture ftw.
On February 21 2012 04:32 zalz wrote: I like to think that the occasional post that doesn't praise Ron Paul might keep this thread from devolving into prophet worship.
The occasional post? lol... From what I've seen this thread is mostly a bunch of left wingers bashing and making fun of republican voters. There are only a handful of Ron Paul zealots who seem to be making most of the points here.
The sad thing is most of the "Ron Paul zealots" usually at least ATTEMPT to put forward arguments, even if they are bad arguments. Most people like you zalz just post pointless ad hominem attacks, calling people crazy, insane, backwards, ignorant... I don't care if you think that, many people are those things, but you need to ARTICULATE WHY instead of relying on these lazy attacks all the time and using straw man arguments.
I find politics so interesting but this thread drives me nuts because there's so much no content posts and name calling, and I'm sad to say most of it is coming from the left. Use ideas please, not insults or labels.
The guy seems absolutely delusional in the ammount of faith he puts in libertarianism. And his followers seriously seem to consider the guy some kind of prophet. Whatever he says, they just eat it up.
"What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!"
I like that he is consistent in his views and doesn't bend them for some extra votes, but he is really crazy on a lot of points.
Its his opinion, i dont see what is so terribly wrong with it in this video. Maybe you could explain? And i think you made your point, Ron Paul is not Jesus. But if his zealot supporters get on your nerves maybe its just best to stop reading this thread for your own sake.
I like to think that the occasional post that doesn't praise Ron Paul might keep this thread from devolving into prophet worship.
What kind of defense is "it's his opinion," anyway? Yeah I know it's his opinion, does that mean it's not a stupid opinion that flies in the face of reality and history?
It's Ron Paul's opinion that the free market would have solved segregation. I know it's his opinion, but why should I respect a person's opinion if it is both ridiculous and factitious?
It doesn't solve segregation. Segregation was government made. What your referring to is discrimanation. And no free markets don't solve discrimantion. However people are born with equal rights. John Stossel try to explain this to the irrational news host in this video who uses her feelings to make decisions rather than logic:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged on Monday that President Barack Obama and Democrats were “anti-science” because they refused to exploit the Earth’s natural resources to the limits of technology.
Over the weekend the candidate had been criticized for saying that President Barack Obama followed a theology that was not “based on the Bible.” He later insisted that he was talking about the president siding with “radical environmentalists.”
“I accept the fact that the president’s a Christian,” Santorum told CBS host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. “I just said when you have world view that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth — like things that are not scientifically proven like the politicization of the whole global warming debate.”
Not to devolve this into a religious discussion, but this always confuses me. Are we supposed to be "natural" and do what's good for the earth or are we supposed to be better and more important than the earth so nature can suck it? I usually thought religion goes for the latter, but they also attack nonprocreative sex or whatever so it's just confusing me.
Like you think these guys who constantly blame the victim in terms of lifestyle and economics would be gun-ho about climate change. Here's a perfectly good example of people doing unnatural things for selfish purposes and "reaping what they sow."
The Bible is very clear in its stating the the Earth is created as an object for man to exploit and use to its very best ability. There is also a lot of word choice that pins man against nature, as if nature is some sort of creature in need of taming, a beast that needs to be subdued. Its a big reason why you see a lot of religious right not seeing the sense on so much regulation and whatnot, since they have a comfort in their mind that things are going according to plan. Since similar ideas are presented in the Bible, they are comfortable with it and do not believe too much bad can come of it.
Sad
Yea so why are religious people also decrying against things being "unnatural"? We're supposed to be against nature or stewarding nature. Who the hell cares what nature wants? We're fucking mankind. Whatever. Clearly I don't get it.
I mean global warming is such a great example of their 'doom and gloom' attacks and everything. The morality of selfishly using up God's creation for money and greed and eventually destroying ourselves? This is exactly what they usually rant about!! The only reason it seems they don't latch onto it is because the blame rests on corporations who give them most of their money.
On February 21 2012 02:26 DoubleReed wrote: I don't understand the problem with that video. So he didn't think all the Americans needed to die, so he's delusional?
"What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!"
You do know that he has said multiple times that MLK is a personal idol of his.
Regardless of his views, he's historically innacurate and so his entire point is way off-base. The Civil War wasn't started because the north wanted the south to abolish slavery. It was started over states' rights and slavery was the main talking point for that larger issue.
EPT
