Depends on which versions of God and heaven we're talking about. Sure, it's true if those words are content-less placeholders but it's not generally true that the absence of evidence can't be evidence of absence.

The existence of evil, for instance, arguably disproves quite a lot of Gods.

hr1540 1031, 1032

aclu quick piece

glenn greenwald

bonus: hr 3166 - enemy expatriation act

uh no. Quote where the bill authorizes Obama to detain Americans indefinitely. Or give me something that explains using portions of the bill how such authority has been granted. Not a link to the bill and then the ACLU saying its bad.

from my link

I agree, but like, I can understand reasonable people will disagree with the bolded. So if someone takes the contra position, that the lack of evidence isn't disproving of God, shrug, whatever, I really don't find that offensive. I think it's a reasonable debate.

No reasonable person disagrees that evolution is a fact.

For pvn: I'm not saying the other candidates are reasonable.

So this isn't like "other candidates > Ron Paul", it's more like "lol Ron Paul, old ******", which is why Ron Paul's denying evolution is relevant: voting is this symbolic thing, devoid of any real effect on actual policies, so libertarians and anarchists on this forum have long vowed. If so, then let my vote have symbolic meaning and only that. That's fine. In which case, lol Ron Paul's an old clown, think I'll save my ten minutes to drive the polling station and watch YouTube instead.

lol wut

it's NOT either or, but you're the one that said you couldn't vote for X because of Y. Which would be pretty much irrelevant if you were not voting AT ALL because of Z.

And nowhere in my post did I reach a "RP isn't a ****** about evolution" conclusion. Nice try though.

So there is an element of <seeing a 30-second (edited) youtube and drawing hard conclusions from it> not always being ideal. Especially with someone as rambly and ineloquent as RP.

Well, I'm not voting AT ALL because of Z, as I don't feel voting is inherently criminal like you do (or once did, before Ron Paul arrived). I'm not voting for X (in this case Ron Paul) because of Y (clowntard who somehow couldn't prevent ~10 people from writing racist newsletters over 20 years with his name on it, evolution denial, etc.)

Ron Paul specifically says:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron...-of-evolution/

Seems pretty specific.

jungle,

please read the greenwald piece.

so he flip-flops occasionally? I guess he's a politician afterall!

The willingness of RP fanboys to trivially brush aside stuff like the racist newsletters and views on evolution makes me think that if drone strikes and Gitmo continued under and RP presidency - you all wouldn't have too much trouble overlooking those as well.

Obviously we'll never know, but I think "gimme my weed and leave me alone" are really the only sarcosanct moral stances in play here. Bombing brown people outrage is just a convenient battering ram/counter-attack.

I don't remember hearing much about this 4 years ago when everyone on here was an AC-ist and for all we knew Obama really was going to be a big dove in office. From what I recall all the outrage then was along the taxation=theft track.

terrible post and ignorant opinion.

You are turning into samsonh. You rarely even try to make an argument any more.

If I were having great difficulties with comprehending what's wrong with US foreign policy I'd also be suspicious of that

So your speech about how dirty it would make you feel...

how dirty does would make you feel to push the "obama" button in the booth?

Nice work trying to make this about my voting preferences. The fact that you don't find it inherentky criminal is exactly what I'm working from here, btw, while the fact that I *do* find it criminal is pretty much irrelevant since I wasn't the one bloviating about how bad I would feel if I voted for person X or Y.

Greenwald agrees with me that the bill does not authorize indefinite detention of Americans arrested in America. Read his "third myth" carefully. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...ill/singleton/

My quote was just as specific:

I mean, I agree there is some old religious guy thing going on there. But he also isn't completely rejecting the concept of evolution either and what he actually believes is more nuanced than a one sentence explanation.

suz,

what is the point with trying to make an argument with someone whose views are
?

particularly when the person making those statements doesn't have much understanding of a number of the issues they comment on and admits to never reading books because they are too 'busy'?

The racist newsletters are troubling for sure. His views on evolution are lol too, but its kinda like lol old people. I do hold RP to a bit of a higher standard though and his stance is dissapointing, and if it came down to two similar people then that issue might be meaningful.

The thing is, neither of those would affect his (albeit fantasy) presidency. So they are pretty far down the list of things to care about.

A better example of something he actually believes that is wrong and would be actionable are his views on immigration. I have a much bigger issue with wanting to keep brown people out then I do with him believing in creation.

lol

go back and read the threads from late 2008. Plenty of people correctly pointing out that Obama was going to be pretty much exactly the same as Bush.

Yeah, I've kinda skirted around this, but Dear Libertarians: We don't believe you. Like that you're talking to a bunch of liberals about Ron Paul and suddenly the ONLY IMPORTANT issues are the overlaps between liberals and Ron Paul? That seems awfully convenient. Because the rest of the time you're not bitching about those things at all, when left to your own devices you guys mostly complain about the gold standard and FEMA camps and the rest of the newsletter stuff, like tax=theft and whatever.

It seems like the support is not even anything as concrete as a single issue, like "opposing the drug war". Not just because Paul can't make marijuana legal, but these guys mostly Paul because of nonspecific anti-government/anti-authority rhetoric.

He can stop federal prosecution in states that have decriminalized it.

I would be the first to admit that RP excites me because he disagrees with me on many issues that make him more electable than I would be (he is a Christian, he isn't an anarchist, etc.)

I would agree that anarchists like anti-government rhetoric even when it isn't specific.

What would the CDC's preparedness guidelines be under a Ron Paul administration? Stock up and for diseases, disasters, and black people uprising?

#survivalguide

its fun to watch the sentiment on this forum change. i really feel like some of you guys are close.



cookies punch and ponies too

Well, honestly I can't blame you, because you're surrounded by obama fanboys like suzzer that constantly handwave away stuff like droning us civilians and signing NDAA and (all that other stuff that's been mentioned over and over again). So yeah, you're conditioned that way.