Republican nominations - Page 468

On February 23 2012 10:16 GreenManalishi wrote:
Woops, someone accidentally gave Ron Paul time to speak.

On February 23 2012 10:19 Derez wrote:

And uses all the time he'll get for the next 30 minutes on an incoherent 'statement' jumping to 'foreign aid', which is what 0.2% of US GDP? Ron should hire someone to prep him better.

Paul and Santorum shouldn't beat up on eachother like this tho, makes no sense. Noone voting for Paul will change to Santorum and vice versa. They're ideologically the furthest apart.

On February 23 2012 10:19 Derez wrote:

And uses all the time he'll get for the next 30 minutes on an incoherent 'statement' jumping to 'foreign aid', which is what 0.2% of US GDP? Ron should hire someone to prep him better.

Paul and Santorum shouldn't beat up on eachother like this tho, makes no sense. Noone voting for Paul will change to Santorum and vice versa. They're ideologically the furthest apart.

On February 23 2012 10:24 Housemd wrote:


Can someone please explain to me how something is a "% of the GDP"? I mean, people sometimes say that debt is x% of GDP but I've never gotten how? How can foreign aid be a percentage of the GDP?

On February 23 2012 10:02 Whitewing wrote:



Ah, here's the disconnect: you actually don't see any problem with a candidate wanting a theocracy, thus why you saw no issue with what he's said. Hint: science classes are supposed to teach science. Fact: intelligent design is NOT science. Fact: evolution IS science. There's absolutely no way to argue this from any sort of informed background, it's simply the way science works. What's wrong with teaching intelligent design is that it's made up, has no substantiating evidence at all, and it's just a way of shoving your religion down the throats of people who don't follow your religion (those who do are going to learn about intelligent design outside of the school setting anyway). The supreme court ruled this exact same way. If you don't understand the scientific method, that's your failing and you should educate yourself on this matter (it's very important, everyone should at least know what science actually is), but intelligent design isn't science, it isn't a competing theory (nobody competent even takes this remotely seriously).

In fact, I'll provide a brief explanation as to why it isn't a competing theory: In science, a theory is the highest status any hypothesis (intelligent design is a hypothesis) can attain. In order to attain the status of being a theory (note: gravity is a theory, special relativity is a theory, the earth being round is a theory), the hypothesis must follow the entirety of the scientific method, and survive and pass through every stage of the method.

The Scientific method:
Step 1: Ask a question
Step 2: Research the subject (gather information)
Step 3: Form a hypothesis to answer the question
Step 4: Design and create an experiment to test your hypothesis
Step 5: Conduct the experiment, and observe. Record all observations and methodology as precisely and accurately as possible.
Step 6: Share your results with the scientific community at large for peer review and independent testing.
Step 7: If the results seem useful, conduct further experiments to continue testing. If not, revise or abandon the hypothesis. Start again from step 3.

What's wrong with intelligent design? The inventor of this hypothesis got to step 3 and stopped. There is no experiment to test it. By design, the hypothesis (religion in general actually) cannot be tested, and is cleverly designed so that negative results do not disprove the hypothesis (technically speaking, proving a negative is impossible, that's why the burden of proof is on the claimant: you have to prove something happened, not prove it didn't happen). There's no peer review of results, because there are no results. It isn't science, and evolution, which is science, has gone through this method enough times that it's not even really questioned anymore by people who are expert in the field. I simply cannot tolerate a candidate who is so anti-science!

As for what's wrong with the quote regarding Judeo-Christian values, is that the 'we' he refers to is all the citizens of the United States (that is the context of the quote). The problem is, not everyone in this country has these values! Not everyone follows the god of these religions, so speaking as if we all do is rejecting the beliefs and values of those who don't agree, and suggesting that they don't have the right to hold those values (these values being written into law would deny the right to reject these values). Anytime someone talks about how their religious values are superior, they are saying that their religion is flat out better. The problem is that everyone has the right to their own religion, and that unless you can somehow prove that yours is better (you can't), you have no leg to stand on to argue that it's better and that others should abandon their religions in favor of yours. The other (worse) part is that he is basically saying that the bible should be taken literally from the original time it was written, and regardless of how times change, we should still follow it. Regardless of new information that comes along, new evidence that suggests we were wrong about something, we shouldn't change. That's what he's saying: he's rejecting progress and trying to get us all back to the dark ages.

What's wrong with talking about Satan in political speeches should be obvious.

Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with Iran, you're correct. However, if you actually read what I wrote (you either didn't read it or didn't understand it), what I wrote is that he wants an amendment to the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade, not just wants to overturn it. The entire point I was making is that constitutional protections mean nothing when the constitution is changed to eliminate those protections, which is what Santorum wants to do. Mind you, he'd never succeed, but I will not accept a presidential candidate who has this idea to begin with. I should also point out, Santorum agreed with Newt Gingrich on making the judicial branch of the government a subservient branch to the executive branch, rather than a separate branch that is part of the checks and balances system.

And these are not generic quotes. They are not taken out of context, they are very specific quotes taken in context that describes exactly what his intended goals are. He wants to impose his Roman Catholic values on everyone in the country (despite the fact that he apparently doesn't even truly follow the Roman Catholic church).

I have no issue with a presidential candidate being christian. People are allowed to disagree with me on religion, and I don't hold contempt for people for being religious (although I do think it's wrong). I do have contempt for Santorum, because I do have a problem with a presidential candidate attempting to force his religious views on everyone in the entire country. Haven't you ever heard of separation of church and state? You don't have to be an atheist, or even non-christian to see what's wrong with his positions.

On February 23 2012 10:32 Signet wrote:

Republican voters hate foreign aid and think our country is throwing away a huge percent of our wealth giving it to other countries. Since these are the people who will be voting in the primaries, it makes sense for him to make that statement.

On February 23 2012 10:46 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
Do we have a drinking game in place for the faith related topics?

On February 23 2012 10:50 Jibba wrote:
Birth control lowers the number of children born out of wedlock, you fucking idiot.