Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Some of Ron Paul's positions
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 7
Some of Ron Paul's positions
Tweet Topic Started: Sep 18 2011, 10:34 AM (808 Views)
Mr Gray Sep 20 2011, 07:45 AM Post #16
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 07:27 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 05:54 AM
brumdog44
Sep 19 2011, 10:49 PM
Not going to get into this again, it's been done to death.
not asking to debate the merits of evolution...I've just never heard you say that you expect it to be thought of as fact
Dictionary

sup·po·si·tion noun /ˌsəpəˈziSHən/ 
suppositions, plural

1.An uncertain belief



hy·poth·e·sis noun /hîˈpäTHəsis/ 
hypotheses, plural

1.A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

2.A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth



the·o·ry noun /ˈTHçərç/  /ˈTHi(ə)rç/ 
theories, plural

1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

2.A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based

3.An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

4.A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject



I would be shocked if Brum stated it was fact. It just works better with more supporting evidence to explain things than anything else we have run across to this point. By being a scientific theory it is generally accepted it could be shown to be wrong at some future point if data is found to suggest so.

ok....so Paul called it a "theory" which is correct isn't it?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Sep 20 2011, 08:04 AM Post #17
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 07:45 AM
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 07:27 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 05:54 AM
brumdog44
Sep 19 2011, 10:49 PM
Not going to get into this again, it's been done to death.
not asking to debate the merits of evolution...I've just never heard you say that you expect it to be thought of as fact
Dictionary

sup·po·si·tion noun /ˌsəpəˈziSHən/ 
suppositions, plural

1.An uncertain belief



hy·poth·e·sis noun /hîˈpäTHəsis/ 
hypotheses, plural

1.A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

2.A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth



the·o·ry noun /ˈTHçərç/  /ˈTHi(ə)rç/ 
theories, plural

1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

2.A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based

3.An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

4.A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject



I would be shocked if Brum stated it was fact. It just works better with more supporting evidence to explain things than anything else we have run across to this point. By being a scientific theory it is generally accepted it could be shown to be wrong at some future point if data is found to suggest so.

ok....so Paul called it a "theory" which is correct isn't it?
There is a huge difference between seeing that something may not 100% explain something and looking for a better answer, and dismissing something out of hand because it wins them votes with protestants and not even all of them. I see this as Paul pandering to the protestant right.



Religious Groups' Views on Evolution
ANALYSIS February 4, 2009


Buddhism
Many Buddhists see no inherent conflict between their religious teachings and evolutionary theory. Indeed, according to some Buddhist thinkers, certain aspects of Darwin's theory are consistent with some of the religion's core teachings, such as the notion that all life is impermanent.
over whether - or how - public school students should learn about evolution and the origins of life.


Catholicism
The Catholic Church generally accepts evolutionary theory as the scientific explanation for the development of all life. However, this acceptance comes with the understanding that natural selection is a God-directed mechanism of biological development and that man's soul is the divine creation of God.


Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' first public statement on human origins was issued in 1909 and echoed in 1925, when the church's highest governing body stated, "Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes." However, several high-ranking officials have suggested that Darwin's theory does not directly contradict church teachings.


Episcopal Church
In 1982, the Episcopal Church passed a resolution to "affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, and in this affirmation reject the rigid dogmatism of the 'Creationist' movement." The church has also expressed skepticism toward the intelligent design movement.


Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
While the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has not issued a definitive statement on evolution, it does contend that "God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that God actually may have used evolution in the process of creation."


Hinduism
While there is no single Hindu teaching on the origins of life, many Hindus believe that the universe is a manifestation of Brahman, Hinduism's highest god and the force behind all creation. However, many Hindus today do not find their beliefs to be incompatible with the theory of evolution.


Islam
While the Koran teaches that Allah created human beings as they appear today, Islamic scholars and followers are divided on the theory of evolution. Theologically conservative Muslims who ascribe to literal interpretations of the Koran generally denounce the evolutionary argument for natural selection, whereas many theologically liberal Muslims believe that while man is divinely created, evolution is not necessarily incompatible with Islamic principles.


Judaism
While all of the major movements of American Judaism - including the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox branches - teach that God is the creator of the universe and all life, Jewish teachings generally do not find an inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and faith.


Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod teaches that "the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual, not merely a 'myth' or 'story' made up to explain the origin of all things." The church rejects evolution or any theory that "denies or limits the work of creation as taught in Scripture."


Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
In 1969, the Presbyterian Church's governing body amended its previous position on evolution, which was originally drafted in the 19th century, to affirm that evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. Still, the church has stated that it "should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution," and church doctrine continues to hold that man is a unique creation of God, "made in His own image."


Southern Baptist Convention
In 1982, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution rejecting the theory of evolution and stating that creation science "can be presented solely in terms of scientific evidence without any religious doctrines or concepts." Some Southern Baptist leaders have spoken out in favor of the intelligent design movement.


United Church of Christ
The United Church of Christ finds evolutionary theory and Christian faith to be compatible, embracing evolution as a means "to see our faith in a new way."

United Methodist Church
In 2008, the church's highest legislative body passed a resolution saying that "science's descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with [the church's] theology." Moreover, the church states that "many apparent scientific references in [the] Bible ... are intended to be metaphorical [and] were included to help understand the religious principles, but not to teach science."
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 20 2011, 08:21 AM Post #18
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 08:04 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 07:45 AM
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 07:27 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 05:54 AM
brumdog44
Sep 19 2011, 10:49 PM
Not going to get into this again, it's been done to death.
not asking to debate the merits of evolution...I've just never heard you say that you expect it to be thought of as fact
Dictionary

sup·po·si·tion noun /ˌsəpəˈziSHən/ 
suppositions, plural

1.An uncertain belief



hy·poth·e·sis noun /hîˈpäTHəsis/ 
hypotheses, plural

1.A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

2.A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth



the·o·ry noun /ˈTHçərç/  /ˈTHi(ə)rç/ 
theories, plural

1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

2.A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based

3.An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

4.A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject



I would be shocked if Brum stated it was fact. It just works better with more supporting evidence to explain things than anything else we have run across to this point. By being a scientific theory it is generally accepted it could be shown to be wrong at some future point if data is found to suggest so.

ok....so Paul called it a "theory" which is correct isn't it?
There is a huge difference between seeing that something may not 100% explain something and looking for a better answer, and dismissing something out of hand because it wins them votes with protestants and not even all of them. I see this as Paul pandering to the protestant right.



Religious Groups' Views on Evolution
ANALYSIS February 4, 2009


Buddhism
Many Buddhists see no inherent conflict between their religious teachings and evolutionary theory. Indeed, according to some Buddhist thinkers, certain aspects of Darwin's theory are consistent with some of the religion's core teachings, such as the notion that all life is impermanent.
over whether - or how - public school students should learn about evolution and the origins of life.


Catholicism
The Catholic Church generally accepts evolutionary theory as the scientific explanation for the development of all life. However, this acceptance comes with the understanding that natural selection is a God-directed mechanism of biological development and that man's soul is the divine creation of God.


Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' first public statement on human origins was issued in 1909 and echoed in 1925, when the church's highest governing body stated, "Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes." However, several high-ranking officials have suggested that Darwin's theory does not directly contradict church teachings.


Episcopal Church
In 1982, the Episcopal Church passed a resolution to "affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, and in this affirmation reject the rigid dogmatism of the 'Creationist' movement." The church has also expressed skepticism toward the intelligent design movement.


Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
While the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has not issued a definitive statement on evolution, it does contend that "God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that God actually may have used evolution in the process of creation."


Hinduism
While there is no single Hindu teaching on the origins of life, many Hindus believe that the universe is a manifestation of Brahman, Hinduism's highest god and the force behind all creation. However, many Hindus today do not find their beliefs to be incompatible with the theory of evolution.


Islam
While the Koran teaches that Allah created human beings as they appear today, Islamic scholars and followers are divided on the theory of evolution. Theologically conservative Muslims who ascribe to literal interpretations of the Koran generally denounce the evolutionary argument for natural selection, whereas many theologically liberal Muslims believe that while man is divinely created, evolution is not necessarily incompatible with Islamic principles.


Judaism
While all of the major movements of American Judaism - including the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox branches - teach that God is the creator of the universe and all life, Jewish teachings generally do not find an inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and faith.


Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod teaches that "the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual, not merely a 'myth' or 'story' made up to explain the origin of all things." The church rejects evolution or any theory that "denies or limits the work of creation as taught in Scripture."


Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
In 1969, the Presbyterian Church's governing body amended its previous position on evolution, which was originally drafted in the 19th century, to affirm that evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. Still, the church has stated that it "should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution," and church doctrine continues to hold that man is a unique creation of God, "made in His own image."


Southern Baptist Convention
In 1982, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution rejecting the theory of evolution and stating that creation science "can be presented solely in terms of scientific evidence without any religious doctrines or concepts." Some Southern Baptist leaders have spoken out in favor of the intelligent design movement.


United Church of Christ
The United Church of Christ finds evolutionary theory and Christian faith to be compatible, embracing evolution as a means "to see our faith in a new way."

United Methodist Church
In 2008, the church's highest legislative body passed a resolution saying that "science's descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with [the church's] theology." Moreover, the church states that "many apparent scientific references in [the] Bible ... are intended to be metaphorical [and] were included to help understand the religious principles, but not to teach science."
eel, do you really think Paul "dismisses it out of hand"? He really doesn't seem like the pandering type, and given that he refused to answer the question on the national stage (when he could have pandered the most) because he thinks the questions isn't relevent, I would have to disagree with you. In the video clip above, he said evolution is a theory and one that he disagrees with. You know as well as I do that this view really won't make a bit of difference in a Ron Paul Presidency.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Sep 20 2011, 08:28 AM Post #19
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 08:21 AM
eel, do you really think Paul "dismisses it out of hand"? He really doesn't seem like the pandering type, and given that he refused to answer the question on the national stage (when he could have pandered the most) because he thinks the questions isn't relevent, I would have to disagree with you. In the video clip above, he said evolution is a theory and one that he disagrees with. You know as well as I do that this view really won't make a bit of difference in a Ron Paul Presidency.
Yes, I believe he dismisses it out of hand while leaving himself just enough of a lifeline to pull himself back if it blows up on him.

On the second part of your post, I agree to a point. I would not hesitate to vote for Paul because of this. I believe his fiscal views are more important to my and our country's well being than his views on this theory.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 20 2011, 08:59 AM Post #20
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 08:28 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 08:21 AM
eel, do you really think Paul "dismisses it out of hand"? He really doesn't seem like the pandering type, and given that he refused to answer the question on the national stage (when he could have pandered the most) because he thinks the questions isn't relevent, I would have to disagree with you. In the video clip above, he said evolution is a theory and one that he disagrees with. You know as well as I do that this view really won't make a bit of difference in a Ron Paul Presidency.
Yes, I believe he dismisses it out of hand while leaving himself just enough of a lifeline to pull himself back if it blows up on him.

On the second part of your post, I agree to a point. I would not hesitate to vote for Paul because of this. I believe his fiscal views are more important to my and our country's well being than his views on this theory.
ok, I guess when I hear "dismisses it out of hand" I assume that you are implying that he really hasn't contemplated it much. If that is what you are saying, then I really disagree with that. I have listened to chapters on that in his books, and he definitely has put a great deal of thought into it to form his views. At his age, and as long as he has been in both politics and the medial field, it would be difficult to think otherwise.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Sep 20 2011, 09:11 AM Post #21
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 08:59 AM
ok, I guess when I hear "dismisses it out of hand" I assume that you are implying that he really hasn't contemplated it much. If that is what you are saying, then I really disagree with that. I have listened to chapters on that in his books, and he definitely has put a great deal of thought into it to form his views. At his age, and as long as he has been in both politics and the medial field, it would be difficult to think otherwise.
'Thinking about it' implies there is any evidence for the Christian creation myth to think about. I have seen none.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 20 2011, 09:20 AM Post #22
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 09:11 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 08:59 AM
ok, I guess when I hear "dismisses it out of hand" I assume that you are implying that he really hasn't contemplated it much. If that is what you are saying, then I really disagree with that. I have listened to chapters on that in his books, and he definitely has put a great deal of thought into it to form his views. At his age, and as long as he has been in both politics and the medial field, it would be difficult to think otherwise.
'Thinking about it' implies there is any evidence for the Christian creation myth to think about. I have seen none.
wrong. To disagree with traditional evolution doesn't mean by any stretch that you have to subscribe to the Christian version of creation.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Sep 20 2011, 09:39 AM Post #23
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 09:20 AM
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 09:11 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 08:59 AM
ok, I guess when I hear "dismisses it out of hand" I assume that you are implying that he really hasn't contemplated it much. If that is what you are saying, then I really disagree with that. I have listened to chapters on that in his books, and he definitely has put a great deal of thought into it to form his views. At his age, and as long as he has been in both politics and the medial field, it would be difficult to think otherwise.
'Thinking about it' implies there is any evidence for the Christian creation myth to think about. I have seen none.
wrong. To disagree with traditional evolution doesn't mean by any stretch that you have to subscribe to the Christian version of creation.
True, but Ron Paul is a Baptist. Baptists are a Christian sect. Therefore it is my belief if he thought about it he compared the Christian creation myth to the theory of evolution when deciding what he believes. When he said "The creator that I know, when he created us...and created the whole universe..." whom did you assume he was talking about? I assumed he was talking about the Christian God. Please correct me if you really think I misheard that or miscomprehended it.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 20 2011, 09:45 AM Post #24
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 09:39 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 09:20 AM
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 09:11 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 08:59 AM
ok, I guess when I hear "dismisses it out of hand" I assume that you are implying that he really hasn't contemplated it much. If that is what you are saying, then I really disagree with that. I have listened to chapters on that in his books, and he definitely has put a great deal of thought into it to form his views. At his age, and as long as he has been in both politics and the medial field, it would be difficult to think otherwise.
'Thinking about it' implies there is any evidence for the Christian creation myth to think about. I have seen none.
wrong. To disagree with traditional evolution doesn't mean by any stretch that you have to subscribe to the Christian version of creation.
True, but Ron Paul is a Baptist. Baptists are a Christian sect. Therefore it is my belief if he thought about it he compared the Christian creation myth to the theory of evolution when deciding what he believes. When he said "The creator that I know, when he created us...and created the whole universe..." whom did you assume he was talking about? I assumed he was talking about the Christian God. Please correct me if you really think I misheard that or miscomprehended it.
It's clear that Paul was referring to the Christian God. Liberals view this as a non-scientific position. Politicians like Barry get a pass, because there's some secret wink and nod that says "you guys know I'm playing this Christian game to get more votes to carry conservative states like Indiana."
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Sep 20 2011, 09:52 AM Post #25
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Sep 20 2011, 09:45 AM
It's clear that Paul was referring to the Christian God. Liberals view this as a non-scientific position. Politicians like Barry get a pass, because there's some secret wink and nod that says "you guys know I'm playing this Christian game to get more votes to carry conservative states like Indiana."
See my above post. Belief in God and belief in the theory evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 20 2011, 10:15 AM Post #26
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 09:52 AM
HoosierLars
Sep 20 2011, 09:45 AM
It's clear that Paul was referring to the Christian God. Liberals view this as a non-scientific position. Politicians like Barry get a pass, because there's some secret wink and nod that says "you guys know I'm playing this Christian game to get more votes to carry conservative states like Indiana."
See my above post. Belief in God and belief in the theory evolution are not mutually exclusive.
That's the great thing about beliefs, they are your own, and you can believe whatever you want!
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 20 2011, 10:18 AM Post #27
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 09:39 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 09:20 AM
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 09:11 AM
Mr Gray
Sep 20 2011, 08:59 AM
ok, I guess when I hear "dismisses it out of hand" I assume that you are implying that he really hasn't contemplated it much. If that is what you are saying, then I really disagree with that. I have listened to chapters on that in his books, and he definitely has put a great deal of thought into it to form his views. At his age, and as long as he has been in both politics and the medial field, it would be difficult to think otherwise.
'Thinking about it' implies there is any evidence for the Christian creation myth to think about. I have seen none.
wrong. To disagree with traditional evolution doesn't mean by any stretch that you have to subscribe to the Christian version of creation.
True, but Ron Paul is a Baptist. Baptists are a Christian sect. Therefore it is my belief if he thought about it he compared the Christian creation myth to the theory of evolution when deciding what he believes. When he said "The creator that I know, when he created us...and created the whole universe..." whom did you assume he was talking about? I assumed he was talking about the Christian God. Please correct me if you really think I misheard that or miscomprehended it.
I'm sure he is talking about the Christian God, I'm just not sure if he believes in a literal interpretation of Christian creationism or not....it seems to me that there are just as many Christians who don't believe it literally as there are who do.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 20 2011, 10:19 AM Post #28
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 08:28 AM
I would not hesitate to vote for Paul because of this. I believe his fiscal views are more important to my and our country's well being than his views on this theory.
I agree he has some good views on fiscal issues. Unfortunately, he doesn't have enough political skill to lead drunken sailors to free beer.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Sep 20 2011, 10:26 AM Post #29
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Sep 20 2011, 10:19 AM
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 08:28 AM
I would not hesitate to vote for Paul because of this. I believe his fiscal views are more important to my and our country's well being than his views on this theory.
I agree he has some good views on fiscal issues. Unfortunately, he doesn't have enough political skill to lead drunk sailors to free beer.
I have to state for the record that I believe drunken sailors prefer and deserve grog (or rum). That is one of the key planks in my platform for when I run for the presidency. I expect I will carry the drunken sailor demographic by a landslide.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 20 2011, 10:32 AM Post #30
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 10:26 AM
HoosierLars
Sep 20 2011, 10:19 AM
eelbor
Sep 20 2011, 08:28 AM
I would not hesitate to vote for Paul because of this. I believe his fiscal views are more important to my and our country's well being than his views on this theory.
I agree he has some good views on fiscal issues. Unfortunately, he doesn't have enough political skill to lead drunk sailors to free beer.
I have to state for the record that I believe drunken sailors prefer and deserve grog (or rum). That is one of the key planks in my platform for when I run for the presidency. I expect I will carry the drunken sailor demographic by a landslide.
It's not too late to jump in for '12. Combine this plank with serving embryos at your campaign events, and you would be an instant front-runner!
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 7

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy