EPTRepublican nominations - Page 56
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
-eXalt
United States462 Posts
| ||
|
liepzig
Singapore45 Posts
On August 29 2011 17:18 Velr wrote: What does it then? There is overwhelming evidence for something. Person A follows evidence and therefore is reasonable. Person B disregards all the evidence and therefore isn't reasonable. True, except Ron Paul isn't running for a nobel prize in biology. He's running for the President of the United States. I would vote for a candidate based on his leadership qualities, his accountability to voters, his integrity, and his direction for the country. Other than that, I don't give a shit. He can believe in Zeus or Odin for all I care. Of course, that's just me, and I'm not American. I notice u aren't either, so do these issues (i.e. abortion, evolution, global warming etc...) play a large part in switzerland's politics too? | ||
|
justinpal
United States3810 Posts
On August 29 2011 16:11 Happy Juvia wrote: "A politician's attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today." - Dawkins. Nah. You aren't stupid in all/most fields just because you are ignorant of one biological theory. Like the first response says its an unrelated issue. Just because you quote a pretentious author does not change that fact. | ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
not to mention he is using religion to get votes. its gonna be a sad day if he gets elected =/ | ||
|
justinpal
United States3810 Posts
On August 29 2011 17:42 VPCursed wrote: Sadly its going to be rick perry who gets the nomination and goes head to head with obama.The Media doesn't stop talking about him.. every 5 minutes i hear about rick perry on fox news. not to mention he is using religion to get votes. its gonna be a sad day if he gets elected =/ I don't have TV. What's wrong with Perry? He seems fine to me. | ||
|
-eXalt
United States462 Posts
On August 29 2011 17:42 VPCursed wrote: Sadly its going to be rick perry who gets the nomination and goes head to head with obama.The Media doesn't stop talking about him.. every 5 minutes i hear about rick perry on fox news. not to mention he is using religion to get votes. its gonna be a sad day if he gets elected =/ It's because fox news' main population of viewers are evangelicals who hate mormons. They want to promote perry (or whoever is the lead evangelical nominee) and always knock down romney to get more evangelical viewers =/ seriously fuck fox. Romney is the only candidate with some depth (and maybe ron paul) and hands on experience fixing an economy. w/e, don't expect romney to get elected due to fox news, even though I think he deserves the election the most. | ||
KwarK
United States43920 Posts
On August 29 2011 17:34 justinpal wrote: Nah. You aren't stupid in all/most fields just because you are ignorant of one biological theory. Like the first response says its an unrelated issue. Just because you quote a pretentious author does not change that fact. It's not just one biological theory. It's the answer to how we got here. It's one of the most groundbreaking, revolutionary and significant intellectual discoveries humanity has ever made and will ever make. I'm actually struggling to come up with an example of something comparatively stupid to not believe in simply because evolution is so fundamental and important. You'd have to be a complete moron to have any doubt on the matter. | ||
|
Brutefidget
United States64 Posts
On August 29 2011 17:34 justinpal wrote: Nah. You aren't stupid in all/most fields just because you are ignorant of one biological theory. Like the first response says its an unrelated issue. Just because you quote a pretentious author does not change that fact. Being ignorant of a theory is different from vehemently fighting against one with an overwhelming amount of evidence. The fact that a candidate refuses to accept a known fact in the light of evidence does indeed factor into whether or not I want them to run my country. I want a leader who will look at evidence, speak with experts, and make informed decisions on how to lead my country. Failure to do so on a topic like Evolution really is not excusable at this point, and a politician who lines up against experts without valid, defensible reasoning is not fit to lead. It's not a non-issue; there still exist a great number of people in the U.S. who want to teach that this "theory" is garbage, or teach it along with theories for which there is little or no evidence that current experts know are garbage. While we still have a public education system, electing a President that is in line with this stagnating affront to intellectualism is unconscionable. In my mind, this makes Huntsman the only considerable candidate in the running. Too bad it seems his campaign is more based on familiarizing himself for a more probable run in 2016. | ||
|
RaQIl
Macedonia25 Posts
I know for a fact that temperatures change constantly as evidence from earth history, if fact earth has had 2 ice ages and there weren't humans then. Since Rick Perry was Al Gore former chief of staff and supports global warming and is for carbon taxes, as well as a Bilderberg member in 2007 in Turkey, I support Ron Paul. Mitt Romney is basically pretty much the same as Perry and is part of the establishment that will continue the endless wars all across the world which only serve to prop up the military industrial complex and the big oil companies. | ||
Undrass
Norway381 Posts
On August 29 2011 17:34 justinpal wrote: Nah. You aren't stupid in all/most fields just because you are ignorant of one biological theory. Like the first response says its an unrelated issue. Just because you quote a pretentious author does not change that fact. Would you vote for someone claiming the earth is flat, and wants to teach it to children at school? | ||
|
pAzand
Sweden539 Posts
On August 29 2011 20:24 Undrass wrote: Would you vote for someone claiming the earth is flat, and wants to teach it to children at school? The fact that people like that don't get laughed/boo'ed of stage says it all about americans. User was warned for this post | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On August 29 2011 18:21 RaQIl wrote: First let me say that I don't think paying global carbon taxes to Al Gore or anyone for that matter can solve solve anything, not to mention global warming or cooling or whatever they come up with. I know for a fact that temperatures change constantly as evidence from earth history, if fact earth has had 2 ice ages and there weren't humans then. Since Rick Perry was Al Gore former chief of staff and supports global warming and is for carbon taxes, as well as a Bilderberg member in 2007 in Turkey, I support Ron Paul. Mitt Romney is basically pretty much the same as Perry and is part of the establishment that will continue the endless wars all across the world which only serve to prop up the military industrial complex and the big oil companies. if you think what humans did in the last 100 years has no effect on the world then you need a reality check. and yes the climate/temps did change over the history of the earth. but over a time of tenthousands of years, not 50 years. what i dont understand is why religion and all those totally irrelevant bullcrap discussion about minor things matter so much in US politics. i mean we all look down on middle east governments cause they dont split religion&state. but in a huge first world country they do exactly the same and happily preach orthodox crap wherever a camera/mic is. and the crazy thing: apparently many people like & follow that. | ||
|
RaQIl
Macedonia25 Posts
On August 29 2011 20:58 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: if you think what humans did in the last 100 years has no effect on the world then you need a reality check. and yes the climate/temps did change over the history of the earth. but over a time of tenthousands of years, not 50 years. what i dont understand is why religion and all those totally irrelevant bullcrap discussion about minor things matter so much in US politics. i mean we all look down on middle east governments cause they dont split religion&state. but in a huge first world country they do exactly the same and happily preach orthodox crap wherever a camera/mic is. and the crazy thing: apparently many people like & follow that. No, its not. In fact temperatures are only up 0.5 Celsius degrees from what they were 100 years ago. http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=ecc98cd8-217e-448f-97cb-38926b2a04d8 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/ Major studies have shown that it is the sun, cosmic radiation and natural occurrences that account for 99% of the climate on earth, with 1% left for other reasons, one of which may include humans. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html And paying carbon tax to Al Gore won't save you from climate change my friend even if this global warming scam was real. Chief CERN scientist said that he won't tell that cosmic rays influence the majority of the climate on earth because of "That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters." So basically he won't come out and say climate change is a hoax because he would get in trouble with Al Gore and the Rothschild family who own the climate exchange commissions in Britain, Australia and USA. http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/rothschild-stands-to-become-the-carbon-trading-kings/ http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629 http://euro-med.dk/?p=13656 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663 | ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
On August 29 2011 20:52 pAzand wrote: The fact that people like that don't get laughed/boo'ed of stage says it all about americans. The fact that you think that your opinions hold greater weight than another's for no other reason than they are yours, and you use that logic to marginalize 312 million unique individuals says it all about you. | ||
|
Bombmk
Denmark95 Posts
On August 29 2011 18:05 Brutefidget wrote: In my mind, this makes Huntsman the only considerable candidate in the running. Too bad it seems his campaign is more based on familiarizing himself for a more probable run in 2016. Which is the only reasonable reason to be involved this time around for republicans. Which is also why there is so much for someone like Bachmann. Anyone with serious long term plans in the republican party is going to stay out of this round. As bad as things are, the real players in the republican are still fully expecting to lose to Obama. Regardless of who they put up there. So they let the second stringers have turn in the spotlight, while the rest wait 4 more years for a more open fight, the only maybe being Romney who is in because its his last shot. He knows he will not get picked when the real lineup comes out in 4 years. | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On August 29 2011 21:33 AcuWill wrote: The fact that you think that your opinions hold greater weight than another's for no other reason than they are yours, and you use that logic to marginalize 312 million unique individuals says it all about you. That all you Ron Paul fanatics can't see how closely social issues are linked to economic issues is either capital disingenuousness or just ignorance. Welcome to high school social science. Global warming (besides its apocalyptic import) and evolution matter because for a politician to deny them is a tacit admission of perversion to education. No matter how you want to portray this, fact remains that you'll raise a nation of petulant children who regard science with disdain and who cling to outmoded, increasingly expensive energy sources. Add to that borders closed to immigrants and America will be ill-equipped to deal with a 21st century global economy and will plunge into an economic, scientific, and philosophic backwater. | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On August 29 2011 17:34 liepzig wrote: True, except Ron Paul isn't running for a nobel prize in biology. He's running for the President of the United States. I would vote for a candidate based on his leadership qualities, his accountability to voters, his integrity, and his direction for the country. Other than that, I don't give a shit. He can believe in Zeus or Odin for all I care. Of course, that's just me, and I'm not American. I notice u aren't either, so do these issues (i.e. abortion, evolution, global warming etc...) play a large part in switzerland's politics too? Apparently that's not the way to go if one takes into account historical facts. Hitler, for example, pretty much had all those qualities you mention and yeah a lot of people didn't give a shit too about what he wrote in mein kempf... didn't turn out that well in the end.. clear logical thinking should be the first fucking requirement to be a president of anything, let alone a country. | ||
|
Andorra
Andorra64 Posts
On August 29 2011 13:55 brain_ wrote: Seeing as non-Americans aren't familiar with concepts of economic and personal liberty (since you haven't had it in generations) I would imagine that Ron Paul comes off as a nutcase... Wait..what? Surely you must be trolling. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8067 Posts
On August 29 2011 13:55 brain_ wrote: Seeing as non-Americans aren't familiar with concepts of economic and personal liberty (since you haven't had it in generations) I would imagine that Ron Paul comes off as a nutcase... HAHAHAHAHAHA Best quote ever. | ||
|
pAzand
Sweden539 Posts
On August 29 2011 21:33 AcuWill wrote: The fact that you think that your opinions hold greater weight than another's for no other reason than they are yours, and you use that logic to marginalize 312 million unique individuals says it all about you. I think logic holds greater weight than fanaticism. The Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Bachman, this guy and all the problem your politics are causing the global economy (just to let the millionaires dodge their responsibilities) shows that so much is rotten with your politics, religous views and your country and you people can't even see it yourself. It's frightening, disgusting and an down right catastrophy when what should be the greatest nation in the world are letting these fucking people be their public voices. | ||
| ||
