You're in a Ron Paul 2012 thread spending a dozen+ posts talking about his personal view on evolution.

Also, just because you didn't explicitly claim that doesn't mean you're not implying it.

Errrr.... Most sane people would say I'm not implying it because I explicitly state the exact opposite multiple times......

I'm guessing the implication gambit is just the last refuge of the illiterate. Whatever crazy implications you make up from my posts are sure to be idiotic, I don't deny that in the least. My actual posts (if you read them)... not so much.

Here is a good vid to share with anyone who doesn't understand the importance of liberty, or for people who use quotation marks when they type the word liberty. This is one of my favs. This and Aaron Russo's "Mad As Hell"

The philosophy of liberty. If you have seen it it is always good to view again.

http://youtu.be/muHg86Mys7I

And for anyone who hasn't seen Mad As Hell, here is the whole thing.

http://youtu.be/1Qgzy29A05A

Ron Paul 2012!

Max Raker, I think you are missing the point. Ron Paul shares the viewpoints of many Americans regarding religion and morality. The difference is Ron Paul understands it is unfair to push your views onto others with puritanical laws and morals. If other conservative Americans understood this, Ron Paul would be the absolute front-runner in this election. I DGAF what personal things Ron Paul believes in because his principles on civil liberties are sound, and he understands that he can't speak for everyone's morality.

That's the beauty of Libertarianism; not caring about what others think or believe in because it's not my say until it becomes an issue with me.

Not sure how many times I have to say it. His views on evolution are stupid. It doesn't matter if he is a politician or a garbage man. He isn't trying to impose it on me? Cool story bro. Niether is the garbage man but that is irrelevant. Stupid views on evolution don't suddenly become non-stupid based on who happens to hold them. If you want to vote for him vote for him, but there is no need for the cognitive dissonance that somehow being a libertarian makes it less stupid for him to be a creationist than other people.

I agree with Max on this issue and as someone who is a libertarian and a strong supporter of Ron Paul those who disagree with Max should examine why they are arguing with him.

It is fine for Ron Paul to take this stance: "education should be left to local authorities and ultimately parents. If parents want to teach their children evolution or don't want to teach their children evolution that is fine. That is their business."

But if Paul weighs in on anything past that (which he has) then he is overstepping the libertarian position. If Ron Paul implies (which he has) that this is and ought to be a federal issue than he is overstepping the libertarian position.

If his only position is that the federal government shouldn't take a position then why does he feel like it is important to express his skepticism on the subject of evolution?

To get people who don't believe in evolution to agree with his position. Or simply because he was asked.

if he doesn't answer, then he's dodging the question.

Did you not read a damn word I said? How does his creationist view make any impact on his political views? It really doesn't matter if you think it is stupid or not because it has no impact whatsoever on his politics. If he isn't trying to impose it on you, then it really, really does not matter.

mjkidd, how about some evidence? And he responded to this years ago because he was asked a question. Not only is this a non-issue, but even if it were somehow an issue, it's a very minor one. Every candidate has their drawbacks, and I just don't see how this has a iota of relevancy to his politics.


Can we have a moratorium on tarding up this thread? Didn't know this was People Magazine. Let's stick to his political issues and not some irrelevant belief that he holds.

Indeed, his personal views on the subject should not impact his political stance at all. The fact that we know what his personal views are should answer the question of whether or not he is playing politics regarding this question or not.

I am sure you didn't read any of my post... or maybe you don't know what the word stupid means? How does the garbage mans view on creationism impact me? It doesn't have to impact me to be stupid because that's not what stupid means.

It's obv up to people like you to stop tarding. Either you are saying some Nixon like "When a libertarian does it, it isn't stupid!!" or you agree with me.

[ ] Someone is saying that being a libertarian makes his creationist view less stupid
[x] Someone is saying that being a libertarian makes his creationist view 100% irrelevant to his presidential run, and thus, this thread

The straw man is strong with this one.

Haha, do you know the meaning of the word or? If somebody says you are saying "either libertarians are not dumb for being creationists OR you agree with me", you can truth table that out right?

Lol, and you also just want to pretend like the whole post with you were claiming I was magically implying something that goes directly against what I actually said didn't happen?

I'm starting to think maybe the smug academic lefties are right about libertarians. At least I've tried to defend libertarians as a whole but was forced to send out an email link to the last few posts with subject "I concede" lolz.

How are you allowed to troll so hard? I'm really not sure what you are trying to prove here. We honestly could not care less if you think creationism is stupid; it is irrelevant to Ron Paul's politics. We stand on libertarian principles regarding politics and his belief in creationism has nothing to do with politics. The end.

Yeah, all I said was creationism was stupid... some posters made up an evidence free theory that Paul doesn't actually think what he said, which I didn't find very convincing. And the rest argued against implications in my posts going directly against what I actually wrote.

all his debate answers.

http://runronpaul.com/debates/ron-pa...ers-cnn-61311/

Did he say he would support an amendment against gay marriage or wouldn't? I know he answered it but it was kind of mumbled... I thought he would say no but it sounded like opposite live and I forget when they asked him that.

Is there an "or" in the statement I quoted?

Pretending as if there's no insinuations whatsoever in this whole tirade of yours is ridiculous. You're telling me that repeatedly disparaging him for his view on this is not an attempt whatsoever to discredit his quality as a candidate? Really? You claim to agree that it's irrelevant to his candidacy, yet you're spending 15+ posts harping on it? You said it's dumb to not accept evolution; pretty much everyone here agrees with that. What else, then, is there left for you to be disagreeing about, other than relevancy of it?

Sounds to me like he said "wouldn't."

People disagreeing with me can't read. Like you, who claimed I implied something I explicitly denied multiple times before you even posted. We never really got into any relevancy issues since you went ahead and made up my view.

Yeah, i think you are correct.

I liked him saying the housing market needs to clear, though he skips over too much stuff. Like, he assumes everyone knows that the government heavily subsidizes housing and understands what that means in terms of market distortion, malinvestment and opportunity cost. He has to lay it out in a much more elementary fashion.

The more info he gives the more he sounds like a rambling old man though. The shots of Romney looking at him from behind with a WTF face were pretty great though.

Can anyone please answer this question?;

What does marraige have to do with gov't?

I'm unaware if there is some larger context in which you are asking this but marriage is a legal matter with tax and other implications.

Who people consider themselves to be 'seeing' 'dating' 'in a relationship with' or 'engaged to' is not a government matter and they rightly don't give a ****. Marriage is different.