Whelp, Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution.

You mean Ron Paul would actually cite the party line? Honest and truthful and noble and upstanding and uncompromising and true to his principles Ron Paul? I'm shocked, I tell you...shocked!

If that's true, then he's a two-faced liar that we shouldn't want anywhere near the White House. We've already got one pandering summabitch in there already.

And if that's all the GOP party is worried about in this election, they deserve to lose.

I'm pretty sure I caught that when he ran in '08, but I appreciate it when you point out the irrelevant.

So, it's your position then, that it's better to have a demonstrable failure returned to office (who, by his own admission, likely doubts the theory of evolution) who's an odds on favorite to continue failing for another four years than to replace him with someone who has a well- defined, cogent, sensible platform(a decided improvement over the failure) who has the same wacky cosmology as the current failure?

The difference is, once they are in, they pandering stops. Personally, I don't give a damn if he believes in evolution or creation or both. Those aren't the issues steadfast issues he's been hounding on about consistently for 30 years which has EARNED my vote. I get it though. You have to say you're a Bible toting person to get elected to the Executive Office in this country. That's just the way it is. It would even apply to Bender from Futurama.

Ron Paul is the Right's Ralph Nader. He serves two purposes. One, deliberately or inadvertently, he serves as a comparison/contrast for the other candidates in his party (why else does he stick around instead of running third party?), and possibly has some weight in their thought processes when they're promulgating their own policies.

Two, he serves as an alibi for the Permanently Disgruntled Voter, the guy who will never, ever find a candidate who exactly fits his criteria, and who will therefore spend his entire life writing in candidates like Paul so he can about how the country's going to hell, everyone else currently in office is an idiot, and the world is going to end Any Minute Now because the rest of the country refuses to see things his way.

Voters should be "permanently disgruntled" if they're paying even half-assed attention.

Champions of "dilute and compromise until you hold no discernable stance on anything" need to quit acting like they hold some kind of intellectual superiority. And no, it's not world-wise pragmatism. Not unless your overriding goal is a politician's career, that is. So don't even start with that bullshit.

Then there's the guy who has ironclad opinions on EVERYTHING, but doesn't vote...

The fact is that it doesn't matter what Ron Paul believes. He has no chance of being nominated. He's too far to the left for Republicans and he's too far to the right for Democrats. He's too old, too out-there, too religious and lives in some kind of 19th century fantasy land where America need not concern itself with the rest of the world. He shouldn't be president and he won't be president.

That said, it's always a bummer when someone so educated and intelligent believes in something as discredited and foolish as "creationism."

My positions tend to be clearly stated in my posts. Anything other than a direct copy-paste is something you're making up yourself.

Does Ron Paul believe in String Theory, at least? Militant atheists demand to know!

Uh, that "pandering summabitch [sic]" in the White House happens to be your Commander in Chief.

Just saying.

Paul has a few good ideas but he is too far off the beaten path to get elected to anything like president. His pacifism to the point of allowing other countries to be invaded, etc. hearkens back to the "America First" movement that kept us from getting into WWII until Europe was completely under Hitler's control. This cost many lives and we still had to fight the war anyway, just in hurry up mode.
The "never again" thing is something that needs to be considered every time a county threatens another.

At least militant atheists can commit, not-fooling-anyone-closet-Christian.

What constitutes a militant atheist anyway? I mean, there are obvious ones who want everyone to give up religion whether they want to or not, but those are extremists and you'll find them in every batch of oatmeal. As an atheist, I just don't want people to curb my freedom in an attempt to force religiosity on the public. I have no problem with people of faith, and I still have a kinship with Christians because of my former faith.

I still think Jesus was a very intelligent man who wanted people to quit hating each other in the name of their god. His teachings, based on the Rabbi Hillel, seem to indicate as much, and that goes for the Buddha as well. There's an Imam who I speak to once in a while, who is a generous and kind man, and he believes in love and tolerance for every person. Having faith doesn't make you a bad person, a lack of faith doesn't make you a bad person.

At what point does it become militant? Is it when I say I'm an atheist and that I just don't want to be treated like a second class citizen, or some kind of dangerous person? Is it when I ask questions? I've always done that, and I've poked holes in faiths for years, even when I was devout. I believe in asking questions, LOTS of questions. I do get frustrated when someone tries to use faith to oppress or denigrate another person, and I usually speak up about it. Would that make me militant? I don't think I quite understand the word as it's used when referring to atheists.

Not being cowed into silence.

It's considered "persecution", and "bigotry".

Nothing less than total silence will be construed otherwise.

Militant atheists tend to be those who cannot tolerate or abide that others believe and have faith. They must push their atheistic agenda in much the same way militant missionaries do the other way.

Ooo, lay out the evil master plan.
I lost my worksheet.

See, that's precisely the thing though, John, you shouldn't have to ASK for that.

Especially since religion did nothing to earn that special perch it has in our culture.

It didn't win an argument, it didn't cure a disease, it didn't deflect an asteroid, it "won", it all with credulity, and bullying.
That's it.
That's all.
That's all it ever had up its sleeve.

Now you gotta ask not to be second class?

Fuck that, fuck them.

And while those types exist they are still far less common than pushy religious folk.

I don't know why everybody is so upset about Ron Paul not believing in evolution when Obama doesn't seem to believe in the US Constitution. You can't prove it by his actions. He even taught consitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, but he doesn't seem to have a clue about what the document says or means.

To me, that's a far more serious handicap as POTUS than evolution will ever be.

Maybe it won't affect Ron Paul's governance, but this revelation does call into question his character and rationality, and certainly isn't winning any points in my book.

Fuck, it got it when I was trying to erase that.

Anyway, all the more reason to pay attention to his politics. Just because I joined up doesn't mean I cease to have an opinion about the CIC.

Or does that only apply to those with (D) tacked at the end? Because if I'd been in five years ago bashing Bush's policies, I'm sure you wouldn't have much to say about it.

ETA:

Yeah, not a post WWI history buff, but I do remember reading something about the rest of Europe ignoring the writing on the wall about Hitler too, until they decided to attack Britain.

I'm wondering if some of the people that say his lack of belief in evolution has nothing to do with running the country would vote for a candidate that was openly atheist, or heck, even agnostic? Seems a lot of whack jobs are also obsessed whether or not Obama is/was a Muslim. If it doesn't matter ...

Poland != Britain.

"Militant athiests" are those who can't let bygones be bygones and leave people in peace about religion. They're like certain posters who have to piss on every single aspect of religion across the board--and let's face it, there is some stupid shit in all religions to be had, but at the core most of them boil down to "Don't be a dick and people generally won't be a dick towards you."

Scientology is an exception: if Tom Cruise is any example, their motto is "People won't be a dick to you if you threaten them with a lawsuit."

Bygones? A lot of the things Atheists hold against religion are still happening today. I could list them, but I don't have all day.

Um.... no. Most of them boil down to "Do whatever arbitrary thing you're told this week, hold down women and don't think too hard about anything, and do your best to kill or convert anyone who believes otherwise."

Yep, the cutesy version of Christiany embodies in what I like to call "Marshmallow Peep Jesus".

You're a hateful "intolerant", bastard for going after poor little Marshmallow Peep Jesus.

Course, too bad the actual one in the bible throws irrational temper fits, speaks in allegories that advocate slavery, and tells you to abandon your family for the cult like David Koresh.

Kinda like how up until the Tom Cruise meltdown, and the South Park episodes blew the lid off, John Travolta was Marshmallow Peep Scientology

It's a bait and switch.

Best 3 card monty game there ever was.

Europe was very wary of Hitler and it was when he invaded Poland that Britain, France, and most of the Commonwealth nations declared war on Germany.

Prior to that it was a gamble that his damage could be limited, WWI had only ended twenty years previously and no-one was in a hurry to have a rematch if it could be avoided.

..course, the Marshmallowy Jesus is also in there, and it's to the credit of the worshipers who do, not the pen-holders.

Yeah, Apollo 8 destroyed the world.