It’s hilarious to see the Paulistinians valiantly defending this when they would eviscerate any other politician that says the same thing. Less than two weeks before we can watch him go down in flames!

Ron Paul dEVOLution!

What killed me was earlier this week he weighed in on how the president shouldn’t have gone to war, and in doing so overreached his powers as president. Oh, not Bush...Lincoln. Dude. If you cannot get behind Lincoln, who are a jack ass.

Jump cut.

Jump cut.

OK.  What about this uncut version?  It comes in at 2:35.  The context, so to speak, doesn’t change.  Ron Paul “does not accept” evolution.

If you cannot get behind Lincoln, who [sic] are a jack ass.

Slavery was evil, but I’m not convinced that killing over 600,000 people was the most efficient way to end it.

Ron Paul “does not accept” evolution.

Because it’s “just a Theory”.

So is the Theory of Electro-Magnetism, but that microphone three inches from his nose keeps plugging along, while the phenomenon described in the Theory of Gravity manages to keep all of them from floating away into interplanetary space.

There is a major difference between the observable phenomenon and the explanation behind it. The explanation can undergo revision as more facts show up, yet the actual phenomenon isn’t invalidated thereby.

If the Theory can be used to accurately predict future events, it’s good enough for gummint work…

OK.  What about this uncut version?  It comes in at 2:35.  The context, so to speak, doesn’t change.  Ron Paul “does not accept” evolution.

That’s quite unfortunate. Despite this, I still find him to best person running for office at the moment.

Slavery was evil, but I’m not convinced that killing over 600,000 people was the most efficient way to end it.

The original purpose of the Civil War wasn’t even to end slavery. It was to “preserve the union.” If that had remained the sole purpose of the war, no one would be looking too fondly upon it or Lincoln now.

The original purpose of the Civil War wasn’t even to end slavery. It was to “preserve the union.”

Quite true. However, then you had to go and say something outrageously overreaching like this:

If that had remained the sole purpose of the war, no one would be looking too fondly upon it or Lincoln now.

Wow… “No one”? Really? I don’t recall being asked my opinion by anyone at all on this issue, yet you presume to not only speak for me (and everyone I have ever met, with opinions that range over the spectrum on this issue), you make such pronouncements solely for the purpose of bolstering Paul.

Yet, when presented with irrefutable evidence of his denial of the basis for all genetic sciences, your sole comment is “That’s quite unfortunate”?

That should have been the response when it was shown that he was not only accepting money from Nazis, he was actively refusing to meet with anyone supporting the Jewish State (which was coincidentally created, personally selected and protected by the same Creator that he “loves").

That should have been your response when he made such a fool of himself on national TV.

Yet, despite all this, you still claim “I still find him to best person running for office at the moment”.

:-/

I hope, for the sake of what is left of your sanity, that you are examining alternatives. People still remember what Ross Perot did to the country.

Wow… “No one”? Really? I don’t recall being asked my opinion by anyone at all on this issue, yet you presume to not only speak for me (and everyone I have ever met, with opinions that range over the spectrum on this issue), you make such pronouncements solely for the purpose of bolstering Paul.

Well, I made that statement under the assumption that most people abhor war, especially wars waged for a cause as frivolous as “preserving the union.”

Yet, when presented with irrefutable evidence of his denial of the basis for all genetic sciences, your sole comment is “That’s quite unfortunate”?

Yes. It’s unfortunate that Ron Paul honestly believes what he said in that video, but I still support the politics he stands for, as I’m sure you still support President Bush’s War on Terror despite his own reservations about evolution.

That should have been the response when it was shown that he was not only accepting money from Nazis, he was actively refusing to meet with anyone supporting the Jewish State (which was coincidentally created, personally selected and protected by the same Creator that he “loves").

I don’t think he’s met with the Neo-Nazis either, nor have I heard of him rejecting donations from Jewish sources.

I hope, for the sake of what is left of your sanity, that you are examining alternatives. People still remember what Ross Perot did to the country.

Talk about overreaching. What exactly did Ross Perot do to the country? I doubt many people even remember him.

the assumption that most people abhor war

“War is a terrible thing, but not the most terrible of things.”

There ARE some things worth fighting for. If you feel differently, be glad that not everyone thinks the way you do, else you wouldn’t have the freedom to say so. But thanks for admitting that you wouldn’t have fought to either “preserve the Union” or end institutionalized slavery.

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue – and thoroughly immoral – doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee.... Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”

but I still support the politics he stands for,

Which are? Other than his John Bircher truisms and rants about Constitutional topics he clearly doesn’t understand, I haven’t seen anything that would even remotely qualify as “conservative”.

Going back to the gold standard? There isn’t enough gold on the planet to cover a single year’s GDP, and the only alternative would be quadruple-digit inflation, ruining every other economy on the planet.

His isolationistic nonsense? Leaving whom, exactly, in charge of global relations? The UN? Some other unelected international body that is the successor to that failed and corrupt body?

He ranks right up there near the top in setting out earmarks and pork for his constituents, then claiming to be “conservative” by voting against the very budget he has help to bloat. (I guess that means he was voting FOR the wasteful spending before he voted AGAINST it...)

He’s so “conservative” that Dennis Kucinich has endorsed him as his potential VP!

What exactly did Ross Perot do to the country? I doubt many people even remember him.

My point exactly. Nobody remembers the asshat from Texas who split the ticket but everyone is forced to suffer the consequences. Here’s a hint: in each of the two elections Perot appeared on the national tickets, which eventual winner never managed an actual majority of the popular vote? (Which would have invalidated both of his victories, according to the arguments put forth by Dems during the 2000 election shenanigans.)

C’mon, I know that you aren’t aware of any history before Bush stealing the election, but you can find this stuff on the Intartubes…

So what WILL you do when Paul goes down to the ignominious defeat awaiting him? Given that Steven Colbert is still polling higher than both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, I mean…

There ARE some things worth fighting for. If you feel differently, be glad that not everyone thinks the way you do, else you wouldn’t have the freedom to say so. But thanks for admitting that you wouldn’t have fought to either “preserve the Union” or end institutionalized slavery.

I never said that nothing is worth fighting for, nor did I say that ending slavery isn’t worth going through war.

My point is, people want to avoid war as much as possible. It’s bad for economy, and it endangers a lot of lives. There are a few things that are more terrible than war, but not many.

Personally, I wouldn’t risk my life to force a state back into the union.

Which are? Other than his John Bircher truisms and rants about Constitutional topics he clearly doesn’t understand, I haven’t seen anything that would even remotely qualify as “conservative”.

Ron Paul supports smaller government, hard money, strong border security, the right to bear arms, federalism, and the abolition of income tax. Seems pretty conservative to me.

Going back to the gold standard? There isn’t enough gold on the planet to cover a single year’s GDP, and the only alternative would be quadruple-digit inflation, ruining every other economy on the planet.

So we keep printing worthless paper money that only has value because someone else said so. That makes sense.

His isolationistic nonsense? Leaving whom, exactly, in charge of global relations? The UN? Some other unelected international body that is the successor to that failed and corrupt body?

First of all, it’s non-interventionism. Second of all, it isn’t our role to be in charge of global relations.

He ranks right up there near the top in setting out earmarks and pork for his constituents, then claiming to be “conservative” by voting against the very budget he has help to bloat. (I guess that means he was voting FOR the wasteful spending before he voted AGAINST it...)

Never heard of him supporting any pork bills. He’s made one or two calls I’ve found questionable, but not many.

He’s so “conservative” that Dennis Kucinich has endorsed him as his potential VP!

And Joe Lieberman has shown support for President Bush and the GWoT. What’s your point?

My point exactly. Nobody remembers the asshat from Texas who split the ticket but everyone is forced to suffer the consequences. Here’s a hint: in each of the two elections Perot appeared on the national tickets, which eventual winner never managed an actual majority of the popular vote? (Which would have invalidated both of his victories, according to the arguments put forth by Dems during the 2000 election shenanigans.)

So Ross Perot’s crime was that his running for office would split the vote and let Clinton win? So third-party candidates are evil and they shouldn’t exist?

So what WILL you do when Paul goes down to the ignominious defeat awaiting him? Given that Steven Colbert is still polling higher than both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, I mean…

::Shrugs:: I guess I’d vote Libertarian.

So we keep printing worthless paper money that only has value because someone else said so. That makes sense.

Whereas going to a fictional standard that sets the value of “money” based on the fixed quantity of a metal that “only has value because someone else says so” makes more sense?

I’ll amend my earlier statement from supposition to declaration. You have never studied economics, and it is becoming increasingly clear that neither has Ron Paul.

Never heard of him supporting any pork bills.

I can only presume a deliberate ignorance on your part, since Paul pork barrel politics are well and thoroughly documented. 400 million dollars worth, if it matters. So, is that worthy of being called a hypocrite yet? Or are his “do as I say, not as I do” tactics still worthy of your personal support? (Hell, even Lee has managed to have his lips surgically extracted from Paul’s ass.)

First of all, it’s non-interventionism.

Because that worked out so well during the 1930’s, didn’t it?

Second of all, it isn’t our role to be in charge of global relations.

Because there are so many other worthwhile countries to place in that role, isn’t there? Oh, wait, I guess you mean the UN should be running things…

Ron Paul supports smaller government, hard money, strong border security, the right to bear arms, federalism, and the abolition of income tax.

He also supports surrendering to cave-dwelling savages, letting the UN run the planet, pork barrel politics, and ruining the global economy through hyper-inflation not seen since the Weimar Republic. Sounds pretty liberal to me.

(BTW, if you want a truly conservative candidate - which I seriously doubt - then I suggest a truly conservative candidate.

And Joe Lieberman has shown support for President Bush and the GWoT. What’s your point?

So you agree that Joe Lieberman is more conservative that Ron Paul?

So Ross Perot’s crime was that his running for office would split the vote and let Clinton win? So third-party candidates are evil and they shouldn’t exist?

It wasn’t a “crime”, although it is interesting that you should think so. However, having the right to do something does not mean that one is right to be doing that thing. Perot’s aspirations cost the country. Paul’s delusions would be doing the same thing by forcing a split vote against Hillary or Obama.

You also ignored the fact that Bush managed to achieve an actual popular vote majority for the first time since his father’s election - 16 years earlier.

I guess I’d vote Libertarian.

More power to you, I guess. Make sure you put down the bong before you head to the polls, because forcing elections officials to ignore a felony is not… polite.

Thanks Drum for saying everything I would have said. Working retail during the holidays takes all the fight out of you.
I will add this.

Personally, I wouldn’t risk my life to force a state back into the union.

Lincoln did not start this war, the south did. And it wasn’t to force them back into the Union, but to preserve the notion that the states are under the govern of the Federal Government, as it is under a Representative Democracy we have, rather than the Feds under the govern of the states, as it was in the Confederacy that preceded the adaptation of the constitution. The preservation of the union was the only thing that would keep France and England from recolonizing North America.  A weak US meant they would again be the dominate powers in the world.  That’s why they supported the Confederacy, even though they were against slavery. It became about slavery to give the war a moral center, and to appease Northern sensibilities.
So 600,000 lives isn’t enough to ensure freedom for all peoples? Then how many then?

Oh Drum, forgot to say big thumb up on the Heinlein Quote.  Who better to fight libertarianism nonsense the one of the Great Libertarians?

But then again he did say “I never learned from a man who agreed with me. “ ;)

Whereas going to a fictional standard that sets the value of “money” based on the fixed quantity of a metal that “only has value because someone else says so” makes more sense?

Sounds better than the government creating wealth out of nothing.

I can only presume a deliberate ignorance on your part, since Paul pork barrel politics are well and thoroughly documented. 400 million dollars worth, if it matters. So, is that worthy of being called a hypocrite yet? Or are his “do as I say, not as I do” tactics still worthy of your personal support? (Hell, even Lee has managed to have his lips surgically extracted from Paul’s ass.)

I agree with the rationale of Paul’s spending. If the government has taken money from the people, and if you can’t return it, it might as well be spent on something good.

Because that worked out so well during the 1930’s, didn’t it?

We aren’t living in the 1930s.

Because there are so many other worthwhile countries to place in that role, isn’t there? Oh, wait, I guess you mean the UN should be running things…

How about this: I don’t think either the UN or the US should be running things.

He also supports surrendering to cave-dwelling savages, letting the UN run the planet, pork barrel politics, and ruining the global economy through hyper-inflation not seen since the Weimar Republic. Sounds pretty liberal to me.

Ron Paul doesn’t want the UN to run the planet anymore than he wants the US to, and if we’re talking about hyper-inflation, aren’t you the one who supports the notion of the government printing money when it needs it? That more than anything has contributed to inflation.

And how is sending our troops home surrendering? Right now, it sounds a lot better than the way things are currently going, pushing onward without a concrete plan or time table. How much longer do you think we should police the Middle East?

BTW, if you want a truly conservative candidate - which I seriously doubt - then I suggest a truly conservative candidate.

Ronald Reagan he isn’t.

So you agree that Joe Lieberman is more conservative that Ron Paul?

No. If anything, I’m implying President Bush is less conservative than Ron Paul.

It wasn’t a “crime”, although it is interesting that you should think so. However, having the right to do something does not mean that one is right to be doing that thing. Perot’s aspirations cost the country. Paul’s delusions would be doing the same thing by forcing a split vote against Hillary or Obama.

Well, you’ve made it sound like he committed some crime against our nation, talking about “damage” and “cost.” I personally didn’t like Clinton, but I doubt the alternatives would have been much better. And don’t you mean a split vote between Giuliani and Thompson? Or are you that out of touch with the current state of conservatism?

You also ignored the fact that Bush managed to achieve an actual popular vote majority for the first time since his father’s election - 16 years earlier.

I don’t the see the relevance of that fact to this discussion.

More power to you, I guess. Make sure you put down the bong before you head to the polls, because forcing elections officials to ignore a felony is not… polite.

Thank you, but I don’t do drugs.

Lincoln did not start this war, the south did. And it wasn’t to force them back into the Union, but to preserve the notion that the states are under the govern of the Federal Government, as it is under a Representative Democracy we have, rather than the Feds under the govern of the states, as it was in the Confederacy that preceded the adaptation of the constitution. The preservation of the union was the only thing that would keep France and England from recolonizing North America.  A weak US meant they would again be the dominate powers in the world.

This is bull shit. The right to secession was recognized by the founding fathers. The federal government had no right to force a state back into the union against the will of its citizens. It’s fascism, plain and simple.

So 600,000 lives isn’t enough to ensure freedom for all peoples? Then how many then?

Not to mention all the soldiers who were wounded and amputated, and the destruction done to the South itself and its economy. I do agree that ending slavery was a reasonable trade-off, and it did save the war from simply being an exercise in fascism.

Sounds better than the government creating wealth out of nothing.

I can only repeat my earlier statement, and make it even broader. You have neither studied, nor comprehend, even the most basic of economics theory.

Do the math. How much is the annual GDP (in dollars), divided by the amount of gold in the possession of the United States and all the banks owned and operated here? How much does that make each ounce of gold worth, compared to its current value.

If the government has taken money from the people, and if you can’t return it, it might as well be spent on something good.

The ability of man to rationalize his own behavior never ceases to amuse me. Ron Paul says that it is a violation of the Constitution to spend money on things that aren’t specifically mentioned as a Congressional power. He then seeks to spend more money on projects specifically to benefit his re-election chances that have NOTHING to do with Constitutionally-defined Congressional powers. And his defense is “the government takes it, and I’m just taking some of it back”? That “rationale” can be used to justify ANY spending program, Constitutional or not.

That is hypocrisy of the purest sort.

Here’s a partial list of his “Constitutional” spending. I want one of you to point out which article and section of the Constitution authorizes Congress to spend money on them, as Ron Paul says…

1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”

2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.

3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.

4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”

5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.

6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”

7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.

8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)

9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.

10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”

11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”

12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”

13. $1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.

14. $2 million to buy buses for Galveston.

15. $5 million for highway spending.

16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.

17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.

18. $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.

19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.

20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.

21. $30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.

22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million

23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million

24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.

25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou.

I also like the wide diversity of personalities who have chosen to support Ron Paul. Such as the Neo Nazi. And the Hamas operative. And Dennis Kucinich.

We aren’t living in the 1930s.

I know. So why are you supporting a candidate who is acting as though we were?

Ronald Reagan he isn’t.

Never said he was. Are you attempting to imply that Ron Paul is Ronald Reagan? Or just throwing non sequitors out there in the hopes that no one is noticing?

No. If anything, I’m implying President Bush is less conservative than Ron Paul.

Well, “implying” is about all you could do, since there isn’t a scintilla of evidence to actually support that sort of nonsense.

Or are you that out of touch with the current state of conservatism?

No, I’m not the one that is out of touch with conservatism by pretending that Ron Paul is the “True Conservative”.

I don’t the see the relevance of that fact to this discussion.

I know. More’s the pity.

Thank you, but I don’t do drugs.

Going from Ron Paul to the Libertarians, and you claim you don’t do drugs? Maybe you should, because there is clearly some sort of mental defect going on there…

The right to secession was recognized by the founding fathers.

Really? Prove it.

It’s fascism, plain and simple.

Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg, and calling the Civil War “fascism” doesn’t make it fascism.

You also avoided the question of “how many lives should we spend to free minority ethnicities”?

So far we have freed two of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, at the cost of one soldier’s death for every 15,000 people freed, at a rate that is still lower than the deaths due to “training accidents” during the preceding “peaceful” Administration.

Yet you support dropping everything and running away from the enemy that has clearly and insistently that they are trying to kill or convert us against our will? Or if you don’t support that specifically, then why do you support a candidate who advocates surrendering and impersonating an ostrich?

You are entitled to support whomever you wish, but we are entitled to laugh and make fun of you for doing so.

Deal with it.

This is bull shit. The right to secession was recognized by the founding fathers. The federal government had no right to force a state back into the union against the will of its citizens. It’s fascism, plain and simple.

No where in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the writings of the Founding Father’s is this notion that the states can leave when they want to.  As a matter of fact, this notion was quelled by Washington himself by using the military to put a stop to the so-called “Whiskey Rebellion”.  It proved that Federal Government was in charge, and that for the citizens to bring about change they needed to work within the government. The south, much to their dismay, learned this lesson the hard way. Go read the writings of Davis, or Lee, and you will see that they knew what they where doing was illegal, and wrong, but felt that it was the only way for them to uphold their honor, and to maintain the identity of the southern states.

Wow...the Civil War is an exercise in fascism. Now I do believe I have heard everything. It seems that Libertarians pretty much reach for this card whenever the government does pretty much anything.

As for this and the destruction done to the South itself and its economy.

Um, how else is Slavery eradicated without the destruction of the South’s economy?  Just asken..

No where in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the writings of the Founding Father’s is this notion that the states can leave when they want to.  As a matter of fact, this notion was quelled by Washington himself by using the military to put a stop to the so-called “Whiskey Rebellion”.

Y’know, there’s a word for what Christian just did to you, spacecadet: PWN3D!!!!!11!!eleven!!

Next time, try to remember that you are entitled to make up your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to make up your own facts.

Um, how else is Slavery eradicated without the destruction of the South’s economy?  Just asken..

Especially since the South’s economy was based on the supply of ultra-cheap labor in the form of slaves?

Cheap lesson in economy: the standard of living is directly based on the amount of energy produced per citizen. (NOT per capita, since in a slave economy, the energy produced derives to the benefit of De Massas, not the working stiffs.) Force the dandified layabouts to produce their own energy (in the form of food and consumable goods), and prices will skyrocket at exactly the same time income plummets like a homesick rock. It is only since the Southern States started industrializing to the same extent as the Northern States were that their standard of living has increased.

Ron Paul is a small government libertarian.  I don’t think his belief or non-belief affects his positions.  He would probably want to end all government funded science regardless.

He would probably want to end all government funded science regardless.

Including the NHS and CDC, no doubt.

But “small government libertarian”? Did you read comment #16, where I listed all of the “small government” spending programs he was supporting?