patrick.net

HousingWatcher says

Ron Paul, the man who supports the liberties of humanity, is anti-choice. He’d prefer the positive term, pro-life, but as the debate remains unresolved, choice, based on individual values and beliefs, is the best option in the abortion debate.

To say Ron Paul allows his personal religion to cloud his judgment because he is pro-choice is just lame. He is a Doctor and his support for pro-life stems from the fact that he has delivered 4000 babies and believes that conception is from the fetus.

How the hell does his thinking on abortion has anything to do with the practical matters that the President should concern himself with? Such as economy, foreign policy.

HousingWatcher says

he is not the supporter of individual rights that he claims he is; he is a religious fundamentalist who would allow Christianity to infuse with the government, and he lacks compassion for those who are not American citizens.

Looks like a baseless claim.

We now are on the 3rd (THIRD) sitting US president who allegedy(or admittedly) smoked pot.

And its still Illegal.

The war on drugs has morphed into a 'big union jobs program' for the cop/prison industry which is why it will never end.

It's not just unions. It's also the for profit prison industry that is behind the war on drugs.

"He is a Doctor and his support for pro-life stems from the fact that he has delivered 4000 babies and believes that conception is from the fetus."

If that is the case, then Ron Paul should support changing the tax code to allow a fetus to count as a dependant and change the Census so that a fetus is counted as a person.

Do you know a candidate who doesn't have a problem?

HousingWatcher says

If that is the case, then Ron Paul should support changing the tax code to allow a fetus to count as a dependant and change the Census so that a fetus is counted as a person.

I think the fetus statement is stated as Dr. Paul's opinion. He doesn't really incline to pass laws or use the Executive to push his agenda. He doesn't seem like that kind of a person. He's more than likely to eliminate the federal over-burden and delegate issues to state-level.

Does the position on abortion even matter for someone to become a President? Why are you cribbing about a non-issue, whereas the more pressing practical issues are the economy and endless wars?

The position on abortion is more of an emotional swayer of votes. It has nothing to do with the practical, more pressing issues to be addressed.

His problem is he's the "Leave it up to the states to decide (LIUTTSTD)"man. Should institutional racism be permitted? "LIUTTSTD". Should women be aloud to vote? "LIUTTSTD".

BobbyS says

His problem is he's the "Leave it up to the states to decide (LIUTTSTD)"man. Should institutional racism be permitted? "LIUTTSTD". Should women be aloud to vote? "LIUTTSTD".

yeah, this is one of the issues that alarm me with Ron Paul...

However, given all candidates, including sitting Prez, I don't see anybody whole aligns with my economic and politicla views closer than he is, so he'll have my vote.

BobbyS says

Should institutional racism be permitted? "LIUTTSTD". Should women be aloud to vote? "LIUTTSTD".

There are very strict laws in the justice system to prevent discrimination against race or women. Dr. Paul doesn't have to do anything in this regard to defer to the states, because the Justice system takes care of these more serious issues.

Unlike these, I don't see how social/moral issues can cloud people's thinking and judgment in electing their leader. A leader has to address the more pressing, practical issues at hand I'd think. Social/moral issues are better left to the choices of individuals.

austrian_man says

It has nothing to do with the practical, more pressing issues to be addressed.

spoken like a "man", LOL

"There are very strict laws in the justice system to prevent discrimination against race or women. Dr. Paul doesn't have to do anything in this regard to defer to the states, because the Justice system takes care of these more serious issues."

Justice Scalia would disagree with you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/scalia-constitution-does-not-p.html

HousingWatcher says

Justice Scalia would disagree with you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/scalia-constitution-does-not-p.html

It is not written explicitly in the Constitution. But aren't federal laws and state specific laws adequate to protect all citizens?

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Bellingham Bill says

spoken like a "man", LOL

haha. Well - on moral issues, I'm neutral; because it is hard to take either stance. There are moments in life when pro-choice wins and there are times when pro-life wins. These are gray issues and they are better left that way me thinks.

HousingWatcher,
In some cases there was a sense in answering but this one is a complete non-sense. Atheism is a religion as any.
Is your anti-Ron-Paul flooding is driven by your personal religion that clouds your judgment?

michaelsch says

Atheism is a religion as any.

Atheism is as much as "another religion" as not believing in Astrology or Alchemy is just another kind of Mysticism.

The very word itself means "No God".

thunderlips11 says

michaelsch says

Atheism is a religion as any.

Atheism is as much as "another religion" as not believing in Astrology or Alchemy is just another kind of Mysticism.

The very word itself means "No God".

Homo Economicus. Like Bigfoot, reported to exist in fantasy books, but never seen in the wild.

Not really. Atheism isn't "not believing". It is believing in not. It gets to all kind of unwarranted conclusions because it MUST believe that God does not exist. It has all typical medieval attributes of worship and when it turns into a state religion it uses human sacrifices. (Revolutionary France, Russia or Albania). It suppresses science much more than even fundamentalists do. In extreme forms it made Biology or Cybernetics research completely impossible. But even in mild forms we have here it turns Biology into worshiping the Great Goddess of Evolution. Sic.

There's a few logical differences.

michaelsch is right atheism is they believe there is no God.

Going a step further (hitchens I think) is they know there is no God.

Agnostic just says "I don't know" to nearly everything.

michaelsch says

It has all typical medieval attributes of worship and when it turns into a state religion it uses human sacrifices. (Revolutionary France, Russia or Albania)

When Political Ideology is taken to extremes, do you see the same results as one finds in aggressive religion? Yep. But is it the atheism or is it the aggressive, unbending political ideology that causes the murders?
michaelsch says

It suppresses science much more than even fundamentalists do.

Examples Please.
michaelsch says

In extreme forms it made Biology or Cybernetics research completely impossible.

Multiple Examples Please. One enshrined nutter under one dictator for a few years does not a general rule make, since I have a feeling we're going to hear about Stalin and one crazy biologist if I only get one example.
michaelsch says

But even in mild forms we have here it turns Biology into worshiping the Great Goddess of Evolution.

Biology is impossible without Evolution. Certainly the application of biology in Pharma and Biochem is impossible without Evolution.

How does one keep Flu vaccines and Pesticides effective without an understanding of Evolution?

thunderlips11 says

Biology is impossible without Evolution. Certainly the application of biology in Pharma and Biochem is impossible without Evolution.

How does one keep Flu vaccines and Pesticides effective without an understanding of Evolution?

What a non-sense? Genetics and the Theory of evolution are two different things. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory as any with its own questions, problems, and even contradictions. However, in todays biological discurse it is not used as a theory, it is used as a subject of worship. Moreover, it often is mentioned absolutely out of context, just to show that the author is a pious worshiper. I read once such a passage in a psycology paper: "features passed from parents to children by Evolution." This is not different from stating some Church dogmats in a medieval chemistry writings. Or citing Stalin in an article on Math Logic.

Even worse, even serious scientists find it necessary to water down their research with discussions around Evolution. Read the "Tell tale brain" by Ramachandran. 2/3 of the book is about wonderful research about human brain. But almost 1/3 is dedicated to explaining out facts so that they fit into "Evolution". This 1/3 is a pure example of medieval thinking.

I really don't get into well known facts about Lysenko theories, persecutions of biologists in SU. Persecution of anyone who dealt with Cybernetics, including any kind of computer sciense, AI research etc. Or persecution of any kind of religion.

Enough to say it was not driven by Stalin. There where 3 waives of atheists persecution of any other religion in Soviet Union: 1920th, Khruschev's persecutions, and Andropov's persecutions. All three were not related to Stalin.

michaelsch says

What a non-sense? Genetics and the Theory of evolution are two different things.

They are two different fields, but quite inter-related in that, Genetic diversity drives evolution.

michaelsch says

However, in today's biological discourse it is not used as a theory, it is used as a subject of worship.

Ad hominem. On the contrary, there are many people who still continue to think the world was conceived in 6 days, there's an invisible man who oversees everything we do etc. So I don't see evolution as being used as worship, rather it is stated as a material fact due to overwhelming scientific evidence.

michaelsch says

But almost 1/3 is dedicated to explaining out facts so that they fit into "Evolution". This 1/3 is a pure example of medieval thinking.

LOL, are you saying that human brain did not evolve at all? A brain scientist is understanding how brains evolve and why is that medieval thinking?

austrian_man says

LOL, are you saying that human brain did not evolve at all?

How did you get to this? The only thing I would say is that the process was way more complicated than what Darwinian Evolution can explain, without artificial, unwaranted, and improbable assumptions.

A brain scientist is understanding how brains evolve and why is that medieval thinking?

As a matter of fact, Ramachandran does not claim he really understands it. He suggests some hypotheses that may explain things he does not understand. Some of them are really interesting (those related to his research), some are pure fantasies. He agrees with this, but feels obliged to go on with them as a faithful follower of the Evolution religion.

michaelsch says

some are pure fantasies. He agrees with this, but feels obliged to go on with them as a faithful follower of the Evolution religion.

Examples please, rather than just an accusation.

michaelsch says

How did you get to this?

If you just say "pure medieval thinking" but don't back it with facts, you're bound to be asked questions.

michaelsch says

was way more complicated than what Darwinian Evolution can explain, without artificial, unwaranted, and improbable assumptions.

sure, but Darwinian evolution theory itself has evolved as well, in that there are more finer explanations to the variety of life.

That doesn't make the theory false, it only makes it more refined. Will you say Newton's laws of gravity are false because Einstein proposed relativity?

BobbyS says

His problem is he's the "Leave it up to the states to decide (LIUTTSTD)"man. Should institutional racism be permitted? "LIUTTSTD". Should women be aloud to vote? "LIUTTSTD".

There is the small issue of LIUTTSTD is the way the United STATES of America is supposed to be run. The fact the federal government has usurped powers many orders of magnitude beyond what is constitutional doesn't mean that is the way it should be.

It's a little scarey that people have reached the point where they simply think the federal government is the first and preeminent law making body with the states secondary. It's just not the way it was supposed to be.

michaelsch says

Genetics and the Theory of evolution are two different things.

Genetics is the mechanism of Evolution!

michaelsch says

I read once such a passage in a psycology paper: "features passed from parents to children by Evolution."

Blue eyes, ass size, range of hearing, all of these are passed through Genetics. Genetic changes in a population over long periods of time is Evolution.

The difference between a child's inherited traits from parents and the evolutionary branching from an ape-like creature to modern man is only the difference between walking to the mailbox, and walking across the country - the length of time required.