pretty hilarious though how the left makes this a wedge issue while giving Obama a total pass. cognitive dissonance. I'm sure Max Raker has posted several times on how intelligent Obama is, and as soon as someone points out that he's a creationist all Max Raker has is soundofcrickets.wav.

It's crazy to not want to ostracize the entire religious wing of your party?

And Ron Paul being ideologically principled doesn't mean he is ignorant of realpolitik or opposed to employing it when it doesn't contradict his positions.

It's pretty surprising, but whatever. Nobody's perfect.

He routinely takes stands that go against large wings of his party

There is no evidence that is the case. There is evidence he is just dumb or doesn't understand what evolution because he claimed it was "just a theory". Might as well claim he is a secret neocon or something.

Yes, when there is a conflict in ideology. The only way evolution relates to politics is through education, where he is in favor of ceding authority from the federal level to the state and local levels, and believing it should be up to parents and local communities to decide what their kids are taught. There is no ideological reason why he should take a stance that would ostracize people when his political position favors a broad spectrum of educational beliefs.
You do realize gravity is just a theory too, right? Or are you unfamiliar with how the scientific method works?

Lolz... again we have already gone over this. It is way more likely he just doesn't believe in evolution than this convoluted nonsense.

Wat? Saying something is "just a theory" is idiotic because theories can be the most tested and confirmed scientific ideas we have, as in classical low energy gravity or evolution.

Okay, obviously there's no talking to someone who is going to describe other posters' opinions as "convoluted nonsense" without explaining why through rational thought.

Have fun.

Lol, you just completely made up something. Why should people take it seriously when it goes directly against what the person has said? Your argument is just "sometimes people lie if they think it is to their benefit". Duh... but you have not provided anything as to why it is likely in this case. It's not on me to teach you how to think rationally.

that damn .wav file is playing right now!

I have a theory. State apologists such as yourself will do things like ignore the first part of that RP video where he is essentially saying "Who cares WTF I think on evolution when my focus is all of these irrelevant political things?" Man I am such a great scientist and epistemologist.

lol, took the words out of my mouth.

Says you?

Seems like a decent way to BS it. What should he say? Try to explain why it's outright wrong that living things evolve? That seems even dumber.

And doing so is the source of his political energy. This doesn't make him principled to the infinite degree. I don't know how we know he isn't politically calculated.

There's no evidence of that either. You're just taking him at face value and I'm not. Maybe you're right, but this isn't evidence one way or the other.

Evolution is a bad theory that a scientific evaluation disproves.
Many of its proponents obviously think they are superior thinkers cause
they call anyone who disagrees an idiotic religious zealot.
Evolutionary science is a religion.

Wish I had a license to troll. Sick life.

Congratulations, you may already be a winner!

Lol... awesome that you can't talk about an evolution denier without bringing up the state. Somebody is an apologist here and it's not me. Reasonably intelligent RP supporters (Riverman, loK2thabrain) have already given rational responses. The fact that he thinks it's irrelevant does not change the fact that his stance on evolution is just stupid. And there is no rational way to justify his stance on evolution. Voting for him may still be perfectly fine... but he is just wrong on this.

Sadly, your view is better thought out than the whole "ZOMG... Maybe he doesn't mean it!!!" crowd. And saying your view is better than anything means alot.

.

I have no idea what that even means. I've never heard Obama say that he doesn't think evolution is correct. If he is a creationist, that stance is obv stupid.

I'm not convinced that that is really even his stance or that in a real discussion with him he would bash evolution and take some nutjob creationist line. He's a politician who we could make some argument for being a pretty radical anarchist libertarian, but since he is a politician he is careful about what he says. There's an interview where he sort of dodges the connotation of "voluntarist" as "opposed to voting". I don't conclude from this that he doesn't get voluntaryism. I'm able to read between the lines.

I'm not apologizing for RP's stupid comment on evolution. You've proved my point though that you will continue to talk about these types of things regardless of the fact that it is irrelevant to the political policy he endorses. There's no rational way for you to justify making this type of thing an issue when you have been given every opportunity to understand the issues that really matter like American imperialism and monetary debasement by the Federal Reserve. You're as bad as a Nazi sympathizer by trying to use the subject of evolution to distract from the blatant crimes of the state.

The degree to which Ron Paul is "just plain wrong" on evolution you are as well on a number of other economic and legal issues. Besides the fact that I don't even think RP is being sincere on this, I'd have to evaluate how his primitive views impact my life versus the ones your type cling to. I'm pretty sure that RP wouldn't make some sort of Federal Evolution Education Mandate. Do you think otherwise? I'd cull the pro-state anti-economists way before the inconsequential evolutionists any day.

Ron Paul - Transforming the Republican Decepti-Cons

Ron Paul: Conversation with the Candidate 6/12/11

For the most recent ron paul videos, visit ronpaulflix.com

I don't think anybody cares about the blind apologizing for the blind. Rational responses were already given obv not by you.

Lol

The degree to which evolution is certain and always applicable is much, much higher than any idea in economics. Just like the notion that there is not a largest prime number is more certain than even evolution. But it requires thinking to gauge uncertainties across disciplines, as well as knowing something in 2 disciplines to begin with. So I can understand if you aren't convinced and I'm not going to try.

Funny how you conveniently skip over the most important thing he said in that post:

It's utterly irrelevant. It's not even possible to take issue with anything more irrelevant, because this issue has exactly zero relevancy. The chance of him making a presidential decision which is influenced by his personal view on evolution is exactly zero. You may as well be spending a dozen posts criticizing him for not knowing the answer to a math equation. Neither has any relevancy whatsoever in regard to his ability to properly lead this country.

Havent made it through the rest of the thread since this post, but I need to ask....

This was in regards to regulation in the financial markets. It seems RP is totally (100%?) against regulation. And I like him alot, outside of this point. It seems like an ideology (much like Greenspan), rather than logically looking at situations on a case by case basis.

What possible argument could be made against regulating how much insurance companies or (investment) banks can be leveraged?

The argument seems to be, that it simply isnt necessary, because they will bankrupt themselves if something goes wrong. Is that really the main argument, or is there something else I am missing?

I think I should get bonus points for reading any of it fwiw

[ ] I claimed it was relevant in regard to his ability to lead.

(I am interested in it from a meta-standpoint of the illogical and insane lengths supporters go through in attacking/denying rather than just saying what river man said. Similar to how I am mildly interested in what mormons or scientologists say about random things).

If this is really your motivation you should study your own posts. You make a lot of hay over this non-issue.