Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll - Again

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 6:24 pm

Pretty much like 2009 - Paul first and Romney second.

Wouldn't it be something if Libertarians took the house, senate and the presidency via the gop, with Ron Paul and Rand as his VP. It would be especially ironic since, to my knowledge, neither of them are christian. In fact, I doubt most libertarians are christian. It would be a hostile takeover of the gop.

What the hell, dems and repubs have both done it. I'd consider voting for them ahead of voting for any establishment republicans in order to pull back our troops, our foreign aid and end the insane war on drugs.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:25 pm

Leave Rand in the Senate, but yeh, it would definitely make politics interesting, wouldn't it? A better chance of actual dissent, rather than arguing over semantics.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:08 pm

I would like to see Paul get nominated. He seems sincere and I agree with him on several things ... which I can't say for most of the GOP. Though he is a baptist, and rejects evolution.

It's a shame the GOP can't find a scientifically literate guy to run, because I can't in good conscience vote for a guy that can't understand a cornerstone of modern science. Bush was another one. They argue that this skill in evidence-based-reasoning is unneeded in politics, but he couldn't read the evidence about WMD's either.

YouTube - Ron Paul on Evolution

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:30 pm

It doesn't matter who, or from what party you get these guys.

They are politicians.

They can talk a good talk, but once they get to the trough, they are too busy to really care about you.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:28 am

yaaarrrgg;1353608 wrote: I would like to see Paul get nominated. He seems sincere and I agree with him on several things ... which I can't say for most of the GOP. Though he is a baptist, and rejects evolution.

It's a shame the GOP can't find a scientifically literate guy to run, because I can't in good conscience vote for a guy that can't understand a cornerstone of modern science. Bush was another one. They argue that this skill in evidence-based-reasoning is unneeded in politics, but he couldn't read the evidence about WMD's either.

YouTube - Ron Paul on EvolutionOh my, and I had hope we were getting somewhere. This suggests Paul believes in a second coming and Israel is vital to it. There is no way, IMO, Paul would pull funding or military support from Israel with that mind-set. That's at least one lie exposed. Then of course there's the question of separation of church and state. If Paul is a true believer then belief in God is an essential element in raising children.

There's always the possibility that Paul knows admitting he's an evolutionist will cost him most of the support he now enjoys. Oh, America!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:06 am

How come the religious debate in america doesn't become sectarian - catholic against protestant? Catholics don't believe protestants are actually christians so there is plenty scope for conflict. You've only had one catholic president so would a catholic candidate have a problem getting votes? Not trying to provoke just curious about your tale on the issue.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:15 am

Ahso!;1353612 wrote: Oh my, and I had hope we were getting somewhere. This suggests Paul believes in a second coming and Israel is vital to it. There is no way, IMO, Paul would pull funding or military support from Israel with that mind-set. That's at least one lie exposed. Then of course there's the question of separation of church and state. If Paul is a true believer then belief in God is an essential element in raising children.

There's always the possibility that Paul knows admitting he's an evolutionist will cost him most of the support he now enjoys. Oh, America!
Your bigotry & prejudice knows no bounds, does it?

Paul's against federal interference in education, so there's no need to worry that a President Paul would suddenly require televangelism to be a required course for graduation. He's also a medical doctor, so it's a safe bet he has some rudimentary knowledge of evidence-based-reasoning.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:56 am

Accountable;1353617 wrote: Paul's against federal interference in education, so there's no need to worry that a President Paul would suddenly require televangelism to be a required course for graduation.So he says, but will he use the bully pulpit to speak out against this and this? Probably not, so there's no advancement there. Accountable;1353617 wrote: He's also a medical doctor, so it's a safe bet he has some rudimentary knowledge of evidence-based-reasoning.Such high standards you hold our politicians to. It's fine for a physician to repair a heart valve provided he or she understands the mechanical workings of the thing, however, that's not what presidents do, is it. I say it's time we required more than just rudimentary knowledge of evidence-based reasoning from our political leaders, perhaps when we do we will then once again rejoin the rest of the civilized world in addressing difficult matters with ideas other than kicking someone's ass into submission. You know what I mean, that international "tough love" policy of Reagan, Bush and Bush.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:41 am

Ahso!;1353619 wrote: So he says, but will he use the bully pulpit to speak out against this and this? Probably not, so there's no advancement there.There's great advancement in that we might get Washington out of micromanaging schools and back to the very few things they're supposed to be doing.

Ahso! wrote: Such high standards you hold our politicians to. It's fine for a physician to repair a heart valve provided he or she understands the mechanical workings of the thing, however, that's not what presidents do, is it. I say it's time we required more than just rudimentary knowledge of evidence-based reasoning from our political leaders, perhaps when we do we will then once again rejoin the rest of the civilized world in addressing difficult matters with ideas other than kicking someone's ass into submission. You know what I mean, that international "tough love" policy of Reagan, Bush and Bush.You're so full of partisanshit your eyes are brown. My sarcasm was clear, as was the allusion to Yarg's comment. He's concerned about Paul's knowledge/allegience (Yarg, insert the proper noun) of scientific reasoning in decisionmaking. I was pointing out that he's well-trained and experienced in that area.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:34 am

Accountable;1353624 wrote: There's great advancement in that we might get Washington out of micromanaging schools and back to the very few things they're supposed to be doing.Straw man. My post was concerning presidential use of the bully pulpit. By not addressing the federal government/school issue, I had conceded the point assuming a Paul presidency.

Accountable;1353624 wrote: You're so full of partisanshit your eyes are brown.Did what I had typed anger you? i won't apologize because i can't control how you react to my opinion, nor will I tailor my opion to suit your feelings. Accountable;1353624 wrote: My sarcasm was clear, as was the allusion to Yarg's comment. He's concerned about Paul's knowledge/allegience (Yarg, insert the proper noun) of scientific reasoning in decisionmaking. I was pointing out that he's well-trained and experienced in that area.I understood what your point was, my response included some sarcasm as well. So I used it as an opportunity to make a point. If you feel I was too insensitive to you in the process of making my point, let me know. It wasn't my intent to again offend your values. Try not to take what I write so personal.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:49 am

Accountable;1353617 wrote: He's also a medical doctor, so it's a safe bet he has some rudimentary knowledge of evidence-based-reasoning.

The problem is it shows he can't tell science from pseudo-science. Look at the criticism levelled at his economic theories. Sounds like the same criticism levelled at creationist theories.

Critics have concluded that modern Austrian economics generally lacks scientific rigor,[10][12] which forms the basis of the most prominent criticism of the school. Austrian theories are not formulated in formal mathematical form,[95] but by using mainly verbal logic and what proponents claim are self-evident axioms. Mainstream economists believe that this makes Austrian theories too imprecisely defined to be clearly used to explain or predict real world events. Economist Bryan Caplan noted that, "what prevents Austrian economists from getting more publications in mainstream journals is that their papers rarely use mathematics or econometrics."

from: Austrian School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:13 am

Accountable;1353624 wrote: You're so full of partisanshit your eyes are brown.Ya know, this idea that because you're a Paul supporter makes you nonpartisan may be somewhat unsupported IMV because the fact is the guy is a republican. His political views are just not always in line with gop leadership though and he's criticized the republican leadership now and then. So what? The fact is all of his opinions are formed by his belief system of religious dogma. The more I learn, the less I'm impressed. There's no need for you to become all indignant about it. The vast majority of true libertarians I've met (and I've met quite a few) have been out right non-believers, and at the most, agnostic, religiously. If religious beliefs of Middle East leaders are important tell tale indicators for American conservative critics, they're equally important indicators concerning those same conservatives.

I've said flatly on this board more than once that Clinton was nothing more than a corporate puppet and Israeli apologist in issues other than female. I've also criticized Obama for his cabinet appointments and some policy shifts he's made. I've even gone as far as saying in the last presidential election and this upcoming one that I'd consider crossing over and voting for a republican (Paul). I haven't noticed anything of the kind from you, and I'm the partisan. Please!

I make no apologies for my liberal principles so stop asking...no, demanding...me to.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:20 pm

Ahso!;1353630 wrote: Ya know, this idea that because you're a Paul supporter makes you nonpartisan may be somewhat unsupported IMV because the fact is the guy is a republican.I'm nonpartisan because I'm nonpartisan, not because I support Paul. Supporting Paul only makes me a Paul supporter.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:59 pm

Accountable;1353617 wrote: Your bigotry & prejudice knows no bounds, does it?

Paul's against federal interference in education, so there's no need to worry that a President Paul would suddenly require televangelism to be a required course for graduation. He's also a medical doctor, so it's a safe bet he has some rudimentary knowledge of evidence-based-reasoning.
You must see a better class of doctor in Texas, than I have seen, lately.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:01 am

Accountable;1353662 wrote: I'm nonpartisan because I'm nonpartisan, not because I support Paul. Supporting Paul only makes me a Paul supporter.Going Zen on us now, huh. Frame it any way you choose, regardless how you do, it"s still an illusion. Your political perspective looks not much different than Rush Limbaugh's from where I'm sitting.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:51 am

'kay.